omnia1911

Part of a better business model would have been to ony have annual memberships that were acquired by shooting classifiers. 8 classifiers per year got you your annual membership, or whatever minimum number of classifiers is required to establish a classification for new shooters (6?). Running special classifier matches speeds up the process of attaining your membership, if you have your eye on a Level II or III match. Increasing the classifier fee to maintain a neutral revenue stream to the organization that was equal to having separate classifier and membership fees would be necessary. Shooters would have greater incentive to make sure the fees were being sent in by the clubs. Pay as you play. Membership stays active in match play, and classifiers keep current with shooter's true abilities.

Has USPSA/IPSC reached a point of no longer being relevant? Targets, the scoring program, and rule book can be acquired by anyone. Arguing about the right of anyone to use these items is useless. It is what it is today. Volunteerism has shifted from a localized community atmosphere to one that is geared to maintaining a centralized disembodied entity that requires more and more money to satisfy its existence. Centralized governance seems counter intuitive to the shooting sport culture. Volunteerism is about passion, it's personal, it's local. If USPSA were to disappear tomorrow I suspect that action pistol matches would still be taking place, much as they did years ago. It is a great game after all. IPods and FREE file sharing has thrown a big wrench into the music industry's business model. They are now fighting for their existence. It is what it is today. Is USPSA in any different of a situation? Has its fate been similarly sealed?

Oh really! Are you willing to post that as an official NROI ruling that we can fall back on when we find a prop that doesn't work to our liking? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Our rules already show this should be the case. Check Appendix C1 on popper calibration. Initial setup is done from the furthest position possible, but if a calibration is called for, it is done from where the attempt was made not where it could have been done. So if a 85 degree shot on a popper is available and it does not work, the calibration attempt must be from the same angle. Looks like a very similar situation to me. Sherwyn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not quite. Ropes, levers, doors, etc. aren't required to be calibrated.

What a crock! It's not like the guy pushed a "pull" door, or pulled a "push" door. He pulled the rope, it didn't work, it's REF. If we start to have "this is how you pull the rope" instructions, what next???? "This is how you're supposed to run" instructions? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The purpose of the walk through is to give each competitor time to examine the props, if any, and their associated mechanical devices that may activate moving targets, and to get an understanding of how to make them work within their designed specifications. I happen to think it is absurd to think that props and mechanical devices in a stage are subject to the freestyle rule. In other words, work in every conceivable fashion a shooter may think up. In this case, the rope had to be pulled a certain way to activate the swingers, much like pulling a door open, rather than pushing it open due to the design of the door hinges. In either case, you are opening the door (analogous to pulling the rope). One way works, another doesn't. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bad analogy: The difference is that a pull open door will open the same way, irrespective of angle, as long as you turn the knob and pull on it; the rope in this case would apparently not activate irrespective of angle..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If I pull the door knob to the side it isn't going to open the door. I have to pull it straight towards me, or perpendicular to the door frame.

It is as clear as if you only told me that my gun was to be "loaded".

Oh really! Are you willing to post that as an official NROI ruling that we can fall back on when we find a prop that doesn't work to our liking?

What you stated contradicts 8.1.3. Simply saying "unloaded" is anything but clear. That is why there is so many interpretations of that ready condition. Shouldn't any alternate ready condition be as equally clear as 8.1.1 and 8.1.2? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read what I said. If the ready condition is not spelled out, and merely states unloaded, then any state the gun can be in and still be considered unloaded per the rules is legal (see 10.5.13). If it's not "loaded", then it's got to be "unloaded". I'm not advocating writing a stage briefing in this manner, merely saying what would qualify if "unloaded" was all that was called for, as in Crusher's original question: "When a stage decription states the start position for the gun as "unloaded" (no other description) what is acceptable?" Troy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I understand. My point is that "unloaded" is incomplete information. 3.2 says that the handgun ready condition must be provided. Handgun ready conditions (8.1) instruct on chambers, hammers, safeties. If you want the gun unloaded, the written stage briefing should say empty chamber, magazine removed, hammer down or cocked, safety on or off (safety may be irrelevant in the case of an unloaded gun). And, as I stated earlier, placing the gun on a table during the COF may dictate some of the ready condition in order to avoid a DQ.

The only requirements that the RO must provide a competitor is spelled out in 3.2. How mechanical devices in a stage work is not one of them, though some ROs may choose to do so. 3.2.4 gives the shooter the opportunity for discovery.

What a crock! It's not like the guy pushed a "pull" door, or pulled a "push" door. He pulled the rope, it didn't work, it's REF. If we start to have "this is how you pull the rope" instructions, what next???? "This is how you're supposed to run" instructions? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The purpose of the walk through is to give each competitor time to examine the props, if any, and their associated mechanical devices that may activate moving targets, and to get an understanding of how to make them work within their designed specifications. I happen to think it is absurd to think that props and mechanical devices in a stage are subject to the freestyle rule. In other words, work in every conceivable fashion a shooter may think up. In this case, the rope had to be pulled a certain way to activate the swingers, much like pulling a door open, rather than pushing it open due to the design of the door hinges. In either case, you are opening the door (analogous to pulling the rope). One way works, another doesn't.

The equipment didn't fail. The competitors attempt failed.

It's a freestyle sport ---- so if it's possible to move in any direction from the start position, then the swinger activator must allow for activation in any direction --- it can't be allowed to activate correctly for people who choose to stand in place and deal with the swingers first and to not activate for people who wish to go the left or right first...... Want someone to deal with the swingers first? Place them at the beginning of the physical movement area for the stage --- that way the time penalty for returning there from the end of the stage becomes too great.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see nothing in the rulebook that states the props must work in a manner that a competitor wishes them to. They only have to work as the stage designer wishes them to. If the props happen to work in a manner beyond what the stage designer wishes, then the shooter is free to take advantage of that. In this case it doesn't seem that the props worked in any way but how the stage designer intended, which was capable of activating the swingers. 1.1.5 (freestyle rule) says: However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions or stances. I would say that the limited way the rope had to be pulled to activate the swingers was a "condition that was created to compel the shooter into a shooting position". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No the limited way that the activator worked was designed to force a competitor to only "activate" targets in a specific direction --- and that's not what 1.1.5 is all about, if read in it's entirety: There's nothing preventing a shooter from activating the swingers, then shooting the left and right arrays and finishing on the swingers. The only requirement in the stage description was to activate the swingers before drawing, hence it has nothing to do with compelling a shooter into a shooting position or stance. Want to compel either one of those? Start building vision barriers so the swingers can only be shot from one place. Activating targets should activate equally for all shooters, regardless of their engagement plan for the stage........ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The operative word is compel, not require. You want to be creative in pulling the rope, then you suffer the consequences if it doesn't work as you intended. The fact is that the swingers could be activated if the rope was pulled as the stage designer intended. What if the swingers had been activated by opening a door (all stage description said was engage targets as visible, opening door actives swingers)? In order to activate the swingers you had to open the door a full 90 degrees. Do you think you should be able to claim REF if after opening the door only 45 degrees the targets didn't activate? Can you claim, "I opened the door. Shouldn't the door activate the targets equally for everyone?" Yea, if you open it correctly! "But, opening the door a full 90 degrees didn't fit into my engagement plan." Sorry, next shooter.

See color portion above. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess it comes down to what the meaning of "clearly" is.

I noticed that there was nothing indicated in the start position provided in this thread that the gun was being placed on an object or holstered when "unloaded". Was that to be freestyle too? I would contend that if an unloaded gun is placed on an object for the start position the required ready condition is slide locked open and magazine removed, or in the case of a revolver, cylinder open and empty (10.5.3.5 and 10.5.3.6). otherwise it is a DQable offense. Nothing freestyle about this. Do we agree on the clarity of that ready condition? Maybe its not so clear. What if the self loader doesn't lock back? 10.5.3 If at any time during the course of fire, or while loading, reloading or unloading, a competitor drops his firearm or causes it to fall, loaded or not. Note that a competitor who, for any reason during a course of fire, safely and intentionally places the firearm on the ground or other stable object will not be disqualified provided: On a side note: Knowing how persnikitty some are about proper range commands, what is the correct command to start the COF when the gun is to be unloaded? The rulebook says that only LAMR starts the COF; no variations are given.

What you stated contradicts 8.1.3. Simply saying "unloaded" is anything but clear. That is why there is so many interpretations of that ready condition. Shouldn't any alternate ready condition be as equally clear as 8.1.1 and 8.1.2?

3.2.4 After the written stage briefing has been read to competitors, and questions arising therefrom have been answered, competitors should be permitted to conduct an orderly inspection (“walkthrough”) of the course of fire. The duration of time for the inspection must be stipulated by the Range Officer, and it should be the same for all competitors. If the course of fire includes moving targets or similar items, these should be demonstrated to all competitors for the same duration and frequency. If the shooter doesn't take advantage of what this rule affords him, and chooses to shoot the stage not knowing how to properly activate the moving targets, then it is his loss. You can't blame the props.

USPSA decided to overwrite 1.1.5.1 due to having differing match Levels from IPSC. IPSC gives exceptions to the freestyle rule to both Level I and Level II matches, which was carried over to 10.2.9. It looks to me like USPSA didn't catch the Level I and Level II exceptions in 10.2.9 and failed to restrict it to Level I matches, as it did in US1.1.5.1. ...but, I could be wrong.

It's a freestyle sport ---- so if it's possible to move in any direction from the start position, then the swinger activator must allow for activation in any direction --- it can't be allowed to activate correctly for people who choose to stand in place and deal with the swingers first and to not activate for people who wish to go the left or right first...... Want someone to deal with the swingers first? Place them at the beginning of the physical movement area for the stage --- that way the time penalty for returning there from the end of the stage becomes too great.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see nothing in the rulebook that states the props must work in a manner that a competitor wishes them to. They only have to work as the stage designer wishes them to. If the props happen to work in a manner beyond what the stage designer wishes, then the shooter is free to take advantage of that. In this case it doesn't seem that the props worked in any way but how the stage designer intended, which was capable of activating the swingers. 1.1.5 (freestyle rule) says: However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions or stances. I would say that the limited way the rope had to be pulled to activate the swingers was a "condition that was created to compel the shooter into a shooting position".

the course description needs to be more specific and should be. lynn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with Lynn. Handgun ready conditions are not freestyle. 8.1.3 Courses of fire may require ready conditions which are different to those stated above. In such cases, the required ready condition must be clearly stated in the written stage briefing.

A box is still a box, whether it is 3'X3' or a free fire "zone". But, the real issue I'm presenting is the freestyle concept, and the apparent discrepancy between 10.2.9 and US1.1.5.1.

One, it goes against the freestyle concept. Two, USPSA only makes exceptions to the freestyle concept in Level I matches (US1.1.5.1).

In USPSA Level II (Sectional and State) matches it is permissible in the stage briefing to prohibit a shooter from returning to a prior location to engage targets. There is a per shot penalty for doing so. Are you OK with this? In a related note, with what certainty can you tell that a shooter has changed locations? On step, two steps? It used to be after firing a shot. That was a pretty clear demarcation line. Also, back then we used shooting boxes more liberally. That was a clear demarcation too. Location: A geographical place within a course of fire (IPSC definition).

That is my point. The shooter didn't activate the swingers. He only pulled the rope. Incorrectly, I might add. What I think we can agree on is that the stage design was not well thought out. Can you all see what happens when stages aren't designed properly (hide the swingers prior to their activation)? Come to think of it, 2.3.3 should be put into effect so that the swingers can be hidden. Then, we are only left with the activation mechanism issue. I say, figure out how to pull it correctly. It's not REF.

The only way I would issue a REF is if after pulling the rope to the side it mucked up the mechanism to the point that pulling it straight back, as the designer intended, the swingers still wouldn't activate.

How does one shoot, activate, then draw? You either have to activate, draw, then shoot, draw, shoot, then activate, or draw, activate, then shoot. The procedures clearly state that activating comes before drawing. Shooting without first drawing is a near impossibility.

Right. What I am suggesting is that there should be no penalty because the the written stage procedure says to "shoot targets as available." The only other procedure is to activate the targets "before drawing the gun." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess I'm not seeing your point. The very first requirement in the stage procedures is for the competitor to active the swingers. Only then, can the shooter draw his gun to be able to "shoot the targets as available". The fact that moving targets were involved makes in not just a violation of the written procedures, but a significant advantage shooting at stationary targets, as opposed to moving targets. If the stage procedures were arranged differently would you have a different position? Example: "Activate swingers before drawing your gun. Then, engage targets as available". One can't feel that they have complied with the "activate swingers" part of the procedures simply by the fact that they pulled the rope. The targets have to be put in motion, and there was definitely a reasonable way to do that. The shooter chose to take a different route. I have seen my share of bad stage designs as a result of ideas for props that looked good on paper, but were poorly engineered for consistent functionality. This stage design seems to fall in that category. The problem that I have is that if the shooter pulled the rope as the designer had intended, the targets would have been activated. How can you claim REF? You either give the 5 penalties or toss the stage.