Step taken by AICF to prevent sandbagging

"The ELO rating of a player will be the maximum rating which he/she has attained in his/her career and that will be the basis for his/her participation in any ELO rating restricted tournaments. For example, if a player had attained a career best rating of ELO 2022, he/she cannot participate in any ELO 2000 restricted tournaments, even if his/her current rating shows below 2000 ELO. This Rule comes with immediate effect. It was also decided that results of those tournaments which do not follow the above Resolution will not be sent for rating purposes to FIDE. The Chief Arbiter and the organisers will be held responsible for any breach of this Rule”. Further, it was decided that henceforth, the organisers should receive entries only from AICF registered players before they are permitted to participate in any rated tournaments.

What do you all say about this new rule introduced by All India Chess Federation (AICF) to combat sandbagging?

Are there any similar decisions taken by other federations?

I am just curious about the different strategies that are employed to curb this menace of sandbagging.

Feel free to have your say!

They should put a time period of 2 years or so to have a rating of above the limit. Ex- if you were rated 2022 within 2 years of the below 2000 tournament, then you cannot play.

I come across few of such players in under 1600 or under 1800 tournaments. I learnt that their career rating though reached far higher, due to some reasons their rating dropped and few of them even played as unrated .  Some of them happen to won the tournaments or finish in the top. I believe it may be helpful to younger players who are really in that ELO rating range for whom the tournaments are being conducted. However, steps suggested by others would also improve the competitiveness of the game without being unfair to such players who due to genuine reasons had a drop in their ratings. 

It sound like knee jerk reaction. By very definition a person cannot remain at his peak rating. This rule is unfair to a person who obtained some high rating due to some freakish circumstances. You can't right a wrong with another wrong. 

What steps have other federations taken in this regard?

USCF has rating floors, as far as I know. Open tournaments without rating sections are a more obvious measure, IMHO.

Why do they call it an ELO rating?  Arapad Elo would be rolling in his grave to hear people changing his statistical model.  If they're going to change the rules, they shouldn't call it an ELO rating.

It's actually 'Elo Rating', not 'ELO rating'. He might be a little more bent about so many people not knowing that Elo is a proper name.

What actually matter is you understand it or not.

I agree that it's supposed to be "Elo", but I didn't want to nitpick.  I think he'd be flattered that anyone remembers either "Elo" or "ELO", as long as they remember the actual statistical model that he created.

Right, sure.

I'm not clear where you his model being tampered with heterodox.

I like the idea of rounding off that Their using but one exception a player who is shown to have just reached 2000 and within 3-6 months has fallen below that then should be allowed into U2000 tournament sections

I don't think that's a good idea. At my local tournament there are a couple of floored 1800 and 1700s. They're more like 1500-1600 ish and are always playing tournaments. Their USCF rating history pages have like 400 tournaments, they're very active but their strength is too low and hasn't been 1900-2000 for 15 years