ltdiver 3 #1 May 3, 2002 It's finally here!Check out USPA Web Siteltdiver____________________________________________LightDiverCam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #3 May 3, 2002 You're welcome!Now, what's with the 1 round minimum for Formation Skydiving?Used to be a 6 round minimum, but now USPA has it at one??See: NSL's Web Siteand click on 'NSL News' then scroll to the bottom article.:^(ltdiver____________________________________________LightDiverCam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 May 3, 2002 WHERE are you seeing that. Chapter and verse please.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #5 May 3, 2002 Copied here for your convenience, from the NSL web page under 'NSL News', the last article there:------------------------------------------------------------Did You Know..... .....that one round is enough at the U.S. Nationals 2002?USPA has changed some of the rules for this year's U.S. Nationals. These changes have not become public knowledge yet since USPA did not indicate the intentions to make these changes to many teams and competitors. The NSL News was so fortunate that Steve Miller, 4-way competitor from the west coast, dropped a note after he found out.The good news is that the USPA board has already decided to make their current Intermediate Class (AA Class) competition a ten-round meet this year. The dive pool for this class in combination with the length of the sequence (4-5 points) now contains enough blocks and random formations for ten rounds.Other news are not so good and may again cause some trouble in the competitive skydiving community of the United States. The rule change affects the way the champions will be determined. Before the recent rule change, the minimum number of rounds to constitute a meet was six. This has now changed to only one round. Steve Miller explained to USPA the trouble that he expects to see with this rule change.I, as well as others, are very concerned by the new Minimums Rule. This rule change appears to be one of several new rules adopted by the Committee and the Board without adequate consideration of its effects on the competitors. The idea of traveling to Chicago for the premier event of the year and having one jump determine the outcome is simply wrong. The old rule functioned well and there exists NO compelling reason to change it. Does the Board fully understand the issues that SDC will confront if the meet is called after one round, especially since this ruling has not been widely publicized and was omitted from the Parachutist article on the rule changes? Did USPA learn nothing from the issues in Sebastian? It is difficult to believe that it is, in any way, in the best interest of the USPA and the United States to run the risk of choosing our representative to the world meet based on a single round of competition. While I understand the rationale behind conforming to IPC rules, we DO NOT have to follow all of them in the United States. The new Minimum Rule is entirely without merit. How can the Board on one hand vote to extend the meet for the Intermediate Class to 10 rounds, and, on the other, vote for one round minimums? This seems counter productive and poorly thought through. I am sure that my feelings are shared by many. I suspect that you will hear from many competitors that this is not what they want. It is also likely (since this decision effects all of us and not just the Intermediate Class) that the response on this issue will overwhelm that received in connection with the disaster surrounding the Intermediate Class dive pool.If the new rule has to be applied due to bad weather, there will be trouble. Even though the teams would know the rules of the game before going to the meet, there would surely be complaints if the U.S. national team was determined by only one round of competition. The one-round rule may not even have such a strong impact in the Open Class since it seems as if there will probably be only two or three teams competing for the championship on the same scoring level (Airspeed Vertical, DeLand Majik, Golden Knights Gold). And only one of these teams can win - no matter if one round or ten rounds. Each of these teams would probably represent the U.S.A. at the World Championship 2002 as good as the others.However, the impact would still be heavy enough, even in the Open Class. There is no doubt that the one-round rule would make it possible for a team to win the championship that may have been clearly on third place after six or ten rounds. The chance to have the most accurate results of the meet is simply much better if all teams have to go as far as possible through the whole dive pool.The difficulty is the fact that the U.S. Nationals is a one-time event per year. An event series, as all the regional NSL leagues, does not face the same problem. If one of the league meets falls short, it still does not change the big picture very much. Most likely, the best team of the league will still win the league championship at the end of the year. And all teams of the league will have completed many rounds by then.To qualify as the U.S. national team for the world championship, a team has to win this one event. This is not much different compared to many other sports. And the same system applies for the NSL Championship. However, the minimum number of rounds still makes a major difference. What are the options?If the weather would not even allow one round, then there would be no U.S. Champions and no national team. USPA would have to re-schedule the competition to determine the national team. Of course, this would be very inconvenient and require a lot of extra work. And it needed to be done early enough, so the new national team has security and time to prepare for the world championship.Thinking more practical, there are other options, as well. The NSL Championship is scheduled for November 16-17, 2002. If the U.S. Nationals were really weathered out after zero rounds (new rule) or after six rounds (former rule), then the NSL Championship could be used as the alternate event to determine the U.S. Champions and the national team.Considering this option, USPA should feel much more relaxed about the weather and keeping the six round minimum. No extra efforts were necessary to re-schedule a new event. And it is hard to imagine that the NSL headquarters would not be glad to offer this option to USPA.....Please e-mail your feedback directly to the USPA Competition Committee or to the NSL headquarters.____________________________________________LightDiverCam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 May 3, 2002 The NSL web site isn't the authority on how competition is supposed to be run. That's the Skydiver's Competition Manual from the USPA.I realize that Kurt was just reacting off of what that individual was sending him, but it's clearly wrong.5-1.8: NUMBER OF ROUNDSA. 4- and 8-Way:1. The minimum number of rounds to constitute a meet is six, and the maximum (scheduled) number is 10.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weid14 0 #7 May 3, 2002 nitpicky ---- the competition manual doesn't say how it is to be run, it gives the rules for running it. The meet director determines how it will be run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 May 3, 2002 But the meet director can not change the minimum number of rounds. He doesn't have that authority.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #9 May 3, 2002 Yes, I realize that the USPA Comp. Manual is what's the authority and that someone -might- have been speaking up too quickly.However, the NSL article seems to be claiming that USPA is following the IPC rules as far as National Champions are chosen, and this is through only 1 round (if neccessary)?I looked all over the FAI web page FAI Web Site and couldn't find the minimum number of rounds needed for this. Not even the number '6'. So, that's where it stands now.USPA or IPC rules as far as Champions are conserned? Perhaps IPC over rules USPA in such instances?ltdiver____________________________________________LightDiverCam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #10 May 4, 2002 ok...take at look at: IPC Comp Manual just released May 1, 2002(this is in pdf format)Specifically look at 4.2.5 (Competition Rules) and 4.9.1 (Completion of Competition)food for thought,ltdiver____________________________________________LightDiverCam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 May 4, 2002 Lori --That was the FAI Sporting Code and I didn't see anything about completing competiton in one round.Try going HERE and looking up the actual rules.Tell me again where you think you saw that?I mean, there's a lot of stuff that needs to happen at the WAG & WPC events that doesn't apply to the U.S. Nationals. For instance, at the U.S. Nationals we don't need to shoot PAL do we? No.I think the original poster, Kurt and yourself are overreacting to someting that might not even exist.Ok, I gotta go, but do some homework and get back to me on what YOU find.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #12 May 6, 2002 QuoteOk, I gotta go, but do some homework and get back to me on what YOU find.Read the FS Comp Manual. Thanks for the link.Perhaps the wording on 6.3.8.1 needs to be a little more descriptive?Anyway, I've been gone over the Cinco de Mayo holiday weekend racking up the jumps under Perris's $150 weekend! Yeah! Just got back and saw your post.While I was at Perris, I was able to sit down with the President of the IPC, who also happens to be one of our USPA National Directors as well. I asked him point blank about this question and he verified that what was rumored was true.There is a lengthy explanation that goes with the decision the IPC made, and the USPA adopted just recently, of the 1 jump minimum with 4-way FS competitions. The rule applies to Championship titles at this time.And yes, it isn't in our USPA Comp Manual (yet) and B.J. said that was a mistake and will be corrected.Perhaps I can contact him and have him write a brief article for this NG so more skydivers could understand where the IPC and USPA are coming from when they implimented this rule.No, I don't like the rule. Wish it wasn't there. However, it is at this time whether we like it or not.Bloos,ltdiver____________________________________________LightDiverCam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 May 7, 2002 QuoteNo, I don't like the rule. Wish it wasn't there. However, it is at this time whether we like it or not.Bloos,ltdiverYou need to do a spell check. You misspelled BLOWS.What the hell are they thinking?!?Yes, it's now your duty to get this published in as many web sites as possible. It totally blows that this change was not published in the current SCM, yet many other changes that also blow managed to wedge their way in.I'm writing Tim Wagner tonight.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #14 May 7, 2002 QuoteI'm writing Tim Wagner tonight.USPA has already recieved many angry replies to this issue in their mailbox. Unfortunately they are from individuals who haven't heard the complete story. I wrote B.J. an e-mail late last night and I hope he can write an article for us here, or have our Competition Director Larry Bagley compose something.Yes, this needs to get out on a public forum, and I'll let them tell the story. As for The Wagners, their web site is undergoing changes while they move their operation and web host. So, I don't think we'll see anything published on their site in the near future. I was very sorry to hear that when I went there last night. I use their site as a credible reference point as well.Bloos (spelled as intended. To convey a feeling of dismay and not BLOWS which displays an intent of anger before informed). :^)ltdiver____________________________________________LightDiverCam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
