Mr. Rove is under attack for things he might or might not have said, deliberately or as a casual aside, and he may have intended political conse
quences or it may have been a polite reply to a statement ... nawwww.
Front Page Magazine has a piece about Hanoi Jane and the lies she told. As a Vietnam Veteran I'm interested, but ....
.... no.
Front Page Magazine also reports that: The Palestinian Authority is NOT abiding by the roadmap to which they agreed to months ago, and the MSM (Main Stream Media) is reporting that"Isreal and the US insist" that the PA actively stop terrorists from attacking Israeli forces and civilians (instead of acknowledging that the PA agreed to this as one of the basic steps of The Roadmap), and Israeli counter attacks are being characterized as the response that
'... Effectively marked the end of a five-month truce ..."
... when it was Hamas which initiated the attacks.
Not.
No, I'm not going to talk about all of these world-shaking events.
Instead I'm going to talk about something a little bit more important:
How competitors and match directors really don't understand the way that IPSC rules govern the conduct of IPSC Competition in USPSA!
(Didn't I tell you, months ago, that this blogsite was going to deal with IPSC-related issues first?)
[NB: If you're not'in to IPSC rules', this article will hold very little interest for you.]
I attended a Level I IPSC Club Match in the United States Practical Shooting Association Region (USPSA/America) last weekend, and it was a very hot day. We all got a little cranky, and some of us lost track of what the IPSC/USPSA rule book said. Consequently, some really goofy things happened:
INCIDENT 1:
Stage four, with a bunch of steel and a bunch of cardboard targets.
Three shooting boxes; two close to the starting box, one far downrange.
Stage procedures: shoot the steel from a box, shoot the paper from OUTSIDE of the box.
Simple enough.
The scenario is, the shooter managed to follow the procedures for the first two boxes, but when she ran downrange she was suppose to shoot 6 steel targets from inside the box and 4 paper targets from outside the box.
When she finished her run to the general vicinity of Box "C", she stopped and enaged the paper targets.
Unfortunately, she began to engage the steel targets from the same position ... outside of the box.
The Range Officer stopped her, because it was ninty-five degrees in the shade and there was no shade.
Okay, brain fart. There was no safety issue involved, he should have kept his tater trap shut and let her finish the stage. As it happened, he HAD to give her a reshoot.
INCIDENT 2:
Same stage, same shooter, same RO.
On her SECOND run through the stage, the shooter did the same thing except that the RO didn't stop her. She engaged all of the paper targets in accordance to the Stage Procedures, then went back and engaged the steel targets from the same place ... outside the box.
She had engaged the paper targets 'behind' the box, and then had to step forward (closer to the targets) to engage the steel targets after engaging two of them from the 'wrong' position.
Again, she was standing BEHIND the box to engage the paper targets, and then stepped INTO the box to engage four of the six steel targets; which means that she did not engage the steel targets at a closer distance; no advantage gained.
The RO penalized her for BOTH shots at steel which were taken from a farther distance from the targets than the 'legal' shooting position.
I think this is a one-procedural situation:"per occurrence" rather than "per shot".
What do YOU think?
INCIDENT 3:
Same stage, different competior.
The shooter engaged all steel and all paper from the appropriate positions. However, he failed to knock down one of the steel targets from Box "B" (uprange of the"Box C" where the earlier problems occurred), and when he completed the course he declared that he had hit the steel target from Box "B" fairly but it had failed to drop; he called for a calibration on the steel target available from Box "B".
After some discussion, the steel was calibrated by engaging it with a 9mm pistol shooting 'factory ammunition'. The steel target was subsequently tested unofficially and found to be 'set really, really heavy!".
The competitor was informed that the steel failed calibration, which constituted Range Equipment Failure(R.E.F.). The competitor was informed that he was required to reshoot the stage due to R.E.F. but he demurred saying that he didn't have enough ammunition left to reshoot the stage and still complete the match.
The Match Director was called. He decided that it was acceptable that the overly heavy steel target could be judged a 'miss', the competitor was not required to reshoot the stage, and his (perhaps) legitimate 'hit' on that target should be ignored.
Discuss this MD ruling among yourselves. Consider that this was a Level I one match, and (according to rule 1.1.5.1 ) is "not required to comply strictly with freestyle limitations or roundcount limitations." Decide whether the MD made the correct decision. Don't forget to cite the applicable rules.
INCIDENT 4:
Stage 5: starting position is 'sitting in char, gun on barrel, hammer down".
Some competitors decide to start the stage with their first magazine in their hand.
The Match director, when the procedure is question, replies: "there are no references to ammunition in the stage procedures, therefore this start procedure is acceptable."
The current rules say:
8.2.3:
A course of fire must never require or allow a competitor to touch or hold a handgun, loading device or ammunition after the 'Standby' command and before the "Start Signal" (except for unavoidable touching with the lower arms).
Explain why the Match Director was allowed to ignore this rule, and why this is acceptable in a Level I match. Please cite specific rule references.
INCIDENT 5:
Same stage, different shooter.CONCLUSION:
The A-zone of one of the targets was 'edged' by a "No-Shoot" (penalty) target. The competitor's bullet hole was MOSTLY in the A-zone of the shoot-target, but it encroached upon the perforation of the overlapping "No-Shoot" target.
Upon examination, the Range Officer determined that the perforation of the no-shoot target had been infringed by the bullet-hole. (Note: the competitor was using Semi-Wadcutter bullets, which left an exceptionally clean demarcation of the bullet-hole on the targets.)
The competitor protested this call, on the grounds that the bullet did not 'cut' the perf on the no-shoot.
In support of this protest, the competitor cited rule 9.5.4:
Radial tears radiating outwards from the diameter of the bullet hole will not count for score or penalty.
Because the bullet hole was neatly incised upon both the shoot-target and the no-shoot target, and there was no evidence of a radial tear, this argument was ignored by the Range Officer.
The competitor was incensed by the Range Officer's decision, but offered no reason why rule 9.5.3* should not apply.
It was hot.
We were stupid.
We need more 'guidance' on this rule that says Level I matches get a free ride. Who knows what it means? What a STUPID rule!
US1.1.51.:
Level I matches are not required to comply strictly with the freestyle requirements or roundcount limitations.Because this rule exists, people are inclined to interpret it as meaning "you can do anything you want in a Level I match ... it says so in The Book!"
This is SO subject to misinterpretation, the rule ought to be excised from the next rule book version. The rule book should cite the rules which are specifically exempted from enforcement at this level of competition.
Well, it was a very HOT day, and we reacted to the environment by being exceptionally stupid.l
What can I say?
* 9.5.3:
If the bullet area touches both the perimeter of a scoring target and a penalty target, it will earn the score and incur the penalty.
6 comments:
The really sad thing is that the rules are getting as bad as the Tax Code, most of the time you just hope you are within the guidelines.......... Soon we will have to have our own offical rules translators on retainer.
IMHO:
Incident 1 - No comment, agree with RO brain fart diagnosis.
Incident 2 - 1 procedural for violating stage writeup, no significant advantage shooting from the location.
Incident 3 - Shooter is required to reshoot, based on range failure [steel calibration off]. But since he'd be unable to finish the match, that would produce a much heavier penalty. It's not a legal decision to score it as a miss, but extremely fair to the shooter. Moral of the story: (1) Bring enough ammo next match, (2) Keep your yap shut, or you might get what you asked for.
Incident 4:
Patently illegal starting position, by 8.2.3.
Incident 5:
Correct decision on scoring by RO [based on your description], but it should have been bumped to the MD for review of the scoring.
1.1.5.1 is fairly clear, IMHO, free style is defined in 1.1.5, the exemption allows a designer to force mandatory reloads, arbitrary strong or weak hand conditions, and use boxes with specific target engagement. In fact it does not give the shooter more options than the rulebook allows, it rather permits the designer to reduce options.
cliff meek
First off, I agree with jrhurd said.
In the case of incident 4, what is it with people? They are required by the rules to have read the rules which means that they know what they are doing is improper and they are just hoping someone else forgets or doesn't notice.
Sandbagging shits. Maybe they need some kid to come along and show them how it is done?
AK
Quick questions/comments on #3: If the steel failed (range equipment failure), wouldn't it KEEP failing? Shouldn't the stage be thrown out? Or, shouldn't the shooter be credited with an A, as steel should always fall apon hit (was this changed w/ new book?)?
Where is the link to the searchable rulebook?
John, we DO have an official rules translator on retainer. His name is John Amidon.
Overload:
USPSA has the current rulebook up as a PDF file on their website at: www.uspsa.org
It should be searchable if you have a recent copy of the Acrobat software, which is available free on the net. The download link can be found on tens of thousands of websites, including (I believe) the USPSA website.
Re comments on #3 (steel target failed to fall when fairly hit):
The adjustment of the Pepper Popper had gradually worked loose; we were the 4th squad to shoot the stage. It just got to the point that the Popper was leaning so far forward, it would require a very high hit with a major power cartridge to knock it down. After we had calibrated it, and a 9mm in the center of the circle failed to make the steel fall, we checked the Popper and discovered how far out of adjustment it was. We re-adjusted the target, and it worked fine as far as I know for the rest of the match. There was no need to throw the stage out. The shooter was using a .45acp, and that didn't knock it down; the previous shooter was using a .38 super, and that DID knock it down. Nobody else was affected.
I agree with Stan that it's a good idea to bring enough ammo in case you need to reshoot a stage or two or three. I usually bring at least 50% more than I need, and usually twice as much. But I've still found myself sweating reshoots.
War story: at a Crazy Crock Match (12 stages, 600 rounds) I had to shoot one 50-round stage FOUR TIMES before I got a clean run ... that's 200 rounds for one stage. Actually, a little less, because I was stopped before I shot the last target.
What happened was that there was a drop-turner on the left side which was activated by shooting a Pepper Popper on the right side of the stage. Before I got to the place where I could engage the Pepper Popper, there were about 15 targets to be engaged from a ramp running laterally across the bay. One of the targets in that batch was set low, and my height was just the right height that when I shot an A-hit at that target, it would hit the ground behind it and kick up a lot of gravel ... which sprayed into the cable between the Pepper Popper and the drop-turner. The Popper did't go down, but when I swung around to engage the drop-turner, it had already completed its cycle and had disappeared.
Range Equipment failure.
The first time we figure it just hadn't been reset. The second time, we assumed that it had been set wrong. The third time, we guessed what had happened and I had people watching the drop-turner, so we knew what had happened. The fourth time, I crouched WAY DOWN LOW when I shot at that low target, and my A-zone shots hit the ground beyond the cable, and I was able to complete the stage.
This hadn't happened to anybody else, so they decided to keep the stage in the match and never had any other problems. Apparently, it was A Geek Thing.
NOte: it's a bad idea to run activator cables behind targets. I once saw SWMBO shoot right through a steel cable ... snapped it with a single shot. It had been placed so it wouldn't be hit by bullets (this was at the same range as the earlier incident), but when she hit the activating Pepper Popper the cable recoiled just high enough that it was as high as the A-zone of the target she engaged next. She just indexed to the next target so quickly, she got the shot off before the flying cable hit the ground.
We gave her style points, and replaced the cable before the next shooter.
Post a Comment