Equipment position

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

Instead of passing along Rhino's comments (which would serve no positive purpose...he was venting some frustrations), why not pass on the opinion of the VAST majority of the members that have taken the time to post on this issue?

The overwhelming majority posting here believe that we don't need to have a strict rule governing the placement of allied equipment (or, whatever you want to call your gear).

(Folks...let's keep this thread on topic..which is Equipment Position, for Single Gun)

[schmitz]

Hmmmmmm,

Some games are played by the rules.... is the ongoing discussion really true?

Change rules....another game?

Henny

PS. I like 'strict' rules, they leave no discussion!

[Vince Pinto]

.... why not pass on the opinion of the VAST majority of the members that have taken the time to post on this issue? The overwhelming majority posting here believe that we don't need to have a strict rule governing the placement of allied equipment (or, whatever you want to call your gear).

You apparently missed my post on the first page which said:

"If you object to the rule and think it's outdated, by all means take it up with your AD or RD."

and

"When, through this or other forums, I'm advised of an anomaly, ambiguity, error or inconsistency with a rule, I take it directly and immediately to the Rules Committee for action. However this particular matter is nothing more than one of many "I don't like Rule NN.nn" views but, in such cases, there's nothing for me to correct."

I simply cannot "pass on" every "I don't like Rule NN.nn" opinion, even when expressed by ("a vast majority of") 6 people to 2 people, because there are invariably different opinions on virtually every rule in the book, and often those varying opinions are already evident within the Rules Committee itself.

[schmitz]

I'd blame the Euro contingent, but it would be redundant.

Rhino,

What daya mean?

Henny.

[asiaeagle]

Every games has the own rules to guide the people to play. The rules may add difficulties and restrictions to the game players, but then less argument.

Most of shooters are trying to win the game with digging out all tricks they found, I saw so many happened at my shooting club.

We are using real firearms, as a beginner I want to play the game safely and the clear and solid rules we that need.

No rules are perfect, but must be fair to all players.

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

I missed nothing...thank you very much.

That is why I find it ironic that you are ready to take Rhino's comments to "the entire Rules Committee, from Mike Voigt down."

What purpose does that serve?

I have the count at 8 to 1. I wasn't able to determine if Neil took a position or not. But, it matters little. The feedback is here, if you choose to listen.

Suprise me.

[rhino]

That is why I find it ironic that you are ready to take Rhino's comments to "the entire Rules Committee, from Mike Voigt down."

What purpose does that serve?

Well ... it doesn't serve anything useful that I can see, but if it will make the guy feel better to do it, he should feel free. If I said it, I have to own it.

I have the count at 8 to 1.  I wasn't able to determine if Neil took a position or not.  But, it matters little.  The feedback is here, if you choose to listen.

To put the opinion behind my comment into a more palatable and perhaps constructive form:

I also think that we don't need rigid rules for this issue. The more someone tries to outguess every possibility, the more complex the rule will be, and the more troublesome it will eventually become in practice.

I don't think it matters at all where equipment is worn in a 3-Gun match, as long as everyone has the same freedoms to do what they want. A simple statement that equipment position rules (from pistol) do not apply to "3-Gun Tournaments" or "Multi-Gun Matches" would solve the problem.

I believe that moves the count to 9 to 1.

[warpspeed]

10 to 1

[Neil Beverley]

Both Vince and I have said we can see the sense in a waiver of the rule for Multi Gun Matches. There is a special need.

3 gun (or 2 gun) Tournaments are different. They consist of separate single gun matches pooled together to create Tournament results.

As single gun matches they are governed by the approved single gun rules and I support the existing rules. There is no special need to change the rule.

I have an opinion and I respect the opinion of others but please never forget that the rules were voted on in a democratic process. If at some future occasion there is a vote to change the existing rule then so be it. However, as Vince has pointed out this isn't something we just invented for 2004. It has been around for some time now and it simply hasn't attracted much attention.

Guys, we're not the enemy here. And are we not entitled to an opinion as well? Even if it's different?

[Neil Beverley]

I wasn't able to determine if Neil took a position or not.  But, it matters little.

Hey Flex,

It matters to me!

[John Dunn]

I vote for flexibility in equipment positioning.

But this is from a guy who thinks he can use a tool safely to clear a jam, so take it for what it is worth!

[Nik Habicht]

You mis-quoted Benny here:

Um, no Sir. I know what he wrote, but I believe he means something different. If you criticise the rule book, you're actually criticising the rule writer. For example, if there was a book called, say "Celsius 7-11" (about a convenience store in Sweden), written by Mr. Hugh Jarse, and you think the book is a load of bollocks, then you're actually criticising the writer, n'est ce pas?

Vince,

I can separate the product from the man. In other words, if I criticise a book, even if I call it all kinds of names, that doesn't mean that I'm calling the author those things, does it? The author might have written several other books that I had a high opinion of; he might be an outstanding person, a good father and husband, son and borther, etc. Surely my critique of one of his works does not sum up the man's entire life and worth? I know, when I criticise a rule, or when I disagree (even loudly and vociferously) with one of your judgements or opinions or thoughts, that I'm not evaluating you as a person.

[Nik Habicht]

I know that whenever I remove one of my equipment belts that my holsters, magpouches, shotshell trays start sliding around due to the pull of gravity. It would be impossible for me to comply EXACTLY with the requirement to carry all my gear in the same spot for the entire match, if I had to swap gear between stages or if the match took more than one day to complete. That doesn't equate to me trying to cheat --- I'd make every effort to get the equipment position close, but it could conceivably be off by 1/2 an inch or more. The fear does have to fit around belt loops --- and those are in slightly different places, even on the same model pants from the same manufacturer bought a couple of years apart.

Bottom line: As either a competitor or as an R.O. I want nothing to do with these rules......

[Nik Habicht]

Come to think of it, why can't I bring four guns in different configurations (which all qualify for my Division), and use the best one for each COF? Just imagine - this would be yet another step towards the Formula 1 car racing thing. You know - he with the deepest pockets has a better chance of winning.

And the list goes on ......

I'm a C-class shooter who once took a class from Todd Jarrett. Now I'm sure I could beat him in any match, if only I could afford better equipment --- because we all know here that it's the quality and cost of the equipment that wins stages, not dedication to dry-fire and practice.

I've never quite seen what's so bad about the equipment race --- especially now that there are so many divisions. I shot a couple of major matches in limited division recently, and the only thing that changed was where I had to reload --- and on a few stages it was still problematic. I have never felt that it was the other guys equipment that beat me. I have always known that it was my lack of practice....

Final thought: I firmly believe that the guy who picks ONE gun and shoots it exclusively will do better than the same guy shooting different guns....

[schmitz]

Coming from abroad, reading this discussion, PM-ing with some of you guys...

PEACE

Henny.

[Nik Habicht]

I simply cannot "pass on" every "I don't like Rule NN.nn" opinion, even when expressed by ("a vast majority of") 6 people to 2 people, because there are invariably different opinions on virtually every rule in the book, and often those varying opinions are already evident within the Rules Committee itself.

First sorry for all of the posts ---- but I came late to this party and I've got a lot to say:

I think that if you're representing the members of the organization, you have a duty to at least jot these opinions down and bring them up for discussion --- in case no one else on the rules committee shares our opinion. No one is saying that you have to support these opinions, but to dismiss them prior to discussion with your colleagues seems to be unreasonable. Yes, you're entitled to your own opinion on any of these rules, but I believe, that ethically at least, your position on the rules committee requires that you give opposing opinions the same opportunity to be heard as you do your own. Anything else gives the appearance of decision making by fiat. (No, not the car manufacturer....)

[Vince Pinto]

I think that if you're representing the members of the organization, you have a duty to at least jot these opinions down and bring them up for discussion --- in case no one else on the rules committee shares our opinion.

Sorry Nik, but I'm not representing anybody on the Rules Committee, not even Hong Kong (my domicile) nor Australia (my place of birth). The only people who represent you are those whom you have elected to do so. I serve on IPSC Committees at the pleasure of the IPSC President, and my origins and residence are totally irrelevant to my appointment.

Having said that, we do limit the number of voting members to a maximum of one per Region, to avoid the appearance that one Region can dominate a committee.

On the various IPSC committees on which I serve, I must be neutral if I'm to be effective. To that end, I certainly consider all viewpoints which are submitted to the committee by your Regional Director (your most senior representative), but I cannot be both a lobbyist and a (preliminary) adjudicator. Even if you suggest I serve as a "messenger", I assure you that there will invariably be as many "Yea" comments as there are "Nay" comments on a given rule, eventhough that might not be evident when narrowly focusing on a single forum such as this.

Case in point was the UK. There are three British members serving in various voting and non-voting capacities on the IPSC Rules Committee, however I personally dealt totally separately with the British Regional Director (who was not, and is not on the committee), in respect of the British comments which arose from our first draft of the rules.

Moreover, the fact that 10 or 100 people in a Region think that Rule NN.nn should be quashed doesn't mean that the Regional Director will actually submit it to the Rules Committee. He will weigh up all comments he receives from his constituents, he will presumably discuss it with his Council or Board, and they will decide whether or not it merits taking the issue further.

And it certainly seems like this was the way the USPSA BOD operated. There were a number of IPSC Rules which were "flagged" for discussion, but many (most?) of them were not considered to be candidates for an exception.

I hope this clarifies, but also see this thread.

[Neil Beverley]

It seems to me that there are still people tring to convince us that we should allow equipment to be moved at a MG match. Both Vince and I responded on the first day that this was raised that we could see absolute sense in a change of the rule for MG matches.

I also accept that there are some saying that there should be no restriction at single gun matches. This is the point that Vince and I are disagreeing with.

The IPSC Shotgun Committee had one voting member against the rule as it is.

I truly don't have a problem with the thrust of this discussion and I'm certain it will be raised within the committee at some future time. Overall, discussions like this are very useful. I am only unhappy and get upset by the manner in which some people put their points.

Whether or not I'm a complete an utter moron is beside the point but I don't want to be called one on this forum (I know! I know! I've exagerated it a bit ).

In the main, the vast majority of the time, the discussions on these forums are as BE would like them to be. It's his house and his house rules and rules that I wholeheartedly support. I for one am eternally grateful for what he has established here. Unlike some other places.

[Vince Pinto]

In other words, if I criticise a book, even if I call it all kinds of names, that doesn't mean that I'm calling the author those things, does it?  The author might have written several other books that I had a high opinion of; he might be an outstanding person, a good father and husband, son and borther, etc.  Surely my critique of one of his works does not sum up the man's entire life and worth?  I know, when I criticise a rule, or when I disagree (even loudly and vociferously) with one of your judgements or opinions or thoughts, that I'm not evaluating you as a person.

Nik, you have always been a gentleman here, so I truly have no argument with you, and these comments are general (they are not directed at you or any particular person). However, as you can see, both Neil and I take offence at sweeping statements along the lines of "the whole rulebook sucks".

For all intents and purposes, Neil and I (and our colleagues, whom we highly respect), have produced one book together, and the minor variations between, say, the HG and SG books are neither here nor there. If, like you, others say "Rule NN.nn is ambiguous or is unclear because ......", then you will have our undivided attention while we hear your arguments, discuss the issue as adults and try to find a consensus on a solution.

Believe me, if you meet us, I think it's safe to say that you won't see a need to immediately grab our hands and say "There there, don't cry" because we're tiny, frail and insecure guys who need to be suckled. Having said that, the dismissal of over 2 years of hard work with a "the whole rulebook sucks" type of statement, does not endear that writer to us. We don't need medals, nor a chest to pin them on, but we do expect a modicum of common courtesy.

Thanks for listening and apologies to all for the thread drift.

[Flexmoney]

- First...this particular thread is on SINGLE-GUN equipment position...if you are commenting on multi-gun (3-gun), you are in the wrong place. We have a seperate thread for that down the hall.

- Neil, I didn't mean that your opinion wasn't important, just that it didn't change the overwhelming conclusion drawn by those that have taken the time to post on this thread. (so far)

- Rhino, I had already counted your vote...I'll post an updated count at the end of this thread.

- Vince, you have stated, time and time again, that you come here for feedback from the members. Is that true or not?

- Which brings to the forefront the irony that "we should be assured that you will run and tell ALL the committees and Mike V. too" Rhino's comments that he made in frustration.

But, you refuse to share the findings and opinions of this thread.

I can't respect that action. (So I will say no more about it here and now.)

- Neil and Vince, if the vast majority find this rule unneeded...how is that a reflection upon either of you? As Vince pointed out, this rule has been on the books since the beginning (where I come from there is a bridge that connects my town with the one across the river...the speed limit on that bridge is "as fast as a horse can trot"...we don't need to keep something around when it no longer matters). You didn't write this rule. Even if you did...there is no need to attach your ego to it.

No one writing rules is a God. Mistakes will be made. Opinions will vary. Rules will become outdated.

When a shooter gives feedback on a rule, that doesn't mean they are calling any single person an a-hole. They are showing displeasure with the rule. What should they do? Should they just keep quite because somebody's feelings might get hurt?

Now, how you respond to the feedback...that is up to you to choose.

Choose wisely...the world is watching.

(My count is 10 to 2.)

[warpspeed]

After reading all the reply since my last post, I'd like to add the following:

OPEN IS OPEN.

Say what you want about 4 differnt guns and equipment races and buying a win. BLAH BLAH BLAH. If you want restriction pick a differnet division - Like production or Limited.

If I'm shooting open I'd like to have all the options open that are possible - 4 guns, 4 differnet holsters, 4 differnet loads - maybe.

However, the rules do not allow any of it so I'll follow the rules happily. Willingly even.

But if were looking for opionons - that is mine.

Pehaps we should look into an Unlimited divison

[h4444]

Add another for flexible positioning as long as it is within the rules of a division.

In USPSA I'm comfortable with Productions rules.....but many of the other divisions I say,,,,,let em adjust holsters, pouches,,,,etc.

If the rationale is based on practical carry situations......in otherwords as stated before....loosely...."you can't readjust equipment befoe a gunfight....."

Then more attention needs to be given to equipment......how many of us are carrying 50+ ounce doublestacks with 140mm mags???

I know the rules are somewhat loosely practical and I realize a line has to be drawn somewhere, but this doesn't seem to be an issue that is going to tip the competitive balance in any particular direction. As long as the rules are clearly spelled out, fair, safe, and those writing them are considering the collective will of the shooting community (which Vince does), I don't have much of a problem with them.

On a practical note,,,,,,I'm 6'3" 300+ lbs and I'm not carrying my LImited gun that's for sure. I've got enough to contend with that drags my pants down.

Keep in mind, beyond competitive advantage, there are other reasons to want to adjust equipment. Take for instance a stage that you must go prone on right away.

I'm not crazy about flopping down with a mag pouch and a mag right in my gut. Not only does it hurt,,,,but I don't like jumping on high priced mags and plastic equipment,,,,did I mention,,,I'm a big boy. :-)

H4444

[Neil Beverley]

-  Neil,  I didn't mean that your opinion wasn't important, just that it didn't change the overwhelming conclusion drawn by those that have taken the time to post on this thread.  (so far)

-  Neil and Vince, if the vast majority find this rule unneeded...how is that a reflection upon either of you?  As Vince pointed out, this rule has been on the books since the beginning (where I come from there is a bridge that connects my town with the one across the river...the speed limit on that bridge is "as fast as a horse can trot"...we don't need to keep something around when it no longer matters).  You didn't write this rule.  Even if you did...there is no need to attach your ego to it. 

No one writing rules is a God.  Mistakes will be made.  Opinions will vary.  Rules will become outdated.

When a shooter gives feedback on a rule, that doesn't mean they are calling any single person an a-hole.  They are showing displeasure with the rule.  What should they do?  Should they just keep quite because somebody's feelings might get hurt?

Now, how you respond to the feedback...that is up to you to choose. 

Flex,

Rest easy. I didn't take the slightest offence at your comment. Hence my smilie. I understood the context in which you made the point.

I’ll state my own position again. I will never be offended simply because somebody disagrees with me or with a rule that I support. Even if it is my absolute No. 1 pet rule.

I will, and do, and have, listened to any constructive remarks, comments, disagreements or criticisms. I would be a fool not to.

I will absolutely continue to be offended if those remarks are made as personal attacks or derogatory criticisms. Anyone in my shoes would take the same view, whether or not involved on a rules committee. The content isn’t the issue only the method.

Occasionally here, and all too often elsewhere, the comments fall into the second category rather than the first.

[Flexmoney]

Neil,

Nice post. It is truely a pleasure to hear such a positive and open attitude.

[Dead Buff]

I somewhat agree with warpspeed...

Let the open div move their holster, pouches, flip trousers inside out, do whatever within the rules and what remains safe (no cross draws, etc) and stick to the behind hip bone rules for Std, PD, Rev - still haven't decided what to do with Mod....talking IPSC rules....

We can not go around changing rules, etc to suit us when ever..... We all started to play this game by the rules that existed - the bad rules became better with every edition - thus give positive feedback with good solutions to be debated and stick to the rules as they are until changed (if ever).

And please don't allow multiple guns for the Open guys - I only got a limited amount of drool which will not be enough for 4+ guns per shooter....