2007 March Bod Meeting In Dallas

[joseywales]

Being that this BoD meeting was a mere 5-minute drive from my home, and having a keen interest in some of the Production division rules changes being proposed for 2008, I thought it would be worthwhile to give up a Saturday morning and be that proverbial 'fly on the wall' at the USPSA BoD meeting.

Ok...I gave up a Saturday morning match to sit on my a** and listen...damn I'm getting old!

The only BoD member that I had met prior to the meeting was my A4 director, Ken Hicks. All of these guys are extremely bright individuals and amazingly articulate in speaking about our sport. After hearing the discussions during the morning session, I came away with a renewed confidence that these folks are driving the USPSA ship in the right direction - we should all be grateful that we have this level of leadership quality on the BoD. We're lucky to have this group.

Regarding the 2008 rules - the BoD directed the rules committee to take the input from the BoD discussion today and discuss/craft the specifics, and report back to the board. As many of you already know, the BoD reads the USPSA forum comments from members, reviews mails/letters, and discusses issues/questions via phone. I came away with the very distinct and positive impression that whatever communication medium is used, the BoD actively listens to member comments/concerns. They want to hear from the members, so let your voice be heard.

Ok, so here's what I understood as a likely outcome of the discussion on the 2008 Production rules.

Appendix D4 (Holster & mag position)

Likely outcome: RULE IN, but modified so that DOH is ok. Intent was never to eliminate DOH holster…wording was "cut & pasted" from PSSD rules. New wording will probably state that the top of the backstrap of the frame must be at or above the top of belt. The max distance of the frame from the belt will be changed from 1 5/8" to 2". The max distance of the mags from the belt will be changed from 1" to 2". Intent is to make the DOH acceptable for Production division. If I used a DOH holster, I wouldn't be worried about this rule any longer.

Appendix D4 (Minimum trigger pull for Production)

Likely outcome: RULE IN, but with modifications to "hammer in fully down/decocked position" as well as trigger-pull testing procedure. There will be some revision of the description as written in the Appendix, as well as investigation by the Rules Committee into how the testing procedure will be conducted (with some discussion/interest in reviewing the NRA trigger-pull testing procedure to see how it could be applied to USPSA). Trigger pull limit to remain at 3lbs. The test will be only for the 1st shot. Subsequent shots will not be subject to the 3lb limit. Realization by BoD that matches on the local level will not conduct trigger pull testing (just like local matches don't do chrono tests). The BoD was adamant about wanting and creating an enforceable rule. FWIW, I'm not for a minimum trigger pull, but believe that when/if this rule is put in place the wording and trigger pull procedure will be acceptable and enforceable.

9.4.2 Each hit visible on the scoring area of a paper no-shoot will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit.

Likely outcome: RULE IN, probably as written. Consensus was "if you shoot them, you earned them", so put them on the scoresheet, regardless of the quantity. Very short discussion on this one.

10.2.11 Unless specified otherwise in the written stage briefing, a competitor who, following the start signal, leaves the boundaries of the shooting area with at least one foot in contact with the ground and gains a significant advantage by advancing to a later part of the shooting area(s), such as taking a "short cut" to a later part of the defined shooting area (s), will receive 1 procedural penalty per step taken outside the shooting area.

Likely outcome: WHO KNOWS. This one brought out the most discussion from the BoD. Revisions will be made to the rule as it is currently written, but nothing was decided regarding whether or not this rule would be kept - even if in a modified form. The Rules Committee is to review/discuss offline, and then report their findings and make recommendations to the BoD. There was a good bit of diagramming of stage scenarios on the whiteboard coupled with animated discussion on both sides of this issue. I don't know how this one will turn out, but I can tell you that there were BoD members with strong feelings/opinions on both sides of this issue. It was good to hear the viewpoints expressed on both sides, and even better to see/understand that each side is coming at this with the express purpose of improving the sport. I came away with confidence that the BoD will craft a rule (or not) that's in the best interest of the sport and the shooters. FWIW, I'm against anything that limits the freestyle aspect of our sport, and I think this rule would have the unintended consequence of placing limits on freestyle.

And so now you know...

Edited March 4, 2007 by joseywales

[Viggen]

Very good review, thanks.

[XRe]

Thanks for the notes, Steve!

[zhunter]

Cool, thanks for sharing

[ChuckS]

Steve,

Thanks for giving up a match for the sheer excitement of a meeting! Good info!

Later,

Chuck

PS: Consider posting this over at the USPSA forums. I think the folks there would like to read your report!

Edited March 4, 2007 by ChuckS

[AikiDale]

Good job Steve,

Thanks for giving up the match to report on the BOD meeting.

[Micah]

Excellent information Steve! You're a better man than I giving up a match.

[XD Niner]

Thanks very much Steve. You did a great service for us all.

I'm disappointed at the news that the Production trigger pull rule will likely survive. I lobbied our Area 6 Director pretty hard on that one. This is going to cost a lot of Production shooters some serious $$$ to rebuild or sell their current Production guns me among them. The testing will be a nightmare and in many instances will likely result in invalid outcomes. There are three primary reasons why I say this:

1. The relationship of the center of the exposed portion of a trigger and the point of the trigger finger force centroid will vary significantly for each pistol. Measuring at the mid-point of the exposed trigger is inherently not testing every gun in the same manner since the geometry varies from one gun to another.

2. How will the mid-point be determined? Visual estimation may be close but is also subject to individual interpretation. A few hundredths of an inch will make a difference for a trigger that is right on the edge of legality.

3. For the test to be valid, the force vector of the weight (this will be right along the hanger) must be exactly perpendicular to a line between the point of contact with the trigger face and the fulcrum point. A basic statics evaluation will show that if the force is not exactly perpendicular with a pinned object such as a trigger, the effective force is the nominal weight value multiplied by the sine of the actual angle. The sine will be 1.000 if the weight hanger is perpendicular but drops to 0.912 if the hanger angle is off by 20 degrees. In other words, it would take about 3.3 pounds of weight to activate the trigger if it takes 3.0 pounds when the weight is exactly perpendicular. Since trigger curvatures vary and the fulcrum point can not be seen since it is hidden inside the pistol frame, it will be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to determine what the location of the line is and at what angle the gun should be raised so that the weight remains perpendicular to it.

Charles Bond did a great job of listening to and responding to my input. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that I was able to sway his opinion. Looks like I won't be shooting Production for much longer with my light XD trigger. Good thing I just bough an Open blaster.

Edited March 5, 2007 by XD Niner

[davidball]

Thanks for taking the time, Steve . . .

[Jaxshooter]

May you shoot all alphas at your next match for giving up your Saturday.

Thank you

Edited March 5, 2007 by Jaxshooter

[wide45]

3. For the test to be valid, the force vector of the weight (this will be right along the hanger) must be exactly perpendicular to a line between the point of contact with the trigger face and the fulcrum point. A basic statics evaluation will show that if the force is not exactly perpendicular with a pinned object such as a trigger, the effective force is the nominal weight value multiplied by the sine of the actual angle. The sine will be 1.000 if the weight hanger is perpendicular but drops to 0.912 if the hanger angle is off by 20 degrees. In other words, it would take about 3.3 pounds of weight to activate the trigger if it takes 3.0 pounds when the weight is exactly perpendicular. Since trigger curvatures vary and the fulcrum point can not be seen since it is hidden inside the pistol frame, it will be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to determine what the location of the line is and at what angle the gun should be raised so that the weight remains perpendicular to it.

False argument.

Point the barrel straight up. Lift the gun straight up. You won't be off by much. Any error is in favor of the competitor.

Thanks to joseywales for going, and posting about it.

Thanks to the BOD for putting up with us, and still trying to do what you believe in.

[XD Niner]

Wide45, I think you miss the point. All of these issues will likely work in the favor of the competitor. However, it is unlikely that they will do so consistently or that all competitors will benefit equally. My point is that erroneous results will be obtained and thus the proposed testing procedure is not a good one. Maybe the NRA one is better.

[Jack Suber]

Being that this BoD meeting was a mere 5-minute drive from my home, and having a keen interest in some of the Production division rules changes being proposed for 2008, I thought it would be worthwhile to give up a Saturday morning and be that proverbial 'fly on the wall' at the USPSA BoD meeting.

Ok...I gave up a Saturday morning match to sit on my a** and listen...damn I'm getting old!

The only BoD member that I had met prior to the meeting was my A4 director, Ken Hicks. All of these guys are extremely bright individuals and amazingly articulate in speaking about our sport. After hearing the discussions during the morning session, I came away with a renewed confidence that these folks are driving the USPSA ship in the right direction - we should all be grateful that we have this level of leadership quality on the BoD. We're lucky to have this group.

Regarding the 2008 rules - the BoD directed the rules committee to take the input from the BoD discussion today and discuss/craft the specifics, and report back to the board. As many of you already know, the BoD reads the USPSA forum comments from members, reviews mails/letters, and discusses issues/questions via phone. I came away with the very distinct and positive impression that whatever communication medium is used, the BoD actively listens to member comments/concerns. They want to hear from the members, so let your voice be heard.

Ok, so here's what I understood as a likely outcome of the discussion on the 2008 Production rules.

Appendix D4 (Holster & mag position)

Likely outcome: RULE IN, but modified so that DOH is ok. Intent was never to eliminate DOH holster…wording was "cut & pasted" from PSSD rules. New wording will probably state that the top of the backstrap of the frame must be at or above the top of belt. The max distance of the frame from the belt will be changed from 1 5/8" to 2". The max distance of the mags from the belt will be changed from 1" to 2". Intent is to make the DOH acceptable for Production division. If I used a DOH holster, I wouldn't be worried about this rule any longer.

Appendix D4 (Minimum trigger pull for Production)

Likely outcome: RULE IN, but with modifications to "hammer in fully down/decocked position" as well as trigger-pull testing procedure. There will be some revision of the description as written in the Appendix, as well as investigation by the Rules Committee into how the testing procedure will be conducted (with some discussion/interest in reviewing the NRA trigger-pull testing procedure to see how it could be applied to USPSA). Trigger pull limit to remain at 3lbs. The test will be only for the 1st shot. Subsequent shots will not be subject to the 3lb limit. Realization by BoD that matches on the local level will not conduct trigger pull testing (just like local matches don't do chrono tests). The BoD was adamant about wanting and creating an enforceable rule. FWIW, I'm not for a minimum trigger pull, but believe that when/if this rule is put in place the wording and trigger pull procedure will be acceptable and enforceable.

9.4.2 Each hit visible on the scoring area of a paper no-shoot will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit.

Likely outcome: RULE IN, probably as written. Consensus was "if you shoot them, you earned them", so put them on the scoresheet, regardless of the quantity. Very short discussion on this one.

10.2.11 Unless specified otherwise in the written stage briefing, a competitor who, following the start signal, leaves the boundaries of the shooting area with at least one foot in contact with the ground and gains a significant advantage by advancing to a later part of the shooting area(s), such as taking a "short cut" to a later part of the defined shooting area (s), will receive 1 procedural penalty per step taken outside the shooting area.

Likely outcome: WHO KNOWS. This one brought out the most discussion from the BoD. Revisions will be made to the rule as it is currently written, but nothing was decided regarding whether or not this rule would be kept - even if in a modified form. The Rules Committee is to review/discuss offline, and then report their findings and make recommendations to the BoD. There was a good bit of diagramming of stage scenarios on the whiteboard coupled with animated discussion on both sides of this issue. I don't know how this one will turn out, but I can tell you that there were BoD members with strong feelings/opinions on both sides of this issue. It was good to hear the viewpoints expressed on both sides, and even better to see/understand that each side is coming at this with the express purpose of improving the sport. I came away with confidence that the BoD will craft a rule (or not) that's in the best interest of the sport and the shooters. FWIW, I'm against anything that limits the freestyle aspect of our sport, and I think this rule would have the unintended consequence of placing limits on freestyle.

And so now you know...

Anything on L10? Thanks for the report.

[Overkill]

If you failed the trigger pull test in production would you get bumped to L10, L or Open?

[joseywales]

...I'm disappointed at the news that the Production trigger pull rule will likely survive. I lobbied our Area 6 Director pretty hard on that one. Charles Bond did a great job of listening to and responding to my input. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that I was able to sway his opinion. Looks like I won't be shooting Production for much longer with my light XD trigger...

Keep lobbying. Like I mentioned, the BoD is wanting an enforceable rule on this one, and after hearing some of the comments during the discussion, I took this to mean an enforceable rule includes a 'bullet-proof' trigger pull testing procedure. If they can't iron that out, there is still opposition on the BoD to a minimum trigger pull test...is it enough? Can't answer that.

Anything on L10? Thanks for the report.

There was a brief discussion about L10 during the morning session I attended.

The one interesting comment I heard centered around how could L10 be differentiated from Limited (let's see if it can be made more than just a "Limited-Lite" division). Sounded like a fresh thought in the room. It got a few heads turning and one could see the wheels really start to spin for a few moments as folks reflected on the idea.

Several members had takeaways to craft rules suggestions on how to differentiate the two divisions, and bring these suggestions back to the BoD for review. Looked very positive to me.

If you failed the trigger pull test in production would you get bumped to L10, L or Open?

Open. Edited March 5, 2007 by joseywales

[ihatepickles]

If you failed the trigger pull test in production would you get bumped to L10, L or Open?

Open, anytime your equipment fails to meet division requirements you're bumped to Open. That is unless your equipment isn't Open-legal either, in which case you're shooting for no-score.

[ChuckS]

If you failed the trigger pull test in production would you get bumped to L10, L or Open?

Rule 6.2.5.1 applies.

[Coach]

Thanks for the report and the time that the meeting and typing the report cost you.

[Gary Stevens]

Well I am still against the Production trigger pull rule, period end of story.

Gary

[BritinUSA]

If the trigger pull rule comes in then I would expect that some people will complain immediately. The rest will complain the first time they shoot a match where their guns are measured.

The back-lash will hit USPSA like a tsunami.

[GeorgeInNePa]

After we get the Production trigger pull rule, what will be the next thing we change when the "crossover"shooters and new shooters don't materialize?

This question goes out to all of the people who say this rule is needed to combat the perception that a light trigger is what is needed to compete and this keeps the newbies from trying our sport.

[BritinUSA]

+1

I've said this before on the USPSA forum. The one and only TRUE reason why shooters don't want to cross over to USPSA is that they will get their butts kicked. They make up the excuse to themselves and others that the equipment provides an unfair advantage. We know it doesn't but they have their egos to protect.

We should not sacrifice our existing members for the false promise of cross-over growth.

We need to promote our sport and prove that equipment is not the beginning, middle and end of competition. Strict rules on equipment will not do that, the cross-over shooter won't come over and compete no matter what rules we change.

[Gregory_k]

Cost is what keeps people out of this sport.

Avg Joe can afford a 10 buck fee and 50 rounds of ammo, and is happy. Why would he spend 20 bucks and 150 rounds of ammo when he is happy at the reduced cost IDPA provides?

[boo radley]

+1

I've said this before on the USPSA forum. The one and only TRUE reason why shooters don't want to cross over to USPSA is that they will get their butts kicked. They make up the excuse to themselves and others that the equipment provides an unfair advantage. We know it doesn't but they have their egos to protect.

We should not sacrifice our existing members for the false promise of cross-over growth.

I certainly agree with that last point, and the irony is, a trigger job is specifically allowed for IDPA shooters, making USPSA Production Division *more* restrictive on equipment.

As to your former point, I dunno...I only dabble in IDPA but I shoot with some folks who are pretty serious IDPA members, and *by far* there's no desire to cross over because they're happy with their current game, and they don't want to fall into habits that would hurt them in IDPA(e.g., speed reloads, etc). There's a slight amount of resentment, too, at the implied sentiment that they'd really be happier in USPSA, and it's just a matter of equipment tweaks in the rules, etc.

I think you can draw a pretty clear Venn diagram, and the circles won't move much, no matter what rules are changed.

[Joe D]

I would think a simple way to do the trigger pull test is with the barrel pointing straight up/90 degrees the gun must lift a 3# weight. Even that is not perfect. If you use something like the old NRA Bullseye weights Glocks will be at an advantage. The hook will tend to slide up the trigger pad to an area closer to the frame. That being said I am not for a minmum trigger pull rule.

I am afraid this is going to be a can of worms for USPSA.

I have no dog in the hunt of the IDPA/USPSA crossover issue. I find, at least for me, the two don't compliment each other. I do shoot both, but tend to shoot a little too slow for USPSA.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Joe D