Originally Posted by EELS
22 pages of debate over kneelers - impressive - & it shows that it's a subject people care about.
Strange then that I've gone through all the posts and no-one has mentioned Fenlands proposal to ban slings?? If it was something that needed banning I would have thought it should have provoked more of a debate? Perhaps it wasn't worth baning in the first place?
As someone who has shot FT for 23 years, with a sling - can someone please tell me why this has been banned? Surely there can't be an unfair advantage? After-all anyone can use one if they want to and it can't be 'elitest' either, not at the cost of a few quid....so why make this change after a quarter of a century? Someone must know why...??
What's more this has gone through with only three regions voting for it! SEFTA abstained because the proposal had not been in the copy of minutes that we had voted on - and there were two other abstentions and two 'againsts' besides. Ridiculous & change for change's sake.
Oh, and on the kneeler thing; 3 points of contact with the ground and you can do what the hell you like after that to take the steadiest shot you can - exactly as you would do 'in the field' which is what we were supposed to be (loosely) mimicking if I remember correctly. All that's got to happen then is for the rule to be enforced but we all know that probably won't happen, don't we?
I think that could be a combination of factors.
1) If it wasn't on the agenda originally circulated then people may not have been aware
2) If the minutes/reports haven't made it around the regions to their shooters then they aren't aware of the decision
3) Not many use slings, so not many know/knew/care so much
Your last point is interesting, I suppose you could say that, and that would solve all the problems (except those that like something under their knee, but i guess that could be written in. Can't be considered against the spirit of the sport if it's emphatically allowed.