mhs

Doesn't 1.2.2.2 allow classifiers to specify pretty much anything?

In this situation, with multiple cycles of creeping and "resetting", the easiest way I've found to avoid needing to give a procedural is to start them as soon as they start resetting.

What rule supports delaying the start signal until they stop creeping? The rules say start in 1-4 seconds after "Standby", and if they are creeping give them a procedural. The 1-4 second interval is a "should", not a "must", so one could delay a bit, but I see no provision for starting over due to creeping after "Are you ready".

One more time. 5.2.4 Should the division restrict the location of the magazines or speed loading devices, carrying them in apparel pocket(s) forward of the restriction point will be allowed providing they are not removed from the apparel pocket(s) between the “standby” command and the command “ if clear, hammer down and holster”. Which standby command, in the event that it's issued multiple times during a stage? The first one? Last one? Why? The first one. Because otherwise, you could legally reload with a mag from your front pocket during the first string.

Glad that it was just bad wording. On my first read, I thought that you were advocating running guns that did not make the weight limit with your mags, and cautioning shooters to use other, lighter mags when there was a chance that the gun would be weighed by an official. Almost like cheating. Glad that I just misread it.

I emailed JA again: "If only one hit on a target is challenged, do the rules allow the CRO or RM to re-score the entire target, or is he only allowed to score the challenged hit?" He replied: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "If the RM is called for a scoring challenge, that their primary objective is the scoring issue, but the RM is not restricted to that area of the target only, in other words, he can score the hole target and call the hits, if they are not the same as written down, then obviously the original call is over rode and the RM is the final authority on scoring issues." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you're not happy with how I worded this, or his reply, feel free to email him yourself.

I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice.9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge. Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially. So just because the hit wasn't challenge it means it's ok to score it incorrectly? No, it means that there's not a mechanism under 9.6.7 to correct it if it is not challenged. OK, so tell me why does Chapter 9 exist in the rule book at the length it does? Summarize it's purpose in a sentence or two..... Off the top of my head, without reference: Chapter 9, apart from the challenge-related areas, covers the gigantic majority of scoring situations. Challenges apply to a very small subset, and focus on disputed calls. The people who wrote the rules assumed the general competency of the ROs, and did not see the need to review their non-challenged calls.

I emailed JA: Hello, There’s been a discussion on the BE forum concerning scoring challenges, and I would appreciate your input to post to the forum. During a scoring challenge, should the CRO or RM score the entire challenged target, or only the specific hit or hits that have been challenged? The last sentence of 9.6.7 implies that only challenged hits are to be scored: “Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge.” Thanks, Mark He replied: The competitor is not challenging the entire target, just disagreeing with the RO’s call on a specific hit, if for an example the hit in question is close to the next scoring line, the RO may call a C and the competitor disagrees as he/she thinks it is an A. Most calls are for the perceived double, and the RM is called to make the call on that hit as to if there is one or two bullet marks to either call an A and Mike or two A’s. John

The scoring policy is defined fairly clearly, as is the challenge policy. What rule or rules support having a CRO or RM rescore non-challenged hits?

I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice.9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge. Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially. So just because the hit wasn't challenge it means it's ok to score it incorrectly? No, it means that there's not a mechanism under 9.6.7 to correct it if it is not challenged.

If they didn't want to be that restrictive, why did they say "...and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge."? You excuse this away by guessing that their intent was to let officials know which hit was challenged, should a significant amount of time pass. If the entire target may be rescored, why would it matter if they knew which hit was challenged? Your added interpretation makes the final clause of the rule worthless.

I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice. 9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge. Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially.

I think I am probably with you. Tipping over and staying on the barrel or table doesn't really constitute being dropped or falling. Agreed unless the shooter causes it. Could it be argued that by trying to stand a gun up in its nose the shooter caused it to fall? my point was that just tipping over seems to be different from falling. At least it could be argued that way pretty effectively. I think the real key is what you posted earlier about requesting that shooters honor the intent of the classifiers. I wouldn't quibble if someone used that and just said "no, the gun has to be lying on its side, like everyone else does it." This is the beauty of USPSA. The shooter realizes that having the gun balanced upright is faster. He realizes that it is less stable, and that if it falls, he will be DQ'd. He weighs the risks. Freestyle.

Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 10:20 PM To: dnroi@uspsa.org Subject: 8.5.1 Hello, I have a question regarding 8.5.1. If a competitor is moving, and aiming at a target through a snowfence wall (hardcover), is he allowed to have his finger in the trigger guard? I'm not clear on this since I'm not sure if it is possible to aim through hardcover. Is it okay for me to post your reply on the BE forum? Thanks for your help, And the answer: As per 4.1.4.1 hard cover is use to hide the targets, snow fence started being used as hard cover for a couple of reasons, easier to set up, camera friendly but it is still listed as hardcover and per the description, hides the target (even though you can see them) and as 8.5.1 states except when the competitor is actually aiming or shooting at targets, if you cannot see them, you cannot aim at them, so based on the principles of hard cover and movement, the answer is NO. Much like you cannot shoot from under the snow fence as 2.2.3.3 states they go from the ground up unless stated otherwise. Yes, you can use my reply on the BE forum. John

Thanks for the detailed reply. The part about snowfence that I still don't understand is whether it is legal to move, with your finger on the trigger, while aiming at a target through snowfence. There was a thread a couple of years ago that had brought this up, but I don't think that it was ever resolved.

Again -- if the competitor can see it, he can engage it without penalty...... I don't see that the rules specifically require that the competitor be able to engage it without penalty, but do feel that it may be unreasonable to have a course that cannot be shot without receiving penalties. Perhaps you need to reconsider 1.1.5: If you look at the sentence in red -- it's pretty clear. The "Without penalty" part may be implicit -- but no I know believes it to be unclear. The portion in blue then amplifies the definition of freestyle, and prohibits what your stage description suggested -- namely dictating that a target that is visible may not be engaged..... I have trouble with the implicit "without penalty", but agree that that was likely the intent of the rule, and is a reasonable way to interpret it. If we do accept the part in red as clear and correct, how do you feel about targets visble through snow fence?

While this might permit what you want to do, during a component string, your proposed stage does not contain multiple strings, hence it's a no-go. Interesting. Do you think that a Standard Exercise would be legal if it said something like: First string, engage three targets from Box A. Second string, engage the other three from Box B. Again -- if the competitor can see it, he can engage it without penalty...... I don't see that the rules specifically require that the competitor be able to engage it without penalty, but do feel that it may be unreasonable to have a course that cannot be shot without receiving penalties. Why aren't you comfortable trying to decide what USPSA said in the rulebook? Is it for lack of training? The CRO course deals heavily with the nuts and bolts of stage design as supported by the rulebook.... I'm not comfortable with it because so many people interpret the rules because they don't know them well enough to apply them correctly, or don't take the time to figure out how they apply when when considered as a set, not as unrelated bits in a book. There certainly are many times that rules do need to be interpreted, but too many people seem to use that as a crutch. I don't think that the stage as I proposed it is legal, but for a different reason than has been brought up in this thread. The best way (for me) to understand the nuances of the rules is a discussion like this. Thanks for your participation.

I'm not comfortable trying to decide what USPSA wanted to say in the rulebook. I try to go by what they did say. In this stage: "Imagine a simple stage consisting of a shooting box and a single array of six scoring paper targets. WSB: Engage any four targets with a minimum of one round each, on those four targets the best two hits per target will be scored. Engage the other two targets with a minimum of zero rounds each, for those targets the best zero hits per target will be scored. If more than four targets receive scoring hits, one proceedural for each target over four will be applied." the round requirements are allowed by 9.5.1. No one has come up with a rule (as written, not "interpreted") that makes the stage illegal. You've been intimately involved with the rules for a long time, can you come up with one?

I don't believe that you can engage with zero rounds. That's why you would get a FSA penalty for each target that you didn't shoot at. The reason the WSB specified "a minimum of zero rounds" was to prevent miss penalties. 9.5.1 seems to specifically allow the WSB to state minimum rounds required: 9.5.1 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, scoring paper targets must be shot with a minimum of one round each, with the best two hits to score. You can't write something into a WSB to negate a rule, unless the rulebook specifically grants you an exemption for that.... What rule would be negated? You would still get the applicable number of mikes, the number would just be zero.

No one is arguing that, as far as I can tell. If you don't shoot at it, you haven't engaged it. The reason the WSB would specify zero as the minimum number of rounds is to eliminate miss penalties under 10.2.7: 10.2.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2 apply. If zero rounds are allowed in the WSB, you get zero penalties for missing, since you didn't. You do get one FTS per target that you didn't shoot at.

I don't believe that you can engage with zero rounds. That's why you would get a FSA penalty for each target that you didn't shoot at. The reason the WSB specified "a minimum of zero rounds" was to prevent miss penalties. 9.5.1 seems to specifically allow the WSB to state minimum rounds required: 9.5.1 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, scoring paper targets must be shot with a minimum of one round each, with the best two hits to score.

Good point. How about if the WSB were changed to: "Engage any four targets with a minimum of one round each, on those four targets the best two hits per target will be scored. Engage the other two targets with a minimum of zero rounds each, for those targets the best zero hits per target will be scored. If more than four targets receive scoring hits, one proceedural for each target over four will be applied." In this case you could get 20 points.

I know 1.1.2 specifically references physical abilities, but I think the same applies for the stage above. Does the stage listed primarily test a competitor's shooting skills? How can you have targets that I'm not allowed to shoot? Again, 1.1.6 references physical differences, but it also makes reference to nonshooting challenges. IMO the stage listed above is about figuring out which targets to engage, not about shooting. Somehow you completely ignore 10.2.7, even though you reference it in your own post. It says you must engage each target with at least one round, not zero rounds. 1. Standing in a box and shooting three targets of your choice, in my opinion, would primarily test shooting skills. 2. You are allowed to shoot them, it just might not get you the best score. Just like shooting targets more than twice is allowed, but might not get you the best score. It's freestyle, the shooter gets to decide. 3. I don't see how 1.1.6 applies. The nonshooting challenges here would not be influenced by height or physical build. 4. 10.2.7 would require one proceedural per target not engaged with at least one round. If you do engage all the tagets you wouldn't get the FTSA penalties, but you would get the WSB penalties. Since you wouldn't get any points for engaging the last three targets, and a proceedural per each regardless of your actions, there would be no reason to engage them.

9.5.1 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, scoring paper targets must be shot with a minimum of one round each, with the best two hits to score. 10.2.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2 apply. Imagine a simple stage consisting of a shooting box and a single array of six scoring paper targets. WSB: "Engage any three targets with a minimum of one round each, on those three targets the best two hits per target will be scored. Engage the other three targets with a minimum of zero rounds each, for those targets the best zero hits per target will be scored. If more than three targets receive scoring hits, one proceedural for each target over three will be applied." This way you get three proceedurals regardless of whether you engage more than three targets, and you don't get any extra points for engaging more than three. Legal?