George Jones

Dave is correct. The rule has matured over the years for all of the hypothetical scnarios which have been mentioned. It may not be perfect, but it provides a sound balance between all the variables (rain/wind/muzzle blast knocking off pasters - shooter knowingly trying to get an undeserved reshoot - the visible evidence available to the RO - avoiding unneccessary reshoots - etc).

And the rulebook says: 4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Was the course of fire equitably presented to the shooter? The rulebook is written "in context". You cannot parse out a single sentence and twist it to fit your opinion. You need to read the whole paragraph, including the paragraph title. A specific rule (91.14) always takes precedence over a generic one anyway. The fact remains that 4.6.1 does not apply. But what do I know.

Historically, that has been the Director of NROI.

For those of you who follow these rules threads..... I've been preoccupied with a new job issue (I just got it). It has been distracting me for a couple of weeks. I've been rushing throught these threads on some occasions and some of you may have noticed. I'll try to be more attentive to detail (like we all are when on the range). Now back to the regularly schduled discussion.

Then what about 1.2.1.2 Says mediums can be no more than 16 rounds... this cof is 18 Then see 1.1.5.1 1.1.5.1 Level I matches may use shooting boxes and specify where or when specific target arrays may be engaged, and may specify mandatory reloads in short and medium courses only (not in a long course). See what I mean? It's happened again! You are correct.

He states level I... Also, it's more than 16, so that makes it large and therefore illegal as well, or am I missing something? I missed the Level I part (I'm doing that a lot lately). 1.1.5.4 Medium or Long courses of fire may stipulate the use of either strong or weak hand, provided that only one hand, either strong or weak, is specified for no more than the last six (6) shots required. This would be a long course, so single hand can be done as long as it's for the last six. As a Level I, he can specify target engagements. He is not requiring reloads so he's OK there as well.

I believe in following the rulebook. That is the true measure of equity for all shooters. I do not believe in making it up because it feels good.

It would also be important to know whether this is a Level I match. If it's a Level II or higher the stage is not legal on several fronts. It could be legal for Level I if the previously mentioned strong/weak hand (pick one, not both) was reduced to the last six shots required.

This rule does not apply. Nothing failed to function. The only applicable rule is 9.1.4 You can't shoe horn it into 4.6.1 when 9.1.4 addresses it specifically. It is best to not give reshoots. To do so would imply that you are knowingly benefiting the shooter by your call. We all know reshoots can be good or they can be very bad. With one exception, you require reshoots in compliance with the rules.

The "other issues" are covered in 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 To paraphrase the famous Flex.... "It's what the rule says, not what you think it should say."

You just don't know. A reshoot can be trashed and result in a lower score. The key is to make the call based on the rules. 1 - That target could be scored. No reshoot 2 - Rule 4.6.1 deals with failures and malfunctions. There were none. No reshoot. An unpasted hit in hardcover is no different than an unpasted hit in the scoring area. A shooter is just as likely to pause/hesitate in either case. There is no rule which calls for a reshoot under either circumstance. As described in the scenario, the RO made the correct call. Prevention (paste 'em all) is the best medicine.

Hmmm...... No set of rules is ever "perfect". Even those that are will result in disagreement from somewhere. In any case, there are a whole lot of holes remaining in that list. It may appear easy to write a clear rule, but that's only because the writer knows what he means. The trick is for the rule to mean the same to everyone. That takes detail (volume of words). As soon as you get to that point, someone complains that the rulebook is too thick and it should be reduced. You can't win, I tell ya.

http://www.uspsa.org/rules/nroi_rulings.ph...dit&indx=31 "Magazines are not considered as a component to a manufactured handgun under this provision, only the handgun and the parts (components) to build it. Magazines are considered an accessory for this special condition. ......" ETA: This applies to Limited (and L-10) but does not apply to Production which has its own unique restrictions.

The BOD could only exclude a gun if it did not meet the published defined division criteria. To exclude a gun because of an arbitrary "best interest" theory would not be in the financial best interest of the organization (read that to mean something about bad faith and potential litigation). Exactly.

Yes, there certainly is. Much of it in the form of opinions or hypothetical scenarios without the benefit of actually reading the rules and/or interpretations. I don't see ANY problem with a manufacturer producing a new wiz-bang. That is called free enterprise. If they meet the specifications for the USPSA approved Production gun list, power to them. If they over-price it, it may not be a commercially successful project - their business decision. It is the shooter's choice whether to buy it or not. If it's over-priced, well.... free enterprise at work. I see nothing wrong with innovation. Neither should USPSA. If innovation is such a bad thing, we could always go back to slingshots or other such antiquated artillery. Hmm...... I wonder what the Power Factor floor might be and how many chronos would get destroyed.

That particular scenario is not very likely. IF a manufacturer were to develop a new wiz-bang blaster based upon the model you already own and make sufficient numbers to be added to the approved USPSA Production gun list, you would (I believe) be able to use the compatible parts to upgrade your "street model" gun. I base that statement on the existing Production allowance to use parts from one approved model into another approved model. You could get a real bargain.

Anything to protect your manicured typing finger, buddy.

It doesn't matter what you call it or what components you use. As long as the assembled mag fits in the appropriate side of the official mag gauge, you're good to go.

Well...... point of order. John is the Director of NROI. At the Nationals, if he is in the assigned position of Range Master, he has the very same authority (no more, no less) as any other RM at any match. His rulings at the match are subject to the same arbitration procedings as anyone else. If he is not in a RM position, then he has no direct authority. He can certainly advise any of the staff, including the assigned RM, but the rulebook does not give him any official involvement due to his DNROI position. Vetting of a DNROI interpretation is an organizational administrative issue (per bylaws) and is unrelated to the functions at a match.

The original question is to you since you have been/are/may be the MD of local major match(es) and you have made and will make decisions based upon the rule book and "interpretations". I would like to know your stance/views/decisions/interpretations on the issue. Sorry, Bob. I am not going to "rule" on your hypotheticals. And if I was the MD, it would not be my call in any case.

You can try to put words in my mouth...... It was a question...note the question mark at the end of the sentence. Since you agreed with JA's statement that since it was not an advantage, it would be legal. Since you adamently stated that the slide rule was set in stone, no interpretation can be had. I stated that the frame rule should also be set in stone. Now, since JA made that post, it seems that the frame is NOT set in stone and interpretations seems to be accepted as long as it is interpretted by JA. Before that, everybody seems to agree that the hole was an unacceptable modification. Now it is acceptable? So I posed a question to you on your stance on the matter. I am not trying to put words in your mouth. As far as the post by JA - it would seem to be acceptable. Am I wrong? If I am please point out as to which point I am missing. Why would the slide rule be set in stone and the frame would not? You are asking the wrong person. The ruling on your slide was in 2007. I won't get into a frame/slide comparison in the 2008 rules. My opinions on the frame issue are (at this point) personal and would add nothing helpful or definitive to this discussion. I don't mind posting helpful opinions. I just don't think this would fit that description. While I don't mind posting on general rules, I try to avoid posting on division rules issues which would require "interpretation". That responsibility lies with JA. If you want to pursue this, you know where to go for the answer(s).

I thought that the non-allowance/allowance on external mods of frames were also specific. Nothing in the rule book mentions function or advantage either. That is right up to JA's decision in that last post. So now, you support the legality of applying stickers to the frame? You can try to put words in my mouth......

And it's also different than the non functioning sticker you made me take off at Area 8? The allowance on slide modifications is pretty specific. Nothing in there concerning function or advantage. I could have waited until it was challenged on one of the stages. My decision would have been the same but your match status would have changed. I thought you would prefer the kinder/gentler option.

Without making a judgment on the specific issue in this thread..... There is a big difference between non-functioning holes in a frame and your "mod" to your slide.

PHHHHTTTTPPPP!!!!!!