2006 / 2007 Rulebook

[Jim Norman]

If I am correct, IPSC was to have approved quite a few of the interpretations of the last rulebook as new rules at the last GA. Did this happen? If it did, is USPSA reviewing the new rules and will we be reissuing a new book? Are we going to have a real set of rules to review before we have them approved? Or are we supposed to try and track all of the IPSC Suggestions and modifications on our own?

I would respectfully suggest that we officially lag IPSC by one year at all times in the acceptance of the new rules. That way, they have theirs published as final and we can then see how they dovetail (or not) with the USPSA rules. Then we can counter suggest for their next book, while accepting and modifying as required for ours. We won't have the acrimony that developed the last time around where the review period may or may not have been open and the rules may or may not have been subject to amendment.

A lot of good people put in a lot of hours, far more than I have available, towards the last book and we have a fair, but, in my opinion flawed result. Some of the items may be changed back this time around, some may not. If we lagged IPSC by a year, maybe we would actual gain constancy since we would only change what really needs to be changed and have more time to realize what is being changed that shouldn't be.

My opinion only, yours probably should vary slightly.

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

Jim,

there was a post on here at one point...started by one of the Area Directors...asking for input. Try a search and see if you can find it. If you can't, let me know and I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Merlin Orr]

Is this the Rulebook Thread?

[Jim Norman]

Flex and Merlin,

Yes that is the thread. However one question or point I am making is not addressed in it.

Bruce asks for imput, but just like last year, we have no fixed point of reference. I am making a suggestion and I will forward this to my AD for action, is that we have a one year minimum lag time between IPSC and USPSA rule book adooptions. This shold allow us six months for comments onthe completed and approved IPSC rules and the initial interpretations, then a couple months for the USPSA Rules committee and the BOD to massage the suggestions from the USPSA members and still leave time to print the new book, or at least publish it in a searchable online PDF file.

Flex, if you want to amend this slightly and somehow attach, cross reference or merge this into the thread that Bruce started it is certainly fine by me.

I will further state that I think that this rules discussion MUST take place either here on the Enos Forum, or the USPSA forum and not the IPSC-GV. for obvious reasons.

Jim Norman

[bgary]

(from the other thread) Bruce, is there any reason to believe that we won't be granted the waiver this time??? We've requested a new waiver with every new edition of the rulebook for quite a long time, right???

My understanding is that IPSC will have a new rulebook go into effect on 1/1/06. I haven't seen a "final draft" of it, but my understanding is that it is basically the 2004 IPSC rulebook, plus the 2004 and 2005 interpretations, plus the rules changes approved at the GA in Ecuador.

The USPSA rulebook? Not clear at this moment. My understanding (this is not official USPSA-speak) is that our current waiver is tied to the 2004 rulebook, and as soon as it goes away, so does our waiver. It is my understanding that this is being actively worked by the US Regional Director, but... at this moment there is nothing to announce. Even to speculate on possible outcomes would require some assumptions I'm not comfortable making right now.

I am *reasonably* certain that we will know, before 1/1/06, whether we have a waiver or not. Once we know that, we can take appropriate action for USPSA pretty rapidly. We have been working for months on a number of possible contingencies, and putting a new rulebook into effect for USPSA on virtually no notice is ... a highly unattractive option, which we are all interested in avoiding.

Stay tuned.

Bruce

[bgary]

I would respectfully suggest that we officially lag IPSC by one year at all times in the acceptance of the new rules.

Just a note: At first blush, that sounds like a really attractive option (one I've spent a lot of time thinkin' about). The fly in the ointment is that the IPSC rules do not remain static for any length of time - they have changed every year, for at least the last 3 or 4 years.

So... lagging behind by a year, behind a moving target, would mean

2006 USPSA 2006 rules = IPSC 2005 rules plus USPSA deltas

2007 USPSA 2007 rules = IPSC 2006 rules plus USPSA deltas

2008 USPSA 2008 rules = IPSC 2007 rules plus USPSA deltas

Etc. A lot of work... every year...

... and each iteration of USPSA rules would basically have to be a whole new effort, of deciding which of the past-year changes to make, plus which independent USPSA modifications to make, plus... who knows what all else, and... when it is all done, we will have produced a rulebook that is - at best - a year out of sync with IPSC on the day it goes into effect.

I think there are better options.

Bruce

[Jim Norman]

Bruce, then maybe, just maybe in light of the fact that IPSC seems to have a problem setting up a decent stable rules set, we should do it and set a fixed period regardless of what they do of say 5 years, In other words, we will have a very well thought out rules set that is unchanging for a n=known time period. We can of course have interpretations if they are required, but if the job is done right up front, we should need very few.

Jim Norman

[John Baier]

I agree with Jim. a set time period would be the way to go. Plus, I don't no about the rest of you, but I would rather spend my time shooting than spend it worrying about changes to the rulebook. Who says we have to be in lock step with IPSC anyway.

[Gary Stevens]

Fellows one fact of life you need to understand is we are part of IPSC. The rule book that is adopted by IPSC is the rule book. We have been granted a waiver in the past to have sections of the IPSC rule book be changed to reflect US rules. Without that waiver, the IPSC rule book is our rulebook.

At that point a crossroads is reached. Accept the IPSC rulebook in total, or not be part of IPSC. Either path you take has consequences attached to it.

Gary

Edited December 17, 2005 by Gary Stevens

[LPatterson]

I agree with Jim. a set time period would be the way to go. Plus, I don't no about the rest of you, but I would rather spend my time shooting than spend it worrying about changes to the rulebook. Who says we have to be in lock step with IPSC anyway.

I am not bickering but I disagree with this line of thinking because we are a part of IPSC and have to abide by their rules IF we want to shoot anywhere outside the United States. Yes it would be nice to have time to comment on the rules but that doesn't mean we would get our way, ask shooters how they are getting around the 10 round mag limits in their states.

A great statesman once said "United we stand, divided we fall".

[Jim Norman]

Anyone stop to think, No Wavier, no Limited Divisoiin, No Limited-10, No US Production. No Multi-Gun?

If IPSC decides we don't get a waiver, it almost seems that they are deciding that they don't want us, the USPSA in IPSC. Personally I couldn't care much less, although I am currently plannning on attending the Canadian Nationals next year. I think that the loss would be theirs not ours for the most part.

Hopefully IPSC will grant the ususal waiver, but I do feel strongly that we should put a time frame into our rules.

Jim Norman

[moverfive]

Anyone stop to think, No Wavier, no Limited Divisoiin, No Limited-10, No US Production. No Multi-Gun?

If IPSC decides we don't get a waiver, it almost seems that they are deciding that they don't want us, the USPSA in IPSC. Personally I couldn't care much less, although I am currently plannning on attending the Canadian Nationals next year. I think that the loss would be theirs not ours for the most part.

Hopefully IPSC will grant the ususal waiver, but I do feel strongly that we should put a time frame into our rules.

Jim Norman

As I stated when Bruce first asked if anybody had concerns or whatever with the proposed IPSC rulebook and then the follow-up concerns about having a waiver and therefore a separate USPSA rulebook - I still say that the US should not be requesting a waiver, we should be demanding a waiver. Without the US, IPSC would only be a shadow of what it is today. As as Jim specifically pointed out, do we want to lose our current divisions and/or make radical changes to some (i.e. limited vs standard) in order to completely follow IPSC?

I believe that it is these divisions and other specific rules that are not within IPSC have that have played a significant part in the reason USPSA has been growing in the past few years.

So as I stated in an earlier post - USPSA itself needs to understand why we are growing and we are enjoying the success we have today......and THEN see if those answers perfectly match the IPSC rulebook. If not, then we should make it very clear that these are the rules we will operate under - either change the IPSC rulebook or give USPSA a waiver. We should not be "requesting" or limiting ourselves for the sole reason to conform with IPSC.

[wgnoyes]

...although I am currently plannning on attending the Canadian Nationals next year. ...

Wow, you're shooting a foreign match next year?! Will that be your first?

[PhilTerry]

Jim - a side-bar question - what division are you planning to shoot in the Canadian?

[Jim Norman]

Bill, it will be my first match on foriegn soil. It is within driving distance of home and I have been to Canada abit, although quite a while in my past.

Phil, I will probably shoot Production as it is the easiest gun I have to make comply with both IPSC and Canandian requirements. I am not about to mess up 5-6 mags for my Para, or go out an buy more no to mention I am not sure that my Para will work in Standard. I am reasonably confident that I can shoot either my G-17, G-22, or Sig226 in Production. I suppose I could shoot a SS.45 in Standard.

As to what MoverFive said, I agree, we should not ask meekly for a waiver. We should just come right out and say, OK, You changed your rules yet again, Where is our waiver? I can't picture IPSC deciding not to grant it, but...

Jim Norman

[caps]

I think that the loss would be theirs not ours for the most part.

How do you figure that? If there was a split, what would each party lose?

[PhilTerry]

Jim - I shot Production at the Bavarian State Championship in October, it was a blast.

[Jim Norman]

I think that the loss would be theirs not ours for the most part.

How do you figure that? If there was a split, what would each party lose?

The way I look at it is we are 15,000 plus strong. Of that number how many people travel abroad to shoot regularly? Except Canada from that number and you have left how many international shooters?

I have talked to a few Shooters from Canade that feel strongly that Canada should be a region of USPSA (We'll leave the politics aside)

So the next question is, How many shooters regularly travel here to shoot US matches again excepting Canada?

If the math can be done, I think you'll find that neither of us really needs the other, but we would make a big dent in their numbers, while they really don't affect us that much. Remember, anyone that wants to compete locally is welcome and we have a Foreign Membership available for those that want to shoot our larger matches. You can in fact be a USPSA Foreign member without joining your home organization. Can THEY say the same thing? As an example can I join the German version of USPSA as an Americian, not living in Germany?

Now, please everyone understand, I am not advocating a precipitous leaving of IPSC by the US. I think that so long as they sign-off on our waiver and I would like to see it permanent, but that is another argument, we will remain. I just think we need to address the direction that IPSC is moving.

I understand that for a certain period back a few years that IPSC may have been more freestyle than here. That is no longer the case. Currently we have certain people in IPSC that would eliminate the Open Division, will not allow a loaded gun table start, insist on everyone assuming exactly the same start position even though the course designer meerly stated "Start standing in FFZ" I have no problem with the IPSC Classic target other than its name, it is not Classic. It has however spawned the no target past the horizontal, although that rule really does not address the fact that you still can't tell which end of the target is the "TOP" We who use the METRIC (the true Classic) are saddled with this rule.

I could go on, but you all know my feelings on certain rules we got saddled with last go around.

Jim Norman

[shred]

Anyone stop to think, No Wavier, no Limited Divisoiin, No Limited-10, No US Production. No Multi-Gun?

Given how the US Standard team pretty much threw new basepads onto their Limited magazines to become 'standard', and how the US Production team pretty much filled thier magazines to full capacity to switch to IPSC production, I'm not thinking there's a big loss of divisions there. Maybe SS & L-10 would be lonesome, but somebody would take care of them. There are some other rules differences, but they aren't huge or insurmountable, as seen by the latest World Shoot results.

I've shot a few international matches and want to do more. They're fun and test a lot more skills than run-n-hose-for-32-rounds that we get here too often.

But.. if push came to shove.. the rest of the world could pretty much care less if USPSA left. They don't need us anymore. We gain a lot by being able to go all over the world and shoot, and more of us should take advantage of it. Foreign travel and guns? What could be better?? Go to Europe this summer for ten days, hit two National championships on successive weekends and have 4 days to tour around..

We shouldn't be demanding a waiver, we should be requesting one. Nothing wrong with that. We have different laws and rules, other countries have different laws and rules and get their own waivers. Why not be polite about it?

[Vlad]

Actually, I care little about the fact that those USPSA shooters who choose to compete internationaly can adapt. I really do care about the game that I shoot as USPSA shooter. I LIKE shooting production with 10 round magazines because it forces me to think more. The more I think about it the more I like the SS proto-division (but not everything about it). I think L10 is a great idea.

I think Jim's point is valid. His problem (and mine) is not that we should be more like or less unlike the international IPSC community. The problem is that the USPSA shooters seem to want some differences in their game and that the current rule book adoption method is not friendly to those differences. A lot of people think that we should be more like IPSC. A lot of people would like to be less like IPSC. Thats why we have a rule making process and I think 15000 people can come up with a game they like to shoot without the help of some undisclosed number of international shooters, most of which shoot a (very) slightly different game. I'm all for trying reduce the number of differences between IPSC and USPSA, but if it is SO easy for USPSA shooters to shoot international matches, then why punish the other 14000 USPSA shooters who like their game just fine?

I dont have an answer on how to make our rule books easier to manage, but I'll join Jim in saying that the current method has some problem. There are some other more annoying ways to ram a bunch of rules down the gullet of 15000 people, but this one isnt one of the smoothest either.

[Gary Stevens]

The large animal in the living room is that there will be a representative of IPSC in the U.S. Now the question is will it be USPSA or will it be some other group. If USPSA goes it's own way how will the formation of a new representative of IPSC affect USPSA? We all know the impact of IDPA, past and present, do we now want to have another almost mirror image of our sport exist in direct competition with USPSA?

One can almost guarantee that those who compete for championships in the World Shoot will participate in a new organization to get the slots to the world shoot. The fact that those "top shooters" participate will also draw participation from the rank and file shooters. Couple that with the factory sponsorship that might go with a new organization because their shooters are competing in it and who knows how this will all shake out.

Those who think this is a simple question are, in my opinion, overlooking the long range implications.

Gary

[PhilTerry]

Well put Gary, its good that our board has wise council like yours and others to guide USPSA.

[Vlad]

I see why people are concerned about it, and I do not advocate a split, but at some point it is possible that US shooters will be shooting under rules they have no control over. Then what?

The large animal in the living room has interesting implications, but around here clubs are booked up using almost every available day for various events. At my local clubs it would be kinda hard to even schedule another game. And we dont even really shoot IDPA around here. I'm not overly concerned about it. That said, I think we should all try to play together, but together goes both away. Give the size of USPSA and the fact that we do have some different rules it would be nice if we would have some time to convert the new rules books.

Frankly I really wish that rule books would not be official for 1 year after publication. That way we can all spot the problems and adjust.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Vlad

[Jim Norman]

Anyone stop to think, No Wavier, no Limited Divisoiin, No Limited-10, No US Production. No Multi-Gun?

Given how the US Standard team pretty much threw new basepads onto their Limited magazines to become 'standard', and how the US Production team pretty much filled thier magazines to full capacity to switch to IPSC production, I'm not thinking there's a big loss of divisions there. Maybe SS & L-10 would be lonesome, but somebody would take care of them. There are some other rules differences, but they aren't huge or insurmountable, as seen by the latest World Shoot results.

I've shot a few international matches and want to do more. They're fun and test a lot more skills than run-n-hose-for-32-rounds that we get here too often.

But.. if push came to shove.. the rest of the world could pretty much care less if USPSA left. They don't need us anymore. We gain a lot by being able to go all over the world and shoot, and more of us should take advantage of it. Foreign travel and guns? What could be better?? Go to Europe this summer for ten days, hit two National championships on successive weekends and have 4 days to tour around..

We shouldn't be demanding a waiver, we should be requesting one. Nothing wrong with that. We have different laws and rules, other countries have different laws and rules and get their own waivers. Why not be polite about it?

I gave this a few days to shake out.

What difference does it make if USPSA were to just use IPSC Rules? A BIG difference!

Production in the US, 10 rounds, I can shoot a 9mm, a .40 or a .45

Production in IPSC:No round limit, I shoot a 9mm or I am not competative

Production in the USPSA, I shoot using a standard holster, IPSC, a race holster

USPSA, I can refinish my gun, IPSC, I send it to the original factory or let it rust.

Limited-10 Opps sorry not in IPSC at all, not even a similar division, it just is not there

Single Stack Same as L-10

Standard vs. Limited: Not as big a difference, but still there. I can toss all my basepads and get my magwell milled to fit. Probably a few other items, but I currently don't care, my gun works in L-10 and Limited here. IPSC, I have to make changes.

Power factors are slightly different, not a big problem, but still a difference. Bullet weights, another difference. Some of you would have a few thousand or more unusable heads if we were to switch.

I would like to see IPSC get closer to the US, not the other way around. Simple things like the traveling warning that can get you a proceedural on a stage for the second infraction. 10 points makes a different effeect on different HF stages.

No more Multi-Gun, three seperate matches to make a tournement, but no two guns on one stage (Riifle/Pistol or Shotgun/Pistol)

I am sure that there are many other subtle and not so subtle differences that I would find if I were to read and compare every nuance of every rule.

Jim Norman

Edited December 22, 2005 by Jim Norman

[GeorgeInNePa]

(from the other thread) Bruce, is there any reason to believe that we won't be granted the waiver this time??? We've requested a new waiver with every new edition of the rulebook for quite a long time, right???

My understanding is that IPSC will have a new rulebook go into effect on 1/1/06. I haven't seen a "final draft" of it, but my understanding is that it is basically the 2004 IPSC rulebook, plus the 2004 and 2005 interpretations, plus the rules changes approved at the GA in Ecuador.

The USPSA rulebook? Not clear at this moment. My understanding (this is not official USPSA-speak) is that our current waiver is tied to the 2004 rulebook, and as soon as it goes away, so does our waiver. It is my understanding that this is being actively worked by the US Regional Director, but... at this moment there is nothing to announce. Even to speculate on possible outcomes would require some assumptions I'm not comfortable making right now.

I am *reasonably* certain that we will know, before 1/1/06, whether we have a waiver or not. Once we know that, we can take appropriate action for USPSA pretty rapidly. We have been working for months on a number of possible contingencies, and putting a new rulebook into effect for USPSA on virtually no notice is ... a highly unattractive option, which we are all interested in avoiding.

Stay tuned.

Bruce

Any updates?