Should the intent of the rule-writers matter?

[mhs]

I tend to read things very literally, and consider exactly what the rules and any published NROI interpretations say. I normally don't put much weight on unofficial sources. I don't try and read intent into rules.

One of the things that is confusing to me is whether intent matters. Here are two recent threads that illustrate this:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=97606

Some of the posters here think that if you're in the air you're in the box. I'm pretty sure this was not the intent of the rule.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=98483

In this one there are many posters who think the intent of the rule (hand is diasabled, cannot aid shooting in any way not specifically allowed for safety reasons) is what matters, not the word of the rule.

I think that anyone with good reading comprehension should be able to read the rulebook and published NROI interpretations and know what's legal. If this does not agree with the intent, I still think it should be the rule, since it is published as such. If it's a big deal, NROI can fix it.

Is this too idealistic?

[Calmwater]

If rules were understood not interpreted, I know a lot of lawyers who would be out of business.

Too idealistic? No not if you don't mind being often disappointed.

No dig on the topics mentioned, just responding to this post. This could be an interesting discussion, with maybe a LITTLE heat.

[Flexmoney]

Is this too idealistic?

Probably.

I am more of a strict constitutionalist than most, but...

[Calmwater]

It is the responsibility of the writers of the rules to be as clear as possible so little interpretation is necessary, but that being said they just can't think of every possibility. This is especially hard with the continued evolution of our sport and its shooters.

[Anon]

If something isn't expressly forbidden (or required) by the rules, it is allowed. Rules are always "limiting", never "allowing".

That is my opinion on all rules, in this sport, and in life.

EDITED TO ADD: Even things that are 'required" by rule, are actually "forbidden" by rule (in that you are forbidden from doing anything else).

Edited January 9, 2010 by Anon

[kevin c]

I have noticed, at least in my personal experience and from what I have read, that NROI, when asked for an "interpretation" on a rule, will generally take a very literal and/or concrete reading. I think it may be a deliberate attempt not to open up a can of worms where every application of the rules becomes subjective. Probably the most dramatic demonstration of this is the recent revision and pronouncements on the Production Division rules.

The rules are most certainly not perfect and not to everyone's liking. They cannot be comprehensive and complete for a sport where the courses of fire vary continuously and are solved "freestyle", so there are always areas, or situations that are not directly addressed. NROI interpretations of the rules are needed, then.

I think it's fine to raise questions. I think it's fine to raise objectiions to the answers. But, like the OP, once an interpretation comes down, or if the situation is covered in the previously published rules, that stands for me. Soem are willing to lobby for changes addressing their major objections and that's fine too. If the rules change I will adapt. If I am in violation of any current rule, I expect to be penalized appropriately. And, while I confess that I am not as current as I should be, it is the responsibility of USPSA competitors to know the current rules and abide by them (they have changed over the years, and some folks' responses to some questions raised in this forum are off because they might be an edition or two behind the current version).

[ima45dv8]

Our rulebook isn't perfect, but I'm very comfortable with it. There have been very few wild-assed, adult-beverage-fueled "what if" scenarios presented here and elsewhere that I haven't been able to resolve in my own mind with our printed guide. My understanding changes, but is not diminished by each revision of that document.

The NROI-provided training I've received, the friendships I've been fortunate enough to make with members of the RMI corp and with experienced Range Masters and DNROI, and all of the stimulating discussions that have passed have helped me fairly and equitably apply the rules of this sport. Without saying what they would be I'm at ease with the rulings I would make in both of the situations you linked.

Over time, one thing that dawned on me is the difference between an interpertation and a ruling. An interpertation merely reinforces, usually with expanded wording, a rule that seems to be without real conflict but is (unfortunately) generally misunderstood. A ruling serves to clarify a point that was previously thought to be clear but has proven to have some true element of ambiguity.

[mhs]

Over time, one thing that dawned on me is the difference between an interpertation and a ruling. An interpertation merely reinforces, usually with expanded wording, a rule that seems to be without real conflict but is (unfortunately) generally misunderstood. A ruling serves to clarify a point that was previously thought to be clear but has proven to have some true element of ambiguity.

I'm somewhat embarassed to admit that I hadn't appreciated the distinction. Thanks for pointing it out.

[DarthMuffin]

If violating the spirit, but not the letter, of the rules matters then you need something like a "failure to do right" rule and subjective interpretation. There's already a shooting sport for you if you like that

But yes, the intent of the rules do matter in that it's what the actual rules should strive to be -- what we should work on improving them to be.

Oh, and regarding the box, in USPSA if something isn't prohibited then it's allowed. Outside the box is specifically defined, therefore inside the box must be everything else, right? Unless of course we go with quantum ruling and have a schroedinger's shooting box.

Edited January 9, 2010 by DarthMuffin

[Nik Habicht]

....in USPSA if something isn't prohibited then it's allowed.

And we have an exception to that: The rules governing the equipment used in Production Division......

Something needs to be specifically permitted there to be kosher.....

[mhs]

If violating the spirit, but not the letter, of the rules matters then you need something like a "failure to do right" rule and subjective interpretation. There's already a shooting sport for you if you like that

I agree completely.

You may not agree with this opinion, but I also feel that much of the anti-gamer crowd might be well suited for that other sport.

[Jadeslade]

It would be nice to know about the intent of the rules writers. Mike Voight or John Amidon and probably people I don't know could write an annotated version of the rules. A Masters or PhD writing project like that would help illuminate the evolution of rules over the years. Really a lot of work.

[twodownzero]

Wow, this sounds like a constitutional law discussion, but I will share anyway.

The intent of the rule writers is irrelevant. What is important is what/how the rule was implemented when it was enacted (aka, how it was understood when implemented, so that the rule doesn't change 5 years down the road, because if a rule changes without the wording changing, it's not really a rule at all).

The rule regarding the "box" was intended to define what is "in," but not what is "out." Because it failed to forbid the air as "out," the shooter gets the benefit of gaming the rules.

The second one, which I already commented on, is that one's "shoulder" is not their "arm" and there is no rule violation to begin with.

Interpretation comes once the letter of the rule is violated. Absent a violation of the rule, there should be no reason to try to interpret anything.

This is a game. We have tremendous incentive to game the rules, especially in limited and open. I don't see a problem with that. My friend and I decided to move backwards on a stage one time, which resulted in saving 5 seconds or so on a 30 second stage. We managed to place 1st and 2nd in the match on that stage. Was what we did expected or intended by the stage designer? Hell no! But they didn't declare a forbidden action, so it was perfectly legal and there was nothing they could do.

[mactiger]

The words used in the rules are also important. Support does not necessarily mean touch. Touching is definitely support, but can you support that arm in other ways and not quite be touching it? I think the answer is yes.

Troy

[Jadeslade]

Wow, this sounds like a constitutional law discussion, but I will share anyway.

The intent of the rule writers is irrelevant. What is important is what/how the rule was implemented when it was enacted (aka, how it was understood when implemented, so that the rule doesn't change 5 years down the road, because if a rule changes without the wording changing, it's not really a rule at all).

It may be irrelevant if you believe the law is black and white. For historical interest and for future reference, it would be nice to have an annotated version of the IPSC and USPSA rules listing the varied reasons certain rules exist, by the people who wrote the rules.

edited for grammar done bad

Edited January 10, 2010 by Jadeslade

[twodownzero]

Wow, this sounds like a constitutional law discussion, but I will share anyway.

The intent of the rule writers is irrelevant. What is important is what/how the rule was implemented when it was enacted (aka, how it was understood when implemented, so that the rule doesn't change 5 years down the road, because if a rule changes without the wording changing, it's not really a rule at all).

It may be irrelevant to you are believe the law is black and white. For historical interest and for future reference, it would be nice to have an annotated version of the IPSC and USPSA rules listing the varied reasons certain rules exist, by the people who wrote the rules.

I'm not sure what that means because your first sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.

Forcing ROs to determine the "intent" of some other human beings 5 years ago or whenever the rule book was written is impractical. The intent of the rules cannot determine the rules. The rules must say what they mean, and mean what they say. If it is determined later that the intent was violated without violating the rule's text, then it is the text that needs work, not its manner of enforcement.

USPSA's rules' greatest asset is that they are mostly objective, clear, and allow for a great deal of "freestyle" in this game. Attempting to constrain competitors by reading "intent" into the rules just makes for more problems and solves none. In fact, one of our rules is that competitors may solve the stage however they wish, so long as they do not violate any rules in the process. This encourages gaming. Just look at how the top GMs solve some stages and how a good B or C level shooter solves the problem. I know that I've personally made decisions that I know have slowed me down, to reduce the margin for error. This is the nature of our game and if it changes, a large amount of what we enjoy about this game will be gone (that it is not only shooting, but in your head as well).

The rules must say what they mean and mean what they say. Anything less than that violates the spirit of a freestyle game.

[rgkeller]

The words used in the rules are also important. Support does not necessarily mean touch. Touching is definitely support, but can you support that arm in other ways and not quite be touching it? I think the answer is yes.

Troy

Well, you COULD tell your arm that you understand its feelings.

[Gary Stevens]

Wow, this sounds like a constitutional law discussion, but I will share anyway.

The intent of the rule writers is irrelevant. What is important is what/how the rule was implemented when it was enacted (aka, how it was understood when implemented, so that the rule doesn't change 5 years down the road, because if a rule changes without the wording changing, it's not really a rule at all).

It may be irrelevant to you are believe the law is black and white. For historical interest and for future reference, it would be nice to have an annotated version of the IPSC and USPSA rules listing the varied reasons certain rules exist, by the people who wrote the rules.

I can tell you first hand that very few rules are written by a single person. Almost all of them are an amalgamation of ideas, suggestions, what if discussions, and finally a rule that gets at least 5 out of 9 votes. To write a statement of what the rule was intended to do, IMO, would be useless. At some point a shooter would come up with an unexplored grey area that would just start the process over again.

I bet the writers of the weak hand/strong hand only rule never discussed "What if someone puts there hand on top of their shoulder, then lays their head over on top of their hand, and sort of pushes down and forms some sort of shooting position?", and here we are today discussing just that.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Gary Stevens

[mactiger]

I don't think we can, or should, try to enforce intent. I agree that rules should be enforced as written. However, given that our rules encourage freestyle competition, there will be times when some judgment is required. The decision can't be made based on what the RO thinks the intent of the rule is. It has to be made using the RO's best judgment, taking all of the facts into consideration, and discussion with the CRO/RM. The wording and the words of the rule must be considered. Our rule book cannot cover all possible situations, because of the dynamics of our sport. The bottom line is that sometimes you have to make a decision. Hopefully that decision is made based on a solid knowledge and reading of the rules.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

I bet the writers of the weak hand/strong hand only rule never discussed "What if someone puts there hand on top of their shoulder, then lays their head over on top of their hand, and sort of pushes down and forms some sort of shooting position?", and here we are today discussing just that.

Exactly. If they had, we wouldn't be beating around with terms like "support".

[Gary Stevens]

I bet the writers of the weak hand/strong hand only rule never discussed "What if someone puts there hand on top of their shoulder, then lays their head over on top of their hand, and sort of pushes down and forms some sort of shooting position?", and here we are today discussing just that.

Exactly. If they had, we wouldn't be beating around with terms like "support".

So tell me the exact perfect word that will eliminate all doubt present or future as to what a shooter can and cannot do in this situation.

[Nik Habicht]

I bet the writers of the weak hand/strong hand only rule never discussed "What if someone puts there hand on top of their shoulder, then lays their head over on top of their hand, and sort of pushes down and forms some sort of shooting position?", and here we are today discussing just that.

Exactly. If they had, we wouldn't be beating around with terms like "support".

So tell me the exact perfect word that will eliminate all doubt present or future as to what a shooter can and cannot do in this situation.

I don't think Flex was saying what you think he was....

I'm pretty sure he was pointing out/reinforcing that it's impossible for the Board (as experienced, i.e. old, as some you may be) to consider every possibility that might arise in the future....

....in other words, there are no perfect words, and judgments will need to be made by ROs, CROs and RMs.....

[Flexmoney]

Gary,

Did I agree with you wrong?

[Gary Stevens]

Perhaps. When someone uses terms like "they wouldn't be beating around with words like support", I can't help but believe that the word "support" is wrong, especially when coupled with terms like beating around. I just naturally ask what is the right term.

My apologies. I'm offically a senior citizen now so I can legally be confused

[smokshwn]

The words used in the rules are also important. Support does not necessarily mean touch. Touching is definitely support, but can you support that arm in other ways and not quite be touching it? I think the answer is yes.

Troy

Then the rule as written should delineate what is considered support and what is not. For example do any of the various high performance sport garments qualify as support? Their advertising certainly indicates that they offer benefits.

http://www.shopadidas.com/product/index.js...85&colorId=

I am a much bigger fan of leaning heavily to the strict constructionist viewpoint. If after sitting in a room discussing and deliberating a point, it is difficult to clearly and concisely delineate the desired rule with the written word. Then it is probably even more unrealistic to hope that it will be fairly interpreted and applied.