We have made several changes to our policy here at GOHEAVY. Here they are:
|
| |
GOHEAVY.COM Debates Forum
New IPF rules *LINK*
Posted By: Ken Wentworth (cpe-75-179-166-105.woh.res.rr.com)
In Response To: Re: Exactly (Mark Mitchell)
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2008, @ 4:08 p.m.
That's not the only nonsense in here . . .
The first IPF Technical Committee Newsletter of 2008 is devoted to the content of a Rules Clinic which international referees should attend once every four years. The Rules Clinic covers areas in the Technical Rulebook which are of the most concern.
The text, for the first time specifies the exact minimum amount of the buttocks which is required to be on the bench during the bench press. Technical Committee Chair John Stephenson: "At the very least, fifty per cent of the buttocks must be in contact with the bench in order to receive the start signal. Although the rule says that this position must be maintained at all times, as long as part of the buttocks stay in contact with the bench during the up-lifting, this should not be cause for failure."
Stephenson reiterates a silent count of one be used when the bar becomes motionless at the chest but emphasizes that should be less than one second, "motionless - the silent count of "one" when at the chest. This is not as much as one second. Seconds being, 1 banana - 2 banana -3 banana."
Stephenson also addresses the role of the jury after criticism of the very active jury at this year's World Championships. "This has been the subject of much interest and discussion within both the Executive Committee and Technical Committee. The reason being that some overrulings do not follow that of the intention of the rule. The rule was designed for specific and downright " mistakes " made by the referees, not e.g. doubtful depth of squat, whether or not the bar was below the base of the sternum in the bench press, or whether or not both knees were exactly locked at completion of the deadlift. In cases such as these, referees should be asked by a jury member to be more observant of these particular points. Obvious, is more likely to mean e.g. the lifter not having waited for the signal to begin the lift, stepping backward or forward during the course of the lift, or releasing the bar ( dumping ). The word blatant should perhaps be replaced by the word flagrant, stressing a "glaring " wrong. This is alluding to decisions made by referees who appear to favour their own country's lifters. Not to dwell on the subject for it will be continuously monitered over the coming months, but to say, let the referees do their job, with a word in their ear should they tend to stray from the written rule. If after a period controversey still reigns, then perhaps an amendment to the rule will be proposed. Some having already been discussed."
Cheap Supplements, Great Variety and Service!!
| |
GOHEAVY.COM Debates Forum is maintained by Administrator with WebBBS 5.12.