omnia1911

Yes, they were redundant. My point is to declare Charge Lines different from Fault lines with a different purpose, design, and penalty. I have used them differently in stages for years. Only the penalty was missing from the rule book. Charge Lines, as I have described in some proposed rules, are a useful tool in controling shooter movement and assessing non-shooting penalties. Fault Lines should be for shooting penalties only. The new rule book is proposing that Fault Lines be used for shooting and non-shooting penalties, depending on the stage designer's wishes. I think that the competitor should be able to easily distinguish between which lines can, and can't be crossed, and the different penalties possible when shooting a stage. A shooting area can be constructed of all fault lines, all charge lines, or a combination of both, depending on the course designer's intent. A COF that doesn't have a defined shooting area can still use fault lines and charge lines for the purposes that I have outlined. I believe that comstock scored target engagement should be controled with the FTE penalty only. I have read arguemnts in this forum about assessing penalties under the "failure to follow the WSB rule" for target engagement penalties on comstock COFs, depending on how the WSB was worded. The real issue is the way that the WSB was written, but some believe that the WSB trumps the rule book, it doesn't (3.2.5). Since a "Engage targets as and when visible" WSB is not mandatory, I see a lot of abuse by stage designers and MDs with the WSB in trying to get shooters to do what they want. I'm going to try and find a thread that gives the example I'm thinking of.

Why is the Charge Line being sent to the dumpster? Why not… 2.2.? Charge Lines – Competitor movement may be restricted through the use of Charge Lines. Charge Lines will be used for assessing non-shooting penalties. 2.2.?.? Charge Lines should be constructed of rope or other suitable material, must be firmly in place, and must rise 3 feet to 5 feet above ground level, providing both physical and visual references to competitors. 2.2.?.? Charge Lines do not extend forward or rearward to infinity. Stage designers and setup crews must make Charge Lines of sufficient length to challenge competitors who choose to go around them (see Rule 10.2.?), or must be attached to an object, such as a wall, creating a closed end, and preventing competitors from going around them. 10.2.? A competitor who intentionally crosses a Charge Line during a COF, either over it or under it, will immediately be stopped, instructed to unload, show clear, holster, and will receive a penalty of a zero score for the COF in which the infraction occurred. No penalty will be given to a competitor for going around an open end of a Charge Line (see Rule 2.2.?.?). instead of 10.2.11.

10.1.1 Procedural penalties are imposed when a competitor fails to comply with procedures specified in a written stage briefing. The Range Officer imposing the procedural penalties must clearly record the number of penalties, and the reason why they were imposed, on the competitor's score sheet. If the WSB says, "Engage targets as and when visible" on a comstock COF, and I don't, am I in violation of 10.1.1? In other words, is target engagement, either not shooting at a target, or not shooting a target as it becomes visible on a comstock COF, a WSB procedure subject to 10.1.1? I say no, but others have tried to impose penalties. With all of the procedures that seem to show up in poorly written stage briefings, I think 10.1.1 should specify which type of procedures are and aren't covered by this rule.

Shooting areas cannot be considered the COF boundaries. A COF, or stage (Appendix A3), includes targets, props, ect., of which all are not contained within the shooting area.

USPSA adopted what appeared to be a rather simple and clean philosophy, that being, USPSA is freestyle, and the WSB should simply read "engage targets as and when visible". The gamers and stage designers have thrown a wrench into the works. Look for more rule changes to reign the "trouble makers" in.

The shooting box gave way to the shooting area, which has quietly, in the dead of night, morphed into the COF boundary. Who authorized this? The rule book makes no mention of this, yet it has been interjected into the 10.2.11 arguments by management as if this has been the standard all along. Other subtle changes to the new rule book to control shooter movement have also been used in 10.2.11 arguments. These proposed changes were clearly orchestrated to support each other. This may be the more important issue concerning 10.2.11, and its real intent, PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES. How will 10.2.11 have any teeth without first requiring the COF boundary? Is the next step to require all COFs to have clearly marked boundaries by way of fault lines, barriers, and walls? Isn't this going to make more work for the setup crew? Imagine having to do this in a large bay with a large COF. Will local matches be exempt from COF boundary requirements?

It also requires a mandatory reload. IIRC, from witnessing the shoot-offs at the Nationals, the requirement was to reload before downing the final popper.... Unfortunately, 1.2.3.1 doesn't stipulate when the reload should be. It could be after firing the last round and still comply with the rule. If USPSA is going to step in and make requirements for shoot offs they should be more thorough. There is no discription of a shoot off stage. Does it have to be all steel? Is it 9 steel poppers? Is it 8 steel poppers and a reload before the 9th? Can the reload be anywhere after the first shot and before the last shot? There may be some standardized shoot off stage that has evolved over time, but one would never know that by reading the rule book.

Required shots from a shooting position have been reduced from 9 to 8, but 1.2.3.1 still allows for 9.

Though both restrict shooter movement, fault lines and barriers are two different animals. Don't make fault lines act as a barrier. Fault lines can be crossed and are for assessing shooting penalties only. Barriers must be different in design, and should never be crossed. Those who cross barriers are subject to 10.6.1, or a stage zero, as others have suggested. There is no reason to have both a fault line and a barrier in the same location to control shooter movement.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that a COF (1.2, Appendix A3) must have boundaries defined by fault lines. Isn’t this a requirement prior to trying to assess penalties for crossing those boundaries? Even though the freestyle rules brought about the shooting area, it too, is not defined in the rule book. Do we now have shooting areas or COF boundaries? They can’t be one and the same. Penalties for each would have a different premise. It seems to me that erecting stakes with ropes and calling it a barrier is as easy as staking down fault lines as a means of controlling shooter movement. Once the rope “barrier” has been established, it falls under the purview of 1.1.5. 1.1.5……However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances. Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be considered to go from the ground to the height as designed. I think that a 5 foot high rope would prevent anyone from going over the “barrier” and 1.1.5 says that they can’t go under it. Wouldn't this negate the need for 10.2.11 and make this a simple stage design solution? If after receiving clear instructions from the match official during the stage briefing as to where the rope barriers where, and the competitor breached those barriers anyway, he would be subject to 10.6.1.

The freestyle philosophy was adopted to free us from the shooting box and foot fault penalties. It spawned the shooting area; in reality, a very large shooting box. The freestyle philosophy allowed the honest gamers, who I tip my hat to, to have an open season on stage designers and those who review and approve the stages for our matches, thereby, bruising a lot of egos along the way. 10.2.11 is a misguided attempt to fight back. This isn’t a safety issue. ROs can get trapped in most any “field” course as he tries to watch and anticipate every move of the competitor. Fault lines, shooting areas, and out of bounds areas won’t eliminate the potential dangers. This shouldn’t be a stage designer ego protection act. Stage design is an art that requires the assistance of the sport’s best gamers to anticipate what a competitor might do to solve a particular shooting problem. I find most gamers are more than happy to find the holes in your stage prior to the match. Make use of their talents while the stage design is on paper, and don’t take their findings as a personal indictment of your creativity. USPSA should put as much effort into training stage designers, as they do ROs and CROs. The freestyle philosophy added a lot of work to stage design and setup. There were many discussions on this forum to that effect when the new freestyle rule was about to be adopted. Some on the BOD saw the extra effort needed as inconsequential. 10.2.11 and 1.1.5.1 show that some have had a reality check and have flipped on the issue. I see this as a good thing. I saw nothing wrong with shooting boxes. 1.1.5.1 confirms that. 10.2.11 is slated to set forth a process that is even more onerous than what we had with shooting box penalties. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. As much as the BOD is trying to dance around the issue, they are bringing back the shooting box, disguised as a shooting area, and its penalties in some form, or another. Some talk is of a USPSA version of the IDPA FTDR penalty. Yikes! Speaking of 1.1.5.1, the shooting box is back a local matches, but foot fault penalties specific to shooting boxes is absent from Chapter 10. I don’t think 10.2.1 is relevant. It refers to fault lines, as described in 2.2.1. Maybe the intention is to have penalty free boxes, but that wouldn’t make sense, would it? It is ironic that local matches will now be using shooting boxes, forgoing the need for shooting areas/stage boundaries defined by fault lines, and will avoid all the problems that 10.2.11 will entail and unfettered freestyle brought to the game. We have come full circle. Ain't that a kick!

The "no more short cut rule" 10.2.11 sounds an awful lot like the old "shooting box rule". Is someone feeling a little nostalgic for the convenience of the shooting box as a check against unfettered freestyle? It is a little comical that we get this: 1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Then, we get a 76 page rule book on everything we can and can't do in USPSA matches.

2.1.8.5 Activated appearing targets must be designed and constructed so as to be obscured to the competitor (during the course of fire) prior to activation. First of all, this sentence doesn’t make sense. If you drop the word “Activated” and start the sentence with “Appearing” you may have something. Also, what constitutes activation; when the activator is engaged, or when the appearing target begins to move? This question may be more relevent to 2.1.8.5.1. Depending on the definition of "activation", 2.1.8.5.1 leaves open the possibility of putting hits on an appearing target before it moves, even though the activator has been "activated". 4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. This rule states that a target that is “obscured” is behind soft cover. Are “obscured” appearing targets in 2.1.8.5 behind soft cover too? If 2.1.8.5 is changed to: 2.1.8.5 Appearing targets must be designed and constructed so as to be hidden to the competitor (during the course of fire) prior to activation. This wording better coordinates with the wording in 4.1.4.1 and 4.1.4.2. The proposed rule changes have done a much better job of addressing some of the issues that the clubs have to deal with at their local matches.

L10 was a reasonable compromise when the ban came into effect. It is not as if all of the divisions were reduced to 10 rounds. L10 is still relevant today. USPSA got backed into a corner by allowing mag capacities to run away. Fortunately, all the divisions that have come after Open and Limited are still under control when it comes to mag capacity. I'm worried that Production will succumb to the pressures to move beyond 10 rounds. I hope it doesn't. The Clinton AWB has created such a stigma with the number 10, or any discussion of mag capacity restrictions. Sometimes it gets in the way of moving USPSA in a positive direction.

I thought that the BOD voted on allowing the PSSD to go forward. The Executive Director is not on the BOD and could not vote for, or against, the PSSD implementation. In spite of the misgivings that some of the management may have about the PSSD being allowed to move forward, you would think that after the BOD vote, differences would be put aside, and all would work for the success of the PSSD, no matter what it took. The classifiers seem to be an important piece of the puzzle.

Does having more divisions (PSSD classifiers) mean more work for an already over worked Sedro Woolley? If so, couldn't the same be said for increasing membership and having them pumping out a larger volume of classifiers?

Since the results are only archived and not processed, it's my guess that no one will really know the HHF for the classifiers in SS until they become official. All I do is take the results from the club listing (actually, I write them down at the match) and plug them into L-10 divison on the Ohio classifier calculator to get an idea of how I did. I am also keeping a list to make sure they surface when (if) the division becomes real. Shot 06-05 today... ...but for 3 loooong years??? I hope archiving the classifiers is more than storing the paper work in a box in the back room for 3 years. Can you imagine the amount of work it would take to enter all of that data if the SS division is given full standing? That alone may kill the deal from Sedro Woolley's perspective. I thought it would be a good thing for the competitors if all of the SS matches that are being held around the country were using the same rules. I know we want to give our baby its own identity, but the SSC has a pretty good track record.

Didn't mean to let loose a bee in your bonnet Flex. I have done a search and read a number of posts by Gary Stevens regarding the classification issue, but didn't see any technical reason for not being able to post the SS classifiers, rather than just archiving them. Did see many posts as to what is being done, just not why. This is a post from Gary: Since this is provisional, we didn't want to incorporate it into the classification system unless it is made permanent at a point in the future. Is there a technical problem with the database if the SS classifiers are posted, then deleted if the new division isn't kept after its trial period? I'm not questioning the present method about of dealing with the SS classifiers per say, but questioning why the classifiers can't be posted "as if" the SS division was not provisional, rather than "hiding" them as archived material. As to the rules differences, I have read several posts, including Gary's, but haven't seen any posts explaining the technical reasons why USPSA needed a different set a rules for its SS division, only that there is a similar set of rules to the SSC. Do the SSC rules conflict with the USPSA rule book? Since the SSC is meshed with the USPSA SS nationals, one set of rules had to be chosen. As of now, that match is using the USPSA SS division rules. Why do we have to make a choice between one or the other? Since the questions have been answered somewhere, maybe you can help me out Flex. Thanks.

Why isn't the new SS division using the same equipment rules as the SS Classic? In spite of it having a provisional status, why do the new SS division classifiers have to be archived, rather than posted/used like the other classifiers?

That argument, if adopted as standard logic, would give USPSA the cover needed to never improve the game. The fact that it is a bad rule wouldn't matter, because everyone has to suffer through it together, thus, maintaining a level playing field.

It has become crytstal clear to me over the years that shooters do not want to make static reloads due to stage design, and will make choices, choices that USPSA should be paying attention to, regarding which organization, or division, that they will shoot in. Sometimes it is no fun being kicked in the shins in spite of the fact that I know everyone else is being kicked in the shins too.

Great idea! Neither are bad ones. A good 32 round, or less, stage can be designed with 6 round max arrays. If you are a stage designer attempting to stuff a small shooting bay full of targets to get the round count up, I would surmise that your objective is not good stage design. Sometimes the rule book needs to be used to "encourage" good stage design by setting boundaries that coordinate with the equipment guidelines for all of the divisions that we are attempting to support. The SSC does it, IDPA does it, ICORE does it. Are we marketing USPSA to these groups, or not?

Great!!! Thanks Gary. What wasn't needed was going from 8 to 9, not the other way around.

I hope the USPSA BOD is looking into going back to 8 rounds from a shooting position in the new rulebook....espcially if they want to help SSD get on its feet. The matches ran just fine at 8 rounds. There was no need to go to 9.

The inclusion of L10 was a bandaid measure implemented because of the Clinton AWB which included large capacity mags...the organization leaped before it looked IMO, and now it is reaping the harvest of that ill advised decision..whatever happens not everyone will be happy with the outcome.. If you want to make the divisions more competitive, do away with the 170mm mags...that will tighten up Open, Limited and Poduction...then perhaps the wisdom of making 9mm major in only Open will be scrutinized...Not picking on the Open shooters, but they have it ALL their way, small caliber major, huge magazine capacity and optical sights...if they had to shoot 40/10 to make major the differential in divisions would not loom as large as it does now...and since this is all conjecture, that is my .02... It just seems that it has gotten out of control, trying to make a division/category for every single type of pistol made...I suppose single action revolver is next, to cultivate the SASS shooters...Man can you see that, a shooter decked out in 10 gallon stetson, chaps and a bandolier of ammo to shoot a 30 round field course...of course his time could be measured with a sundial, but he would get style points for his dress....LOL Ban the 170mm mag? Is this another shot fired at L10 by making a SS less competitive there? I suppose you can consider any division a band aid for the "shoot what you brung" matches we used to run. Why don't we make all 6 of our divisions categories of "shoot what you brung" matches? Do you think that the competitors would gravitate to "Open" type equipment to finish higher in the combined scoring? I do, and the other "categories" would die a slow death. The same is going to happen when you combine 2 or 3 of our divisions together. The categories will be dealt a death blow.