6.5.2

[rustychev]

After looking at the match book for Low cap nats this year are they not violating 6.5.2 based on the range being closed to competitors for the first day of staff and the first half of the second day.   Maybe Im reading it wrong but it looks like the range is closed to competitors until 1PM on Thursday.  

[Sarge]

Of course they are violating their own rules. Email the head shed and see how far it gets you.

[RJH]

Show up and when they try to toss you throw your hundo down.   But make sure to have a hard copy of 6.5.2 so it don't get "updated" on the way to arb.....

[rustychev]

Just remember when we hold our local matches we need to make sure we're following the rule book. A fine example of do as I say not as I do I guess

 

Edit After Troys response I was wrong here and it was just a typo.  Been there done that myself.

Edited April 11, 2021 by rustychev

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

Show up and when they try to toss you throw your hundo down.   But make sure to have a hard copy of 6.5.2 so it don't get "updated" on the way to arb.....

[motosapiens]

I noticed the same thing and made a mental note to ask troy about it. Not that it matters much to me this time since I am shooting the staff match, but generally when I am not working a match, I try to show up in time to see a whole day of staff shooting. Didn't have any issues with that at race gun nats in the fall.

[rustychev]

The truth is it really won't matter to me as the earliest I would get there is 1200 on Thursday and by the time I do the safety video and register. It will be after 1. It's more the point that they tell us to go by the rule book.

 

Also I see they say fill out the equipment survey before arrival.  Do they send it out or do I need to get it someplace?

[mactiger]

Just to clear things up:  the match book has a couple of errors in it that we are aware of, and it will be corrected after this weekend, mostly due to the people who produce it being off for the weekend.  The "range is closed" is not correct, and was probably cut and pasted from an old match by someone in the production of the book.  I pointed it out yesterday, but it didn't get fixed before the book was published.

 

The range will be open on the morning that staff begins shooting, Wednesday, May 5th.  We will not be violating any rules, regardless if nobody shows up other than staff on Wednesday morning.  

 

I'd also like to point out that we have at least a half-dozen methods of getting in touch with someone in admin in USPSA and asking about things like this, rather than assuming something nefarious is going on, and making baseless accusations and assumptions.  Nice job.

 

 

[GrumpyOne]

6 minutes ago, mactiger said:

Just to clear things up:  the match book has a couple of errors in it that we are aware of, and it will be corrected after this weekend, mostly due to the people who produce it being off for the weekend.  The "range is closed" is not correct, and was probably cut and pasted from an old match by someone in the production of the book.  I pointed it out yesterday, but it didn't get fixed before the book was published.

 

The range will be open on the morning that staff begins shooting, Wednesday, May 5th.  We will not be violating any rules, regardless if nobody shows up other than staff on Wednesday morning.  

 

I'd also like to point out that we have at least a half-dozen methods of getting in touch with someone in admin in USPSA and asking about things like this, rather than assuming something nefarious is going on, and making baseless accusations and assumptions.  Nice job.

 

 

Thank you for clearing that up, Troy.

Now, everyone can go back to their regularly scheduled programming. 

[RJH]

IDK, about "baseless,"  the OPs concern was BASED on information gathered in the published match book

[motosapiens]

2 minutes ago, RJH said:

IDK, about "baseless,"  the OPs concern was BASED on information gathered in the published match book

Ok, a very limited basis. I think in general it's best to clarify before throwing people or organizations under the bus. I believe I even saw that same wording in a matchbook a couple years ago, and it also turned out to be a mistake, so I'm not at all surprised about this one.

 

Thanks to Troy for setting everyone's mind at rest. Looking forward to a fun and challenging match.

[rustychev]

26 minutes ago, mactiger said:

Just to clear things up:  the match book has a couple of errors in it that we are aware of, and it will be corrected after this weekend, mostly due to the people who produce it being off for the weekend.  The "range is closed" is not correct, and was probably cut and pasted from an old match by someone in the production of the book.  I pointed it out yesterday, but it didn't get fixed before the book was published.

 

The range will be open on the morning that staff begins shooting, Wednesday, May 5th.  We will not be violating any rules, regardless if nobody shows up other than staff on Wednesday morning.  

 

I'd also like to point out that we have at least a half-dozen methods of getting in touch with someone in admin in USPSA and asking about things like this, rather than assuming something nefarious is going on, and making baseless accusations and assumptions.  Nice job.

 

 

 

I don't think I ever said or implied you would be breaking rules (other than perhaps the 6.5.2)  Witch you have now explained.  I will also say the implication that I assumed something nefarious is going on is a stretch to say the least.  I also most certainly did not make any accusations that are not based totally on what the ORG published. 

 

So well I could have taken a more discrete path in asking perhaps you should not be so sensitive when the ORG failed to proof read before publishing.

[RJH]

20 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

Ok, a very limited basis. I think in general it's best to clarify before throwing people or organizations under the bus. I believe I even saw that same wording in a matchbook a couple years ago, and it also turned out to be a mistake, so I'm not at all surprised about this one.

 

Thanks to Troy for setting everyone's mind at rest. Looking forward to a fun and challenging match.

 

 

I was just funning.  May be good that it was posted here as the clarification will probably reach more people

[ima45dv8]

3 hours ago, mactiger said:

Just to clear things up:  the match book has a couple of errors in it that we are aware of, and it will be corrected after this weekend, mostly due to the people who produce it being off for the weekend.  The "range is closed" is not correct, and was probably cut and pasted from an old match by someone in the production of the book.  I pointed it out yesterday, but it didn't get fixed before the book was published.

 

The range will be open on the morning that staff begins shooting, Wednesday, May 5th.  We will not be violating any rules, regardless if nobody shows up other than staff on Wednesday morning.  

 

I'd also like to point out that we have at least a half-dozen methods of getting in touch with someone in admin in USPSA and asking about things like this, rather than assuming something nefarious is going on, and making baseless accusations and assumptions.  Nice job.

 

 

Thanks for taking a minute, Mac. I've noticed Jodi hanging out recently, and hoped it might get your attention, too.

Don't be a stranger around here.

 

 

 

==================

Robert,

I can tell you that I helped produce six successful Area 6 matches that were so good because the MD managed it thoroughly and had pulled together a great staff. Any of y'all who remember Cindy's matches know how good she was (still is, at GSSF). AND, one year after a number of reviews of the match book by several people (yeah, I was one of them  ), we published a match booklet with the exact same error in it. A copy-and-paste from a Nationals matchbook from 1-2 years before had that same restrictive verbiage in it. . .and we missed it. It didn't happen twice. 

 

Now that the explanation and timeline for correcting it has been shared, we can pile on or move on.

 

[Sarge]

3 minutes ago, ima45dv8 said:

Now that the explanation and timeline for correcting it has been shared, we can pile on or move on.

So piling on is good to go? Sweet. But alas, it really isn't. And we all know it. Probably never would have gotten noticed except by a forum member so a thank you to the OP seems in order. I also saw nothing nefarious in the OP.

[rustychev]

1 hour ago, ima45dv8 said:

Thanks for taking a minute, Mac. I've noticed Jodi hanging out recently, and hoped it might get your attention, too.

Don't be a stranger around here.

 

 

 

==================

Robert,

I can tell you that I helped produce six successful Area 6 matches that were so good because the MD managed it thoroughly and had pulled together a great staff. Any of y'all who remember Cindy's matches know how good she was (still is, at GSSF). AND, one year after a number of reviews of the match book by several people (yeah, I was one of them  ), we published a match booklet with the exact same error in it. A copy-and-paste from a Nationals matchbook from 1-2 years before had that same restrictive verbiage in it. . .and we missed it. It didn't happen twice. 

 

Now that the explanation and timeline for correcting it has been shared, we can pile on or move on.

 

I have no problem with the explanation it happens been there done that sent the email company wide with the typo.

 

The problem I have is the third part of Troys response.

1 hour ago, ima45dv8 said:

I'd also like to point out that we have at least a half-dozen methods of getting in touch with someone in admin in USPSA and asking about things like this, rather than assuming something nefarious is going on, and making baseless accusations and assumptions.  Nice job.

 

Last time I emailed HQ it took 2 days to get a response when I sent it during the work week.  So implying I should call HQ on Saturday morning is  disingenuous at best.  Also saying I was making assumptions about nefarious goings on and flat out saying I was making baseless accusations when the question was based on the match book put out by HQ is  rude at best and and a personal attack at worst when viewed with the "Nice job" he added at the end.

 

Having said all that and after rereading what I have said before here I am going to try and edit my second post here to say I was wrong about the "Do as we say not as we do" comment as the explanation given is very reasonable and I was wrong with that comment.

Edited April 11, 2021 by rustychev

[ima45dv8]

13 minutes ago, Sarge said:

[snip]

Probably never would have gotten noticed except by a forum member so a thank you to the OP seems in order. I also saw nothing nefarious in the OP.

I agree. I've said for almost 20 years that this place is the best acid test for USPSA rules/changes/suggestions. And You are one of the exact reasons I would use to support that statement. 

 

I too, saw nothing from the OP rustychev that was ill-intended. He was asking a good question. 

[rowdyb]

The thing I noticed in the low cap match book was all the start positions where there should be marks on the fault line but only one image in 20 actually showed them.

[rustychev]

I saw that as well.  I don't think it really matters until the stage is on the ground.

[ChuckS]

45 minutes ago, rustychev said:

I saw that as well.  I don't think it really matters until the stage is on the ground.

Yup, things may change during the build.

[rowdyb]

On 4/13/2021 at 8:48 AM, ChuckS said:

Yup, things may change during the build.

From totally downrange to totally up range? Or completely left to right? That would be odd...

[ChuckS]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

From totally downrange to totally up range? Or completely left to right? That would be odd...

I have seen up range starts changed to down range. Targets moved from one side of the bay to the other. Stuff happens. The only thing that I recall having studied and hoped it changed in recent matches is the damn 8.5" low port that Brian Nelson thought would be a good idea for the Magnus Cup.  It didn't change. 

[ima45dv8]

40 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

Targets moved from one side of the bay to the other. Stuff happens.

I/we have done that, but more at local LI's than anything.

 

This particular match (Cool Springs) was always very technical. Smart people learned early on that if a shooting area extended to a place that didn't seem likely, it was because you needed to be there. **These guys would spend all day Saturday, and often the Saturday before, setting up a state- or Area-class 6-stage match. What a bargain...

 

A lot of the consumer-types would show up early on Sunday only to walk the stages; not to help with last minute prep (target stapling, stage boxes, etc.).   

 

I was treated as an insider because I would show up early on Sunday to 'proof' the stages. That alone was a long process to get them to welcome my input. 

 

So, they would sometimes have a pre-planned change during the shooters meeting. They'd go and move some targets to where the Plan intended, but leave the Earlybirds bewildered when they finally got to that stage. 

 

The level of bitching was a total hoot! I would never do that at a LII or LIII match, but for a local it was a helluva lot of fun.

[pjb45]

On 4/13/2021 at 5:54 AM, rowdyb said:

The thing I noticed in the low cap match book was all the start positions where there should be marks on the fault line but only one image in 20 actually showed them.

I got an email from HQ saying the matchbook has not been published —- ?

[ima45dv8]

1 hour ago, pjb45 said:

I got an email from HQ saying the matchbook has not been published —- ?

An interim retraction. maybe.