Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71
  1. #41
    Master riverman67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Morgan County
    Posts
    3,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Bosshoss View Post
    Don't get so hung up on rules. I had the fortune to give procedurals to the head of NROI and he said I was wrong and I called the RM he agreed with the shooter. The president of USPSA disagreed with the shooter and RM. Long discussion at RM golf cart with rule book out. I had shooters to run so I didn't hear or care about the discussion.
    I still had reasons for my call but they disagreed. Later they come back and said it was something different than what was originally discussed.
    So if 3 of the biggest shots in the sport can't agree and have to use the rule book and still have 3 different opinions they can't expect us weekend RO's to know every little detail in the rulebook and make a call in a matter of seconds with confidence.
    (I still think I was right by the way)
    Exactly
    Too many of our rules make no damn sense.
    If three people that are pretty familiar with the rules sit down with the rule book and come up with different answers something is wrong
    Luddite Crumudgeon #1

  2. #42
    The rulebook should be the end of it. There should be very interpretation needed.
    No one is stronger or more dangerous than the man who can harness his emotions.

    www.BrightFirearmsTraining.com

    Drawing from the holster is permitted at Parabellum.

    abright@ccrtc.com


  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    The rulebook should be the end of it. There should be very interpretation needed.
    I agree completely. We should be able to look at the book and say yes or no you can do something.

  4. #44
    The problem is so many people in positions of power (match directors, range masters, RMI) want things to go their way and the make rulings that cannot be supported by the rule book.

    At the SNS 400 we had an AD by an Open shooter on our stage. It hit the port the shooter was going up to but was in the general direction of the target. The RMI (Gary Johnson) clearly taught a batch of new RO's that this was not a DQ. (Happygunner loves to talk about GJ) The RO stopped shooter. The RO watching and the 180 and I agreed that it was not a DQ and we both saw this happen.

    Troy told the RO that he would have stopped the shooter and Dq'ed him. (I feel like the RO descibed the situation a little differently than it happened) The first step is that the RMI corp needs to be on the same page. The second step is that ruling needs to be much less frequent and the rules be where things start and stop. I think fewer rules would be better. Things such as squarely uprange and down range are a waste of time and are present to limit gaming. Gaming is a part of the game. Don't be so liberal and let people have some fun.
    No one is stronger or more dangerous than the man who can harness his emotions.

    www.BrightFirearmsTraining.com

    Drawing from the holster is permitted at Parabellum.

    abright@ccrtc.com


  5. #45
    Somewhat Purple-ish rhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    22,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    The problem is so many people in positions of power (match directors, range masters, RMI) want things to go their way and the make rulings that cannot be supported by the rule book.

    At the SNS 400 we had an AD by an Open shooter on our stage. It hit the port the shooter was going up to but was in the general direction of the target. The RMI (Gary Johnson) clearly taught a batch of new RO's that this was not a DQ. (Happygunner loves to talk about GJ) The RO stopped shooter. The RO watching and the 180 and I agreed that it was not a DQ and we both saw this happen.

    Troy told the RO that he would have stopped the shooter and Dq'ed him. (I feel like the RO descibed the situation a little differently than it happened) The first step is that the RMI corp needs to be on the same page. The second step is that ruling needs to be much less frequent and the rules be where things start and stop. I think fewer rules would be better. Things such as squarely uprange and down range are a waste of time and are present to limit gaming. Gaming is a part of the game. Don't be so liberal and let people have some fun.
    Did Troy cite a rule that would justify a DQ in this case?

    We definitely need fewer rules. Safety rules plus front and back of one 8.5x11 sheet of paper to cover everything else should suffice.



    "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
    INDIANA CONSTITUTION
    Article 1 - Bill of Rights - Section 32

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    To prevail you must ACT!

  6. #46
    Grandmaster rvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    IN (a refugee from MD)
    Posts
    5,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    The rulebook should be the end of it. There should be very [little?] interpretation needed.
    Quote Originally Posted by rhino View Post
    We definitely need fewer rules. Safety rules plus front and back of one 8.5x11 sheet of paper to cover everything else should suffice.
    These two ideas are largely mutually exclusive.

    I think the current book is pretty close to that ideal balance of not covering every single imaginable situation (which would required something the size of volume 1 of one of those old encyclopedia Britannica books they used to sell door to door) and being too simple which would leave LOTS of situations up the discretion of the match officials.

    There will always be interpretation issues, strange situations, new equipment and techniques... you'll never get away from that no matter how simple, or how detailed we make the book. That's why we have an appeal processes that ends with a "jury of your peers" for most issues.

    One of the biggest problems in regards to uspsa rules is stability. A simple change, like adding a definition for "Facing Downrange," can cause years of interpretation issues, un-necessary reshoots, require addition of more rules, etc... It seems like the last few years, we've had a stability problem, especially in areas where it didn't seem real problems existed (like Facing Downrange or the wall height issue or production hammers) without regards to the ripple effect.

    Personally, I hate this stuff. I hate working matches because of it. And it's worse now than years past, because now heaven forbid you forget about exception x.y.a.b.c.n.q or didn't read the whole 87 page thread on Enos and your 'mistake' ends up on Enos and Doodie and Ingo and youtube and facebook and people are now bashing you and the match as a whole... What It comes down to is we have to do the best we can, be confident in our call while being open to things we hadn't considered, and otherwise let the shooter work w/in the appeals process, while realizing the interpretations of these obscure situations may not always end in the same result...

    -rvb
    Ryan V. B. TY56060 Come shoot USPSA w Ft Wayne Area Practical Shooters: www.facebook.com/fwuspsa

  7. #47
    one happy gunner happygunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    4 Seasons
    Posts
    2,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    The problem is so many people in positions of power (match directors, range masters, RMI) want things to go their way and the make rulings that cannot be supported by the rule book.

    At the SNS 400 we had an AD by an Open shooter on our stage. It hit the port the shooter was going up to but was in the general direction of the target. The RMI (Gary Johnson) clearly taught a batch of new RO's that this was not a DQ. (Happygunner loves to talk about GJ) The RO stopped shooter. The RO watching and the 180 and I agreed that it was not a DQ and we both saw this happen.

    Troy told the RO that he would have stopped the shooter and Dq'ed him. (I feel like the RO descibed the situation a little differently than it happened) The first step is that the RMI corp needs to be on the same page. The second step is that ruling needs to be much less frequent and the rules be where things start and stop. I think fewer rules would be better. Things such as squarely uprange and down range are a waste of time and are present to limit gaming. Gaming is a part of the game. Don't be so liberal and let people have some fun.
    Was the AD during reload or on the move but not aiming?

  8. #48
    Somewhat Purple-ish rhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    22,561
    Well, if current practices continue, you are correct.

    However, if there are only a few rules and someone does something that is not addressed by it, then RO should stick with the fact that there is no "call" to make. Not address by the rules? Then it's okay.



    Quote Originally Posted by rvb View Post
    These two ideas are largely mutually exclusive.

    I think the current book is pretty close to that ideal balance of not covering every single imaginable situation (which would required something the size of volume 1 of one of those old encyclopedia Britannica books they used to sell door to door) and being too simple which would leave LOTS of situations up the discretion of the match officials.

    There will always be interpretation issues, strange situations, new equipment and techniques... you'll never get away from that no matter how simple, or how detailed we make the book. That's why we have an appeal processes that ends with a "jury of your peers" for most issues.

    One of the biggest problems in regards to uspsa rules is stability. A simple change, like adding a definition for "Facing Downrange," can cause years of interpretation issues, un-necessary reshoots, require addition of more rules, etc... It seems like the last few years, we've had a stability problem, especially in areas where it didn't seem real problems existed (like Facing Downrange or the wall height issue or production hammers) without regards to the ripple effect.

    Personally, I hate this stuff. I hate working matches because of it. And it's worse now than years past, because now heaven forbid you forget about exception x.y.a.b.c.n.q or didn't read the whole 87 page thread on Enos and your 'mistake' ends up on Enos and Doodie and Ingo and youtube and facebook and people are now bashing you and the match as a whole... What It comes down to is we have to do the best we can, be confident in our call while being open to things we hadn't considered, and otherwise let the shooter work w/in the appeals process, while realizing the interpretations of these obscure situations may not always end in the same result...

    -rvb



    "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
    INDIANA CONSTITUTION
    Article 1 - Bill of Rights - Section 32

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    To prevail you must ACT!

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by happygunner View Post
    Was the AD during reload or on the move but not aiming?
    On the move. Could count for aiming. The gun was eye level. It was before he was ready. You know what your boy said at the RO class.
    No one is stronger or more dangerous than the man who can harness his emotions.

    www.BrightFirearmsTraining.com

    Drawing from the holster is permitted at Parabellum.

    abright@ccrtc.com


  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Bosshoss View Post
    Don't get so hung up on rules. I had the fortune to give procedurals to the head of NROI and he said I was wrong and I called the RM he agreed with the shooter. The president of USPSA disagreed with the shooter and RM. Long discussion at RM golf cart with rule book out. I had shooters to run so I didn't hear or care about the discussion.
    I still had reasons for my call but they disagreed. Later they come back and said it was something different than what was originally discussed.
    So if 3 of the biggest shots in the sport can't agree and have to use the rule book and still have 3 different opinions they can't expect us weekend RO's to know every little detail in the rulebook and make a call in a matter of seconds with confidence.
    (I still think I was right by the way)
    I actually think it should have been 6
    4 for stacking
    1 for each string for not following the procedure

    "Well Jakey, it's a bit ambitious" -Ken Skeeters

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •