New Rules

[Flyin40]

Thks for keeping us updated

Flyin

[Nik Habicht]

Read the old rule, and tell me what you would say if I stuck a magazine down the back of my belt.

Now read the new rule and tell me what you would say if I stuck a magazine down the back of my belt.

The word waistband doesn't appear in either of my versions, unless I need my glasses changed again.

Gary,

I don't want a fight with anyone. I'm approaching this from the perspective of a match director and section coordinator. On the one hand, I want to run matches by the rulebook. On the other hand, we get new competitors who show up without enough pouches, and we get experienced competitors who show up without their belt. As long as they can beg, borrow or scrounge a safe holster, we let them shoot....

As long as their mag location is division compliant, I don't want to ding them for mags in the waistband, in their sock, on a borrowed magnet, etc......

Just trying to ensure that we're all on the same page....

[chendersby]

Well it all depends on what the bonus is. If it is , for instance, 5 seconds off your time, is it worth shooting at it? What if there are two birds, is 10 seconds off your time worth taking a couple of shots?

What say you?

I like that. Would this work San Angelo or Time Plus, or both?

The new rule on flying clays only applies to time Plus. They are still disappearing targets in comstock scoring.

[D.Hayden]

Thanks Chris.. that's the place where it made sense.

[chendersby]

Gary or anybody for that matter.

Maybe I should ask the background of the rule first.

My understanding was that the reasoning behind making the flying clay a no penalty mike is that when launched by many of the teeter totter mechanisms which rely on a falling popper the target presentation was very inconsistent. This lead to either the need to reshoot each shooter until they received a fair target presentation (unlikely) or score the clay as a NPM. When scored as an NPM it was oftentimes to the shooter's benefit to ignore the flying clay and concentrate on the other targets in the stage.

Is this the case?

If so by allowing an increased bonus value to be place on the same target are we now not back to having an inconsistent thus unfair target presentation from shooter to shooter which since their is now an increased bonus value would change the outcome of the stage. Again based on insconsistent target presentation which was what we were trying to get away from anyway.

If I am up in the night help me out.

Ok, you guys are talking about disappearing targets and comstock scoring. This rule does not address that at all. Nothing has changed there. The new rule addresses the problem with disappearing targets in time plus. There was no provision for them. They scored as a regular miss. We thought it was better to score them as a bounus. Don't shoot them no harm no foul. Hit them and time is taken for your stage time. More in line with how disappearing targets are scored in comstock.

Now as to your comments on them being inconsistant, I tend to agree but are they really any different than a texas star? That reacts differently depending on how it is engaged. I am not a big fan of them especially in big matches and think they should be used sparingly and in a way that leaves no doubt that they need to be engaged to do well in the stage. Tough to design by the way.

[smokshwn]

Chris

Actually I believe they are quite a bit different than a Texas Star in that I am in control of my engagement order and hits of the star, and even after a miss the star behaves in a completely predictable manner. That is different the absolutely zero control a shooter has over the flipper breaking the clay, throwing it at too low/high/angled/straight of a trajectory, etc.

Either way, I was curious as to how this rule came about so thanks for that insight.

[Gary Stevens]

Nik, no fight was ever intended. My point was that the old rule and the new rule for all practical purposes are identical. The only thing the new rule did was clarify that there was no penalty for using a magazine out of yur pocket.

[chendersby]

Chris

Actually I believe they are quite a bit different than a Texas Star in that I am in control of my engagement order and hits of the star, and even after a miss the star behaves in a completely predictable manner. That is different the absolutely zero control a shooter has over the flipper breaking the clay, throwing it at too low/high/angled/straight of a trajectory, etc.

Either way, I was curious as to how this rule came about so thanks for that insight.

The only thing the shooter has no control over is the broken bird coming out of the launcher (range equip failure IMO). A properly set up thrower will be consistant if engaged in the exact same place with the same load/choke combo. the differences come from different distances, angles, and power they engaged with. Harder the popper is hit the higher it goes. Not that much different than a star. Just harder to predict because of so many variables. I'm still not a big fan of them either way and would rather see birds on a swinger for movement.

[Flexmoney]

Nik, no fight was ever intended. My point was that the old rule and the new rule for all practical purposes are identical. The only thing the new rule did was clarify that there was no penalty for using a magazine out of yur pocket.

Gary, I think you and Nik are on the same page on pulling mags out of the pocket. Nik's concern seems to be that the wording to get there...inteded or not...took away using the waistband ?

[schroed]

looks like there was clarification in regards to SSTK slides (Appendix D5)

see old thread---link

Edited March 5, 2010 by schroed

[JThompson]

Nik, no fight was ever intended. My point was that the old rule and the new rule for all practical purposes are identical. The only thing the new rule did was clarify that there was no penalty for using a magazine out of yur pocket.

Yes, that's what I was thinking too, and was probably prompted by the thread we had here discussing the very issue.

As an aside, the BOD might consider making "proposed" rules changes public... you have thousands out here to help you vet proposed rules. Often, what is clear to one is not to another. Submitting rules to a larger audience could, possibly, help find/tweak something not considered. I know you guys cuss us DRLs, but perhaps, you could put us to use to help head off potential problems down the road.

Just a thought...........

I have a couple of questions regarding the new rules, but will digest them for a time before I make any comments.

JT

Edited March 5, 2010 by JThompson

[vluc]

Gary, is there a minimum slide weight that the pistol has to fall in to? I know there is a max, but what about the other way?

I can see these serrations and other "projects" being interpreted as backdoor slide lightening. Milling to put slides in was one thing, serrations, et. al. is another.

Make the receiver heavier to offset for the lighter slide, overall weight is within the proper parameters and here we go again.

Edited March 5, 2010 by vluc

[Gary Stevens]

The e weight is the total with empty mag inserted.

We have went farther trying to list approved features. Most are just common sense. It will be those who want to push the envelope to its breaking point that will have trouble.

Flex I keep reading what you and Nik are saying. I simply can't find waistband in the old rule or new rule. Perhaps I am just missing it. Maybe someone could post it for me.

The two rules are almost identical in verbage about magizine retention devices. What I am having trouble with is if someone felt that sticking a magazine in their belt, absent a retention device, was legal prior to the new rule, then I can't see how they now feel it is illegal. Conversely, if it was illegal in the old rule, I believe that person would feel that the action is still illegal.

As I have stated before, the single intent of the modification to the rule was to spell out clearly that there was no penalty for using a magazine from your pocket as long as you met the Division requirements.

[ima45dv8]

Flex I keep reading what you and Nik are saying. I simply can't find waistband in the old rule or new rule. Perhaps I am just missing it. Maybe someone could post it for me.

The two rules are almost identical in verbage about magizine retention devices. What I am having trouble with is if someone felt that sticking a magazine in their belt, absent a retention device, was legal prior to the new rule, then I can't see how they now feel it is illegal. Conversely, if it was illegal in the old rule, I believe that person would feel that the action is still illegal.

As I have stated before, the single intent of the modification to the rule was to spell out clearly that there was no penalty for using a magazine from your pocket as long as you met the Division requirements.

Gary, you're of course right that 'waistband' wasn't mentioned in the old or new rule. Even so, what I'm seeing in the new rule is language that says ammo/carriers "shall" be carried in retention devices designed for that purpose. That word "shall" is definitive and looks like (is?) a command and would seem to exclude the waistband of a belt system because it's not a device design for that purpose.

The new rule goes on to say they may also be carried in pockets (unless specifically disallowed in the WSB). Since this exception doesn't mention the waistband as an additionally allowed location it appears, by it's silence, to again exclude the waistband.

Under the old rule I would have said the waistband was OK, but this new rule reads differently.

If you were reading this new rule for the first time, with no knowledge of the old rule to color your judgement, would you allow a mag to be carried in the waistband?

[vluc]

The e weight is the total with empty mag inserted.

We have went farther trying to list approved features. Most are just common sense. It will be those who want to push the envelope to its breaking point that will have trouble.

So there is no minimum weight the pistol must be at, just a maximum? My Glock 34 can max out at 25.8 oz. + 2 ounces,

18 Maximum weight Yes, 2 ounces over weight listed on approved pistol list

but could be 20.8 with magazine and that is fine?

[mhs]

Gary, you're of course right that 'waistband' wasn't mentioned in the old or new rule. Even so, what I'm seeing in the new rule is language that says ammo/carriers "shall" be carried in retention devices designed for that purpose. That word "shall" is definitive and looks like (is?) a command and would seem to exclude the waistband of a belt system because it's not a device design for that purpose.

The new rule goes on to say they may also be carried in pockets (unless specifically disallowed in the WSB). Since this exception doesn't mention the waistband as an additionally allowed location it appears, by it's silence, to again exclude the waistband.

Under the old rule I would have said the waistband was OK, but this new rule reads differently.

If you were reading this new rule for the first time, with no knowledge of the old rule to color your judgement, would you allow a mag to be carried in the waistband?

Old rule:

5.2.4 During the course of fire, after the start signal, unless stipulated otherwise in the stage procedure, spare ammunition, magazines and speed loading devices shall be carried in retention devices attached to the competitor’s belt and specifically designed for that purpose.

New rule:

5.2.4 During the course of fire, unless stipulated otherwise in the stage procedure, spare ammunition, magazines and/or speed loading devices shall be carried in retention devices attached to the competitor’s belt and specifically designed for that purpose.

These seem pretty much the same to me, except for the "after the start signal" part. The waistband looks illegal under both versions.

[mhs]

An important clarification with the new rules is that if the RO says "Make ready", and the SS or Production competitor pulls a mag out of his front pocket, he is bumped to Open.

I normally keep my first mag, with 11 rounds, in my front pocket. This will be hard to remember.

[rgkeller]

An important clarification with the new rules is that if the RO says "Make ready", and the SS or Production competitor pulls a mag out of his front pocket, he is bumped to Open.

I normally keep my first mag, with 11 rounds, in my front pocket. This will be hard to remember.

Please, someone say that the above is not so.

[juan]

make ready is not the start signal

[mhs]

make ready is not the start signal

That's why it was legal under the old rule.

[mactiger]

An important clarification with the new rules is that if the RO says "Make ready", and the SS or Production competitor pulls a mag out of his front pocket, he is bumped to Open.

I normally keep my first mag, with 11 rounds, in my front pocket. This will be hard to remember.

Please, someone say that the above is not so.

The way I read the new rule, unfortunately, it's so. It's possible that it will be further clarified, but as it is now, the front pocket is not in compliance with the division rules for magazine location. The words, "after the start signal" seem to be missing, so all magazines and the gun will have to be in compliance with division rules at "make ready". Just my opinion, though.

Troy

[Vlad]

nvm

Edited March 6, 2010 by Vlad

[Vlad]

An important clarification with the new rules is that if the RO says "Make ready", and the SS or Production competitor pulls a mag out of his front pocket, he is bumped to Open.

I normally keep my first mag, with 11 rounds, in my front pocket. This will be hard to remember.

Please, someone say that the above is not so.

The way I read the new rule, unfortunately, it's so. It's possible that it will be further clarified, but as it is now, the front pocket is not in compliance with the division rules for magazine location. The words, "after the start signal" seem to be missing, so all magazines and the gun will have to be in compliance with division rules at "make ready". Just my opinion, though.

Troy

TBH, if this becomes "law" I foresee everyone ignoring this rule because it would frankly be stupid and very unfriendly towards new shooters. BOD, please don't make rules we all have to ignore.

[juan]

now that I have read the new rule

I will agree with MHS and Mactiger

[rgkeller]

And I agree with Vlad