omnia1911

Yes, but one of the alternatives is defeat. The possibility of defeat is a great motivator. When I play chess I plan out several of my next moves, along with several moves that my opponent might make. Otherwise, it may be the IPSC BOD saying "checkmate".

Set aside this new idea of running IPSC style matches under the IPSC rulebook in the USA. USPSA is grated a waiver from IPSC to run USPSA style matches under a different set of rules than IPSC. USPSA is seeking an extention of that waiver. Without that waiver, USPSA would have to use the IPSC rulebook. If USPSA refuses to do so, it could loose its affiliation.

How? IPSC could decide to not grant USPSA a waiver on the rule book. What will be USPSA's next move? It could either adopt the IPSC rules in total, or be disaffiliated.

Does this statement represent a new financial obligation to USPSA, along with their "National" matches? "will offer" doesn't sound like an option, but a mandate. How many matches are required for compliance? At what level? Where’s the supporting funds for this mandate coming from? May I remind everyone that IPSC matches don’t recognize the USPSA classification system. You shoot for order of finish in division. Now that IPSC has its foot in the door to win over the hearts and minds of the American competitor, it will be easier for IPSC to turn the screws when it comes to compliance, possibly leading to disaffiliation of USPSA, if things should get ugly in the future. If USPSA is disaffiliated, are you, the members, going to quit, shoot with the new IPSC-USA Region, or take up with an outlaw organization?

The last sentence of US6.1.1 only refers to the time components. A miss is not a penalty. It is a score. US6.1.1 says that scores and penalties are recorded at the end of the stage unless the COF specifies that they be recorded at the end of the string. US9.4.5.3 allows for penalties to be avoided during a string, when scores and penalties could be recorded. US9.4.5.3 is pretty clear to me. You can fail to engage targets in a string while stacking and not be penalized. There is a simple solution. Don't allow stacking of shots.

US9.4.5.3 only involves VC stages with strings. US6.1.1 allows for each string to be scored and taped separately. If the COF specifies this action, and if stacking is allowed, then, US9.4.5.3 allows the competitor to fail to engage targets, and avoid receiving any penalties. You may wonder why anyone would shoot a string this way knowing that it will be scored separately, so would I. Stranger thing have happened; brain farts among them. This may not have been intended, but it is in black and white in the rule book. Maybe some rule tweaking is in order.

The rest of the answer is in US9.4.5.3.

9.2.4.5 fixed time 9.9.2 disappearing targets Good. Those are the easy ones. Keep going.

A penalty will be given to a competitor who fails to engage a target. There are exceptions to this rule. List them.

Technically, stacking occurs in virginia count and fixed time scoring, not comstock. 9.4.5 In a Virginia Count or Fixed Time Course of Fire: US9.4.5.3 Stacked shots (i.e. shooting more than the required rounds on a target, but shooting at fewer targets than specified in any string), will incur one procedural penalty per target not engaged in any string. This penalty will not be applied if the written stage briefing specifically authorizes stacked shots.

I think it was rather clever of Bob to make this classifier comstock scoring. Anyone who thinks he can do well on this classifier by firing more than 12 rounds with 12 good hits will have been rope-a-doped with the "stacking" idea. Each target must be engaged before and after the reload. Fire as many rounds as you want. Only the best 2 hits per target will score. Those quickly firing just 12 rounds with good hits will eat the rest of the pack alive on this small stage. CM 99-58 talk: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3602

Nope. This stage procedure basically says, "Shoot the two poppers and two papers from the right side of the barricade, make one required reload, and shoot the two poppers and two papers from the other side of the barricade, and you can't shoot the right hand targets from the left hand side and vice-versa." This is a comstock stage, order of engagement is not allowed to be specified--you can shoot at them in any order. And, I guess I'll have to disagree with John and say that once you have shot at or "engaged" the right number of targets from the correct side of the barricade, and made a reload, you are good to go. No penalty. Troy Give that man a promotion!

Where in the stage procedures does it say this? If we follow your strict contructionist view, we would be required, according to the written stage procedure, to engage the targets in left array as PP1 then PP2 then T1 then T2, no other order would be allowed; same idea for the right array. Otherwise, you would get a penalty for not following the written course description. eggzackly. As I stated in earlier posts, it is a comstock stage. In comstock stages, even classifiers, you cannot dictate the order of target engagement in an array, nor the number of rounds fired.

Where in the stage procedures does it say this? If we follow your strict contructionist view, we would be required, according to the written stage procedure, to engage the targets in left array as PP1 then PP2 then T1 then T2, no other order would be allowed; same idea for the right array. Otherwise, you would get a penalty for not following the written course description.

Unbelievable!!! Take another look Mr. Amidon. The course description says engage, not hit, not knock down, not complete. The shooter did engage (not hit, not knock down) every target in the first array before making his mandatory reload and switching sides. The shooter, in this case, happen to make up a miss in the first array before switching sides; perfectly legal in a comstock stage. What if the shooter had knocked down all the steel and had all his hits on the paper in the first array, but re-engaged one of the paper targets after his mandatory reload to improve on a D hit before switching sides. Would you still want to penalize him? 10.2.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one round will incur 1 procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.5 or 9.9.2 apply. The FTE rule above states that a target has been engaged if it has been shot at; not hit, not knocked down, not completed (whatever that means).

USPSA and PD pretty much have to imply a warranty to avoid a public relations nightmare. I predict that there will never be an incident of someone using match ammo and failing to make their declared power factor, no matter how far below the floor it chronos. 5.6.3.7 and 5.6.3.8 will never come into play, especially 5.6.3.8. Can you imagine traveling to a big match, using match ammo, and not being able to shoot for score or recognition. OUCH!

Nothing will hurt attendance at a match more than potential competitors feeling that they are coming into a game that doesn't have a level playing field. That is the supreme task of match coordinators. Any potential loss of participation due to ammo shipment problems is secondary, in every case.

If the match ammo program needs some leeway in the chrono procedures to work, apply the same leeway to everyone's ammo. I don't understand why you wouldn't do this. If the match ammo leeway is being used simply to encourage use of the program, I couldn't think of a worse idea.

Wait until someone wins their class, possibly a gun, shooting match ammo that didn't make the 165PF, but scored major anyway. Be prepared to beat back the attacks from the person who finished in 2nd place. Will the competitors have access to the actual chrono readings for the "match ammo" competitors, or will we just see the major/minor tag in the scoring program?

I believe that Only applies to the targets which may be engaged after the mandatory reload "and" which side of the barracade those targets may be engaged from. I could be wrong here but we'll see when John answers the question. It is a comstock stage. You can't make such restrictions.

You left off an important part of the sentence, "from the right/left side of the barricade". "Only" refers to which side of the barricade certain targets can "only" be engaged from. I presume this was a comstock stage, which means you can engage or re-engage the targets in any order you want and as many times as you want, as long as they are shot from the correct side of the barricade. Also, the stage description says that the shooter can begin with either array. I guess the question in the minds of some may be whether the reload the shooter in question made was a mandatory one, according to the stage description, or a self imposed one due to a miss. I think they are the same action, based on how this particular shooter handled his target engagement.

I think he satisfied the stage requirements and should not be penalized. He did engage the first steel, but he missed. The stage description did not say that the steel had to fall before switching sides. How would you feel about his actions if he had switched sides after his first reload, left the first steel, took a miss penalty, then got all his hits on the other array without any additional reloads. Would you also give him per shot penalties for not performing the mandatory reload when you thought he should (after the first steel falls)?

The only problem with a stand alone match is how to pay for it. The attendance has to be higher to make the match pay for itself. Maybe going back to a Race Gun (Open and Limited) and Factory Gun (Production, Lim10, SS and Revo) Nationals would work. I'm not just talking about a national match, but how it is going to work on the club to area level matches. This is where this new division is going to be incubated. When we had only Open and Limited divisions there were all kinds of complaints from those who had to make static reloads, especially those that were shooting a SS against a high cap in Limited division. It had a profound effect on the equipment race and the choices competitors made on what type of guns they bought to play with. "It's all in the stage design" was the answer to the problem, we were told. Rules were adopted to limit rounds from a shooting position, new divisions were formed, and still, Revolver division found itself on the short side of the straw. "All revolver shooters have to shoot it the same way" was the continuing cry. In spite of all these confusing machinations from the leadership we continue seeing them stumble forward by changing the rounds required from a shooting position from 8 to 9 rounds, and they bring another new division on board with capacity restrictions that don't square with the new stage design rules they just instituted. HELLO! The membership wants to shoot equipment appropriate stage designs, otherwise, they will gravitate to what they feel is the appropriate equipment for the stages being presented to them. Chances are, that if you are not spending a lot of time shooting in the club level SSD due to stage design, you will end up going to the BIG AND EXPENSIVE matches using something you have spent more trigger time with. I'm afraid the new SSD will suffer, as revolver has. I think having a Race Gun and Factory Gun Nationals is a good idea if the Factory Gun Nationals limits the rounds from a shooting position to 6 and the total rounds in a stage to 24. Race Gun Nationals can shoot the rules as they exist, provided USPSA can continue to fund 3 separate National matches. BIG if. Now that USPSA is funding a 3 Gun Nationals it has made it a bigger financial challenge for them to also fund a dual Pistol Nationals.

USPSA is going to get some much needed attention brought to the new SSD by hooking up with the SSC. Any observations or conclusions reached as to the potential of the new SSD being as successful as the SSC must be tempered by the fact that the SSC designs stages that are appropriate for the mag capacity requirements of the SSC rules; both in rounds required from a shooting position and total rounds required in a stage. After this alliance, the new SSD is going to be integrated back into the USPSA high capacity leaning stage designs. This will bring back many of the same complaints we have seen before. If USPSA learns anything from its connection with the SSC, it should be the importance of having a stand alone SS match, otherwise, I think we will see another meagerly attended division similar to the revolver division. I would hate to see that happen. The SSC has gotten it right, pay attention.

How does this square with the unholy alliance that took place when USPSA hooked up with the "gaming", "USPSA-like" SSC this year? Is the SSC going to affiliate/pay activity fees to USPSA from now on, or is it those dang little clubs out in the woods that are the problem? BTW, I think the SSC is a great match, and have no problem with how they run it. USPSA makes money off of the sale of IPSC targets. Wouldn't you want to sell as many as possible, no matter who uses them? Or, take the reverse. Why doesn't USPSA require that its targets be sold to only USPSA affiliated clubs? Can the targets be legally protected somehow to prevent their unauthorized use? Would rogue clubs attract any USPSA shooters if they were forced to use another type of target such as a tombstone or IDPA target that doesn't seamlessly dovetail into the USPSA scoring system? The ROs, nor the knowledge contained therein, are the property of USPSA. If someone is in violation of any trademark or copyright laws, USPSA should be protecting its interests. Otherwise, stop whinning. Is the next step to revoke the membership of anyone who shoots a "USPSA-like" match? If this was the revenue model of USPSA it did a great job of shooting itself in the foot when it started selling slots to the Nationals, thus, sticking it to the Sections, blowing a hole in the mission count system, and making volunteerism and participation at the club level even more irrelevant. Blame the BOD, not the membership on this one. It is the local ranges that are gracious enough to welcome the formation of a USPSA club on their property that is giving us a "place" to play. An analogy would be that the clubs are the hardware and USPSA is the software. The reality is, the hardware business model is more easily protected from rogue use than is the software business model. With all the time and money that has been spent on turning USPSA from a pistol game to a multi-gun/pistol game don't you think it is time for the multi-gun players to stop ridding the financial coat tails of the pistol matches and start paying their fair share of activity and classifier fees? It is an under utilized revenue stream.