USPSA ruling discussion.

[Grelber]

The reason someone mentioned IDPA is that people playing the "rules game" is exactly why people left USPSA for IDPA.

Somebody really left - insert any known or rumored human or animal activity here - for IDPA, in order to get away from rules issues???

 

[Tanfodude]

Somebody really left - insert any known or rumored human or animal activity here - for IDPA, in order to get away from rules issues???

I'd rather shoot Coach's carry gun match than IDPga... er A.

 

[Bosshoss]

So in your mind the squib wasn't engaging?
I disagree

Definition of "engaging" as per rule book:
(As in “engaging a target”) A competitor is actively aiming at andfiring at least one shot at a target that is within view, not throughwalls or other barriers/obstacles except soft cover.

Definition of "shot" as per rule book:
A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm.

 

[riverman67]

Ok I'm wrong
You win
I'll still call it two Mike's

 

[Twangbanger]

Ok I'm wrong
You win
I'll still call it two Mike's

Attaboy.

This was never about understanding the definitions of words. I think we can all read and comprehend. Robots can follow rules. This is about the difference between a Robot and a thinking human.

I wouldn't care if somebody called it on me. If I had a squib, I'd say whatever happened was my fault for having crappy equipment. But I don't think I'd call it on someone else, based on what I know. Admittedly, I have more to see and more to learn.

And as an aside, if we're quibbling, I think the idea that whether or not you get a hardass literalist interpretation depends on your status in the local pecking order and how much you volunteer there (ie, favoritism), is frankly more of an affront to the system of rules than the original question Happygunner posed. You may not like my interpretation of rules, but if the situation is the same, I will apply them the same to everybody.

 

[Grelber]

This was never about understanding the definitions of words. I think we can all read and comprehend. Robots can follow rules. This is about the difference between a Robot and a thinking human.



And as an aside, if we're quibbling, I think the idea that whether or not you get a hardass literalist interpretation depends on your status in the local pecking order and how much you volunteer there (ie, favoritism), is frankly more of an affront to the system of rules than the original question Happygunner posed. You may not like my interpretation of rules, but if the situation is the same, I will apply them the same to everybody.

So what you are saying is that Bosshoss is like Neil Gorsuch and Riverman67 is like Ruth Bader Ginsberg??

 

[Tanfodude]

. Here we go. I was waiting for you to start something.

And too late, I already read "Chimpanzees follow rules" Instead of robots. I'm a chimpanzee for following the rules. Chimpanzees have fun too, when I ****, I can pick it up and throw it at anyone.

 

[riverman67]

Attaboy.

This was never about understanding the definitions of words. I think we can all read and comprehend. Robots can follow rules. This is about the difference between a Robot and a thinking human.

I wouldn't care if somebody called it on me. If I had a squib, I'd say whatever happened was my fault for having crappy equipment. But I don't think I'd call it on someone else, based on what I know. Admittedly, I have more to see and more to learn.

And as an aside, if we're quibbling, I think the idea that whether or not you get a hardass literalist interpretation depends on your status in the local pecking order and how much you volunteer there (ie, favoritism), is frankly more of an affront to the system of rules than the original question Happygunner posed. You may not like my interpretation of rules, but if the situation is the same, I will apply them the same to everybody.

I would call it the same for everyone
Even happygunner
Who you are shouldn't matter, it doesn't to me.
They are correct in what they are saying and the definitions they are quoting.

The scenario happygunner used was used to specially highlight this little snafu.
It is unlikely that this exact scenario would happen.

If it happened and I was the RO standing on the stage. I would call 2 Mike's

I'm going to have to do some research into when an FTE became a FTSA
That's when this got screwed up

 

[riverman67]

So what you are saying is that Bosshoss is like Neil Gorsuch and Riverman67 is like Ruth Bader Ginsberg??

My brother says I'm liberal

 

[Twangbanger]

. Here we go. I was waiting for you to start something.

And too late, I already read "Chimpanzees follow rules" Instead of robots. I'm a chimpanzee for following the rules. Chimpanzees have fun too, when I ****, I can pick it up and throw it at anyone. ​

Hap, did you ever say / write something, and upon further reflection, think better of it? That's what happened in my case. It wasn't directed at you, and I found a word which better captured my meaning. I apologize for any offense, and that was not my intent.

I would be interested to know: do you think the rules should be changed to address the situation you described? I do, and assumed we all did. But that may not be the case. In my comments above, I am interpreting this permutation of the rules to be an unfortunate case of where the wording of a definition creates a situation which was not intended. But maybe I am wrong. If NROI were to "double down" on this interpretation upon having the question posed to them, then I would have no choice but to do as you are saying, and apply the rule as stated. But I have a hard time believing that's really the intent of the rules.

One possible "solution" which draws upon the experience of other disciplines, is that this seems like a "disabled gun" type of situation, and perhaps it could be clarified that "No FT_ procedural shall be assessed in cases where the failure in question was due to a disabled gun." Or similar. I cannot see the benefit to the sport, of loading up a shooter with additional "hate crime" procedurals on top of something like this. (Unless we're talking about the example I gave above, arising from a hideous stage design. But it's still awfully contrived). It seems to me that where a competitor could conceivably gain competitive advantage by just taking the mikes, that's the kind of situation "FT_" should be designed to counteract. Preventing gamesmanship. But somebody's gun or ammo simply pukes before the end of the stage, and there is obviously no intent to game the system? I really do not see the point.

On a different slant, does anybody know the intent behind the aforementioned stipulation of giving the shooter a re-shoot if the RO stops him on a squib? Why is this case treated differently from another type of malfunction? I think if your equipment is faulty, in "practical" competition this should have a cost to the competitor. If I am missing something, I beg instruction and correction. ​

So what you are saying is that Bosshoss is like Neil Gorsuch and Riverman67 is like Ruth Bader Ginsberg??

I have no knowledge of him falling asleep on the job...but no, I was really saying he's like Judge Wapner. And Boss is like the judge who makes kids walk down the street carrying "thief" signs. And I'm Judge Judy. Or. Something.

 

[Trapper Jim]

Somebody really left - insert any known or rumored human or animal activity here - for IDPA, in order to get away from rules issues???

I'd rather shoot Coach's carry gun match than IDPga... er A.

p

In the tune of self improvement one mIght want to rethink shooting only
what he’s partial too. The success of both games prove their merit.

 

[Tanfodude]

p

In the tune of self improvement one mIght want to rethink shooting only
what he’s partial too. The success of both games prove their merit.

I hear ya. I wanted to try IDPA but after reading the rules, I just didn't bother. Coach's carry gun matches adheres more to the principle of real world applications IMO, not the 10 round limit and can only reload on slide lock/empty gun rules.

 

[downrange72]

Every winter you have to start one of these threads...Every winter I contemplate letting my RO go.

Jeff is liberal...but I agree, 2 Mike's.

Seems like the new rules made many things a lot worse. Maybe I will shoot idpa from now on. Lol

 

[Bosshoss]

First this:

One possible "solution" which draws upon the experience of other disciplines, is that this seems like a "disabled gun" type of situation, and perhaps it could be clarified that "No FT_ procedural shall be assessed in cases where the failure in question was due to a disabled gun." But somebody's gun or ammo simply pukes before the end of the stage, and there is obviously no intent to game the system? I really do not see the point.

Then this:
I think if your equipment is faulty, in "practical" competition this should have a cost to the competitor. If I am missing something, I beg instruction and correction. ​

I'm really confused now Judge Judy.


I have no knowledge of him falling asleep on the job...but no, I was really saying he's like Judge Wapner. And Boss is like the judge who makes kids walk down the street carrying "thief" signs. And I'm Judge Judy. Or. Something.

The squib rule has been around for over 25 years and not sure why they would change it now.
If you want to read it rule 5.7.7 and 5.7.7.1 and 5.7.7.2 explains it and I don't have to type it out.


I didn't make the rules and I sure don't agree with some of them but they are there for a reason.

I'm not smart enough to be a Judge. Hell I'm not smart enough to bring a autoloader to the match.

 

[Coach]

Not following the rules is being a dick.
Does not matter what level. It is being a dick.
There are plenty of dicks at all levels.

 

[Bosshoss]

This^^^^^

 

[Coach]

I hate some of the rules but will do my best to play by them and to RO according to them.

 

[Twangbanger]

The squib rule has been around for over 25 years and not sure why they would change it now.
If you want to read it rule 5.7.7 and 5.7.7.1 and 5.7.7.2 explains it and I don't have to type it out.


I didn't make the rules and I sure don't agree with some of them but they are there for a reason.

I'm not smart enough to be a Judge. Hell I'm not smart enough to bring a autoloader to the match.

Fortunately, I can click faster than I can type (emphasis mine):

"...5.7.7 In the event that a Range Officer terminates a course of fire due to a suspicion that a competitor has an unsafe firearm or unsafe ammunition (e.g. a “squib” load), the Range Officer will take whatever steps he deems necessary to return both the competitor and the range to a safe condition. The Range Officer will then inspect the firearm or ammunition and proceed as follows:
5.7.7.1 If the Range Officer finds evidence that confirms the suspected problem, the competitor will not be entitled to a reshoot, but will be ordered to rectify the problem. On the competitor’s score sheet, the time will be recorded up to the last shot fired, and the course of fire will be scored “as shot”, including all applicable misses and penalties.
5.7.7.2 If the Range Officer discovers that the suspected safety problem does not exist, the competitor will be required to reshoot the stage..."

I cannot see that this really addresses the question which has been posed.

In the absence of the rule, I suppose somebody could theoretically have a squib on every stage, and technically run up a winning hit factor without engaging half the targets in the match (and can see how IDPA shooters might think this makes their scoring system "better"). But it seems unlikely, and the other end of this conundrum seems much more common: someone is unable to complete a stage, and is slathered up with all kinds of anti-gaming penalties, who is in fact making no effort to game anything.

 

[Trapper Jim]

I hear ya. I wanted to try IDPA but after reading the rules, I just didn't bother. Coach's carry gun matches adheres more to the principle of real world applications IMO, not the 10 round limit and can only reload on slide lock/empty gun rules.

Not purposely trying to disagree but as far as real world goes there is no sport that comes close unless we crap our pants at the buzzer. Regardless of the park your playing in, the more trigger time you can get in with the most uncomfortable pressure zones presented are the experience you get when you don’t get what you want. I have seen the same prejudice between Trap and Skeet and all the other games I play. For me, it’s the arena of shooting and the more I challenge myself, the fun and experience is what I take away. Street gear specific high pressure training is another way to test yourself. When I’m on a plane I hope the pilot has skill but I also need him to have motivation. Let’s all have the motivation to step up and challenge ourselves by supporting every shooting sport we can. The take away from it will be rewarding even if you don’t win your division that day. Giving up is easy.

 

[Twangbanger]

Not purposely trying to disagree but as far as real world goes there is no sport that comes close unless we **** our pants at the buzzer. Regardless of the park your playing in, the more trigger time you can get in with the most uncomfortable pressure zones presented are the experience you get when you don’t get what you want. I have seen the same prejudice between Trap and S(***)t and all the other games I play. For me, it’s the arena of shooting and the more I challenge myself, the fun and experience is what I take away. Street gear specific high pressure training is another way to test yourself. When I’m on a plane I hope the pilot has skill but I also need him to have motivation. Let’s all have the motivation to step up and challenge ourselves by supporting every shooting sport we can. The take away from it will be rewarding even if you don’t win your division that day. Giving up is easy.

I had a feeling something was not right with you...