IPSC & USPSA rulebooks

[chuckw]

It rewrote a rule that the Rule Gestapo required be read literally and moved those that had 11 in their start mag to Open.

If you're going to nitpick, at least come up with something better.

I directly asked Bruce not you - he listed his filters and I just want to know from him which one he used for the 11 round rule so don't attack me. Besides didn't he write the rule in the first place?

[XRe]

Bruce, using your filters, how do you categorize the rule change in L10 from "10 rounds loaded in a mag ever" to "10 rounds loaded after the start signal" - wasn't that just a feel good thing to make a few whiners who objected about barney mags happy?

Cullen already covered this, but, hell it's 5:30 in the morning, and I'm not awake, yet, so I'll chime in...

If you re-read Bruce's filter, you'll notice it has a bent of "easier to use" and "fairer to the competitor"??? The whole point of 10-round divisions is that the competitor can't fire more than 11 rounds, total, without reloading (or ten, if they run the gun dry somewhere), right?? So does it *really* matter if they load the gun from a mag that has 11?? Moving someone to Open for that seems a bit unfair, doesn't it (and it'd actually be Limited, BTW)?? Now - if they fire eleven from a particular mag (12, counting the one in the tube), bump 'em over...

Either way the RO has to count - this just allows some convenience, and isn't a detriment to the rules, the competition, or the fairness to any competitor.

Bad choice for an example, IMO...

[Neil Beverley]

Not that it has any particular relevance, but my own filter for things is pretty simple:

-- If it affects safety, we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers a DQ for violations.

-- If it affects the competitive equity of a shooter's attempt on the course of fire (eg, foot faults, procedurals, etc) we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers procedural penalties for violations.

Period.

In my opinion, if it doesn't affect safety, and doesn't affect the fairness of the competition, then I am *far* less interested in creating a rule. Fundamentally, I wonder what such a rule accomplishes.

Now, that is a broad statement, and I don't mean it to be taken that we don't need rules around course design, match administration, scoring guidelines, chrono procedures, equipment standards and many other things. But when I think of things like, oh, say... someone walking around behind the line with the hammer back on a holstered gun. Did we really *need* a rule to deal with that? Does it really deserve a warning? Should a warning really have the potential to become a penalty which affects the outcome of the competition? I just have a hard time with all that.

$.02

Bruce

So where does adding the word "Photos" in the changed rule below fit it? Was it so essential that it couldn't wait until the 2006 update? And why was it not suggested when we were all working together on the 2004 Rulebook?

11.1.5 Retain Evidence – An appellant is required to inform the Range Master of his wish to present his appeal to the Arbitration Committee and may request that the officials retain any and all relevant documentary or other evidence pending the hearing. Audio and/or video recordings will not be accepted as evidence.

US 11.1.5 Retain Evidence – An appellant is required to inform the Range Master of his wish to present his appeal to the Arbitration Committee and may request that the oficials retain any and all relevant documentary or other evidence pending the hearing. Photos, audio and/or video recordings will not be accepted as evidence.

I only offer this as an example that it isn't all one sided.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Neil Beverley

[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?

Jim

You didn't answer this question and it's perhaps relevant to the discussions about what should or shouldn't be changed and what are necesaary and unnecessary changes.

Are you proposing that the existing USPSA Rule 9.4.6.1 be changed.

[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

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?

Jim

You didn't answer this question and it's perhaps relevant to the discussions about what should or shouldn't be changed and what are necesaary and unnecessary changes.

Are you proposing that the existing USPSA Rule 9.4.6.1 be changed.

USPSA Rule:

US 9.4.6.1 Overtime shots (i.e. shots fired after the signal to cease fire

has been given), will each be penalized the value of the

maximum scoring hit available on that target, except in the

case of disappearing targets. If the time runs more than .30

seconds over the set time, it will be considered overtime.

For example, if the time is 5.00 seconds, a shot at 5.31 seconds

would be considered overtime.

I believe that the proper scoring situation is or should be:

Penalty applied for: Overtime shot, whether or not the targets are fixed or turning. Penalty applied for Extra Shots. Penalty applied for Extra Hits. So Yes, I suppose you could say I am in favor of making the scoring the same whether or not the targets turn. Simply put when the targets have returned to their fully retracted position, any shot fired after that time should also be penalized. In point of fact, I think that the turning targets provide a better stop signal than a buzzer so that type should definately be penalized.

Jim Norman

[Neil Beverley]

USPSA Rule:

US 9.4.6.1 Overtime shots (i.e. shots fired after the signal to cease fire

has been given), will each be penalized the value of the

maximum scoring hit available on that target, except in the

case of disappearing targets. If the time runs more than .30

seconds over the set time, it will be considered overtime.

For example, if the time is 5.00 seconds, a shot at 5.31 seconds

would be considered overtime.

I believe that the proper scoring situation is or should be:

Penalty applied for: Overtime shot, whether or not the targets are fixed or turning. Penalty applied for Extra Shots. Penalty applied for Extra Hits. So Yes, I suppose you could say I am in favor of making the scoring the same whether or not the targets turn. Simply put when the targets have returned to their fully retracted position, any shot fired after that time should also be penalized. In point of fact, I think that the turning targets provide a better stop signal than a buzzer so that type should definately be penalized.

Jim Norman

So despite not raising this as an issue in the previous 14 months the USPSA has been operating the rule you have suddenly decided that it's wrong because of an unrelated change that has been made in the IPSC rules. Indeed if the IPSC rule hadn't been changed I guess you would have remained silent on the matter.

Please tell me how you are going to determine and prove that an overtime shot is in fact an overtime shot when you are using disappearing targets and not timers to determine the end of the permitted time?

How will you accurately score your proposed penalty for overtime shots? What proof?

[LPatterson]

New Guidelines for Rules Forum

Due to incessant bickering typical in the Rules Forum, we've (Admin/Moderators) come very close to deleting the Rules Forum altogether. We've decided to keep it (by a narrow margin), however, with one stipulation:

No bickering, whining, or antagonistic tones will be tolerated.

Threads or posts not following this spirit will be locked or deleted, and offenders will be warned or banned from posting.

Please, for the life of the Rules Forum and the constructive input gained from it, participate appropriately.

Thank you,

benos

Moderator's isn't it time for our host's wishes to be applied.

[bgary]

Bruce, using your filters, how do you categorize the rule change in L10 from "10 rounds loaded in a mag ever" to "10 rounds loaded after the start signal"

It *removed* a situation where something the competitor did or didn't do before the beep, affected the competitor's score on that (and all subsequent) attempts on the course of fire.

Shooter A: puts a 10-round mag in the gun, charges it, pulls out that mag, puts in another 10 round mag, all before the beep, good to go.

Shooter B: puts an 11-round mag in the gun, charges it, ALL BEFORE THE BEEP, he's now removed from Limited-10 (or Production) and moved to another division, because he did something that has absolutely no impact on his performance AFTER the beep.

I think changing that rule is *completely* consistent with filter. There should not be a competitive penalty for something that was not safety related, and did not affect the competitive equity of the shooter's attempt on the course of fire.

Bruce

So where does adding the word "Photos" in the changed rule below fit it?

Yes, well.... like the IPSC rules process, the USPSA process is democratic, and I don't get my way on everything

Having said that, I think it is actually a valid clarification, which IPSC should consider as well. The guiding premise of the arbitration is, or at least historically has been, that the RO's on-the-ground observation of an event is the official ruling, until/unless the arbitrant can deliver witness testimony that causes the arb committee to view the event in a different light. In other words, the RO "calls it as he sees it", and that is deemed to be "it".

We know that audio and video recordings are problematic in a variety of ways. We know that they may have been shot from a very different point-of-view than the RO had. We know that they can be affected by a variety of factors. So we agree that those things are "out", and that the evidence in an arb committee must be verbal or written witness statements. Well... we started running into people who would download video to their laptop, clip a couple of frames, and present "still photos" to an arb committee, saying that the rules did not prohibit photos so the evidence was admissable.

So, in the interest of consistency/clarity, we closed that "loophole." In candor, we don't think we're done... USPSA/IPSC shooters are nothing if not skilled at finding the holes in a design, whether it be a stage or a rulebook ;-)

Bruce

I only offer this as an example that it isn't all one sided.

Totally agree. And, once again, I've never sought to assign "blame" for this. I'd like to try to fix it.

We may find that the optimal "fix" is to continue to work together and derive a common rulebook that we can both "live with" (ObNote: the definition of "compromise" is that both parties go away equally unhappy )

Or, we may find that the optimal "fix" is to have IPSC intergalactic headquarters agree that there is some merit in allowing the US to maintain a regional rulebook that meets its specific needs, and allow the EU to negotiate a regional rulebook that meets the specific needs of its constituent countries, and allow Japan to maintain a regional rulebook that meets its specific needs... and, establish that the *one* rulebook which we must all have in common is the one that governs International competition.

$.02

Bruce

[GeorgeInNePa]

Not that it has any particular relevance, but my own filter for things is pretty simple:

-- If it affects safety, we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers a DQ for violations.

-- If it affects the competitive equity of a shooter's attempt on the course of fire (eg, foot faults, procedurals, etc) we need rules that define the proscribed behavior and delivers procedural penalties for violations.

Period.

Bruce, using your filters, how do you categorize the rule change in L10 from "10 rounds loaded in a mag ever" to "10 rounds loaded after the start signal" - wasn't that just a feel good thing to make a few whiners who objected about barney mags happy?

Are you kidding?

It rewrote a rule that the Rule Gestapo required be read literally and moved those that had 11 in their start mag to Open.

If you're going to nitpick, at least come up with something better.

+1,

it was rewritten the way it should have been from the start. They didn't add a rule, they cleared up an existing rule.

[GeorgeInNePa]

New Guidelines for Rules Forum

Due to incessant bickering typical in the Rules Forum, we've (Admin/Moderators) come very close to deleting the Rules Forum altogether. We've decided to keep it (by a narrow margin), however, with one stipulation:

No bickering, whining, or antagonistic tones will be tolerated.

Threads or posts not following this spirit will be locked or deleted, and offenders will be warned or banned from posting.

Please, for the life of the Rules Forum and the constructive input gained from it, participate appropriately.

Thank you,

benos

Moderator's isn't it time for our host's wishes to be applied.

Let me guess, you used to ask to be made Hall Monitor, right?

[Jim Norman]

Neil,

If I fire a shot AFTER the targets have turned, wouldn't we have to agree that it was OVERTIME?

So long as the shots are fired before the targets turn OK, so long as the shot is fired before the Beep, OK, If the beed starts or the targets start to turn, still good. The targets may turn quickly, but there is still a time span where they are TURNING. If we assume that the face time is 5.00, the time from the start to disappear to the total disappearence is X the OK time is 5.X same as with the timer.

I will admit that I really didn't give it a whole lot of thought until this came us. I spend my time shooting and working on matches, building them, running them, fixxing props, etc. not hashing over the rule book. However when we get into this type of discussion, I have to get involved. It affects my sport.

Jim Norman

[JayWord]

I really do not want to get into this discussion, but as a person who has worked these stages I feel I must.

On the 11 round thing, the rules as enforced gave no options. If you did not meet the requirements for a division you were moved to Open, not L-10 not Limited, which at the Match were this blew up was not an option. Was it a bit picky, yes, but the rules were the rules. A DQ for breaking the 182 is just as bad as a 270. The consiquences need to be the same.

I like the current USPSA rule on overtime. Since the original rewrite (USPSA Green Book) failed to have timed fire at all and still discourages it based on the new rule rewrite. The elimination of the 2 bullet diameter rule has made turning target standards a bit more interesting. I reviewed the new IPSC rulebook and I saw nothing other than the overtime rules I could not live with. I strongly feel if you are going to take an overtime shot you should be penalized the maximum value of the potential hit, ie. 5 points. It is not our fault you falled to take advantage and shot a C or D. Why should you be rewarded for bad aim, cheating rebel scum.

Jay

[LPatterson]

New Guidelines for Rules Forum

Due to incessant bickering typical in the Rules Forum, we've (Admin/Moderators) come very close to deleting the Rules Forum altogether. We've decided to keep it (by a narrow margin), however, with one stipulation:

No bickering, whining, or antagonistic tones will be tolerated.

Threads or posts not following this spirit will be locked or deleted, and offenders will be warned or banned from posting.

Please, for the life of the Rules Forum and the constructive input gained from it, participate appropriately.

Thank you,

benos

Moderator's isn't it time for our host's wishes to be applied.

Let me guess, you used to ask to be made Hall Monitor, right?

No but I do know that bickering is when people have opposing opinions that they not willing to compromise on. I didn't ask for the job but I retired as an Air Force First Sargeant which some people thought was almost a hall monitior.

[benos]

If:

... bickering is when people have opposing opinions that they not willing to compromise on.

... is interpreted to mean "bickering," then I think I should change the wording. (Okay I just did.) Because I don't mean or want to limit discussion, no matter how uncompromising various opinion's may be. As long as everyone posts respectfully - please discuss.

Thank you,

be

[wgnoyes]

Main Entry: bicker

Function: intransitive verb

Inflected Form(s): bick·ered; bick·er·ing /'bi-k(&-)ri[ng]/

1 : to engage in a petulant or petty quarrel

[Jim Norman]

Any additional news on the USPSA Rulebook front?

Jim

[diehli]

Any additional news on the USPSA Rulebook front?

Jim

Why would there be? We're not changing anything. That was the news.

[Jim Norman]

Not really, the word was, if I am correct, that we would be operating under the current Green Book for a couple more months and that negotiations were essentially underway regarding our waivers and what our rulebook would be.

Then again, I could be wrong

Jim

[diehli]

Not really, the word was, if I am correct, that we would be operating under the current Green Book for a couple more months and that negotiations were essentially underway regarding our waivers and what our rulebook would be.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...ndpost&p=358654

[Jim Norman]

And my question was????

Any additional news on the USPSA Rulebook front?

Or

Has anything else happened with the rules?

In other words, bearing in mind that we are operating under the old book until further notice, I was wondering if there was anything happening that would portend the issuance of said further notice.

Jim

[bgary]

No "new news". We continue to operate under the "green book" until the matter of a new waiver is resolved with IPSC.

Bruce

[Neil Beverley]

I think the question has been asked before but I'll ask it again.

What would you say if one of the USPSA Areas said they didn't want to use the USPSA rulebook but wanted to continue running USPSA matches and instead were going to use their own version of the rulebook to suit their needs and thoughts?

[Vlad]

I dont speak for Jim, but there are some differences, Neil. Lets see ... USPSA is a separately incorporated entity, the Areas are not. Shooters join USPSA, not areas or IPSC. USPSA is the association covering a internationally regonized self-governed nation state, areas (and for that matter IPSC) do not. Also, while I haven't been around that long, it seems to me that USPSA areas dont really disagree, if nothing else because they are a fairly homogenous in their makeup and opinions, where clearly the same is not true for IPSC affiliates.

So my answer to an area would be to fly a kite or go shoot their own separate game. But of course thats not really the correct answer. The truth if that BOTH IPSC and USPSA do make exceptions. I hear that there are some areas of the world where the laws don't allow shooting on the move or certain calibers, or other such things. IPSC allows for exceptions in those cases, I think. Do you really want to take the postion that IPSC will allow for exceptions to the rules if some restrictive government ruling says you have to .. but if the shooters themselves want it then tough for them?

People have already expressed a possible solution in this thread. Would you support modifing the IPSC constitution to allow for separate rule books, and one which governs international competitions (ie: the sailing example). If not why not?

[wgnoyes]

...

What would you say if one of the USPSA Areas said they didn't want to use the USPSA rulebook but wanted to continue running USPSA matches and instead were going to use their own version of the rulebook to suit their needs and thoughts?

We would say submit your variances under the stipulations of 3.3.1 to the RD (Michael Voigt) and see what happens.