Latest BOD Meeting on rules

[ima45dv8]

Some interesting changes were made to the "Boundary" rule. And yes, it's a zero if you don't draw inside the lines.

[mactiger]

It looks like the board decided to put the responsibility for restricting competitor movement back on the course designer/setup crew, rather than just allowing it to be declared "illegal". As you state, you still have to color within the lines, if they are used, but it seems that they now must be used, and must be prominent, and the automatic zero is gone. The rest of the verbiage about "forbidden actions" just seems designed to prevent a competitor from driving a truck through a big hole in the course. I fervently hope that this rule is never invoked--that the people designing and putting up the stages pay close attention, and realize that our competitors are always "pushing the envelope"--and that any "loophole" is small and the situation easily and quickly remedied.

It looks like the board accepted the rules prior to accepting the motion to change the boundary lines language. I don't see the logic in that, because it makes the .pdf copy of the 2008 USPSA rules they posted inaccurate at the very least.

I can only assume that an amended copy will be made available as soon as possible.

I still think the "forbidden actions" and "boundary lines" rules are solutions looking for problems. YMMV.

Troy

[Charles Bond]

It looks like the board decided to put the responsibility for restricting competitor movement back on the course designer/setup crew, rather than just allowing it to be declared "illegal". As you state, you still have to color within the lines, if they are used, but it seems that they now must be used, and must be prominent, and the automatic zero is gone. The rest of the verbiage about "forbidden actions" just seems designed to prevent a competitor from driving a truck through a big hole in the course. I fervently hope that this rule is never invoked--that the people designing and putting up the stages pay close attention, and realize that our competitors are always "pushing the envelope"--and that any "loophole" is small and the situation easily and quickly remedied.

It looks like the board accepted the rules prior to accepting the motion to change the boundary lines language. I don't see the logic in that, because it makes the .pdf copy of the 2008 USPSA rules they posted inaccurate at the very least.

I can only assume that an amended copy will be made available as soon as possible.

I still think the "forbidden actions" and "boundary lines" rules are solutions looking for problems. YMMV.

Troy

Very well stated Troy. You will note that the motion in the minutes as to Forbidden Actions was offered as the alternative to the previous "Boundary Lines" language. This was an improvement but not an elimination of boundary lines. As a result, the vote on that was a choose your poison type of solution and I abstained since I chose not to drink from either cup. To vote for the motion was a vote for a version of boundary lines after the membership clearly stated that these type of rules were not needed including members like yourself who deal with the rules at our highest level of matches. To vote against the forbidden actions motion would have resulted in the more adverse version of boundary lines being included in the 2008 rules.

Charles Bond

[cny025]

Here is the link to the new rule book:

http://www.uspsa.org/bodminutes/online_att...andgunRules.pdf

[wgnoyes]

Here is the link to the new rule book:

http://www.uspsa.org/bodminutes/online_att...andgunRules.pdf

You need this, too: http://uspsa.org/bodminutes/online_attachm...den_actions.pdf

Plus the verbiage that alters 4.2.5 and adds text to appendices B2 and B3

[Chriss Grube]

Charles,

As you state the members don't want this rule and since the BOD is to represent the members....why is this still an issue.

[bgary]

As you state the members don't want this rule and since the BOD is to represent the members....why is this still an issue.

I'll take that one, since I wrote the "forbidden actions" rule as a replacement for Boundary Lines.

I believe there *is* a problem that needs to be solved. there are too many reports, from around the country, of shooters who took "freestyle" past the competitive playing field, and did things that either created a safety issue, or created a competitive inequity in the way a stage was being run. For example:

-- reports from the recent Nationals, about shooters who wanted to run outside the walls that defined a shooting area, and duck into the shooting area at a subsequent opening. Problem was, the RO could not safely follow the shooter for fear of being downrange of the shooter when the shooter ducked back in.

-- reports from a stage at last year's Area-2, where some shooters found a way to game the stage by going outside the hallway, ducking in only to be inside the fault lines while shooting.

-- reports from the Bend Nationals, 2003 - shooters attempting to game a stage by going around (uprange of) a cooper tunnel, rather than going through it.

-- reports of shooters pushing wall sections apart to create a "port" where there really isn't one.

-- reports of shooters pulling on activator wires with their hands, rather than activating targets by shooting the poppers or stepping on the activator pads or opening the doors or whatever.

-- etc.

These things tend to "ruin" a stage - in that once something like this is allowed, everyone else *has* to do the same thing, or they won't be competitive. Whether it is "cheating", as some would argue, or "exercising freestyle" could be argued for years - the bottom line is that once someone drives a truck through a [perceived] loophole, the stage is changed. These are the kinds of things that the Boundary Lines rule was writtent to solve. The problem, in my opinion, was that the way Boundary Lines were defined, they could be used to do all kinds of *other* things, like force shooters to move only within fault lines, etc. So... while I felt that there was a problem that needed to be solved, I did not feel that Boundary Lines were the right solution.

I tried to find, instead, a solution that got to the core of the issue... and in all of the examples above, the core of the issue was a shooter saying "hey, it doesn't say I can't do that in the course briefing, and it doesn't say I can't do that in the rulebook, so... you can't tell me I can't do that!".

The "forbidden actions" rule, therefore, seeks to do nothing but to codify in the rules that in certain circumstances, either where an unsafe condition would be created or where the competitive challenge of a stage would be ruined, the RM *can* say "you can't do that", and make it stick. Arguably, this is nothing that the RM can't *already* do - the RM always could change a stage, change a stage briefing, etc - it just explicitly says it in the rules, now, and defines a penalty for defying the RM's reasonable directions. The new rule is completely consistent with 2.3 (modifications to course design) and 3.2 (modifications to written stage briefing, for "...clarity, consistency or safety.")

I also included some "guard-rails" in the rule to ensure that "forbidden actions" canNOT be used to kill freestyle. The RM cannot, for example, use the declaration of a forbidden action to prevent shooters from "cutting the corner" across the fault lines that define a shooting area. if the course designer wants the shooter to go specific places, I believe they need to give the shooter a reason to go there, either by putting targets there, or by blocking off "shortcuts" with barriers, as they already can.

The bottom line is that Forbidden Actions preserves the essence of "freestyle", while giving the RM the authority to close unforeseen loopholes under certain circumstances. Like Troy, I hope they never get used... and as Troy says, the best way to solve all these problems is with course design, not with penalties. But if someone *does* decide they want to drive a truck through a loophole, this does nothing more than give the RM the explicit authority to close the loophole, if it creates a safety issue or destroys the competitive fairness of the stage.

The penalty for deliberately defying the RM's declaration of a "forbidden action" is a zero for the stage. I'd note two things about that: 1, keep in mind that the only time that penalty would get invoked is if a shooter does something that the RM has specifically said "you can't do that", and was highlighted as a forbidden action in the WSB. Any shooter who *still* does that thing, deserves a penalty. And, 2, the penalty of a stage zero is significantly less than the rulebook already has for that kind of willful action - 10.6.1 says that an unsportsmanlike DQ is warranted if a shooter "fails to comply with the reasonable directions of a match official". If a shooter willfully does something the RM says "you can't do", he *could* get DQ'd... so a stage zero is sort of a gift.

$.02

Bruce

[XRe]

I believe there *is* a problem that needs to be solved.

I agree - but I don't think we agree on exactly what that problem is

-- reports from the recent Nationals, about shooters who wanted to run outside the walls that defined a shooting area, and duck into the shooting area at a subsequent opening. Problem was, the RO could not safely follow the shooter for fear of being downrange of the shooter when the shooter ducked back in.

When did this happen? Which stage? Was it 16??

-- reports from a stage at last year's Area-2, where some shooters found a way to game the stage by going outside the hallway, ducking in only to be inside the fault lines while shooting.

-- reports from the Bend Nationals, 2003 - shooters attempting to game a stage by going around (uprange of) a cooper tunnel, rather than going through it.

In these two cases, the problem is not that there wasn't a rule to allow enforcement of the course designer's intent - they're cases of inadequate course design or setup (at least my understanding of them).

-- reports of shooters pushing wall sections apart to create a "port" where there really isn't one.

-- reports of shooters pulling on activator wires with their hands, rather than activating targets by shooting the poppers or stepping on the activator pads or opening the doors or whatever.

Both of these cases are covered in 4.5.1, which allows the assessment of a procedural penalty per occurence. Further, courses at major matches should not be set up to allow for things like this to happen - walls should be secured, prop activation wires should be appropriately removed from the competitor (they're a trip hazard, remember!), etc. If we need harsher penalties (than one procedural) for these things, change 4.5.1 appropriately...

the core of the issue was a shooter saying "hey, it doesn't say I can't do that in the course briefing, and it doesn't say I can't do that in the rulebook, so... you can't tell me I can't do that!".

So, "freestyle" is the problem?

either where an unsafe condition would be created or where the competitive challenge of a stage would be ruined, the RM *can* say "you can't do that", and make it stick. Arguably, this is nothing that the RM can't *already* do - the RM always could change a stage, change a stage briefing, etc - it just explicitly says it in the rules, now, and defines a penalty for defying the RM's reasonable directions.

First - what unsafe conditions can be created that aren't already covered under an existing rule, or that couldn't be avoided through appropriate course design ahead of time?

As you say, these things are nothing an RM can't already do - either through good initial course design, fixing broken courses mid-stream (where practical) or removing them (where fixing is impractical), etc.

The bottom line is that Forbidden Actions preserves the essence of "freestyle", while giving the RM the authority to close unforeseen loopholes under certain circumstances. Like Troy, I hope they never get used... and as Troy says, the best way to solve all these problems is with course design, not with penalties. But if someone *does* decide they want to drive a truck through a loophole, this does nothing more than give the RM the explicit authority to close the loophole, if it creates a safety issue or destroys the competitive fairness of the stage.

You know as well as I do that if a rule exists, it will be used - and if a rule exists that allows for less dilligence in what can otherwise be somewhat exacting work, human nature will take over and use it to avoid extra work.

And, 2, the penalty of a stage zero is significantly less than the rulebook already has for that kind of willful action - 10.6.1 says that an unsportsmanlike DQ is warranted if a shooter "fails to comply with the reasonable directions of a match official". If a shooter willfully does something the RM says "you can't do", he *could* get DQ'd... so a stage zero is sort of a gift.

In cases such as those, DQ is probably the appropriate action, though - we obviously don't have a definition around "reasonable directions", but an arb committee can easily make a decision in that case.

I still see this as a rule looking for a (real) problem. I think the real problem is lack of education in the ranks of our course designers and match officials about how the rules work in this regard - that's not to say anything like "no one knows anything about them" or whatever - its not intended to be inflammatory. It is what it is, though - if we have people putting together Nationals and Area level stages with huge loopholes in them that allow them to be run contrary to the course designers intent, we have an education problem....

Stage 16 at the Open Nationals this year is a perfect example (maybe that's the one you're getting at above??)

I admire what is being attempted - I just don't think this is the right way to address it...

[CSEMARTIN]

This is going to get interesting.

[Charles Bond]

Charles,

As you state the members don't want this rule and since the BOD is to represent the members....why is this still an issue.

Chris:

I want to be clear that the amendment written by Bruce Gary was a huge improvement over the boundary lines language it replaced. One of the things Bruce included was something that I had previously suggested to the rules committee and that was to make boundary lines very different than fault lines so that shooters could clearly distinguish the two.

The feedback I received on this forum, on the USPSA forum, and by more personal communication told me the members did not desire boundary lines of any form. I never had a single member from Area 6 tell me they though boundary lines were a good idea or even a rule that was necessary. While I suspect that the language Bruce Gary offered would be more acceptable to the membership, i would have liked to let them see it before the vote. There was not time for that feedback to occur.

While my members tell me things, I do not rule out that members from other areas tell their ADs different things. Other members of the BOD may view things and what should be done in a manner differently than I.

At this time there is no issue on the final rules draft. It has been passed and it will be printed. My post on this subject came as a follow up to that of Troy MacManus and was to explain what could be viewed from the minutes of the BOD meeting as a confusing vote on the subject.

Charles Bond

[JThompson]

The RM can say don't do X and you can't do X already. I think 99% of the time the problem is course design....

I say, "let the boys play." Safety should not be compromised, but other than that it should be up to course design and the briefing.

I don't want to end up like a rat going through a maze... if you start making to many rules then there is no freestyle left.

That's the new guy take on it.

Edited August 19, 2007 by JThompson

[XRe]

Charles,

As you state the members don't want this rule and since the BOD is to represent the members....why is this still an issue.

At this time there is no issue on the final rules draft.

I took Chris' statement to mean "If the BOD represents the membership, and the membership overwhelming doesn't want this rule, why does it even exist in the first place?"... maybe that's not what he meant, but I thought it was at least pertinent...

[Rob Boudrie]

In these two cases, the problem is not that there wasn't a rule to allow enforcement of the course designer's intent - they're cases of inadequate course design or setup (at least my understanding of them).

True, however, reality happens. Situations such as Bruce describes will happen, as course designers are not perfect. The question at hand was "do we want to give the Rangemaster the authority to do something about it?"

The board voted to grant RM's that authority, however, we are not forcing them to use it. I expect that NROI will be watching how RM implement this, and issue some guidance if the unreasonable starts to happen.

[XRe]

True, however, reality happens. Situations such as Bruce describes will happen, as course designers are not perfect. The question at hand was "do we want to give the Rangemaster the authority to do something about it?"

They already had it. Bruce even acknowledged that. Its rule 2.3.

The board voted to grant RM's that authority, however, we are not forcing them to use it. I expect that NROI will be watching how RM implement this, and issue some guidance if the unreasonable starts to happen.

I don't mean this to be disrespectful - but what you did was add an extra piece of rule that, at best, accomplishes nothing new, and at worst provides an avenue for sloppy and illconceived stage design and setup. It adds complexity to the rules with no "payoff" over what's already there.

I still have yet to see an example of where this rule provides something new over the existing set of rules. I do agree that this newer version is more palatable than the original "Boundary Line" proposal, and I think Bruce did perhaps the best job possible of trying to concoct something like this - but I don't agree that it was at all necessary....

As far as NROI monitoring how its implemented, I'm sure you'll excuse my skepticism There's no way for John to keep tabs on every local match around, etc, to be sure that nothing "unreasonable" is happening in the application of this rule....

[Coach]

I read through the "forbidden actions" once, and I think it is far better than were the rule started and what it changed into. I don't think this rule even is present form is needed, but I am grateful that the BOD has listened on this issue and made many changes.

The way things stand now may work out. I too hope this rule is seldom or never used.

[Rob Boudrie]

The RM can say don't do X and you can't do X already.

This big difference is the the Forbidden Action makes it very clear that the RM has the authority to issue such an order, and mandate a reshoot, after a shooter has driven a truck through a hole.

I also hope that this rule is very seldom used.

[mactiger]

I have to agree with Dave Re on this one. I don't see a need, and it was already spelled out in 2.3. Plus, (and maybe I've just been delusional) I always thought that when I was working as RM I already HAD that authority.

All in all, it may prove to be better if it's spelled out as it is. Time will tell. It just seems sort of superfluous to me. At least the boundary lines thing is dead.

I'm not too thrilled about that 25% crap, though.

Ah, well, c'est la vie.

Troy

[bgary]

I still have yet to see an example of where this rule provides something new over the existing set of rules. I do agree that this newer version is more palatable than the original "Boundary Line" proposal, and

Shhhh.... can I tell you a secret?

To a large extent, those were the design goals.

I believe that the existing rules already gave the RM the authority to fix a problem with a stage. And, further, I fundamentally believe that when loopholes occur, they tend to be course-design issues, not competitor-behavior issues. But I was in the minority on those beliefs, and did not have the support necessary to simply overturn the Boundary Lines rules. So, my goal was to craft something that did NOT material change the rules, but *did* clearly document the fact that the RM does have the authority to say "you can't do that", in certain circumstances.

You're right, the rule does not provide something new over the existing rules (IMHO).

What the rule *does* do is give the RM some "air cover", when a conversation like this happens:

Competitor: "I'm going to run around the cooper tunnel"

RO: "you can't do that"

Competitor: "it doesn't say I can't do that, in the stage briefing"

RO: "no problem, I'll call the RM for a ruling"

RM: "you can't do that"

Competitor: "show me where in the WSB it says I have to go through the cooper tunnel?"

RM: "no problem, I'll fix that"

Competitor: "show me in the rulebook where it says you have the authority to make me go through the cooper tunnel?"

Etc, etc.

Now, when faced with that conversation, the RM can

-- go change the WSB, documenting that he has, in fact, "forbidden" going around the cooper tunnel (or whatever)

-- has the full support of [existing] rules in requiring someone to reshoot if they already shot it that way

-- and, if someone *still* does something after the RM has specifically written in the WSB that it is forbidden, there is a specific penalty.

So... long story short, the goal was *not* to create a whole new rule... the goal was to "emphasize" that course-design problems can be solved, without infringing freestyle, by having the RM change the WSB. And that, the RM has the authority to do that, in cases where safety or competitive equity are at risk.

I would have preferred to just remove the Boundary Lines issue altogether, but that was not an option, given a straw poll of support before the meeting. So my choices were to leave Boundary Lines in place, or replace them with something less rife with potential for unintended consequences.

At least this way, it puts the issues (course modifications, RM authority, freestyle movement, competitor actions, etc) squarely on the table so that we *can* educate shooters and match officials about the appropriate way to deal with these things.

B

[JThompson]

I guess one thing that concerns me is consistency... one RM lets this go and another doesn't. You get into... well I just did that over at Area whatever where John was RM.... It just seems to me like it can open the door to a very large grey area which one could drive another type truck through. It could easily open the door to favoritism as well... I'm not saying this will be the case, just when you have something like that out there, where it's subjective, that type of thing can happen.

JT

EDIT after bgary's post: Then you get guys whining to the RO/RM about a guy finding a hole and there becomes a debate of that not being fair because they didn't do it... I just think you may be opening a larger can of worms than was there before.

I do thank you for doing what you could to get rid of the boundary crap, and if that's all the choice we had then..... but if it's what we want, I would put a weeks pay that the vast majority of members don't want either rule.

Edited August 20, 2007 by JThompson

[Rob Boudrie]

This is just my personal opinion but I believe that, whenever possible, the RM should rule on a situation without being told the individual to whom it applies. For example, where there is a scoring call there is no reason the RM needs to know whose target they are scoring. Ditto for a forbidden action call.

[mactiger]

This is just my personal opinion but I believe that, whenever possible, the RM should rule on a situation without being told the individual to whom it applies. For example, where there is a scoring call there is no reason the RM needs to know whose target they are scoring. Ditto for a forbidden action call.

I wholeheartedly concur. There is absolutely no reason to tell the RM who's target is being scored, or for some of the other calls.

Troy

[Nik Habicht]

I've been shooting major matches for a while now, and I've got a few under my belt: About 16 Sectional, Area, and other matches since 2001, and four Nationals since 2003. In all that time, I found a hole one time, had the conversation with the RM, and decided to shoot the stage as instructed. I wasn't thrilled with the call --- but that's the way the game sometimes goes. At the local level, I don't see us using this any more than we've used the Level 1 exemption, which is to say rarely.....

[Nik Habicht]

This is just my personal opinion but I believe that, whenever possible, the RM should rule on a situation without being told the individual to whom it applies. For example, where there is a scoring call there is no reason the RM needs to know whose target they are scoring. Ditto for a forbidden action call.

This is just my personal opinion but I believe that, whenever possible, the RM should rule on a situation without being told the individual to whom it applies. For example, where there is a scoring call there is no reason the RM needs to know whose target they are scoring. Ditto for a forbidden action call.

I wholeheartedly concur. There is absolutely no reason to tell the RM who's target is being scored, or for some of the other calls.

Troy

Y'all do know that we have a rule requiring the signing of any pulled target by the competitor and CRO, right? So it would be pretty hard for the RM not to know, esp. when the shooter's probably excited about the situation as well.... :P

[JThompson]

This is just my personal opinion but I believe that, whenever possible, the RM should rule on a situation without being told the individual to whom it applies. For example, where there is a scoring call there is no reason the RM needs to know whose target they are scoring. Ditto for a forbidden action call.

This is just my personal opinion but I believe that, whenever possible, the RM should rule on a situation without being told the individual to whom it applies. For example, where there is a scoring call there is no reason the RM needs to know whose target they are scoring. Ditto for a forbidden action call.

I wholeheartedly concur. There is absolutely no reason to tell the RM who's target is being scored, or for some of the other calls.

Troy

Y'all do know that we have a rule requiring the signing of any pulled target by the competitor and CRO, right? So it would be pretty hard for the RM not to know, esp. when the shooter's probably excited about the situation as well.... :P

Not only that, but the RO has to call the RM and the RO knows who the shooter is............................

[mactiger]

Yes, but the RO doesn't have to announce it, and the target can be signed on the back side. Only the hit in question has to be indicated.

And, I'm well aware that the competitor will be pretty obvious. Most of the time I can successfully ignore that, but it doesn't help if the RO loudly announces it. And that's about enough thread drift, I'm thinking.

Troy