omnia1911

I have been to plenty of matches that had no prize table and the sand baggers still showed up to collect the trophies and adulations. Humiliation and ridicule is music to their ears.

My suggestion only pertained to the class awards at the Nationals. Overall winners in each division at the Nationals would be treated the same as it is now. Class awards would go to domestic USPSA members only. Both domestic and foreign members are eligible for the overall awards in each division. Eric Grauffel and the others are most welcome to attend still. My reasoning is that the domestic members do a lot to run the local clubs, finance, and volunteer for USPSA. I think it is considerate of that effort for USPSA to pay back their hard work by requiring that the class awards at the Nationals have a residency requirement. Just a thought. The side benefit is that this idea would also address some of the concerns that started this thread.

Yes, this is the way it is now. I was just commenting that there should be a differentiation between a member and a non-member being termed unclassified, but then we have a problem with the scoring program not having a tag for them. There's an answer. Make the classification awards a residency required award. Foreign members would go to the prize table in the order of finish.

I agree. I read the rule book differently. I believe that one must first become a USPSA member to obtain the classification title "Unclassified". After submitting to the record the requisite number of classifiers one can the hold a classification. Non-USPSA members need to hold a different status. I agree. Huh? Aren't the classification awards at the USPSA Nationals national awards?

Do foriegn USPSA memberships somehow violate the residency requirements of 6.5, or is it possible to hold multiple Regional memberships?

Actually, to shoot a major USPSA match, a shooter must be a member of USPSA or another IPSC region So, a shooter from ____ can shoot a major, but will shoot as Unclassified unless they have *also* joined USPSA, and shot the requisite number of USPSA classifiers to earn a classification. Bruce US Appendix A1 line 2 gives no either/or, and says nothing about shooting Unclassified. It only says that you must be a USPSA member. I'm aware that the IPSC Appendix A1 line 2 says that a shooter must be a member of an IPSC Region. I'm going by what the rule book says, not what it meant to say. I'll take your word on this Bruce. I think that line 2 in Appendix A would have been the same for both IPSC and USPSA if what you say is true.

How would you know that a classifier score is valid? If a shooter's entire set of classifiers in the last 12-18 months are "C" scores, then he goes to the Nationals as a "C" class shooter and shoot a "B" class score, the "validity" of the shooter's classification score history is discovered after the fact. Isn't that what we have going now? I don't see where this is functionally any different than the Lewis Scoring Method. What would be different in using this method or the Lewis Scoring Method is that USPSA moves class winners at the Nationals up in class. One of these alternative methods could conceivably have a "C" class shooter who would otherwise win his class, not do so due to the arbitrary cutoff at 75%. Instead, a different "C" class shooter with a lower score (under 75%) would be the one moved up to "B" class by USPSA. Now you have what you consider the "sandbagger" remaining in "C" class. Now the game will be to manipulate your score so that you can come as close to 75% without going over. A difficult task, in deed, but I'm sure someone will try to work it to their advantage.

It is only USPSA that requires a competitor to hold a specific Regional (USPSA) membership in order to participate in its Level II and III matches, which includes the USPSA Nationals. I don't believe any of the other Regions do this. I suspect most of the foreign shooters wouldn't bother joining USPSA if it wasn't required to shoot the Nationals. Given this, there really isn't much motivation to move up in the USPSA classification system. The IPSC classification system has more relevance to their shooting.

I suspect that if the prize tables were eliminated from the match the complaints would shift to the sandbaggers who undeservingly got the plaques and trophies. The problem isn't the prize table or the trophies. It is a classification system that has unfixable holes in it, and those who are willing to exploit them. I say we have USPSA declare every member a GM* and we all compete head to head. *GM=General Member

Whether it is 3 or 6 classifiers that are required in the previous 12 month period, it is still possible to sandbag those classifier scores to remain in a class far below your true abilities. To suggest that foreign sandbaggers are more insidious than the domestic ones is really not true. The domestic members have much better access to shooting classifiers on a regular basis than the foreign members. There just aren't that many foreign USPSA affiliated clubs out there. -

I don't think you should eliminate the words "Once the competitor's hands are clear of the holstered handgun," from the rule. It signals to the RO that the competitor has finished holstering his gun and can now give the "range is clear" command ending the COF. Proposed: 8.3.7.3 If the gun proves to be clear, the competitor must holster his handgun. Once the competitor's hands are clear of his holstered handgun, the Range Officer will give the "Range Is Clear" command signifying that the course of fire has ended.

Wrong. As an RO, I hope you are able to perceive a shooter's intentions better than you have mine. Thanks for posting though.

I didn't say match DQ. I was referring to Sections 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 (new rule book), as a whole. A shooter knows the rules and the potential penalties that will be imposed on him prior to shooting a stage. Therefore, those rules act as an incentive to make sure that he shoots in a safe manner, if he wishes to improve his score. It is in that vein that I was stating the disqualification rules are there, as the Sword of Damaclese, motivating the shooter to be safe. It is like fire. If you use it correctly and safely you can cook a mighty fine steak. If you stick your hand in the flame while cooking the steak, you're going to get burned. Knowing that keep you from being unsafe. In fact, I would venture that the match officials prefer that all the shooters took the preventative, rather than the punitive, approach to safety. Even the best course design will not insure safe action on the part of the shooter. Bottom line for me is that I believe that firing rounds into the ground close to the shooter is unsafe, no matter how it was done (a squib being the obvious exclusion). 10.4.2 doesn't take that approach. I'm less concerned by those targets set at 3 meters than those that are allowed to be set at 1 and 2 meters. Some might say that good course design could solve that problem. Why make another rule? Then, why didn't we take that approach to steel targets?

If the target is missing the hole, I would question if it was an aimed shot. I remind you we are allowed to point shoot without penalty; no sight picture when firing rounds at targets. The chances of missing a target by large margins is greatly increased with point shooting, thus, increasing the safety concerns as bullets could go where we didn't intent them to.

First, I would say that you have biased the arguement by describing the shot as "torching one off". The RO has declared the shot an AD, and that can't be argued differently. The question is whether it was safe or unsafe. Since I have knowledge that on another stage in this match a competitor fired a round into the ground while actually "shooting at" a target within 3 meters without penalty (safely is the presumtion here), and that after inspecting and taking measurements in the bays where both incidents occurred, and finding that both bullets behaved identically, I would conclude, that in this case, the complaintant's actions were equally safe. Intent, whether good or bad, is not an excuse when it comes to safety. Then, I would get on the phone and tell the Rules Committee that they need to change 10.4.2. Of course, this ruling of mine occurred under the old rule (11.2). The new rule (11.1.2) for arbitration is more strict IMO. The arbitration committee is no longer determining if the infraction was in fact unsafe, but whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration. I think the litmus test for reinstatement has become much more difficult to pass by removing the rather focused safe or unsafe question and substituting a much broader question of whether exceptional circumstances is warranted. The latter being much easier to say no to.

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 09:52 PM Depends on what happens, or could happen to the round. Therein lies the safety concern, and the shooter's intentions don't change what the bullet could do once it leaves the gun.

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 09:52 PM First, I would say that you have biased the arguement by describing the shot as "torching one off". The RO has declared the shot an AD, and that can't be argued differently. The question is whether it was safe or unsafe. Since I have knowledge that on another stage in this match a competitor fired a round into the ground while actually "shooting at" a target within 3 meters without penalty (safely is the presumtion here), and that after inspecting and taking measurements in the bays where both incidents occurred, and finding that both bullets behaved identically, I would conclude, that in this case, the complaintant's actions were equally safe. Intent, whether good or bad, is not an excuse when it comes to safety. Then, I would get on the phone and tell the Rules Committee that they need to change 10.4.2.

Ok...well maybe I'm reading a different rule book than you guys...or you've got much more experience at this than I do (which I don't doubt)...but reviewing 10.4.2: 10.4.2 A shot which strikes the ground within 3 meters (9.84 feet) of the competitor, except when shooting at a paper target closer than 3 meters (9.84 feet) to the competitor. A bullet which strikes the ground within 3 meters (9.84 feet) of the competitor due to a “squib” load is exempt from this rule. I don't see anything in 10.4.2 that addresses intent/engagement...it simply talks about bullets that stike the ground less than 3 meters and then an exception for targets less than 3 meters and squib loads. I could easily see some shooter come up with an excuse as to why they popped a round 3 feet away (gee...I thought my sights were aligned...I guess they weren't and thats what 'surprised' me). Regarding your question Nik..I'd stop them immediately. I'd probably try and tag them with either 10.4.2 or 10.4.6/8.5.1 but my gut feeling is that it could easily get overturned in arb by a shooter claiming some "excuse". I'd venture to guess that some really creative excuses have been presented at arb. hearings. Steve, The key words in the rule are "shooting at" . The rule is forcing the RO to make a judgement call about what the shooter's intentions are/will be/were (think...Vulcan mind meld) whenever there is a target within 3 meters of him. "Shooting at" is vague, and by its nature interjects the question of intent into the rule to address it. I'm not particularly comfortable with taking that approach to safety. Either firing a round into the ground within 3 meters is safe, or it isn't, regardless of whether there is a target nearby. 10.4.2 says that it is both safe and unsafe. The primary purpose of the disqualification rules are to stop shooters from being unsafe, not to penalize them for having the wrong intentions, or for missing the target so badly. Now, if the 4th Law Of Gun Safety was one of the cornerstones of the IPSC Rules, and any violation resulted in a match DQ, we could make an end run around the Ro's need to discerne the shooters intentions. Problem is that point shooting is allowed in IPSC.

So, the determination as to whether it was safe or not is whether it was accidental or not. If I intentionally torch one off into the ground less than 3 meters away I would be good to go. If you intentionally torch one off into the ground within three meters ---- and you're not engaging a close low target, you get to go home or fork over $ for an arb. I was kidding a little. That was what the little smiley face was for. Obviously, if I'm intentionally firing into the ground I'm not firing at the target.

So, the determination as to whether it was safe or not is whether it was accidental or not. If I intentionally torch one off into the ground less than 3 meters away I would be good to go. I see. Then why have a 3 meter distance delineating whether the shooter gets a DQ or not? That invisible line tells me nothing about the shooter's intentions, or whether he was being safe or not. I'm all for baning paper targets that can be engaged closer than 3 meters (what Pat said), just like we have a minimum safety distance for steel targets. Can you say, "Hey, where is the 3 meter charge line for this paper target?".

The RO makes his call based on whether or not he believes the competitor was actually "shooting at" the target or whether it was an accidental discharge. This is similar to Rule 10.4.6 which deals with movement. 10.4.2 doesn't define "shooting at". When does "shooting at" start and end? Obviously 10.4.2 says that I can fire into the ground within 3 meters and not get a DQ, and fire into the ground within 3 meters and get a DQ. The bullet impacted the ground in exactly the same spot both times, but the only difference is how close the target was to where the bullet hit. Why is one safe and the other not?

How does an RO determine the shooter's intentions? I'll clarify the scenario: For instance, a competitor is standing near a paper target that is mounted on the ground 6 feet from him, sitting at a 45 degree angle so that the shooter is firing downward into the ground, and the bullets are captured in a small sand berm behind the target (we have all seen these types of target presentations at matches). At the signal he draws and fires a round into the ground (not the sand berm) 5 1/2 feet from him while attempting to engage the paper target. He then fires two rounds into the paper target and proceeds to the rest of the COF. Are you going to stop him and issue a DQ under 10.4.2? Remember, shooting at a paper target doesn't necessarily means hitting it in this game. That is why we have miss penalties, and that a FTE penalty can be avoided by simply shooting at a target and not having actually hit it. Would you look at things differently if the bullet impacted the ground at 4 1/2 feet from the shooter? How about 3 1/2 feet? I think it is clear that a subjective call has to be made at some point. Its inescapable. Add it to the list of subjective calls that are already a part of the RO job; FTE penalties being one of the more challenging of those.

If we decide to have the draw end when the finger enters the trigger guard, the draw would have ended prior to the discharge of the round into the ground. You could no longer DQ for and AD during the draw. I'm pointing these scenarios out to show that some things are best left to the discretion of the RO and the arbitration process, if needed.

10.4.2 A shot which strikes the ground within 3 meters (9.84 feet) of the competitor, except when shooting at a paper target closer than 3 meters (9.84 feet) to the competitor. A bullet which strikes the ground within 3 meters (9.84 feet) of the competitor due to a “squib” load is exempt from this rule. If I'm engaging a target that is closer than 9.84 feet from me, the rule says that I can fire a round into the ground that strikes less than 9.84 feet away from me. Why is that any more or less safe than firing into the ground less than 9.84 feet away while engaing a target that is 20 feet away? Now, one could assume that the rule is referring to a round that has passed through the target that is less than 9.84 feet away before striking the ground, but that is not what the rule says, so I wouldn't assume that. For instance, a competitor is standing near a paper target that is less than 9.84 feet from him. At the signal he draws and fires a round into the ground 3.35 feet from him while attempting to engage the paper target. He then fires two rounds into the paper target and proceeds to the rest of the COF. Are you going to stop him and issue a DQ under 10.4.2? Remember, shooting at a paper target doesn't necessarily means hitting it in this game. That is why we have miss penalties, and that a FTE penalty can be avoided by simply shooting at a target and not having actually hit it.

10.4.2 A shot which strikes the ground within 3 meters (9.84 feet) of the competitor, except when shooting at a paper target closer than 3 meters (9.84 feet) to the competitor. A bullet which strikes the ground within 3 meters (9.84 feet) of the competitor due to a “squib” load is exempt from this rule. This rule above is a good example of the potential pitfalls of precisely defining certain actions that could lead to a match DQ. A draw, reload, unload, or transfer could all fall under this same umbrella. 10.4.2 gives a precise measurement of 9.84 feet (3 meters). One can surmise that the impact of the bullet is one of the measuring points, but where is the other? Is it the competitor's toe, leg, holster, muzzle of the gun at the time of the discharge? What if the competitor or his gun has moved? Where are the measuring points now? 9.84 feet is pretty specific number. How would the RO know whether it was 9.83 or 9.84 or 9.85? Does the RO have a tape measure available on each stage? Does the tape being used measure in meters or inches? Does the RO know how to precisely convert measurements between the two methods? Caution!