WFTF Rules: butt hook and legal shooting position?

Jim,
That is a good question.
A question I have been asking similar about those shooting Hunter class with the rear of the stock allegedly in the shoulder pocket but in actually it is resting on their knee making direct contact with the ground.
I would say your shooting position would be classified as illegal but those in charge do not mind shooters resting a rifle on a their knee so it might be moot, that you are resting your next to it. Someone else will chime in soon..Stay safe..

I think the rule you are looking at is only specific to the deadman position....which you are not using.

Think i would need a medieval rack to get my body back in shape to walk after attempting the deadman position . HAHAHA

My interpretation is, as long as your hook isn't oriented in an obtuse way to make it sit on top of your knee, your position is fine. Also, your pictured position is not the deadman position as specifically noted in the rules. Seems rule 8.14.5 helps to clarify your pictured position to be good to go, and 8.14.7 to further clarify what is not allowed.

The rule section is specifically calling out thigh rests.

The " Bottom Butthook" is meant to be used in the standing position. It catches inside your armpit aiding in keeping the gun's muzzle up and as close to the point of aim as possible. Your supporting arm imparts the fulcrum, and subtle changes on the butthook or support arm can help in adjusting the point of aim.

The use of "thigh rests" has been banned and at the risk of making enemies, I'll say I agree with the decision. If what we seek is to add as much mechanical advantage in order to provide us with bench-like stability, we not only defeat the purpose of the " Field" portion of our discipline but we remove the basic tenants of marksmanship. Adding a butthook that is large enough that you can support it on your thigh and using it in that manner, turns it into a Thigh Rest.

WFTF is often criticized for the equipment that is allowed to be used, the critics cite all the advantages those mechanical aids provide yet oddly enough, WFTF remains rather unpopular here in the States despite all its perceived advantages. Few elect to shoot in this class opting instead for other classes where other ancillary equipment that is not attached to the gun is allowed, ie, harnesses, and bipods. All classes have advantages and disadvantages but I personally prefer to shoot in a class where all the "mechanical advantages" are attached to my gun making it then a disadvantage in the weight category. If you want it to assist you, it ought to be attached to the gun or you at all times. But I also subscribe to the idea that the gun has to be supported in a way where breathing needs to be controlled by the shooter. Resting the gun in a way where it is no longer touching your torso and therefore less affected by your breathing doesn't seem very sporting, at least not to me..

I know rules always leave room for interpretation and some choose to live between the lines of what has been prescribed in an attempt to gain an advantage somehow. I am of the mindset that unless we want to turn all sports into reading and reading comprehension events, it is best to use common sense and actual sportsmanship when interpreting the intent of the rules and those that go through the trouble of creating them.

.SevenSeven said:

Adding a butthook that is large enough that you can support it on your thigh and using it in that manner, turns it into a Thigh Rest.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I looked into this before going to the Worlds. As mentioned above the rest is only legal for the deadman position. If you have your right knee tucked into your armpit and your butt happens to rest on your knee it's kind of a gray area. And I believe they say it's due to being flexible so it's not to be penalized. If the butt extension sits anywhere except on your the top of the knee I think it may be deemed illegal, it may be illegal to rest it on top of the knee as well.

This was the one rule in the Worlds rule set that was difficult to understand with certainty.

To be sure I demonstrated my position and how things rested naturally to the RO to be sure it was 100% above board. Last thing I wanted to do was get DQ'd.

JP806TX said:

I was just reading WFTF Rules and I hope that more experienced WFTF shooters can provide clarifications/insights on butt hooks and shooting position.

Just wondering if my position is legal?


View attachment 539832

View attachment 539830


Here is my current shooting position. The rules seems to state that If there is a knee support and an additional shoulder support, my position is illegal. However if I adjust the top butt hook shoulder support up (providing no shoulder support), would my position then be legal?








View attachment 539831

Click to expand...

The best thing you can do is ask the governing body. Asking people on the forum that have no authority about the matter will just get you a bunch of opinions that may or may not have any real value.

If the governing body approves your position then keep a copy of that with you when you go to shoot matches so that you don't have to be hassled by people and their opinions.

Mike

thomasair said:

The best thing you can do is ask the governing body. Asking people on the forum that have no authority about the matter will just get you a bunch of opinions that may or may not have any real value.

If the governing body approves your position then keep a copy of that with you when you go to shoot matches so that you don't have to be hassled by people and their opinions.

Mike

Click to expand...

If the participants don't have any opinion or authority in the matter and exemptions can be dolled out on a case-by-case basis, what is the point of enacting rules altogether?

I think the interpretation will come down to what the gun looks like when not in position. If you have the hook positioned much lower or out of alignment than what is normally expected, then I could see it being called a thigh rest. In your recent pic, the hook looks like it is placed in the shoulder as one would expect. The gun doesn't appear to be in contact with the leg, but there is nothing in the pic showing it is or isn't. As long as there aren't any odd gun configurations or accessories that help the gun get in contact with your knee, I'd claim you are OK. I am not a WFTF official.

As mentioned before, you should request a WFTF official to review your position and keep that documentation and pictures with you to handle any disputes. They may want to see a picture of the standalone gun in its configuration, and additional angles of the position to. What they will be assessing is "intent", and I think that will be determined by what the gun looks like.

A normal butt hook resting on your thigh will not transform it into a thigh rest. The key word in the rules is modified.

You are above average in your flexibility and are able to use a position that most cannot. That will bother some people. Your position looks fine.

Mike

I'm not scrutinizing any one position or bothered by anyone's particular flexibility Mike, I do fairly well within my own constraints. The OP is however asking for opinions on what the possible interpretation of his position might be based on the written rules. I've offered him MY opinion based on my interpretation of the rules, which is why I think they put them out there to begin - so we can read them and adhere to them as written.

Most of what we discuss here is mostly semantics, since in Field Target there is still lots of room and lead way for the individual, the officials and particular circumstances to dictate the best course of action. In other disciplines, the rules specify to within millimeters, and ounces what one is and isn't allowed to do. Because it is hard to set up a gun to suit all positions, most have been separated to individual disciplines.

My INTENT is to point out that it is best to abide by the rules, less we want more pages added to the rule book.

..Now, can you please build me a rifle for N50? I'd hate to be black balled from Thomas ownership

.SevenSeven said:

My INTENT is to point out that it is best to abide by the rules, less we want more pages added to the rule book.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily in regards to this butt hook being a thigh rest situation, but generally, people testing out the gray areas to see what they can get away with is why the AFFTA rule book is so large.

I don't believe the OP is looking to bend or even 'stretch' any rules, he simply wants to know what is legal and what is not after getting different 'interpretations' so he can comply. This is the one WFTF rule that isn't super clear (which explains the different interpretations the OP is/was receiving).

Modified as Mike noted.

@Franklink

There are good ways and bad ways to write rules (in general), done the bad way you end up writing a bunch more rules... The nature of competition is to push all things to the edge (one's person, equipment, mental state, etc), if a rule maker isn't taking this into consideration they should probably be doing something else, therefore not everyone can write good rules.

JW. said:

I don't believe the OP is looking to bend or even 'stretch' any rules, he simply wants to know what is legal and what is not after getting different 'interpretations' so he can comply. This is the one WFTF rule that isn't super clear (which explains the different interpretations the OP is/was receiving).

Modified as Mike noted.

@Franklink

There are good ways and bad ways to write rules (in general), done the bad way you end up writing a bunch more rules... The nature of competition is to push all things to the edge (one's person, equipment, mental state, etc), if a rule maker isn't taking this into consideration they should probably be doing something else, therefore not everyone can write good rules.

Click to expand...

I don't think the size of the AAFTA rulebook is an indicator of bad rule writing so much as it is an indicator of the mindset of some competitors.

There is a subset that will try to stretch rules to find ways to get a competitive edge. Not saying that's the OP here, I agree with you that the poor guy just wants to know what is legal and what isn't.

Again generally speaking, sometimes that extension into the gray area is called innovating, and sometimes it's called cheating.

Personally, I feel much better about winning when I'm well within the limits set forth by the rules.

I wasn't referring to the AAFTA rule book which is why I put "(in general)" in there.

Rules are rules, if we take the AAFTA set for example, is it illegal to host a match indoors? There is nothing in the rules that state where a match is to be held. There is no gray area there, its not mentioned therefore it is unregulated by the rule set. To do it is not cheating even though some may "feel" that it is, there is nothing in the rules that says it is not allowed.

Cheating is breaking the rules, it is doing something that is expressly forbidden, if the competition rules don't cover things a competitor may think or do to gain an advantage then the person writing the rules has failed to some extent. The more complex the set of rules the more difficult it will be to cover everything a competitor may try to gain an advantage. It is difficult to do this well, very difficult. We see a lot of gray areas in competition because of how difficult it is to do this properly, more so when the sport is complicated.

When someone says "spirit" of the rules they are really saying "the rules are so poorly written we want to hold you to this ambiguous metric so we can penalize you because we feel this should not be allowed".

I believe rules need to be written well to reduce the ability for people to bend them (anyone can break them no matter how well they are written). And a broken rule is a broken rule. There is very little gray area under rules in general, its just that most rules are not based on being inclusionary or exclusionary so when something is left out its seen as a 'gray area' when in reality its because the rules are incomplete.

If someone finds a hole in the rules, admit it was a mistake (if it's needed) and remedy the situation, do not penalize them if they did not break a written rule.

For example, I started using a common air gun competition item for AAFTA field target. Because the rules are neither inclusionary or exclusionary if it does not say "this is not allowed" it is not against the rules. Now, its not like I was doing anything that changed how well or poorly I shot, it was a comfort thing. Some folks complained, I guess because they didn't want to make the meager financial commitment and a rule was added the next year. I didn't cheat nor was I accused of cheating and I was "well within" the rules since there were no rules saying I could not use this item. It wasn't even a gray area, there was nothing that covered using this air gun competition item in the rules, period.

If the rules were based on inclusion/exclusion I would have never even considered using that item and no new rule would have needed to be written.