My real gripe ?

[ima45dv8]

I like our rulebook as it is. There's a few things in there I didn't agree with in terms of changes that were made, but it is what it is and I find the language easy to understand. I've RO'd a few matches and haven't yet encountered a situation that the rulebook didn't provide enough assistance to make the right and fair call.

On the other hand, I've been embroiled in more than a few and witnessed a few more discussions and threads where the rulebook was shown to have some subtle nuance or lack of language that made for some pretty lively debate (a couple of currently active threads come to mind). As long as these electron-powered microscope-level debates are on-line or over a beer after the match I can live with it.

**Everybody please play nice.

I just *hate* having to moderate Flex!

[Flexmoney]

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.

Well Gary, which rules do you want to follow and which ones can we just skip?

'Folks running the stages tell you what to do...' I can get that about anywhere. I don't need USPSA for that.

Bill and Susan Nesbitt introduced me to a term.... ROT'D (Rules Of The Day). They are ever changing...at the whim of the guy wearing the big hat that day.

What's the alternative to "quote me the rule"? Is it, trust me...I mean well.

[Flexmoney]

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

Well said.

I think we have a mature rule book. It's pretty darn good. It covers most of the weird stuff that comes up.

All we have to do is...read it, not wing it.

[ima45dv8]

All we have to do is...read it, not wing it.

That's been working well for me for a long time.

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.

[Gary Stevens]

Reading the rules and following it is not always as easy as it sounds. As a famous or infamous person once said "it depends on the meaning of is".

The US Constitution was previously mentioned. Four learned Justices of the Supreme Court recently said that the Second Amendment was not a individual right. Disregarding their previous ruling that said when the Constitution says "The People" it confers an individual right. So sometimes people differ on what a rule, or an amendment for that matter, actually means.

NROI tries to provide guidance and interpretations since we don't want to print new rulebooks every other month or so. Sometimes even when the guidance and interpretations are given, folks still don't want to accept it. Such is human nature I guess.

As to what rules I want to follow the short answer is all of them. The only issue is who gets to say what they mean.

My point, which might not have been all that clear, is that many, many of the rules in our book today are because someone did something or challenged something and that resulted in a new rule being written. Every issue that comes up can be resolved by a new rule and a new rulebook, hence the 18 wheeler needed to carry all the volumes. On the other hand an amount of common sense and some guidance from those who bear the responsibility of providing it can go a long ways.

[Flexmoney]

That line of thinking is what our Columbus City Council used to ban "assault weapons". They used "their common sense" and provided "their guidance".

Doesn't matter which example we use, either makes the point for me...

What I am getting at is this question: What drives someones's decision? I believe that it is the culture that they learned in.

My fear...is that we are putting the "guidance and common sense" approach ahead of the "read the rule book" approach.

Use that guidance and common sense to modify the rules, if they need it. But, once the ink is dry...don't throw the book in the can in favor of "this is what it really means to say".

Our first look for a call needs to be to the rule book. We need to see what it says. We have a pretty mature book. I don't think it's as bad as the doom-n-gloom make it out to be. I've only seen a very few cases of 'what does "is" mean. Sure there is gray, but much of it is black and white...paper and ink.

If our culture isn't teaching to look to the rule book, why have it? Why read the Written Stage Briefing...word for word?

What is wrong with reading the rule book?

All we have to do is...read it, not wing it.

[Micah]

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.

That was an interesting one Flex, and I am glad that we both agreed on the calling.

Furthermore I also agree that those that are ROing need to know the rulebook, and SEEK knowledge! At that very same match, I made an incorrect call. Fortunately another CRO questioned me and we both looked it up. I have no problem eating crow when I am incorrect on the rulebook. The endgame is that I want to be a more proficient CRO.

AFWIW I ALWAYS cite the rulebook when making a calling that is questioned. Without it, it reeks of "Cuz I said so."

[Gary Stevens]

Well I've said all I can say, so that is about it.

Flex it is clear that some of our rules do not cover every conceiveable situation that could occur. So sometimes we have to try to clarify what was intended. Maybe someday we will write a perfect rulebook that everyone agrees upon, but I doubt it.

As I am typing this, I observe a forum rule about 'No antagonistic tones will be tolerated". That is a writen rule. However, I have noted over the years that what one might believe to be antagonistic others do not. The thread still get's locked, even though not all agree. That is the way it is, because this is a forum that no one is forced to participate in. When I play in someone elses sand box, I play by their rules.

USPSA has a structure. We try to use that structure to administer (moderate) the sport. Not all will like the outcome, I know I don't, but I accept what I cannot change at that time and chose to fight another day. Until that time though, those who are elected to administer the sport still get to have their say.

Some see the glass as half full, others see it as half empty.

Either way, the sun will still come up tomorrow.

[Ron Ankeny]

What is wrong with reading the rule book?

Pick me...I know the answer. There is nothing wrong with reading the rulebook. Ya know, I have been designing stages month after month for years and years, and it seems like everywhere I go I end up with a timer in my hand. I have learned a couple of things along the way. First, chances are the answer is in the rulebook and the correct response is usually a literal interpretation of the rules. Makes life consistent, fair, and easy. Second, most problems can be circumvented in the first place with good course design. Problems usually arise when a course designer tries to get cute or tricky, and some experienced shooter with zero tolerance for BS steps into the box with an attitude.

[jhgtyre]

What is wrong with reading the rule book?

Pick me...I know the answer. There is nothing wrong with reading the rulebook. Ya know, I have been designing stages month after month for years and years, and it seems like everywhere I go I end up with a timer in my hand. I have learned a couple of things along the way. First, chances are the answer is in the rulebook and the correct response is usually a literal interpretation of the rules. Makes life consistent, fair, and easy. Second, most problems can be circumvented in the first place with good course design. Problems usually arise when a course designer tries to get cute or tricky, and some experienced shooter with zero tolerance for BS steps into the box with an attitude.

As usual Ron is spot on.

-ld

[JThompson]

All we have to do is...read it, not wing it.

That's been working well for me for a long time.

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.

Intent?

2.3.1.1 In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction, a

Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions in

order to maintain competitive equity.

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit

competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe

condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loop-

hole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain

unfair competitive advantage.

IMHO this para should end at "unsafe condition." People read this stuff and have to interprit intent? No sir. If it's intended it should be designed not mandated in a rule book unless it's for safety. If we are going "by the book" and you gained an advantage, then Flex could have declared it a FA. Or another guy who just shot it could cry foul because he didn't see the loop and protest you gained an "unfair advantage" per this rule. BTW what's the difference between an advantage and an "unfair: advantage? You see where I'm going here? Very few things, written or otherwise, are black and white. If they were, we wouldn't need law schools.

You want a rules quote... there it is. Now should we discuss the "intent" of this rule?

And here I thought gaining an advantage was what freestyle was all about? Hmph!

Edited October 10, 2008 by JThompson

[ima45dv8]

And here I thought gaining an advantage was what freestyle was all about? Hmph!

Agreed. That's why I did it.

[JakeMartens]

And here I thought gaining an advantage was what freestyle was all about? Hmph!

Agreed. That's why I did it.

One person's advantage is another person's unfair advantage

[Jake Di Vita]

One person's advantage is another person's unfair advantage

That's usually the person that didn't think of it himself.

I'm with Kyle. On all counts. We have a RULE book. Not a guideline book. The less USPSA follows it's own rules, the more credibility it loses.

[Flexmoney]

... Not all will like the outcome, I know I don't, but I accept what I cannot change at that time and chose to fight another day.

For me, it's not a question of any individual call. It's the underlying culture and direction that have my attention.

You've seen a few of these issues get pushed a bit in the last couple of months. Often by me. If we were playing poker, I'd call these "information bets." Some might call them probes. Now I have a better picture of where people are coming from...and going.

I really thought (mistakenly) there was likely a lack of direction (clear leadership) on this issue. When I started this thread, I truly believed it might serve as a reminder of what we are about...a freestyle sport with a pretty clear and well written rule book. I didn't realize that suggesting that we first look to the rule book to make a call would be meet with such opposition.

I didn't know we were so far apart on this fundamental aspect.

Until that time though, those who are elected to administer the sport still get to have their say.

I hope they are still open to some feedback.

Some see the glass as half full, others see it as half empty.

Others...realize the glass is the wrong size for what is being served in it.

[shred]

I see a whole lot of "we'll trust the RO/RM/MD/ArbComm/NROI" to Do The Right Thing

That is a good thing we place a lot of trust in them.

The downside comes when that trust is misplaced.

I've seen it firsthand over the years (thanfully fairly rarely) and the mechanisms to correct that are, IMO, very poor.

This is why I think the more black and white we are and the more we follow the letter of the rules, the better off we are.

"Because I said so" should be verboten at all levels of rulemaking or rule-calling.

[North]

"Because I said so" should be verboten at all levels of rulemaking or rule-calling.

Heck yes!!

[raz-0]

I think we have a good rule book. However, I think this "cultural shift" exists for a very real reason, and that is because we are a volunteer sport. I think it spreads to things that SHOULD be covered by simply reading the book because of heirarchy put in place by the rules themselves.

The second part first: Matches are finite. ROs are imperfect. The rules have a chain of appeal. Disputes will go up that chain until they are worked out. Becuase 9 times out of 10, when you have an issue crop up, you either have an RO who doesn't know enough, or shooter who has the same problem. The rule set gives the benefit of the doubt to the shooter, and it goes up the chain. For expedience, rather than have folks sit around reading the rule book, they go looking for someone who knows more. Once it is outside the knowledge of anyone on the stage, it goes up the ruyles defined chain of command. People SHOULD know the book better, but they aren't getting paid for it, and the existence of errata is a necesary evil that makes it an issue even with people who HAVE read the book.

Then back to the first part: We are a volunteer sport. Most of the time the guy who took the RO class is better than the average guy who hasn't at making a rule call. Then of course there are your stage designers. This takes time and effort. Then of course you have to build the stages, which very often is not done by the same guy who designed the stage. Then you ahve the guy(s) volunteering to run the match. The guys scoring the match. Etc. For big matches, it is easier to find someone willing to do it one weekend a year. For monthly local matches, you need guys willing to bust ass on a regular basis. When you have gamers doing something way out there, it PROBABLY can be prevented by doing better stage design, by replaceing worn stage building materials more frequently, by taking more time to build stages, and by getting your ROs to do homework and stay up to date on the rules and errata.

The need for these solutions are cuased by disagreement.

By the rules, disagreement goes up the chain.

The guys at the top of the chain now have to decide between backing the gamer who more often than not shoots and scoots, or making his regular support less happy, and often a lot of the lower maintenance competitors.

When you are all volunteer, the freeloaders' feelings tend to be consider less unless there is a cohesive group.

Valuing people who bring more value is human nature, and a decision making factor you will never get rid of. Expecting the rule book to cover every situation and eliminate this problem is unrealistic, regardless of you being of the "make more rules until it does" , or the "read the book, we have enough rules" schools of thought.

Both sides are really making the same argument. I think one side is hoping that with enough rules changes, the valuable volunteer manpower won't leave them with an ever increasing workload, and the other side is trusting that people are thick skinned enough that getting more work made for them trying to bulletproof against gamers doing really odd stuff won't make anyone walk away (or that you can spare the labor).

[Flexmoney]

There is your dilemma.

Do we sell out the rules to get the job done easier or do we hold true to the rules and eat an occasional loss?

I, for one, shoot USPSA/IPSC because of the higher standard that our well written rule book encourages.

If our culture abandons that, then USPSA can no longer be for me.

[Flexmoney]

I'll add this.

People have an expectation of service when coming to an USPSA match. We aren't a conglomerate of matches with varying rules. If you show up to an USPSA match in Ohio, Wyoming, Texas, or New Mexico...you know what to expect.

The brand name "USPSA" means something. I hope that it doesn't mean less and less in the coming years.

[coldchar]

Coming from a baseball umpire background , I felt right at home when I got my RO recently. As a former umpire I have some comments that may be relevant. The umpires job is always to apply the rules as written. Whenever you start playing with "interpretations" you are quickly going to find yourself painted in a corner by someone who remembers your prior call which you are now changing, and chaos emerges.

The descretion came, like a police officer, in determining how stringently the rules are to be applied. There is an old saying that it is a poor police officer that cannot find something to charge you with if they so choose. An experienced police officer uses a great deal of descretion in law application but he does not rewrite the law.

I.e. Little league games like small Level 1 matches, are a learning and fun experience. I run my club (Not a USPSA club) single stack monthly match, and in the initial briefing I will frequently advise the shooters if I am not going to enforce a particular USPSA rule and why not. All the shooters make the adjustment and everyone is happy.

Likewise, once in baseball tournament play there is little to no descretion, all rules are rigidly enforced, as is expected. I have never RO'd at a level 11 or 111 match, but I would anticipate the same approach in that the higher the match, the more intense the competition and the stricter the rule enforcement.

Thank you for your time in reading this.

Edited October 15, 2008 by coldchar

[larry cazes]

I'll add this.

People have an expectation of service when coming to an USPSA match. We aren't a conglomerate of matches with varying rules. If you show up to an USPSA match in Ohio, Wyoming, Texas, or New Mexico...you know what to expect.

The brand name "USPSA" means something. I hope that it doesn't mean less and less in the coming years.

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

[dajarrel]

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

I know you asked this of Flex and I'm sure he will answer. But at our home (level 1) matches we use the rulebook. You can't expect to shot 24 local matches a year (we shoot twice a month) with a casual usage of the rulebook and expect not to be disappointed at a level 2 match when you get busted for not following a rule. Perhaps even DQ'ed. It's a poor excuse to hear when someone says, "that's not how we do it at home!!"

fwiw

dj

[Flexmoney]

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.)

[Flexmoney]

We seem to have a break-down in communication going on.

Some think that what I (and others) are asking for is more rules. (referrences to 18-wheelers and 1,000 page rule books)

I know that there has been some seperation of thinking between USPSA and IPSC. I recall mentioning to one of our higher-ups in USPSA that it seemed to me like IPSC sure was writting rules pretty quickly. It was just an observation on my part, but the response I got told me that I had hit on a nerve of some sort.

Folks, I am not asking for more rules. Far from it.

I am merely suggesting that we first look to see what our rules say...before we make a call, or teach others to make a call. To me, that is common sense.