I had mentioned that there were recent discussions on the Brian Enos forums, and they seemed typical of the confusion caused by the current verbiage of the 1.2.1 set of rules. However, I was unable to find those threads, although I did describe them in general terms.
One of these correspondants did his own search, and found them.
I offer them here for your own personal evaluation.
I went back to the BE Forum and did find a post ... outlining the 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3 "official" rules interpretation (actually more of a rule change) the Rules Committee made in Bali.
First match under the Geen Book, rules 1.2.1.2 and 1.21..3 (page 2 of 3)
Basically, the change to both 1.1.1.2 and 1.2.1.3 is "nor allow a competitor toeliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or viewshoot at all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view."This is consistent with JA's "interpretation" provided to the both of us. I agree with you that, however we got there, we've got a rule we can live with.I believe the rules discussion you referenced is:
Green Book Head Scratchers , 1.2.1.2/3, how many rounds and from where?
It is interesting to follow the evolution of the interpretation of that rule!
Without sounding smug, I believe these dialogues demonstrate that the people who wrote the rules, and who are responsible for maintaining them, realized when it was brought to their attention by OUTSIDE SOURCES that they didn't have the perspective within their own group to see that the rules could have seriously negative effects upon the Freestyle approach to IPSC.
Over the past 14 months, I have repeatedly railed against the unilateral imposition of major rules changes. Part of the reason I objected so vociferously was because I didn't believe that the rules were adequately reviewed; the way these changes affected competition wasn't usually identified, because the folks who were reviewing the changes had a "this will work!" mindset instead of looking for ways that the rules could cause problems during competition.
Another part of the reason why I have been so critical is that the IPSC and, specifically, the USPSA membership was not given adequate notification before the rules were enacted, which means there was insufficient time to find these little 'bloopers' and take care of them before the new rules were 'carved in stone'.
I present this evidence of ex post facto discussion to illustrate the folly of arbitrarily and unilaterally presenting ANY changes to competitive rules without establishing an effective review process. More, I submit that the organizational membership must necessarily be allowe to assume the responsibility for reviewing these changes, if only to avoid the embarassing situation in which we now find ourselves. Some of the rules which have been enacted are plainly not applicable to the USPSA competitive milieu.
In the actual event, so many changes were made in the current edition of the rule book that we (the membership) would possibly not have been able to discern that some of the most low-profile changes can have a major effect upon competition. This section of the rules is the most blatant of this type, although I fear it is perhaps not the ONLY set of rules which could undermine the way we run IPSC matches tomorrow.
My comments are admittedly vague. Please go to the referenced URLs, follow the discussions, and see for yourself whether the cited rules contain verbiage which clarify an existing problem, or add new problems which we have never before had to deal with.
And ask yourself whether you are satisfied with the way new competitive rules are evolved and reviewed.
For myself, the answer is a resounding NO WAY, DUDE!
Over the past 14 months, I have repeatedly railed against the unilateral imposition of major rules changes. Part of the reason I objected so vociferously was because I didn't believe that the rules were adequately reviewed; the way these changes affected competition wasn't usually identified, because the folks who were reviewing the changes had a "this will work!" mindset instead of looking for ways that the rules could cause problems during competition.
Another part of the reason why I have been so critical is that the IPSC and, specifically, the USPSA membership was not given adequate notification before the rules were enacted, which means there was insufficient time to find these little 'bloopers' and take care of them before the new rules were 'carved in stone'.
I present this evidence of ex post facto discussion to illustrate the folly of arbitrarily and unilaterally presenting ANY changes to competitive rules without establishing an effective review process. More, I submit that the organizational membership must necessarily be allowe to assume the responsibility for reviewing these changes, if only to avoid the embarassing situation in which we now find ourselves. Some of the rules which have been enacted are plainly not applicable to the USPSA competitive milieu.
In the actual event, so many changes were made in the current edition of the rule book that we (the membership) would possibly not have been able to discern that some of the most low-profile changes can have a major effect upon competition. This section of the rules is the most blatant of this type, although I fear it is perhaps not the ONLY set of rules which could undermine the way we run IPSC matches tomorrow.
My comments are admittedly vague. Please go to the referenced URLs, follow the discussions, and see for yourself whether the cited rules contain verbiage which clarify an existing problem, or add new problems which we have never before had to deal with.
And ask yourself whether you are satisfied with the way new competitive rules are evolved and reviewed.
For myself, the answer is a resounding NO WAY, DUDE!
No comments:
Post a Comment