Rule change submitted

[Jimologist]

I have submitted a rules change and wanted to post here so any member who desires can contact the Rules committee chairman or officer or their region director. If you have a strong feeling about it one way or the other, make your voice heard to them.

The proposal is the elimination of the 2 target penalty when shooting a target out of turn.
I feel the penalty should only be one target.

For years I have felt this is an unfair rule that makes little sense and seems draconian and arbitrary. If you feel the same way or if you think the rule should stand as is, send an email to your representative or officer.

If you have a pet peeve about a particular rule and wish to see a change, submit a rule change following these guidlines about rule changes from the rule book. Last year several rule proposals were shot down because they were submitted without following the proper guidelines.

Here is the basic beginning guideline from the rule book.

7. Changes to the Official Rules
a. Any IHMSA member in good standing is eligible to submit proposals
for rule changes according to the following procedure.
b. In order for a rule change proposal to receive consideration at the
annual business meeting, rule change proposal must be submitted
in writing to the Rules Committee Chairman a minimum of ninety
days prior to the meeting day.
i. The Annual business meeting shall be the primary venue for
action on rule change proposals; however, where deemed
appropriate, the Board may act on rule change proposals at any
time during the year.
c. Format: in order for a rule proposal to receive consideration, it
must comply with the following:
i. The proposal must be submitted in writing including the
author’s name, IHMSA membership number and method of contact.


Jim Kesser

[Shoot2Thrill]

I'm in favor.

[kerdunk]

Here is a rule change I submitted in July. It violated the 90 day rule for the 2024 meeting, but I am hopeful it will be debated at the next meeting.

Rule Change Proposal 070224 v1.pdf

(43.75 KiB) Downloaded 58 times

[Jimologist]

To Tim Downs,

I would highly recommend that you send a copy to the rules committee chairman and copy the entire board with new sending date.

Posting on the forum will probably not be considered the legal “by the rules” method of submission.

IMHO.

Jim Kesser

[kerdunk]

I sent this to the Rules Chair (Dell Taylor). I think it should be in the official queue. I posted this just to get it out there in the spirit of your post.

[aggshooter]

Posting on the forum benefits the members by allowing them to read the proposal well in advance of any official discussion. I would encourage folks to post the submission and the reasoning behind it. Also allows readers to offer suggestions (via PM, not on the forum) to poorly worded proposals in an effort to let the author clarify wording if needed. Just my .02

An example of poor wording was a proposal to allow forends width to be up to 3 inches and measured from the boreline. This actually allowed forends to be 6 inches wide, (3 inches in both directions from the center of the bore).

I know...it sounds nitpicking. But when all is said and done, what is printed in the rulebook is what we go by.

[Jimologist]

Excellent advice Rich!

Here is the exact wording of the rule change I submitted along with a few arguments and examples for its implementation.


CURRENT RULE.
iii. An incorrect target knocked down out of sequence. If the incorrect target is to the right of
the correct target, the correct target is scored as a miss, as is the target knocked down. The
maximum penalty shall be two targets for each single occurrence.

PROPOSED RULE.
iii. An incorrect target knocked down out of sequence. If the incorrect target is to the right of
the correct target, the correct target is scored as a miss. The maximum penalty shall be one
target for each single occurrence. The balance of the bank will be engaged as described in #5
“Scoring” (pages 27, 28) and #6 Alibis (pages 29,30).

There are several reasons to adopt this rule change;
1. The current rule is immensely confusing (not to mention unfair). As a match director
instructing new shooters, it one of the rules that is virtually unexplainable. New shooters
always ask “Why” and there is no explanation other than it being very arbitrary.

2. It is excessively punishing. You have already missed one target and with it your possible
chance at a perfect score. The current rule rubs salt in that wound and twists the knife.

3. It would be aligned with NRA rules concerning this very instance. When we were
discussing the possibility of having a combined NRA/IHMSA National Championship,
there were 5-6 differences in our rules that were sticking points. This one was the one
nobody could explain the reason for.

4. The next reason is a scenario; If shooting at a match with multiple banks of targets, it is
possible for shooter #1 (who is on turkeys) to miss a target. At the same time shooter #2
(who is on pigs) misses their target and has a ricochet skip into shooter #1 bank of
turkeys. For clarification lets say they are both on target #1 and shooter #2’s ricochet
knocks down turkey #2. Shooter #1 is penalized 2 targets unfairly and unjustly. The same
scenario is possible without multiple banks but caused by the wind where shooter #1
shoots, misses target #1 but the wind knocks down target #2. How do you argue that it
wasn’t shooter #1 hitting the wrong target.

[i26963]

I tend to agree with this rule change. With more shooters using scopes, and peep sights, it is very easy to shoot the wrong target. Been there, done that more than once.
Melvin

[357MAX]

Excellent advice Rich!

Here is the exact wording of the rule change I submitted along with a few arguments and examples for its implementation.


CURRENT RULE.
iii. An incorrect target knocked down out of sequence. If the incorrect target is to the right of
the correct target, the correct target is scored as a miss, as is the target knocked down. The
maximum penalty shall be two targets for each single occurrence.

PROPOSED RULE.
iii. An incorrect target knocked down out of sequence. If the incorrect target is to the right of
the correct target, the correct target is scored as a miss. The maximum penalty shall be one
target for each single occurrence. The balance of the bank will be engaged as described in #5
“Scoring” (pages 27, 28) and #6 Alibis (pages 29,30).

There are several reasons to adopt this rule change;
1. The current rule is immensely confusing (not to mention unfair). As a match director
instructing new shooters, it one of the rules that is virtually unexplainable. New shooters
always ask “Why” and there is no explanation other than it being very arbitrary.

it's not confusing at all. The object of the game is to shoot 5 targets in a very specific order. If you accidently shoot the next target, then you have no available target for your next shot!!

2. It is excessively punishing. You have already missed one target and with it your possible
chance at a perfect score. The current rule rubs salt in that wound and twists the knife.

the rulse are the same for everyone.

3. It would be aligned with NRA rules concerning this very instance. When we were
discussing the possibility of having a combined NRA/IHMSA National Championship,
there were 5-6 differences in our rules that were sticking points. This one was the one
nobody could explain the reason for.

I think I explained it fairly well above. Additionally, know your target and what is beyond it!

4. The next reason is a scenario; If shooting at a match with multiple banks of targets, it is
possible for shooter #1 (who is on turkeys) to miss a target. At the same time shooter #2
(who is on pigs) misses their target and has a ricochet skip into shooter #1 bank of
turkeys. For clarification lets say they are both on target #1 and shooter #2’s ricochet
knocks down turkey #2. Shooter #1 is penalized 2 targets unfairly and unjustly. The same
scenario is possible without multiple banks but caused by the wind where shooter #1
shoots, misses target #1 but the wind knocks down target #2. How do you argue that it
wasn’t shooter #1 hitting the wrong target.

that's reaching pretty far in my opinion.