"Show me the rule that allows X"

[JAFO]

I'm having a little difficulty properly articulating this question, so forgive me if I seem to ramble a bit.

I sometimes read discussions where someone will request someone else to point out the rule that permits an action/procedure/course design. In some cases, there isn't a rule that specifically allows it, but there's no rule specifically preventing it, either. In those cases, shouldn't that action/procedure/course design element be allowed?

The overall rulebook isn't written like the Production modification rules (D4,22):

"A modification is only allowed in Production Division if there is a rules clause or interpretation which specifically declares that it is allowed in the Division."

There are rules that specifically prohibit some things and rules that specifically permit others, but the book can't be inclusive of every scenario, nor do I think anyone would want it to be. The freestyle concept encourages people to find creative ways to solve the problem from the shooter's perspective, but it also allow for creative problems from the stage designer's perspective. So just because you can't find a rule specifically allowing X, doesn't mean you can't do it, providing that there's no rule specifically against X, right?

I guess the thing I want to know is, when I see someone arguing a position based on the absence of a rule to allow it, am I'm wrong in thinking that there doesn't need to be one?

[WDB]

I think you talke youself in a circle , maybe twice. From what I get from this is yes you are correct or is no there doesn't need to be a discussion. If there is not a rule saying you can't do it then it's fair game.

[CHA-LEE]

JAFO> It all depends on what Gun Division you are talking about. For Production Division the rules to define what is or isn't legal with regards to changing or modify on the gun are very well defined in Appendix D4.

To answer your question about "If its not specifically defined as a limitation is it fair game to modify", the answer to that is NO. Check out page 81 of the rule book in the "Special Conditions" section. The second line item states "Unless specifically authorized above, modifications are prohibited. Except for Item 7, revolvers are subject to all restrictions above.". This stipulates that ANY modifications other than what has already been defined in appendix D4 are prohibited.

What can or can't be modified is very cut and dry in the Appendix.

[JAFO]

CHA-LEE, I was using the gun modification rules as an example, but they were not the object of my question. My point was that the rest of the rules are NOT cut and dry like the Production gun rules. I'm talking about various actions, WSB procedures, or stage design elements that are not otherwise prohibited by a specific rule.

Edited May 16, 2011 by JAFO

[Joe4d]

with the exception of equipment mods, the rest of the rule book is written to prohibit things, so if it doesnt say you cant, and it doesnt violate a safety issue then it is pretty much fair game, thats what freestyle is.

[whitedog]

Joe4d, that's the way I see it also. If it is not prohibited, or unsafe, then it is allowed. Some seem to see it differently.

[pjb45]

I pretty much agree. The rule book allows for actions that are not explicitly prohibited- - to a point.

Some things particularily in the appedicies, that can have a different flavor to them.

The rule book can not cover ever situation, in which case, the RO should exercise good judgement (IMO)which reflects safety first, then other stuff, equipment modifications to me, take a second place to procedure calls.

It kind of comes down to what is explicit in the rule book and what can be inferred. The latter being the hard part for most people to understand. A phrase like significant advantage seems to cause some ROs problems. But to me that is a judgement call.

[sfchorn]

There is a LOT of room in the rulebook for the competitor to solve the shooting problem in his or her own way.

There are two types of rules in the rulebook. The first is a rule that says you must do something (such as the definition of facing uprange). You must perform all the actions that comprise the rule, BUT NOTHING MORE.

The second type of rule indicates what you can't do, and generally (but not always) penalizes the infraction (such as finger inside the trigger guard while loading, unloading....etc.). You can do anything you want (such as hop on one foot and whistle "Mack the Knife") EXCEPT the proscribed action.

Some rules are very specific, while others have less detail. Bottom line, it is either written in the rulebook, or it ain't. You can't intuit intent.

Does that mean we all consistently apply the same rule the same way at the same time? Nope. We're all human, and have different experience levels. But that's one of the things I like about this forum and these discussions. They do promote consistency. I know I've learned tons of stuff and think about things differently after reading posts from Troy, George, Gary, et al.

And I'm still learning.

[Poppa Bear]

If the rules were black and white there would be no reason for an arbitration committee, or all the disagreements that take place here on the rules forum. This is also why at major matches you have the RO's, the CRO's, the Range Master, the Arbitration Committee. The RO makes a call to issue a procedural, a DQ or a change to the shooters equipment. The CRO backs him up or disagrees with his reasons. The RM can make a decision on top of that based on the RO's and CRO's decisions. If they all agree and the shooter still does not agree they can pay to arbitrate their ruling. After all of that then there might still be a disagreement on the proper call. At this point NROI releases their decision which may not be added into the rule book for several years but will be released as an official ruling that future acts will be based on. In 20 years our rule book will be the size of a small phone book as each gray area becomes smaller and smaller and we start to have rules like 1.2.3.4.5.6.7

[George Jones]

There is one place in the rulebook which leaves some room for "unspecified" actions which could lead to penalties. If you read the lead-in to 10.5, you will see that it says "but are not limited to". That simply means that the rules cannot possibly list all the possible "unique and entertaining" things shooters can do with a gun.

That does not mean that the RO can or should apply his own bias in order to call a DQ, but it does open the door to gray areas which will require calm discussion after the fact.