2008 Draft Rules Have Been Posted

[BritinUSA]

I have added some polls for some of the division changes on the USPSA forums. Please get over there and vote. If we don't make our voices heard then we can't complain about the rules at a later date. Speak now (before 31st March) or forever hold your peace

[wgnoyes]

Yeah, I know all that, where the forum is, passwords, etc. Thanks. But the topic in the forum eludes me. All I see is one with a last post date of Dec 16th under NROI Communications/Rules Discussions.

[Rob Boudrie]

That's because your account was different - I just fixed it 4U.

[ima45dv8]

Yeah, I know all that, where the forum is, passwords, etc. Thanks. But the topic in the forum eludes me. All I see is one with a last post date of Dec 16th under NROI Communications/Rules Discussions.

From the main page I see the topic group called "Suggestions regarding draft rules".

Do you maybe need to clear your cookies?

[wgnoyes]

Still don't see it, but can see it if I log off and view as a guest.

[Flexmoney]

Bill, it sounds like you have a different permission level (or mask) and that the admin didn't get the proper boxes checked for you (your permission level/mask) in the set-up of the actual new forum category. (Rob, you follow? I think you just missed a check box in the forum setup.)

[Mo Hepworth]

I see the same type of rule is being proposed at the IPSC world forums website.

Production SA pull proposal/poll.

[omnia1911]

The freestyle philosophy was adopted to free us from the shooting box and foot fault penalties. It spawned the shooting area; in reality, a very large shooting box. The freestyle philosophy allowed the honest gamers, who I tip my hat to, to have an open season on stage designers and those who review and approve the stages for our matches, thereby, bruising a lot of egos along the way. 10.2.11 is a misguided attempt to fight back.

This isn’t a safety issue. ROs can get trapped in most any “field” course as he tries to watch and anticipate every move of the competitor. Fault lines, shooting areas, and out of bounds areas won’t eliminate the potential dangers.

This shouldn’t be a stage designer ego protection act. Stage design is an art that requires the assistance of the sport’s best gamers to anticipate what a competitor might do to solve a particular shooting problem. I find most gamers are more than happy to find the holes in your stage prior to the match. Make use of their talents while the stage design is on paper, and don’t take their findings as a personal indictment of your creativity.

USPSA should put as much effort into training stage designers, as they do ROs and CROs.

The freestyle philosophy added a lot of work to stage design and setup. There were many discussions on this forum to that effect when the new freestyle rule was about to be adopted. Some on the BOD saw the extra effort needed as inconsequential. 10.2.11 and 1.1.5.1 show that some have had a reality check and have flipped on the issue. I see this as a good thing.

I saw nothing wrong with shooting boxes. 1.1.5.1 confirms that. 10.2.11 is slated to set forth a process that is even more onerous than what we had with shooting box penalties. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. As much as the BOD is trying to dance around the issue, they are bringing back the shooting box, disguised as a shooting area, and its penalties in some form, or another. Some talk is of a USPSA version of the IDPA FTDR penalty. Yikes!

Speaking of 1.1.5.1, the shooting box is back a local matches, but foot fault penalties specific to shooting boxes is absent from Chapter 10. I don’t think 10.2.1 is relevant. It refers to fault lines, as described in 2.2.1. Maybe the intention is to have penalty free boxes, but that wouldn’t make sense, would it?

It is ironic that local matches will now be using shooting boxes, forgoing the need for shooting areas/stage boundaries defined by fault lines, and will avoid all the problems that 10.2.11 will entail and unfettered freestyle brought to the game. We have come full circle. Ain't that a kick!

Edited December 31, 2006 by omnia1911

[BritinUSA]

More POLLs have been added... Please vote when you can.

Click THIS

Edited December 31, 2006 by BritinUSA

[SteveZ]

The freestyle philosophy was adopted to free us from the shooting box and foot fault penalties. 10.2.11 is a misguided attempt to fight back. This isn’t a safety issue.

I agree...its becoming clear through some of the discussions that this isn't about safety but trying to fix a "hole". I've also come to learn that they're viewing fault lines now as stage boundries. Cross a fault line and move foreward....penalties! This rule is just a means of trying to prevent stage designers and MD's from getting burned by a creative shooter.

If a stage designer doesn't want you going somewhere....put up a real barrier. Invisible fences don't work (well for dogs they do) but I'd rather not get "shocked" with a pile of penalities for thinking creatively.

This proposed rule is a BAD move in my opinion.

[omnia1911]

Nowhere in the rules does it say that a COF (1.2, Appendix A3) must have boundaries defined by fault lines. Isn’t this a requirement prior to trying to assess penalties for crossing those boundaries?

Even though the freestyle rules brought about the shooting area, it too, is not defined in the rule book.

Do we now have shooting areas or COF boundaries? They can’t be one and the same. Penalties for each would have a different premise.

It seems to me that erecting stakes with ropes and calling it a barrier is as easy as staking down fault lines as a means of controlling shooter movement. Once the rope “barrier” has been established, it falls under the purview of 1.1.5.

1.1.5……However, conditions may be created, and

barriers

or other physical limitations may be constructed,

to compel a competitor into

shooting positions,

locations

or stances. Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be considered to go from the ground to the height as designed.

I think that a 5 foot high rope would prevent anyone from going over the “barrier” and 1.1.5 says that they can’t go under it. Wouldn't this negate the need for 10.2.11 and make this a simple stage design solution?

If after receiving clear instructions from the match official during the stage briefing as to where the rope barriers where, and the competitor breached those barriers anyway, he would be subject to 10.6.1.

Edited December 31, 2006 by omnia1911

[ihatepickles]

If after receiving clear instructions from the match official during the stage briefing as to where the rope barriers where, and the competitor breached those barriers anyway, he would be subject to 10.6.1.

Please participate in the USPSA Forums. Everything said here is just sidelining.

If you're curious, one of the key issues that Area 8 and the NROI have stated on the forums is that while the barriers in theory are as they're described in 1.1.5, there's no penalty for ignoring the rules. They're attempting to place a penalty on ignoring barriers and fault lines.

Not my theory, and if you disagree there's a good place to post your thoughts.

[omnia1911]

Though both restrict shooter movement, fault lines and barriers are two different animals. Don't make fault lines act as a barrier. Fault lines can be crossed and are for assessing shooting penalties only.

Barriers must be different in design, and should never be crossed. Those who cross barriers are subject to 10.6.1, or a stage zero, as others have suggested.

There is no reason to have both a fault line and a barrier in the same location to control shooter movement.

Edited December 31, 2006 by omnia1911

[BritinUSA]

When they posted the draft rules there were 667 registered members on the USPSA forum. There are now 721. There are hundreds of people on this forum that have not yet registered and not voted in the polls or offered feedback.

I think it is important for this sport that the BOD hear from as many people as possible.

The proposed rules are changing course design and affecting ALL divisions. If all you do is vote in the polls then that will be enough, there is no need to add comments etc. But we need to make sure that our voice is heard.

There seem to be a very few key items that are causing all the upset, so I added POLLs for those controversial changes.

Please vote, thank you

[omnia1911]

Required shots from a shooting position have been reduced from 9 to 8, but 1.2.3.1 still allows for 9.

[Nik Habicht]

Required shots from a shooting position have been reduced from 9 to 8, but 1.2.3.1 still allows for 9.

It also requires a mandatory reload. IIRC, from witnessing the shoot-offs at the Nationals, the requirement was to reload before downing the final popper....

[omnia1911]

Required shots from a shooting position have been reduced from 9 to 8, but 1.2.3.1 still allows for 9.

It also requires a mandatory reload. IIRC, from witnessing the shoot-offs at the Nationals, the requirement was to reload before downing the final popper....

Unfortunately, 1.2.3.1 doesn't stipulate when the reload should be. It could be after firing the last round and still comply with the rule. If USPSA is going to step in and make requirements for shoot offs they should be more thorough.

There is no discription of a shoot off stage. Does it have to be all steel? Is it 9 steel poppers? Is it 8 steel poppers and a reload before the 9th? Can the reload be anywhere after the first shot and before the last shot?

There may be some standardized shoot off stage that has evolved over time, but one would never know that by reading the rule book.

[omnia1911]

The shooting box gave way to the shooting area, which has quietly, in the dead of night, morphed into the COF boundary. Who authorized this? The rule book makes no mention of this, yet it has been interjected into the 10.2.11 arguments by management as if this has been the standard all along. Other subtle changes to the new rule book to control shooter movement have also been used in 10.2.11 arguments. These proposed changes were clearly orchestrated to support each other. This may be the more important issue concerning 10.2.11, and its real intent, PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES. How will 10.2.11 have any teeth without first requiring the COF boundary?

Is the next step to require all COFs to have clearly marked boundaries by way of fault lines, barriers, and walls? Isn't this going to make more work for the setup crew? Imagine having to do this in a large bay with a large COF. Will local matches be exempt from COF boundary requirements?

Edited January 1, 2007 by omnia1911

[omnia1911]

USPSA adopted what appeared to be a rather simple and clean philosophy, that being, USPSA is freestyle, and the WSB should simply read "engage targets as and when visible".

The gamers and stage designers have thrown a wrench into the works. Look for more rule changes to reign the "trouble makers" in.

Edited January 1, 2007 by omnia1911

[omnia1911]

Shooting areas cannot be considered the COF boundaries. A COF, or stage (Appendix A3), includes targets, props, ect., of which all are not contained within the shooting area.

[omnia1911]

10.1.1 Procedural penalties are imposed when a competitor fails to comply with procedures specified in a written stage briefing. The Range Officer imposing the procedural penalties must clearly record the number of penalties, and the reason why they were imposed, on the competitor's score sheet.

If the WSB says, "Engage targets as and when visible" on a comstock COF, and I don't, am I in violation of 10.1.1?

In other words, is target engagement, either not shooting at a target, or not shooting a target as it becomes visible on a comstock COF, a WSB procedure subject to 10.1.1?

I say no, but others have tried to impose penalties. With all of the procedures that seem to show up in poorly written stage briefings, I think 10.1.1 should specify which type of procedures are and aren't covered by this rule.

[BritinUSA]

When they posted the draft rules there were 667 registered members on the USPSA forum. There are now 721. There are hundreds of people on this forum that have not yet registered and not voted in the polls or offered feedback.

I think it is important for this sport that the BOD hear from as many people as possible.

The proposed rules are changing course design and affecting ALL divisions. If all you do is vote in the polls then that will be enough, there is no need to add comments etc. But we need to make sure that our voice is heard.

There seem to be a very few key items that are causing all the upset, so I added POLLs for those controversial changes.

Please vote, thank you

There are now 771 members registered to the forum, an increase of 104... Now we just need to get the other 8000 members of this forum to get over there and start voting.

[omnia1911]

Why is the Charge Line being sent to the dumpster?

Why not…

2.2.? Charge Lines – Competitor movement may be restricted through the use of Charge Lines. Charge Lines will be used for assessing non-shooting penalties.

2.2.?.? Charge Lines should be constructed of rope or other suitable material, must be firmly in place, and must rise 3 feet to 5 feet above ground level, providing both physical and visual references to competitors.

2.2.?.? Charge Lines do not extend forward or rearward to infinity. Stage designers and setup crews must make Charge Lines of sufficient length to challenge competitors who choose to go around them (see Rule 10.2.?), or must be attached to an object, such as a wall, creating a closed end, and preventing competitors from going around them.

10.2.? A competitor who intentionally crosses a Charge Line during a COF, either over it or under it, will immediately be stopped, instructed to unload, show clear, holster, and will receive a penalty of a zero score for the COF in which the infraction occurred. No penalty will be given to a competitor for going around an open end of a Charge Line (see Rule 2.2.?.?).

instead of 10.2.11.

Edited January 4, 2007 by omnia1911

[Gary Stevens]

It was considered that "Charge lines" and "Fault lines" served the same purpose to restrict the shooters movement, and already carried the same penalty. Therefore they seemed to be redundant. Elimination of the "Charge line" language made sense to me then, and still does.

As to the failing to shoot at a target in a comstock course, you are now penalized for failure to engage (procedural) and will be in the future. There is nothing new in this. What am I missing?

Gary

[omnia1911]

It was considered that "Charge lines" and "Fault lines" served the same purpose to restrict the shooters movement, and already carried the same penalty. Therefore they seemed to be redundant. Elimination of the "Charge line" language made sense to me then, and still does.

As to the failing to shoot at a target in a comstock course, you are now penalized for failure to engage (procedural) and will be in the future. There is nothing new in this. What am I missing?

Gary

Yes, they were redundant. My point is to declare Charge Lines different from Fault lines with a different purpose, design, and penalty. I have used them differently in stages for years. Only the penalty was missing from the rule book. Charge Lines, as I have described in some proposed rules, are a useful tool in controling shooter movement and assessing non-shooting penalties. Fault Lines should be for shooting penalties only. The new rule book is proposing that Fault Lines be used for shooting and non-shooting penalties, depending on the stage designer's wishes. I think that the competitor should be able to easily distinguish between which lines can, and can't be crossed, and the different penalties possible when shooting a stage.

A shooting area can be constructed of all fault lines, all charge lines, or a combination of both, depending on the course designer's intent. A COF that doesn't have a defined shooting area can still use fault lines and charge lines for the purposes that I have outlined.

I believe that comstock scored target engagement should be controled with the FTE penalty only. I have read arguemnts in this forum about assessing penalties under the "failure to follow the WSB rule" for target engagement penalties on comstock COFs, depending on how the WSB was worded. The real issue is the way that the WSB was written, but some believe that the WSB trumps the rule book, it doesn't (3.2.5). Since a "Engage targets as and when visible" WSB is not mandatory, I see a lot of abuse by stage designers and MDs with the WSB in trying to get shooters to do what they want.

I'm going to try and find a thread that gives the example I'm thinking of.

Edited January 4, 2007 by omnia1911