New IPSC Rules Committee

[Vince Pinto]

My apologies for not announcing it earlier, but the new IPSC Rules Committee is now in session and we've been collaborating for 10 days.

I'm Chairman of the Handgun Rules, Neil Beverley (who has already posted in this forum), is Chairman of the Shotgun Rules and Tim Andersen of Denmark is the Rifle Rules Chairman.

The three committees are now separately considering and debating possible improvements to their respective rulebooks, but we're also cross-referencing so that we can ultimately produce our first dedicated Tournament rulebook.

We're conducting our discussions via email but we'll be meeting in Orlando, Florida in February to resolve any issues which we cannot resolve by email.

BE forum members who have suggestions for the Handgun rules are invited to make submissions to me here (ditto for Neil Beverley for the Shotgun rules).

[Skywalker]

Hi Vince,

I think I can post two comments on the last edition of Handgun rulebook I already sent to IROA (Iroa@ipsc.org).

1. in Appendix C - Calibration of poppers, the definition for calibration zones doesn't match with the shaded calibration zones in the previous page accompanying figure. In facts, the shaded zones painted on poppers are full circles, while the descriptions clearly state "a circle with flat sides at top and bottom" and "a circle with flat side at bottom". Which one is to be considered correct?

2. Rule 8.6.4 (new rule) states:"In the event that a competitor begins shooting prematurely ("false start" )  the Range Officer will, as soon as possible, stop the competitor and restart the competitor, as soon as the course of fire has been restored."

I think that, if not properly addressed, an unfair competitor could try to turn this at this advantage.

Here is the possible situation: I'm a competitor trying to start "on" the start signal, and I begin moving when I suppose the timer will beep (I have seen shooters check with wristwatches the delay between Standby and start signal...). If I realize I am moving before the beep, to avoid the procedural penalty I will start shooting irrespective of start signal, just to get the clean re-start.

I think that rule 8.6.4 for should make provision for R.O. decision, or refer to rule 10.1.4.7, to discourage such kind of shooters.

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

Thanks for your comments.

1. I really don't know if this misprint occurred during editing or printing, but it's already corrected in the recently revised IPSC rules, now available for download from the IPSC website.

At the end of the PP paragraph we simply added the missing word "bottom" and the closing parentheses, so the last line now reads top and bottom).

2. Rule 8.6.4 only deals with a competitor who reacts to a start signal given on an adjacent shooting bay, and this has never been covered in the rules before.

Rule 10.1.4.7 deals with creeping, an entirely different matter.

[Chriss Grube]

What happened to the revisions from the last go round when MV was the Chairman? Seems like every couple years we try to reinvent the wheel.

[Vince Pinto]

Chris,

We are certainly not trying to reinvent the wheel. We are merely conducting ongoing maintenance.

The rulebook underwent a major revision from the 13th to the 14th Edition in 1999 and the revisions passed at the 2002 GA corrected errors and clarified uncertainties.

MV was Chairman of the last Handgun rules committee but they could not reach consensus on what was essentially another major revamp, so IPSC submitted a number of "housekeeping" revisions, which were adopted.

MV is overall Chairman of the current rules committee, which is comprised of the three sub-committees as mentioned in my opening post.

For handgun, we have already agreed on about 20 further improvements, most of them minor but some are significant. I suspect that if & when they are adopted, rule revisions will be far less frequent.

However our major objective is to produce a new Tournament rulebook.

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 7:10 pm on Nov. 22, 2002)

[Mo Zee]

Vince,

(sorry, not enough time to really phrase my question properly, if needs be I will rephrase)

I am not sure how the committee looks at this but it is a concern with the calibration of poppers. i do understand the logic in shooting/calibrating the popper at the top but my problem is that the whole of the popper is available to shoot, why not calibrate the popper at the bottom.

Thanx

[omnia1911]

I think the changes being made to 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3 are a mistake. When IPSC adopted its "freestyle" philosophy (1.1.5), it created a number of problems with stage designing. The changes to 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3 are an attempt to remedy some of the negative impacts. These changes don't address a safety issue, or a fairness issue, but attempt to make poor stage design more "interesting" in spite of the stage having to be freestyle. In the past we would have simply corrected the issue with properly written stage procedures. An example: from position A, engage targets so and so, and form position B, engage targets such and such. With the freestyle philosophy we now have, the rulebook is having to interject itself where I don't think it should be. These types of stage design issues should have been left in the hands of the stage designers.

When the freestyle rule was adopted, I anticipated that it would create more problems than it solved. Is this the only time the rulebook is going to “get in the way” to fix its "freestyle" shortcomings?

[Flexmoney]

Here is my take (I doubt anybody will pay me the tw0 cents)  

Mo Zee,

The poppers are calibrated to drop with a minor hit in the 'sweet spot'...other than that (low hits), I think it falls under DVC.  Knock the poopers down with accuracy and power.

-------------

omnia1911,

I am all for "freestyle".  (though I can't comment on the IPSC rules that you quote...we use a different version in USPSA)

[JeeDee]

Omnia,

As RO/IROA I see a lot of stages, even do some inspecting/checking/walk-through beforehand and I think you have a point. My expirience is that a lot of stages go "bad" (get f... up) because of problems getting it safe, fair, challenging and freestyle. Especially in places where the ranges are limited (indoor or outdoor with strick bounderies) designers tent to put up some sightbarriers and call it freestyle. And then the trouble starts when the first shooters start nosing around to find the holes in the barriers or the bounderies of the stage. It is not that easy anymore. In the Netherlands we're trying to get the most experienced shooters as  RO and together with our IROA guy's let them inspect the stages beforehand. But still the freestyle philosophy makes it hard on the design.  Like I said before you have a point.

     

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Flexmoney on 10:44 am on Nov. 22, 2002

Here is my take (I doubt anybody will pay me the tw0 cents)  

omnia1911,

I am all for "freestyle".  (though I can't comment on the IPSC rules that you quote...we use a different version in USPSA)

---

Freestyle is a fantastic concept, but a challenge to put into practical stage design.

The fate of the 14th edition US1.2.1 is what I'm concerned about. When IPSC makes rule changes, some of those rules get US only revisions. The new 1.2.1.1 and 1.2.1.2 adopted some of the wording of US1.2.1, but they also added: Course design shall not allow any competitor to eliminate a position or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier position or view.

I'm hoping that USPSA will not adopt these added words to US1.2.1, but will rely on good stage design to deal with the issue, rather than a rule.

I would hate to see the IPSC rulebook go down the road of the IDPA rulebook, where draconian measures are used to influence stage design.

[Flexmoney]

omnia,

Is that part of the new revisions that are coming out?

Who do we need to talk to about that in the USPSA?  Do we have a rules commitee that is looking at this stuff?

[Vince Pinto]

Mo Zee,

When calibratiing poppers, it's a matter of physics (leverage).

A popper will fall easier when struck at the top, but it will be harder to fell when hit at the bottom. Hence we use the midway point.

[lynn jones]

hey vince,

what would it take to get the u.s. version and the ipsc verisons combined into just one verson?

[Detlef]

lynn has an excellent point. If not under Mike's chairmanship, when could we ever expect uniformity. I think the pistol subcommittee under Vince should have a good look at the US versions of deviating rules, and see whether there's any *meat* to it. Vice versa, maybe Mike can get early feedback from the USPSA BOD so that another silly 14th ed rev x US version can be avoided as much as possible. My biggies:

1. Limited vs. Standard

2. Production vs. Production

Why do they continue to be different??? 1. is permanently annoying for the foreign competitors who come to the US and the US shooters going abroad, while 2. is annoying only for those (few, I know) US competitors who go abroad. That's because (to my knowledge w/o exception) all Standard guns are also Limited-legal (but suboptimal), and all IPSC Production guns are also USPSA-Production legal (when downloaded to 10 rds.).

--Detlef

(Edited by Detlef at 4:28 pm on Nov. 22, 2002)

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Flexmoney on 12:13 pm on Nov. 22, 2002

omnia,

Is that part of the new revisions that are coming out?

Who do we need to talk to about that in the USPSA?  Do we have a rules commitee that is looking at this stuff?

---

The revisions that I'm quoting are for the IPSC rules. They are available on the members USPSA page by way of a link at the bottom of the page. Vince has stated that these rule changes are no longer "proposed", but are to take effect at the beginning of next year. I have not seen any USPSA only rule changes associated with the IPSC rule changes. Since 1.2.1.1 and 1.2.1.2 have a USPSA only version (US1.2.1) in the 14th edition, I'm concerned that it too will undergo a similar change.

I don't know who is responsible for enacting the USPSA only version of the rules. John Amidon?

[Vince Pinto]

Lynn & Detlef,

Yes, it would be nice if the USPSA didn't have a rulebook different to the rest of the world, and we're working on narrowing the differences.

I don't know if (or when) we'll be successful, but we'll give it our best shot.

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

It would be nice if the rest of the World didn't have a different rule book than USPSA.  

[Vince Pinto]

And this is exactly how our discussions usually start .........

[Flexmoney]

I imagine that is pretty much where it stops too?

[Vince Pinto]

Naaaah. We usually end up in a titty bar, drunk as skunks, arguing over who has to pay for the next round

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Flexmoney on 4:42 pm on Nov. 22, 2002

Vince,

It would be nice if the rest of the World didn't have a different rule book than USPSA.  

---

Beyond the fact that they are different, and a unified rule book would be better, are there any instances in which anyone feels that the IPSC rules are better than their US only revisions in the rules book? What is the rule, and why is the IPSC version better?

[Vince Pinto]

Arguably the single biggest issue is what happens when the gun goes "Bang" after the "GC, HD, Holster" command.

USPSA gives the competitor a DQ, no exceptions. Their argument is that the competitor is always responsible for their gun and a discharge on unloading is unsafe.

The USPSA also argues the competitor has failed to comply with the request "IYAF, unload & show clear".

IPSC argues that the RO is there because he has a job to do, he's the fool who declared "GC" when it wasn't, so we shouldn't DQ the competitor unless the shot went over the berm or in another unsafe direction (i.e. our mutual SOP).

IPSC also argues that such a shot occurs during the COF and the competitor is entitled to keep shooting until the COF is ended (which occurs on completion of the holster portion).

Over to you guys ......

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 3:15 am on Nov. 24, 2002)

[Vince Pinto]

Another issue is the maximum round count for a COF.

USPSA has no maximum limit, and argues that course designers should be allowed totally creativity.

IPSC has a maximum 32 round limit and argues that if we had no limit, then we'd conceivably see 100 round COFs.

These might be fun if you have sufficient magazines and enough girth to carry them (I'm OK but God help guys with revolvers!), but what about the majority?

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 12:16 am on Nov. 24, 2002

Arguably the single biggest issue is what happens when the gun goes "Bang" after the "GC, HD, Holster" command.

USPSA gives the competitor a DQ, no exceptions. Their argument is that the competitor is always responsible for their gun and a discharge on unloading is unsafe.

The USPSA also argues the competitor has failed to comply with the request "IYAF, unload & show clear".

IPSC argues that the RO is there because he has a job to do, he's the fool who declared "GC" when it wasn't, so we shouldn't DQ the competitor unless the shot went over the berm or in another unsafe direction (i.e. our mutual SOP).

IPSC also argues that such a shot occurs during the COF and the competitor is entitled to keep shooting until the COF is ended (which occurs on completion of the holster portion).

Over to you guys ......

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 3:15 am on Nov. 24, 2002)

---

10.3.2.1 states that a competitor will receive a DQ for any discharge while unloading, whether, or not, the COF has been completed. There is no exception to that rule for ROs who fail to do their job properly. The rule puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the shooter. US10.3.2.1 states the same thing. Sounds fair to me.

A shooter can only unload his gun, during a course of fire, after receiving the command of the RO. How is it that 10.3.2.1 can state that a discharge during unloading is a DQable offense and then have 10.3.2.5 say it isn't?

Why not change the commands to "If you are finished, unload, show clear, hammer down, gun clear, holster."?

(Edited by omnia1911 at 10:04 am on Nov. 24, 2002)

[Dowter]

Could someone point me in the direction of a page that lists all the changes/possible changes.

Also, if IPSC makes a rule change, does that automatically mean that USPSA gets the same rule change?  How exactly does that work out?