nys rep,

Evidently the rule that you quoted is a new rule for 2006, because it has not been in the rule book in 2004 or 2005, andI feel thatI have thoroughly read them.

I am sure that the printed edition of the rule book will be a valuable asset for all IBO competiors, but it was my assumptionthat the printed edition would match the one that is online. The edition of the online rule book states that it was revised on December 7, 2005, but maybe the rules have beenammended since then. In addition to the online rules there is a section on the IBO site that shows the changes for 2006, but I do not see the rule that you quoted there either. In the past the written rules that I have received have matched the rules that are accessible on the IBO site, as one would expect. Unless you can be certain that the rule that you have quoted is going to be in this printed rule book that is coming, I do not think it is the best of ideas for anyoneto quote a rule that can not be refrenced, for it serves only to confuse.

fasstfletch,

There is not an IBO National shoot that I have not shot in at least once in the last 4 years, soI am knowledgeable of the still helpful information that you wrote in your post. The last line that you put in your post is key.

"Have fun shooting this game and if a person is cheating or thought to be cheating it is our responsibility to point out what they seem to be doing that is not according to rules. Then we must eliminate any doubts to be fair to everyone."

On May 20, 2003, I sent an email addressed to [email protected] asking the very same question that is put forth in this thread. Thereply that I received from Ken did not answer the question (yes I still have the email). I have made a lot of effort to detemine the rule, because 4 years ago someone made known to me their suspicions of an individual's abuses. Since I have not seen a rule that addresses the situation it is kind of hard to bring it to light.

When a person always volunteers to be the score keeper and the mistakes are consitently made on his card and in his favor, then the suspicions must be considered. I have hoped for a hard fast rule that would serve as deterent, because I do not think a person's intergrity should be questioned unless their isirrefutable proof. Maybe this thread will be read and serve as that deterent.