Detlef Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I have this straight off the German IPSC web site (thanks to Juergen Tegge) and found it so useful (who reads the entire rule book except Vince???) that I will post them here. Not new, just a reminder.... 2.1.9 walking the berms is now forbidden 2.3.3.3 if a competitor refuses to reshoot when one is mandated, he receives a score of zero for the stage 2.4 regulates gun handling in vendor/exhibit area. Exhibit guns may be handled, but competitor may not handle his own gun, not even for giving it to a vendor (except in container). 4.1.5 a single IPSC target cannot be made/declared into more than one stage target by painting, taping etc. 4.4.1 frangible targets are not permitted in handgun matches 5.2.2 makes more clear the cold range condition of gun, and penalties: If a competitor has a loaded gun (i.e. live cartridge in chamber or mag) he is immediately DQ'd; if he just has the hammer cocked or an empty mag in the gun, he receives one (recorded) warning on offense 1, and is DQ'd on offense # 2. 5.2.6 no more holster test 5.4.4 if a competitor accidentally loses eye or ear protection, he may stop himself and will receive a reshoot for that stage 5.7.1 & 5.7.3 competitor may not use tools to fix malfunction. If he does, he gets a zero score for the stage. 5.7.3 you have 2 minutes to clear a malfunction. After that, stage is scored "as is" 8.3.1.1 After LAMR, competitor may not leave start position. If he does, gets a warning on 1st offense, DQ on 2nd. 8.3.7 Command is now "If clear, hammer down, holster". Any shot fired after this command is issued is a DQ. 8.7.1 No loaded sight pictures permitted (warning on 1st offense, procedural for every subsequent one) 8.7.2 Match organizers may prohibit any sight pictures. 8.7.3 If permitted, competitor may take sight picture only on one specific target (i.e. no sighting in on many or all targets). Offenses are penalized with a procedural for every occurance. 8.7.4 During walkthrough, competitor may only use his hands (no toy guns, slides, or even magazines!) to 'sight in' on targets. Offense leads to procedural or DQ (with gun!). 8.7.5 It is prohibited to enter and/or move through a course/stage w/o prior approval from the RO/RM. First offense warning, 2nd offense DQ. 9.1.4 regulates how untaped targets are handled. If RO can tell which hits were from competitor, he will score them. If not, he orders a reshoot. Bottom line: Do not stop shooting because you run into an untaped target, even if it irritates/disturbs you, your score may stand (no automatic reshoot). 9.2.4 Fixed Time is back! 9.4.5.3 Explicit procedurals for stacking shots on Virginia or Fixed Time courses (one per occurance). 9.7.3 If competiror refuses to sign score sheet, RM will do it for him after checking correctness of entries. Score sheet is then valid. 9.10.2 Arbitration committee can order reshoot if a competitors recorded stage time is deemed "unrealistic". 9.10.3 ("Detlef's rule") If competitor reacts to start signal but never fires a shot (for whatever reason) so that no time can be recorded, he will receive a zero score for the stage. 10.2.8 When one-handed shooting is mandated by stage, reloading and operating safety may now be performed with other/both hands w/o penalty. 10.4.7 Penalties for shooting steel from up too close: DQ for any steel engagement performed closer than 7 y, and procedural penalty for any engagement past a charge line but farther than 7 y. Some or most of these items have been discussed here already, but it's time for us to get used to the entire set. Anyone who wants to add here, or add a list of *most important USPSA changes" go ahead... --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Good changes, thanks Detlef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 I have been around a bit, but in my last few matches, I would have been penalized as follows under the new rules: 8.3.1.1 8.7.1 8.7.3 8.7.5 That rings an alarm bell with me, some things that were allowed, tolerated, or simply not regulated are now warnings, procedurals or DQs. Beware!!! I still haven't seen which IPSC rules (except the divisions) will get a "US" modifier (the USPSA BOD online minutes are too confusing to tell), I hope very few... --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Detlef, (I'm one of those few people - including you, I assume - that actually reads the entire rulebook at least twice) but, according to my collection of old rulebooks: Rule 2.3.3.3 was already present in 2003 edition: nothing new here. Rule 5.4.4 was already present in 2003 edition as rule 5.4.2 second paragraph: again, nothing new here. Rules 5.7.1. & 5.7.3: same as per rule 2.3.3.3; just slight rewording. Rule 8.7.1, 8.7.2 & 8.7.3: sight pictures with a loaded firearm were already forbidden from the beginning of 2003. The whole concept has been expanded and reworded. Rule 9.1.4: there was already no automatic re-shoot 9.1.4.2 If scoring or penalty paper targets have not been patched or taped after a previous competitor’s attempt at the course of fire, and there are extra scoring or questionable penalty hits on one or more targets and it is not obvious to the Range Officer which hits were made by the immediate competitor, the Range Officer shall order the competitor to re-shoot the course of fire. Rule 9.7.3: already present in rulebook 2003. No rewording either. BTW, it is not required for the RM to sign the score sheet: the RO signature is enough for the score sheet to stand. As you have stated in advance, nothing totally new, OK, but I'd like to point out (at least for what's going on here in Italy) that it's time for the newcomers to stop the silly practice of looking at what older competitors do on the range, instead of reading the rulebook: come on guys, if you just bought a new car and speed down your house path into the neighborhood without reading first the instructions manual, you're gonna be in serious trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 here I go already. Vince will properly whip my butt, too, for pointing out "changes" that existed since 2003... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Detlef, Defiintely no "spanky, spanky" - it's a damn fine list and, if I wasn't so tired from 12 months of rules work, I would've created a "What's New" list myself, but I'm delighted my esteemed colleague Juergen Tegge did it for me (and thanks to you for publishing it here). Actually since these Forums are predominantly viewed by American competitors, inclusion of the previous changes is probably very useful because the last USPSA rulebook is dated 2001. Onwards and upwards ............. Postscript: The 2004 rulebooks also include (for the first time) a long overdue "Glossary", and we deleted the former "Iilia spiniaca left-handed wishbone" rule to describe the most forward position of equipment and we now have a clear diagram (of a podgy Englishman) in its place. We also provide a specific trigger-pull test for PD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I have been around a bit, but in my last few matches, I would have been penalized as follows under the new rules:8.3.1.1 8.7.1 8.7.3 8.7.5 That rings an alarm bell with me, some things that were allowed, tolerated, or simply not regulated are now warnings, procedurals or DQs. Beware!!! I still haven't seen which IPSC rules (except the divisions) will get a "US" modifier (the USPSA BOD online minutes are too confusing to tell), I hope very few... --Detlef I voted against a number of things which I would have been in favor of if we were were "starting from scratch" rather than generating a list of exceptions. It was my hope to keep the rules changes to a reasonably small number. The US changes fall into three categories: (1) Divisional differences (2) Changing the wording of a number of rules to remove the concept of "official warning which converts to a DQ if the offense is repeated. I personally view these changes as a "single change manifested in a number of rules", however, others may see the removal of warnings as a large number of changes. (3) Other miscellaneous changes. ------------------------------------------------- It is also worth noting that the US will not be the only division using a modified rulebook. The order of the targets in the appendices was reversed (placing the classic before the pre-classic IPSC Metric target) to make it eaiser for regions which wish to publish their own version of the rulebook which does not contain any reference to targets of such size and shape as firearms would be used against in their primary intended use. I fully support the right of regions to use such a modified rulebook if they feel it is in their interests to do so, and am only mentioning this to make it clear that the US is not alone in not adoping the world rules "as published." (I do hope that these other modified rulebooks contain nomenclature such as "Elbonian Edition") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Rob, There have always been a number of "foreign language" rulebooks and the ones which immediately come to mind include Chinese, Thai, German, Italian, Dutch & Spanish), but they are literal translations of the official IPSC rulebooks, of which there are only four (Handgun, Shotgun, Rifle, Tournament). However the primary reason for the foreign language rulebooks is to aid teaching and understanding, but a Level III or higher match in IPSC Tabasco is still required to use the official English language rulebook(s), including the issuance of range commands in English and so on (also see Rule 12.2). The issue of targets is another matter entirely and those Regions which, for one reason or another, prefer (or need) not to display the IPSC Metric Target, simply don't print one page of the Appendices in their non-English version. The "flipped" sequence of the appendices was merely arranged that way to avoid a sequential numbering gap. And you owe me a beer. A large beer. Why? Well remember in 1999 when you predicted that the IPSC Metric Target would be dropped by IPSC? It's still there, and there are still no plans to remove it. BTW, if you can't find beer, I'll happily accept a Budweiser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 just two small corrections: 1. Unless Fritz Gepperth will show me wrong (it doesn't exist yet) the German region version of the IPSC rule book is almost guaranteed to deviate in some substantial places from just being a literal translation. This is to satisfy new legislation restricting what can be done as *sport shooting* in Germany. So the US rule book will not be only one with substantial differences. E.g. "shooting while moving" is now prohibited in Germany by Federal law. One should think that must become part of the rule book for the region... Getting ahead of the facts (obviously), but that's propbably where it's going. 2. Budweiser is an excellent Czech beer. The right to sell smelly yellowish water in large quantities under its name was purchased long ago by Annheuser & Busch for the USA. But the original beer is a really good one. --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Detlef, You are absolutely correct and I should've clarified the distinct difference between rules changes required to comply with law versus other types of changes and, as you know, Germany has been through a difficult time in recent years when it comes to sports shooting legislation. Australia is also going through a tough time right now, as they can only have magazines with a maximum capacity of 10 rounds (with no "grandfather" clause like the USA), a minimum barrel length of 120mm for pistols and a maximum calibre of 9mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 However the primary reason for the foreign language rulebooks is to aid teaching and understanding, but a Level III or higher match in IPSC Tabasco is still required to use the official English language rulebook(s), including the issuance of range commands in English and so on (also see Rule 12.2).The issue of targets is another matter entirely and those Regions which, for one reason or another, prefer (or need) not to display the IPSC Metric Target, simply don't print one page of the Appendices in their non-English version. Rob and Vince, Vince is right. We have translated the rulebooks into Dutch in order to help our members understand the rules. Not everyone is fluent in English you know! However - the Range Commands are the Range Commands and are NOT translated. This has also a second reason, if our shooters were used to Dutch Commands and they travel abroad and are confronted with the local version of the Range Commands might lead to some confusing situation - especially when the foreign RO doesn't stick to the required sequence FYI - we translated the Rulebooks 1-0-1 and only left out the J-ladder. Printed on A-5 format they are too small to be usefull. We do mention them with a recommendation to get the full-size schedule from our Technical Committee when required. We still have have included the Metric Target, we just voluntarily do not use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwalker Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Here in Thailand, we are now translating the new 2004 handgun rule book. The rule book will be as close as possible to the English version, with some modifications to avoid phrases that don't make much sense in Thai. (For example, there is no phrase in Thai that is similar to the English phrase, "as the case may be", so it is clearer to write that part of the rule twice, once with the first case and once with second case.) We are also officially adopting the English range commands in all our matches, even the level 1 and 2 matches. The Thai ROs, most of whom are army sargeants and speak almost no English, are all struggling to get their tongue around, "If you are finshed, unload and show clear". But they are getting there... Regards Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Hi Peter, In the Australasian zone, we have an IPSC "Rat PacK" (Chepit Dulay, Ian Chow, Peter Glenn, Sarath De Zoysa, Myro Lopez and I), and one of our pleasures (OK, OK, cruelties) is taking the mickey out of our old mate Kudo-san from IPSC Japan in respect of the issuance of range commands. We have this little skit where it requires 10 minutes for the RO and every competitor to finalise a "LAMR" session due to all the mutual bowing and additional Japanese verbiage (e.g. Ah so, domo arigato o genki sushi desu ka shashimi yada yada so so so), with a few good Sumo moves tossed in for good measure. One of these days we'll do it for you And we're still working on a Kiwi "Hakka" version. IPSC: A helluva a lot of fun and you get to shoot too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwalker Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 I'd love to see the Japanese LAMR skit. But, I am already laughing as I visualise it in my head. I used to work in Japan and recall being totally nonplussed about the whole greeting process. Fortunately, as an ignorant geiging, I did not need to participate in most of it... The cultural challenge with ROing here in Thailand arises from the subtle class system. As you know, our ROs are mainly the ex-army sergeants that are employed to manage the shooting ranges. We pay them to RO the match. But, they come from a very different background and wealth-bracket from the competitors. It is very hard for a "lowly" ex-army sergeant to DQ a multimillionaire member of the Thai elite. In the past, they would DQ them in really obvious cases, like an AD, but prefer to turn a blind eye to other transgressions. The newly-formed Thai NROI directors, including myself, have started a program of warning the competitors that some of things that were toloerated in the past, will not be allowed in the future. We are working with the RO team to teach the ROs that it is actually in everyone's best interest to enforce the rules. For example, a Thai competitor was DQ'd at our recent level III for handling ammo in a safety zone. If the safety zone rules had been strictly enforced in previous local matches, this might not have happened. But, of course, we still want this sport to be fun for everyone so we are treading softly, softly... Regards Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Peter, I fully understand the problems in Asia associated with "social class". This is why I'm invariably the RM for matches held in Hong Kong (and usually Macau too) - the guys know there's no fear or favour when I make a call - having Big Bucks does not buy you a "get out of jail free" card. There's also a similar problem when it comes to LEO or Military rank. When the Hong Kong Police had an 8 day, 4 consecutive weekend (!!) IPSC shooting match in 1995 in honour of their 150th Anniversary, there were something like 200 LEOs competing, but only 2 civilians (myself and a mate) running the show for them. About halfway through the match, one of the Chief Superintendents asked me "How come you've been my RO on the 16 stages I've shot so far?" and I replied "Well, if I have to give you a match DQ, the next day you can't transfer me to the Chinese border to guard the flagpole". He thought it was hilarious and, at the end of the day, he paid for drinks for everybody. In the Philippines, I've worked matches where I've been called away from my stage to RO a 3 Star Army General on another stage because the poor Buck Private assigned to the stage was about to have a seizure (shades of Gomer Pyle trying to RO for Norman Schwarzkopf). Did I mention how much fun we have in IPSC even when we're not shooting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwalker Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Vince, I hope that you are writing all these stories down and keeping them for when you write your book... Regards Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPSCDRL Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Hi Peter,In the Australasian zone, we have an IPSC "Rat PacK" (Chepit Dulay, Ian Chow, Peter Glenn, Sarath De Zoysa, Myro Lopez and I), and one of our pleasures (OK, OK, cruelties) is taking the mickey out of our old mate Kudo-san from IPSC Japan in respect of the issuance of range commands. We have this little skit where it requires 10 minutes for the RO and every competitor to finalise a "LAMR" session due to all the mutual bowing and additional Japanese verbiage (e.g. Ah so, domo arigato o genki sushi desu ka shashimi yada yada so so so), with a few good Sumo moves tossed in for good measure. One of these days we'll do it for you And we're still working on a Kiwi "Hakka" version. IPSC: A helluva a lot of fun and you get to shoot too. I can't wait to see it. I'll have to ask Kudo-San about this when I meet him in Tokyo next week. Thank you for the introduction Vince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mai Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I have been an editer in some part of Thai-Version. For rule 1.1.6, I confuse that what is the meaning of shooting chanllenge and non-shooting challenge, what I traslate are like these, shooting chanllenge mean shoot at long or short range or may be shoot from a diffecult position (directly related to gun shooting), and non-shooting challenge means running to block or activities that's not direct to using gun. Am I got it alright? I would like to know the applicable of box for Standard Division, if shooter not be able to fit his gun in the box, so he have to fully press rear sight (bomar), now, the gun can be fit in but very tight. This action is allow to do or not? mai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwalker Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 mai, Might be quicker to email me directly for these kind of translation questions. I have been working with the others through this translation project and usually provide a translation response within a couple of hours. Yes. Shooting challenges refer to things that test the competitors shooting abilities. For example, shooting a very distant target, shooting one handed, etc. The stage designer can make the shooting challange as difficult as he wants. Non-shooting challenges are all the other things on a stage. We can not make the non-shooting challenges too difficult. For example, the stage designer can not ask a competitor to climb a tree or jump over a high wall. For the standard box, the rules allow for 1mm flexibility. So, if it squeezes in, it is OK. If the competitor has to bend something or remove something to make it fit, it is not OK. Regards Peter farang@ipsc.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The issue of targets is another matter entirely and those Regions which, for one reason or another, prefer (or need) not to display the IPSC Metric Target, simply don't print one page of the Appendices in their non-English version. The "flipped" sequence of the appendices was merely arranged that way to avoid a sequential numbering gap.And you owe me a beer. A large beer. Why? Well remember in 1999 when you predicted that the IPSC Metric Target would be dropped by IPSC? It's still there, and there are still no plans to remove it. "Removal of pages" is indeed a change. One which I support the right of a region to make, but it is none the less a "change", not simply printing the rulebook in a different language. (adds new meaning to the term "something got lost in the translation") I also think it is important that national rulebooks clearly disclose deviation - even if it must be done in a subtle manner with a notation such as "German Version" (as opposed to "German Translation"). Vince - do you know if the regions removing the Metric target will also remove the reference to two types of targets in rule 4.2.1? I'll be glad to buy that beer, but I won't be able to deliver it in person. I suggest you come to the Area 7 or AWARE match to collect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I'd love to see the Japanese LAMR skit. Anyone care to translate the official range commands into Haiku? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now