Vince Pinto
-
Posts
3,771 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Vince Pinto
-
-
I'm sure Vince will chime in on this one.
You rang?
The minimum trigger pull weight is a simple mechanism to check that competitors have not been tampering with their triggers contrary to IPSC PD rules, and the standard Glock 17 trigger weight was used as our benchmark.
The 5" barrel limitation was selected to prevent IPSC PD from being dominated by the Glock 34, as most of the guns we wanted to see used in IPSC PD had barrels of 5" or less.
-
Luca,
The USPSA 140mm maximum magzine length applies to the total overall length of the magazine, basepads included - see Appendix F1.
-
I am asking: if a stage is clearly, evidently, documentably illegal, and I mean in breach of one of the rules on Course Design (IPSC rulebook Chapter 1), what's an AC to do with a filed arbitration to remove subject stage from the match?
As I'm sure you know, all stages at a well organised match are always visually debugged by experienced COF assessors (who were not party to the design or construction) before anybody can shoot them, and at a Level IV or V match, we have the best COF people in the world on the job, so it's extremely rare that an "illegal" COF would be given the final seal of approval.
Having said that, yes, it's possible that a "super-gamer" could find a flaw in the course construction, and it's possible that another competitor could file an appeal to Arbitration if the RM denied his request to invoke a Section 2.3 rule to deal with the issue.
Obviously I cannot speak for all Arbitration Committees but, if I was a member of an AC considering such an appeal, I cannot imagine voting to have the stage pulled solely on the basis that an extreme solution was not detected during the debugging process provided the same solution remains available to all other competitors. However if the appeal was legitimate (i.e. not frivolous), an RM worth his salt would deal with the issue under Rule 2.3.3.1 to obviate a further appeal to Arbitration.
-
It seems it is about power. THere is no rule that empowers the RO to tell a competitor to stand or sit or place his gun in an manner beyond that writtin in the WSB. there is an entire thread about this under "gun on table".
How about "failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official" in Rule 10.6.1, because the RO believes that it's patently unsafe to stand a loaded gun upright on a table, and he's ordering a preventative measure to obviate the possibility that a gust of wind may cause it to fall, and thereby endanger other people?
As I said in another thread, I've never personally experienced such sheer bloody-mindedness* on the part of any competitor, and I presume this is because most written stage briefings are prepared by competant Range Officials and/or most competitors understand that the RO is merely applying consistency to his COF.
* "Bloody-minded": "stubbornly obstructive and unwilling to cooperate".
-
That poses the biggest question I can think of (and that has not been answered yet): "What's an Arb. Com. to do with an illegal stage (according to the rules, any of them) and an arbitration request to remove it from the match?"
An Arbitration Committee deciding to cancel a stage is an extremely rare occurence, and it would only be ordered if the AC, after receiving an appeal, concluded that RM and MD had incorrectly decided not to invoke Rule 2.3.4 when it was patently necessary to do so, but such a possibility is remote.
However it would be highly unlikely that a COF would be deemed by the AC to be "rendered unsuitable or unworkable" solely because one competitor found a better way to legally game it, provided that the same solution was available to all other competitors. A more typical reason to pull a stage is where, say, a door fell off it's hinges and it's impossible to restore it to the same condition it was in for previous competitors.
-
Vince seems to be saying that when he RMs a match or CROs a stage, that the start position portion of the course description is written in a crystal clear manner, that allows for (virtually) no deviation from shooter to shooter. Vince, do I have that right so far?
Yes.
However what I'm also stating is that if the written stage briefing is not as clear as it should be (never on my watch!), the RO has the right to require consistent start positions. In respect of the issue at hand, if the written stage briefing merely said "gun on table" without specifically defining the orientation, there's no way in the world I would allow the gun to be placed or propped upright.
And if a "prima donna" wanted to argue, I would be entitled to invoke Rule 2.3.3.1, but thankfully I've never had to deal with such bloody-mindedness.
-
I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me.
Noted.
Just like I will hand-out misses should that target have been shot at through hardcover. The hits are there, but when it comes to scoring, they don't count either!With hardcover, the targets are not visible. With the subject at hand, the targets were visible.
But I'm willing to rule as you explained while I'm RO-ing, but would you consider "improving" the rules then please ?The subject rules are perfectly clear to me. However if you read Rule 9.9.3 to mean that FTSA penalties and misses apply regardless of the hits visible on the subject targets, then you must also read Rule 9.9.1 to mean that non-disappearing targets are subject to the same fate.
Anyway, I'm done here.
-
This could all be worked out prior to the match by having the ROs walk through the stages with the course designer to make sure everyone is on the same page. If the course designer thinks that the RO's ideas of how the start position should be is valid...PUT IT IN WRITING.
And that's exactly how a properly conducted match is prepared, however the course designer has absolutely no say whatsover in respect of managing competitors on the line - this is solely the baliwick of Range Officials.
In my experience, I've never had a competitor argue (or arbitrate) the Start Position, because most people understand that Range Officials have a responsibility to start everybody the same way - it's about consistency, not power. When the Start Signal is issued, that's when competitors are on their own to solve the challenge presented according to their skill, but within safety limits.
Of course if a competitor wants to make a mountain out of a molehill about the RO requiring everyone adopting the same Start Position, he can make a scene, and the RO has the right to invoke Rule 2.3.3.1, but I sincerely hope that such a display of unsportsmanlike conduct will never raise it's ugly head at an IPSC match.
-
Really? And what rule do you cite for that?
Rule 7.1.1.
Are you telling me that if the start is "Gun on X on Table" you would require all shooters to lay their gun down in the exat same place, pointing exactly the same way? I put my gun on the X, on its left side, I am a righthanded shooter, the guy after me is a lefty, does he get to put his gun on the right side?Yes, I would require you to lay your gun on it's side facing directly uprange, but right and left-handed competitors are free to chose which side will face the table.
How do you address, standing in Box as in the start of the El Prez? Do you make everyone stand in the center of the rear of the box?No. My written stage briefing would allow for competitors who wish to turn clockwise and anti-clockwise by stating "Facing uprange, standing naturally erect, arms at the surrender position with thumbs at ear height, toes touching inside of rear charge line".
Freestyle is the name of this game. You want to me to do something at teh start that isn't spelled out or covered by the new one size fits all start position rule, then I will arbitrate it and unles you can show me a rule, i will win.Rule 1.1.5 states "Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an "as and when visible" basis". For most people I know, the challenge commences at the Start Signal, not with the Start Position.
But, hey, go ahead and arbitrate. You pay your money and you take your chances. And if you really want a new rule, I'd be happy to propose one to the Rules Committee.
-
Will it be possible for a competitor to shoot in the prématch, because if go I also want to film at the main match.
The Pre-Match is primarily for Match Officials, Regional Directors, Sponsors and other VIPs, however there are usually a few slots available to accommodate special requests. If you want to shoot the Pre-Match, contact your Regional Director and ask him to submit a request to the Match Director.
-
Also, does this mean that DU is now an option:)
OK, I know I'm gonna regret asking this, but what the hell is "DU", and is it fattening??
-
How would this be consistant over a 5 day long match where ROs may be on break and there may be rotation through the stages to releive ROs?
Matches I run have unambiguously clear written stage briefings, which are easily achievable by all competitors, so I never have such problems.
However it's not a matter of the RO "creating his own version" of the WSB - the RO merely ensures that all competitors adopt the same consistent start position, because freestyle applies to how the competitor attacks the COF after the Start Signal.
-
So, If the stage description says standing at rear fault line, what would you do? Specify where along the rear fault line the shooter is to stand?
If the written stage briefing simply says "standing at rear charge (not fault) line" where no particular location is marked, you can stand wherever the hell you want along the rear charge line, but I would make damn sure that everybody adopts the same stance (e.g. feet side by side, and no "racing start" postures), just like I would require everybody to lay their guns down when the written stage briefing simply says "gun on table".
-
I am not doing this to annoy you or anyone else, but to me 9.9.3 is crystal clear: penalties / misses must be given if the shooter fails to activate the mechanism, no matter what mechanism, no matter how many hits are on the targets involved. Care to try again to convince me ?
OK, one last try before you contribute $100 to the Match Director's Beer Fund. How can you possibly give a competitor an FTSA penalty and two misses on a target which has (for argument's sake) two Alphas on it? The fact that it's a disappearing target which has not been activated is irrelevant.
I mean, I agree with Vince on the final scoring for the subject situation, but I can see that (according to present formulation of the rules) rule 9.9.3 is not immediately intelligible as a specific exemption for rule 9.9.2.Huh? Rule 9.9.2 specifically refers to Rule 9.9.3.
Anyway guys, my new policy is that I will continue to do my very best to explain rules to you, and I will continue to answer follow-up questions for clarify, but if you don't accept my explanations, no hard feelings, but there's only so far I can go before I get dizzy, and I really hate getting dizzy when I don't have a Bundaberg Rum & Coke in my hands.
-
I thought Luciano had been RM of the SG match, since I saw, in the standings posted by Vince, his name labelled as "RM Luciano Corvetti"
Hmmm. I have no idea what "RM" means on the results page ......... perhaps "Really Macho"?
-
Detlef,
Despite the lack of emoticons, I assume that you're joking?
Clearly the two items you cite are typographical errors, and I think it's pretty safe to assume that "30 Special" is actually "38 Special". Moreover, according to Armscor's website, their 40SW is 180 grains, which I believe is typical for that calibre, so I presume the "230 grains" quoted is a duplication of the weight of 45ACP bullets.
-
Neil old son,
My apologies for failing to provide the Shotgun results earlier, but they're now available here (29Kb PDF).
And congratulations on your result - not too shabby for an old flatulent
And a "Well Done" to BE Forum regular Jerome Poiret, who is currently lost somewhere in Hong Kong ....
-
What happens when a shooter does find a sweet spot that the stage designer missed? Toss the stage out?
No. We take the competitor behind the shed and severely spank him for being a monumental PITA!
Seriously, I can't imagine a stage being pulled simply because someone found a better way to game it, provided that the same solution was available to all other competitors. Of course if the solution was, say, deemed to be unsafe, then Rule 2.3.3.1 could be invoked.
Having said that, "We've come a long way, baby", and our COF debugging procedure has progressed to such a high level that the pre-match (at least at Level IV and V matches) is no longer used for debugging as it was previously, and this is why the pre-match is usually included in the overall match results.
-
Hi folks,
Victor Ferrero, Match Director of WSXIV in Ecuador next year, handed out a flier at the last General Assembly in Bali, and you can download a copy here (2.98Mb zip).
-
Hi folks,
You can download a set of Handgun Divisional results in PDF format (110kb) here. Other things which occurred in Bali were:
General Assembly:
1. Two Regions (IPSC Bulgaria & IPSC Georgia) were elevated from Provisional status to Full Member status.
2. Six Regions (IPSC Bosnia-Herzegovina, IPSC Estonia, IPSC Latvia, IPSC Malta, IPSC Montenegro & IPSC Suriname) were ratified and welcomed as Provisional Regions.
3. The 2007 European Handgun Championships will be hosted by IPSC Slovak Republic, the 2007 AustralAsian Handgun Championships will be hosted by IPSC Thailand and the first IPSC World Rifle Championship will be hosted by IPSC Denmark in 2006.
4. IPSC Indonesia confirmed they intend to bid to host WSXV in 2008. The only other rumoured (but as yet unconfirmed) candidate is IPSC Czech Republic.
Other Events:
5. The Rules Workshop (which included a free lunch for all participants, generously provided by our wonderful Indonesian hosts), was attended by +40 people, and it was very productive.
6. The Rules Committee also had a very productive meeting, and a set of official rules interpretations will be issued shortly, and a number of other items will be deferred until the 2005 General Assembly.
7. The Production Division Committee met and agreed on some important "simplifying" changes to Production Division, and further details will be announced once we've received feedback from member Regions.
8. The IROA Executive Committee had a series of meetings, and I expect a number of changes in respect of membership criteria will be announced in the near future.
9. Victor Ferrero, Match Director of WSXIV in Ecuador next year, handed out some fliers, and I'll post a link to a downloadable version in the World Shoot thread as soon as I've scanned it.
I think that covers everything .......
-
Vince, get your @$$ out of those Bali-bars and shed some light on this please.
I was in Bali with Princess Leia and my two Stormtroopers, so my wildest extra-curricular thrill was sneaking a peek at the Bintang Beer girls and the Dji Sam Sue cigarette girls at the hotel. Anyway, you must read Section 9.9 as a whole and not isolate individual rules:
9.9.1 Moving targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.5).
The above rule defines non-disappearing moving targets, and it essentially states that they will be treated like static targets (i.e. failure to shoot at penalties and misses will be incurred, where appropriate).
9.9.2 Moving targets, which do not comply with the above criteria, will not incur failure to shoot at or miss penalties except where Rule 9.9.3 applies.
The above rule defines disappearing moving targets and it states that failure to shoot penalties and misses cannot be incurred, unless ......
9.9.3 Moving targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism, which initiates the target movement.
The above rule states that although disappearing targets are normally exempt from failure to shoot at penalties and misses, if you try to game the stage and not activate the activator, you will be severely spanked.
However this thread is about shooting moving targets before they are activated, and the answer is that any points you score on the moving targets (disappearing or not), before they are activated will count, but if the activator is a popper and you fail to shoot it, then the usual failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties will continue to apply to the popper. If the activator is a lever or a similar device, you'll probably be subject to a procedural, depending on the wording of the written stage briefing.
Hope this clarifies.
-
Luca,
The words "must not require more than 9 rounds" means that you can make more than 9 rounds visible from a single location or view, but you should not force competitors to shoot the "surplus" targets from that same location or view.
In other words, you might have 9 shots which are available exclusively from Point A, but you can have other targets which might be tougher shots from Point A, but they would be easier shots from Point B or C.
-
Hi guys,
Rules 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3 were not written as part of the last marathon rules changes which resulted in the January 2004 Edition - they were actually modified earlier during the "interim" IPSC 2002 Edition rulebook. In any case, the rules were vaguely drafted, and this is why the Rules Committee decided in Bali last week that the following official rules interpretation will be issued ASAP:
1.2.1.2 "Medium Courses" must not require more than 16 rounds to complete and no more than 3 shooting locations. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view shoot at all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view.
1.2.1.3 "Long Courses" must not require more than 32 rounds to complete. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view shoot at all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view.
In other words, you should be allowed to attack the stage whichever (freestyle) way you choose, but course design must not give you the opportunity to shoot all targets from a single location or view.
Hope this helps and clarifies.
-
So if you put hits on the moving target, and then forget to activate it, the rule does not allow the hits to be scored?
Correct.
Incorrect.
Presuming the activator is a popper, if you shoot the would-be moving targets without activating the activator, your shots on the moving targets would indeed count for score, however you would get a miss on the activator popper (and a "failure to shoot" penalty if you didn't even try to shoot the activating popper).
On the other hand, if the activator for the moving targets was, say, a lever, then you obviously can't get a miss or "failure to shoot" penalty, but you might incur a procedural penalty (depending upon the written stage briefing).
In or out of the box?
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
For disagreeing, No. For disobeying, Yes.
In my haste to deal with some of my fans here, I failed to quote the following:
3.2.3 The Range Master may modify a written stage briefing at any time for reasons of clarity, consistency or safety (see Section 2.3).
Hence, if the written stage briefing was vague (e.g. "gun on table"), and the evil RO denied a competitor's request to stand his gun erect (or propped) on the table, the competitor could be a nice chap and go with the flow like everyone else or he could throw a hissy fit and demand to see the RM.
When the RM arrives and asks his RO "Did you allow any other competitors to place their guns erect (or propped) on the table?", and the evil RO replies in the negative, the RM would most likely use the provisions of Rule 3.2.3 to amend the written stage briefing to "gun on it's side on the table", in order to maintain consistency and to obviate similar requests, so we're back to square 1.
Bottom line: My advice is for everyone to be good sportsman and go with the flow.