wgnoyes Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Okay, Cindy is a CRO and she asked this question this morning while we waited in line to vote and she was reading her copy. What is the point of 1.2.2.2 which says in its entirety "Not applicable"? Its not a US rule; its in the IPSC book as well. And it doesn't correspond with anything in the prior rulebook that I can see. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Bill, IIRC, this comes from the IPSC attempt of having rulebooks for HG, SG and Rifle with the same paragraphs and numbering, as well as section content and so on. This particular rule is present in the Rifle Rulebook, but is not applicable to HG and SG as well: 1.2.2.2 If 1 hit per paper target is required "Standard Exercises" must not require more than 12 rounds to complete. Component strings must not require more than 3 rounds (6 rounds if a mandatory reload is specified). Mandatory reloads, shooting positions and stances may be specified. The use of the weak shoulder may not be specified. (from IPSC Rifle Rulebook) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Precisely. The various rulebooks are supposed to be "synchronized" - a rule in the handgun rulebook is supposed to apply to rifle and shotgun unless it is supplanted by a discipline-specific rule. So... where there is no handgun rule that correlates to a rifle- or shotgun-specific rule, that "placeholder" is used to keep the structure intact. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 During the final stages of producing the rule books we spent quite a lot of time moving rules where we could, and only if sensible, so as to minimise the number of occurrences of "Not applicable". If possible we moved rules that only related to one or two out of the three disciplines to the end of a section or primary rule. Where we were able to accomplish this then we haven't printed a "Not applicable" rule because there is no break in the continuity of the numbering. The only "Not applicables" are to avoid a break in a sequence. After a huge amount of time and effort we managed to end up with just 3 unavoidable "Not applicables" for Handgun, 10 for Rifle and 14 for Shotgun. Of course there are many more but they simply aren't printed. This partly explains why there have been some of the adjustments we see today. Now that we have knocked this aspect of the 3 sets of rules into shape it should help minimise the impact of future changes. I've already posted this once before, a few weeks ago but I think it's worth repeating. I've prepared a document, on a single page, which identifies any and all rules (IPSC) that have a rule difference in one or more of the three disciplines. The format is easily understood. Download the document from HERE This only deals with IPSC rules. If someone from the Board (Bill ?)wants to update the document in line with the US changes then I would be happy to make the original available. Actually Mike V., John A. and Arnie have all been sent, or had access to, the document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I think I'll take that on. If you wouldn't mind sending me a copy of the original? Thanks, Neil. Bruce (area1@uspsa.org) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 ... If someone from the Board (Bill ?) ... Just to clarify, I'm not on the USPSA Board of Directors. I'm one of the EzWinScore beta testers (though my role sometimes expands beyond just testing), and I'm also the last ditch "can't get anyone else" "Rob just got run over by a reindeer" (its getting close to that time of year) guy to call on to maintain uspsa.org. So I was naturally interested in making sure we had good usable .pdfs of the rulebooks this go-around. But BOD? Nope; Area 6 has Charles for the next 4 years for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I think I'll take that on. If you wouldn't mind sending me a copy of the original?Thanks, Neil. Bruce (area1@uspsa.org) Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 ... If someone from the Board (Bill ?) ... Just to clarify, I'm not on the USPSA Board of Directors. I'm one of the EzWinScore beta testers (though my role sometimes expands beyond just testing), and I'm also the last ditch "can't get anyone else" "Rob just got run over by a reindeer" (its getting close to that time of year) guy to call on to maintain uspsa.org. So I was naturally interested in making sure we had good usable .pdfs of the rulebooks this go-around. But BOD? Nope; Area 6 has Charles for the next 4 years for that. Bill My apologies. I added your name because of your recent excellent work on the PDF versions of the USPSA rule books. I should have checked. 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