IPSC & USPSA rulebooks

[bgary]

I see no reason why we need a 10 round limit for USPSA Open shotgun; the IPSC rule is much better

Really? The no-tube-length-restriction and no-capacity-restriction rules?

Do we really want to go back to the days where the person who can come to the line with the longest mag tube (and/or the shortest shells) wins?

Bruce

Edited January 6, 2006 by bgary

[caps]

This is an interesting non-emotional discussion. Cool.

I don't know all the history and inner workings but I wonder what would happen if every country in IPSC wanted to do the same thing as the US? Wouldn't that destroy things? I mean let's say Canada wanted overtime shots to be after 5.15 seconds and Mexico wanted it to be 5.45 seconds etc., then what? What happens if the same happens with 20 other rules? Enquring minds want to know.

[bgary]

PS

Nowhere in the above have I taken the position that the rules have to be all about "what the US wants".

Because that isn't what I believe.

What I *do* believe is that a rule should "solve a problem" or "demonstrably make the game better"... or it shouldn't be written. That was my *constant* line of question when I was on the IPSC handgun rules committee: "do we need a new rule?" "what is the problem that this rule need to solve?" "Is there a way to address the problem without writing a new rule that affects all regions?" and.. "how does this rule change the game?" "is that change a *good* thing?"

The current misalignment between USPSA and IPSC, in my opinion, has nothing to do with "US vs. the world". In my opinion, it is about fixing problems... or not. Unfortunately, I suspect that our inability to agree on some of the solutions is, at its core, more about being unable to agree on the definition of the problems. Or, perhaps more likely, that the problems facing the global org are very different than the problems faced internally by an individual region.

Not sure of my point (it is 3:30am)... but, wanted to defuse the "us vs. them" component of this conversation. I don't think that's at the core of the issue, it certainly isn't for *me*. I want us to *solve* things that need to be solved.... and not create new problems along the way.

Bruce

Edited January 6, 2006 by bgary

[Jim Norman]

PS

Nowhere in the above have I taken the position that the rules have to be all about "what the US wants".

Because that isn't what I believe.

What I *do* believe is that a rule should "solve a problem" or "demonstrably make the game better"... or it shouldn't be written. That was my *constant* line of question when I was on the IPSC handgun rules committee: "do we need a new rule?" "what is the problem that this rule need to solve?" "Is there a way to address the problem without writing a new rule that affects all regions?" and.. "how does this rule change the game?" "is that change a *good* thing?"

Bruce,

Excellent!

Jim

[Jim Norman]

No flames here, BUT, as has been explained, we here in the USA have used the .31 overage for years. We here in the US have a Classification system whereinthere are scores based upon this fact. I suppose it could be that we adopt the IPSC rule and change the course discriptions to read 5.3 seconds is OK, 5.31 is overtime. No effect, so why change.

As to the penalty, Why charge 5 points if there are no A hits? Well, then why charge 10 point for a foot fault if I shoot and miss? I had zero points, but lost 10.

As to US rules being clarifications of IPSC rules. I won;t address that one way or the other. There are substaintial differences and there are minor differences. We have 6 divisions, only two of which are represented in an IPSC Match, Open and Revolver. We have Limited IPSC has Standard, similar, Yes, but different. We have L-10, IPSC has Nada, We have the provisional SS, IPSC has NADA, We started Production IPSC made it into Standard Lite. Race holsters allowed, no capacity limit, (So long as the mag is flush) We have enough differences in Production that it completely different. Be honest, in IPSC a .45 in production just is not competative, here in USPSA it can be. Single Stack, USPSA yes, IPSC NADA.

Multi-Gun, IPSC NADA, USPSA Yes.

All this just makes us different, personally I like our rules. I think there are some items that IPSC adopted that are just wrong, (Go back and read Gary's and Bruce's posts about why rules should get changed)

As to switching back and forth between IPSC and USPSA, how many people does that realy affect? AND if that is so bad, then what about the differences in Germnany or France or ... and why are they any different. I understand that in Greece you can't pick-up your brass!

In places like Europe where there is a lot of travel between regioins this copuld be a problem, but here where we have Areas that are larger and have more shooters than many regiosn, or even clubs that attract more shooters to practice matches than to some Nationals.

Does this make us better? No, It does make us different however. Think about the places where all shooting is done indoors, Do they have or need special rules? Maybe. What about places where any cartridge used by the military or police is banned, do we allow a special rule? Of course we do.

What about regions where private ownership of firearms is outlawed entirely? How do we address them? Shlud the rules or the IPSC constitution have a clause or section that allows them in, but restricts their voting rights?

So are there differences between USPSA and IPSC and between IPSC and XXPSA. There need to be, should they be vast differences? Not if they can be reduced, but they need to exist, for Cultural reasons, historical reasons and legal reasons.

We need to be very careful with adopting new rules, they can have far reaching effects on the game as it is played. An example is the timer, 5 seconds is 5 seconds or 5.31, in a basic COF not a problem either way, but when applied to a collected group of scores recorded over years. Here we need to address it in a different manner as indicated earlier.

Jim

You have a time to shoot the COF within, if you exceed that time the penalty is the value of the highest scoring hit POSSIBLE. In other words, you should not have fired the shot.

The reason is IT IS A PENALTY! It is not a simple deduction.

Jim

[Neil Beverley]

Please don't think the IPSC rules committee is so dogmatic that it is not open to change. Every member of the committee has an influence and amongst others, we get wise council from Mike Voigt and John Amidon. Vince Pinto has frequently spoken in particular of John for whom he holds the utmost respect. They have worked together on rules matters for some 8 years now.

In Bali in November 2004 I distinctly remember a unanimous decision to adopt the US version of rule 9.1.4. I believe this was championed by Vince on behalf of John who wasn't at the meeting (Mike was).

On the other hand within the committee we sometimes agree and sometimes don't, and that is how it should be. I lose votes on issues same as every member does. I also win some.

Human nature being what it is it is regrettable that many people post their moans and seldom write about what they like. You can have 100 new good rules and just one that a person doesn't like and guess what gets reported?

I was pleased to note Bruce's comments that this isn't IPSC versus USPSA. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply want good rules. All of us do. We may disagree what they should be but that happens. It even happens between IPSC UK and IPSC HK but we deal with it and move on. None of us can have everything we want. If you get a dozen people round a table in the US or in the UK or anywhere in the world and you will struggle to reach unanimous verdicts on every single item. Check back over the minutes of the USPSA board meetings. An international rules committee is no different. But it is a fact that we agree, all agree, on far more items than we disagree on. If the argument is good enough it flies.

By way of an observation please also bear in mind that the last set of rules for the USPSA has only been out a little over a year. This gives a perception that the current spat of new rules has come round very quickly indeed, and for the USPSA perhaps it has, but the reality for IPSC is that is has been 2 years. It would usually be a 3 year cycle, but I discussed this in a very early post.

So, speaking as one of the two headed aliens that people believe exist on the IPSC rules committee, can I just say I'm not the enemy. I love practical shooting just as much as any of you. It's not my sport, it's not your sport. It's our sport.

You have a time to shoot the COF within, if you exceed that time the penalty is the value of the highest scoring hit POSSIBLE. In other words, you should not have fired the shot.

The reason is IT IS A PENALTY! It is not a simple deduction.

Jim

So why aren't you arguing for a change to the rules to apply a penalty in the case of disappearing targets?

Edited January 6, 2006 by Neil Beverley

[Jim Norman]

Actually I am arguing for, and maybe I didn't say it correctly, for

Penalty for Extra Hit and Penalty for Extra Shot and Penalty for Overtime Shot.

All should be applied, you are supposed to only fire X shots and do it in Y time. You fire too many, get to many hits or take to long and you get penalties.

Simple

Jim

Edited January 6, 2006 by Jim Norman

[Neil Beverley]

Actually I am arguing for, and maybe I didn't say it correctly, for

Penalty for Extra Hit and Penalty for Extra Shot and Penalty for Overtime Shot.

All should be applied, you are supposed to only fire X shots and do it in Y time. You fire too many, get to many hits or take to long and you get penalties.

Simple

Jim

So if I understand you correctly you are proposing that the existing USPSA Rule 9.4.6.1 (the US variation to the IPSC rule) be changed?

[chuckw]

All this just makes us different, personally I like our rules. I think there are some items that IPSC adopted that are just wrong,

No flame intended but can you tell me just ONE rule which you believe IPSC got right and the US got wrong?

[Neil Beverley]

We started Production IPSC made it into Standard Lite. Race holsters allowed, no capacity limit, (So long as the mag is flush) We have enough differences in Production that it completely different.

Jim

Jim

Just to set this straight, I think you got the facts about face.

Production Division was introduced and approved by IPSC at the 1999 IPSC General Assembly in Cebu. Andy Hollar, on behalf of the USPSA voted in favour to accept the new Division.

Early in 2000 the USPSA brought in a variant of the IPSC Production Division with a number of changes.

Edit Note:

I've deleted some text to avoid getting embroiled into any (old) discussions about the differences between IPSC and USPSA Production Divisions. That wasn't the point of my post. Only the bit about the chicken and the egg.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Neil Beverley

[caps]

Production Division was introduced and approved by IPSC at the 1999 IPSC General Assembly in Cebu. Andy Hollar, on behalf of the USPSA voted in favour to accept the new Division.

I just read the minutes of that meeting at the IPSC website and I found another real humdinger:

19.10 Motion:

That the Major power factor floor for Open Division be 160.

Moved: USA

Seconded: Slovenia

For: 26 Against: 5 Abstain: 3

Carried

How come USA voted for 160 then changed it to 165? That's two flip-flops from one meeting!

[wgnoyes]

You guys are getting close to dredging up the IPSC Holy Rulebook Jihad of 2000 again!

[diehli]

Does anybody shoot anymore?

[Vlad]

Does anybody shoot anymore?

Wait .. what?

[Nik Habicht]

Does anybody shoot anymore?

Tomorrow ---- if I can find my gear among the moving boxes.....

[Jim Norman]

Nik,

Never cover up the shooting gear, you can always move, but Sunday IS match day.

BTW, Shotgun Side?

Jim

[caps]

You guys are getting close to dredging up the IPSC Holy Rulebook Jihad of 2000 again!

Excuse my ignorance but you lost me. What are you talking about?

[wgnoyes]

Sorry; should have just left it unmentioned. Anyway, since you asked, as a result of the 1999 Cebu GA and our subsequent own version of the rules, Alexakos in early 2000 presented newly-elected USPSA President M.Voigt with an "our way or the highway" ultimatum to either use their rulebook as is or get out of IPSC, with their stated preference being the latter of the two options. It was a really ugly battle, which we won and we're still with IPSC and we still have our own rulebook significantly closer to theirs than before (at least before the 2006 version) and M.Voigt became Chair of the rules committee. Things appear to be better now as a result between IPSC and USPSA and that's all I'm going to say on it. Others may care to elaborate, but if they do, we'll probably just get the topic closed, so I suggest we direct the line back specifically to the 2006 book.

[caps]

Sorry; should have just left it unmentioned. Anyway, since you asked, as a result of the 1999 Cebu GA and our subsequent own version of the rules, Alexakos in early 2000 presented newly-elected USPSA President M.Voigt with an "our way or the highway" ultimatum to either use their rulebook as is or get out of IPSC, with their stated preference being the latter of the two options. It was a really ugly battle, which we won and we're still with IPSC and we still have our own rulebook significantly closer to theirs than before (at least before the 2006 version) and M.Voigt became Chair of the rules committee. Things appear to be better now as a result between IPSC and USPSA and that's all I'm going to say on it. Others may care to elaborate, but if they do, we'll probably just get the topic closed, so I suggest we direct the line back specifically to the 2006 book.

Interesting - I had no idea but was the ultimatum sent coz the US flip-flopped on the two things that we know about above or is there more to this than meets the eye? Also why would this topic be closed, coz we're only recalling history?

Edited January 9, 2006 by caps

[Brundoggie]

Best, I think, to let old wounds heal.

[caps]

Best, I think, to let old wounds heal.

Ok if everyone thinks that's best but I gotta say I'm very uncomfortable. I keep reading posts from people with megaphones to tell us about how bad IPSC is and how they're the most evil people in the world and how they screw everything up but as soon as questions about US flip-flops are asked people clam up and you can hear the proverbial pin drop in here and I don't think it's coz nobody knows the answer.

[bgary]

Best, I think, to let old wounds heal.

Ok if everyone thinks that's best but I gotta say I'm very uncomfortable. I keep reading posts from people with megaphones to tell us about how bad IPSC is and how they're the most evil people in the world and how they screw everything up but as soon as questions about US flip-flops are asked people clam up and you can hear the proverbial pin drop in here and I don't think it's coz nobody knows the answer.

I can't answer the entire question, but I'll throw in two cents worth.

-- I've never said IPSC is evil. Neil has never said USPSA is evil. What we have both said is that there are some differences in philosophy, and that leads to differences in the rulebooks. I think we would both like to sort that out. A lot of progress has been made since the 1999 and 2000 General Assemblies. We still have some significant "gaps" in alignment between our respective positions.

-- WRT to "flip-flops", I believe that a bare reading of IPSC GA minutes may lead to some confusion. In some cases, the US Regional Director may make (or support) a motion on behalf of the Rules Committee (of which he is chair)... and subsequently vote against it, on behalf of the US region. I believe that the power factor is just such an issue - the rules committee recommended 160, but the US region was in favor of 165.

Bruce

[Vlad]

Best, I think, to let old wounds heal.

Ok if everyone thinks that's best but I gotta say I'm very uncomfortable. I keep reading posts from people with megaphones to tell us about how bad IPSC is and how they're the most evil people in the world and how they screw everything up but as soon as questions about US flip-flops are asked people clam up and you can hear the proverbial pin drop in here and I don't think it's coz nobody knows the answer.

I'm kinda hope that you really mean USPSA and not US, but then again, maybe you dont.

Please discuss the rule book not history, and also please dont accuse people of things they havent done.

[caps]

I'm kinda hope that you really mean USPSA and not US, but then again, maybe you dont. Please discuss the rule book not history, and also please dont accuse people of things they havent done.

Yes I did mean USPSA but this is a USPSA/IPSC rules forum so did you think I mean the US government? I didn't accuse anybody in particular of anything so why are you being so defensive?

[Vlad]

I'm kinda hope that you really mean USPSA and not US, but then again, maybe you dont. Please discuss the rule book not history, and also please dont accuse people of things they havent done.

Yes I did mean USPSA but this is a USPSA/IPSC rules forum so did you think I mean the US government? I didn't accuse anybody in particular of anything so why are you being so defensive?

Defensive? More like Curious. You refer to IPSC and US. Sorry, but over here in the old mean US we have been accused of lots of evil lately and I'm trying to figure out what your complain it is, and if it refers USPSA or US attitudes or what. Really I'm kind of curious what IPSC supporters are really complaining about. It isn't like USPSA shooters want to dictate the rules of IPSC, we just like IPSC to not dictate to USPSA rules which do not match the character of our matches. There is a real distiction in there but if you want to argue about it please send me a PM and lets leave this thread to the rules discussion.