View Single Post
Old 14th December 2011, 06:45 AM
imorik's Avatar
imorik imorik is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Member of: Anston FTC
Location: Glapwell
Posts: 180

Originally Posted by chrisc View Post
And by your interpretation if it gives an advantage then that's also against the rules. I have tried both the disabled positions and found both to be more stable, the adaptive standing one vastly so. I think you're soon going to find that many are going to get fed up of the counter arguements put forward by the people using the adaptive positions. How many that shoot the disabled positions in the UK shot normally for the worlds in Italy?.....and then come back to the UK and expect to glean an advantage by switching back into the disabled positions. And some wonder why so many are hacked off about this.

Last weekend i shot round with someone that couldn't kneel so had to take 6 standers compared to my 2. I found that really unfair and could understand why some would feel at a disadvantage. I said that i thought the pendulum had swung too far back against him. His response was to put 4 standers and 2 kneelrs as that would even the playing field. Let's also look at like this, if someone has to take the kneelers standing then they would soon improve and should then hit more of the usual standing shots.

THIS is a very valid point!!!!
Hi Chris

I actually agree with you . It's the rules that need changing to reflect what's actually happening, If that means standing for kneelers then so be it. If that means the **** takers being banned then I'm in favour. My main point really is that the rules as they are should be adhered to until they are changed.
Reply With Quote