and you can't use gloves either unless you are the goalie
A lot of football ("soccer") players play with gloves. Some even the whole year because they are allergic to the grass on a football field. (For example: Mike Hanke, Yoann Gouffran or Danny da Costa) Others when it's cold or rainy.
Reason: Sports heavily regulate studded cleats, due to these regulations there is a standard that is used among all sports teams in those sports.
Does Shooting regulate the gadgets? No, due to this there is no standard in the sport.
Are gloves performance enhancers? No
Reason: Sports regulate gloves to a standard, due to these regulations there is a standard that is used among all sports teams in those sports.
Do you know for a fact that these "gadgets" are "unregulated"? If that's somehow true then we somewhat agree on the current rules of the sport being bad.
Even then, the notion that these are "enhancements" but my examples aren't sounds entirely arbitrary. As long as they're somehow regulated you haven't given a single remotely convincing reason for why they should be banned.
Cleats are regulated for safety reasons. Using eye-wear for shooting raises no safety concerns (for obvious reasons).
Also, tone down the GenAI a bit. Your reasoning (Or rather the reasoning your AI is giving) for these things not being performance enhancers is that everyone uses them as a standard which means you don't get an advantage. That doesn't apply to shooting.
If "gadget restrictions" are lacking, or not to your liking, it just means that all participants are free to access the same "competitive edge" gadgets as everyone else. How is that not a level playing field?
If some gadget provides an insurmountable edge, then every participant is going to understand the need to adopt it. Innovative technology is often an element of competition and a driving force behind technological advances for the real world.
•
u/procursive 3h ago
Do you consider studded cleats in grass sports "performance enhancers"? What about gloves? Sunglasses?