Target Engagement Order

[Skywalker]

SG,

you started this quarrel, and now you tell us you mis-read the rules?

[Neil Beverley]

In the UK all Level II matches have to be approved by a UKPSA Course Reviewer.

If they don't get approved the UKPSA will not recognise them as a Level II matches and they are dropped from the UKPSA league results.

This works really well and in reality we hardly relax the rule at all.

[Yoda]

In the Netherlands all sanctioned level II matches are reviewed by our "Technical Committee" who also appoints a NPSA Range Master who will inspect the stages after they have been build, helps the organization as RM and gives feedback about the match to both Technical Committee and NROI.

If a match organizer does not want to comply with the rules other than mentioned in 1.1.5.1 and without good reason the sanctioning can be withdrawn. In the past we had to threaten with this argument once or twice before they complied. Nowadays there are no problems.

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

What I am reading from the wording is the L1 & L2 matches...which are most matches in the USA, except for Nationals (maybe a few others)... are free to do as they please with regards to freestyle & round counts?

Is that the intent of the author???

I'm with Skywalker, in that if there is a real good reason (as I noted above), then the stages/designers have some wiggle room. Which makes sense. But, the wording of the rule is like a screen door on a submarine.

(Where is my Mk-48 torpedo? )

[mactiger]

That particular rule was written that way to allow, as Vince said, clubs that don't have tons of props, space, etc., to continue to hold matches without going to excessive expense for props. However, just because they can do it that way doesn't mean they should. As SC or just a concerned shooter, I'd suggest that you suggest that they make every effort to make their courses as freestyle as possible, and stay within the spirit of the game, so to speak. Some of the match directors may be putting on matches this way simply out of ignorance, and with a little guidance from the enlightened, (such as you, Erik and Kath) they may see the error of their ways. In the level one classes that I've taught, this question always comes up, and I suggest that they make as many courses of fire freestyle as their props/manpower allows for. When the match is held, the shooters like that sort of thing, and keep coming back, thereby helping build the club's treasury and that hopefully trickles down into props and equipment.

Threatening to kick them out doesn't really help, but continued guidance and encouragement (especially if you are willing to put in a little sweat equity designing and setting stages) should go a long way in correcting the problem.

[Ron Ankeny]

In our case, we use the wiggle room to make up for space requirements and limited props. We always design stages that offer shooters choices, but sometimes we will put up a stage that requires an array to be shot through a port, etc., because we just don't have enough vision barriers to go around. The rule can be a good thing if used appropriately.

OTOH, it seems like in the majority of cases the rule is invoked as a guise for goofy, stupid course design, lol.

[Flexmoney]

I am with you guys. I am not saying to ditch the rule. Not at all!

But, the wording...leaves the rules open to local interpretation.

[davecutts]

I don't really see what the big problem with a little flexibility in course requirements at a local level. But then I feel like all lawyers, range lawyers should be shoot after the first two or three instances of illogical adherence to stupid little rules.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Once again my esteemed colleague and old mate Troy McManus has summed it up very eloquently.

The bottom line is "education through persuasion", and I know from my experiences, particularly in the Australasian zone, that many clubs (and even some Regions), just needed to be gently guided back on the correct path. In fact, I've never met a Match Director or Club Owner who told me "We flatly refuse to do that" - it's invariably been a case of "Hey, I didn't know that" or "How can we do that?", and they always appreciate positive input.

It's the old story about teaching a man how to fish instead of just giving him a fish.

[AikiDale]

It's the old story about teaching a man how to fish instead of just giving him a fish.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Sell him a gun and he can eat steak."

I am not sure I see how this applies Vince.........

[Flexmoney]

So there we are.

We get "freestyle" at the Nationals. Everywhere else, it's a crap shoot. If it isn't "freestyle" assume the match director/course design just didn't know the difference...then 'splain it to them. If they tell you to go fly a kite...then that's that.

[Nik Habicht]

Kyle,

I was fortunate that in this chunk of A8 there already was a decided emphasis on designing freestyle courses at all the clubs that had multiple pits. When I was recruited to start designing stages, I bounced my first couple of ideas off of experienced designers ---- who called the first stage boring/no fun and the second one illegal. They were nice enough to educate me, and to offer suggestions for improvement without totally changing my ideas. I learned by doing ---- and most importantly, by asking shooters what they thought of the stages and why.

As a relatively new MD, I've got a crew of regular designers who know the game, compete at sectional, area, and national matches and always design freestyle. I've also got some others who pinch hit once or twice a year --- and I don't hold them to quite the same standards. I think that educating shooters, recruiting and training stage designers, and trying to change recalcitrant clubs over time are probably some of the right approaches.

How's Mr. Tough Love at educating match directors? Drag him along when you visit the clubs....

[Flexmoney]

Again...all good...and all being done.

But, what's wrong with changing that limp-dick wording just a little bit???

Is the intent to promote freestyle stages or not?

[Vince Pinto]

Promote freestyle? Yes. Force it at all levels? No.

We can write a "should" (highly recommended, but not mandatory) rule, or we can write a "must" (mandatory) rule, but anything less than a "must" rule will always be advisory, regardless of how many adjectives or "really really" type phrases we place in front of the word "should".

And it's really easy to call a rule "limp-dick", but the real problem are match organisers who are unwillng to go the extra mile after been given advice and suggestions, and this is why we have a sanctioning process. To get Level III sanctioning, you must jump through a few hoops before IPSC will give you the nod, and the only effective way I can think of to solve the problem you've raised is to change the "R" under Point 9 of Appendix A1 to "M" for Level II matches, which would allow Regions to demand higher standards for Level II matches.

However even if we did that, there will still be match organisers who won't bother getting Level II sanctioning because it's "too hard" or because they have an ornery "We don't need no stinkin' sanctioning" attitude. Hell, there are people out there in la-la land who claim that their weekend club matches qualify as Level III, but they're too damn lazy to go through the sanctioning process, but they still complain that IPSC Regional ranking statistics (which use number of Level III matches conducted as part of the criteria) are flawed. In other words, they prefer to bitch and moan, rather than getting with the program.

Bottom line: You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[mactiger]

Flex, as you and Vince have stated, the intent is to promote freestyle stages, not force them down everyone's throat. I think the best way to achieve compliance with "freestyle" course design is to educate the people setting the stages, most importantly by jumping in and showing them how to do it. As a last resort, you can always vote with your feet, and choose not to shoot there if the particular club continues to use the rule as a loophole to do "local" things. I suppose the rule could be changed to say that level one and two matches only have to comply with certain things, and spell those out, but we usually see more problems from over-complicating things than from keeping them simple.

Troy

[Bill Nesbitt]

I understand where Flex is coming from. He is the SC. I used to be a SC years ago. It is hard to lead when nobody will follow. I about pulled my hair out trying to just get MD's to follow a few simple rules about stage design.

In my opinion ALL stages should follow the rules to the letter, even local matches. If you stage doesn't follow the rules then you should modify the stage design until it does. Just my little rant. My wife and I have threatened for years to get hats or t-shirts that say "ROTD" with the circle and slash through it. That stands for Rules Of The Day.

Bill Nesbitt

[Vince Pinto]

Bill,

Believe me when I tell you that I sympathise. I've got a guy here who, despite me persuading (now badgering!) him for 6 years, still doesn't undertand that shoot-throughs are a bad thing, and at every match he organises, I'm forced to "do the rounds" and shuffle targets. Some people just don't get it, and they never will.

Although I'm not intimately familiar with small matches in the USA, I suspect there are guys around who, given the choice of having official USPSA sanctioning pulled or doing things the way they want, will choose the latter. It's frustrating but, as Troy says, the best thing to do is keep trying to show these guys the light and/or to vote with your feet.

And see my tag line below

[Jim Norman]

As a rule writer, Unca Vinny - ya done good! FINALLY! It frosts my butt that that one stupid line gives local clubs the authority to ignore all that wonderful great awesome rule writing ya done!

Erik Warren expressed it pretty well

"can do whateverthehell they want"

A rule like this enables small clubs or clubs that may have a weather related condition to still have a match. If I strictly adhere to the RULE, then I need maybe a dozen additional walls to block the view of certain targets or steels. If I can "Bend" the rules in this manner, then I can say, Shoot the steel from Box, THEN engage all paper as you see them. Without the rule, i either need a lot more props, or I simply can't do the stage. Time and weather are also considerations. Many of us build a match in the morning in less than 2 hours, shoot it in 4-5 and tear it all down in the afternoon. This type of rule allows us to do so.

Vince. I disagree with you on the 2 hit thing, but here I am with you

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

Jim,

I think everything you said has been covered...and agreed with (by me anyways).

What a number of us are saying is that the wording isn't strong enough to encourage match directors/stage designers to build freestyle stages.

They often use the current wording of the rule as a free pass to do as they please...they don't just use it when the weather is bad, props are in short supply, help is scarce, etc.