mactiger Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Three new sets of USPSA rules, including the Multigun Rules (they have been provisional for a while, but are up for member comment), SCSA rules, and the long awaited 2013 (2014?) rule book are all up on the USPSA web page, There is a link from there to the USPSA forums for member comment. This is probably the only place your comments are going to count. You can always write your Area Director or the President, but putting them on the forum will ensure they are all together and don't get forgotten, lost in junk email folders, or overlooked. There will be a 90 day member comment period, after which the rules will most likely be tweaked per the comments, and then they will come before the board for a vote. We are looking for helpful suggestions and constructive criticism. They are probably not perfect, but I believe they address the majority of member concerns and as always are competitor driven. There are a couple of significant changes, so read carefully. There is also a summary of changes link, which at present is not working right, but should be fixed shortly. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 it looks like a minor cut and paste error. the 'handgun rules summary of changes' link appears to go to the multigun rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Thanks Troy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 it looks like a minor cut and paste error. the 'handgun rules summary of changes' link appears to go to the multigun rules. Here is the link for the summary of changes to the handgun rulebook. http://www.uspsa.org/document_library/2013%20USPSA%20Handgun%20Rules%20Summary%20of%20Changes_web.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I'll head over to the USPSA forums to make comments, but it looks like many issues which were brought up here on Enos have been addressed. Thanks to Troy and the rest of the BOD for listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) Thanks for the link. First thought (after looking at a different organization's presentation of rules for comment) is WOW, uspsa really has their act together. I love having the changes spelled out and I love having the notes that explain the reasoning or goals. Unless I misread 3.3.1, it looks like L10 is going to be a lot more popular in the future. Edited July 10, 2013 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWFAN Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Thanks for the link. First thought (after looking at a different organization's presentation of rules for comment) is WOW, uspsa really has their act together. I love having the changes spelled out and I love having the notes that explain the reasoning or goals. Unless I misread 3.3.1, it looks like L10 is going to be a lot more popular in the future. from rulebook 3.3.1: In states where competitors are restricted by law to maximum magazine capacity, that maximum capacity will be the maximum allowed for all competitors in the contest. Any such limitations must be made known to all competitors by the Match Director/Range Master before the start of the match. So does this apply in states with grandfather or pre-ban clauses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHA-LEE Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I see an issue with the changed 8.1.2.4 with regards to the safety being on/off. There is no interpretation of "When" the safety must be transitioned to the "On" state. The way it is currently written gives a shooter some wiggle room to think its ok to flip the safety from off to on while the gun is in the holster. The new verbiage should be changed to add a "when" the safety is legally switched from off to on. Doing it while its in the holster is not the appropriate "When" to perform this safety lever position change. Maybe changing the verbiage to the following would solve the issue? "The primary safety must be enabled prior to holstering the firearm and must remain enabled while the firearm is holstered in order to be in compliance with 10.5.11" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHA-LEE Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 10.2.x needs to be beefed up to show examples of what stipulates a "Significant Advantage" and what isn't. This is probably the most misused and misunderstood procedural assessment scenario in the rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunchies95 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) 10.2.x needs to be beefed up to show examples of what stipulates a "Significant Advantage" and what isn't. This is probably the most misused and misunderstood procedural assessment scenario in the rule book. I agree that it is the most misunderstood. But it is also very subjective given the course of fire and the actual procedural that occured. Maybe add a definition of "significant advantage" to mean: A significant advantage is considered being 2 feet closer to target, reducing the angle of lean required to view target by more than 15 degrees, or as determined by RM. They already added being wholly outside the shooting area, which I really like. **edit: distance and numbers are guidleines, I am not quite sure if the numerical values are appropiate or even if they are feasible to use (especially angle of lean). Edited July 10, 2013 by Bunchies95 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHA-LEE Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I think that a significant advantage description could be pretty simple. Such as "While faulting the competitor is able to engage additional targets which are not visible/accessible from within the shooting area near the faulting location". To me, being closer to the same target you can already see from within the shooting area is not a significant advantage. Being able to eliminate additional shooting position(s) within the shooting area by faulting and engaging the targets while faulting IS a significant advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAFO Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I think avoiding an unconventional shooting position (ie, a hard lean) by stepping out and being able to be more upright could also be a significant advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHA-LEE Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I think avoiding an unconventional shooting position (ie, a hard lean) by stepping out and being able to be more upright could also be a significant advantage. I can agree with that to a point. The gray area comes into defining what a "hard Lean" is. A "hard lean" to an over weight 50 year old shooter is probably not the same as a "hard lean" of an in shape 25 year old. I think in the end, its all about what an equitable penalty is for the faulting scenario. A single 10 point procedural penalty has a pretty big impact to a shooters hit factor. I usually look at it from a HF vs Time perspective. If the stage is a 10HF stage the shooter would need to gain a Time advantage of at least 1 second to make faulting and eating a procedural a wash. There are very few "Hard Lean" scenarios that I could see ANY skill level shooter gaining more than a second time advantage by avoiding the hard lean and shooting from a faulted position. In this type of scenario a single procedural penalty is more than enough to make it not worth doing. Why try to club the shooter over the head assessing excessive per shot fired procedurals when you already have a sufficient penalty by assessing a single procedural? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I think the easiest solution is to call the RM and have him make any SA calls. That way the rule is applied consistently for all competitors in the match. BTW, the discussions here are probably going to be ignored for the most part. There is a link from there to the USPSA forums for member comment. This is probably the only place your comments are going to count. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 8.7.1 A competitor is permitted to take a sight picture prior to the start signal. Such sight picture is only permitted no more than one step from the “Make Ready” location. I think adding wording allowing a shooter to move from behind a wall to take a sight picture would make a lot of sense. Sometimes that can be much more than one step. It does no good to take a sight picture at a solid wall 1 foot in front of your face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 I can't login using my USPSA log in info. What do I need to log in with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 You have to create an account on the USPSA forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CZinSC Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The easiest way to make the Significant Advantage call is to NOT HAVE TO MAKE it in the first place! An advantage is an advantage, it’s always significant. I don’t care if you’re one foot closer, or one foot FURTHER away from target. If you’re outside the shooting area, YOU’RE OUTSIDE THE SHOOTING AREA! You’re gaining an advantage over other competitors that ensured they remained wholly within the shooting area. Drop the Significant language nonsense. Make it easier on everyone. One procedural for every shot fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CZinSC Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 8.7.1 A competitor is permitted to take a sight picture prior to the start signal. Such sight picture is only permitted no more than one step from the “Make Ready” location. I think adding wording allowing a shooter to move from behind a wall to take a sight picture would make a lot of sense. Sometimes that can be much more than one step. It does no good to take a sight picture at a solid wall 1 foot in front of your face. I could be wrong, but I think that is exactly why they ADDED the language they did. They don't want shooters wandering away from the start box at Make Ready. Before it was ambiguous, now they cleared it up. ( although...........how BIG of a step can you take? ). I for one like this addition. Since I shoot Production, I need to lower the hammer. I don't like doing that in front of a wall. I like to step to the side and point away, but around here there is an Ornery Ole RO that doesn't let you move at all from the box. Now I can at least take a step away per the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Thanks, Troy, et al, I hope to have some time with this in the next few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) Is anybody having problems getting to the server? I took a quick look at the changes and they looked pretty good but I can't seem to connect now. Later, Chuck Edited July 11, 2013 by ChuckS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 8.7.1 A competitor is permitted to take a sight picture prior to the start signal. Such sight picture is only permitted no more than one step from the “Make Ready” location. I think adding wording allowing a shooter to move from behind a wall to take a sight picture would make a lot of sense. Sometimes that can be much more than one step. It does no good to take a sight picture at a solid wall 1 foot in front of your face. I agree with this, and my stage (las vegas) at area 1 this year was a good example of where it was about 2 steps from the start position to the nearest place you could realistically see a target. We let everyone take the extra step, and just about every competitor was polite and professional and asked for permission first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deacon12224 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 8.7.1 A competitor is permitted to take a sight picture prior to the start signal. Such sight picture is only permitted no more than one step from the “Make Ready” location. I think adding wording allowing a shooter to move from behind a wall to take a sight picture would make a lot of sense. Sometimes that can be much more than one step. It does no good to take a sight picture at a solid wall 1 foot in front of your face. I agree with this, and my stage (las vegas) at area 1 this year was a good example of where it was about 2 steps from the start position to the nearest place you could realistically see a target. We let everyone take the extra step, and just about every competitor was polite and professional and asked for permission first. I think if you are going to allow more than one step, it must be done with RO permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I can't find anything that says the "Make Ready" location has to be the same spot as the start position. It is up to the CRO on the course of fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caspian guy Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) Thanks to Troy for the heads up. With a quick read looks like they cleaned some stuff up that has needed it. I guess I'll head over there and ask about a couple of things. Still seems they have a problem with the gauge use for mag length measuring (unless I misunderstand what they are telling me). There is an implicit assumption built into the gauge that mag tubes are actually flat and square on their back surfaces. In my experience most mag tubes aren't (though it was good to see the wording to address basepads that don't fit the cutout in the gauge). Also curious if the language about maximum mag capacity, in states with limits, applies to states that grandfather pre-ban full capacity mags. Wish they hadn't removed the round count exemption for level I matches (though I understand it). Maybe they could put a process to get a waiver in for special matches (Colorado 300 comes to mind) so they could still be shot under the USPSA banner. Edited July 11, 2013 by caspian guy 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