Neil Beverley
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Neil Beverley
-
-
Mike
As I understand it they don't need the government's approval to hold the match, however, if they follow a standardized procedure they can get formal recognition from something like a sports council, and this in turn leads to other benefits. Therefore the preferred choice is to go for formal recognition and I believe part of the process obliges them to hold off from formally advertising the match until this is received.
I don't believe there is anything at all to worry about with this match but it is frustrating waiting for the formal announcements.
-
MikeTrapr,If its about the European Championships you are enquiring about we are still in the dark and dont know if this will be Greece or Germany but Greece is looking the most likely - and the dates are seriously looking like the first / second week in September.
If the match is in Germany we will drive from the UK and I can easily bring you guys over ammo that will definitely run your M1's
I don't know where you keep dragging up this stuff about Germany from. The match is in Greece. The IPSC general Assembly is in Greece in conjunction with the match. Forget about Germany.
-
USPSA Rule:
US 9.4.6.1 Overtime shots (i.e. shots fired after the signal to cease fire
has been given), will each be penalized the value of the
maximum scoring hit available on that target, except in the
case of disappearing targets. If the time runs more than .30
seconds over the set time, it will be considered overtime.
For example, if the time is 5.00 seconds, a shot at 5.31 seconds
would be considered overtime.
I believe that the proper scoring situation is or should be:
Penalty applied for: Overtime shot, whether or not the targets are fixed or turning. Penalty applied for Extra Shots. Penalty applied for Extra Hits. So Yes, I suppose you could say I am in favor of making the scoring the same whether or not the targets turn. Simply put when the targets have returned to their fully retracted position, any shot fired after that time should also be penalized. In point of fact, I think that the turning targets provide a better stop signal than a buzzer so that type should definately be penalized.
Jim Norman
So despite not raising this as an issue in the previous 14 months the USPSA has been operating the rule you have suddenly decided that it's wrong because of an unrelated change that has been made in the IPSC rules. Indeed if the IPSC rule hadn't been changed I guess you would have remained silent on the matter.
Please tell me how you are going to determine and prove that an overtime shot is in fact an overtime shot when you are using disappearing targets and not timers to determine the end of the permitted time?
How will you accurately score your proposed penalty for overtime shots? What proof?
-
Actually I am arguing for, and maybe I didn't say it correctly, for
Penalty for Extra Hit and Penalty for Extra Shot and Penalty for Overtime Shot.
All should be applied, you are supposed to only fire X shots and do it in Y time. You fire too many, get to many hits or take to long and you get penalties.
Simple
Jim
So if I understand you correctly you are proposing that the existing USPSA Rule 9.4.6.1 (the US variation to the IPSC rule) be changed?
Jim
You didn't answer this question and it's perhaps relevant to the discussions about what should or shouldn't be changed and what are necesaary and unnecessary changes.
Are you proposing that the existing USPSA Rule 9.4.6.1 be changed.
-
Not that it has any particular relevance, but my own filter for things is pretty simple:
-- If it affects safety, we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers a DQ for violations.
-- If it affects the competitive equity of a shooter's attempt on the course of fire (eg, foot faults, procedurals, etc) we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers procedural penalties for violations.
Period.
In my opinion, if it doesn't affect safety, and doesn't affect the fairness of the competition, then I am *far* less interested in creating a rule. Fundamentally, I wonder what such a rule accomplishes.
Now, that is a broad statement, and I don't mean it to be taken that we don't need rules around course design, match administration, scoring guidelines, chrono procedures, equipment standards and many other things. But when I think of things like, oh, say... someone walking around behind the line with the hammer back on a holstered gun. Did we really *need* a rule to deal with that? Does it really deserve a warning? Should a warning really have the potential to become a penalty which affects the outcome of the competition? I just have a hard time with all that.
$.02
Bruce
So where does adding the word "Photos" in the changed rule below fit it? Was it so essential that it couldn't wait until the 2006 update? And why was it not suggested when we were all working together on the 2004 Rulebook?11.1.5 Retain Evidence – An appellant is required to inform the Range Master of his wish to present his appeal to the Arbitration Committee and may request that the officials retain any and all relevant documentary or other evidence pending the hearing. Audio and/or video recordings will not be accepted as evidence.
US 11.1.5 Retain Evidence – An appellant is required to inform the Range Master of his wish to present his appeal to the Arbitration Committee and may request that the oficials retain any and all relevant documentary or other evidence pending the hearing. Photos, audio and/or video recordings will not be accepted as evidence.
I only offer this as an example that it isn't all one sided.
-
Bruce,
AKA- a Voice of Reason
I am 100% in agreement with your last post
(And if that doesn't worry you....)
Jim Norman
The one thing we NEVER want to have happen is for USPSA to simply adopt the IPSC rulebook as the rules. We have a right to have our own rulebook and the day we stop exercising that right is the day we will forever lose it.I don't care if we only make one small change, we must have our own rules! <snip>
Jim Norman
My emphasis in red.
Frankly, there are not enough differences betweeen our rules and IPSC rules. We should have kept a lot more of the old or not accepted a lot of the new.Jim
Jim, with respect, your response to Bruce's post seems incongruous with your other comments about the rulebooks. Sadly not helpful.
-
I should have added that you have to be very careful at with some low recoil slug ammo at USPSA shotgun matches as it may not make PF in which case you will be shooting for fun only (no score). Hopefully this matter will be addressed soon.
-
The IPSC 2006 Shotgun Rules that came into effect 1 January now establish the minimum PF of 480. This PF caters for just about any of the popular ammunition types being used by the vast majority of competitors. It also offers better opportunities to conform for anyone using a 20 gauge instead of a 12 gauge.
On the 30 September 2005 the USPSA Board changed the USPSA Multi Gun Rules to declare that for SG anything over 20 gauge should be declared as Major. They did not change the USPSA version of the IPSC shotgun rules.
The USPSA has not yet adopted or implemented the revised (2006) IPSC rules and has stated that the 2004 rules will continue in force for the time being. So:
At an IPSC Shotgun match the PF is 480
At a USPSA Multi Gun match you only need to shoot 20 gauge and all is OK
At a USPSA Shotgun match the PF is 520
And please don't shoot the messenger.
-
Even sound like the IPSC Constitution actually supports it!
Jim Norman
No it doesn't. Please read what it says not what you want it to say.
Please also see Point 13 of the Constitution:
The International Practical Shooting Rules referred to in this Constitution and adopted by the Assembly shall be applied by the Confederation, its affiliates and members. <snip> -
While Bruce has mentioned some sports that allow some variances in their rules there are plenty of other international sports that don't. This is another item covered in the IPSC Constitution.
There are a number of rules in the rulebook for which "compliance is not strictly required" at club-level matches (eg, the freestyle and roundcount limits, and match re-entry for score), and for which compliance *is* strictly required for larger (section, area and national-level matches).This is similar to my last post, where the governing body explicitly *grants* some latitude to smaller/internal competitions, but requires strict compliance with the "one" set of rules for cross-boundary competitions.
With respect, I think this is a weak case and not the same as what is being proposed.
Which, however, retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some other purposes.So... does that mean that we can make the case in the EC, that USPSA "retains our sovereign powers for domestic purposes", and that part of that sovereignty includes the right to administer the domestic rules as we deem necessary?
Bruce
Bruce
You know full well the answer
. A smilie would have helped.I don't want to get personally bogged down in the politics. It's not my bag and I don't have any influence anyway. I think I'll leave this thread for you to play with and I think it was wise for Shred to split this off from the main part of the original.
-
A point of history, for discussion purposes only, that I voiced once and didn't get a rebuttal. In 1983 I attended a Gunsight class taught by none other than Jeff Cooper. During the week I was there various topics were discussed from the trivial to the Bren 10 and the foundation of IPSC. This is not an exact quote as I did not write it down or record it, but he said that the word "confederation" was used deliberately in the founding of IPSC. The intent was for the international body of shooters to promote the advancement of practical shooting while being free to develop their own rules and regulations to achieve that end. I believed then, and I believe now, that he stated that we were never intended to all march to the beat of the same drum. Based on the wide variance in customs, laws and traditions through out the world, this would seem to be a sensible approach.
I would add that if you look up the word confederation, it seems to match what Col. Cooper said.
Gary
Notwithstanding your conversations above, IPSC is governed by the Constitution and Item 4.1 of the Constitution has a reason and meaning for the word "Confederation":
The IPSC is a non-political Confederation of non-political participating Regions, whose borders normally, but need not necessarily, correspond to national borders. For these purposes, Confederation is defined as being a league or agreement between two or more independent Regions whereby they unite for their mutual welfare, and the furtherance of their common aims. Which, however, retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some other purposes. -
I wrote a (very) short commentary, together with some pictures, HERE. You need to be a member to view.
-
Guys
This is getting out of hand. I truly don't believe this is about IPSC versus USPSA or USPSA versus IPSC. It's certainly not for me. It's different people with some different ideas. I know guys in the UKPSA who have things they don't like in the rule book, and they've told me plainly enough. And there are guys in Scandanavia and Australia and South Africa and .................. just about everywhere.
I guarantee you that if you took one person from every Region in the world and asked them to rewrite the rulebook they would all be different. If you got one person from every county in the UK all the rulebooks would be different. From every state in the US and they'd all be different.
Actually, out of the 500 or so rules most would be retained but different folk would have their own pet likes and dislikes.
But somewhere we have to stop and take a vote. If we wait for utopia with unanimous agreement on each and every item, we would NEVER have a finished rulebook. Please believe me when I say there are things I don't like in the rulebook but I live with them because we got there by due process. The rulebook is better because there are others that have been around to discuss and argue with me. And me with them.
It is a certainty that there are other IPSC members that don't like some aspects of the IPSC rulebook. It is a certainty that some of them prefer some aspects of the USPSA rulebook. It is also a certainty that some members of the USPSA don't like some aspects of the USPSA rulebook. They may even prefer the IPSC version. Or something different again.
Where does it stop?
What would the USPSA say to an Area or Section if that Area or Section said they didn't like the USPSA rulebook and that they wanted to write their own?
Where would it stop?
The big rewrite of the rulebooks (The 2004 Edition) was during 2002/3. I was very pleased to have Arnie Christianson working with me on my Shotgun Committee. Troy McManus worked on the Rifle Committee. Bruce worked on the HG Committee. John Amidon worked on the co-ordinating committee. Mike Voigt was and is Chairman of the IPSC Rules Committee. We got loads of work done, and there was very little us (not US) versus them. What we all did was learn from each other. We all learnt that there are a lot of ideas and requirements. Setting aside the Divisions the differences aren't so big.
-- WRT to "flip-flops", I believe that a bare reading of IPSC GA minutes may lead to some confusion. In some cases, the US Regional Director may make (or support) a motion on behalf of the Rules Committee (of which he is chair)... and subsequently vote against it, on behalf of the US region. I believe that the power factor is just such an issue - the rules committee recommended 160, but the US region was in favor of 165.Picking up on this, there is a slight mistake on this occasion. The USPSA Regional Director at that time was Andy Hollar who was NOT on the IPSC Rules Committee. It was not until later when Mike Voigt took over as USPSA President did we have the USPSA President also sitting as Chairman of the IPSC Rule Committee.
-
We started Production IPSC made it into Standard Lite. Race holsters allowed, no capacity limit, (So long as the mag is flush) We have enough differences in Production that it completely different.
Jim
Jim
Just to set this straight, I think you got the facts about face.
Production Division was introduced and approved by IPSC at the 1999 IPSC General Assembly in Cebu. Andy Hollar, on behalf of the USPSA voted in favour to accept the new Division.
Early in 2000 the USPSA brought in a variant of the IPSC Production Division with a number of changes.
Edit Note:
I've deleted some text to avoid getting embroiled into any (old) discussions about the differences between IPSC and USPSA Production Divisions. That wasn't the point of my post. Only the bit about the chicken and the egg.
-
Actually I am arguing for, and maybe I didn't say it correctly, for
Penalty for Extra Hit and Penalty for Extra Shot and Penalty for Overtime Shot.
All should be applied, you are supposed to only fire X shots and do it in Y time. You fire too many, get to many hits or take to long and you get penalties.
Simple
Jim
So if I understand you correctly you are proposing that the existing USPSA Rule 9.4.6.1 (the US variation to the IPSC rule) be changed?
-
Please don't think the IPSC rules committee is so dogmatic that it is not open to change. Every member of the committee has an influence and amongst others, we get wise council from Mike Voigt and John Amidon. Vince Pinto has frequently spoken in particular of John for whom he holds the utmost respect. They have worked together on rules matters for some 8 years now.
In Bali in November 2004 I distinctly remember a unanimous decision to adopt the US version of rule 9.1.4. I believe this was championed by Vince on behalf of John who wasn't at the meeting (Mike was).
On the other hand within the committee we sometimes agree and sometimes don't, and that is how it should be. I lose votes on issues same as every member does. I also win some.
Human nature being what it is it is regrettable that many people post their moans and seldom write about what they like. You can have 100 new good rules and just one that a person doesn't like and guess what gets reported?
I was pleased to note Bruce's comments that this isn't IPSC versus USPSA. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply want good rules. All of us do. We may disagree what they should be but that happens. It even happens between IPSC UK and IPSC HK but we deal with it and move on. None of us can have everything we want. If you get a dozen people round a table in the US or in the UK or anywhere in the world and you will struggle to reach unanimous verdicts on every single item. Check back over the minutes of the USPSA board meetings. An international rules committee is no different. But it is a fact that we agree, all agree, on far more items than we disagree on. If the argument is good enough it flies.
By way of an observation please also bear in mind that the last set of rules for the USPSA has only been out a little over a year. This gives a perception that the current spat of new rules has come round very quickly indeed, and for the USPSA perhaps it has, but the reality for IPSC is that is has been 2 years. It would usually be a 3 year cycle, but I discussed this in a very early post.
So, speaking as one of the two headed aliens that people believe exist on the IPSC rules committee, can I just say I'm not the enemy. I love practical shooting just as much as any of you. It's not my sport, it's not your sport. It's our sport.
You have a time to shoot the COF within, if you exceed that time the penalty is the value of the highest scoring hit POSSIBLE. In other words, you should not have fired the shot.The reason is IT IS A PENALTY! It is not a simple deduction.
Jim
So why aren't you arguing for a change to the rules to apply a penalty in the case of disappearing targets?
-
I don't disagree with that in theory. In practice, if we are using a stop signal (i.e., a "beep" from the timer) to indicate the end of the Fixed Time period, then it only seems fair and proper to account for the time it takes for a shooter to react to that signal. Let's say that you *begin* to pull the trigger at 4.99 seconds (at which time, you have not heard the stop signal, so you believe you are breaking a legal shot), and then - as you break the shot - you hear the beep. It will take a non-zero number of "ticks" for you to react to that signal. It does not seem fair (at least to me) to penalize you for *not* being able to react (i.e., hear the beep, and stop your finger) in .001 seconds. So... the 0.31 seconds serves as somewhat of a "grace" period... gives the shooter a chance to *react* to the stop signal, rather than have to somehow sense that the stop signal is "about to happen". I guess we'll agree to disagree there. From theUS perspective, as noted before, we have hundreds if not thousands of classifier scores on fire using that 0.31 "grace period".
This is one of the key points. We're not actually trying to "penalise" the shooter.
I don't have a problem with them not being able to react quickly enough to the sound of the beep. I don't have a problem with them firing a shot after the end of the stated time. I'm maintaining that in a Fixed Time stage of 5 seconds the targets should disappear at 5.00 seconds. The ability to score should stop at 5.00 seconds. However, if the competitor fires a shot at 5.29 then no penalty and we simply do the best we can to remove the benefit of the hits that occurred after the targets weren't theoretically there.
The easiest solution (but not the best for the clubs and members) is to stipulate that only turning or disappearing target arrangements are used. This doesn't suit, or is impossible, for some clubs. The rulebook therefore attempts to provide a reasonable solution for an imperfect problem.
Perhaps, in your case, you should be stating that the Fixed time for the stage is 5.31 seconds and then set your timer to 5.00 seconds? This makes more sense to me because you are de factor allowing a fixed time of 5.31 on a "5 second" stage.
I certainly don't mean to paint a false picture. Since, in my example (actually, in the IPSC rulebook's example) extra-shots and extra hits would be the same under both IPSC and USPSA rules, I didn't bother to quantify them in my post.I re-read your post and changed my comment from false picture to mistaken picture. I believe with my comments, and yours, in mind then the difference in score would be:
8 possible hits to count (not 6) with 2 hits fired overtime. Therefore:
USPSA rules score 31 – 10 = 21 points
IPSC rules score 22 points
That's not entirely accurate. What you're doing is removing the benefit of the BEST hit, regardless of whether that hit occurred before or after the stop signal.-- Shooter A - shoots 5 Ds and one overtime A ... IPSC rules say the A gets removed. OK.
-- Shooter B - shoots 1 A, 4 Ds and an overtime Mike. IPSC rules say the A gets removed. NOT OK, in my opinion. This is *especially* inappropriate, in my opinion, when turning targets are used, since it is increasingly likely that the shooter hit "nothing", and yet his best *legal* hit is arbitrarily ignored.
In my opinion, the penalty for an overtime shot should be what it "always was". I only have rulebooks on my computer back to 1995... but in the 1995 rulebook, the penalty for an overtime shot - see 10.01 (ii) - was "the maximum scoring value of each shot so fired" - eg, 5 points on a paper target, no matter whether the overtime shot hit anything or not/
Bruce, this particular rule applies only to static targets. On disappearing targets we rely on the mechanism to control the timed exposure. We deduct absolutely nothing for an overtime shot on disappearing targets.
This point is very significant because it firmly establishes and confirms that there is no intended penalty for the act of firing a late or overtime shot. Otherwise we would also apply the penalty to the act in the case of disappearing targets as well.
The 1986 rule was the same but this is an area where I think you are mis-reading the rule. The rule does not say the maximum potential value of a hit on the target, i.e. 5 points; the rule says the maximum scoring value of each shot so fired" and I maintain that if each shot so fired hits only the D zone then you deduct Ds. The language has been (I believe accidentally) corrupted and mis-interpreted on the way. The IROA seminars taught it as I describe. I've pasted the text from the Instructors exam debriefing paperwork (early 90s, 1991 I think, or perhaps even earlier)
Rule 10.01 (ii) It is important that students thoroughly understand the logic of fixed-time stages, and the reason for penalties assessed for late shots:
a. Fixed time stages are designed to test a competitor's ability to deal with a given situation in a limited amount of time
b. If we all had access to turning target mechanisms, then we could eliminate the problem of late shots by simply having the targets disappear after the prescribed time has elapsed. The competitor could then shoot as many late shots as he wished and have no effect on the target score
c. In the absence of turning target equipment, we have introduced a stop signal ( second buzzer ) to simulate the disappearance of the target. The deficiency of this method is that the target actually remains exposed to the competitor, and the score will likely be influenced by any late shots.
d. The application of penalties to late shots in a fixed time exercise is only to remove any benefit the competitor might have gained by hitting a target that was theoretically no longer there. These penalties are not intended as any kind of "punishment" for shooting after the final signal
e. To eliminate any possible benefit, we simply remove from the target as many hits as there were late shots. Not only do we assume that all of the late shots hit the target, but we also take the position that they gave rise to the best hits
Late shots will be penalised 5 points each only to the extent that there are " A " hits to account for all the late shots, the remaining late shots will be penalised according to the highest value hits remaining.
Ensure also that students thoroughly understand the logic behind Rule 10.01 (iii) assessing a procedural error for each extra hit on a fixed time target, and Rule 10.01 (iv) charging a procedural error for each extra shot taken above the number prescribed by the course description
I (as you might imagine) disagree with that characterization. I believe the *penalty* for an overtime shot should be the same, no matter whether that shot hit anything or not. Additionally, I don't think the rules should make "assumptions" - effectively what the IPSC rule does is "assume" that the overtime shot(s) were the highest-value shot(s)... which is both not supported by evidence (does the RO really "know" which hits were which? If not, the rules should not support an arbitrary leap of logic)... and, in fact the *IPSC* rule applies a different penalty value for different shooters. If my best hit is a C, I get 4 points taken off my score. If my best hit is an A, I get 5 points taken off. Etc.Let's look at an analogous example. Lets say that, rather than an overtime shot, the foul is a "foot fault"... a shot fired while faulting a charge line or fault line. Do we arbitrarily look at the targets and figure out which are the "best" hits on the targets shot while faulting, and deduct those? No... we unilaterally say that a procedural error (shot fired while faulting) is 10 points. Period. I think our rule(s) with regard to overtime shots should be internally consistent, in philosophy and in practice.
I've covered this above. It is not intended to be a penalty. We apply no penalty to late shots in conjunction with disappearing targets. The infringement of a footfault is different. It is a prescribed "penalty". Late shots aren't.
However we do have a problem when it comes to scoring. We can't accurately determine the sequence of shots and hits. In the absence of this we have to make a rulebook decision and this is as described and it is felt that this represents the most reasonable solution. I believe it represents a fairer system for competitors as a whole, certainly compared to an automatic deduction of 5 points per shot. Not perfect I agree, we can't have perfect with static paper targets. The nearest thing to perfect is disappearing targets but that isn't perfect for some clubs either because it denies them the opportunity to use FT.
I just wish that we could get away from (what I - meaning no disrespect - would characterize as) changes unrelated to actual competitive issues. I know this is a parochial view, but it seems to me that IPSC is on a path of trying to please everyone... and that worries me. So many of the rules discussions started with "I saw this once and didn't like it so we need to make a rule against it", or "this region can't have such-and-such, so we need to make a rule against it"... and, I guess I just fundamentally wonder those rules are really *necessary*. Or, wonder whether they actually *accomplish* anything. Or.. more fundamentally... wonder whether they make the game "better".Is our game materially improved by not allowing sight pictures? Or not allowing upside-down Metric targets? Or introducing the notion of "warnings", which may result in competitive penalties for things unrelated to actions during an attempt on a course of fire?
IPSC clearly believes the answer to those is "yes". I have a hard time agreeing. And therein lies perhaps the core of our misalignment. If you look at the pattern of "US exceptions" to the IPSC rulebook, the majority of them occur where IPSC changed something, and the US Board felt the US shooter was better served by leaving things as they were.
I *wish* we were on the same page. I have put in my share of time working to get us there. But... IMO, we *aren't* currently on the same page, and my belief is that it is because we have different "visions" for what the sport should be. IPSC wants to be a global game that can be implemented consistently in every region, and if that means adapting it for *all* regions to meet the needs of the smallest region, or the most legally-restricted region (or whatever), that may well serve the global goal. But I worry greatly about what lies down that road... if the rules are constantly being revised in an attempt to meet *all* the needs of *all* the regions, how long before the game is unrecognizable against its freestyle, "combat shooting", test-bed-for-equipment-and-techniques heritage?
As I said in my other post, I'd love to have IPSC rules and USPSA rules be more consistent... but my personal belief is that IPSC is headed down a path that changes the game in arbitrary - and arguably detrimental - ways. Perhaps that's a fundamental philosophical difference, perhaps it is merely my perception, but... if we can address the divergence and *resolve* it, I think it would serve the interests of *both* orgs.
So... how can we work together better toward getting our paths more aligned, rather than one moving "away" and the other reacting? Count me "willing to help solve the problem", for whatever that is worth...
Bruce
This is a HUGE debate and will take more time that we have just now but it cuts both ways. Please remember I go back a long way. In fact back to the days when the sport more closely represented what Jeff Cooper wanted. One of my mentors is one of the "dinosaurs" from the beginning. It is true that in some areas IPSC has moved away from the origins but that is also true of the USPSA. In truth, and with no disrespect intended to anyone in either organisation, both organisations have allowed things in that don't conform to the original concepts. Some things IPSC allows today and USPSA disagrees with and some things today the USPSA allows and IPSC disagrees with. The perception of right and wrong, correct and incorrect, shifts from person to person and that applies with IPSC, within USPSA and within my home organisation of UKPSA.
I think we should fight to move closer together and not fight to find differences. I have made great efforts to understand the US thinking, if I agreed I supported and promoted it, if I could live with it sometimes I just accommodated it. But I'm also entitled to disagree. I think that's healthy as well.
-
My attempt to explain how we end up with different rules was based on 2005 rules (in point of fact, the USPSA Board has not yet adopted the 2006 IPSC rules, so the "green book" is still our rulebook in force at the moment). IPSC took Fixed Time out of their rules in 2000/2001. USPSA added it back into the 2000/2001 USPSA rulebooks. At some point (2002 or 2003?) IPSC added Fixed Time back into their rulebook, so there is a *little* bit of parity, but... we still differ on whether an overtime shot occurs at 5.01 or 5.31 IPSC is basically silent on shots taken *at* the cease-fire signal (overtime shots are "shots taken after the cease-fire signal"), the USPSA rulebook gives a specific measure by which to tell whether a shot should be counted as overtime. My guess is that USPSA will stick with the 5.31, both because of historical precedent, and because any classifier results shot on Fixed Time stages would be invalidated if we all-of-a-sudden changed the definition of what an overtime shot is. Without good/compelling reason, I can't see us making that change.
Bruce
IPSC's position is that Fixed Time is fixed time. If you nominate that a stage has 5 seconds then it has 5 seconds not 5.31 seconds. If you want to allow 5.31 seconds then by all means declare it as a Fixed Time stage of 5.31 seconds. To set a limit and then to allow competitors to exceed it seems to be a contradiction. On a 3 second FT stage you are adding an additional 10% in time.
I'd also note that the 2006 rules for Fixed Time introduce a new notion, which concerns me. 9.4.6.2 says that if there are overtime shots, the RO should "assume" that the highest hits on the target were the overtime ones. In their example, if you have 1A, 6C and 1D hits and two overtime shots, the A and one of the Cs are "ignored", and the remaining 6 are scored. That is substantively different from the way Fixed Time stages have historically been scored (count the best 6 hits, then apply 1 PE for each extra shot, 1 PE for each extra hit, and then deduct 5 points for each overtime shot).Old way: best 6 = 1A, 5C = 25 points, minus (2 x 5pts for overtime) = 15 pointsNew way: ignore 1A and 1C, best 6 = 5C, 1D = 22 pointsBruce
The revised IPSC rulebook still deducts penalties for extra shots and extra hits so the example above paints a mistaken picture. In the IPSC rulebook example we have simply made a reference to the fact that there 2 shots fired overtime. Neither of the hits in the example are referred to as Extra Shots or Extrra Hits.
Fixed Time stages are supposed to represent a situation where the threat and therefore the targets are no longer there. A shot fire overtime theoretically hits nothing because the target wouldn't be there. This works just fine with turning or disappearing targets but with static targets we have to replicate the intention with the aid of timers and signals. Hence, all we are doing is removing the benefit (or loss) of a hit on a target that isn't (shouldn't be) there.
Setting aside any penalties for extra shots or hits let us look at another example:
Take an array of 3 targets with 2 shots required on each in a fixed time (it doesn't matter what time for this example).
Take 2 competitors who each fire 5 shots within time and 1 shot overtime.
Competitor A hits all Ds, i.e 6 D hits on the target. Competitor B hits all As, i.e. 6 A hits on the targets.
The IPSC rule simply deducts a D so the competitor scores 5 Ds and in Major this would be 10 points. The USPSA rule would deduct 5 points to result in a score of 7 points.
The competitor's overtime shot scored 2 but the USPSA rule deducts 5, i.e -3 points.
Now consider Competitor B. The competitor's overtime shot scores 5 and the USPSA rule deducts 5, i.e 0 points.
Both competitors have carried out the same act by firing an overtime shot but the USPSA rule arbitrarily changes the stage results by affecting one competitor more than the other.
Please remember this is not intended to be a penalty. We are merely trying to remove the advantage of a hit on a target (for scoring purposes) that isn't theoretically there any more.
As noted above, I don't know what prompted IPSC to change the way Fixed Time stages are scored, from the last time they appeared in the IPSC rulebook (see the difference between 9.4.6.2 in the 2006 IPSC rulebook, and 9.4.6.1 in the 2004 IPSC rulebook). Using IPSC's new approach, a score may come out to be the same mathematical value... or it may not. What we (USPSA) have to do, every time IPSC makes a change, is decide if the change is something that we can live with, or if it changes the game in a way that we believe is to the detriment of USPSA and its shooters.Bruce
The 2004 rule on FT was contrary to the existing procedures being used by SG and R and the way we (IPSC) had always previously been going back years and years. I could explain why it appeared in the 2004 rules as it did but it's a long story and wouldn't serve much use now. Needless to say I was against it at the time.
I am sitting with a copy of the IPSC rules from 1986 (7th Edition) and the way I have described the (2006) rule above is how it was then. I have copies of the Level 1 IPSC/IROA seminar from 1991 and this was how it was specifically taught and explained in detail. The 2006 rulebook merely re-establishes the concepts from old:
The target isn't theoretically there so ignore any hits that occur overtime. Nothing more, nothing less.
But, many times, those goals are mutually exclusive.Bruce
I disagree.
-
Phil,
IIRC, when the 2004 rulebooks came out, timed fire courses were again included, to address concerns from USPSA members on the rule committees.....
Nik
You're only right in part. Actually IPSC didn't completely drop Fixed Time and we maintained FT in IPSC Shotgun and Rifle although it was dropped from HG for a while.
When we went through the huge excercise of aligning the 3 disciplines where we could it made sense to bring FT back to HG in line with SG and R. Of course Mike, John and at that time Bruce were in support of such a change.
-
You can see pictures of the speedloaders in question on the UKPSA website. Please click HERE.
If anyone can tell you about the availability in the US I think you may find that Kurt Miller can advise?
-
The next scheduled date for new rules is not until 2009 and this returns IPSC back to the 3 year cycle. Please note that the shorter gap between the 2004 and 2006 rules was a "one off" fully approved by the General Assembly and was as a result of a massive effort to align the Handgun, Shotgun and Rifle rules.
The usual date for approving major IPSC rule changes is set to coincide with the IPSC General Assembly held in conjunction with the IPSC HG World Championships (a 3 year cycle). If approved the rules then take effect from the following January.
All previously issued interpretations have been deleted because they are now fully included in the new rules.
The implementation of the 2006 rulebooks does not prevent the issuing of any necessary new interpretations (not changes). Any interpretations have to be approved by the IPSC Executive and then ratified at the next available (annual) General Assembly.
The IPSC Rules Committee responsible for these latest rules is chaired by Mike Voigt (USPSA President) and John Amidon (USPSA) is a voting member (out of 5 voting members) of the committee.
-
The minimum PF for IPSC Shotgun has been reduced to 480, effective 1 January 2006.
There are a number of other changes effecting target calibration and chrono procedures as well. Routine chronoing of SG ammo is no longer stipulated but the ability to chrono at random exists.
The new 2006 IPSC Shotgun Rules are now available for download from the IPSC website. Please click HERE.
The next scheduled date for new rules is not until 2009 and this returns IPSC back to the 3 year cycle. Please note that the shorter gap between the 2004 and 2006 rules was a "one off" fully approved by the General Assembly and was as a result of a massive effort to align the Handgun, Shotgun and Rifle rules.
The usual date for approving major IPSC rule changes is set to coincide with the IPSC General Assembly held in conjunction with the IPSC HG World Championships (a 3 year cycle). If approved the rules then take effect from the following January.
All previously issued interpretations have been deleted because they are now fully included in the new rules.
The implementation of the 2006 rulebooks does not prevent the issuing of any necessary new interpretations (not changes). Any interpretations have to be approved by the IPSC Executive and then ratified at the next available (annual) General Assembly.
The IPSC Rules Committee responsible for these latest rules is chaired by Mike Voigt (USPSA President) and John Amidon (USPSA) is a voting member (out of 5 voting members) of the committee.
Please note 2006 versions of the HG and Rifle rules are also available.
-
To add to the calendar:
Match Name: European IPSC Shotgun Championship
Level: IV
Region: Greece
City: Kavala
Match Date: 3 day match commencing Wednesday 30 August. Shootoffs on Saturday. Prizegiving and awards dinner Saturday.
Discipline: Shotgun
Minimum Rounds: 200+
Number of Stages: 21
Contact E-mail: gre@ipsc.org
Further info: http://ipsc.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=110
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Match Name: Czech Shotgun Champioship
Level: III
Region: Czech Republic
City: Oparany - Tabor, South Bohemia
Club: SK Oparany
Match Date: 2006-05-28
Discipline: Shotgun
Minimum Rounds: 120
Number of Stages: 10
Entry Fee (Local): 50 EUR
Entry Fee (USD): 60
Registration Deadline: 2006-05-07
Contact Name: Josef Horejsi
Contact E-mail: Josef@horejsi.net
Contact Fax: +420 381 287 595
Web Site: http://www.apscr.cz/sbc
Comments: Czech Shotgun Championship will take place again in Shooting range Oparany nearby the historical town of Tabor. Shooting range in Oparany hosted IPSC European Championship 2004.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Match Name: British Open Shotgun Championships
Level: III
Region: UK
City: TBA
Match Date: June
Discipline: Shotgun
Minimum Rounds: 150 - 180
Number of Stages: 12 - 15
Contact E-mail:
Comments: The match features a testing course of fire, shot over 1 day, and will include bird, buck and slug.
-
George
I think you will find there are a couple of problems.
Other than stated divisional restrictions you are not permitted to stipulate the number of rounds loaded at the start. Rule 8.1.4 refers. Your options are Loaded or loaded but with an empty chamber or empty.
You can not declare paper targets as being worth 10 points per hit. There is no authority in the rules to declare them as being double value targets.
So where does adding the word "Photos" in the changed rule below fit it? Was it so essential that it couldn't wait until the 2006 update? And why was it not suggested when we were all working together on the 2004 Rulebook?
. A smilie would have helped.
Ipsc With Airsoft
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
It's not often you get to hear this from me (
) but I agree with Jim.
It would be very dangerous to formally embrace .22 or Airsoft into IPSC. It's OK for training and even with other carefully considered associations but it must never be portrayed as being IPSC proper. For many countries IPSC shooting, particularly as a widely shot international discipline, remains the best reason for full bore gun ownership. IPSC REQUIRES a minimum calibre.