Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Why are classifiers retired?


bbbean

Recommended Posts

The classifier we'd announced and set up for this weekend's match (99-50) was apparently retired after we announced it. Fortunately, a member caught it, and we're replacing it with another classifier (06-04), but it raised a couple of questions:

1) What's the criteria for retiring a classifier?

2) How much notice is typically given?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most classifiers are retired when rule changes render them unusable. There are other reasons but that's the main one.

Rules change whenever the board sees fit to change them which means classifiers can change with little or no warning.

The list of current classifiers is posted on the USPSA web site: http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-classifier-list.php

There is no official notification when classifiers change. I check the list every time I select a classifier to make sure it is current.

The classifier we'd announced and set up for this weekend's match (99-50) was apparently retired after we announced it. Fortunately, a member caught it, and we're replacing it with another classifier (06-04), but it raised a couple of questions:

1) What's the criteria for retiring a classifier?

2) How much notice is typically given?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they retire some because they need to make way for new ones that will be coming in? It seems like they use quite a few stages from the Single Stack nationals for new classifiers. I think that all of the 09-XX classifiers were based on the 2009 Single Stack Nationals stages. I think its cool that they retire classifiers and add new ones. Even though they have quite a few classifiers to choose from it gets kind of old seeing the same ones over and over in club matches. Retiring old ones and bringing in new ones keeps it fresh.

Edited by CHA-LEE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys. I understand that classifiers are retired when rules change, I know where to look them up, and I understand that the BOD can retire them at will. My question is generally what criteria they use to retire classifiers, and specifically what criteria they used to retire 99-50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys. I understand that classifiers are retired when rules change, I know where to look them up, and I understand that the BOD can retire them at will. My question is generally what criteria they use to retire classifiers, and specifically what criteria they used to retire 99-50.

Looking at it, I don't know. It appears to still meet all current design criteria except possibly 1.1.5 ... freestyle. However, as an established Classifier, it had an exemption under 1.1.5.2. (Note however, now that it is not a classifier, it is no longer legal under 1.1.5, though possibly a Level I match could still use it under 1.1.5.1.) Perhaps, and I'm only guessing here, there could have been some significant inconsistencies in setup and/or administration of the stage that lead to it being "tossed." I don't really know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys. I understand that classifiers are retired when rules change, I know where to look them up, and I understand that the BOD can retire them at will. My question is generally what criteria they use to retire classifiers, and specifically what criteria they used to retire 99-50.

Good question, and I don't have an answer :blush: . Is there anybody that has an answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys. I understand that classifiers are retired when rules change, I know where to look them up, and I understand that the BOD can retire them at will. My question is generally what criteria they use to retire classifiers, and specifically what criteria they used to retire 99-50.

Good question, and I don't have an answer :blush: . Is there anybody that has an answer?

I would start with John Amidon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys. I understand that classifiers are retired when rules change, I know where to look them up, and I understand that the BOD can retire them at will. My question is generally what criteria they use to retire classifiers, and specifically what criteria they used to retire 99-50.

Good question, and I don't have an answer :blush: . Is there anybody that has an answer?

I would start with John Amidon.

and/or your Area Director ...

Edited by Schutzenmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, and I'm only guessing here, there could have been some significant inconsistencies in setup and/or administration of the stage that lead to it being "tossed." I don't really know.

I seem to remember something just like that -- perhaps in one of John Amidon's columns, a few years ago -- where a classifier was retired, because some clubs shot it "as intended" while others did not. IIRC, the decision was made to disallow it, because it would be difficult or impossible to verify that the hit factors achieved by competitors were accurate.....

There's language -- in the Classifier Course Book, IIRC -- that basically says that classifiers are to be shot "straight up, without gaming" because that is the only way that the scores derived from them would be a consistent indicator of ability when compared to the known standard...

When it becomes clear that's not happening, I think the classifier needs to be removed....

It's an imperfect system....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, and I'm only guessing here, there could have been some significant inconsistencies in setup and/or administration of the stage that lead to it being "tossed." I don't really know.

I would agree. This classifier is similar to Off Balance Blast another one that had a wide variety of HF's depending on how it was set up. It is hard to get a true test of ability when it is left up to the clubs to interpret how the classifier should be set up. Does the 2x4 sit on edge, flat, does it form the top of the frame, or is it sitting on top of the 2x2 frame?

For the shooting box. Is it on rocky ground, sandy ground, concrete, do you have carpet or something like that under the box because the ground is wet or muddy? All things that effect how you shoot the steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I am aware of is that the classifier doesn't fit the current rules.

1.1.5.2 Standard Exercises and Classifiers may include mandatory

reloads and may dictate a shooting position, location or stance.

It does not say "May dictate order" which I would take as cannot specify paper above the bar and steel below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I am aware of is that the classifier doesn't fit the current rules.

1.1.5.2 Standard Exercises and Classifiers may include mandatory

reloads and may dictate a shooting position, location or stance.

It does not say "May dictate order" which I would take as cannot specify paper above the bar and steel below.

Mike

Paper above/Steel below would be dictating a position, not an order. Positions can be specified in a Stds or Classifier CoF. However, the WSB would seem to indicate paper first, THEN steel ... Generally speaking, I've seen this intrepreted as "shoot arrays in either order, just shoot them from the correct position" ... though I admit that's not exactly what the WSB says here. Maybe there's the reason for pulling it. (Just guessing here.)

The CoF does not qualify as a Stds course for several reasons: Stds must be VC or FT (This is CS), they must be paper targets only (This has poppers), and there must be two or more strings (This has only one.)

It also does not qualify as a Short Course (1.2.1.1) as it violates 1.1.5 ... BUT, it MIGHT be OK for a Level I match using the 1.1.5.1 exemption. (Specifying where targets can be engaged from.) It would certainly be OK for any level match if you eliminate the "over the bar/under the bar" requirement.

It does not qualify as a Speed Shoot (1.2.2.3) as there is more than one required view. (Above the board and below the board.)

Other than that, I can't see anything other than an administrative reason for pulling it as a Classifier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I am aware of is that the classifier doesn't fit the current rules.

1.1.5.2 Standard Exercises and Classifiers may include mandatory

reloads and may dictate a shooting position, location or stance.

It does not say "May dictate order" which I would take as cannot specify paper above the bar and steel below.

Mike

Paper above/Steel below would be dictating a position, not an order. Positions can be specified in a Stds or Classifier CoF. However, the WSB would seem to indicate paper first, THEN steel ... Generally speaking, I've seen this intrepreted as "shoot arrays in either order, just shoot them from the correct position" ... though I admit that's not exactly what the WSB says here. Maybe there's the reason for pulling it. (Just guessing here.)

The CoF does not qualify as a Stds course for several reasons: Stds must be VC or FT (This is CS), they must be paper targets only (This has poppers), and there must be two or more strings (This has only one.)

It also does not qualify as a Short Course (1.2.1.1) as it violates 1.1.5 ... BUT, it MIGHT be OK for a Level I match using the 1.1.5.1 exemption. (Specifying where targets can be engaged from.) It would certainly be OK for any level match if you eliminate the "over the bar/under the bar" requirement.

It does not qualify as a Speed Shoot (1.2.2.3) as there is more than one required view. (Above the board and below the board.)

Other than that, I can't see anything other than an administrative reason for pulling it as a Classifier.

How about the fact that everything is visible from both above the bar and below the bar? The WSB tells you to change your position from above the bar to below the bar but there is no vision barrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the fact that everything is visible from both above the bar and below the bar? The WSB tells you to change your position from above the bar to below the bar but there is no vision barrier.

1.1.5.2 ... Standards or Classifiers MAY dictate a shooting position. Above the bar/below the bar could be considered a position. (This is a LONG standing historical practice.) However, since it is no longer a classifier, and cannot qualify as a standards, it violates 1.1.5 ... unless it can be argued for a Level I exemption under 1.1.5.1. (I THINK that would pass, but I'm not 100% certain.)

However, as I said, if someone wanted to shoot this basic setup, simply eliminate the bar and you're good to go. If you want more of a challenge, use a Biancci Barricade and let the shooter choose which side he wants to shoot around. Note also that there is no provision which would permit the specifying of SHO or WHO on a short course of fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be more interested to know why Seven was retired. It seems to be the only one that isn't a 99 that is retired.

CM 03-15 Siouxsie Queue's Standards was retired at some point. I remember it having a low HHF, but I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be legal anymore. Unfortunately USPSA deletes the diagrams for retired classifiers which makes it a little harder to dig into these questions!

A number of changes are noted here http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-classifier-list.php but certainly not all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...