Can NROI amend a rule?

[LuckyDucky]

Rule 11.8.1 says interpretation is NROI's job. Can NROI validly amend a rule to change it to the opposite of what it says?
 
For example, the fence rule 2.2.3.3 says fences are not infinite height. NROI ruling eff. 4/12/17 literally amends the rule to the opposite. This is not an interpretation, but a change.
 
That is not within the NROI's responsibility, and therefore the rule hasn't changed
 
Why does this matter? Fairness. I looked up the rule before shooting a stage the be sure. I looked in the rule book on the app. After I finished someone told me that's not the rule because of the NROI "interpretation" so I zeroed the stage.
 
If we can't rely on the rulebook for rules, what's the point of having a rulebook?
 
It needs to be updated to have the actual rules in it.

[RadarTech]

A rule book rewrite has been published and is in draft at this time.

 

Www.uspsa.com/rulebook

 

 

 

[George Jones]

There is a process.

Rulings are reviewed by the BOD.  They may void it or approve it.  If they take no action after five days (IIRC) it is automatically approved.

 

The 2019 version of the rulebook will be evergreen, meaning that any future rulings or interpretations will be included in the on-line (downloadable) rulebook. 

[LuckyDucky]

An amendment is not an interpretation.

Do you mean changes will be integrated on the fly? That would be nice.

There is a process.
Rulings are reviewed by the BOD.  They may void it or approve it.  If they take no action after five days (IIRC) it is automatically approved.
 
The 2019 version of the rulebook will be evergreen, meaning that any future rulings or interpretations will be included in the on-line (downloadable) rulebook. 

[RadarTech]

An amendment is not an interpretation.

Do you mean changes will be integrated on the fly? That would be nice.

Yes changes will put inserted into the rule book on the app, and online rule documents....

[JAFO]

.

Edited October 8, 2018 by JAFO
Moved to USPSA App thread

[wtturn]

This has been the MO of the current DNROI for a long while now.  Remember Hammergate?  

[LuckyDucky]

This has been the MO of the current DNROI for a long while now.  Remember Hammergate?  

I don't actually, as I don't follow these Shenanigans, or I would have known to check the nroi rulings. What was it about?

[JAFO]

14 minutes ago, LuckyDucky said:

8 hours ago, wtturn said:

This has been the MO of the current DNROI for a long while now.  Remember Hammergate?  

I don't actually, as I don't follow these Shenanigans, or I would have known to check the nroi rulings. What was it about?

 

DNROI issued a ruling allowing aftermarket hammers in Production, in clear violation of the current App D4 at the time.  They knew they were going to revise the Production rules to allow aftermarket small parts, but they hadn't officially done so yet.

[MemphisMechanic]

On 10/6/2018 at 1:29 PM, LuckyDucky said:

I looked up the rule before shooting a stage the be sure. I looked in the rule book on the app. After I finished someone told me that's not the rule because of the NROI "interpretation" so I zeroed the stage.

 

Please describe what happened so that others won’t make the same mistake. 

[LuckyDucky]

I'm tall, so I shot over a wall as I could see all the stage targets from one spot. The WSB did not prohibit it and neither did the rule in the rulebook.

But the "interpretation" does prohibit it. Something I did not know.

Whims of men, not rule of law.

 
Please describe what happened so that others won’t make the same mistake. 

[Chili]

2 minutes ago, LuckyDucky said:

I'm tall, so I shot over a wall as I could see all the stage targets from one spot. The WSB did not prohibit it and neither did the rule in the rulebook.

But the "interpretation" does prohibit it. Something I did not know.

Whims of men, not rule of law.

 

Got to admit I've never read the rulebook to see how it would be worded but my understanding from day 1 was always that walls extend to heaven and hell.

[Ssanders224]

This has been covered a few times on the forum already. 

Before April, 2017, walls height was "as constructed" unless otherwise stated in the WSB.  Ie, you could shoot over them if you could see over them. 

 

However, USPSA published a "ruling" last year (this is different than an interpretation).  Said ruling is available on the USPSA site under "rulings". 

 

Ruling:2.2.3.3 is amended to read: Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such barriers, walls, vision barriers, snow fence barriers and other constructs will be considered to go from the ground to infinity, provided said barrier is at least 6 feet, (allowable variation = -3 inches) in height. Any barrier less than 6 feet tall (-3 inch variation) specified as extending to infinity must be clearly identified in the WSB and marked accordingly, otherwise, all barriers less than 6 feet tall are considered to be \"height as built\" and may be used accordingly by competitors.

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Ssanders224

[LuckyDucky]

What authorizes dnroi to change the rules?

This has been covered a few times on the forum already. 
Before April, 2017, walls height was "as constructed" unless otherwise stated in the WSB.  Ie, you could shoot over them if you could see over them. 
 
However, USPSA published a "ruling" last year (this is different than an interpretation).  Said ruling is available on the USPSA site under "rulings". 
 
Ruling:2.2.3.3 is amended to read: Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such barriers, walls, vision barriers, snow fence barriers and other constructs will be considered to go from the ground to infinity, provided said barrier is at least 6 feet, (allowable variation = -3 inches) in height. Any barrier less than 6 feet tall (-3 inch variation) specified as extending to infinity must be clearly identified in the WSB and marked accordingly, otherwise, all barriers less than 6 feet tall are considered to be \"height as built\" and may be used accordingly by competitors.  

[MemphisMechanic]

Because he’s always been able to.

 

However in the past it was used to clarify poor wording of an existing rule or the like.

 

Making an end-run around the BOD having to be involved in new Production hammer rules or similar? That’s a thing that began in the past few years.

[LuckyDucky]

So since I feel like finding an answer...

 

Without yet checking the minutes or articles, the answer is that only the BOD has authority to create or change rules for USPSA.

 

3.1 of the bylaws states the corporation shall "set forth and publish" rules.

 

16.1 of the bylaws says that the rules are those most recently published by USPSA.

16.3 of the bylaws state duties of NROI include "communication of official rules interpretations."

 

The bylaws do not specifically designate anyone with the power or duty to make the rules other than 3.1. It's been awhile since I checked Delaware law, but only the BOD has the power and authority to do something if it is not specified in the organizational documents. So we would need to check minutes or articles of incorporation to see if BOD delegated rulemaking power/duties to NROI.

 

Additionally, NROI "rulings" are not published as "rules" nor is it within NROI's duty to "set forth and publish" rules. Therefore, NROI CANNOT change the rules. (unless such duty was delegated by the BOD in minutes or Articles). Also, the "rules" that are "set forth and published" are the 2014 rules, not the NROI rulings.

 

 

 

 

[LuckyDucky]

Reviewing the minutes, I didn't read them all, but used keyword search on NROI. It appears 570 times. Nowhere in the minutes did the BOD authorize NROI to unilateraly change the rules willy nilly. The only thing close to this was in 2003 authorizing DNROI to establish a production gun eligibility policy.

 

 

[MemphisMechanic]

@LuckyDucky now you see why there’s some bellyaching each time a DNROI interpretation adjusts the rules. It’s technically *not* legal, yet the president himself has defended Troy’s adjustment of the Production rules on social media.

 

Unless the BOD or someone else above DNROI stops this, there’s nothing to stop it from happening.

[jhgtyre]

Not to get a political conversation going but this is why we complain about activist judges legislating from the bench.  DNROI is subverting the process. 

[LuckyDucky]

6 hours ago, jhgtyre said:

Not to get a political conversation going but this is why we complain about activist judges legislating from the bench.  DNROI is subverting the process. 

 

I thought the same. DNROI's job is interpretation, not making rules. It's not even trying to be an interpretation. It just says, "rule # is amended to read."

 

My real issue here that I wanted to ask about is that the rules aren't published properly. If a rule is changed, it should be integrated into the rulebook or in a supplement link right below the rulebook ASAP. That's how government does it, and the online US Code is updated regularly now instead of every 6 years.

 

But according to the poster above and President Foley himself, the new rules are supposed to be updated more frequently.

 

I don't suppose ignorance of the rules is an excuse for a reshoot in USPSA is it?

Edited October 17, 2018 by LuckyDucky

[Chuck Anderson]

It might have changed but every official interpretation issued by DNROI used to be voted on by the BOD. So it’s really not DNROI doing this on his own, it’s just his name on it. That only applies to the ones published online, not the stuff published in Front Sight in response to reader questions.