My real gripe ?

[Flexmoney]

I've been wondering why some of these rules discussions have been bothering me lately.

Examining that, I realize that what I liked about our game when I got into it was the the premise was freestyle shooting.

Backing that up was a rulebook that many used to complain was too thick. I defended that rule book...as being more mature and complete.

When I got into this game the culture was..."quote the rule". That works pretty well with a well written rule book...which, I think, we have.

So, my gripe...

Our culture seems to be shifting...slowly...but shifting. We see more talk of "stage designer's intent". We see more references to people making calls based on their "common sense". When asked why some support the calls that they do, we hear "that is how so-and-so taught me to call it."

Does that sound like our game, or some other?

Sure, we will have some gray areas, but most everything we see has a clearly worded rule that we can refer to.

I believe the culture needs to be...read the rule book...use the rule book to make your call. That needs to be our foundation.

When making a call, be able to support it with the rules. READ the rules.

[dajarrel]

....Sure, we will have some gray areas, but most everything we see has a clearly worded rule that we can refer to.

I believe the culture needs to be...read the rule book...use the rule book to make your call. That needs to be our foundation.

When making a call, be able to support it with the rules. READ the rules.

Thank You Sir. Well Said

dj

[Throwin Lead]

Our culture seems to be shifting...slowly...but shifting. We see more talk of "stage designer's intent". We see more references to people making calls based on their "common sense". When asked why some support the calls that they do, we hear "that is how so-and-so taught me to call it."

Does that sound like out game, or some other?

Any time you allow things to become subjective the rules that may support - "insert senario here" - become gray. Yes, some decisions can be tempered with common sense others can not depending on the circumstances. By and large the rules are just that THE RULES. We should be doing eveything we can to support those rules from developing COF's within those guide lines to insuring that each shooter has a level playing field when they shoot our matches.

The problem with "stage desingers intent" is it can be too narrow minded as it is seen in grandure only from the designers perspective. I would think that 5 different people could have 5 different ideas of their own on "intent".

[Jim Norman]

To which end we have placed a rule book in each stage box at our regular monthly match.The problem seems mostly to raise its head when the rules have either a contradictory rule or absent rule. An example being the one we we have been discussing here.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

In another thread, it was suggested to just run stuff up through the chain of command. (RO > CRO > RM > ARB)

Here is the problem that we are going to see with that.

Everybody up the line is starting to feed off the folk-lore culture. If a shooter disputes a call and sites the witten rule book, how are they goiong to get a fair shake when the chain of command is going off what so-and-so told them.

Just read the rule book.

[racerba]

Everybody up the line is starting to feed off the folk-lore culture. If a shooter disputes a call and sites the witten rule book, how are they goiong to get a fair shake when the chain of command is going off what so-and-so told them.

Not just folk-lores. It's what the top of the chain feels like at that moment. What he says goes, right? Regardless of his contradicting ruling in the past.

[wide45]

The competitor is not supposed to get a fair shake, the deck is stacked against him from the beginning.

The system depends on officials being fair, honest, and open minded.

Perhaps you can suggest alternate rules for officials who are less perfect.

[Flexmoney]

I don't think we need alternate rules. We just need to...first and foremost...refer to the rule book. Not wing it and go off of what he-said-she-said.

Fair, honest and open-minded is nice. All of that shakes out when we follow the rule book...first and foremost. We don't need a system that relies on us "trusting" the officials. We need the officials to use the rule book.

And, we need to remember, it is about the shooters. We have a freestyle sport. Stages are going to get gamed in ways that officials and stage desingers didn't intend. So be it. Chaulk that up to learning. From that, the stages and the officiating get better and better.

[larry cazes]

I've been wondering why some of these rules discussions have been bothering me lately.

Examining that, I realize that what I liked about our game when I got into it was the the premise was freestyle shooting.

Backing that up was a rulebook that many used to complain was too thick. I defended that rule book...as being more mature and complete.

When I got into this game the culture was..."quote the rule". That works pretty well with a well written rule book...which, I think, we have.

So, my gripe...

Our culture seems to be shifting...slowly...but shifting. We see more talk of "stage designer's intent". We see more references to people making calls based on their "common sense". When asked why some support the calls that they do, we hear "that is how so-and-so taught me to call it."

Does that sound like out game, or some other?

Sure, we will have some gray areas, but most everything we see has a clearly worded rule that we can refer to.

I believe the culture needs to be...read the rule book...use the rule book to make your call. That needs to be our foundation.

When making a call, be able to support it with the rules. READ the rules.

Very well said. I originally started shooting with a group of defense oriented folks who pushed the scenario based approach which relied heavily on "Intent". No written rules existed for the matches and they often changed based on the stage designer. Eventually these matches became a free for all and we started to lose interest. After 18 months one of the guys at the club directed me to check out the USPSA website. My wife and I fell into USPSA, freestyle shooting, and a printed rule book very quickly. Within 1 year we were both certified USPSA and NRA ROs and we prided ourselves on how we ran stages at local, sectional, and area matches.

You are absolutely right, Flex. In the last few years we both have noticed that this sport seems to be starting a shift to "Stage Designer Intent" and away from reliance on a good solid set of rules. As I have stated in other threads, erosion of the freestyle nature of USPSA is a "slippery slope".

[John2A]

I agree with Flex, I think that everyone that wants to be an RO at a local match needs to take an RO class to learn what they are calling and why. It really opened my eyes as to what you can and can not do. I still hear a lot of people give the LMR, give me a nod when you are ready etc. This past weekend while on a VA count stage I had a no shoot made up the shot of course from reflex and had a hit. So a procedural for the extra shot, and one for the extra hit. Well I had to tell the RO that it is 2 not one procedural. When I was done the squad ahead of me the RO said dang I had that happen to me and only called the one. So even the rules are not being fairly followed.

We all need to have an understanding of the rules course designers and competitors.

[FranDoc]

I've dealt with 'stage designer intent'; with 'because I said so', even though it's clearly not supported by the current version of the rules & regs; and with flat-out bad (if not dangerous) stage design, regardless of 'intent'.

Not fun and, most usually, not entirely legal.

Shooting with the guys who know the rules, and who really know how to maximize the definition of 'freestyle' within the rules, has been a good education (you know who you are, and thank you).

The blue book has been hauled out of my range bag a couple of times in recent months. No hostility, no malice, just an understanding that - when there's a question - we'll follow what the book says ... and that there's a procedure for changing the book when there's a need.

I'll take 'rules' over 'intent' most any day.

[Flexmoney]

To which end we have placed a rule book in each stage box at our regular monthly match.

Heck Jim, we put our's out on the STAGE inself. lol

Have a look at the top-center of the orange wall in the back-right corner of this stage. Easier to see at the very end of the video clip.

That is a good idea, btw. Rule book and overlays in every range box. Thanks for posting it.

[Barrettone]

Kyle,

The problem, as I see it, is that we can all sit here and pontificate on these issues until the cows come home. The only TRUE way to get resolution is to petition NROI or the USPSA BoD to take it up. Since it is often stated that BE is a private forum, and not the OFFICIAL WEBSITE of USPSA, it seems to me that these issues should be getting discussed in the right forum so that change can be brought about. Last I checked, John Amidon was the head of NROI, and it is his interpretations/opinions that count. Now, there is ALWAYS going to be a lag time from the time we get an email from him, and when the OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION gets published (and if he feels it is merely a CLARIFICATION, one may not be needed in his opinion...it is only his opinion that counts unless the BoD says differently). I had this happen with me at the IPSC World Shoot Qualifier. Shooter produces an email with an interpretation from the IPSC Secretary that has not been posted on the OFFICIAL IPSC WEBSITE. We ended up emailing IPSC and getting a CLARIFICATION, and the ruling was made in the shooters favor. It was a grip-tape issue on a producation gun. Bottom line is, that these things can take time to filter down. We are a volunteer organization, and it takes time to get things done. If you don't like it, then go through the proper channels to have the SYSTEM CHANGED. Stomping your feet, holding your breath and wrapping yourself in a USPSA flag while continually bantering "QUOTE THE RULE...QUOTE THE RULE!!" is not going to get it done any faster. Simply put, lighten' up a bit. I have seen at least four of these threads appear in the last month or so, and it is getting out of hand. If you'd like, I can point out at least a dozen areas where people could have a hissy fit and call for Amidons head on a spit, but the bottom line is that this is a GAME. ENJOY IT. If something truly bothers you that much, get on the USPSA forum, or call your AD, and ask him to reccommend that NROI issue an official ruling. Sometimes, people get too wrapped up in this sport, and it consumes them. Just my opinion.

AKUNA MATTATA my Friend,

Jeff

Edited October 8, 2008 by Barrettone

[jhgtyre]

To me the notion of getting an official interpretation and using that as the rule is a big problem. The rule should be clear. If the rule is not clear then the rule book needs to be amended. If you want to publish an annual/quarterly/whatever "official update" and mail that out that is fine. Having to refer to a website or, worse yet, carry around an "official letter" is a load of bull.

-ld

[Flexmoney]

Jeff,

The first word out of our mouths, as match officials, ought to be..."this is what the rule book says".

When I am officiating, I pull out the rule book. If only to show the shooter the applicable rule.

It an easy way to go. Quote the rule book.

[Shaky Dave]

I think Flex is 100% correct. Quoting the rule book ver batim will be more consistent, thus more fair.

[mscott]

To which end we have placed a rule book in each stage box at our regular monthly match.

Heck Jim, we put our's out on the STAGE inself. lol

Have a look at the top-center of the orange wall in the back-right corner of this stage. Easier to see at the very end of the video clip.

That is a good idea, btw. Rule book and overlays in every range box. Thanks for posting it.

I just ran into that "director's intent" a month or so ago, but the issue wasn't pushed.

I wonder if the shooter in this video got called on 10.2.1 (left foot)?

[LPatterson]

Flex, you are totally right that it is the culture that is the problem and a prime example might be "I did not have sex with that woman". One upon a time a movie could get banned just for showing a woman's bra and married people only kissed each on the cheek on TV. Extreme examples but that is culture as well as this is the way we are doing things now with "free style" and the need for a rule book that is not subject to anybody's interpretation but is in black and white without the shades of gray. I agree with everyone thats says we need to get the intent out of the decision.

I would start with a new recertification that is longer and asks questions relative to the latest changes to the rules. An example might be " a drop turner that presents 2 views before it disappears being scored as a regular target rather than a disappearing target, the old mutiple views thing". Happened last match. I know how I scored it but I don't know how other RO's or stats scored it.

[Flexmoney]

I ate one on "intent" at the last local match.

I wrote the stage procedure. The stage had a requirement to "carry" a suitcase and "place" it on a table...before the last shot.

In the shooters meeting some questions were asked and the "intent" of the stage was shared.

I then watch as a shooter (CK) went through the cof. At the end, he had the suitcase off the table. His RO (PB) was going to have to make the call of whether he earned a procedural or not. The shooter was fully prepared to take the penalty.

Even though I wrote the stage procedure and knew the "intent"...I grabbed up the stage sheet and read what it said. It said "carry". I asked the RO if the shooter did that? "Yes.". It then said "place" the suitcase on the table. I asked the RO if the shooter had done that? "Yes." OK then, sounds like the procedure was meet. (The suitcase ended up on the ground after placement...perhaps bumped as the shooter shot the last array or two of targets.)

Had I got the "intent" written into the stage procedure, then the shooter would have earned a penalty. Live and learn on my end.

[mactiger]

I ate one on "intent" at the last local match.

I wrote the stage procedure. The stage had a requirement to "carry" a suitcase and "place" it on a table...before the last shot.

In the shooters meeting some questions were asked and the "intent" of the stage was shared.

I then watch as a shooter (CK) went through the cof. At the end, he had the suitcase off the table. His RO (PB) was going to have to make the call of whether he earned a procedural or not. The shooter was fully prepared to take the penalty.

Even though I wrote the stage procedure and knew the "intent"...I grabbed up the stage sheet and read what it said. It said "carry". I asked the RO if the shooter did that? "Yes.". It then said "place" the suitcase on the table. I asked the RO if the shooter had done that? "Yes." OK then, sounds like the procedure was meet. (The suitcase ended up on the ground after placement...perhaps bumped as the shooter shot the last array or two of targets.)

Had I got the "intent" written into the stage procedure, then the shooter would have earned a penalty. Live and learn on my end.

Good call, and it sounds like your intent ("carry" the suitcase and "place" it on the table) was covered. If you'd wanted it to stay on the table, you'd have had to specify, right?

Troy

[Flexmoney]

I ate one on "intent" at the last local match.

I wrote the stage procedure. The stage had a requirement to "carry" a suitcase and "place" it on a table...before the last shot.

In the shooters meeting some questions were asked and the "intent" of the stage was shared.

I then watch as a shooter (CK) went through the cof. At the end, he had the suitcase off the table. His RO (PB) was going to have to make the call of whether he earned a procedural or not. The shooter was fully prepared to take the penalty.

Even though I wrote the stage procedure and knew the "intent"...I grabbed up the stage sheet and read what it said. It said "carry". I asked the RO if the shooter did that? "Yes.". It then said "place" the suitcase on the table. I asked the RO if the shooter had done that? "Yes." OK then, sounds like the procedure was meet. (The suitcase ended up on the ground after placement...perhaps bumped as the shooter shot the last array or two of targets.)

Had I got the "intent" written into the stage procedure, then the shooter would have earned a penalty. Live and learn on my end.

Good call, and it sounds like your intent ("carry" the suitcase and "place" it on the table) was covered. If you'd wanted it to stay on the table, you'd have had to specify, right?

Troy

Yes sir.

I think the original intent would have had the suitcase stay on the table. But, we (I) didn't get that written in.

So...original intent didn't matter. We got what we wrote.

[jhgtyre]

Yes sir.

I think the original intent would have had the suitcase stay on the table. But, we (I) didn't get that written in.

So...original intent didn't matter. We got what we wrote.

If only everyone followed that logic.

-ld

[Gary Stevens]

I want to volunteer to drive the 18 wheeler hauling the volumes of USPSA/IPSC rule books. Anyone taken a look at their local law library lately?

I have somewhere around here a copy of the original rulebook. It is about 4 pages, and most of that describes how to build a ballistic pendulum to measure the power of the bullet.

When I started, just over 30 years ago, the folks running the stage told you what to do and you did it the best you could. Then folks started saying "it doesn't say that in the rule book. Of course unless you are talking about building a ballistic pendulum there wasn't much of anything else in the rule book.

So the rulebook progression started. We now have what we have and it appears it will be growing based upon "quote me the rule".

Gee, I always wanted to drive one of those big trucks in the passing lane and block everyone else up on the road. I might get my chance now.

[jhgtyre]

That isn't necessary if we make people follow the rules as they are written. You can't allow people to reinterpret the rules to suit their "common sense" take on what things should be. Just as I said in the other thread words mean what they mean only when we start adding on to that meaning do the great tomes of rule interpretations become necessary.

-ld

[Graham Smith]

It an easy way to go. Quote the rule book.

The US Constitution and it's amendments is smaller by several orders of magnitude than the constitution of most countries, and if taken on number of citizens per word leaves everyone else in the dust. It was written that way and has been kept that way to provide and promote flexibility. When you start to get too detailed, you start to become inflexible and end up having to have amendments to amendments to amendments every time circumstances or someone comes up with a "reasonable" exception or interpretation for some rule.

Production class in USPSA is a perfect case in point. Production should mean just that - a gun with the same parts it came with right out of the box. But we all know that it just isn't going to be that simple. Some modifications are going to be allowed and the slide down the slippery slope begins.

I think that the best that can be hoped for is consistency - if everyone shooting a match abides by the same rules, then it's "fair". That's one of the saving features of what would otherwise be a very confusing scoring system.

Not being an RO and being a fairly new shooter, my opinion may change with time. But this approach helped get me through 20 yrs in the Army and 18 yrs as a business owner, so I'm unlikely to give up on it any time soon.