Metal Penalty Targets

[bgary]

Flex that brings up a good question.

I cannot find where it says that Classic sized "steel" targets are approved. Penalty target or not

There's a difference between USPSA and IPSC on the use of metal "penalty targets".

Until a few months ago, we were the same - you could only use "approved metal targets" as penalty targets. That means you could use metal poppers and plates as penalty targets, but you could not use a piece of metal cut out in the shape of a *paper* target, because there were no legal metal targets of that shape in the rulebook.

In July of 2005, IPSC issued some "interpretations" to their rules. One of those says, in part:

Penalty metal targets in the general size and shape of authorized paper targets may be used. Penalty metal targets do not have a non scoring border.

You can view the full text of the IPSC rules interpretations (there are three sets of them for the handgun rules) at:

http://www.ipsc.org/rules.htm

Aside from my own personal discomfort with (1) making substantive changes to the IPSC rules just before a World Shoot and (2) using stages based on those changes, when in fact the interpretations were only ratified by the General Assembly the day before the World Shoot began... bottom line is that the use of "metal penalty targets" was ruled legal by IPSC.

USPSA has not [yet] formally adopted those interpretations, so the use of metal penalty targets is not currently legal under USPSA rules.

Hope that helps clarify things...

Bruce

[Flexmoney]

Bruce,

Thanks a ton for that info!!!

(I will likely merge this thread in with the old thread that we have on this topic.)

[Flexmoney]

BTW, I'm not a big fan...at all...of the IPSC " rule interpretations".

It seems, like in this case, that they are changing rules as much as they are clarifying them.

That is not an interpretation, it's a re-write.

Certainly, those re-writes will make it into the next version of the rulebook...without the "due-process" that shooters are demanding and coming to expect.

Feels like bad mojo.

[bgary]

It seems, like in this case, that they are changing rules as much as they are clarifying them.

That is not an interpretation, it's a re-write.

I tend to agree.

Certainly, those re-writes will make it into the next version of the rulebook...without the "due-process" that shooters are demanding and coming to expect.

Yes. I haven't heard officially, but my understanding is that the IPSC General Assembly was to consider the "interpretations" and vote to ratify them, per 11.8.3. If the interpretations are ratified, I think they become "the official rules" on 1 January 2006.

Not sure whether that means there will be a new IPSC rulebook in 2006, or whether it just means that the interpretations are deemed to be the current text of the rules. Either way, it is clear that one must monitor the IPSC rules page if one wants to stay abreast of what the IPSC rules say on any given day. They've issued 3 different *sets* of interpretations in the last 13 months, some of which represent substantive changes to rules.

Bruce

[BigDave]

It seems to be S.O.P for IPSC - do what you want whenever the mood suits you.

[Caspian_45]

Thanks Bruce for clearing this up.

As usual, the new green rule book that took so long to get "out"is still incomplete. And still being changed to this day.

IPSC= SNAFU

[EricW]

Bruce,

I can't imagine wanting anyone else running Area 1.

Thanks for staying on top of things.

[bgary]

As usual, the new green rule book that took so long to get "out"is still incomplete.

Wellllll... yes and no.

The "green book" is the USPSA *variant* of the IPSC rulebook.

The IPSC rulebook was in place at the beginning of 2004. The "green book" did not come out until several months later, in part because of the need for the USPSA Board to go thru the rulebook, line by line, and determine which items should (or must) have "US-specific" exceptions, in order to avoid having it pull us too far from what we believe are our roots. (in candor, another significant part of the delay was simply production problems... it took longer for us to get the green book printed and delivered than we planned for).

So... no doubt we can get a rulebook out much sooner, by simply adopting the IPSC rulebook, in its entirety, for use in the US.

I, personally, will be paying a great deal of attention to whether or not IPSC plans to publish a new [complete] rulebook for 2006, based on adoption of the new interpretations. If they have a new rulebook coming, then we need to formally start that review process all over again, in order to address what we believe the rules should be in the US.

Bruce

[Jim Norman]

The one thing we NEVER want to have happen is for USPSA to simply adopt the IPSC rulebook as the rules. We have a right to have our own rulebook and the day we stop exercising that right is the day we will forever lose it.

I don't care if we only make one small change, we must have our own rules! Look at the mess down south caused in some part due to the interpratations offered up by the IPSC high-ditty-muck-mucks concerning legal guns and legal targets and what constitutes a modification or only a minor bit of detail work.

Our book while certainly far from perfect is at least under our own control. We can offer up ideas to insert changes and have them enacted. They reflect our values and how we play the game that was invented here. Does oanyone here really want the Germans, the French or any other country writing the rules for how we play the Practical Shooting Game in the US??

"Classic Targets", "Classic Poppers", no moving while shooting, no more Limited Division or L-10, Production that is almost Standard but scored Minor.

Jim Norman

[shred]

Getting back onto the topic--

Based on considerable experience with the steel NS at WSXIV (though the only NS I shot was a paper one), I like them and I dislike them. The forward-falling ones were great. The static ones had some issues-- like how much edge do you have to hit before it's a NS or not? Keeping track of how many NS have been hit is also tricky if you've got a lot of them-- the ROs had to keep score on their fingers since the paint splats get big. The total non-penetrability is cool. The lack of non-scoring border is not.

[Caspian_45]

Bruce, That was a tonge in cheek comment. I think you understood what I meant.

The constant "tweakin'" of certain rules got old after the first "fix". Make the rule and stick with it.

Jim

I am not for adopting the IPSC rule book at all. The problem with some of the IPSC rules are that some of them are left open to individual interpretation. The IPSC PD rules are very "gray". I much prefer the US PD rules for clarity.

Shred

If read the IPSC rules right, they only score, up to, the best 2 hits per no-shoot target.

[Vlad]

If read the IPSC rules right, they only score, up to, the best 2 hits per no-shoot target.

So how can you tell if you have one hit or two? If they are close enough there will be some area of paint missing and I dont think an overlay is gonna cut it.

[shred]

Shred

If read the IPSC rules right, they only score, up to, the best 2 hits per no-shoot target.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, they do, but iffen you've got six of 'em in a row, keeping track can get tricky since you really can't score the paint after the shooter is done. At the WS, the RO's used finger-counting, similar to proceedurals.

[Caspian_45]

ROFLMAO

Looks like you kept your sense of humor.

[shred]

The other thing is the steel NS really makes the heinous double-swinger work. Without protecting the overlapping passes, those would be unscorable. Without a NS there, people would wildly fling shots at them (well, more than they did anyway)

[Flexmoney]

I am trying to think of situations where the shooting challenge would be changed if they were simply painted black as hard cover. Anyone?

The no-shoot would be more punitive...giving a 25 point reduction (-10 for the ns, -10 for the miss, -5 for not getting the possible Alpha). A hard-cover miss would cost -15 (-10 for the miss, -5 for not getting the possible Alpha)

Either really sinks a shooters run on a stage.

I am not against NS's as a Shooting challenge. It is just a lot easier to keep track of things with hard-cover steel.

[XRe]

The no-shoot would be more punitive...giving a 25 point reduction (-10 for the ns, -10 for the miss, -5 for not getting the possible Alpha).  A hard-cover miss would cost -15 (-10 for the miss, -5 for not getting the possible Alpha)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Both are definitely punitive.

The difference comes when you have an aware shooter who makes up the shot. If he hit the hardcover, he's only penalized time. The NS is a minimum of -10, plus the time. With paper targets swinging behind it, it would be pretty obvious (audible) that the steel had been hit, so one would presume they'd at least attempt a makeup. Hardcover icould be a relatively minor penalty (time to make up the shot) in this context.

I agree that hardcover hits are easier to keep track of.

[shred]

With HC instead of the NS, it would have been a spray-and-pray fest on the swingers.

[Jim Norman]

But unless I missed something, "Are N/S Steel in the shape of the Classic or Metric IPSC targets legal?"

Or is that not the question?

Jim Norman

[Georg Moskopp]

But unless I missed something, "Are N/S Steel in the shape of the Classic or Metric IPSC targets legal?"

Or is that not the question?

Jim Norman

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim,

in IPSC they are legal:

IPSC HANDGUN RULES, JANUARY 2004 EDITION

JULY 2005 INTERPRETATIONS

4.1.3 Penalty targets must be clearly marked or be of a single color different from scoring targets. Penalty metal targets in the general size and shape of authorized paper targets may be used. Penalty metal targets do not have a non scoring border.

(This is just some more context, but the same source bgary quoted in the first message of this thread)

Link to the according PDF-Document on IPSC.ORG

Before this interpretation, this issue was long discussed in the "IPSC Global Village".

Maybe it would be an idea to log on there from time to time, if you are interested in the rules outside USA and their development and interpretations???

I can assure your input will be highly appreciated there

Georg

[Jim Norman]

But unless I missed something, "Are N/S Steel in the shape of the Classic or Metric IPSC targets legal?"

Or is that not the question?

Jim Norman

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim,

in IPSC they are legal:

IPSC HANDGUN RULES, JANUARY 2004 EDITION

JULY 2005 INTERPRETATIONS

4.1.3 Penalty targets must be clearly marked or be of a single color different from scoring targets. Penalty metal targets in the general size and shape of authorized paper targets may be used. Penalty metal targets do not have a non scoring border.

(This is just some more context, but the same source bgary quoted in the first message of this thread)

Link to the according PDF-Document on IPSC.ORG

Before this interpretation, this issue was long discussed in the "IPSC Global Village".

Maybe it would be an idea to log on there from time to time, if you are interested in the rules outside USA and their development and interpretations???

I can assure your input will be highly appreciated there

Georg

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

George,

I am sorry to say that the IPSC "Global Village" is far from "Global" and that opinions at variance with the powers that be are not appreciated there.

I am not allowed there and have been told that my opinions are not wanted and not to even bother contacting the person who has ultimate power over all of the content and over who is deemed worthy of inclusion in the so-called "Global Village" of IPSC.

I could accept not being allowed to post or contact people there by PM, but to not be allowed to read the information that is regularly posted there is certainly not a correct way to run an organization or its main conduit of information to the membership. I am a member of IPSC by virtue of being a Life Member of USPSA.

Moderators: I realize that I am skirting close to the edge here, but I am not sure howelse to deal with answering questions of the nature quoted above. My apologies.

Jim Norman

[Georg Moskopp]

George,

I am sorry to say that the IPSC "Global Village" is far from "Global" and that opinions at variance with the powers that be are not appreciated there.

I am not allowed there and have been told that my opinions are not wanted and not to even bother contacting the person who has ultimate power over all of the content and over who is deemed worthy of inclusion in the so-called "Global Village" of IPSC.

I could accept not being allowed to post or contact people there by PM, but to not be allowed to read the information that is regularly posted there is certainly not a correct  way to run an organization or its main conduit of information to the membership. I am a member of IPSC by virtue of being a Life Member of USPSA.

Moderators: I realize that I am skirting close to the edge here, but I am not sure howelse to deal with answering questions of the nature quoted above. My apologies.

Jim Norman

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim,

hard to believe, but w/o knowing the story behind that I can't comment on it...

Georg

P.S.: My e-mail and PN is listed in my profile.