10.2.1 Foot Fault: one or per shot

[Steve Koski]

A shooter faults a line and is slightly closer to the targets while firing. Is this a single PE or a per shot PE?

 

Thank you,

 

Steve Koski

 

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting, providing doing so does not violate (2.2.1.5 or 3.2.6) Shots fired after completely (both feet out and touching the ground) leaving a shooting area will be penalized one penalty per shot until the competitor establishes a presence in a new shooting area with at least one foot on the ground inside the shooting area.

[js1130146]

It depends on if "the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting" or not, as per the rule. Which falls under the discretion of the RO if I'm not mistaken.

Edited January 30, 2017 by js1130146

[Sarge]

Oh no, not again!  

 

The rule as written is too subjective. Some RM's will insist anything closer is a significant advantage. Others insist if you can shoot a target that you could not otherwise see without faulting is significant.

 I personally agree with the latter. But then again I'm also of the opinion that all foot faults should be a per shot penalty to eliminate the various opinions from match to match.

 Shooting a target less than a foot closer to it is not significant in most cases. 

[Steve Koski]

.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Steve Koski
Deleted, awaiting further input.

[d_striker]

3 hours ago, Sarge said:

Oh no, not again!  

 

The rule as written is too subjective. Some RM's will insist anything closer is a significant advantage. Others insist if you can shoot a target that you could not otherwise see without faulting is significant.

 I personally agree with the latter. But then again I'm also of the opinion that all foot faults should be a per shot penalty to eliminate the various opinions from match to match.

 Shooting a target less than a foot closer to it is not significant in most cases. 

 

Agreed that it's entirely subjective.  Also agreed that one foot closer is not a significant advantage in most cases.

 

However, making a hard lean less hard is an advantage in my book.  But even this becomes subjective considering how far out they are.  Was just a toe touching outside while stepping on the fault line or was their foot entirely out?  

 

Then comes the subjectivity of  the word "significant" itself.  The word "significant" is difficult to quantify.  What is the point where a slight advantage increases enough to become "significant"?

 

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by d_striker

[pjb45]

I got called on this at Nationals one year.  The heal of my shoe was touching (not on)the fault line and my toes on the dirt outside the fault line.  The Stage CRO PPSF.  I protested as it was not significant advantage.  I basically had the same picture of the targets as if I was inside the fault line.  MD sided with me.  To the CRO's credit he change the score of a previous shooter called for the foot fault.

[mreed911]

+1 to "won a reversal in this process" as well - changed from six penalties to one.

[ktm300]

One foot closer that causes a person to avoid a lean is probably significant.

 

As the CRO on a stage I look at spots where an advantage could be gained when I first look at the stage.  If I find any the RO's and I have a discussion to decide where it's 1 per shot and where its just 1.

 

I think it would be a better rule if it was just 1 per shot all the time.

 

 

[OPENB]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 6:38 PM, ktm300 said:

One foot closer that causes a person to avoid a lean is probably significant.

 

As the CRO on a stage I look at spots where an advantage could be gained when I first look at the stage.  If I find any the RO's and I have a discussion to decide where it's 1 per shot and where its just 1.

 

I think it would be a better rule if it was just 1 per shot all the time.

 

 

Agreed. If you shot while faulting, you own it. Just like multiple hits on no-shoots.

[Gary Stevens]

I recently broached this procedural per shot fired idea with powers that be and was soundly rejected.

[Nik Habicht]

11 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

I recently broached this procedural per shot fired idea with powers that be and was soundly rejected.

I get that it would be "easier."  That however seems to contravene the sport's nature -- I appreciate USPSA because it's hard, and I believe that we can develop range officials who can equitably decide where the crossover points are from one procedural to one per shot.....

 

I think that's worth doing -- in part because such decision making ability will likely bleed over into other areas, like stage design, WSB writing, planning, and making challenging calls.

[Gary Stevens]

I agree Nik, but my issue was consistency not convenience.

 

The concept of significant advantage has been taught to untold numbers of RO's and it is still applied differently. 

 

I can understand that getting hit with multiple penalties for a toe over the line is painful, but it is the shooters toe.

 

If the RO crew has failed to properly maintain the fault lines then the RM can address that and if any penalty should be applied.

 

I had to do that very thing at Area 8 one year. Wet weather had played havoc with the ground outside the fault line causing the fault line to sink, since everyone stood on it while shooting.  I erased the penalty, we repaired the ground and moved on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nik Habicht]

Gary,

when you say your concern is consistency -- do you mean consistently calling the fault on a particular stage, for every competitor?  I'm on board with that -- and think it's crucial to define this prior to the start of the match.

 

Or are you concerned about calling it consistently across all stages of a match -- so if stage 1 has per shot fired for a toe over the line, because the targets are 15' away, then stage 2 which has competitors running to a position from which they engage targets at 25 yards away would need to call a toe over the exact same way? 

[Gary Stevens]

Actually I am concerned about the consistency across the sport.

[George Jones]

While I always respect my good friend Gary's dedication and opinions, I disagree with his opinion in this case.

 

If our sport was Bullseye, a per shot penalty would be a no-brainer.

 

However, we are thankfully not Bullseye.  All stages are different.  Distance to targets, spacing of target arrays, proximity to walls and barriers, location and angle of fault lines, and moving targets all provide the potential for different levels of "advantage".  As has been mentioned previously, significant advantage should be determined by the stage crew before the first shooter shows up.  Easily done at a major match with assigned staff. 

 

Most likely not done at most local matches with roving ROs.  Although SA is described in the RO seminars, it is not surprising to me that many ROs don't fully appreciate and apply the concept back on the home range.

 

The most blatant weak spot is for classifiers however, where one squad may apply a single and another squad apply multiples.  Perhaps that weak spot could be reduced if classifiers were to specify when/if per-shot procedurals should be called.  More work for NROI. 

[OPENB]

5 minutes ago, George Jones said:

While I always respect my good friend Gary's dedication and opinions, I disagree with his opinion in this case.

 

If our sport was Bullseye, a per shot penalty would be a no-brainer.

 

However, we are thankfully not Bullseye.  All stages are different.  Distance to targets, spacing of target arrays, proximity to walls and barriers, location and angle of fault lines, and moving targets all provide the potential for different levels of "advantage".  As has been mentioned previously, significant advantage should be determined by the stage crew before the first shooter shows up.  Easily done at a major match with assigned staff. 

 

Most likely not done at most local matches with roving ROs.  Although SA is described in the RO seminars, it is not surprising to me that many ROs don't fully appreciate and apply the concept back on the home range.

 

The most blatant weak spot is for classifiers however, where one squad may apply a single and another squad apply multiples.  Perhaps that weak spot could be reduced if classifiers were to specify when/if per-shot procedurals should be called.  More work for NROI. 

I think you just reinforced Gary's argument. Since the bulk of the shots fired in our sport is at local matches with roving ROs, the potential for inconsistency is that much greater. And, if we can't guarantee consistency in our classifiers, what value are they? 

[Sarge]

10 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

Actually I am concerned about the consistency across the sport.

Exactly. When I shoot a match in one place then travel and shoot another and get two RO's with widely differing views on anything it makes the sport look ungoverned. 

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, George Jones said:

 

 Although SA is described in the RO seminars, it is not surprising to me that many ROs don't fully appreciate and apply the concept back on the home range.

What EXACTLY is the current wording on SA in seminars? 

[mosher]

I see this often at our matches with feet on XXs starting outside the area, shooters will have a brain fart and draw and engage 2-3 targets still standing on the XXs, not having stepped in.  I always assess one procedural.  No way I'm hitting them with 6-8 for each shot.

[Schutzenmeister]

4 hours ago, OPENB said:

I think you just reinforced Gary's argument. Since the bulk of the shots fired in our sport is at local matches with roving ROs, the potential for inconsistency is that much greater. And, if we can't guarantee consistency in our classifiers, what value are they? 

 

Face it ... Real world on Classifiers:

 

- The HHF score are shot clean (i.e., no penalties) else they would NOT be the HHFs.

 

- If you get a penalty (one, much less multiple), you've basically tanked the Classifier, so far as improving your classification goes!

 

I agree we need consistency WRT the application of 10.2.1.  However, this issue does not translate to a degraded value of the classification system itself.

[George Jones]

4 hours ago, OPENB said:

I think you just reinforced Gary's argument. Since the bulk of the shots fired in our sport is at local matches with roving ROs, the potential for inconsistency is that much greater. And, if we can't guarantee consistency in our classifiers, what value are they? 

Well..... not really since I don't particularly like the idea of a common approach which would result in many shooters zeroing a stage when an educated approach would be more specific to the situation at the time, on that particular stage and at that exact location.

 

What I do admit and agree to is that it is an education problem.  Unfortunately, I see too many ROs using bad range commands.  That tells me you can take a horse to water, but.....

 

Local matches could take the same pre-match approach as do (many) larger matches.  It falls on the match staff.  Unfortunately, reality usually shows that those local volunteers are already overworked and worrying about foot faults is (logically) not high on their list of priorities.

 

I agree that with roving ROs, you simply don't have the consistency that Gary desires.  But I think it is not much different that other judgment calls we have to make (fingers, 180s).  I'm sure those roving ROs all have different standards.  One guy gets Dq'd and another similar event on another squad doesn't get called. 

 

Sarge,

Correct wording?  I'm not going to spend the day 'splaining it. 

It is a discussion with basic examples that demonstrate it requires judgment and that checking with higher authority when in doubt is important.

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, George Jones said:

Well..... not really since I don't particularly like the idea of a common approach which would result in many shooters zeroing a stage when an educated approach would be more specific to the situation at the time, on that particular stage and at that exact location.

 

What I do admit and agree to is that it is an education problem.  Unfortunately, I see too many ROs using bad range commands.  That tells me you can take a horse to water, but.....

 

Local matches could take the same pre-match approach as do (many) larger matches.  It falls on the match staff.  Unfortunately, reality usually shows that those local volunteers are already overworked and worrying about foot faults is (logically) not high on their list of priorities.

 

I agree that with roving ROs, you simply don't have the consistency that Gary desires.  But I think it is not much different that other judgment calls we have to make (fingers, 180s).  I'm sure those roving ROs all have different standards.  One guy gets Dq'd and another similar event on another squad doesn't get called. 

 

Sarge,

Correct wording?  I'm not going to spend the day 'splaining it. 

It is a discussion with basic examples that demonstrate it requires judgment and that checking with higher authority when in doubt is important.

Not badgering you George but seminars still seem to be geared towards major matches where there is the understanding that an RO just can't say, "Hey, on this stage if you do XXX It's a penalty per shot." They have a higher authority who will hold them to a higher standard. In local matches, even good RO's roaming with squads will make decisions based off of the "discussion" from their seminar. Sometimes they consult the local MD/RM but not always. This is how you find out later over beer and wings that Sarge gave one procedural and George gave his squad one per shot on the sane stage. Seems to me if we have X number of RMI's teaching X number of classes a year , including "discussion", we are inviting mixed results. I would think the material should be identical from class to class in order to at least come close to consistency?

 

And you are right, there are many RO's out there that can't even get range commands right. what makes us think they will be any better at determining penalty application? 

[George Jones]

You've just repeated the same points I made concerning the problem at local matches. This is a no-win discussion at this point.  We all have navels.  What we need is a solution.

 

If you or anyone has suggestions beyond "one per shot" and which does not require judgment on the part of major match and local ROs, please submit a cogent and concise description of your solution to NROI.  I'm confident it will receive due attention at the upcoming instructor conference (where we discuss our "class discussions"  ).

[Gary Stevens]

If the sport is going to keep the significant advantage rule, which they will, perhaps adding a word in the class examples or in the rulebook as examples given would help. It has always been explained that if a shooter obtains a better angle, or closer to the target, or can engage more targets than would have been available it was significant advantage. Perhaps adding the word significant to the examples would help.

 

if a shooter obtains a significantly better angle, or is significantly closer to the targets then it would be a per shot penalty.

 

Admittedly it is still subjective, but it makes the RO look for a significant result before they declare a significant advantage.

[mosher]

Suggestion:

 

Faulting with part of foot in contact with fault line is 1 procedural.

 

Faulting with foot wholly outside of fault line:

a. if further or lateral from targets engaged, such as backwards, one procedural.

b. If forward or closer to targets, per shot.