Saffer
-
Posts
49 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Saffer
-
-
I have updated the original comparison to highlight one of the differences in Rule 1.1.5.1, namely; that IPSC does not use shooting boxes, except in Classifiers. I have also added USPSA Rule 2.2.1.4, pointing out that fault lines and shooting boxes should not be used at prone shooting positions. This does not apply to IPSC.
-
I've been repeatedly emailing, and nothing gets answered. I'm very disappointed. It's a blatant disregard of existing customers.
-
I think we're all on the same page, since we're all applying the rules the same way. I guess what I was looking for was a succinct explanation that clearly removed any doubt, and explained why. That nugget I've managed to glean from the feedback, thanks. Here's what I've gleaned.
Rule 10.1.1 applies to the WSB procedure, or the act AFTER the start signal, and therefore cannot be applied to actions prior to the start signal.
Rules 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 pertain to preparedness, and must be adhered to BEFORE the start signal. The reason we do not intervene on a loaded start, as per Rule 8.1, is because we allow for a LOWER level of preparedness. This also explains why we do intervene on an unloaded start; because we NEVER allow a HIGHER level of preparedness than specified in the WSB.
So there are two parts to the WSB, each with its own set of rules; PREPAREDNESS and PROCEDURE.
-
8.1.3 defines what an unloaded gun condition is. For unloaded starts its best to have some verbiage like "....gun is unloaded and holstered per rule 8.1.3". Adding this to the WSB makes it crystal clear what the gun condition requirement is and the rule that supports the requirement.
As an RO who has run into this more times than I can remember, my immediate response to the shooter after the make ready command is given and I see them putting a mag in the gun is "Its an unloaded start". This reminds them of the start condition requirements and they comply willingly. If they refuse to make ready with a legal unloaded gun condition I simply won't start them and ask them to unload and show clear so I can get onto the next shooter. If the shooter refuses to comply with the start position or gun ready condition requirements defined in the WSB then their only option is to not shoot the stage and take a DNF for the stage.
I agree, and it's how I've always operated. But is this the correct procedure? Are we disadvantaging the other competitors? Why not allow the competitor to continue, given that it was crystal clear, and then penalise him as per Rule 10.1.1?
-
Your picture looks like mark from canada that worked at area 1 on stage 11-ish?
It is
8.2.1 is very explicit that the handgun ready condition is a component of the competitor ready condition. If the handgun is not in the proper ready condition, you shouldn't start the competitor (unless it's the very specific exception in 8.1, where the competitor fails to chamber a round for a loaded start).
I'm not sure about "very explicit", but I tend to agree with you. However, it could go both ways.
I would not start them. I would remind them that it is an unloaded start.
If the start is loaded and holstered I have yet to see the shooter fail to at least draw their gun when given the command to Make Ready. If they fail to insert a magazine or Barney up and fail to insert a full mag then they have at least made an effort to put the gun into the proper condition. In the case of loading up for an unloaded start they have gone past the approved ready condition and need to be corrected.
I have put together unloaded start stages and I have had at least one shooter if not more who out of habit have loaded up at Make Ready. Most catch it right away, some have to be reminded.
Let me be clear. I have never been confronted by other competitors complaining that pointing out that a start is unloaded is unfair. However, this past weekend a fellow RO was confronted, which got me thinking. I think it would be unreasonable to apply Rule 10.1.1, but it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is how the rules are interpreted and implemented.
-
My course of action has always been to not allow the competitor to start, because the Start Position was incorrect. But Start Position is defined as "The location, shooting position and stance prescribed by a COF prior to issuance of the start signal", which says nothing about the Gun Ready Condition.
I have also used the logic that failing to load, a competitor disadvantages himself and therefore I do not intervene, besides it's stipulated in Rule 8.1. However, loading for an unloaded start, the competitor unfairly advantages himself, so I intervene. But this may be wrong, and I may be disadvantaging the other competitors by intervening at that point.
What about applying Rule 10.1.1?
-
The WSB stipulates gun is unloaded and holstered. The competitor comes to the line and loads his gun. What do you do? Before you answer, bear Rule 8.1 in mind, which describes the converse.
-
I have updated the original comparison to include the differences on Rule 8.2.2, namely; what happens when a competitor assumes an incorrect start position.
-
Each miss (or Mike) is approximately the equivalent of 3 second (depending on where your skill set falls). So to take two Mikes, you would need to be about 6 seconds faster on your time. On a long COF, with two difficult shots, it may be worth the risk. But that's up to you to decide. In my experience, it is rarely worth not taking the shot.
-
Rule 9.5.7 "A competitor who fails to shoot at the face of each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target for failure to shoot at the target, as well as appropriate penalties for misses."
IMO, no FTE. He had already engaged that target during the COF. It doesn't get treated as a new target. It's just the sequence in which he engaged the targets, that was specified.
-
I have updated the original comparison to include the differences on Rule 3.2.2.
-
To be clear; demonstrating a start position isn't part of the USPSA rulebook, but is common practice, to clarify a WSB. You're still free to argue your point.
If, however, you participate in IPSC, which you may do in Frostproof, FL, 2014, Rule 3.2.2 includes demonstration as part of the stage briefing. That eliminates any arguing.
-
Right. At the risk of stating the obvious, and assuming we're not talking about the default start position, which is really what the OP was. If the start position is specified in the WSB, then that is what it is (demonstrated or not). If the WSB omits to mention hand position, then you're free to put your hands wherever you like, subject to the rules. If the start position is demonstrated, in order to clarify the WSB description, and is contrary to your interpretation of the WSB, you can seek further clarity from the RM. If the start position isn't demonstrated, you are still free to interpret the start position as you wish, and either the RO won't start you, in which case you can consult the RM, or your action will be fine, or it may be declared a Forbidden Action. Let me also be clear, no RO would intentionally demonstrate a start position that is not in the WSB. So if hands are not specified, he isn't going to demonstrate a hand position. He may demonstrate a location or position, but not emphasise stance.
-
Unless specified or demonstrated, it is as per 8.2.2 and demonstrated by Appendix E3.
-
Yes, Kevin, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't do the Divisional comparisons because those are in the Appendices. It's easy enough to print the separate Appendices and supplement them with this comparison. But you're right, don't forget the Appendices, especially Production and Classic/Single Stack.
-
Thanks Jeff and Scott. I got tired of switching between games, and not having something easy to refer to. So I did a page by page comparison. What it lacks is how some of the rules are interpreted, and how these may differ. These will be done over time.
-
With 2014 drawing closer, and many of you perhaps contemplating competing in the IPSC World Championships, in Frostproof Florida, it will become necessary to gain a better understanding of the rule differences. There are some key differences, and perhaps more than you realise.
I am both a USPSA and IPSC competitor. I also have certification for both games; CRO for IPSC and RO for USPSA. Although, for the most part, I don't know most of you, I have worked and shot some of the big matches (Florida Open, Area 1, US IPSC Nationals).
Long story short, I have compiled a document highlighting the differences. This is available for download, from scribd, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/144970593/Differences-Between-USPSA-and-IPSC-Rule-Books. It is a work in progress, and I would appreciate feedback, so that revisions can be made, in order for this to be a "go to" document for competitors or officials alike.
-
Yes you could.
-
J.L.H I notice that the spacers are all 170mm these days. If I am fitting to a 140mm mag, with a Dawson +1 basepad, what is your suggested length? Do I measure and cut to fit on the basepad ledge?
-
Surprised none of you mentioned the sleeveless shooting jacket from CED. I've used it in Canada and it works very well, without interfering with your equipment.
-
At least El Prez can still be shot at league nights here!
Saffer, our qualifiers (e.g. the one coming up at TSE) are level 3, is that correct?
A league night is a training session, and has nothing to do with IPSC, or USPSA for that matter. We can do whatever we like. As for our qualifiers; these are basically club matches which count towards your Provincial ranking. They are either Level I or II matches.
Maybe we should start to market USPSA as a world wide organization?
Maybe USPSA should, but that doesn't negate having changes made that upset people. The recent changes to production division, within USPSA, has kicked up quite a stink itself. So no organisation is immune to criticism.
Last year, I heard of some Canadians who were considering switching over their club to follow USPSA rules rather the IPSC rules.
True, and often these are impulse reactions to rule changes, which I have indicated affects both organisations. The obvious benefit to Canada joining USPSA is that many of us shoot USPSA matches anyway.
-
Well I'm not going to rush to judgement. During the Canadian winters I spend a lot of time setting up indoor stages too. I am concerned about the potential impact, but I understand what they are trying to achieve (simplification through the use of freestyle). So I will give it a chance. Who knows, without trying, progress can't be made.
-
I wondered the same thing Mark.
In essence you are only taking 6 shots from one position ..... then performing a MANDATORY RELOAD, then taking another 6 shots from one position.
But I tend to agree with you that it's still not allowed.
I took it up at GV; a standing reload is not deemed as a position change. So El Presidente is dead, except for Level I and II matches, where round count can be varied.
-
Yep, Chris, and guess who Mark is? But I think flexibility on round count limitations will be a combination of relaxing the balance recommendations, and allowing larger round counts.
As for the 9 round rule, would a mag change constitute a position change? I doubt it based on rule 8.5.1.2.
Differences Between IPSC and USPSA Rules
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
So, by your reasoning, the OP is to blame? As they say in the classics, no good deed goes unpunished.
Scribd is the largest digital library on the internet, easy to use, and affords me the benefit of only updating one source. Why am I even explaining this?
If the moderators want to remove the link, they're welcome to. It doesn't affect me. Although over 800 readers, who have already benefited from this handbook, would beg to differ.