Ipsc Rule Books For 2006

[bgary]

Folks I am pleased to post, with the approval of the USPSA President, that USPSA will maintain the 2004 Rulebook until further notification is given

Yeah, what he said!

Bruce (Dang you're fast!)

[diehli]

Well that settles that.

[Neil Beverley]

My attempt to explain how we end up with different rules was based on 2005 rules (in point of fact, the USPSA Board has not yet adopted the 2006 IPSC rules, so the "green book" is still our rulebook in force at the moment). IPSC took Fixed Time out of their rules in 2000/2001. USPSA added it back into the 2000/2001 USPSA rulebooks. At some point (2002 or 2003?) IPSC added Fixed Time back into their rulebook, so there is a *little* bit of parity, but... we still differ on whether an overtime shot occurs at 5.01 or 5.31 IPSC is basically silent on shots taken *at* the cease-fire signal (overtime shots are "shots taken after the cease-fire signal"), the USPSA rulebook gives a specific measure by which to tell whether a shot should be counted as overtime. My guess is that USPSA will stick with the 5.31, both because of historical precedent, and because any classifier results shot on Fixed Time stages would be invalidated if we all-of-a-sudden changed the definition of what an overtime shot is. Without good/compelling reason, I can't see us making that change.

Bruce

IPSC's position is that Fixed Time is fixed time. If you nominate that a stage has 5 seconds then it has 5 seconds not 5.31 seconds. If you want to allow 5.31 seconds then by all means declare it as a Fixed Time stage of 5.31 seconds. To set a limit and then to allow competitors to exceed it seems to be a contradiction. On a 3 second FT stage you are adding an additional 10% in time.

I'd also note that the 2006 rules for Fixed Time introduce a new notion, which concerns me. 9.4.6.2 says that if there are overtime shots, the RO should "assume" that the highest hits on the target were the overtime ones. In their example, if you have 1A, 6C and 1D hits and two overtime shots, the A and one of the Cs are "ignored", and the remaining 6 are scored. That is substantively different from the way Fixed Time stages have historically been scored (count the best 6 hits, then apply 1 PE for each extra shot, 1 PE for each extra hit, and then deduct 5 points for each overtime shot).

Old way: best 6 = 1A, 5C = 25 points, minus (2 x 5pts for overtime) = 15 points

New way: ignore 1A and 1C, best 6 = 5C, 1D = 22 points

Bruce

The revised IPSC rulebook still deducts penalties for extra shots and extra hits so the example above paints a mistaken picture. In the IPSC rulebook example we have simply made a reference to the fact that there 2 shots fired overtime. Neither of the hits in the example are referred to as Extra Shots or Extrra Hits.

Fixed Time stages are supposed to represent a situation where the threat and therefore the targets are no longer there. A shot fire overtime theoretically hits nothing because the target wouldn't be there. This works just fine with turning or disappearing targets but with static targets we have to replicate the intention with the aid of timers and signals. Hence, all we are doing is removing the benefit (or loss) of a hit on a target that isn't (shouldn't be) there.

Setting aside any penalties for extra shots or hits let us look at another example:

Take an array of 3 targets with 2 shots required on each in a fixed time (it doesn't matter what time for this example).

Take 2 competitors who each fire 5 shots within time and 1 shot overtime.

Competitor A hits all Ds, i.e 6 D hits on the target. Competitor B hits all As, i.e. 6 A hits on the targets.

The IPSC rule simply deducts a D so the competitor scores 5 Ds and in Major this would be 10 points. The USPSA rule would deduct 5 points to result in a score of 7 points.

The competitor's overtime shot scored 2 but the USPSA rule deducts 5, i.e -3 points.

Now consider Competitor B. The competitor's overtime shot scores 5 and the USPSA rule deducts 5, i.e 0 points.

Both competitors have carried out the same act by firing an overtime shot but the USPSA rule arbitrarily changes the stage results by affecting one competitor more than the other.

Please remember this is not intended to be a penalty. We are merely trying to remove the advantage of a hit on a target (for scoring purposes) that isn't theoretically there any more.

As noted above, I don't know what prompted IPSC to change the way Fixed Time stages are scored, from the last time they appeared in the IPSC rulebook (see the difference between 9.4.6.2 in the 2006 IPSC rulebook, and 9.4.6.1 in the 2004 IPSC rulebook). Using IPSC's new approach, a score may come out to be the same mathematical value... or it may not. What we (USPSA) have to do, every time IPSC makes a change, is decide if the change is something that we can live with, or if it changes the game in a way that we believe is to the detriment of USPSA and its shooters.

Bruce

The 2004 rule on FT was contrary to the existing procedures being used by SG and R and the way we (IPSC) had always previously been going back years and years. I could explain why it appeared in the 2004 rules as it did but it's a long story and wouldn't serve much use now. Needless to say I was against it at the time.

I am sitting with a copy of the IPSC rules from 1986 (7th Edition) and the way I have described the (2006) rule above is how it was then. I have copies of the Level 1 IPSC/IROA seminar from 1991 and this was how it was specifically taught and explained in detail. The 2006 rulebook merely re-establishes the concepts from old:

The target isn't theoretically there so ignore any hits that occur overtime. Nothing more, nothing less.

But, many times, those goals are mutually exclusive.

Bruce

I disagree.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Neil Beverley

[bgary]

IPSC's position is that Fixed Time is fixed time. If you nominate that a stage has 5 seconds then it has 5 seconds not 5.31 seconds. If you want to allow 5.31 seconds then by all means declare it as a Fixed Time stage of 5.31 seconds. To set a limit and then to allow competitors to exceed it seems to be a contradiction. On a 3 second FT stage you are adding an additional 10% in time

I don't disagree with that in theory. In practice, if we are using a stop signal (i.e., a "beep" from the timer) to indicate the end of the Fixed Time period, then it only seems fair and proper to account for the time it takes for a shooter to react to that signal. Let's say that you *begin* to pull the trigger at 4.99 seconds (at which time, you have not heard the stop signal, so you believe you are breaking a legal shot), and then - as you break the shot - you hear the beep. It will take a non-zero number of "ticks" for you to react to that signal. It does not seem fair (at least to me) to penalize you for *not* being able to react (i.e., hear the beep, and stop your finger) in .001 seconds. So... the 0.31 seconds serves as somewhat of a "grace" period... gives the shooter a chance to *react* to the stop signal, rather than have to somehow sense that the stop signal is "about to happen". I guess we'll agree to disagree there. From the US perspective, as noted before, we have hundreds if not thousands of classifier scores on fire using that 0.31 "grace period".

The revised IPSC rulebook still deducts penalties for extra shots and extra hits so the example above paints a very false picture.

I certainly don't mean to paint a false picture. Since, in my example (actually, in the IPSC rulebook's example) extra-shots and extra hits would be the same under both IPSC and USPSA rules, I didn't bother to quantify them in my post.

all we are doing is removing the benefit (or loss) of a hit on a target that isn't (shouldn't be) there

That's not entirely accurate. What you're doing is removing the benefit of the BEST hit, regardless of whether that hit occurred before or after the stop signal.

-- Shooter A - shoots 5 Ds and one overtime A ... IPSC rules say the A gets removed. OK.

-- Shooter B - shoots 1 A, 4 Ds and an overtime Mike. IPSC rules say the A gets removed. NOT OK, in my opinion. This is *especially* inappropriate, in my opinion, when turning targets are used, since it is increasingly likely that the shooter hit "nothing", and yet his best *legal* hit is arbitrarily ignored.

In my opinion, the penalty for an overtime shot should be what it "always was". I only have rulebooks on my computer back to 1995... but in the 1995 rulebook, the penalty for an overtime shot - see 10.01 (ii) - was "the maximum scoring value of each shot so fired" - eg, 5 points on a paper target, no matter whether the overtime shot hit anything or not/

Both competitors have carried out the same act by firing an overtime shot but the USPSA rule arbitrarily changes the stage results by affecting one competitor more than the other.

I (as you might imagine) disagree with that characterization. I believe the *penalty* for an overtime shot should be the same, no matter whether that shot hit anything or not. Additionally, I don't think the rules should make "assumptions" - effectively what the IPSC rule does is "assume" that the overtime shot(s) were the highest-value shot(s)... which is both not supported by evidence (does the RO really "know" which hits were which? If not, the rules should not support an arbitrary leap of logic)... and, in fact the *IPSC* rule applies a different penalty value for different shooters. If my best hit is a C, I get 4 points taken off my score. If my best hit is an A, I get 5 points taken off. Etc.

Let's look at an analogous example. Lets say that, rather than an overtime shot, the foul is a "foot fault"... a shot fired while faulting a charge line or fault line. Do we arbitrarily look at the targets and figure out which are the "best" hits on the targets shot while faulting, and deduct those? No... we unilaterally say that a procedural error (shot fired while faulting) is 10 points. Period. I think our rule(s) with regard to overtime shots should be internally consistent, in philosophy and in practice.

I am sitting with a copy of the IPSC rules from 1986 (7th Edition) and the way I have described the (2006) rule above is how it was then.

Hmmm. As I mentioned, I don't have rulebooks prior to 1995 on my laptop, but... I don't ever recall seeing language other than "overtime shots are penalized the maximum scoring value of the shot" in any past rulebook. (Emphasis added)

The target isn't theoretically there so ignore any hits that occurr overtime. Nothing more, nothing less.

*Totally* agree with the premise. It is the conclusion I disagree with. If we could *definitively* identify which hit (if any) was associated with the overtime shot(s), I *might* be persuaded to agree that it is appropriate to ignore that specific hit In lieu of that specific knowledge, though, it seems arbitrary and unfair to take off the "best hit", while not knowing that that hit was in fact the overtime hit.

I disagree.

I know. Having worked for a short while on the IPSC handgun rules committee, I have a sense of how much time and effort goes into these things, and I hope you know the enormous respect I have for you and your colleagues.

I just wish that we could get away from (what I - meaning no disrespect - would characterize as) changes unrelated to actual competitive issues. I know this is a parochial view, but it seems to me that IPSC is on a path of trying to please everyone... and that worries me. So many of the rules discussions started with "I saw this once and didn't like it so we need to make a rule against it", or "this region can't have such-and-such, so we need to make a rule against it"... and, I guess I just fundamentally wonder those rules are really *necessary*. Or, wonder whether they actually *accomplish* anything. Or.. more fundamentally... wonder whether they make the game "better".

Is our game materially improved by not allowing sight pictures? Or not allowing upside-down Metric targets? Or introducing the notion of "warnings", which may result in competitive penalties for things unrelated to actions during an attempt on a course of fire?

IPSC clearly believes the answer to those is "yes". I have a hard time agreeing. And therein lies perhaps the core of our misalignment. If you look at the pattern of "US exceptions" to the IPSC rulebook, the majority of them occur where IPSC changed something, and the US Board felt the US shooter was better served by leaving things as they were.

I *wish* we were on the same page. I have put in my share of time working to get us there. But... IMO, we *aren't* currently on the same page, and my belief is that it is because we have different "visions" for what the sport should be. IPSC wants to be a global game that can be implemented consistently in every region, and if that means adapting it for *all* regions to meet the needs of the smallest region, or the most legally-restricted region (or whatever), that may well serve the global goal. But I worry greatly about what lies down that road... if the rules are constantly being revised in an attempt to meet *all* the needs of *all* the regions, how long before the game is unrecognizable against its freestyle, "combat shooting", test-bed-for-equipment-and-techniques heritage?

As I said in my other post, I'd love to have IPSC rules and USPSA rules be more consistent... but my personal belief is that IPSC is headed down a path that changes the game in arbitrary - and arguably detrimental - ways. Perhaps that's a fundamental philosophical difference, perhaps it is merely my perception, but... if we can address the divergence and *resolve* it, I think it would serve the interests of *both* orgs.

So... how can we work together better toward getting our paths more aligned, rather than one moving "away" and the other reacting? Count me "willing to help solve the problem", for whatever that is worth...

Bruce

Edited January 6, 2006 by bgary

[Neil Beverley]

I don't disagree with that in theory. In practice, if we are using a stop signal (i.e., a "beep" from the timer) to indicate the end of the Fixed Time period, then it only seems fair and proper to account for the time it takes for a shooter to react to that signal. Let's say that you *begin* to pull the trigger at 4.99 seconds (at which time, you have not heard the stop signal, so you believe you are breaking a legal shot), and then - as you break the shot - you hear the beep. It will take a non-zero number of "ticks" for you to react to that signal. It does not seem fair (at least to me) to penalize you for *not* being able to react (i.e., hear the beep, and stop your finger) in .001 seconds. So... the 0.31 seconds serves as somewhat of a "grace" period... gives the shooter a chance to *react* to the stop signal, rather than have to somehow sense that the stop signal is "about to happen". I guess we'll agree to disagree there. From theUS perspective, as noted before, we have hundreds if not thousands of classifier scores on fire using that 0.31 "grace period".

This is one of the key points. We're not actually trying to "penalise" the shooter.

I don't have a problem with them not being able to react quickly enough to the sound of the beep. I don't have a problem with them firing a shot after the end of the stated time. I'm maintaining that in a Fixed Time stage of 5 seconds the targets should disappear at 5.00 seconds. The ability to score should stop at 5.00 seconds. However, if the competitor fires a shot at 5.29 then no penalty and we simply do the best we can to remove the benefit of the hits that occurred after the targets weren't theoretically there.

The easiest solution (but not the best for the clubs and members) is to stipulate that only turning or disappearing target arrangements are used. This doesn't suit, or is impossible, for some clubs. The rulebook therefore attempts to provide a reasonable solution for an imperfect problem.

Perhaps, in your case, you should be stating that the Fixed time for the stage is 5.31 seconds and then set your timer to 5.00 seconds? This makes more sense to me because you are de factor allowing a fixed time of 5.31 on a "5 second" stage.

I certainly don't mean to paint a false picture. Since, in my example (actually, in the IPSC rulebook's example) extra-shots and extra hits would be the same under both IPSC and USPSA rules, I didn't bother to quantify them in my post.

I re-read your post and changed my comment from false picture to mistaken picture. I believe with my comments, and yours, in mind then the difference in score would be:

8 possible hits to count (not 6) with 2 hits fired overtime. Therefore:

USPSA rules score 31 – 10 = 21 points

IPSC rules score 22 points

That's not entirely accurate. What you're doing is removing the benefit of the BEST hit, regardless of whether that hit occurred before or after the stop signal.

-- Shooter A - shoots 5 Ds and one overtime A ... IPSC rules say the A gets removed. OK.

-- Shooter B - shoots 1 A, 4 Ds and an overtime Mike. IPSC rules say the A gets removed. NOT OK, in my opinion. This is *especially* inappropriate, in my opinion, when turning targets are used, since it is increasingly likely that the shooter hit "nothing", and yet his best *legal* hit is arbitrarily ignored.

In my opinion, the penalty for an overtime shot should be what it "always was". I only have rulebooks on my computer back to 1995... but in the 1995 rulebook, the penalty for an overtime shot - see 10.01 (ii) - was "the maximum scoring value of each shot so fired" - eg, 5 points on a paper target, no matter whether the overtime shot hit anything or not/

Bruce, this particular rule applies only to static targets. On disappearing targets we rely on the mechanism to control the timed exposure. We deduct absolutely nothing for an overtime shot on disappearing targets.

This point is very significant because it firmly establishes and confirms that there is no intended penalty for the act of firing a late or overtime shot. Otherwise we would also apply the penalty to the act in the case of disappearing targets as well.

The 1986 rule was the same but this is an area where I think you are mis-reading the rule. The rule does not say the maximum potential value of a hit on the target, i.e. 5 points; the rule says the maximum scoring value of each shot so fired" and I maintain that if each shot so fired hits only the D zone then you deduct Ds. The language has been (I believe accidentally) corrupted and mis-interpreted on the way. The IROA seminars taught it as I describe. I've pasted the text from the Instructors exam debriefing paperwork (early 90s, 1991 I think, or perhaps even earlier)

Rule 10.01 (ii) It is important that students thoroughly understand the logic of fixed-time stages, and the reason for penalties assessed for late shots:

a. Fixed time stages are designed to test a competitor's ability to deal with a given situation in a limited amount of time

b. If we all had access to turning target mechanisms, then we could eliminate the problem of late shots by simply having the targets disappear after the prescribed time has elapsed. The competitor could then shoot as many late shots as he wished and have no effect on the target score

c. In the absence of turning target equipment, we have introduced a stop signal ( second buzzer ) to simulate the disappearance of the target. The deficiency of this method is that the target actually remains exposed to the competitor, and the score will likely be influenced by any late shots.

d. The application of penalties to late shots in a fixed time exercise is only to remove any benefit the competitor might have gained by hitting a target that was theoretically no longer there. These penalties are not intended as any kind of "punishment" for shooting after the final signal

e. To eliminate any possible benefit, we simply remove from the target as many hits as there were late shots. Not only do we assume that all of the late shots hit the target, but we also take the position that they gave rise to the best hits

Late shots will be penalised 5 points each only to the extent that there are " A " hits to account for all the late shots, the remaining late shots will be penalised according to the highest value hits remaining.

Ensure also that students thoroughly understand the logic behind Rule 10.01 (iii) assessing a procedural error for each extra hit on a fixed time target, and Rule 10.01 (iv) charging a procedural error for each extra shot taken above the number prescribed by the course description

I (as you might imagine) disagree with that characterization. I believe the *penalty* for an overtime shot should be the same, no matter whether that shot hit anything or not. Additionally, I don't think the rules should make "assumptions" - effectively what the IPSC rule does is "assume" that the overtime shot(s) were the highest-value shot(s)... which is both not supported by evidence (does the RO really "know" which hits were which? If not, the rules should not support an arbitrary leap of logic)... and, in fact the *IPSC* rule applies a different penalty value for different shooters. If my best hit is a C, I get 4 points taken off my score. If my best hit is an A, I get 5 points taken off. Etc.

Let's look at an analogous example. Lets say that, rather than an overtime shot, the foul is a "foot fault"... a shot fired while faulting a charge line or fault line. Do we arbitrarily look at the targets and figure out which are the "best" hits on the targets shot while faulting, and deduct those? No... we unilaterally say that a procedural error (shot fired while faulting) is 10 points. Period. I think our rule(s) with regard to overtime shots should be internally consistent, in philosophy and in practice.

I've covered this above. It is not intended to be a penalty. We apply no penalty to late shots in conjunction with disappearing targets. The infringement of a footfault is different. It is a prescribed "penalty". Late shots aren't.

However we do have a problem when it comes to scoring. We can't accurately determine the sequence of shots and hits. In the absence of this we have to make a rulebook decision and this is as described and it is felt that this represents the most reasonable solution. I believe it represents a fairer system for competitors as a whole, certainly compared to an automatic deduction of 5 points per shot. Not perfect I agree, we can't have perfect with static paper targets. The nearest thing to perfect is disappearing targets but that isn't perfect for some clubs either because it denies them the opportunity to use FT.

I just wish that we could get away from (what I - meaning no disrespect - would characterize as) changes unrelated to actual competitive issues. I know this is a parochial view, but it seems to me that IPSC is on a path of trying to please everyone... and that worries me. So many of the rules discussions started with "I saw this once and didn't like it so we need to make a rule against it", or "this region can't have such-and-such, so we need to make a rule against it"... and, I guess I just fundamentally wonder those rules are really *necessary*. Or, wonder whether they actually *accomplish* anything. Or.. more fundamentally... wonder whether they make the game "better".

Is our game materially improved by not allowing sight pictures? Or not allowing upside-down Metric targets? Or introducing the notion of "warnings", which may result in competitive penalties for things unrelated to actions during an attempt on a course of fire?

IPSC clearly believes the answer to those is "yes". I have a hard time agreeing. And therein lies perhaps the core of our misalignment. If you look at the pattern of "US exceptions" to the IPSC rulebook, the majority of them occur where IPSC changed something, and the US Board felt the US shooter was better served by leaving things as they were.

I *wish* we were on the same page. I have put in my share of time working to get us there. But... IMO, we *aren't* currently on the same page, and my belief is that it is because we have different "visions" for what the sport should be. IPSC wants to be a global game that can be implemented consistently in every region, and if that means adapting it for *all* regions to meet the needs of the smallest region, or the most legally-restricted region (or whatever), that may well serve the global goal. But I worry greatly about what lies down that road... if the rules are constantly being revised in an attempt to meet *all* the needs of *all* the regions, how long before the game is unrecognizable against its freestyle, "combat shooting", test-bed-for-equipment-and-techniques heritage?

As I said in my other post, I'd love to have IPSC rules and USPSA rules be more consistent... but my personal belief is that IPSC is headed down a path that changes the game in arbitrary - and arguably detrimental - ways. Perhaps that's a fundamental philosophical difference, perhaps it is merely my perception, but... if we can address the divergence and *resolve* it, I think it would serve the interests of *both* orgs.

So... how can we work together better toward getting our paths more aligned, rather than one moving "away" and the other reacting? Count me "willing to help solve the problem", for whatever that is worth...

Bruce

This is a HUGE debate and will take more time that we have just now but it cuts both ways. Please remember I go back a long way. In fact back to the days when the sport more closely represented what Jeff Cooper wanted. One of my mentors is one of the "dinosaurs" from the beginning. It is true that in some areas IPSC has moved away from the origins but that is also true of the USPSA. In truth, and with no disrespect intended to anyone in either organisation, both organisations have allowed things in that don't conform to the original concepts. Some things IPSC allows today and USPSA disagrees with and some things today the USPSA allows and IPSC disagrees with. The perception of right and wrong, correct and incorrect, shifts from person to person and that applies with IPSC, within USPSA and within my home organisation of UKPSA.

I think we should fight to move closer together and not fight to find differences. I have made great efforts to understand the US thinking, if I agreed I supported and promoted it, if I could live with it sometimes I just accommodated it. But I'm also entitled to disagree. I think that's healthy as well.

[XRe]

Late shots will be penalised 5 points each only to the extent that there are " A " hits to account for all the late shots, the remaining late shots will be penalised according to the highest value hits remaining.

I have to admit, I like this interpretation of the rule much better than what we've traditionally used in the US... Or, at least, what I was taught in my RO Level-I course way back when. If there aren't any A-zone hits on the target to begin with, should we really be deducting 5 points for a late shot?? Just start ticking off the higher scoring shots....

I think we should fight to move closer together and not fight to find differences. I have made great efforts to understand the US thinking, if I agreed I supported and promoted it, if I could live with it sometimes I just accommodated it. But I'm also entitled to disagree. I think that's healthy as well.

What interests me is that, in large part, the US versions of the rules are clarifications on the IPSC rule for use in the US, and we don't differ *that* substantially (look out, Jim's going to chuck a flame my way ). Of course we use different divisions, and Major is slightly different, etc, but fundamentally the game is the same, with some minor differences. They're just different enough to make it kind of a pain to constantly switch between them...

There are some cases where one or the other rule could be adopted, and leave a provision in the rule for match staff to use the other option as a standing policy in the match (ie, course walkthroughs, or sight pictures, or...). In some cases, I think the US language of the rule (well, the "old" rules, - I haven't checked out the 2006 rules yet) is easier to use (ie, the clarifications). If it hasn't been done (again, sorry for not looking at the new rules, yet), it might be worthwhile to consider why the US feels compelled to clarify those types of rules.

Then, there are cases where the US seems to just be stuck on "we do it this way, and that's how it's gonna be" - aside from divisions, I'm not sure I feel like this is the right thing to do for these cases. The Fixed Time discussion above comes to mind - either way works, as long as it's enforced consistently. After that, it's just a matter of do you allow an extra .3" on the course after the stop signal or not (in other words, semantically, Neil's comment about allowing an extra .3" on the course simply makes it a 5.30" fixed time course with a slightly early stop signal is spot on). I don't mean this as an attack on you, Bruce I don't see why the IPSC rule couldn't be altered slightly to allow, or course descriptions altered slightly, to allow the course designer to stipulate that the timer be set to give the stop signal .3" earlier. It's all semantics - the US rule is striving to be more fair to the competitor by not handing out penalties for slow reaction times, but in effect gives you a longer usable time.

Let me go find my asbestos suit, hang on a sec...

Edited January 6, 2006 by XRe

[Alan Meek]

A point that I think is missing on the discussion of the 5.00 sec vs 5.31. When you use turning targets that start to turn at the 5.00 sec there is a visual indiciator as the targets start to turn and the scoring area is still visible for a period of time. Where if you use static targets there is no indication that the 5.00 sec time limit has been reached.

Most of the time that I have seen turning targets used the action of the targets start the time and likewise the target starting the action of returning back to the non-available position indicates the stage is ending.

Alan

Edited January 6, 2006 by 9Major-Caspian

[shred]

Back on topic, over on the GV there is posted a copy of the IPSC rules with strikethroughs and underlines marking the deltas from previous rules. It's a big help seeing where the changes are.

I split off the non-2006 rulebook specific posts (I should have just renamed this thread and split out the 2006 posts, but it's too late now). The general 'what do we do with the rules' posts are here: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=31281 Apoligies if I messed any up. Let me know.

[Gary Stevens]

The .30 was put in the rules, if I remember correctly, to account for the length of the buzzer. To account for a shot that occured during the buzzer or one that occured after the buzzer.

Gary

[shred]

Posts not directly related to the 2006 book (which includes the FT OT value discussions that aren't wrapped up in a bunch of discussion) have been moved out of this thread again.