IPSC Rules Committee

[Vince Pinto]

Hi folks,

There seems to be some confusion here concerning the role played by Neil Beverley (IPSC Shotgun Rules Chairman), Tim Anderson (IPSC Rifle Rules Chairman) and I (IPSC Handgun Rules Chairman) in respect of the IPSC Rules Forum, so I'd like to clarify. We participate in this particular forum as members of the IPSC Rules Committee, and this is therefore a great venue if you:

1. Want clarification or explanation of an existing IPSC Rule;

2. Want to recount a match incident, and discuss whether the correct rule was applied;

3. Have difficulty understanding the intent and/or application of a rule;

4. Want to highlight what you think is an anomaly, ambiguity, error or inconsistency with a rule;

5. Want to suggest an improvement to a rule;

6. Want to highlight an issue which is not presently covered by the existing rules.

In other words, we're here as representatives and active members of the IPSC Rules Committee, and we value constructive feedback from competitors on all aspects of the rules. Our goal is to continue tweaking and refining the rulebooks to ensure, as far as humanly possible, that the rules are crystal clear and therefore easy to understand. Often this means we just need to re-write a rule, but other times this means additional rules but, at the end of the day, our goal remains unchanged - to continually improve the rulebooks with each release (and, when necessary, with official rule interpretations in the intervening period).

The other thing is that any remarks we make here in respect of rules are not official. You should email rules@ipsc.org if you want an official interpretation.

However what we cannot do is act as your voice if you just don't like a particular rule.

You all have elected representatives for that purpose and, depending on the structure of your domestic organisation, you should express your views through your City, Section, Area, District, State or Regional Director. Pick a rule, any rule, and there are those who are for it, and there are those who are against it, and this same thing occurs within the Rules Committee itself. Of course you're free to express your opinions here too, but unless your opinion is seen by your elected representative, he or she won't know about it.

At the end of the day, with at least two (often more) opinions on a particular rule, a decision must be taken, one way or the other, and each of us wins a few, and each of us loses a few. However we must, and do, move onwards and upwards because we often don't really mind which way a rule goes, as long as we achieve our primary objective of making the rulebooks as clear as humanly possible.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to once again thank the many BE Forums members who have, over the past few years, constructively contributed to the rule writing process, by identifying issues which require a new or improved rule. You have made a difference.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi folks,

I don't know who locked & pinned this thread, or who removed the subsequent posts, and it's not really important, but I'm adding this extra post to hopefully further clarify my post above. Anyway, as I tried to explain, there's a huge difference between:

1) Identifying a problem with a rule:

In this respect, my Rules Committee colleagues and I will happily consider, discuss & analyze "red flags" submitted even by an individual and, if we can see even slight merit in the case, one of us will immediately take it to the Rules Committee for further official analysis. This is because the primary function of my Rules Committee colleagues and I here is to look for "bugs" in the rules, in addition to trying to help competitors and officials understand rules and apply them correctly and consistently.

More often than not, the person having difficulty with a rule has used the wrong rule, or can't find the relevant rule, or seeks confirmation that the rule he is using applies to the incident he has recounted, and this is all great stuff.

2) Expressing your objections (or seeking amendment) to a rule:

In this respect, unless you're actually representing a Region, we cannot act as your conduit.

It would be one thing for us to say Mr. Taco Bell, Regional Director of IPSC Tabasco, has officially informed us that his Region objects to Rule NN.nn and seeks an amendment or withdrawal, and here is a copy of his draft motion he intends to submit for inclusion on the Agenda of the next IPSC General Assembly. However Regional Directors know that such submissions must go through other channels, not through this or any other public forum.

By the same token, we cannot go to the Rules Committee and say "Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice" from IPSC Guacamole object to Rule NN.nn and seek an amendment, because the next thing you know is that Fred, Wilma, Barney and Betty from IPSC Guacamole might support the rule in it's entirety or want to propose a different worded amendment. Neither party is actually speaking for a Region - they are merely expressing the views of a portion of their Region.

Even if, say, Group A is 100 people, and Group B is comprised of 1 guy and a three-legged dog, neither group represents a Region, nor can we conclude that "a majority" of the people in IPSC Guacamole who have contacted us are against Rule NN.nn, therefore we must accept "the majority view" as being representative of the views of the Region as a whole. It just doesn't work that way.

As an analogy, you can compare the above as follows:

(1) "I Have A Flat Tyre": The Rules Committee is at your service, 24/7, for Emergency Roadside Repairs.

(2) "I Don't Like This Car And I Want A New One": Talk to the guy with the pink slip, because only that person has the authority to do anything about it.