I am dissapointed that you seem to think I am putting this case just for my own advantage. Apart from the fact that my compromise suggestion still leaves me at a disadvantage. If all I wanted to do was score a few more points, I'd put the springer down and pick up a PCP. It's not about advantage or disadvantage: its about fairness.
The spirit of the sport and standard of competition is not affected at all by 2/4 v's 4/2, for the majority of shooters. It just brings a minority a little closer to a fair crack. Also I don't think there is a rule that says there should be more kneelers than standers. Therefore all that would be needed is a statement asking course setters to consider the balance of kneelers to standers, now that those who cannot kneel have to take them standing. Those course setters who still prefer to put out 4 kneelers and 2 standers would be free to do so.
I am happy that the topic is to be debated by NEFTA's officials and will graciously accept whatever they decide to do, whether I end up more or less disadvantaged. I definatley will not end up with an advantage. I support the "if you can't kneel you stand" rule as it takes those who misuse the adapted kneeling position out of the equation and that's good for the sport and all competitors. All that I am asking is that in its implimentation, consideration be given to fairness for those who actually can't kneel.
I would like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong....
Last edited by IvanM; 12th December 2011 at 11:16 PM.