Production Division Problem

[Skywalker]

So, Garfield,

are you embracing the rebel alliance instead of the evil empire?

[ivanhu]

Nik,

The second sentence specifies the penalty for cocking the hammer after the start signal is given --- one procedural.

Thanks, I fully understand what it means, what I don't understand, why do we need to emphasize this one case, if the first sentence alone counts: failing to comply means one procedural, regardless why the competitor failed to comply (with the exceptions specifically mentioned later). And since cocking the hammer means that the first shot won't be double action, therefore the one PE is already determined.

[Vince Pinto]

Ivan,

Frankly I'm embarassed to say that I don't really remember why we added the "no thumb cocking" second sentence to the subject rule, and I agree it seems superfluous. Give me another 24 hours to dig through my (huge) files to see if I can find an answer but, if I can't, I'll be delighted to delete a few more unnecessary words in the next rulebook.

Skywalker,

Your point about judging by trigger action noted & understood. Let me give this more thought.

Garfield,

No, this is not political. I think it's been very educational for all of us because it helps with consistency and it looks like Ivan has spotted some excessive verbiage, the removal of which will probably give us a better rulebook in the future.

Thanks to all of you for your constructive analysis and discussions.

[hoser]

Vince,

One other thing you might want to consider for the next rule book is removing the phrase that the first shot must be double action. Both USPSA and IPSC use a list of approved guns, so there is no problem about what guns can be used in Production. Well......expect for the Springfield XD, that is.

So, if a competitor is using an approved gun in Production, what does it matter if the shooter cocks the hammer for the first shot? It takes more time and what harm is done? Removing the "first shot double action" language solves the rule problems as discussed above. USPSA has already voted to remove the "first shot double action" language from the rulebook.

Arnie

[Vince Pinto]

Arnie,

It's not beyond the realms of possibility and I'm fairly open-minded on the issue, but I suspect there might be some highly vocal opponents to the change in Europe. Speaking frankly though, I'm a bit disappointed the matter wasn't raised during our 12 months of rule deliberations

Anyway, it's on my list.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

As a follow-up, the "behind the scenes" discussion of this matter continues, but I thought I'd just post a comment made by a member of the IPSC Rules Committee, who said "Failing to fire the first shot double-action means the competitor is subject to Rule 6.2.5.1, hence he gets moved to Open Division". Ouch! And you thought I was tough!

I must confess that my distraction with the "Yes/No" to Procedural Penalties caused my tired little grey cells to forget the above, but that's precisely why we have a very well established and successful appeals procedure

Anyway, more to follow when my colleagues have cast their final votes, which may result in me having to leave the island

[Garfield]

Vince,

Can you please make sure that the final answer gets in the IROA faq on the IPSC site, because I sometimes have a hard time convincing my more senior RO-colleagues because they don't frequent this forum ?

[Skywalker]

I thought I'd just post a comment made by a member of the IPSC Rules Committee, who said "Failing to fire the first shot double-action means the competitor is subject to Rule 6.2.5.1, hence he gets moved to Open Division"

Vince,

this is obviously a provocation, not to be taken seriously, isn't it?

Otherwise why did you all bother to write (rule 17 under appendix D4):

Competitors in this Division who, after the issuance of the start signal and prior to making the first shot, cock the hammer on a handgun which has a loaded chamber, will incur one procedural penalty per occurrence.

when the whole matter was already covered by rule 6.2.5.1...

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

No, it's not a provocation - it's a fact, in black & white. Rule 6.2.5 was revised and Rule 6.2.5.1 is new in the 2004 Edition rulebook.

The verbiage under Point 17 of PD was written before we had definitions of "single action" and "double action" in the body of the rulebook, as we wanted to make it perfectly clear to competitors that cocking the hammer then pulling the trigger was not compliance with the "first shot must be double action" requirement.

Although today we don't really need the extra verbiage in Point 17 (and I've made a note to review it next time), it does not conflict with Rule 6.2.5.1 - it merely reinforces it. Moreover, as I've said earlier, I'm open-minded on the issue of cocking the hammer after the start signal, but this matter will need to be considered firstly by the Handgun Rules Committee and then by the General Assembly.

Garfield,

We are currently working on a handful of interpretations under Rule 11.8 and these will all be posted to the IPSC website in due course but ASAP.