ivanhu

Oops, I've pressed that button a bit early. I also was going to add: However, the Rules Committee indeed may consider to define the proper commands in case of "hot range stages", when the shooter shoots more than one stage, but scoring takes place only when all of the corresponding stages have been shot. However, I guess the only necessary commands would be: "If you are finished, apply safety and holster". This command instructs the competitor to holster his gun as specified in 8.1, and after securing the gun in the holster, the shooter must cross his arms above his chest. This command is then should be followed by the "Move to the next position". This command instructs the competitor to go to the starting position of the next specified stage. Upon arriving, he still remains with arms crossed above his chest. From now on, the RO might start as usual: "Load and make ready" - and then the shooter may do as he wishes...

Ladies and Gentlemen, please let me remind you all what the 6.1.1 paragraph says: 6.1.1 String – A separately timed and scored component of a Standard Exercise. Scores and penalties are recorded following completion of each string, and results achieved in each string are then tallied to produce a final stage result (also see Rule 9.5.5). Therefore, unless you're going to score the string so that the shooter is still loaded (which is not absolutely impossible, just creates a lot of other headaches), the regular command order will do: IYAF,UASC - IC,HD,H - RC; then score the string; then go to the next string and issue the command LAMR - and all the rest. Also, some quoted the obsolete version of the IC,HD,H command. Now we should say "If Clear, Hammer Down, Holster", and not to declare "Gun Clear". However, since AFAIK, USPSA wants to overrule the 6.1.1, therefore USPSA also might consider to define the necessary additional commands, too.

Well, here in Europe the local rules differ from country to country, so it's better to check with the RD of the country you're going to visit. However, in most every countries, it's OK to travel with the gun as long as your unloaded gun is locked in the bag, the ammo is separated from the gun (not in the same locked bag), and each and every magazine is empty. Using a gun in a country, that's another story, for that you might need special permits - the match organizers, or the RD of that country might help you in that. But again, there are many different local rules, so the best is if you contact the RD.

Hi Vince, you said Well, first of all - why not? He'll claim that you've totally ruined his preparation with that warning, which indeed is not a safety issue therefore it is considered to be an illegal interference, bla-bla-bla. (I know that very few ArbComm will accept this reasoning, but...) Were I stop him, and let him restart from the LAMR, this reasoning is invalid - I didn't interfere in his preparation time, which has been started with the second LAMR. Apparently, but IMHO the RO is not there to disturb the shooter. It was the IROA level 2 RO course instructor who told us that even the finger warning is improper and should be avoided. I've accepted his reasoning. Kinda like a policeman stopping you and saying that when you crossed the crossroads you've "almost" caused an accident just because several seconds earlier another car came crosswise. Similarly, that finger is either in or out. There's no such thing as "almost in" or "quite close". Those constant cries coming from the nervous RO really might bother the shooter, and might cause him to shoot well below his abilities. I've seen way too many nervous ROs who cried "finger" whenever they've lost their eye-contact with the shooter's gun (yup, unexperienced ROs they were - but we really shouldn't encourage this behaviour). Another point. I am one of those who's able to totally keep out the outside World if I want to and concentrate only on those factors that I pick. That means, were I running with the gun and were the RO keep shouting "finger, finger" frequently, I'd keep him out from my mind. That means that I won't be able to hear the range commands any more! Suppose he discovers a danger downrange and tries to stop me. He'd be unable to do that verbally - he could make it only with physical contact. Since I'm not the only one who can do that - I do think that an RO who too frequently gives verbal "safety warnings" is actually a dangerous and "not-that-good" RO (I'd hezitate to say in public that they're "wrong" ROs, although that's exactly what I actually think). Emphasis is on the "too frequently" - but you see, who and how will and possibly could decide what's considered to be "just too much"? Another point - suppose the RO gives two "finger" warnings to a shooter, but will DQ the next competitor for having the finger in at the first occurrance. Since it's not enough if we're impartial and fair, we also must look to be impartial and fair (another guideline the RO courses give) - don't you think that the second (DQed) shooter will say that he was "screwed", and the previous one was perhaps the "liebling" (favourite) or friend of the RO? Maybe he'll just think that, but the doubt is there, so the RO doesn't look to be impartial and fair. And another - suppose it's the shooter's behaviour that he removes his finger, but it remains "quite close". The RO should cry "finger" how many times during a long stage? Every time the shooter moves, let's say, four or five times? Or, were the shooter still "close", should the RO DQ him at the second occurrance according to the "if this shooter never learns" approach (remember, the RO is not sure, and were it not the second case he would only cry "finger")? I know you say that the DQ is not due in this case - but then, what's the purpose of the "finger" warning? The shooter will take more care perhaps - but in most cases, he will behave exactly as he always does, and his finger will be exactly in the same position (especially in case of experienced shooters; in case of newbies, the finger warning may have some ground). I could continue, but IMHO it's endless and therefore should be abandoned. But here comes the subtitle of this thread - do we need a common policy? I think IROA should provide a common ruling, a guideline, how the RO should handle these non-safety warning issues, plus what safety issues are proper and when (and how many times) during a single COF. (Also, were the decision is that "in-COF" non-safety warnings are proper, I'd suggest some words to be added to the 8.6.1, too.) Otherwise, different ROs in different countries will be taught differently, and that's something that nobody wants. Well, suppose I'll cut that single target into two, and will place them side by side, with a small gap between. I guess it's legal - but how can you possibly apply Rule 10.2.7 if the shooter shoots only twice when two on each was required?

Well - it'd be a suicide for the USPSA BOD to fully adopt the IPSC divisions, and IPSC just doesn't like some of the limited regulations... and don't even mention the L10. However - what wrong it does? Most of the USPSA limited guys shoot only on USPSA matches; the IPSC standard division equipment AFAIK fully complies the limited rules; those few USPSA members who shoot in other countries have to do but a few adjustments (and in USA, even buying just one more gun is not that big a problem at all) - so who cares?

Vince, please consider 8.6.1 (assistance/interference), and 8.3.1 (when the COF starts). Since the 8.7.x rules are hardly safety issues, and since the shooter after the LAMR is in fact "during the COF", therefore I see some contradicts with the above interpretation - the RO has no right to disturb the shooter other than for safety issues, and if he does, that could be ground for the shooter to have a reshoot. Objections? Me too, however, risk management teaches that increasing the number of things that should go wrong in order to suffer an incident means higher safety. Well, during my IROA level II course, it was told us that the "finger", and other such warnings should be avoided - the only reasonable one is the "safety angle", because we really don't want a loaded gun to point on any creature during our matches. In other words, the warning is proper only if the risk is immediate and high, but in case of finger, it was either in (then it's a clear DQ) or out (and in this case it's unnecessary to disturb the shooter). It was years ago - did IROA change the recommendations since?

Jim, the solution is basically pretty simple, although it needs positive waves on your part; if you're bombarding yourself with negative waves, then of course it's harder to concentrate on the "hows" because of the "whys"... More seriously, I personally will advise the clubs here to "waste more money", and give one more sheet to the shooters: the equipment control sheet. The RO collects these sheets when the squad arrives, and gives it back when everybody has finished. This sheet is the best place to mark the penalties on. It helps to keep track the DQs as well - noone is allowed to shoot a stage without this paper. This sheet also helps to check the equipment and the division of the shooter - which is another important goal IMHO. The extra cost of one more paper can't be that high...

Dear Friends, well, since it's all too quiet here, and since I have to hold an RO postgraduate course in April, I thought I ask you all to help me to clarify a few (perhaps minor) issues. (Well, it's not exactly a "rules question" - rather, the "what should the RO do" sort of. Yet, I guess this is the best forum for it - if I'm wrong, pls direct me to the correct forum). This time I'm going to present the 8.7.1 - 8.7.3 rules. That is, sight pictures. During the range simulations, I'm going to test whether the RO will catch me out to break one of these rules, and even if he does, how he reacts. So, the first I had to consider, what are the possibilities for the RO? Well, the first option is to do nothing, but after the course of fire has finished, warn the shooter (or assess the penalty, as the case might be). Second option is to cry "no sight pictures are allowed" in case of 8.7.2, or similar warning depending on the rule broken, then, after the COF has finished, warn the shooter (or ...). Third option is to issue the "Stop!" order, then give the "safety on, holster" (unofficial) command, warn the shooter by telling him/her what he/she did wrong, then restart from "load and make ready". After the COF has finished, assess the penalty if needed (and/or accomplish the warning administration). Fourth option is basically the same as the third, but this time use only the official commands - that is, after stopping the shooter, issue the "unload and show clear", and when he/she has holstered the (empty) gun, continue as was written in the third option. First question is - anybody thinks I missed any option? (Despite the obvious one that the RO won't even catch me out to break the rule). The second question is - what options are valid? IMHO, despite the second, all the other three might be argued for (IMHO, it's a wrong idea to say anything to the shooter while he/she has a loaded gun in his/her hands - it might divert his/her attention, might turn to ask "what did you say", etc. - as a minimum, let him/her freeze first by the "Stop" command). OK, supposing that we all agree in this, the third question is - should the ROs pick their favourite out of the three remaining, or should we encourage to set up a standard? And (supposing that we need a standard behaviour) the fourth question is, which one should be The Standard? My favourite is perhaps the third option, the less favourite is the first, and the least is the fourth (and the second, as you have seen above, IMHO is out of question), but maybe it's just me. Whaddy guys think?

Well, I've seen a stage in Komarno (Slovakia) where the shooter stood behind the barricade made of transparent polyethilene, and all the targets were placed behind that cover. One was able to estimate where the targets are, but it was like the heavy fog. However, this stage was very different on morning than it was afternoon. It's not the same whether the sun is shining from behind the shooter, or from the opposite. In the later case, the plastic was shining, hiding the targets more.

Well, not that I'd like to use soft covers that frequently, however, in the past it was legal to have a non-transparent soft cover, if other props gave a hint where the targets are. For example, suppose I use black plastic as the soft cover; the target is at ground level; above the target, there's a penalty target (both are held by the same target stand); the two targets are not overlap; and the black plastic is high only to cover the bottom one-third of the penalty target. In this setup, although the shooters cannot see the target through the soft cover, they can quite precisely estimate its location. Now its apparently illegal, if "obscure" means that the obscured objects must show through but not necessarily clearly. That "the stars are obscured by clouds" means that the starts are still visible, but not clearly? I wouldn't translate it to Hungarian that way, because that's quite rarely happens, the cloud usually covers the star so that the later won't be visible at all. As for the many holes; use two reels to hold the black plastic, and the black plastic (which is like a continuous belt) should be rolled after each shooter. Then the holes won't reveal the position of the target any better for the Nth shooter than they did for the very first.

Which requirement is stronger? Suppose it's a short course (8 rounds minimum), should I deduct -8 or -10 points?

So, the penalty could be any multiple of the -10, but cannot exceed the 20% of the points actually shot. Thanks!

A good question. But my answer is simple: that's a USPSA rule, not an IPSC one, so if the USPSA BOD thinks that in case of large holes the reshoot is due, they'll amend this IPSC rule, too. More seriously, IMHO the difference is who's responsible for that large hole. In case of untaped target, the shooter is not guilty for sure. In case of hitting the edge of the prop, the shooter is guilty - after all, it was he who hit that prop. But you see, IMHO the IPSC version is actually better - it orders the reshoot only if it is not obvious to the Range Officer which hits were made by the competitor. The miss is a "hit" (or the lack thereof), so if it's obvious that the shooter's "hit" is scored as a miss, because there's no hole with the right caliber, then that's the correct call. Some shooters sometimes say "but I saw that hole and thought that it's a hit". Okay, but I won't score by the shooter's thoughts - I'll score by the visible hits. The shooter is responsible for all the shots he takes - if he cannot tell that it was a miss, then it's his problem, next time he'll aim more carefully. Now, may I claim for the "bastard operator from hell" title? After all, I do work as a system administrator...

Vince, I know you've answered this question already, but I still don't understand. Maybe it's not just me, so let me ask it again in public. 10.2.11.1 says a minimum of one procedural penalty, up to a maximum penalty of 20% of the competitor's points “as shot” (rounded up to the nearest whole number), will be deducted. Then, we see an example where exactly 20% is deducted. I have more questions about that. Minimum of "one Procedural Penalty" - does it mean "procedure error"? If yes, then it's value is fixed: it's -10 points (10.1.2.) If not, then why that "minimum of one" clause was necessary? What would the "two procedural penalty" mean? Or three? Now I guess it meant not to be "procedure error". In this case that "minimum of one" is rather confusing, and the rule should read instead "the procedural penalty, up to ..." So far, so good - so go further. In the example given, the very last sentence ends by saying the special penalty is a deduction of 18 points. This, IMHO, emphasizing the fact that the penalty might actually be less than 20%, should say the special penalty is a deduction of no more than 18 points. Also, the ceil is 20%, but what's the floor of the penalty? Minus one point will do? Or the zero also qualifies? Or that "minimum of one procedural penalty" actually means "minimum of one point"? Because in this case, the intended meaning would be easier to understand were it read as "a minimum of one point procedural penalty, up to ...". If I'm wrong and it's "procedure error", then I'll have an other question.

If you ask me, that should be scored as a miss. In this case, we might make fewer mistakes as if we'd do on the other way, and would score it as a hit (besides, suppose there's a scoring line nearby, how can you decide whether it's the lower or the higher value if there's no bullet mark to check against the scoring line). I mean, the possibility that it's "a hit on that hole" is much less than the possibility that it's a miss. Were we score it as a hit, we'd screw all the other competitors on that match; therefore, this interpretation means that we'll make a mistake to not give the shooter a deserved hit one times vs. those several cases when we do not make the mistake and give the shooter the deserved miss penalty. So I'd prefer to score it as a miss. There's no visual evidence that a bullet passed through that hole, therefore it's a miss. Clear, simple, and IMHO fair enough.

Lord Vader, I like this definition of yours. We definitely should somehow decide what do we deem to be a hit. Will we ever able to find a perfect definition? Perhaps not. But then, who cares? That's not unprecedented that some sports pin down exact and absolute definitions. The definition above won't cover each and every case for sure, and sometimes we won't score a deserved hit. But it covers most of the possible cases, and if you recall how do you work on the stage today, it's quite close to the definition above. Recall, for example, the football: the ball must pass the line with full extend, otherwise it's not scored. Is there a room for personal judgment on the part of the referee? Certainly is. We're even in a much better position: we don't have to judge in a fragment of a second, we have ample time to decide. Shred: As for the extreme-angle shots, the RO will see the "visible evidence within the remnants of the hole" that it indeed is a hit, so I see no problems here. Skywalker, We too use piles of tyres sometimes, therefore I understand the problem. However, as I see it, we might easily decide that in addition to that "fully or partially penetrates the barricade" rule, the hits caused by bullets that distorted enough by the impact on the edge of the prop won't count for score either. These two rules won't contradict each other - they just simply co-exist. Today, some ROs will say that "this hole is big enough, so maybe your bullet has travelled through the target here", which, in my opinion, is the wrong application of the "benefit of doubt" rule. The suggested amendment will be clear that only those holes count where the RO sees the evidence that it's a bullet hole. The RO is still there to decide, but with less ground for the personal interpretations.

Well, I perhaps have a few, rather safety issues. Always check what's behind the paper targets - rocks, trees, other hard surfaces might cause ricochets. If you have low (and rather close) targets, the shots will hit the surface and not the backstop/side berm, then you should know that after several shooters, a small hole will be formed. That hole also might cause ricochets in the long run. This might be prevented if, before the very first shot has taken, we raise a small "hill" behind these targets, to catch the bullets (or put these targets higher). That hill might be several tyres in a column, filled with sand. If you cannot build such "auxiliary berms", then check the terrain behind these targets more frequently during the run, and take steps if necessary to avoid ricochets. If the stage requires movements that more or less sidewise, check whether the side berm is long enough to stop the bullet - just in case, you know. Check the edges of the ports. There shouldn't be nails, screws, other sharp objects nearby, not even on the back side of the ports. One for the consistency: Read and check the written briefing, and debug it for loopholes, and bad wording. Check whether you have all that is needed for the correct start position. Sounds obvious, doesn't it? One for the others: Check what's above the ports. The gases from the ports and compensators might (and will) tear off the pourly fixed papers, clothes, etc. One for the DQ traps: If there are ports facing not directly downrange, and the shooter will move forward from these ports, take a note and warm the shooters that their gun might stick on the edge of the port when they run forward, resulting a 90 degree violance and DQ. I hope these are not all obvious...

Nik, Thanks, I fully understand what it means, what I don't understand, why do we need to emphasize this one case, if the first sentence alone counts: failing to comply means one procedural, regardless why the competitor failed to comply (with the exceptions specifically mentioned later). And since cocking the hammer means that the first shot won't be double action, therefore the one PE is already determined.

Vince, I don't really understand what's the purpose of this sentence. If the first sentence (first shot must be double action) is an all-inclusive one, then why we need this second? If someone cocks the hammer, then he won't shoot double action. Therefore, the first sentence already covers this case - this second sentence is unnecessary, and confusing - one might think that the penalty should be assessed ONLY in this case, and that the first sentence is not an absolute rule.

OK, Vince, I have to accept your reasoning, and I'll act accordingly on the stages. However, please take a note that this part of the rule book should be somehow reconsidered in the future, because this interpretation has one serious consequence: we might see shooters who'll try to decock their guns in the run. It won't happen frequently, I allow. But since the exception clausa specifically mentions that this "first shot must be double action" shouldn't be enforced if the stage briefing orders the "un-chambered start", I guess that the intent here is to avoid decocking in the run.

Well, thanks for all for all your time. You've echoed my dark thoughts... Vince, you wrote: Fine, but the text continues, and the next sentence specifically defines when to assess the penalty. It says Competitors in this Division who, after the issuance of the start signal and prior to making the first shot, cock the hammer on a handgun which has a loaded chamber, will incur one procedural penalty per occurrence. Therefore, IMHO, it's not just the general case - whoever does not follow the first sentence will be penalized; rather, we have the clear(?) guideline when to penalize. Problem is, that in this case, that's not that happens - none of the shooters has ever clocked the hammer on a handgun which has a loaded chamber. This sentence IMHO makes the difference - the first one you've quoted pins down a fact, and the next one defines when should the penalty be assessed. So, the real question is, what was the real purpose of this rule? To exclude the SA guns? Fine. Then, it'd be unfair to let some shooters use selective actions and others the double actions. Fine. But then, we already reached this intended purpose, therefore, if someone makes a mistake (forget to chamber a round), wastes his own time (tries to pull the trigger), then he already has got the due penalty - the wasted time. But if someone deliberately avoids chambering a round, then he's gooing to circumvent a rule - that should be discouraged and penalized. So I personally think that we should rule according to that Garfield suggested. Regardless, the mere fact that experienced ROs debate over my hypothetical scenario means that we need an Authority to pin down: this is the sentence of the High Court, follow it! I'll do on either way - but we all should do on the same way. Thanks again for everybody. Now let Lord of Sith to judge now... Best Regards,

Hi Friends, first of all, thanks for the warm welcome. Now let me present a small (?) problem that annoys me for a while now. Suppose we have a production shooter appearing on the line. The gun ready condition is that per the rules - chambering is allowed. He forgets to chamber a round. After the signal, he tries to pull the trigger, and nothing happens. He realizes that he forgot to chamber the round, so he cycles the slide, then starts to shoot. Therefore, the shooter failed to agree the "first shot must be double action" requirement. However, he didn't "cock the hammer on a handgun which has a loaded chamber" - and this is the only case when the PE should be assessed. Am I right to understand that no penalty should be assessed in this case? Now suppose the very same scenario, but this time the production shooter deliberately omits to chamber a round. After the draw, he cycles the gun, and starts to shoot. Since he again did not "cock the hammer on a handgun which has a loaded chamber", therefore I do not have to assess the penalty. Am I right? The question, for me, is even more vital, because here the duty carry state of the handgun for the LE people is empty chamber, loaded mag in - and they want to shoot production with selective action handguns. Question is, whether I understand the rules regulating the production division well.

I've just discovered this thread, and being one who actually has experience with the forward falling poppers (several years before we had quite a few here in Hungary), let me ask a question. First of all, our FFPs basically followed the design I've seen on the first page of this thread. Now the question is, how could you prevent that a lower hit would cause its fall? Basically, as long as the FFP just moves a millimeter, the hook falls, and then the popper falls. So, how to calibrate it? With the FFPs, the real problem is not, as was the case with the backward falling ones, to have a popper that won't fall - au contrary, the problem is that if'll fall even on the slightest touch, eg when a fly rocks its head on it We were experiencing to have the hook and the holder edged (that is, when the popper moves, they just move, the hook is a bit lowered but still holds the popper), however, we were unable to find any "easy to calibrate" solution. Obviously, we're not the wisest technicians in the Universe, so is there anybody here who has found a working solution? I'd like to hear about it, because "otherwise", the FFPs are much safer than the BFPs, so I'd be eager to use them. Best Regards,