Foot Fault Procedurals

[ChuckS]

24 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

I sent a email to both Practiscore Support and Roger at USPSA pointing out this example. But what really confuses me is what are the " IPSC Narianas "?

Still not clear on the "Narianas" but I did hear back from Eugene. Apparently the procedural got entered as a "additional penalty" and not a 10.2.1 foot fault. The additional penalty seems to get lost in the PS-USPSA interface.

[ChuckS]

oops...

Edited September 6, 2016 by ChuckS

[bret]

auto correct, it was supposed to be Nationals.

 

 

[Brooke]

This guy is a major league whiner.

The RO made a call that looks right or so damn near right that there is no room for argument. If the shooter spent so much time and money practicing and shooting the match then he should have practiced getting firmly into a legal position. He cut a corner closely and got called on it.

No the RO has more responsibility than just the gun. He is uniquely in position to see many issues including foot faults. He is not supposed to be focusing on such issues as failure to address a target, but if he sees it, he can call it.

This guy is arguing that the RO cannot make any call except those related to the gun itself...basically fingers and 180's. Hopefully an RO can do those and more or we just eliminate rules to make the whole thing easier. This is not worth 3 pages as the poll indicates.  

[ArrDave]

No, no video reviews. I cannot see the video as its been made private, but the extracted still looks pretty damning for the shooter to the point where the ROs call would be more than reasonable.

I was a wrestler, and the coach insisted we had to be good enough to beat the other guy AND the ref. You unfortunately weren't able to beat the ref on that one, and the video doesn't seem to bear out.

Further I do not think it's reasonable to insist that ROs be perfect but more than reasonable, and the call seems reasonable based on that still.


Sent from an iDevice. Please forgive any grammatical or spelling errors. If the post doesn't make sense or is not amusing then it is technology's fault and most certainly not operator error.

[TaterHead]

Seriously?

[teros135]

1 hour ago, ArrDave said:

<snip>
I was a wrestler, and the coach insisted we had to be good enough to beat the other guy AND the ref. You unfortunately weren't able to beat the ref on that one, and the video doesn't seem to bear out.
<snip>
 

Smart coach.  We should practice doing it right, and don't push the fault lines so far that our foot leans over too far.  Then there's nothing to call.  If you make a mistake and get caught, take a deep breath and go conquer the next stage.  (And if they screw up and don't give you the called procedural, appreciate that you were lucky.)

[JusticeOfToren]

The reason I said I hope ROs could give the shooter the benefit of doubt is because we are all humans.  Humans make mistakes, especially when we are older with aging eyes and ears - admit it or not it's the biology.  Imagine if I as RO make a risky call based on something that I "think" I see and I made the wrong call, who is hurt the most?  It is the shooter who has invested time, money and passion into this sport, the grassroot of the sport.  So you are hurting the sport itself in the end. 

Sure you can argue that the shooter should not be taking risky actions.  I argue the same against ROs.  Do not call things that you are not 100% sure. After seeing ROs call DQ for 160 degrees, I as a shooter have learned to not even get close to 150 degrees. 

Because we are all humans, I vote to have video review as the last resort for arbitration.  After all, all major sports, no matter how stubborn they were at the beginning to resist videos being used for ref calls, have adopted the technology, for a good reason.  Some sports have 3 to 5 refs on the field and they still use videos. 

Anyway, this discussion should not be digressed into personal attacks or insults.  Videos would definitely have the benefits but they must be used wisely with all logistics covered in order to be valid. It may be another 10 years before USPSA allows video, but we will be there I am sure.  Shooting industry always stays the furthermost behind the technology curve. 

[Sarge]

34 minutes ago, JusticeOfToren said:

The reason I said I hope ROs could give the shooter the benefit of doubt is because we are all humans.  Humans make mistakes, especially when we are older with aging eyes and ears - admit it or not it's the biology.  Imagine if I as RO make a risky call based on something that I "think" I see and I made the wrong call, who is hurt the most?  It is the shooter who has invested time, money and passion into this sport, the grassroot of the sport.  So you are hurting the sport itself in the end. 

Sure you can argue that the shooter should not be taking risky actions.  I argue the same against ROs.  Do not call things that you are not 100% sure. After seeing ROs call DQ for 160 degrees, I as a shooter have learned to not even get close to 150 degrees. 

Because we are all humans, I vote to have video review as the last resort for arbitration.  After all, all major sports, no matter how stubborn they were at the beginning to resist videos being used for ref calls, have adopted the technology, for a good reason.  Some sports have 3 to 5 refs on the field and they still use videos. 

Anyway, this discussion should not be digressed into personal attacks or insults.  Videos would definitely have the benefits but they must be used wisely with all logistics covered in order to be valid. It may be another 10 years before USPSA allows video, but we will be there I am sure.  Shooting industry always stays the furthermost behind the technology curve. 

Good RO's never "think" they saw something. That's not giving benefit of the doubt to the shooter but simply calling what we see. If we're wrong or right, we're always sure of what we see.

The instant an RO says he "thinks" he saw something he has lost his credibility on THAT CALL and RM's will generally side with the shooter. And rightly so.

[bret]

40 minutes ago, JusticeOfToren said:

The reason I said I hope ROs could give the shooter the benefit of doubt is because we are all humans.  Humans make mistakes, especially when we are older with aging eyes and ears - admit it or not it's the biology.  Imagine if I as RO make a risky call based on something that I "think" I see and I made the wrong call, who is hurt the most?  It is the shooter who has invested time, money and passion into this sport, the grassroot of the sport.  So you are hurting the sport itself in the end. 

Sure you can argue that the shooter should not be taking risky actions.  I argue the same against ROs.  Do not call things that you are not 100% sure. After seeing ROs call DQ for 160 degrees, I as a shooter have learned to not even get close to 150 degrees. 

Because we are all humans, I vote to have video review as the last resort for arbitration.  After all, all major sports, no matter how stubborn they were at the beginning to resist videos being used for ref calls, have adopted the technology, for a good reason.  Some sports have 3 to 5 refs on the field and they still use videos. 

Anyway, this discussion should not be digressed into personal attacks or insults.  Videos would definitely have the benefits but they must be used wisely with all logistics covered in order to be valid. It may be another 10 years before USPSA allows video, but we will be there I am sure.  Shooting industry always stays the furthermost behind the technology curve. 

the shooter is given the benefit of the doubt, a good R.O. won't make a call on something they aren't certain of, a good R.O. will only make calls on something they are certain of.

Too many shooters get a free pass on procedurals, breaking 180, finger in the trigger guard etc. so when they do get called, they think it's a bad call because they got away with it before.

other sports you mention, how much money does it cost to run the event?

are they rin by volunteers or paid staff?

where are you going to put cameras and cameramen?

These other sports don't use video from the spectators do they?

[JusticeOfToren]

In a perfect world, there would be at least 4 official cams on each of the stage, and 1 hovering on the air following the shooter.  Gun muzzles would have IR/laser device and the bays would have sensors all around such that they automatically detect breaking 180.  If these are not possible in club matches, at least make these possible in nationals.  Cost?  They won't cost as much as you imagine, especially in 10 years. 

I said in 10 years.  Maybe make it 20 considering the pace shooting industry adopts technology in the past 

 

[bret]

1 minute ago, JusticeOfToren said:

In a perfect world, there would be at least 4 official cams on each of the stage, and 1 hovering on the air following the shooter.  Gun muzzles would have IR/laser device and the bays would have sensors all around such that they automatically detect breaking 180.  If these are not possible in club matches, at least make these possible in nationals.  Cost?  They won't cost as much as you imagine, especially in 10 years. 

I said in 10 years.  Maybe make it 20 considering the pace shooting industry adopts technology in the past 

 

Nationals is $270 now, less than 300 signed up for it.

How much do you think match fee's will be when you need over 100 cameras, your IR Technology and an IT Team to run the cameras?

who is going to view the video and make the calls?

can people reviewing the video make calls the R.O. may have missed?

or is the video only used to show the R.O. screwed up?

if video is allowed, when a spectator see's a fault or a  safety violation, can the spectator show it to the R.O. or R.M. and the shooter gets the procedural or DQ'D?

[JusticeOfToren]

Like how these technologies are used today in other sports, they are there to assist the refs only when disputes occur on hard calls.  IT will be a panel (ROs, RM, shooter and maybe an independent eye-witness there) who view the video, as ROs and RM vote and make the final call.  Of course you can charge $500 video appealing fee on the shooter who requests it.  Again, only the official cams on the stages can be used, and should only be used as the last straw for disputes between shooters and ROs.

From Youtube I saw some of the Europe/Asia major matches use more technologies in their bays than we have in the US.  I see Euro Extreme Open already has many cams on each stage, but I don't think IPSC is using them for disputes right now.

[motosapiens]

18 hours ago, WJM said:

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.

A a lifelong Raiders fan, I am accustomed to getting screwed by bad calls. Here is what i say to those who whine about such calls......

No one is perfect. There will be calls you don't agree with and there will be plain old bad luck. It is your responsibility to win by enough that a marginal call one way or the other won't make a difference. If you can't do that, then suck it up. 

You certainly have been the recipient of some lucky calls and some marginal calls, and I don't recall you worrying about them at the time. In fact, you looked pretty smug. I would advise to be just be gracious and sporting about situations like this and do your best to make the call easier for the RO in the future.

[Mhall]

On 9/5/2016 at 9:27 PM, Sarge said:

I dont give benefit of the doubt one way or the other. I call them as I see them. Sometimes they go against the shooter and sometimes they don't. Nowhere in the rule book is benefit of the doubt discussed.

Meaning, if I can't tell %100 I don't make the call.  For example, if there is a target with 2 Mikes, if I don't specifically recall the shooter skipping the target, I don't give the FTSA. 

Common sense is not in discussed either, but most RMs I've worked for appreciate a little of that mixed in.

[Ray_Z]

Come on guys, just because we're ROing a match, it don't mean we got to call infractions even if we don't see one, or we think we see one, ROs are shooters too.

[Gary Stevens]

The words benefit of the doubt do not appear in the rulebook. Now having said that, I have always taught future RO's and instructed RO's working with me, if you cannot look the shooter in the eye and tell them unequivocally what you saw and what you are going to do about it, you simply keep your mouth shut. Of course those words don't appear in the rulebook either.

[Sarge]

8 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

The words benefit of the doubt do not appear in the rulebook. Now having said that, I have always taught future RO's and instructed RO's working with me, if you cannot look the shooter in the eye and tell them unequivocally what you saw and what you are going to do about it, you simply keep your mouth shut. Of course those words don't appear in the rulebook either.

But they should...

[bthoefer]

At this point No.

Video quality is questionable at best since most is taken cell phones. Camera angles vary, sound can be out of sync, all sorts of issues come into play for now that make video review untenable. 

 

Some time in the future, after we switch to all classic targets and have tons of free cash from the influx of new large corporate sponsors (Coke, Red bull, Nike, etc) we can pay for professional cameras and camera crews to produce consistent quality video; then we can consider video review.

Edited September 8, 2016 by bthoefer

[ATLDave]

This hesitancy to consider video evidence on the basis of it being potentially misleading is dumb.  Every single day* in this country, we sentence people to years in jail or hand them millions of dollars based on video evidence that was taken on cell phones or crummy security cameras or dash cams.  Rarely is the footage high quality.  The lighting is usually poor, so even when we're lucky enough to have a good modern cell phone recording, the picture quality is usually a fraction as good as what can be obtained at an outdoor, mid-day USPSA match.  Can the camera angle make things appear funny?  Sure.  Can there be problems syncing up sound?  Sure.  But the advocates on either side of the case can point that out.

If you don't want video review because it will slow down the game, fine.  If you don't want video review because it will encourage an ever-increasing number of appeals and arbs, fine.  But saying you can't look at it because it's not perfect is imbecilic.  NO EVIDENCE IS PERFECT.  Video is better than human perception 99 times out of 100.  

 

* Well, every business, non-holiday day.  Not a lot of trials or sentencing on the weekends.  

Edited September 8, 2016 by ATLDave

[MikeBurgess]

One unintended result of allowing video review is More close calls will get made because the RO will know if they are wrong the video will over turn it.
Look at the NFL the refs rarely whistle turn overs dead anymore even when it's pretty blatantly not a clean play, because they know it will be reviewed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[bret]

atlDave,

video used in civil and criminal lawsuits are part of the picture, these are long drawn out cases most of the time, not resolved in the time frame of a match.

the angle has a lot to do with the perspective, someone with an iPad or cell phone is not going to have the same view as the R.O.

in this case the video showed the R.O. looking at his feet, he can also hear what is going on and possibly see him engaging targets.

the guy whining didn't even get the procedural.

video review is going to slow down matches and cause more problems than it solves.

I am glad DNROI made the ruling against video, imo it's the right call.

[ATLDave]

Like I said, if your objection to video as evidence is that it will slow things down, that makes sense.  Reasonable people can disagree about whether and to what extent that would be the result.  I'm not expressing a view on that point one way or the other.  But to be concerned about that is rational.

The "video is imperfect" argument is what I'm calling stupid.  Because it is stupid.  Of course video is imperfect.  Just like RO perception.  Just like competitor memory.  Just like every other piece of evidence that is permitted in appeals and arbs.  

Edited September 8, 2016 by ATLDave

[rowdyb]

not only no, but hell no. the return is not worth the investment.

[rvb]

"NO" on a rule change to allow vid evidence.

"YES" on a rule change to get rid of the subjective "significant" wording. Either one per shot or one per occurrence. My preference is per shot.

 

-rvb