USPSA ruling discussion.

[Trapper Jim]

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

Thank you. I carefully consider all opinions.

 

[M0244]

Subjectivity Is Not An Option - The Shooters Mindset

Was shooting in the dark earlier, at the time I responded I hadn't realized a new set of rules and app had been published, I still stand by what I said. Shooting sports should include sportsmanship and fun, if it wasn't fun I think most of us would sell all our gear and do something else; the vast majority of us do not get paid to shoot and I can do that by my lonesome.

In lien with the article I linked above, I agree the rules are the rules, and should be universally applied by educated RO's. Where there is any perceived room for interpretation and trepidation, like t'was mentioned NROI is an email away. Request for clarification after the fact but on the stage wether you're the RO making the call or the shooter being affected there's no need to make it personal; make the call and if necessary request for a RM and hope for the best.

 

[Trapper Jim]

All this reminded me of the recent hoopla in the NFL regarding a missed-call. Matches have been won and lost by missed calls. We accept them as collateral damage until we find something better. However at the end of the day we are blessed to have those to step forward to officiate us safely thru the course. IMHO NROI trumps IDPA for the best job of consistency in training for calls, however one only has to watch closely as missed finger calls abide in both associations. We are at a better level now than then and hope to be at a better level later than now.

 

[jwo483]

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

Although you admit you've never actually shot IDPA. Prejudice without experience equals ignorance.

 

[Grelber]

Although you admit you've never actually shot IDPA. Prejudice without experience equals ignorance.

If the tutu covers the holster would the guy still need a fishing vest?

 

[Cowboy1629]

You can still see his gun.

 

[sv40sw45]

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.

 

[rvb]

agree with the 2M+FTSA for all match levels

So in your mind the squib wasn't engaging?
I disagree
Was it picked up on the timer?
This shooter already has 2 Mike's plus the time they took dicking with their gun.
I'm going to get a lot of FTSA if I have to hit the targets as well as engage them

Would you argue against an FTSA if the shooter didn't realize they were out of ammo and dryfired at the target? It's not about intent; we can't say "I intended to engage the target." So you get the FTSA. Just like if you actually engage the target but miss, you can't say "I intended to hit it." You get the miss.....

-rvb

 

[rvb]

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

I started in IDPA and came to USPSA, and one of the reasons was the USPSA rules and how consistently they are applied both at different match levels and throughout the country. Yes, USPSA may have a bigger rule book, but that's just because they address more situations and leave less up to the staff to guess about. And while I have not shot USPSA nationals to fairly compare, I did shoot an IDPA nationals, and it was an absolute mess from a rules enforcement standpoint. I don't doubt USPSA still has some issues as humans are involved (and some rules could be written more clearly w/ less room for interpretation or personal judgment), but I think generally ROs/CROs/RMs TRY to apply the rules correctly.

I.D.P.A. = I Don't Participate Anymore

Sometimes the USPSA rules knock you hard for seemingly minor things. It doesn't take much to oops and zero a stage. I learned some hard lessons coming up through the ranks, but rather than complain about whether the racked up penalties felt "fair," I thought "I'm not making THAT mistake again!" So yea, sorry you have to eat a penalty in addition to the mikes... bet you'll spend a little more attention to your ammo loading!

2c

-rvb

 

[longbeard]

Rules should be followed, but who can f**king remember all of them. You get into stuff like this it's probably best to be a shooter who really knows the book so you can argue a call. Otherwise you're getting what the reasonably informed volunteer calls, and you'll take it.

 

[jakemartens]

Aight folks, it's that time again.

Scenario.

Shooter is on the last target, points gun at the target presses the trigger. Just a click sound, second press went squib. Upon inspection, sure enough, bullet was still in the barrel.

What is the call on the last target, is it just a 2 mike or 2 mike and FTSA?

Per rulebook.

Shot A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm.

Engaging (As in “engaging a target”) A competitor is actively aiming at and firing at least one shot at a target that is within view, not through walls or other barriers/obstacles except soft cover.

Is this target available from any other position anywhere during the curse of fire?

 

[Tanfodude]

Let's say 2 positions, part of an array at 10yrds. One being more advantageous in time and accuracy, the other, at least 30yrds.

 

[Tanfodude]

Although you admit you've never actually shot IDPA. Prejudice without experience equals ignorance.

See succeeding posts as to why. To respond without knowing the reason behind the action is ignorance.

 

[jakemartens]

Let's say 2 positions, part of an array at 10yrds. One being more advantageous in time and accuracy, the other, at least 30yrds.

were you watching my gun or the targets I was shooting at?
Did I shoot at it from another position?
what did your scorekeeper see?
are you 100% certain that I didn’t shoot at from another spot?

 

[rvb]

there is AWAYS the caveat that you have to be 100% certain.

sometimes there is only one position you can see the target from (and maybe they don't go there, for example).

sometimes you know what targets they engaged from other positions w/o "extra" rounds that could have been put on the target in question.

sometimes you loose track, especially when they have make-up shots, or have an unusual plan, or you can't follow close enough to know what they are engaging, or you're tired and dehydrated, etc... then you can't be 100% certain or give the penalty.

I'd think for the sake of this discussion we can assume we are 100% certain it wasn't engaged...

-rvb

 

[Tanfodude]

were you watching my gun or the targets I was shooting at?
Did I shoot at it from another position?
what did your scorekeeper see?
are you 100% certain that I didn’t shoot at from another spot?

If I'm ROing, it's not hard to see what you're engaging. But I get what you're trying to go for, especially a 30 yard shot in this scenario.

 

[Trapper Jim]

".since we are talking rules...



• Suitable for everyday use. “Race gun” typeholster prohibited Taken from the the Production and Single Stack Appendix View attachment 74622

I have never seen a this rig in every day carry??? How does NROI justify this?

 

[blkrifle]

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. ​

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.

It's in the rule book how to make this call. No need for ro interpretation. Nothing in the rule book on ro interpretation. We all should strive to make the right call knowing that sometimes we will fail.

 

[Coach]

".since we are talking rules...



• Suitable for everyday use. “Race gun” typeholster prohibited Taken from the the Production and Single Stack Appendix View attachment 74622

I have never seen a this rig in every day carry??? How does NROI justify this?

The word Practical should come out of the name.

 

[Twangbanger]

It's in the rule book how to make this call. No need for ro interpretation. Nothing in the rule book on ro interpretation. We all should strive to make the right call knowing that sometimes we will fail.

You are correct sir. I have gained a better understanding of the rules just by having this discussion and thinking it through.