is this a legal uspsa shooting position

[Gary Stevens]

This is one of the huge issues I have with our sport, there are way too many grey areas, you talk to on RO and he says it's ok, then the next says it's not. Even on this topic a highly respected member of the NROI says it's illegal and you still have people saying it's legal.

Interesting comment, and one I have thought about often. No offense intended, but if you could provide me with the next issue on the horizon, and when it will rear it's head, I'll try to start working on a proposed rule or ruling to address it.

Gary

[bigbrowndog]

Yes, but Troys head is being supported by his shoulder

I personally do not like rules being able to be interpreted, rules should be black and white, so that anyone that reads them knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what they can and can't do.

Trapr

[geezer-lock]

This is one of the huge issues I have with our sport, there are way too many grey areas, you talk to on RO and he says it's ok, then the next says it's not. Even on this topic a highly respected member of the NROI says it's illegal and you still have people saying it's legal.

There likely will always be “grey areas” in our rules. We have spent the better part of 40 years trying to get it clear (and adding bulk to every version) with some success. We use language that is "generally understood". I have personally witnessed numerous DQ’s for “breaking the 180” but I have never heard anyone get a DQ for pointing the muzzle “further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop”.

Regarding the OP here, as an RO I would use language that was “generally understood” and cite the rule to allow specific challenges by the competitor, that is, “X# of procedurals for supporting your arm, per 10.2.8.2”.

That’s how I see it.

Next shooter.

David C

[Nik Habicht]

This is one of the huge issues I have with our sport, there are way too many grey areas, you talk to on RO and he says it's ok, then the next says it's not. Even on this topic a highly respected member of the NROI says it's illegal and you still have people saying it's legal.

I hear that --- but given that it's a volunteer sport, with a relatively short RO training program, what do we expect? People have a certain amount of time to devote to learning how to become good ROs; people have varying access to a group of exceptional ROs who can act as mentors after the class is over, people have varying access to matches depending on where they live.....

If you're fortunate enough to be mentored/to run into a member of the NROI RMI cadre on a regular basis, you're more likely to learn. If you live in an area where you can shoot every weekend, you'll have more opportunities to practice and to see different scenarios.....

All that takes some time and dedication, and has to fit into a life. And we probably can't afford professional (paid, as in it's their career) referees --- so we're a little stuck.....

The good news is that the bulk of ROs are genuinely interested in making the right call.....

[Nik Habicht]

I personally do not like rules being able to be interpreted, rules should be black and white, so that anyone that reads them knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what they can and can't do.

Trapr

Probably never gonna happen in this game, since we value "gaming." You've got ~ 12 experienced folks sitting down to write/read/discuss/modify and approve the rules, then they publish them as provisional and the membership gets some input, and eventually we wind up with a version that appears to contain at least some really clean black and white rules.....

Then we get an influx of new members, or some old members looking at the rule in a new light, and asking questions, and all of sudden shades of grey seem to appear....

[mactiger]

Here it is:

10.2.8.2 Using the other hand to support the handgun, wrist or shooting arm while firing shots;

Our question boils down to using the other hand on the shooting arm. Is it touching the shooting arm or not?

I think that is the only question. Sure makes things more simple.

I think the key word here is support, not touch. Does that shooting position support the shooting arm? In my opinion, yes it does, directly and demonstrably.

Troy

[twodownzero]

Here it is:

10.2.8.2 Using the other hand to support the handgun, wrist or shooting arm while firing shots;

Our question boils down to using the other hand on the shooting arm. Is it touching the shooting arm or not?

I think that is the only question. Sure makes things more simple.

I think the key word here is support, not touch. Does that shooting position support the shooting arm? In my opinion, yes it does, directly and demonstrably.

Troy

By your standard, putting my nonshooting hand in the middle of my chest supports my shooting hand.

[mhs]

I think the key word here is support, not touch. Does that shooting position support the shooting arm? In my opinion, yes it does, directly and demonstrably.

Troy

I'm quite sure that the shooting postion being discussed does not directly support the arm, since it is not touching it. It may support it indirectly, via the shoulder. This is an important distinction, since if indirect support is in violation of the rules the shooter should not be allowed to touch any other part of his body with his non-shooting hand.

[Flexmoney]

Here it is:

10.2.8.2 Using the other hand to support the handgun, wrist or shooting arm while firing shots;

Our question boils down to using the other hand on the shooting arm. Is it touching the shooting arm or not?

I think that is the only question. Sure makes things more simple.

I think the key word here is support, not touch. Does that shooting position support the shooting arm? In my opinion, yes it does, directly and demonstrably.

Troy

By your standard, putting my nonshooting hand in the middle of my chest supports my shooting hand.

That would be my take on it.

I'm quite sure that the shooting postion being discussed does not directly support the arm, since it is not touching it. It may support it indirectly, via the shoulder. This is an important distinction, since if indirect support is in violation of the rules the shooter should not be allowed to touch any other part of his body with his non-shooting hand.

I think that is valid also.

[badchad]

By your standard, putting my nonshooting hand in the middle of my chest supports my shooting hand.

But it doesn’t. Putting your weak hand in the center of your chest does not support or help support the strong arm. This technique is advocated to keep the weak hand from dangling and perhaps destabilizing the entire body, a claim that I find a bit speculative as to whether it really helps or not, but it does not have any effect on the strength or movement of the strong arm. Again you can test out the position for yourself. Press your weak arm against your chest as hard as you like, and do some circles with your strong arm in a shooting position. No change in range of motion right? Now put your weak arm on the shoulder like in the picture and help hold it there with your chin and do some shoulder circles. Mobility of the arm is lessened quite a bit isn’t it? Kind of like it’s been supported/stabilized to some degree by the weak hand?

I'm quite sure that the shooting postion being discussed does not directly support the arm, since it is not touching it. It may support it indirectly, via the shoulder. This is an important distinction, since if indirect support is in violation of the rules the shooter should not be allowed to touch any other part of his body with his non-shooting hand.

It seems your line of argument in relation to the rules would only serve to make weak hand to chest illegal, rather than making the position in question legal. But honestly, how and by mechanism or action does placing your weak arm on your chest help support the strong arm?

[mhs]

By your standard, putting my nonshooting hand in the middle of my chest supports my shooting hand.

But it doesn’t. Putting your weak hand in the center of your chest does not support or help support the strong arm. This technique is advocated to keep the weak hand from dangling and perhaps destabilizing the entire body, a claim that I find a bit speculative as to whether it really helps or not, but it does not have any effect on the strength or movement of the strong arm. Again you can test out the position for yourself. Press your weak arm against your chest as hard as you like, and do some circles with your strong arm in a shooting position. No change in range of motion right? Now put your weak arm on the shoulder like in the picture and help hold it there with your chin and do some shoulder circles. Mobility of the arm is lessened quite a bit isn’t it? Kind of like it’s been supported/stabilized to some degree by the weak hand?

I'm quite sure that the shooting postion being discussed does not directly support the arm, since it is not touching it. It may support it indirectly, via the shoulder. This is an important distinction, since if indirect support is in violation of the rules the shooter should not be allowed to touch any other part of his body with his non-shooting hand.

It seems your line of argument in relation to the rules would only serve to make weak hand to chest illegal, rather than making the position in question legal. But honestly, how and by mechanism or action does placing your weak arm on your chest help support the strong arm?

Adding support to any part of the chain from the ground to the shooting arm is, directly or indirectly, supporting the arm.

[badchad]

Adding support to any part of the chain from the ground to the shooting arm is, directly or indirectly, supporting the arm.

What part of the chain "from the ground to the shooting arm" is being supported by touching your weak hand to your chest?

[mhs]

Adding support to any part of the chain from the ground to the shooting arm is, directly or indirectly, supporting the arm.

What part of the chain "from the ground to the shooting arm" is being supported by touching your weak hand to your chest?

You're a PT, right? You must realize that doing pretty much anything with the non-shooting arm will require the scapula on that side to be stabilized, which will in turn stabilize the origins of the scapular stabilizers on the other side.

You could also just clench your non-shooting fist hard and increase your overall tone.

[badchad]

You're a PT, right? You must realize that doing pretty much anything with the non-shooting arm will require the scapula on that side to be stabilized, which will in turn stabilize the origins of the scapular stabilizers on the other side.

Yes, I'm a PT but I'm unaware of any action, principle or reflex for which turning on scapular muscles on the one side should increase stability of the other, or how touching my weak hand to my chest would influence this. What am I missing?

You could also just clench your non-shooting fist hard and increase your overall tone.

If anything there is usually a “bilateral deficit” where the force of both limbs contracting together is less than the sum of each limb working independently. I’m at my office finishing up some letters and have my hand dynamometer right here. Grip strength on my right while clenching both fists was 130 lb, while right hand by itself was a little more, 133 lb, which is how research suggests most people are.

Here’s one paper on it:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/94/1/171

Edited January 9, 2010 by badchad

[mhs]

You're a PT, right? You must realize that doing pretty much anything with the non-shooting arm will require the scapula on that side to be stabilized, which will in turn stabilize the origins of the scapular stabilizers on the other side.

Yes, I'm a PT but I'm unaware of any action, principle or reflex for which turning on scapular muscles on the one side should increase stability of the other, or how touching my weak hand to my chest would influence this. What am I missing?

1) The origins are not rigidly fixed structures. Pulling them in one direction makes them more stable against pulling in an opposing direction. You should realize that I'm not arguing that this is a significant stabilization at the force levels in this topic, only that it exists, and therefore may be against the rules.

2) Stabilize one side, you stabilize the other. The contralteral muscles are activated too.

You could also just clench your non-shooting fist hard and increase your overall tone.

If anything there is usually a “bilateral deficit” where the force of both limbs contracting together is less than the sum of each limb working independently. I’m at my office finishing up some letters and have my hand dynamometer right here. Grip strength on my right while clenching both fists was 130 lb, while right hand by itself was a little more, 133 lb, which is how research suggests most people are.

Here’s one paper on it:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/94/1/171

I mentioned tone, not maximum force. The paper you reference, and your grip strength measurements, don't seem to apply.

[GentlemanJim]

90 posts...4 pages...

[badchad]

1) The origins are not rigidly fixed structures. Pulling them in one direction makes them more stable against pulling in an opposing direction.

1) If we were talking about the right quadricep stabilizing the knee against the right hamstring I would agree. However, in this example I don’t follow your reasoning. What particular structures are you talking about?

2) Do you think the body is ill equipped to reflexively stabilize the right upper extremity for one hand shooting through bilateral contractions, if needed, in such a manner that touching your weak hand to the sternum aids this in any way?

3) Can you cite any objective evidence that your answer to #3 (assuming it is affirmative) is true?

You should realize that I'm not arguing that this is a significant stabilization at the force levels in this topic, only that it exists, and therefore may be against the rules.

Ok, so I gather we both now agree that significantly stabilizing/supporting of the right arm with the left (direct or indirect) like the photo shows is against the rules. You now just want to say that theoretical/force via touching the chest with the weak hand should be against the rule also?

2) Stabilize one side, you stabilize the other. The contralteral muscles are activated too.

Again, are you aware of any objective evidence/research that this stabilizing force exists?

I mentioned tone, not maximum force. The paper you reference, and your grip strength measurements, don't seem to apply.

Bilateral deficit has been shown with submaximal force as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1809768...p;ordinalpos=32

By "tone" do you mean something else?

[mhs]

1) If we were talking about the right quadricep stabilizing the knee against the right hamstring I would agree. However, in this example I don’t follow your reasoning. What particular structures are you talking about?

Traps, for example. The superior origins, particularly the skull, are very mobile.

2) Do you think the body is ill equipped to reflexively stabilize the right upper extremity for one hand shooting through bilateral contractions, if needed, in such a manner that touching your weak hand to the sternum aids this in any way?

No.

3) Can you cite any objective evidence that your answer to #3 (assuming it is affirmative) is true?

What's #3?

Ok, so I gather we both now agree that significantly stabilizing/supporting of the right arm with the left (direct or indirect) like the photo shows is against the rules. You now just want to say that theoretical/force via touching the chest with the weak hand should be against the rule also?

Sort of. I'm arguing that if indirectly stabilizing the shooting arm as in the original pic is illegal, any indirect stabilization should be illegal. I'm not arguing that any of them (including OP example) will do enough to matter.

Again, are you aware of any objective evidence/research that this stabilizing force exists?

Sure. Look straight ahead. Put your right hand on you right upper traps. Raise your left arm to the side and up as high as you can. What does your right hand feel?

Bilateral deficit has been shown with submaximal force as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1809768...p;ordinalpos=32

By "tone" do you mean something else?

This point was based on repeated knee-stability measurements I've had after numerous knee surgeries over a couple of decades. Several of the people who did the measurements mentioned that if I clenched my hands (I was nervous) that it increased the tone in my leg muscles, making the measurements inaccurate. I have a vague recollection of something like that from school, but that was 20 years ago.

[DyNo!]

90 posts...4 pages...

Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out if I should do it or not at my next match.

[mhs]

90 posts...4 pages...

Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out if I should do it or not at my next match.

Legal or not, I don't think anyone really thinks it would help.

[DyNo!]

90 posts...4 pages...

Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out if I should do it or not at my next match.

Legal or not, I don't think anyone really thinks it would help.

Well if it wouldn't help why would it be illegal?

Edited January 11, 2010 by DyNo!

[badchad]

Traps, for example. The superior origins, particularly the skull, are very mobile.

I suppose that much is true, but is inconsequential. Bringing your hand to your chest is primarily a biceps action that requires little to no stabilization of the head, opposite trapezius, or even the trapezius on the same side.

2) Do you think the body is ill equipped to reflexively stabilize the right upper extremity for one hand shooting through bilateral contractions, if needed, in such a manner that touching your weak hand to the sternum aids this in any way?

No.

That says it all. We agree that if one is shooting strong arm and they need contralateral support from the other trap, that trap will act as needed. No additional "support" of the strong arm would come from putting the weak arm to the chest. Ergo the move should be legal per the rules.

What's #3?

Sorry, I meant #2.

I'm arguing that if indirectly stabilizing the shooting arm as in the original pic is illegal, any indirect stabilization should be illegal. I'm not arguing that any of them (including OP example) will do enough to matter.

But that's the thing. In the pic, intuitively I would say original poster is "directly" stabilizing his shooting arm as good portion of the strength and range of motion about what most everyone thinks of when they refer to the arm, is scapulothoracic in origin. One could argue that putting your hand atop the scapula only "indirectly" affects arm motion and I would agree or disagree depending upon how arm is being defined in the case. However regardless of you define "arm" and what's "direct" or "indirect" the support is obviously there regardless. But by putting the weak arm to the sternum it does increase stability of the strong arm as you agreed above.

[mhs]

I suppose that much is true, but is inconsequential.

I'm not arguing that any of these are significant, only that they exist, and as such may violate the rules.

2) Do you think the body is ill equipped to reflexively stabilize the right upper extremity for one hand shooting through bilateral contractions, if needed, in such a manner that touching your weak hand to the sternum aids this in any way?

No.

That says it all. We agree that if one is shooting strong arm and they need contralateral support from the other trap, that trap will act as needed. No additional "support" of the strong arm would come from putting the weak arm to the chest. Ergo the move should be legal per the rules.

I think we're disagreeing about something that's a matter of degree. I agree that "touching" the chest will not provide meaningful support. I think that "touching" the shoulder will not provide meaningful support. I think forcefully pushing on either may provide some degree of support, but I don't thnik it will be meaningful.

But by putting the weak arm to the sternum it does increase stability of the strong arm as you agreed above.

Typo?

[Flexmoney]

I think that our opening poster might have been shooting weak hand.

And, he is looking to support his head, not his shooting arm.

[badchad]

Well, we’ve come somewhere but not far enough for the work this takes so I’m going to rest my argument with this last replay.

I think we're disagreeing about something that's a matter of degree. I agree that "touching" the chest will not provide meaningful support. I think that "touching" the shoulder will not provide meaningful support. I think forcefully pushing on either may provide some degree of support, but I don't thnik it will be meaningful.

In a normal person, motion about the strong arm will not be affected at all by just barely touching the chest or if you push as hard as you can. Touching lightly to the chest (which is what most everyone does) will not affect strength of the contralateral arm at all, while pushing or gripping as hard as you can would be more likely to decrease strength (based on bilateral deficit research) than increase it.

Just barely touching your hand to your contralateral shoulder might have no effect on shoulder stability or range of motion, but holding it there with any force, and surely pinning it there with you head would. In a normal person the shoulder will (not may) be limited about 30 degrees, in a range that is meaningful, particularly if you lean into your shots. This downward force could very easily aid in recoil control and steadying the arm. Rigidity about the shoulder could also be improved from a strength aspect if the shooter had weakness of his scapulothoracic muscles. The reason people say this might not be an advantage overall is that, there are other drawbacks (like how are you going to shoot when you need to use your other hand to carry something, it takes a tad longer to get into position, and it would take a tad longer to clear a jam, or perform a reload, etc.).

Typo?

Yup.

I think that our opening poster might have been shooting weak hand.

It’s strong in the picture but the principles apply either way.

And, he is looking to support his head, not his shooting arm.

I think then he should put his chin directly on his strong shoulder. No rules against that. Or he might try putting his weak hand against his head, for which I’m not sure how that would be judged, but I wouldn’t ding him. But looking at the picture his strong arm is being supported by his weak one, no ifs, ands, or buts.