George Jones

That is a very "creative" interpretation of the rules. Although Level I matches face somewhat different challenges when dealing with poppers (no chrono, perhaps no designated ammo), an automatic reshoot for a standing popper is not justified.

Might have been a good thing in Tulsa. Would have washed the mud away!

I went thru chrono on the morning of Day 3 of the Open match. My load chronoed at 170+, just like it has for the last two years since I started using True Blue. This includes all matches which have used dual CEDs with the infrareds. None of my matches have been at higher altitude. I expect some powders are less tolerant of altitude and temperature variables. As most others have observed, USSA has the potential of being a world-class facility, fully capapble of hosting a World Shoot. Unfortunately, that potential has suffered a set-back (IMO) due to the range conditions of the last two Nationals. I hope they can fix the drainage problem, without which attendance for future matches is sure to suffer. Let's give them time to deal with it and regain our confidence.

You all decided to reverse how this has been called. A 180d change in direction. False. There was an obvious situation where it was called differently. Some your way, most the way that we have now described. That's why it was addressed. Not to change direction, but to bring consistency. It would help if you didn't launch this kind of inflamatory, uninformed comment.

Kyle, I honestly no longer care whether you agree with the interpretation or not. Troy and I have tried to explain it (slow enough for me to understand), but...... Yes, it's not specific enough in the rulebook. That's why it was addressed. DUH! Damned if we did, damned if we didn't, I guess. Now you,ve swerved to attack the process. I do grant you that the process has not yet been completed, but interpretations don't happen overnight - you (the membership) usually only find out when it's a done deal. In this case, it was best to start teaching it right away since there was no prevailing reason to withhold it. Yes, there will be a transition period, but it's shorter because we were proactive in the seminars. I'm certain you would have done it better. The End!

Your check bounced. But hey, you're absolutely right about the "back room deal". It was easy to find something to get you all twisted up. But then we spent countless hours trying to figure out how to hide it from you. I guess we failed, but we had nothing better to do.

You must have misplaced some it. I thought you had a lifetime supply.

No doubt to reload on Bull Butter!

The "IF" does not apply to "impenetrable".... It applies to the scoring scenario presented in the subrule. IF you (and Flex) were correct, the rule would be written this way: 9.1.5 Impenetrable - The scoring area of USPSA scoring targets and no-shoots is deemed to be impenatrable if: But, that is not where the "IF" is located. The "If" applies to each of the conditions in 9.1.5.1 thru 9.1.5.4

I must have a problem expressing myself. I did not say what you imply. I said I do not have any link to whatever may be presented to the BOD as all interpretations are. I am no longer on the Board. I have already stated the rationale behind the instructor group's final concensus. The fact that some may disagree with that concensus does not change it's existence. That "small group" is tasked with deliberating these issues and reaching a majority conclusion. The conclusion then is presented to the BOD as an interpretation. If the BOD does not object, it reaches official status. There is a process. Bullbutters, extreme scenarios, and other similar hyperbole do not help.

I no longer have those connections. I'm confident the process is in action. On another matter - Rules interpretations have been common when the rules do not clearly address an issue or range situations cannot be consistently judged. Some of the most experienced and dedicated volunteers in this sport addressed this issue at length and came to a conclusion. For some to call that effort "back room" dealings is highly disappointing. As with Troy, I do not always agree with the rules, but it is our job, all of us, to enforce them as they are. When interpretations are issued, they carry the same weight as the rest of the rulebook.

NROI interpretations have been used for years to clarify gray areas in the rules. They are usually later incorporated into the next version of the rulebook. That's the way it's been.

Kyle, I can't get into another extended discussion with you. It was discovered that these types of scenarios were being scored differently. Obviously, the rules are not sufficiently clear. Although they haven't changed in many years, we recently found another area where clarification was in order. The instructor group discussed it at length and a conclusion was reached. I've already given it to you and tried to explain some of the rationale. That's the way it is now being taught in the RO seminars. That, and the many rules updates are a good reasons for everyone to consider taking a refresher next time a Level I class comes to a place near you.

Well, not really. You are mixing different parts of the rules. 9.1.5 - Targets are impenetrable. Period. Then, the subrules give examples on how to score certain scenarios. Scoring targets which are not in contact with the NS (the two are seperated by some distance) are scored as stated in the subrules. It would be impossible to say "only this particular piece of the bullet was outside the NS outer perf and continued to hit T7 downrange", so we allow for the whole bullet to score on T7. When a scoring target is in direct contact with another, the impenetrable rule can be more directly used. It can be determined which part of the bullet did not penetrate the underlying target, therefore, as in the case in the original scenario, the side head hit on the NS can only score a C. P.S. NS are not hardcover, although they do share the impenetrability of hardcover (and scoring targets). They are defined under Rule 4.1 which covers "Targets - General Principles". They have scoring areas, albeit negative-scoring ones, as shown in Rule 9.4.2. I earlier stated the current interpretation of the scoring scenario. Our rules evolve. We adapt as time passes and confronts us with new challenges.

This scenario was recently discussed by the instructors. In the scenario described, the hit on the left side of the NS head can only be scored a C. The A zone which is under the scoring area of the NS (which includes the NS perfs) is not available for the simple reason that (if the perfs are correctly aligned) as soon as the bullet touches the perf of the NS that part of the bullet cannot continue to strike the underlying A perf. The same rule would apply for a hit down on the long side of the NS. It could not score the underlying D. The final opinion of the instructors was that the portion of a scoring target which underlies a no-shoot (including the NS perfs) for all practical purposes simply does not exist. Rule 9.5.2 applies to a scoring target (a single target) and it's individual scoring zones. It has nothing to do with an overlying NS. Rule 9.5.3 does not support scoring the underlying A. HTH

I tried several methods. The one I think works the best for the shooter was to write down the data on the receipt before the shooter got there. Then, I showed him the Palm, pointing at the spots on the screen where the time and each of the targets was displayed and to the totals, Then I would point to the receipt where he could easily see that the numbers matched.

I worked the LPR match (Stages 8 & 9). I shot the Open match. I also worked last year's Mud Bowl. My perspective comes from that mix of experience at USSA as concerns the range conditions. LPR - No real range problems until we got a little rain on Monday night. As soon as I stepped on the range surface on Sunday morning, the mud came oozing through the sod. The more you stepped, the more mud came up. My bay was not the worst by any means. Open/L-10 - My squad shot the first morning in mist/rain until we got to Stage 11. Most of us shot that in hard rain. We were laughing and joking about the rain. Made the best of it. It's been my experience that most shooters don't complain all that much about things that can't be helped (rain, heat, etc). They do tend to complain about "shortages" (not enough shade, etc). The second day was sunny and clear. Perfect conditions. The mud on the stages was unbearable. I did not see a smile anywhere on the range that day. There was no joy in Mudville. We shot eight stages that day - five of them in major mud. Some of you may feel different but I'm not getting any younger. Hauling five pounds of mud on each foot all day was not fun. I ran out of gas and it carried over to the next day when we shot our last four stages. I worked the "easy match" on a relatively decent bay. I have the utmost respect for the staff who worked both matches in deplorable conditions. Stage 11 was probably the worst, with 12-15 close behind. Some stage crews worked 12 to 14 hours a day. Those guys and gals deserve our collective thanks. As for me, as I said I'm not getting any younger. Working one then shooting the next is not the brightest idea I've ever had (especially after saying I wouldn't ever do it again after 2001 ). I don't think I can bring myself to go there again if these ground conditions are still likely to happen. Let's hope a sound solution is found. One in which we can have some confidence.

The staff should check before a shooter begins the match, but if he already shot that way...... Open Division 6.2.5.1 However, if a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of a declared Division during a course of fire, the competitor will be placed in Open Division, if available, otherwise the competitor will shoot the match for no score.

The surest way to really upset shooters is to have a prize/plaque policy which is uncomprehensible or suspected of being "unfair" (whether justified or not). There's no quicker way to negate all the hard work the staff did to put on a quality match. Keep it simply and easy to understand. IMO, trying to work in some multi-class considerations is a sure way to end up with a real mess. I don't think we can reinvent the wheel here. Just my .02

After totally destroying a pair of range boots in the Stage 8 muck pool last year, I'm heading out to buy some kind of wading shoes/boots. Not being a fisherman-type, I don't know if they make them sturdy enough to run nearly 400 shooters. Suggestions welcome.

Good luck with that.

Same sentence. None of those are allowed in long courses.

Right on, big guy! I always knew you had it in ya.

Let me be clear here - again. A reshoot is the only correct ruling when there is no bullet in the barrel. It does not matter if the bullet is still in the case. It does not matter if the bullet is lying at the shooter's feet. Reshoot