CHA-LEE Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I had a shooter tell me at a recent match that he read in one of the latest Front Sight magazines that USPSA would be using the below IPSC rule to do away with short cutting the shooting area. I have listed the exact rule below from the IPSC Rule book. I looked on the USPSA website but could not find anything about adding this rule for 2013. I also couldn't find the 2013 USPSA rule book either. Does anyone know for sure if this rule will or will not be added in the 2013 USPSA Rule book? 2.2.1.5 If a COF has a passageway visibly delineated by fault lines and/or a clearly demarcated shooting area, any competitor who takes a shortcut outside the passageway and/or shooting area will incur one procedural penalty for each shot fired after beginning the shortcut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I have not heard a thing about that. I have also read my latest issues of FS several times and did not see anything mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I've heard nothing about any such rule being implemented in USPSA, and would not I support it if I did. And I too stay on top of published articles and discussions of USPSA rules as much as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maksim Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 so that is why I saw people running around all wacked at the moscow open.... lets not implement this. =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHA-LEE Posted December 28, 2012 Author Share Posted December 28, 2012 Thanks for the replies. I too scrubbed through the last couple Front Sight magazines and on the USPSA website and couldn't find anything about implementing this rule. I will have to talk to the shooter that was asking me about this to have him show me where he seen it talked about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I was gonna say, its not April 1st.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Have not heard of this either. Did you email Chris E? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Hopefully this isn't another "Production trigger weight" rule. I guess we will know when the BOD minutes get posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 It wouldn't be in the minutes from the meeting but there is a proposal for a new 2013 HG rule book that has a number of changes. This is one of the changes suggested by either the rules committee or the RMI corps. Not sure which. The original plan was to have the changes proposed by the 17 th and the rule book out to the BOD for review and approval before Jan 1 with implementation on that date as well. We did receive the proposed rules but I haven't had a chance to go through them personally. There also is not a meeting scheduled for approving the rules yet either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 My guess is that if you polled the membership the vast majority would not support this rule change. As a stage designer I like having the option of letting the shooters cut a corner if they choose to. If I want to restrict their movement I will do so with barricades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 My guess is that if you polled the membership the vast majority would not support this rule change. As a stage designer I like having the option of letting the shooters cut a corner if they choose to. If I want to restrict their movement I will do so with barricades. Totally agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFlowers Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I have to agree with Scott. If you want to stop the person from cutting the corner, a barrier is easy enough to put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztecdriver Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) It wouldn't be in the minutes from the meeting but there is a proposal for a new 2013 HG rule book that has a number of changes. This is one of the changes suggested by either the rules committee or the RMI corps. Not sure which. The original plan was to have the changes proposed by the 17 th and the rule book out to the BOD for review and approval before Jan 1 with implementation on that date as well. We did receive the proposed rules but I haven't had a chance to go through them personally. There also is not a meeting scheduled for approving the rules yet either. Chuck, My guess is this came from an RM that has had to deal with match day mayhem where there is a hole big enough for a semi to be run through and additional barricades deployed to fix said hole - and they want to make it easier to stop short cuts through courses they hadn't thought of being exploited. Personally, I get it - but I don't support it either. It introduces a far many more issues than it solves. Mulitple shooting area stages, for a foreseen example, then again - it would all depend upon the rule wording. Short of some very substantive examination of examples where it was needed - short of educating shooters to be more "international" friendly and not get bitten when they go IPSC, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to change this behavior. Edited December 28, 2012 by aztecdriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reshoot Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Wow, that would be a HUGE move! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoNsTeR Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I don't think this rule is even enforceable as it's written. What does "takes a shortcut" mean? It seems clear that if I cut a corner by taking steps outside the shooting area, and travel less total distance than if I had stayed inside the lines, that counts. But what if the route I take is longer, despite being outside the lines? What if I cut an inside corner without setting foot outside the lines? We can speculate based on the inferred intent of the rule but my point is that it's not clear, and IMHO that makes it a bad rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 As of right now, there is nothing in the proposed 2013 rulebook regarding this rule--it was suggested, but I believe we've written it out in favor of more practical rules regarding stage design and restrictions on movement. I do not believe that the entire board, nor the RMI corps, has had time to review the 2013 rules, but we are working towards it. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris iliff Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Stupid rule. I find it increasingly frustrating that we would even consider following such a rule.... It's one small step at a time, couched in seemingly reasonable tenets, suddenly you wake up.....and it's too late. What you love is gone, it's not better, IT IS GONE. I'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I would be 100% against this rule as the standard for stage design. Might as well do away with dynamic shooting. We just tell you to go here an dshoot this target then go there and shoo that target... BUT I can also see certain stage designes that add in a certain amount of challenge where keeping within a defined shooting path would be proper. As an example, and I suppose one would have to harken back to the days where we wrote a scenario for a stage, design a stage where the shooter is on a long skinny pier out over a swamp and is tasked with shooting his targets from this small skinny pier. Cuting across from one leg to anohter would require that the shooter grow wings were we to do this on an elevated platform say 6 feet in the air. A rule such as this allows us to buidl a stage emulating the scene but keeping it on the ground where a fall is both unlikely to occur and even less unlikely to cause an injury. The peir could be designed as being only 12" in width, Putting up barriers would mean it would have to be much wider and would reduce the challenge, yes there is a shooting related challenge in not running outside of a very narrowly defined path, similar to making you carry a weighted case or some other 'non-shooting' related activity. Then agian we have strayed so far from Practical that maybe it no longer is of a concern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 They had a T shaped stage at the IPSC Nationals this year where the IPSC version of this rule came into play. Didn't like it there. Someone got dinged enough to basically zero the stage because they cut a corner a couple steps. Don't like it, throw some walls up. I'd rather not have to change all of USPSA to allow someone to avoid having to set up more props. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a matt Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Plus 1, with Chuck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) They had a T shaped stage at the IPSC Nationals this year where the IPSC version of this rule came into play. Didn't like it there. Someone got dinged enough to basically zero the stage because they cut a corner a couple steps. Yep, didn't come back in at the same spot he went out. Caused a bit of an issue. The good part it the rule was applied evenly no matter who the competitor was. Bad part is it is a weird rule. Kinda like the IPSC no dry fire rule at MR. Edited December 31, 2012 by remoandiris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) I wish I could find video of the stage from a European match that had the shooters running through this spiral maze. I'm not sure how the IPSC rules read, but it seems like it would be in violation of this USPSA rule: 1.1.8 Scenarios and Stage Props — The use of scenarios and reasonable stage props is encouraged. Care must be exercised, however, to avoid unrealistic non-shooting requirements which detract from the shooting challenge and/or may expose competitors to potentially unsafe conditions. Edited December 31, 2012 by sperman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Stage 15 at the US-IPSC Nationals had this issue. Chris Tilley stepped out and back in but the Range Crew stated that he made progress down range so initially assessed with about 14 procedural errors (one per shot fired after the step-out). It was overturned on arbitration. The video is here, just scroll down until you reach Stage 15: Chris Tilley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got Juice? Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) Stage 15 at the US-IPSC Nationals had this issue. Chris Tilley stepped out and back in but the Range Crew stated that he made progress down range so initially assessed with about 14 procedural errors (one per shot fired after the step-out). It was overturned on arbitration. The video is here, just scroll down until you reach Stage 15: Chris Tilley As per IPSC RULES YES it is spelled out as one point per occurrance, but the RO Also has to determine if significant advantage occurred. Ie if he fired at 7 targets (14 shots) outside the delineated area, it is possible if no significant advantage was gained to only be charged for the shots that gained the advantage. Personally, the marked boundaries to shoot within are fine. Game Your stage as you will....it adds a little more challenge in some respects. If you blow a stage because of lines drawn, let me remind (gently) that THE SHOOTER is responsible for compliance with USPSA rules, IPSC rules, scorecards, equipment legality, ad nauseum. Going to arbitration because you did not understand the rules or the stage is poor. That is also the shooter's responsibility to themselves. Edited December 31, 2012 by Got Juice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cd662 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I would not be in favor for this rule. This is the first time I've heard of it being applied to USPSA. "As per IPSC RULES YES it is spelled out as one point per occurrance, but the RO Also has to determine if significant advantage occurred. Ie if he fired at 7 targets (14 shots) outside the delineated area, it is possible if no significant advantage was gained to only be charged for the shots that gained the advantage." ROs trying to subjectively assess penalties based on if they FEEL that shooters MAY HAVE gained an advantage. This sound perilously like another action pistol sport...let's not go down this road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now