" Spirit Of The Rules " Or As Written?

[GeorgeInNePa]

After reading a few threads, I started thinking about how we interpet the rules. I see a few shooters talk about the "spirit of the division" and "intent of the writers".

I'm a "as written" kind of guy.

What about you?

ETA:

Spelling.

Edited February 15, 2006 by GeorgeInNePa

[Rocket35]

I think there is a bit of both going on, but I tend to go with "as written" myself. In the case of "grey" area, you need to ponder on the intent as best as you can.

[blackdragon]

As Written!!!!

Ivan

[LJE]

After reading a few threads, I started thinking about how we interpet the rules. I see a few shooters talk about the "spirt of the division" and "intent of the writers".

I'm a "as written" kind of guy.

What about you?

As written, until interpreted otherwise by J.A. & the BOD.

Larry Eckert

[AlamoShooter]

For a small monthly shoot I try and figure out what the intent was, some times it is not practical to put up extra walls and no shoots to provide a target / shot presintation.

I would rather shoot holes in the target and not in the lack of writen word to cover every posible angel to avoid a challenge. learn and find the angel but shoot the challenge, and just prove that you found it before you shoot.

[SRT Driver]

If it says I can't, I don't.

If not, I will.

[LPatterson]

As written!!!!!!

I could never figure out my wife so how am I supposed to figure out the intent of a half dozen people who argued the rules for months before we got what we have.

[Precision40]

Whether or not I agree with them, I play by the rules.

[Clay1]

When they talk about writing stage designs and COF descriptions it isn't the intent that matters it what you actually wrote. You can't say after it is all done that I intended that it be shot this way when the stage briefing doesn't say that.

I don't cheat, I play by the rules as written. If someone wanted a different rule that what they wrote, I am not a mind reader.

[GeorgeInNePa]

If it says I can't, I don't.

If not, I will.

That's exactly the way I see it too.

[davidball]

As written!!!!!!

I could never figure out my wife so how am I supposed to figure out the intent of a half dozen people who argued the rules for months before we got what we have.

+1

Unless the BOD intends to publish its own "Federalist Papers", how in the world is one to ascertain any intent OTHER than that described by the actual written rules. Is that not what the rules are - the best effort of those who wrote the rules to implement their intent?

[Gregory_k]

no. 3, I watch the pack in front of me.

[kevin c]

"In the spirit of" is subject to interpretation. Couple that with penalties, and you get the potential for messy arguments/arbs and the like.

Another shooting sport has such a concept. There are many who have here voiced the opinion that their rule can be too arbitrarily applied. I'd hate to see that in IPSC/USPSA.

Edited February 16, 2006 by kevin c

[Sam]

The rules won't always be as clear as we would like them to be. I'm glad we have the BOD to occasionally clarify things, so I can forget about it and focus on the shooting.

[chp5]

It’s simplistic to think that that anyone can draft rules that won’t require interpretation at some point when applied to an ever-dynamic set of facts.

For example, we have many written laws and statutes. Highly educated people draft, negotiate and modify these laws. They are written and re-written and put under a microscope. Every word and punctuation is analyzed. Yet, every day in America these laws are interpreted by judges and argued by attorneys. The application of fact to those laws is constantly weighed and interpreted by juries.

I’m an attorney who drafts and negotiates business contracts. I do this for a living five to six days a week. I can personally tell you that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to draft language that provides for all eventualities. Even the best drafter cannot foresee all fact scenarios that could occur in the future.

When a fact pattern arises that is not perfectly contemplated by the express language of a rule/law/contract, it is appropriate to use the “spirit” or “intent” as a guidepost.

In a perfect world, the best answer to the poll is “as written.” However, that answer ignores practical reality. YMMV

Edited February 16, 2006 by chp5

[al503]

It’s simplistic to think that that anyone can draft rules that won’t require interpretation at some point when applied to an ever-dynamic set of facts.

For example, we have many written laws and statutes. Highly educated people draft, negotiate and modify these laws. They are written and re-written and put under a microscope. Every word and punctuation is analyzed. Yet, every day in America these laws are interpreted by judges and argued by attorneys. The application of fact to those laws is constantly weighed and interpreted by juries.

I’m an attorney who drafts and negotiates business contracts. I do this for a living five to six days a week. I can personally tell you that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to draft language that provides for all eventualities. Even the best drafter cannot foresee all fact scenarios that could occur in the future.

When a fact pattern arises that is not perfectly contemplated by the express language of a rule/law/contract, it is appropriate to use the “spirit” or “intent” as a guidepost.

In a perfect world, the best answer to the poll is “as written.” However, that answer is overly simplistic and is not based in practical reality. YMMV

Couldn't have said it better myself. In a perfect world, 'As Written' would be best. I remember hearing from one of my professors talking about a Supreme Court Justice (can't remember which one.) That Justice carried around a pocket sized copy of the Constitution with him (I remember that much) wherever he went. When asked why he carried one around, (the question was obviously based on the concern that a Justice should know the Constitution forwards and backwards, verbatim) the Justice replied something to the effect that he derived a different interpretation of the plain language EVERY time he read it.

While I'm not trying to compare the Constitution and the USPSA rules, both share the common requirement of interpretation. The Constitution says what the 9 Justices say it says. The USPSA Rules say what the BOD and JA says it says.

[davidball]

While I'm not trying to compare the Constitution and the USPSA rules, both share the common requirement of interpretation. The Constitution says what the 9 Justices say it says. The USPSA Rules say what the BOD and JA says it says.

I agree. But what do you do on the range, at a match, where the BOD and JA are not present?

Ideally what range officials should have at a match are 1) a copy of the rulebook and 2) a printed copy of all available interpretations of the BOD and JA (like Supreme Court decisions) from Front Sight and the NROI section of the USPSA website and any other place they are published.

[Crusher]

As written.

I think where there is no question to the rule(s) or subjective interpretation regarding a rule (which USPSA has few of thankfully) it is important to maintain continuity between local level matches (where the bulk of USPSA members play) and level II and Level III matches with regard to the application of the rules.

At some point those who have only shot local level matches may venture out into the "sea" of big matches and the continuity of application of the rules is important for these new "big match" shooters to at least have some idea of what to expect from the match. This "education" starts at the local level and should be the same as can be expected from level II and level III matches.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Crusher

[Chriss Grube]

First off this is a sport write the rules and if somebody finds a better way than what you "think" is the spirit of the rules tough... live with it! There is no need to keep screwing with the rules.

CHP,

as far as the "highly educated people and laws" Give me a break. Most of the laws are written by over educated idiots that think they know what somebody 200+ years ago intended. Most attorney's have trouble reading see spot run with out bitching that spot didn't have the proper dog license and violated a local leash law. Remember the laws were intended to be written by and for the common man. These days it is the I'm smarter than you crowd with no damn common sense. if we keep coming out with these silly clarifications instead of a set of well written easily understood rules we will be shooting a lot less and have to elect a USPSA supreme court.

[Jim Norman]

First off this is a sport write the rules and if somebody finds a better way than what you "think" is the spirit of the rules tough... live with it! There is no need to keep screwing with the rules.

CHP,

as far as the "highly educated people and laws" Give me a break. Most of the laws are written by over educated idiots that think they know what somebody 200+ years ago intended. Most attorney's have trouble reading see spot run with out bitching that spot didn't have the proper dog license and violated a local leash law. Remember the laws were intended to be written by and for the common man. These days it is the I'm smarter than you crowd with no damn common sense. if we keep coming out with these silly clarifications instead of a set of well written easily understood rules we will be shooting a lot less and have to elect a USPSA supreme court.

Yeah Chriss!! (of the superfluous "s"), I could not agree more with you on this point. Too bad this thought process is not more prevelant among those that write the idiot laws we have to live with.

Jim (still looking for the right place to move to in PA) Norman

[Flexmoney]

I agree. But what do you do on the range, at a match, where the BOD and JA are not present?

Ideally what range officials should have at a match are 1) a copy of the rulebook and 2) a printed copy of all available interpretations of the BOD and JA (like Supreme Court decisions) from Front Sight and the NROI section of the USPSA website and any other place they are published.

David,

The only "official rules" are that which are in the rule book and those "official rulings" that are posted on the website (US11.8.3). That is what the match officials have at their disposal. Articles and emails are opinions, not rulings. Coming from Amidon, they carry weight and provide some insight and clarity, but they don't override the rulebook.

Within the rulebook we have a process...base on the rule book. The RO makes the call...then the CRO...then the RM...finally, the Arbitration Committee. (anybody ever setup an arb at a local match ?)

[Flyin40]

Are we talking about the rule book or interpreting how you can shoot a stage??

You have to follow the rules, stay inside the fault lines, follow stage procedure etc.

As long as you follow the basic stage procedure you can do anything you want. Like running around a doorway instead of going through because its faster. You run outside the fault line then step back in and shoot. That is following the rules. Some don't agree with but its going to continue. I seen a "Top" limited shooter do it at area 5 this yr. He followed the rules and stage procedure exactly. He found a way to shoot a faster time. The top guys do but just because they do it doens't make it right. What makes it right is Freestyle aspect of USPSA.

This is called Freestyle, thats a HUGE part is USPSA. "I" can find a way to shoot the stage the quickest way for me.

Flyin40

Edited February 16, 2006 by Flyin40

[al503]

I agree. But what do you do on the range, at a match, where the BOD and JA are not present?

Like I mentioned on a different thread, I'm willing to let people police themselves. Although I like the maxim 'cheaters never prosper,' in practice, they can and do at times.

BOD/JA have made their ruling on this. Many have stated (If I understand them correctly) that they will go along with their interpretation of what is written instead. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's between the shooter and him/herself IMO.

[davidball]

I agree. But what do you do on the range, at a match, where the BOD and JA are not present?

Ideally what range officials should have at a match are 1) a copy of the rulebook and 2) a printed copy of all available interpretations of the BOD and JA (like Supreme Court decisions) from Front Sight and the NROI section of the USPSA website and any other place they are published.

David,

The only "official rules" are that which are in the rule book and those "official rulings" that are posted on the website (US11.8.3). That is what the match officials have at their disposal. Articles and emails are opinions, not rulings. Coming from Amidon, they carry weight and provide some insight and clarity, but they don't override the rulebook.

Within the rulebook we have a process...base on the rule book. The RO makes the call...then the CRO...then the RM...finally, the Arbitration Committee. (anybody ever setup an arb at a local match ?)

Thanks for the clarification . . . as usual, I learn something everyday on this forum . . .

[chp5]

CHP,

as far as the "highly educated people and laws" Give me a break. Most of the laws are written by over educated idiots that think they know what somebody 200+ years ago intended. Most attorney's have trouble reading see spot run with out bitching that spot didn't have the proper dog license and violated a local leash law. Remember the laws were intended to be written by and for the common man. These days it is the I'm smarter than you crowd with no damn common sense. if we keep coming out with these silly clarifications instead of a set of well written easily understood rules we will be shooting a lot less and have to elect a USPSA supreme court.

So what's your solution Chris? The fact remains that it's impossible to draft a rule that contemplates all future facts scenarios and possibilities.

Since I assume you're not one of the "over educated idiots" that you refer to in your response, then call your Area director and suggest language for the specific rule that fixes all current and future issues.

Any idiot can call people names on the Internet, make over-generalizations and bitch about a problem. It's slightly harder to make a positive suggestion . . .