Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About nasty618

  • Rank
    Looks for Target

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Real Name
    Mike Shatalov

Recent Profile Visitors

332 profile views
  1. Has anyone been able to get in touch with the Federal rep whose email was listed in the most recent match communication (Jason Spradling - jason.spradling@vistaoutdoor.com) ? I tried several times over the last 12 days and no reply... Is there a different POC for this? Thanks!
  2. Thank you sir. After some rule reading, it looks like CO will, in fact, translate to ESP and effectively to CDP, SSP and CCP as well. PCC probably not, based on my limited research.
  3. I have not shot IDPA in a while... I was EX in ESP and as a result - in CDP, SSP and CCP. To be honest, i still have a very vague idea of what the differences are or what those letters even mean.... But i do know that IDPA now recognizes Carry Optics and PCC Question: If i shoot a classifier in CO or PCC, will that score apply to the other divisions mentioned above as well? Other than having to study the rules, would it be possible to get a quick answer from someone who know more about this stuff? Thank you in advance!
  4. I don't treat a classifier match as a "real match" in terms of competition, personally. For me, it's a convenient opportunity to either get a quick classification in a new division or to bring up your current division percentage. So I don't care much about overall match results or competitive equity... However, I do care deeply that all stages are set up and ran correctly and a stage is not thrown out. At this match two stages were thrown out, due to exactly these issues - lack of updated materials and match officials lack of knowledge. It is also not ok when you're forced to lose .25 or more on a 2.5 second run due to the incorrectly interpreted order of target engagement. Lesson learned, the match is the second one on my list that I will not be attending again any time soon. There are other significant reasons why, but this one was also important.
  5. "Shooters were told" vs "WSB wording"... I am not sure what's causing the misunderstanding here.
  6. As I said, I'm quoting the actual WSB of the classifier. I do not have any older versions of the classifier available to me but the official language of the WSB in question is/was the same. That is: "...engage T1 and PP1-4..."
  7. That's not what I quoted... I quoted the actual WSB.
  8. At a recent all classifier match, on Bang and Clang (99-62), shooters were forced to engage targets in a specific order. They were told to engage T1 first, then P1-4. Several shooters protested this, pointing out that the WSB wording: "...engage T1 and PP1-4..." does not indicate an order of engagement and further relying on 1.1.5. One of the CROs(actual) interpreted the classifier WSB as "well, why would they (USPSA) specifically call out the targets instead of just saying engage targets as they become visible?" and stated that Standards can require a shooting order. When countered that 99-62 is not a Standard exercise and asked to describe the primary differences between the two, the CRO said he's not doing it and walked away. He refused to take a look at the rule book when one of the shooters asked him to do so. After the protest, three CROs (the other two were the local club's MDs/RMs) got together and discussed the situation, upholding the original order of engagement. Thoughts?
  9. Agreed 100%. Either a thing is defined or it's left open for personal interpretation. I think it (level of tolerance) should be defined.
  10. I did exactly that to my RMI at a match recently
  11. Makes sense, thank you. Curious if there were any other examples that people could share where similar scenarios happened with local clubs. Of course, with respect to privacy and anonymity, if needed.
  12. Why not directly with the Prez and DNROI?
  13. I am splitting from this thread to avoid hijacking that topic ... but i am interested in hearing about other's thoughts and experiences on this. I seem to recall either an RO seminar discussion or a thread on here where the general consensus was - yes you can be banned from the club, but you cannot be denied entry into a USPSA match as a member in good standing if the club wants to keep their affiliation. So here is what i would like to know. How much can a club get away with and is section 3.3 just a paper tiger when it comes to enforcement of local club policies? Here is a example: a local club denies entry into their USPSA match to classified USPSA members in good standing who have never been to that club, citing that the competitor doesnt have L2 or higher experience and/or have not taken a USPSA intro course approved by the club. There is no Prez approval on file with the HQ for this. They also seem to apply this rule selectively as 95% of people at that club dont know what Level 2 match is, much less have participated in one. Has any club ever lost their affiliation for stuff like that? Probably not... but maybe they've been given a slap on the wrist at least? I mean it's clear that there is a symbiosis - USPSA needs club money, club needs match money... so is it really in organization's best interest to "discipline" a club that's repeatedly enforcing their local rules, overriding section 3.3?
  14. I have zero patience for those, but often being a guest it's not an option to tell them to go scram... so i smile and nod until they walk away. It's alarming though how many of them seem to have a sixth sense and can tell that inside you are laughing at them... They somehow get re-inspired and keep driving their points across
  • Create New...