Marked up version of IPSC 2012 Handgun Rules

[stormbringer]

I think 3-2-1 ratio is a guidep

you think wroing.
It used to be a guide......as it was recommended.

NOW it is mandatory.

and if someone comes with 1-1-1 at level III based on limited space to have new proper ratio match shall get sanctioned.

It doe not say anything of the sort.

Also, how often we run (at least in Ontario) LIII matches with more then 250 rounds?

Non at my club if they start to enforce this rule. At least none that I am MD of that is certain.

For me problem lays in standardization of IPSC to fit all and loosing free style from the game. Rules may kill the game and someone can start something new and exciting or IPSC members will eventually change the leadership.
Who knows??

You are describing MULTIGUN my friend!

 

[Madness]

3-2-1 is rather simple when it comes to a level 2, here's my take on it. I'm going to do what I want, you can sanction it and get a cut of the match fees or you can not sanction it get nothing and I'm still going to run the match.

 

[hungrybeagle]

you think wroing.
It used to be a guide......as it was recommended.

NOW it is mandatory.

1.2.1.4 The recommended balance for an IPSC sanctioned match is a ratio of 3 Short Courses to 2 Medium Courses to 1 Long Course. Where possible, it is further recommended that no single COF in a match represents more than 15% of the total match points available. Significant variance from this ratio will not be approved by IPSC.

Odd, but I still read it as recommended...

Edit: And the phrase "Significant variance" leads me to believe that minor deviations from 3:2:1 are okay.

 

[PeterPan]

you think wroing.
It used to be a guide......as it was recommended.

NOW it is mandatory.



It doe not say anything of the sort.




Non at my club if they start to enforce this rule. At least none that I am MD of that is certain.




You are describing MULTIGUN my friend!

Storm,
ask Pinto why it doesn't say, I am pretty sure they closing eyes on other issues which are in book.

 

[Freedom Ventures]

Odd, but I still read it as recommended...

Edit: And the phrase "Significant variance" leads me to believe that minor deviations from 3:2:1 are okay.

Yeah, we won that one too during the summer. Chris, you''re 100% correct.

The ratio for the 2011 WORLD SHOOT was 1:1:1 so if a Level V match does not have to abide by the rules how on earth can they try to force clubs with level II or Level III to do so.

No, the World Shoot was exactly a 3 Short to 2 Medium to 1 Long balance, (15-10-5) going by the new round count definitions in the 2012 rules. (Nick chose to use that part of the stage rules as a test there.) It was a big improvement over the previous two world shoots for round count variety.

12 rounds for short, 24 for mediums and 32 for long (Maximums!) as a definition would have got the majority of matches submitted for L3 approval last year approved for balance without requesting changes from the designers.

I'm sorry to let you guys know, and I'll likely be flamed for it, but between the change in definitions and the backing off of the "Mandatory" balance; IPSC actually made it easier to make the kind of matches that you seem to want. (Or at least the version ones of L3s coming across my desk seem to want...)

 

[SVISTI1911]

Blaphamy, made it this far without being able to shoot, why would I start now? So much easier to just kick over walls like a real world operator would do.

I knock over the horse at Waterford today...does that count?

 

[Madness]

did you shout something tactical or quote TDC while you did it?

 

[stormbringer]

No, the World Shoot was exactly a 3 Short to 2 Medium to 1 Long balance, (15-10-5) going by the new round count definitions in the 2012 rules. (Nick chose to use that part of the stage rules as a test there.) It was a big improvement over the previous two world shoots for round count variety.

So let me get this straight...........IPSC now can run on rules that are not official rules. ? How does that happen in a democratic institution? The rules are the rules are the rules. Proposed rules ARE NOT THE RULES! That is not how things are supposed to work. The new rules are not in play until Jan 2012

Wait just a second.......maybe there is a silver lining here.

So I want multigun rules.........I know multigun rules have been proposed so it would be perfectly ok for me to start running IPSC multigun matches and be totally ok. That would be the same logic. I mean the published rules clearly do not really matter to the heads of IPSC. So what the heck Multigun it is!!!

I'm sorry to let you guys know, and I'll likely be flamed for it, but between the change in definitions and the backing off of the "Mandatory" balance; IPSC actually made it easier to make the kind of matches that you seem to want. (Or at least the version ones of L3s coming across my desk seem to want...)

Where is this backing off of the mandatory balance? Well other than IPSC seeming to ignore the fact that they seem to ignore the balance themselves.
From what I have seen it is the exact opposite. To have sanctioned IPSC match the ratios is now required. Please be so kind as to show me anything different as that mandatory aspect is what has me most in disagreement with the system. I have zero problem with a suggested ratio. Oh and please note that the word "significant" does not have a definition within IPSC as far as I know.

 

[RUPZUK]

OK, so 3-2-1 it is then.
But lets say I want a 8 stage level 2, what do the other two stages have to be to maintain 321?
Thanks

 

[SVISTI1911]

So let me get this straight...........IPSC now can run on rules that are not official rules. ? How does that happen in a democratic institution? The rules are the rules are the rules. Proposed rules ARE NOT THE RULES! That is not how things are supposed to work. The new rules are not in play until Jan 2012.

That is a current rule now, 1.2.1.4. Although only a recommendation. Nothing was done against the rules by them following that ratio.

 

[SVISTI1911]

did you shout something tactical or quote TDC while you did it?

No, thought more of Mongo from Blazing Saddles.

 

[hungrybeagle]

So let me get this straight...........IPSC now can run on rules that are not official rules. ? How does that happen in a democratic institution? The rules are the rules are the rules. Proposed rules ARE NOT THE RULES! That is not how things are supposed to work. The new rules are not in play until Jan 2012

Like I said, Storm, it WAS a topic of discussion amongst the competitors, but nobody pressed the issue. We were there to shoot, not stir the pot or play politics.

And some of us were too sick to do either.

 

[Madness]

chrono is in the rules but it seems that rule was on vacation during the Worst Shoot

 

[hungrybeagle]

Oh, I'd almost forgotten about the chrono issue.

I got chrono'd twice, though.

 

[Madness]

so did fish

 

[stormbringer]

That is a current rule now, 1.2.1.4. Although only a recommendation. Nothing was done against the rules by them following that ratio.

Oh I understand fully......

The ratio used to be a reccomendation................

But the heads of IPSC realized that THEY could not abide by that request.
SOooooo

Because THEY do not like to follow suggestions..........they decided to make a RULE to make us do it.

That would be it in a nutshell.


But that does not matter.............

IPSC MULTIGUN is coming to a SW Ontario Club!! WOOT!!

 

[euxx]

John, relax and read the new edition of the rules. The "mandatory" part is not in there.

 

[Madness]

Mandatory isn't in there right now but they push it like it is for L3 sanctioning