2006 / 2007 Rulebook

[Jim Norman]

Chuck,

The point, or at least one of the major points you keep missing or overlooking or ignoring is this:

The rules up until the last book had no upper limit on NS hits, other than the fact that each stage with the exception os Match DQ stands alone. It is only for the last two years that not scoring all of the NS hits has been the rule. Up until then we scored them all. You lke this change, I do not. It had no logical reason to be made, It was the pet rule of a person no longer here. His reasons were originally that a newbie was disheartened by his performance having hit a single NS multiple times. Instead of learning to shoot we changed the rules to make him feel better. After this reason was ridiculed the reason changed to we only score two hits on a Scoring target, so "Logic" dictates we only score 2 hits on a NS.

No matter how often the rule and its bad logic are repeated it will not change the facts that this is and was an un-needed rule based upon bad logic.

Sadly this is the rule and I so far am unable to get it changed. I am hopeful that we will at least modify it to read that the maximum number of NS hits scored will equal the number of scoring hits required. That at least would be a step in the right direction.

We have had to change the way we shoot classifiers and even eliminate one due to this rule. We now have to score between strings where there are NS's, otherwise the shooter might not get full credit. So we either slow down the match so we can look at the targets or we set up multiple arrays and shoot each one in succession. Added time, added hassle, no benefits.

Jim Norman

[Nik Habicht]

No matter how often the rule and its bad logic are repeated it will not change the facts that this is and was an un-needed rule based upon bad logic.

Jim Norman

Jim,

While I'm not nuts about the rule in question --- especially on stages where we score the best one, or three to whatever number greater than three, hits on scoring targets, the statement that this is and was an unneeded rule based upon bad logic is an opinion, not a fact.

I think it was unneeded --- but that's only my opinion. I think it could be improved with some minor tinkering --- again my opinion. I think it wouldn't change the game very much if we were to revert back to scoring all hits on no-shoots --- still my opinion.

You think there's a huge difference ---- I get that, but it's your opinion, man! Now, can we please get off of your pet topic and go back to discussing the 2006/7 rulebook(s)? 'Cause neither you, nor anyone else posting in this thread, on this topic, is likely to change any minds......

[Gary Stevens]

Guys no matter how much the rules situation is discussed on this forum, it will make absolutely zero difference. No amount of what should have been or what should be discussed on this or any other forum will change anything. If you have suggestions send them to your AD for consideration. As I have said before, we are part of IPSC, like it or not. We will either abide by their rules, receive a waiver of some undetermined extent for the new rule book, or we will have to make decisions that will be far reaching that I outlined in my last posting on this issue.

Let me assure you of one thing, the President and BOD are not potted plants on this issue. We are not just sitting idly by watching the sun rise and set. We are working in avenues that will be beneficial to all concerned if they are successful.

Take a deep breath, go get a good movie to watch or a good book to read (not the rule book) and give things time to shake out.

Happy shooting New Year

Gary

Edited December 27, 2005 by Gary Stevens

[chuckw]

While I'm not nuts about the rule in question --- especially on stages where we score the best one, or three to whatever number greater than three, hits on scoring targets, the statement that this is and was an unneeded rule based upon bad logic is an opinion, not a fact.

Thank you Nik.

Let me assure you of one thing, the President and BOD are not potted plants on this issue. We are not just sitting idly by watching the sun rise and set. We are working in avenues that will be beneficial to all concerned if they are successful.

Thank you Gary.

[Jim Norman]

Gary,

I hope that the board is working on the new waiver and is carefully vetting the new rules and interpretations from IPSC. Sadly, had we had more time to review the actual finalized rules last time around as opposed to intrim rules, we might not be going through this now.

My wish list is fairly limited at this time: Maintain our divisions as is, eliminate the 2 NS rule and the no inverted target rule (at least for the Metric) maintain the round counts and ratio of COF lengths in a match as just suggested, not mandated caps. Keep all the current exemptions we have especially the traveling warning.

Jim Norman

Edited December 27, 2005 by Jim Norman

[Gary Stevens]

Those are issues that are not unfamiliar to us. Hold on and let's see where this all ends up. Once we have something official to talk about we can all chose between one of the following

Gary

[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, on misses, on foot faults and no shoots. Perfect!

and later:

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.

My point was that the rulebook (specifically 10.2.3) does not designate the maximum number of hits on a target, rather the stage design does. We're saying the same thing on this particular points. Just a minor bit of clarification, that's all, twist and shout as much as YOU like.

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!

Thanks, correction made (or in the works.) However, the illustration was meant to show a failing of a rule. Both arrays show 3 physical holes in noshoots that, until 2 years ago, would have all been scored. Now we instead come along and tell the first guy "you got 3 noshoots, tough, deal with it, learn how to shoot" but then we look at the next shooter's try with the exact same number of holes in brown and the exact same number of holes in white and we pat him on the head and say "aw, too bad, you got enough penalties as it is, let's try not to make you feel so bad and wave our magic clipboards and make one of those 3 physical holes in the noshoot disappear, there, feel better now?". And in that, my conclusion stands, in my opinion.

(By the way, and this isn't directed at anyone; it's just my personal preference in posting anything, I don't use "IMHO" or other similar things. That's just me. Why? 1. If it's worth writing, its worth writing out completely. 2. "Humble opinions" generally aren't. )

Edited December 27, 2005 by wgnoyes

[wgnoyes]

deleted

Edited December 27, 2005 by wgnoyes

[chuckw]

Both arrays show 3 physical holes in noshoots that, until 2 years ago, would have all been scored. Now we instead come along and tell the first guy "you got 3 noshoots, tough, deal with it, learn how to shoot" but then we look at the next shooter's try with the exact same number of holes in brown and the exact same number of holes in white and we pat him on the head and say "aw, too bad, you got enough penalties as it is, let's try not to make you feel so bad and wave our magic clipboards and make one of those 3 physical holes in the noshoot disappear, there, feel better now?".

I know all that, but my point is that each target is scored separately under the rules and in the example you gave one hostage is totally fubar but the other is still alive and kicking. In my book, if you shoot a hostage 2 times or 22 times he's gone and the extra hits are just a waste of time and lead. Same goes for the bad guys - once you hit him twice he's gone too.

Have a great New Year.

[Jim Norman]

Both arrays show 3 physical holes in noshoots that, until 2 years ago, would have all been scored. Now we instead come along and tell the first guy "you got 3 noshoots, tough, deal with it, learn how to shoot" but then we look at the next shooter's try with the exact same number of holes in brown and the exact same number of holes in white and we pat him on the head and say "aw, too bad, you got enough penalties as it is, let's try not to make you feel so bad and wave our magic clipboards and make one of those 3 physical holes in the noshoot disappear, there, feel better now?".

I know all that, but my point is that each target is scored separately under the rules and in the example you gave one hostage is totally fubar but the other is still alive and kicking. In my book, if you shoot a hostage 2 times or 22 times he's gone and the extra hits are just a waste of time and lead. Same goes for the bad guys - once you hit him twice he's gone too.

Have a great New Year.

Responsibility for your rounds fired is what is the point here Chuck. Simply put, you hit a good guy three times, you get three penalties. If we were to go back to the roots and revisit the word "practical" we might see this in the following light: The shooting of the Bad Guy was righteous, but the fact that you hit the little old lady was not a good thing for your career, the fact that you hit her 22 times shows a callous disregard for the well-being of the innocent bystanders. Yes you got the bad guy, but maybe he would have done less damage to the local population than you in your white hat and blazing guns did.

Sorry for the somewhat tongue in cheek type of reply, but it does get my point across.

By the way, we score the WHOLE stage, not just an array or a single target. We REQUIRE a minimum number of hits to fully account for all available points, we REQUIRE no hits on the NS targets. Any hit on a NS is a hit too many. We should penalize it. Any less than the REQUIRED number of hits on a shoot target and we do and should penalize you. No difference here. The rule should never have been changed and it should be changed back. If you don't shoot the NS targets, this won't have any effect on you. In fact, if no one ever shoots more than two shots on a NS it won't affect anyone. So the rule as it stands would be moot, BUT since sometimes people DO hit more than two hits it does have an effect and that effect can and does change the outcome of matches. Maybe not the top gun, but it certainly can and does change the outcome in the ranks.

Jim Norman

[chuckw]

Simply put, you hit a good guy three times, you get three penalties.

But if you hit a bad guy 3 or 33 times you only get scored for 2 hits, and that's what we also do with no shoots. It's balanced and fair. Best 2, Worst 2, Per Target.

That's the rule decided by USPSA and I support it, but you obviously think they're all wrong and you're right.

I just found this thread http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11825 and you were totally creamed. Don't you think it's about time you quit and moved on?

Edited December 28, 2005 by chuckw

[Jim Norman]

Chuck,

Seems someone you know must hit a lot of no shoot targets. That is the only reason I can see for someone refusing to see the logic. You have been shown pictorial representation of the why, several others here have explained in detail the reasons that this rule is bad, that it causes people with the same number of points and potential penalties can have radically different results under the two rules, (old and new)

We agree on one point, this is the current rule and we live by it. I choose to expend effort attempting to change it. You do not. This is OK by me. Should I prove successful, I trust that yo wil not suddenly stop shooting USPSA matches. I have no idea how long you have been a member or what your level of involvement is. It is my hope that we can both find common ground and work to better the sport.

Jim Norman

[Nik Habicht]

Closed.