Latest BOD Meeting on rules

[JThompson]

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

Troy, I'm not trying to impugn you or any other RO/RM... what I was referring to was the original topic and the gray area associated gaming the hell out of a stage. What I mean is... some people would be more likely, in my opinion, to incur a call and thus have an RM called in, than others. If nothing else it's human nature to see or not see according to ones likes or dislikes. You think Robbie would get the same call as John Doe if it's subjective?

That's all from me...

Thanks for reading.

JT

[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.

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...

I am not the best person to answer that question Dave. Charles

[kimel]

You think Robbie would get the same call as John Doe if it's subjective?

Absolutely. Any RO/CRO/RM worth his/her salt is going to rule based on the facts and the facts alone. Doesn't matter to me who the shooter is although I prefer they (or their squad mates) not hover over me and try to "help". The issue is the target and the hole(s). Get out the overlays and/or straight edge and magnifying glass if necessary and make the call based upon facts. Period.

I'll spend as much time making that call as is necessary. That way I never have to try and get to sleep wondering if I just screwed someone with a blown call or not.

And that's probably enough drift about that...

Back to the topic:

Thank goodness the boundary rule went away. I was dreading that one. And if we have to have a new written rule for something that was already implied to get rid of the boundaries then I think we won. Good job Bruce et al.

Gee...I hope work is slow tomorrow so I can read the new book!

[Jim Norman]

I know that I will draw fire here, BUT. I am in favor of some rule forbidding the leaving of the FFZ that can be applied in certain situations.

I have used several scenarios in the past and just thought of another this morning: Factory Rooftop. Set up numerous props to depict the HVAC units and Smole staks on a rooftop, The perimeter of the FFZ is the edge of the roof. You cannot FLY, so exiting the Roof, SHOULD be an exit from further shooting at the very least.

If all roof tops were level and rectangular, this would be moot, but having worked around factories all my life, I can assure you that there are air wells, skylights, odd corners and elevation changes and moving across them in other than the proscibed manner will land you on the ground with multiple injuries.

Of course if we are not going to use scenarios, this can just become speedball with real guns.

Jim

[XRe]

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.

I do hope that's the way it works out Thanks for taking time to explain the rationale... Its a shame that there's such a strong feeling within the BOD that the freestyle principles are such a bad thing. I've already taken the action available to me to remedy that as much as I can

[ipscbob]

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.....

Boy Nik, you must not play in our sandbox much! This exemption is way overused at most of our locals. Unfortunately it is often used to implement "local" rules which change the tone of the match to meet the organizers desires....I suspect that if the boundary rule is used as it was intended the consequences will be only slight but if used like the level1 exemption is they will be very bad indeed. Well, so much for the BOD listening to the wishes of the membership. Sounds like this rule was pushed in regardless.

[bgary]

Its a shame that there's such a strong feeling within the BOD that the freestyle principles are such a bad thing.

In fairness, I wouldn't characterize the "feeling within the BOD" in that way. In concept, I think every member of the BOD is an advocate of "freestyle". I *love* freestyle - it is the thing that has kept me fascinated with this game for nearly 20 years.

The challenge (I will speak only for me, not for any other member of the Board) is in taking that concept into the rules process, and attempting to quantify just where something goes past "freestyle" and starts to edge close to a place one might call "cheating".

For years, people have interpreted "freestyle" to mean "if there isn't a rule that says I can't do it, then it is fair game". But... that's not really the case. There *are* boundaries (sorry, no pun intended) to what we consider "fair and sportsmanlike competition". There *is* a line between "gaming a stage" and "exploiting a loophope for unfair competitive advantage"... but we all have a different idea of just where those boundaries are.

Some would look at a zig-zag shooting area and claim it is "cheating" to cut the corner (I believe that is fair game... if the course designer wants me to "follow the path", he better give me targets that I can only shoot from the places he wants me to go...)

Some would look at an activator wire laying on the ground at a place downrange of the activator box, and pull it by hand to gain an advantage on the disappearing targets it starts in motion, and call it "fair game". (I would call that... well, if not cheating, I'd at least call it a serious "party foul".)

Both of those situations can - and should, IMO - be dealt with in stage design. But... they don't always get dealt with that way - sometimes stages get built which have "holes" in them. Holes which - if exploited - damage the validity of the stage as a test of shooting skill.

At the end of the day, we *do* have "limits" on what you can and can't do... and, to no small degree, those limits are intended to ensure that the shooting competition is fair and equitable (and, dare I say, about "shooting" more than about "seeing who can find the biggest loophole").

My favorite stages are the ones where there are lots of ways to shoot it, and it is up to you to figure out which way will work best for you. *That* is the essence of freestyle, IMHO. You figure out how to solve the problem *within* the field of play and *within* the standards of fair competition.

To torture an analogy someone offered earlier in this thread.... this rule doesn't require anyone to color inside the lines... but it does give the RM the authority to tell you where the edges of the *paper* are. As long as you stay on the paper, you can color anywhere you want. Freestyle.

Bruce

[rgkeller]

USPSA now has a FTDR rule.

Whoopee.

[Rob Boudrie]

Its a shame that there's such a strong feeling within the BOD that the freestyle principles are such a bad thing.

Stating your opinion as if it we an established fact does not make it so. Despite your "proof by assertion", I can state that I strongly support freestyle competition and I would be surprised if any board member feels otherwise.

USPSA now has a FTDR rule.

There is a HUGE difference between the USPSA "forbidden actions" rule and the IDPA "FTDR" rule. The current rule does not allow the RO or RM to assess any penalty upon a shooter whose actions is subsequently declared prohibited by the RM. The ability to impose such a penalty upon a shooter is the cornerstone of the FTDR IDPA rule, and is not included in or implied by the new rulebook.

[bgary]

USPSA now has a FTDR rule.

Hmmm....

-- IDPA - you do something the RO thinks is a party-foul, he gives you a penalty

-- USPSA - you do something the RO thinks is a party foul, he

-- calls the RM for a ruling,

-- the RM either says "no harm, no foul", and your score stands or

-- the RM says "no", and makes you reshoot it, for score.

-- the only penalty is if you do it AFTER the RM says you can't.

From my perspective, that's pretty different.

B

[moverfive]

There is a HUGE difference between the USPSA "forbidden actions" rule and the IDPA "FTDR" rule. The current rule does not allow the RO or RM to assess any penalty upon a shooter whose actions is subsequently declared prohibited by the RM. The ability to impose such a penalty upon a shooter is the cornerstone of the FTDR IDPA rule, and is not included in or implied by the new rulebook.

USPSA has its own version of a FTDR rule.......

....call it what you want, but 99.9% of this issues that has spawned this boundary line rule comes from poor course design. Whether that poor course design is because of BAD design or simply the course designer is an inexperienced shooter (i.e. not familiar enough to look for and thus prevent holes in stages).

And since it is going to be impossible to have good, experienced course designers for every stage at every level II match and above......we have a boundary rule in an attempt to counter poor design, for whatever the reason. And when you read the intent and the possibilities, the rule offers some favorable advantages (i.e. creating a bridge effect and other scenarios where leaving the area would be dangerous). However, I highly suspect many of these poor course designers are going to implement this rule into their designs so that they don't have to think for more than 5 seconds as to how to setup the stage.....as opposed to creating the bridge scenarios and etc.

The net result for many of these stages will simply be a weird hybrid of freestyle and box shooting....only this version is not only going to limit the different ways to shoot a stage, it is going to limit the way you actually get to those locations.

And while I do not support this rule as a whole, I also don't think the abuse is going to be too wide-spread. It will occur and it will make some stages/matches very boring......but I doubt it will be that big of a deal in reality.

One exception - if this rule is utilized at national level matches to "stop the gamers," then I would be VERY disappointed in the design crew. If we cannot properly design stages at a national match without having to enfore USPSA's FTDR rule, then we need to take a hard look at who is designing/reviewing our stages.

[Chriss Grube]

Dave,

Yes that is exactly what I meant. I've shot a couple matches over the yast 10 years. Generally every weekend for about 9 lmonths out of the year and Rarely see where there is a problem with the stages being abused. Will I take advantage of a poorly designed course, damn skippy! Will this unneeded rule see much use?? Depends on the match, RM and club.

I have some serious concerns when a guy like Troy, who teaches NROI thinks it is covered by other rules and not needed. I would like to see more time spent getting the rules right rather than rushing to meet some artificial deadline. We have rules in place, lots of matches held under those rules so if we have to use them a few more months or a year to get things right where is the problem??? Let's take a look at the prior rush to get things done and the problems with issues that have come up? Anyone remember production? What is external? What is ok? Do we really want to go through that mess again. Slow down and do it right the first time and we won't need opinions on buried bomars and Vanek trigger pins being moved and which is external and ok and which is external and welcome to open! I would like to see more input from the members on the rules rather than what the 8 wisemen deem we need. I'm sure they have good intentions but some things just aren't a major issue and are covered under the other rules or are easily fixed by proper course design.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Chriss Grube

[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.....

Boy Nik, you must not play in our sandbox much! This exemption is way overused at most of our locals. Unfortunately it is often used to implement "local" rules which change the tone of the match to meet the organizers desires....I suspect that if the boundary rule is used as it was intended the consequences will be only slight but if used like the level1 exemption is they will be very bad indeed. Well, so much for the BOD listening to the wishes of the membership. Sounds like this rule was pushed in regardless.

I don't know who you are or where your sandbox is located, so the following isn't intended to imply anything about you personally, but rather is intended to reply to the match administration situation in your corner of the USPSA universe:

If the exemption is overused, perhaps it's time to change how things are done. One could volunteer to design and build a stage every month, at a particular club or clubs, and expend some effort to create stages that don't need to rely on using the local match exemption. Call it teaching by example --- the results probably won't be rapid, but they should have an effect, especially if local shooters respond favorably to the stage. Another approach might be to volunteer to be the match director or assistant match director for a year or two, and then spend some time recruiting other stage designers who might share your vision. That was my path to becoming a match director --- I started as a volunteer designing a stage a month, volunteered to become the AMD, and became the MD a few months later when my predecessor decided to retire. The matches at my club used to be much less freestyle, way more reliant on boxes or gimmicks, with many stages that repeated, more or less on a several times a year basis. It wasn't easy to change the culture, it didn't happen overnight, and it didn't happen without a ton of help from most of the shooters who attend matches at my club. But it happened, and it continues to grow and evolve....

USPSA has its own version of a FTDR rule.......

And since it is going to be impossible to have good, experienced course designers for every stage at every level II match and above......we have a boundary rule in an attempt to counter poor design, for whatever the reason. And when you read the intent and the possibilities, the rule offers some favorable advantages (i.e. creating a bridge effect and other scenarios where leaving the area would be dangerous). However, I highly suspect many of these poor course designers are going to implement this rule into their designs so that they don't have to think for more than 5 seconds as to how to setup the stage.....as opposed to creating the bridge scenarios and etc.

One exception - if this rule is utilized at national level matches to "stop the gamers," then I would be VERY disappointed in the design crew. If we cannot properly design stages at a national match without having to enfore USPSA's FTDR rule, then we need to take a hard look at who is designing/reviewing our stages.

By that logic it should be impossible to have good, experienced stage designers at any level --- and I reject that idea. The onus isn't just on the stage designer to put together a safe, solid, freestyle, non-gimmicky stage --- it's also on the match director and RM. Part of my responsibility as combo MD/RM at our club level match, is to supervise the stage designers, and to change anything that is unsafe. It's also an opportunity to inspect the stage for potential holes, which depending on the level of advantage they may offer, we may leave in, exclude, or modify to change the risk/reward tradeoff of exploiting a particular hole. All of that's done in an effort to preserve options for the shooter --- if we can do that on the local level, there's no reason that it can't be done at the Sectional, State, Area or National level.....

[XRe]

Some would look at an activator wire laying on the ground at a place downrange of the activator box, and pull it by hand to gain an advantage on the disappearing targets it starts in motion, and call it "fair game". (I would call that... well, if not cheating, I'd at least call it a serious "party foul".)

And these would be the same inDUHviduals who look at snow fence walls and claim that they're soft cover by default - and they would be wrong. The rules cover both situations already. Again - education issues.

Both of those situations can - and should, IMO - be dealt with in stage design.

One should be - the other (pulling activator wires) doesn't have to be, but good course construction (not design) should keep the problem at bay.

Its a shame that there's such a strong feeling within the BOD that the freestyle principles are such a bad thing.

Stating your opinion as if it we an established fact does not make it so. Despite your "proof by assertion", I can state that I strongly support freestyle competition and I would be surprised if any board member feels otherwise.

Well, let's see. Bruce tells us that he determined through a straw poll that total removal of the Boundary Lines proposal would not pass - so he invented the Off Limits and "because I'm the RM and I say so" rule to pacify the BOD (ie, something that would pass) while trying to also cater to the vocal membership that opposed the Boundary Line rule. Either version of the rule, however, can be used to contravene the freestyle principle - and it is arguably the freestyle principle that has caused the issues that the BoD (as a whole) feels need addressing. If the BoD (as a whole) feels that they need to enact a rule that allows the RM to restrict freestyle in some fashion - to the degree where they refuse to remove it, but only water it down, and even when the watered down version adds no real authority to the rulebook - well, I'd say that's rather self evident, and not a fabrication on my part. The will to "Do Something!!! (even if we don't really do anything)" was obviously there, and the rule, in substance, only enhances the ability of the RM to say "because I said so" - which is only required to be enacted when course design and/or construction will not withstand the scrutiny of the competitor. In other words - it will only be employed when competitors game something, which, put another way, means to limit the ability of the competitor to creatively resolve the scenario in a freestyle fashion.

I'm not so naive as to believe that the word of the BoD accurately reflects the individual beliefs of its constiuents, nor that an individual's yea or nay vote accurately describes their reasons behind such a vote. However, the BoD as a whole has obviously moved in this direction.

USPSA now has a FTDR rule.

There is a HUGE difference between the USPSA "forbidden actions" rule and the IDPA "FTDR" rule.

I totally agree here. I would not interpret this as an FTDR sort of rule in any way.

[Flexmoney]

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.

NO.

When the stage designer screws up...and the Range Master and CRO can't figure out a fix...then they should eat it. The cof should be tossed.

All to preserve the FREESTYLE aspect that makes our sport what it is.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

NO.

When the stage designer screws up...and the Range Master and CRO can't figure out a fix...then they should eat it. The cof should be tossed.

All to preserve the FREESTYLE aspect that makes our sport what it is.

So, by that logic, the shaky bridge stage from the 04? Buckeye Blast should have been tossed, right? Or the Level 1 exemption shouldn't have been invoked?

[XRe]

So, by that logic, the shaky bridge stage from the 04? Buckeye Blast should have been tossed, right? Or the Level 1 exemption shouldn't have been invoked?

For those of us who weren't there, what was the scenario???

[Flexmoney]

Nik...the Range Master changed that walk through. It could'a and should'a been right. (It actually was...until it was changed. )

[Nik Habicht]

Nik...the Range Master changed that walk through. It could'a and should'a been right. (It actually was...until it was changed. )

I was just busting your chops ---- I'm not that adamant about this rule being a bad thing to have in the rule book; that said, I'd hate to see it employed at any match I was tasked with running.....

For people curious about the stage: It was a seven paper, 14 round affair, with four targets available in front of two walls. Between the two walls was a shaky bridge --- which is designed to be an unstable platform. The left and right rear targets could only be shot from the bridge, (no other place to see them) the center target, which was fairly well covered by no-shoots was visible before you got on the bridge. I shot it with the front four targets, the timer apparently malfunctioned, and I was informed that I had to engage the center target from the bridge during the reshoot or I'd be assessed two procedurals. I asked fro clarification from the RM, because the stage description said something like "Engage targets as they become visible." The RM decided to invoke the Level 1 Match exemption, which back then was available to Level 2 matches as well.

I think options are a good thing. I also think there should be trade-offs in stages, i.e. this target's wide open from the front position, but partially obstructed/at a steep angle from another position farther back --- now the shooter gets to decide between moving more and an easier shot vs. moving less and taking a longer shot. I positively hate stages that simply move the old shooting boxes on the walls, i.e. everyone goes here and shoots the same targets, repeat ad nauseam....