Foot Fault Procedurals

[WJM]

Recently at a major match I was called on having shot a stage with a foot fault procedural. After analysis from the video it was shown that the call is extremely close, and could be seen as my foot being in the air when I shot which would be a non procedural call. 

Should the current USPSA rules be changed to allow video evidence to be presented upon an appeal to the MD that a foot fault occurred? 

The call was made as I entered the second position.

Wyatt

[BritinUSA]

Video can be edited so it would be necessary to secure a copy as soon as possible to ensure its integrity and prevent any 'adjustment' prior to an official review.

IPSC has a similar ruling to USPSA with regard to video evidence, it might be of interest to note that the matter is up for discussion at the next IPSC General Assembly (October, 2016) to change the words, 'will not' to 'may'.

Quote

11.1.5  Retain Evidence – An appellant is required to inform the Range Master of his wish to present his appeal to the Arbitration Committee and may request that the officials retain any and all relevant documentary or other evidence pending the hearing. Audio and/or video recordings will not be accepted as evidence. 

Video evidence may only be effective if used in conjunction with eye-witness accounts as the lens angles can be deceptive. A similar process to that employed by the NFL might be beneficial, in that the ruling 'on the field' will always take precendence, unless the video evidence provides conclusive proof of a mistake.

[BritinUSA]

Interestingly IPSC does not restrict RO's and RM's from reviewing video evidence. The rule cited above, 11.1.5 is part of the Appeals Process and as long as the appeal is not related to safety then the video can be reviewed by the RO and/or RM.

For those with access to the IPSC Global Village, here is the relevant post: CLICK

[ChuckS]

I threw the video into an editor and can see muzzle gasses at 8.400 seconds with your foot left of the fault line with your toe either on the ground or in a cloud of dust. Since you dragged your toe through the dirt, it would probably look like contact from behind. As they say "After further review, the play stands as called".

In response to your video question: if the same coverage was available to all competitors in a match and only match officials had access to the media, we may have something. Your buddies cell phone? Nope...

[bret]

the video is not conclusive, the angle of the camera, sound etc. makes amateur video a bad idea for reversing a call.

this is a game, we don't have time to look at video to review calls made by Range Officers.

 

[WJM]

13 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

I threw the video into an editor and can see muzzle gasses at 8.400 seconds with your foot left of the fault line with your toe either on the ground or in a cloud of dust. Since you dragged your toe through the dirt, it would probably look like contact from behind. As they say "After further review, the play stands as called".

In response to your video question: if the same coverage was available to all competitors in a match and only match officials had access to the media, we may have something. Your buddies cell phone? Nope...

See to me if it is a call such as "either on the ground or in a cloud of dust" then how can he be absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt that I foot faulted?

 

10 minutes ago, bret said:

the video is not conclusive, the angle of the camera, sound etc. makes amateur video a bad idea for reversing a call.

this is a game, we don't have time to look at video to review calls made by Range Officers.

 

This is a game, points matter. If points matter and this was an incorrect score than I received then why don't we have time to review this video? Makes it seem like we don't have to get correct scores.

[BritinUSA]

The original video may be clearer. When viewing the YouTube video in 720HD, the audio and video appear to be a little more in sync. YouTube converts videos that are uploaded so they work in a variety of different browsers/devices, sometimes that conversion process results in synchronization problems with the audio track.

Regarding this specific incident, I don't see anything that would overturn the RO's original call. If video evidence is allowed in arbitration you would still need to pay the arbitration fee and in this instance I think you would lose. There is also another point later in the video where it appears that your left heel touches the ground outside the fault lines.

Further, if video is allowed in arbitration then we need to ensure that the committee has the right tools for the job, they would need to be able to review that video on an appropriate sized screen, and use software that permits them to advance frame by frame and perhaps also to see the audio track to ensure that everything is in sync.

It's all possible, whether we want to apply it to all levels of matches is another decision that would need to be made. I can see this being a big problem at lower level matches, but perhaps at Nationals or Area Championships it might be feasible. Perhaps a trial run at next years National events to gather some data on the process might be prudent.

[ChuckS]

5 minutes ago, WJM said:

See to me if it is a call such as "either on the ground or in a cloud of dust" then how can he be absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt that I foot faulted?

 

If we were to do such a thing, I would think, like the NFL, the call stands unless you have evidence to overturn it. No such thing here. Next time, don't drag your toe

[Sarge]

I voted to leave video out of it. If I believe a shooter commits an infraction I call it and stand by it. 

RO's have to make snap decisions a lot of the time with some being safety related. Hell you can't even really challenge a safety related DQ so video would be useless so may as well keep it out of the mix altogether.

[bret]

1 hour ago, WJM said:

See to me if it is a call such as "either on the ground or in a cloud of dust" then how can he be absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt that I foot faulted?

 

This is a game, points matter. If points matter and this was an incorrect score than I received then why don't we have time to review this video? Makes it seem like we don't have to get correct scores.

yes points matter, but how much whining are we going to have when video is allowed to complain about a call?

 

I say if video is allowed, $50 or 50% of the match fee whichever is higher is the fee to review a call, if it's not conclusive the call is not overturned, if the call is not overturned, the Range Officer being questioned gets the money, if the call is conclusive, the shooter gets a refund.

cell phone videos aren't very good, go pro's etc not much better, depending on the angle of the video, it will not be as good of a view as the R.O. that is right there.

start undermining range officers that are volunteers, good luck running matches unless you are going to start paying range official's, and that will Jack up match fee's.

do they use video review for other non professional sports?

 

absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt you faulted?

it's a match not a murder trial.

video looks like you faulted, so it doesn't help your case.

a lot of butt hurt over a procedural.

[WJM]

12 minutes ago, bret said:

yes points matter, but how much whining are we going to have when video is allowed to complain about a call?

 

I say if video is allowed, $50 or 50% of the match fee whichever is higher is the fee to review a call, if it's not conclusive the call is not overturned, if the call is not overturned, the Range Officer being questioned gets the money, if the call is conclusive, the shooter gets a refund.

cell phone videos aren't very good, go pro's etc not much better, depending on the angle of the video, it will not be as good of a view as the R.O. that is right there.

start undermining range officers that are volunteers, good luck running matches unless you are going to start paying range official's, and that will Jack up match fee's.

do they use video review for other non professional sports?

 

absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt you faulted?

it's a match not a murder trial.

video looks like you faulted, so it doesn't help your case.

a lot of butt hurt over a procedural.

Yes. A match that I put thousands of dollars into for training, and hundreds of hours working towards. I deserve an absolutely accurate score, which if it takes video evidence to get accurate scoring then yes I want it.

 

So yeah I am very butt hurt over a procedural call that I, nor any of my 12 squad mates saw happen, and many more in the video shown. But somehow an RO who is supposed to be watching my gun somehow noticed something no one else noticed on the ground away from my gun.

 

 

[bret]

1 hour ago, WJM said:

See to me if it is a call such as "either on the ground or in a cloud of dust" then how can he be absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt that I foot faulted?

 

This is a game, points matter. If points matter and this was an incorrect score than I received then why don't we have time to review this video? Makes it seem like we don't have to get correct scores.

yes points matter, but how much whining are we going to have when video is allowed to complain about a call?

 

I say if video is allowed, $50 or 50% of the match fee whichever is higher is the fee to review a call, if it's not conclusive the call is not overturned, if the call is not overturned, the Range Officer being questioned gets the money, if the call is conclusive, the shooter gets a refund.

cell phone videos aren't very good, go pro's etc not much better, depending on the angle of the video, it will not be as good of a view as the R.O. that is right there.

start undermining range officers that are volunteers, good luck running matches unless you are going to start paying range official's, and that will Jack up match fee's.

do they use video review for other non professional sports?

 

absolutely certain without a shadow of a doubt you faulted?

it's a match not a murder trial.

video looks like you faulted, so it doesn't help your case.

a lot of butt hurt over a procedural.

4 minutes ago, WJM said:

Yes. A match that I put thousands of dollars into for training, and hundreds of hours working towards. I deserve an absolutely accurate score, which if it takes video evidence to get accurate scoring then yes I want it.

 

So yeah I am very butt hurt over a procedural call that I, nor any of my 12 squad mates saw happen, and many more in the video shown. But somehow an RO who is supposed to be watching my gun somehow noticed something no one else noticed on the ground away from my gun.

 

 

What rule that says the Range Officer is supposed to look at your gun, not your feet?

from your video, it looks like you faulted.

[BritinUSA]

13 minutes ago, bret said:

...cell phone videos aren't very good, go pro's etc not much better, depending on the angle of the video, it will not be as good of a view as the R.O. that is right there.

I think you are confusing the video quality shown on YouTube versus the video that is stored on the cell phone. YouTube videos are scaled down and converted before they are posted on the server. Many cell phones can record in 1080p, the only limiting factor in quality is determined by the lens.

4K video cameras are getting cheaper too, they will produce better image quality than anything you will see on Shooting USA. My A6300 records in 4K and cost $1000.

In some instances the camera could have a better view than the RO, it all depends on the situation and the stage layout and where the infraction occurred.

[bret]

BritinUSA,

as a photographer, I am very well aware of the picture,quality and more importantly angle if video shot and sound quality a cell phone will provide.

I am aware YouTube video is not as good as what can be seen on a phone.

My 1DX cost $6,800 and my 5DMKIII was $3,800, what's the point?

a cell phone camera does not have a high quality lens.

using video is a bad idea to review calls, I agree with the ruling by DNROI.

[Mhall]

As an RO, and based on the video, I would not have made that call. I usually give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. 

 

WJM, I'm not crapping on your level of participation, but think about the RO who gave up an extra day to shoot the match the day (or days) prior, so you could shoot without any worries about having or being the RO on your squad.

 

I've ROd several majors and have enjoyed it immensely. There have been a few calls that I didn't really like making, but had to. We all know the rules. Like I said, I wouldn't have made that call. But I feel if you start bringing everyone's cell phone video or opinion into the mix, it would make long days longer and people less likely to volunteer their time so you can play. 

[twodownzero]

I'm thinking you started this because you were upset that the fault was called.  Reviewing the video also did nothing for me; I would have ruled it a fault as well.  If you want to be a gamer, you have to take that sometimes you'll make mistakes that will cost you points.  This was one of those times.

[bret]

 

screw the range officers, it doesn't matter they volunteer, Wyatt spent thousands of dollars to get where he is at, unless there is absolute certain proof without a shadow of a doubt that he faulted, who is the range Officer to call a procedural when he isn't supposed to look at anything but the gun and make sure Wyatt gets the score and ruling he wants.

the range Officer should be given a lifetime ban for acting in such an unprofessional manner and giving Wyatt a foot fault.

 

poll isn't looking good for Wyatt

2 yes

17 no

[uewpew]

2 minutes ago, Mhall said:

... bringing everyone's cell phone video or opinion into the mix, it would make long days longer and people less likely to volunteer their time so you can play. 

^^    i second that.  

[RJH]

27 minutes ago, WJM said:

Yes. A match that I put thousands of dollars into for training, and hundreds of hours working towards. I deserve an absolutely accurate score, which if it takes video evidence to get accurate scoring then yes I want it.

 

So yeah I am very butt hurt over a procedural call that I, nor any of my 12 squad mates saw happen, and many more in the video shown. But somehow an RO who is supposed to be watching my gun somehow noticed something no one else noticed on the ground away from my gun.

 

 

Seems like with your thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of training, you would have learned to definitively lift your foot up when shooting.  By most of the replies on this and the other forum you posted this video on you have not gotten almost no one  to say that you did that.  SO, according to two forums of shooters, AND THE RO AT THE MATCH, it looks like you got an accurate score. 

[WJM]

17 minutes ago, RJH said:

Seems like with your thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of training, you would have learned to definitively lift your foot up when shooting.  By most of the replies on this and the other forum you posted this video on you have not gotten almost no one  to say that you did that.  SO, according to two forums of shooters, AND THE RO AT THE MATCH, it looks like you got an accurate score. 

Other people have agreed the call shouldn't have been made. Just because you agree it should've been, doesn't make what you said final. 

This post is made to ask if video evidence would be a good idea at a match. Considering I am not the only person that I personally know to have gotten screwed out of a win due to a questionable call I figured this was a warranted post.

[ChuckS]

2 minutes ago, WJM said:

Other people have agreed the call shouldn't have been made. Just because you agree it should've been, doesn't make what you said final. 

This post is made to ask if video evidence would be a good idea at a match. Considering I am not the only person that I personally know to have gotten screwed out of a win due to a questionable call I figured this was a warranted post.

This was the Utah state championship, right? Well, there is no procedural in the results...

[bret]

2 minutes ago, WJM said:

Other people have agreed the call shouldn't have been made. Just because you agree it should've been, doesn't make what you said final. 

This post is made to ask if video evidence would be a good idea at a match. Considering I am not the only person that I personally know to have gotten screwed out of a win due to a questionable call I figured this was a warranted post.

call looked good, you didn't get screwed out of anything.

call wasn't even questionable, the Range Officer was looking at your foot, he was in better position to watch than anyone else.

so far 22 out of 25 say no to using video.

[NoSteel]

It's unfortunate that the course design left room for the shooter to leave the intended path and shortcut the stage.  Since you chose that route,  it is obvious that the R.O. Was focused on your foot position as you were getting back behind the charge line..  You kinda forced him to be focused on that instead of your gun or he was just comfortable with your finger being out of the trigger guard as you re- entered..  Whatever the reason,  the video shows he was pretty focused on your feet and he must have been pretty comfortable you had a part of your foot touching..  I side with the R.O. Since he had the best vantage point...  I will assume you appealed to the MD and they supported the R.O.'s call??  I voted no to video reviews..

Edited September 6, 2016 by NoSteel

[WJM]

However this does bring forth a really interesting item that I would like to say. 

I have now sent this to 6 certified RO's. All 6 agreed it shouldn't have been called, on the premise that if it is that close of a call they would give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. However, on Brian Enos forums it seems like the majority of the RO's would disagree that it would go to the benefit of the shooter. Which really makes me now question how often RO's have given out calls one way or the other based on who they themselves are. 

I know that when I RO, on calls close to the 180, foot faults such things, I don't make a call that will hurt the shooter unless it is blatantly obvious that is the call, but I also know many RO's that are out to get people and make calls that are questionable on 180's and foot faults. Guess thats what happens when you get people who also compete to score.

[WJM]

5 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

This was the Utah state championship, right? Well, there is no procedural in the results...

Stage 11, Production, old HTML results. Shows a penalty of 1, which is -10 match points.