2006 / 2007 Rulebook

[wgnoyes]

And I want to be able to shoot my idea for bullets in production: one that has an optical sensor in the nose that looks ahead and, when it sees that its going to impact a no-shoot, deploys a white paster behind it to cover up the hole that its about to make!

[Vlad]

And I want to be able to shoot my idea for bullets in production: one that has an optical sensor in the nose that looks ahead and, when it sees that its going to impact a no-shoot, deploys a white paster behind it to cover up the hole that its about to make!

Genius! And it might not be against the rules.

[Flexmoney]

Just a note here...

If we want to go into the subject of a particular idea (like the 2 on a NS rule), then that is a topic that would warrant it's very own thread. It is important enough to have a dedicated discussion on it's own. (Please don't ask, or expect, the moderators to weed that out for you.)

And, a bit of preemption here...

These topics can get a bit heated at times. Please read and post in them with an open mind...and, with respect for others and their opinions. Discussion here (on BE's Forum) is a good thing. When it turns into a knock-down, drag-put debate...that is when it is no longer appropriate for BE's Forum.

[Jim Norman]

Merry Christmas Flex

To return to the roots of this thread. What is the status of the new rulebook and the eagerly awaited waiver from IPSC?

Anyone have any idea?

Or I could go onto my second most favorite hated rules.

A dumb question, does each rule needs its own thread? Seriously, can't the rule book as a whole be discussed in one place? Maybe it wont work because there are so many lines of thought, but then again...

Jim Norman

[caps]

And I want to be able to shoot my idea for bullets in production: one that has an optical sensor in the nose that looks ahead and, when it sees that its going to impact a no-shoot, deploys a white paster behind it to cover up the hole that its about to make!

You make 'em and I'll buy a gross or two!

[Flexmoney]

...can't the rule book as a whole be discussed in one place?

Sure, and this is a good theread to do that in.

A dumb question, does each rule needs its own thread?

You will get better discussion that way. If you try sticking them all in here, then many (that might contribute to a specific discussion) will tune out because of the extra static. (or, maybe that is just me )

Merry Christmas.

[chuckw]

Picture a stage with an array that lloks like this: T-NS-T-NS-T

Three shooters get two -alpha on each target, and each shooter also gets 4 NS hits. HOWEVER Shooter #1 has three NS on the first on the left target and only one on the second, Shooter # 2 gets 2 NS hits on each and Shooter # 3 gets all his NS hits on the second NS.

In the days BEFORE (the new Rulebook) all of these shooters got the same score 30 points for the hits and 40 points of penalty. Today (With the new rules) shooter #1 gets 30 penalty points, Shooter number 2 gets 40 and shooter number 3 gets 20! And people say this doesn't make a difference, that the rule has no effect.

That argument is unreal. Targets and no shoots are scored separately and what you get on one target has nothing to do with another target. If you switched the order, one competitor would've got 3 As (but he's only awarded 2!!!!) and the other only got 1 A for the same target, so he gets a Miss.

How many angels dance on the head of a pin in your neck of the woods?

[Vlad]

Sorry Chuck, but that argument is very real. I'll say it in a simpler away. Take a scenario where 2 shooters have a shoot the following stage:

NS-T-NS.

They are D class shooters and they the target is far away. They both shoot 5 rounds and get their 2 hits on T. They both take exactly as long and the both get the same number of points on T. However one hits the left NS 3 times and the other hits the left NS 2 and the right NS 1.

Same points, same time, same number of holes in the NSs. One shooter wins. That is the problem with the rule. If you cant see why that is a problem, its ok. Sooner or later you will see it in a match. I have.

[Jim Norman]

Yes Chuck, Targets are scored seperatly. As are N/S targets.

BUT we A) count GENERALLY two hits per scoring target and we bas our sport on the maximum number of points available to be earned on a stage. Saying we should score ALL hits on a scoring target would introduce the Infinity Factor and the winner of a stage would be the guy thaqt could carry the most ammo and decided to simply spend the most money. Yes this is deliberatley reducing to the ridculous.

On the other hand, we do subtract penalties up to th epoint that they equal the points earned, effectively generating a zero score on a staqe.

In the example that I have used and it could be either the entire stage or simply an array within a stage, but for this discussion we wil assume it is the entire stage, the three shooters all hit 2_Alpha on all three scored targets, they also all put four holes in NS targets. But because of our new scoring rules, their scores are very different. One shooter coems away with 10 points on the stage, he put all 4 penalty hits on one target and therefore only earns 20 points of penalty, the other two both zero the stage, one guy put 3 on one NS and one on the other, that got him 20 an 10, the remaining shooter got 40 penalty points, although since we, I think, all agree that we don;t score sub-zero on a stage, he simply wipes out his earned points.

It is a rule that solves nothing and should not exist. It does, I play by it, but I will never accept it, I will meerly tolerate it.

Jim Norman

[chuckw]

NS-T-NS. They are D class shooters and they the target is far away. They both shoot 5 rounds and get their 2 hits on T. They both take exactly as long and the both get the same number of points on T. However one hits the left NS 3 times and the other hits the left NS 2 and the right NS 1.

Are you and Jim related or is this just a tag-team?

That dog won't hunt coz, no matter how you cut it, what happens on one target has no bearing on what happens on another target. If one guy hits the A of a target 3 times in 3 seconds but the other guy hits the A of the same target only 2 times in 3 seconds, they both get 10 points for that target, but the first guy is a better shooter coz he got more As in the same time period, right?

This is coz we limit the number of good hits to be counted, so it makes sense to me to do the same thing with bad hit on no shoots. Pass the egg-nog.

[johnhurd]

And I see it as Those NS Targets were put there as a shooting problem, shoot just as fast and as akrit as you can without hitting the NS, if we are not going to count all the hits on the problem then let's do away with NS targets..............

PS I suppose that next you are going to tell me on a COF that only requires one hit per target, that you want only one hit counted on the NS Targets.................

[Jim Norman]

John,

I agree with you. If you hit a target you shouldn't hit, you should get the penalty. We do limit the scoring hits, but then again, you are required to hit the scoring targets or you get a penalty. I am glad to see that there are a few more of us that get it.

I think that I could show and explain in person to more people than I can here.

Chuck, we do limit the scoring hits,but that has no bearing on the number of shots fored, we do not limit the number of foot faulst you can get do we? If I fire a shot while faulting, I can get, assuming an advantage gained, a per shot penalty. I would allow this if you want, if there are 25 shots required on a particular COF, we can limit the aggregate number of NS hits counted to the number of scoring hits reuired on the stage. Does that work for you? It then matches the rule for misses. We limit the number of misses to the number of required hits on the stage. You can't get more misses than the number of scoring hits on the stage.

Jim Norman

[chuckw]

Chuck, we do limit the scoring hits,but that has no bearing on the number of shots fored, we do not limit the number of foot faulst you can get do we?

Sure we do and you just made my point - 10.2.3 in the green book. We have limits on hits on shoot targets, on misses, on foot faults and no shoots. Perfect!

[Jim Norman]

Chuck, we do limit the scoring hits,but that has no bearing on the number of shots fored, we do not limit the number of foot faulst you can get do we?

Sure we do and you just made my point - 10.2.3 in the green book. We have limits on hits on shoot targets, on misses, on foot faults and no shoots. Perfect!

Yes, but we place that limit at the maximum number of rounds required for the STAGE. That I could agree to, but not 2 per target.

Another way of looking a this is: We REQUIRE hits, usually two, on a target to score, we penalize anything LESS. We REQUIRE no, zero, zip, nada hits on a NS, therefore we SHOULD penalize anything more!

Still my point, serve and game

Jim Norman

Edited December 26, 2005 by Jim Norman

[chuckw]

Yes, but we place that limit at the maximum number of rounds required for the STAGE. That I could agree to, but not 2 per target.

For the STAGE????? That's not what the rule says. If you have 1 popper and you get an advantage and you fire at that popper 3 times, you're limited to 1 proc penalty, so it's not based on the rounds for the stage. It's on a per-target basis.

Another way of looking a this is: We REQUIRE hits, usually two, on a target to score, we penalize anything LESS. We REQUIRE no, zero, zip, nada hits on a NS, therefore we SHOULD penalize anything more!

We penalize anything less than 2 on a scoring target, but we don't award more than 2. You're not supposed to hit a no-shoot, but we also don't "award" more than 2. You want to limit the credit side but not the debit side, and this is poor and unbalanced accounting.

Still my point, serve and game

Only if you're the umpire.

[Jim Norman]

I am not an accountant, I am how ever if you would think using perfect logic. I am tired of arguing the logic of and reasons for counting all of the hits on a NS.

As to accounting, I can lose more money than I make. If I do I go bankrupt. Also I can make money on two jobs and lose enough on the third that I have NOTHING left over a tte end of the year. Sort of like getting more than two NS hits scored on a particular target and having it count against the balance sheet of the complete stage.

My point.

Jim Norman

Edited December 26, 2005 by Jim Norman

[Nik Habicht]

I once proposed that the 2 max hits scored on a N/S rule be amended to read that we'd score the same number of N/S hits as we'd count on Shoot targets. So, if you were setting a stage that requires three hits per target, you'd score three hits on No-shoots as well.....

[wgnoyes]

Chuck, we do limit the scoring hits,but that has no bearing on the number of shots fored, we do not limit the number of foot faulst you can get do we?

Sure we do and you just made my point - 10.2.3 in the green book. We have limits on hits on shoot targets...<abrupt snip>

What?! That's not correct. The number of hits required on a given target is entirely up to the stage designer, as specified in the course description.

Sorry Chuck, but that argument is very real. I'll say it in a simpler away. Take a scenario where 2 shooters have shot the following stage:

NS-T-NS.

They are D class shooters and the target is far away. They both shoot 5 rounds and get their 2 hits on T. They both take exactly as long and the both get the same number of points on T. However one hits the left NS 3 times and the other hits the left NS 2 and the right NS 1.

Same points, same time, same number of holes in the NS's. One shooter wins. That is the problem with the rule. If you can't see why that is a problem, its ok. Sooner or later you will see it in a match. I have.

EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!! Here, let's illustrate it:

But, again a little dose of reality. This is the way its been for almost two years now. The BOD had the opportunity to change it and they didn't and they're not going to. And neither the Tsar nor the Voice of Sauron are ever going to change it back. So, illogic of this rule and the 90-degree rule aside, they're here to stay, and we might as well get used to it.

Edited December 26, 2005 by wgnoyes

[Chuck Anderson]

I think that rule was put there for D Class shooters. Why beat up a guy with 15 or 20 no shoot hits on one target. And if you don't think that could happen, guess again.

And ChuckW, I would give up on arguing with Jim. He strongly believes in his position, and there is no way that you're changing that.

[Jim Norman]

Bill, I wish I had the ability to do that drawing. It illustrates exactly my point. I also agree that we are unlikely to get the rule changed. But that doesn'r keep me from trying to convice people of the idiocy of making rules without thinking through to the end results. Obviously this one has some unintended consequences.

Lawman, the proponent of this rule, the one whose name I may not mention, stated early on that a couple new shooters were discouraged and never returned after getting several NS hits. I have personally handled the registrations for well over 40 new USPSA members in the last couple years. Not one, ever has been upset or left because he hit a NS three times. In fact, when that explaination for the rule was given they were INSULTED! That is right, they said "If I hit the NS I deserve the penalty, it is up to me to get better and stop hitting NS's just the same as it is up to me to stop missing entirely and to start getting A's faster!"

If the reason is that a low D shooter is uset by three NS targets being charged against him, maybe we should limit the number of Mikes to no more than three per stage? Afterall, 45 points off the possible score is pretty bad, hey maybe after you get 30% of the possible hits scored as D's the balance of your D's should be bumped up to A hits?

Jim Norman

Edited December 26, 2005 by Jim Norman

[LPatterson]

//Thread Drift//

I hate any rules that are not safety related.

//Thread Drift Off//

Well then I want to shoot a beta-mag AR pistol in .22LR with laser sights, red dots, target seeking bullets, (and this thing in the grip that tells time), in production.

Oh and I want to be able to shoot all my rounds at the closest target, no shoots included, with the gun mounted on a body gyro stabilizer like in Aliens.

We do need a few more rules besides the safety ones

This was said tongue in cheek because the rules of this forum do not allow bickering, whining, or antagonistic tones to be used against any single poster.

[wgnoyes]

Bill, I wish I had the ability to do that drawing.

Actually, you do. It's just a powerpoint exercise that is then screen-captured into paintshop pro as a .gif. Then you host the .gif on any website and point to it from here.

[chuckw]

What?! That's not correct. The number of hits required on a given target is entirely up to the stage designer, as specified in the course description.

Sure the stage designer decides how many scoring hits will be counted per target but he still places an upper limit limit (e.g. 2, 3, 6 etc.). In other words, the scoring hits are NOT unlimited and nor are the hits on no shoots. Twist and shout as much as you like but no matter how you cut it we have limits on scoring hits, misses, foot faults and no shoot hits.

Late thought: Bill, thanks for the nice diagram, but your conclusion is wrong - the second array beats the first array under the rules, and so he should, coz he only killed one hostage!

But that doesn'r keep me from trying to convice people of the idiocy of making rules without thinking through to the end results.

I don't make rules but I guess people who support rules you think are "idiotic" in turn makes them idiots? Too bad.

And ChuckW, I would give up on arguing with Jim. He strongly believes in his position, and there is no way that you're changing that.

Thanks dude - I'm getting that feeling. I think I'll revert to an easier task like finding peace in the Middle East.

Edited December 26, 2005 by chuckw

[johnhurd]

I have a question for CHUCKW look at the targets in the above example and look at the bottom set .... now picture the full dia. hit in the left hand NS not there also remove all the hits on T1 and remove the right hand NS this is your score and the prize is a hi zoot full blown race gun ok??? Now add the full dia. hit in the left hand NS and this is the score for the guy that beat you ourt of the hi zoot full blown race gun by one point ( he got that on a array other than this one). How do you feel about the fairness of the 2 NS rule now, of course you won't have to claim the mega bux hi zoot full blown race gun on your taxes but......?????

I await your reply then I am outta here....................

[Vlad]

NS-T-NS. They are D class shooters and they the target is far away. They both shoot 5 rounds and get their 2 hits on T. They both take exactly as long and the both get the same number of points on T. However one hits the left NS 3 times and the other hits the left NS 2 and the right NS 1.

Are you and Jim related or is this just a tag-team?

That dog won't hunt coz, no matter how you cut it, what happens on one target has no bearing on what happens on another target. If one guy hits the A of a target 3 times in 3 seconds but the other guy hits the A of the same target only 2 times in 3 seconds, they both get 10 points for that target, but the first guy is a better shooter coz he got more As in the same time period, right?

This is coz we limit the number of good hits to be counted, so it makes sense to me to do the same thing with bad hit on no shoots. Pass the egg-nog.

I give up. I can only hope that when you do see it in a match, and I'm sure that you will sooner or later like I have, you will at least admit to yourself that there is a math problem in there. The rule is in the book and unlikely to change. I'm not even arguing that we should change it. All I'm saying that it is the kind of rule that I wish we could get the chance to weed out of future rule books.

This is the kind of rule that is badly writen because no matter how loudly people argue that we only score 2 hits per normal target, it doesnt make it true. WE SCORE AS MANY AS THE COURSE DICTATES. Making a rule that limits the number of NS we score on a target to the "ususal" number of hits, when the rule book doesnt require the "ususal" number for scoring targets is just bad rule making. It isnt about me, about the D shooter, or about the GM. It is about a really badly writen rule which serves no purpose.

As a side note, please keep in mind that no one here made comments aimed at you, only to the rules, but somehow you feel the need to throw little barbs at the people involved in this dialog. Lets keep it about the rules.

//Thread Drift//

I hate any rules that are not safety related.

//Thread Drift Off//

Well then I want to shoot a beta-mag AR pistol in .22LR with laser sights, red dots, target seeking bullets, (and this thing in the grip that tells time), in production.

Oh and I want to be able to shoot all my rounds at the closest target, no shoots included, with the gun mounted on a body gyro stabilizer like in Aliens.

We do need a few more rules besides the safety ones

This was said tongue in cheek because the rules of this forum do not allow bickering, whining, or antagonistic tones to be used against any single poster.

Ok, I'm confused. Are you saying that your comment was tongue in cheek or that you hope mine was? I'm sure as hell mine was

Edited December 26, 2005 by Vlad