My real gripe ?

[AikiDale]

I'm trying to catch up here. So far it looks to me;

1. USPSA has enough rules.

2. We, as shooters and range officers, should all play by the rules we have.

3. Designing stages which meet the rules is appreciated.

4. If it is not prohibited it is allowed.

5. This is most important, that is why I saved it for last. Concerning the the cylinder which contains 50% by volume of its capacity:

The glass is half full when one is pouring. It is half empty when one is drinking.

Edited October 17, 2008 by AikiDale

[Jake Di Vita]

I couldn't agree more with everything you just said haha.

[mda]

I gotta give Flex credit and tell ya'll he really means this stuff. I found a hole in one of his stages at the 2007 Ohio State match and drove a big ol' truck right through the middle of it. I absolutely trashed whatever intent there may have been for how the shooter should run the stage. Instead of getting pissed at me he smiled, shrugged his shoulders and promised to learn from it (if he was pissed, he never let on about it to me). Heck, he even let me drink some of his frosty cold adult beverages that night.

Yes you did. But the guy that won that stage (and match) shot it like it was intended without gaming the drop turner activator at the end.

MDA

[Jake Di Vita]

Doesn't mean that was necessarily the best way to do it.

[Flexmoney]

OK...some folks might not be in on what MDA brought up. I don't want to the thread to drift into that too far, but it was a stage at a Major match I was running. It had a requirement that could be meet through gaming a bit. I was OK with that. In fact, I liked that it had people thinking (and possibly distracted). It hadn't proven to be a better or worse plan of action yet..when the decision was made not to change it (and reshoot some of the staff, as I recall).

I later did some math...timer and calculator. It was a wash in the hicap divisions. The winner in Open shot it as intended. The winner in Limited shot it the gamey way...and wasn't far from getting caught by a shooter a few classes below him.

This would be a great thread to explore that further: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...hl=disappearing

[AikiDale]

The real problem with shooting a stage as the stage designer intended is that some of us just are not smart enough to figure out, or care, what was intended. We just want to get through it with out looking too silly.

[RIIID]

To have a USPSA match it must adhere to all of the rules in the book. To ignore just one rule it isn't a USPSA match. As far as I know there isn't a rule that covers stage intent or spirit of the game. If you want to run a match and ignore the rules, don't call it a USPSA affiliated match. It's not that hard to use the rule book. Ignorance of the rule book might seem easy at the moment but it definitely is the wrong way to go.

Rich

[coldchar]

Flex, would you expect adherence at level 1 local matches? I do. Is this unreasonable?

Level 1 matches bill themselves as USPSA matches and they state that they will follow the rule book.

To me...that goes toward another type of this culture stuff that I am talking about. Some clubs are going to be short of resources...including props, time and manpower. Manpower, especially, is the one to focus on...in my opinion. We have to foster an environment that gets as many people involved in the process as possible. We need to be training the new guys...training our replacements. We need to teach them how to get it right...not yell at them for getting it wrong. (I don't want to drift too far there...we've had other threads on that..with good ideas.)

In the new rule book, Level 1 matches get quite a bit more lee-way (for better or worse) than they did under the old green or red books.

One thing I'd really like to see added is an official option for a coach through without score. (opps..drifting again) (Please ignore that last bit. It was off topic.)

As he mentioned above, we are a small club and as such we have limitations on equipment and try to bring new shooters along. We are pleased to have 20-25 shooters at our monthly single stack club. As a non-USPSA club we have some leeway

that my friends at Rio Solado don't enjoy such as allowing a Bullseye shooter who went out and bought 10 rnd single stack magazines in error, download and still shoot single stack. Hardly a competitive advantage. I try to continue to upgrade and encourage evolution of our shooters so when they do attend a USPSA club they have the proper equipment and experience.

Again, thank you for reading my response.

Jim Gross (Cold Char)

[JakeMartens]

Flex, would you expect adherence at level 1 local matches? I do. Is this unreasonable?

One thing I'd really like to see added is an official option for a coach through without score. (opps..drifting again) (Please ignore that last bit. It was off topic.)

Ok, but without penalty

8.6.2.1

(I read the rule book )

[JKSNIPER]

In the book "Soldier" by Anthony B. Herbert he relates his dealings with "West point lawyers" where there would be a tactical exercise and the briefing would say something like they were to bring no food on the exercise. Then he would search the participants packs and find candy bars and such. When he confronted them they told him "You didn't say we couldn't bring candy. You said no food."

He was not happy.

There comes a time when the intent/common sense of a set of rules is applicable.

We have to be reasonable in this application.

Basically ask "What would a reasonable person think this particular rule means if he/she is reading it for the first time.

No food means..NO FREAKING FOOD!

If you can eat/digest it and it does not poison you then....its food.

If the ammo is in your bag, your bag is with you,and you're at a match....... then....its match ammo.

Simple common sense.

If we want to play "quote the rule" all day long we can. We can write rules till the cows come home addressing each and every concievable situation that a competitor might try to "game" a stage or do something to violate our intent.

We can have a rule book like the tax laws that have gotten to the point where no one knows them all and no one is an expert and it would take all day to figure out if someone is in violation AND in any given situation you can probably find a violation to fit that circumstance.

We have to (at some point) assume a certain amount of common sense in our Ros and competitiors otherwise we'll be there all day long arguing over the meaning of the word "is".

JK

[Flexmoney]

JKS,

You give a fine example. Our first step is to read the rule. In the case you mentioned...NO FOOD...we read that and then it gets easier. Common sense handles most of this...if we first apply the rules we already have. What we don't want to see is one match director, using your example, allowing packets of sugar...or, whatever. (we don't need a variety of interpretations depending on who you talk to)

The first step in the common sense approach should be to compare to the set standard...which the rule book provides. That is going to handle 95% of the stuff we encounter (or more).

[Kimberley]

Truly unbelievable.

[Singlestack]

Bump