Classifiers going? Being replaced soon? Now?

[Barrettone]

Flex,

This needs to be confirmed...but , an RMI told me that they has done away with X-Mas as a classifier. Specifically, it was Jay, and it was last year. Anybody else out there in Enos Land know about this??? Anyway, it was told to me that 3 classifiers were being kabashed. Please advise if this is rumor mill or factoid. Don't wanna make waves, but I also don't want Buckeye running an extinct classifier. Please advise. Seems to me, that it would have been printed, or a new book would be out. Maybe this is tentative pending the new classifier book, and I misunderstood??? It is possible that they willbe eliminating them in the future , and that is what he meant to convey.

Jeff

[Flexmoney]

Jeff,

I gave this it's own thread...

That is likely a possibility in the next edition of the classifiers? I haven't heard anything to make me think that has already happened though.

And, I'd hate to see Xmas go. Everybody has already built the prop...and it's a good shooting challenge.

[ErikW]

Huh? Nothing wrong with it. Ohhh, it might not be legal under the new rules. If that's the case, others may drop like flies.

[TRNinTX]

Kyle took a CRO class last weekend and this was mentioned there. The problem seems to be with the new rule concerning only 2 hits on a NS being scored. If you look at some of the target arrays on stages this rule makes the HF no good.

[BDH]

It seems like I've heard rumors of a completely new classifier book coming out for at least a year, and maybe more. I don't know where this stands though.....

[Barrettone]

Thanks for clarifying what I thought I had heard. It seems that the BoD has bigger fish to fry right now (obviously), and a few newly illegal classifiers can wait. Just wanted to bring light to the situation. For the life of me, I can't remember the other two that were specifically mentioned besides X-Mas. I'm sure it will be ironed out, and that it is just one of those growing pains that must be endured when new rules are formulated. Until then, the flexible one has approved X-mas (I'm assuming) for Buckeye, so we'll enjoy it while we can. After all, after the match we could be sending it off to Valhallah. I find it ironic that Buckeye chose a stage where you gotta hit the dirt (er...mud) if they have their typical "monsoon match". Gonna have to get real down and dirty for this match!!! If anybody can think of the other two that might become illegal due to new rules, please chime in.

Thanks,

Jeff

[Paul B]

Only a sadist would like that classifier anyway.

[driver8M3]

Huh? Nothing wrong with it. Ohhh, it might not be legal under the new rules. If that's the case, others may drop like flies.

why would it be illegal under the new rules? do you mean the rule regarding max 2 scored hits on a no-shoot?

[ErikW]

1.1.5.2 Standard Exercises and Classifiers may include mandatory reloads and may dictate a shooting position or stance, however, mandatory reloads must never be required in other Long Courses.

OK, so classifiers are still allowed to specify reloads and positions.

[Jim Norman]

Kyle took a CRO class last weekend and this was mentioned there. The problem seems to be with the new rule concerning only 2 hits on a NS being scored. If you look at some of the target arrays on stages this rule makes the HF no good.

It can't be a problem. That new rule has absolutely no discernable effect on how we play the game.

Sarcasm Mode Off.

Jim

[ErikW]

I've probably shot this classifier four times. In my mind I can vividly picture the Xmas prop, its port sizes, their distances and heights, and the targets and their A zones. No-shoots aren't even in my mental picture.

[rhino]

If X-Mas gets axed, can we also execute "Off Balance Blast" once and for all? It's just plain dangerous for a lot of people to try to shoot!

[Tman33_99]

No-shoots aren't even in my mental picture.

I have only shot this classifier once, and that single no-shoot is still in my nightmares. I remember clearly as I transitioned from the lower right port to the lower left port seeing two crooked eyeballs in the A/B zone of the no-shoot. So I decided to take the procedurals and make the shots up from the left port. As I am hearing "Unload and Show Clear" I see that now there is a nose and couple of other holes in the no-shoot. I am also hearing from the peanut gallery to shoot it again. So I put my mag back in, and emptied my mag into that bleeping no-shoot.

Shot in 32.43 seconds, 42 points and 180 points in penalties.

[Jim Norman]

Please note, sarcasm/humor mode has been switched on

But now you'd only have 20 points at least from the NS. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Sorry, but I can't help it. This is exactly the type of stage and array that is now or will shortly be outlawed. Why? No one has yet given a valid reason. other than "We USUALLY only count 2 hits. And yes there is a move afoot to mitigate the rule slightly so that if the covered target requires additional rounds then you get that many NS hits, but that wouldn't apply here unless it was worded covered target or targetS. Stil it is another example of an unneeded rule.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled forum.

Jim

[Tman33_99]

Jim,

I think a move like that would make it even more confusing. Under the proposed 15th edition rule as written. The No-Shoot would be penalized up to 2 penalties. If it was modified, to allow up to number of shots. For example on CM99-35 Xmas, would all scorers allow up to 18 penality hits (6 for T1, 6 for T2, and 6 for T3), or would they only allow 6 penality hits (2 for T1, 2 for T2, and 2 for T3) or would they allow only 6 for whichever target you feel the no-shoot is for.

I don't see anything illegal under the new propsed rules with Xmas, but it would be scored differently than in the past.

I believe it must be either you get penalized for every hole you put in it, or you get penalized up to 2 regardless. Not Get penalized up to 2 UNLESS.....This will only create problems and confusion. Just my 2 cents.

Travis

[driver8M3]

not sure why this is a problem. if you hit the no shoot a bunch of times, you might only get 20 no-shoot penalty points (under the new rule), but you've also got a bunch of penalties for misses. if you make up the misses, you still get procedurals for the extra shots, plus the extra time for the extra shots. if you hit the no shoot more than twice i cant imagine you're going to be anywhere near the hhf.

[Neil Beverley]

Please note, sarcasm/humor mode has been switched on

But now you'd only have 20 points at least from the NS. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Sorry, but I can't help it. This is exactly the type of stage and array that is now or will shortly be outlawed. Why? No one has yet given a valid reason. other than "We USUALLY only count 2 hits. And yes there is a move afoot to mitigate the rule slightly so that if the covered target requires additional rounds then you get that many NS hits, but that wouldn't apply here unless it was worded covered target or targetS. Stil it is another example of an unneeded rule.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled forum.

Jim

Jim

Elsewhere you have stated that you are going to avoid discussing this issue in a public arena again but here you are.

You falsely state that you haven't been given a valid reason.

You have been given a valid reason but you just don't like it. I can accept that you don't like the rule, we all have some rules we don't particularly like, but please reflect the position fairly.

You conducted a very heavily loaded poll on this subject on these forums but still lost the vote.

Isn't it time to deal with it and move on?

[Jim Norman]

Right you are Neil, but then I got a message from Vince where he states: "I also noted that the people most affected by the former "all hits on penalty targets count" were newcomers and/or lower grade competitors." Which is what I said he said, his reason was that newbies were affected. And frankly that is a BS reason. I interveiwed new shooters at aour club and universally thay were INSULTED by this line or reason. So as I have been stating, the origin of the rule had more to do with the feelings of new shooters, than the equity between scored hits. And the rule is still bogus since the line of reasoning used causes arrays like this one that has been in the course book for years, to be disallowed.

Yes, a few voices have said that they would push next time for the NS hits to be allowed to match the scored hits on an adjacent single target, but that fails to address this situation, as does cutting a target into halves when placed between two targets.

You and the proponents of this rule may not want to admit it, but it, just like the upside-down target rule this is a bad rule. It had no reason to exist, but now it does, so many of you are spinning up reasons that it isn't that bad. If as you all said, it had no effect, we didn't need it and if it has an effect it should have been studied to make sure that the effect was not negative.

Well it has an effect, it was not studied and the effect is negative, to which those of us that saw it are told "well wait 2-4 years and we'll offer you a partial fix". You are like a tax rebate rather than a tax reduction. You want to keep it and give back a liitle so we, the unwashed will feel grateful, rather than just not taking in the first instance.

Jim

[Neil Beverley]

Jim

You state you have a message from Vince. The text as quoted doesn't say "because he noted ......" it says "I also noted" . This supports my previous comments to you that this has never been the primary reason for the change from the Handgun Committee.

You keep on making statements about what our reasoning was when I have repeatedly told you that this was not my reasoning. Now, you either know what I'm thinking better than I do or you're accusing me of lying, or both.

You state: "the rule is still bogus since the line of reasoning used causes arrays like this one that has been in the course book for years, to be disallowed."

I don't believe the rule is bogus and you keep on incorrectly stating to all and sundry what our line of reasoning was. Neither of these elements disallow the C of F you refer to, that's an exaggeration, presumably for effect. However, I accept that the rule may change the scoring result but only if there are 3 or more penalty target hits.

Yes, a few voices have said that they would push next time for the NS hits to be allowed to match the scored hits on an adjacent single target, but that fails to address this situation, as does cutting a target into halves when placed between two targets.

We have addressed the situation by creating the rule as it is today. We think it's better. You don't. Such is life.

You and the proponents of this rule may not want to admit it, but it, just like the upside-down target rule this is a bad rule.

There you go again, deciding for me what I'm thinking.

It had no reason to exist, but now it does, so many of you are spinning up reasons that it isn't that bad. If as you all said, it had no effect, we didn't need it and if it has an effect it should have been studied to make sure that the effect was not negative.

I have given you a solid reason why I back the rule and it is based upon my beliefs in the principals of practical shooting, therefore I truly believe there is a reason for it to exist.

I have been consistent in my statements about this fact but now you launch a claim about "spinning up reasons".

I haven't said "it had no effect", please don't invent statements. You inaccurately accused me of making certain statements in the USPSA forums as well.

I have considered the effects. I happen to think the effect more accurately reflects our practical origins. Therefore, IMO, the effect is positive and not negative. You are entitled to believe, in your opinion, that the effect is negative.

"Well it has an effect," Yep! "

"it was not studied" Yes it was!

"and the effect is negative," No it isn't, IMO.

"well wait 2-4 years". Exaggerating again. Where did the 4 years come from. I have previously advised that the next primary session on the rules will be next year for implementation Jan 2006, 19 months for IPSC.

Jim, you've turned this into a personal crusade and then virtually turned it into a vendetta against the committee members simply because we've had the audacity to write a rule that you don't like. You talk about the "unwashed". Assuming this to mean the vast majority of regular shooters I think you'll find that, overall, they're fairly happy. Perhaps they don't like everything. Who does? We will never get a total unanimous agreement.

However, the result of the poll (a very biased poll at that) conducted amongst the "unwashed" on these forums was significantly in the majority to stay with the rule. How dare they!

Can we please drop this subject it's achieving worse than nothing. It's time to move on.

[jhgtyre]

Can we please drop this subject it's achieving worse than nothing. It's time to move on.

An excellent idea. Lets keep this on topic and discuss classifiers that may or may not be getting the axe. Grind your rules axes elsewhere please.

-ld

[Jim Norman]

Doen't the loss of a classifier due to a rules change fit? If a classifer is to be lost, all we need to say is CM99-XX is now declarded to be invalid. And the ruling form the IPSC Overlords would be we said it, it is done now shut up and go away til we decide to muck about again in the future.

The loss of a classifer due to a rule change is a valid discussion and if you can't discuss the rules and their effect then why bother calling it a discussion? Just create a non-interactive website that says, this is the law according to...

Jim

[shred]

Why should this classifier be lost? It's not contrary to the rules, new or old. Your classifier score is based on how well you did within the rules in place at the time.

If the rule change is significant enough that the HHF needs to change, then it can change.

In this case, there's no such need. Nobody is hitting the NS three or more times and getting 100%

[jhgtyre]

Doen't the loss of a classifier due to a rules change fit? If a classifer is to be lost, all we need to say is CM99-XX is now declarded to be invalid. And the ruling form the IPSC Overlords would be we said it, it is done now shut up and go away til we decide to muck about again in the future.

The loss of a classifer due to a rule change is a valid discussion and if you can't discuss the rules and their effect then why bother calling it a discussion? Just create a non-interactive website that says, this is the law according to...

Jim

There is a difference between civil discourse and inanely harping upon the same topic over and over again.

-ld

[Jim Norman]

Why should this classifier be lost? It's not contrary to the rules, new or old. Your classifier score is based on how well you did within the rules in place at the time.

If the rule change is significant enough that the HHF needs to change, then it can change.

In this case, there's no such need. Nobody is hitting the NS three or more times and getting 100%

Shred,

Interestingly enough, I agree, the classifer should stay. But under the new rules, it simply can't be allowed to remain. The new rules will not affect the HHF. But they do affect the lower scores. I have 6 chances to hit the NS all of which could be perf hits and of course I would Zero were that the case. under the old rules, but now under the new rules, supposing that I hit all the shots on the perf, not probable, but possible, then I am only penalized two NS hits, my score is the same as some one that only hit two NS hits, period. Secondly, having hit the NS 6+ times should I be able to actually beat someone that only hit one or two?

This is a perfiect example of why this rule is wrong as written. The proposed change to allow the number of NS hits to equal the number of scored hits would not help, since that still refers only to the number of hits scored on one target.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

Shred is right...this classifer's (which is the topic) high hit factor won't be effected by the new rules.