Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

aztecdriver

Classifieds
  • Posts

    1,156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Peachtree City, GA
  • Real Name
    Ken Wilcox

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    kenwilcox73

Recent Profile Visitors

889 profile views

aztecdriver's Achievements

Looks for Match

Looks for Match (2/11)

  1. What Thomas said... in fact - I never thought about the dropped gun argument, but he's right. The rule states dropping of a firearm- not necessarily THE firearm, during the COF. This is a normal practice, however, multiguns with centerfires...
  2. All, STRONG POINT shooting range in Waverly Hall, GA is hosting they're monthly USPSA match on December 2nd, 2017. If you havn't been to this match, you need to make an effort. They're doing it right, Fayetteflash and myself have been helping them get the match right, and they are great supporters of this sport. We need to get the numbers up at this match to keep them investing, so please, if you have next weekend open on Saturday, head down to Waverly Hall. It's 20 min from Columbus, a little over an hour from the South Side of Atlanta - and for you north siders, probably 20 minutes more than South River. Get there... https://practiscore.com/strongpoint-december-2017-uspsa-match/register If you want any questions answered, please feel free to PM me. Thanks,
  3. First post in a while, so yay that I can get back into it... Why call a barrel falling anything but REF and reshoot? Think about it - if the competitor thinks it's gaming and every time it falls he has to reshoot - he'll eventually stop knocking it over to get an actual score on the stage - or run out of ammo for the stage.
  4. By far, the most poignant, and true statement I've read so far (going serially) relating to my experience. The challenge an RM has is attempting to remove grey from the match before it starts, dealing with it fairly after it starts, and debriefing and learning from it after it ends. If one thinks they know everything once that review is given, or being given the title at a state match - i feel for that person, because it's going to be a very, very miserable experience for everyone.
  5. Until the board disagrees, requests a rule change and votes it in. This is how interpretation issues are handled.
  6. Guys, his scenario is very plausible to have without even coming close to a DQ. Think of a wall area with a port through it, two targets could be at the edge of the wall so I have to go to the wall edge to shoot them, and have their backs inside the port area, easily visible and be well down range. There's no need to go on a DQ march on this because how you visualize the question makes it not feasible.
  7. No. You continue to apply assumptions that things not done during the procedure are illegal and as such don't matter if they happen. They are not illegal, they are procedural errors, which is why extra shots and extra hits are procedural penalties. I still can choose how I solve the competitive problem, no matter what happens during that solving. Your scoring of your example 1 is correct. I thought I missed on the first pass, so I fired a makeup shot, but I was wrong. So because I chose to fire the makeup shot (13 vs. 12 rounds.) 1 extra shot penalty. Because I was wrong about the hit being a miss, there are 3 rounds into the target instead of two, one extra hit. If I was right and the first shot missed t6 - I would only have the extra shot, (13 v 12). The only hits on the target would be 2 and those would be scored as best two, as always - no extra hit. In your example 2 - and all of these examples, it's one string, 12 rounds required. The only penalty for extra shot would happen if the 13th shot is broken. Here's the rule with the relevant text highlighted. 9.4.5.1 Extra shots (i.e. shots fired in excess of the number specified in a component string or stage), will each incur one procedural penalty. Additionally, during scoring, no more than the specified number and highest scoring hits will be awarded. IF we remove the mandatory reload and then change it to two separate strings, like draw 1 each freestyle, string 2, draw one each strong hand only, and it goes 5 then 7, then there is an extra shot taken during the second component string. That is not the case here. It's one string, 12 rounds - it's fine from the extra shot stand point. You have no basis in calling it an extra shot because it happened after the mandatory reload. Secondly, scoring targets is ALWAYS based on the evidence on the target - EXCEPT, as pointed out, in the case of FTEs which are known from the line. The reasoning is simple, the ambiguity you point out about which hit was fired from there is NEVER consider. If there is a whole in the paper and there is a scoring hit on the target - it's a scoring hit. A missed shot, whether it was noticed to be a miss from the line and was made up, or whatever - has no bearing. If there's supposed to be 2 hits and there's 3, you always take the best two and the extra hit is scored. If 3 rounds were fired at a target and you know an extra shot was taken in the second component string (as my splitting it into two component strings discusses) - it's a valid scoring hit. I can look after string 1 and say - gee - I missed a round on t2, and shoot that make up shot if I choose to in string two. I'm debating whether the -10 plus the extra .5 for the shot is worth it or do I take the -15 for the mike. When scoring, it doesn't matter how they got there, the evidence is the evidence and you score it appropriately. This policy is lined out in 9.5. In order for me to consider what you are attributing in the rules - where does your stance lie in 9.5? Lastly, the point people have been making about the reload procedural is because the stage procedure states - "Engage T1-T6, then, make a mandatory reload and engage T1-T6. The reload happened before the first part of the procedure was satisfied, so the reload never satisfied the mandatory reload component. The word, THEN is important. Which is why every target engaged twice after the non-mandatory reload incurred a procedural because we never did it. 10.2.4 A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur one procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed. When T1 was engaged again before T6 was and the mandatory reload then performed, every shot fired there after was penalized. Extra shots - one string, requiring 12 shots - 12 shots fired - no extra shot. Extra hits - each target had two holes, no extra hits Procedural - mandatory reload penalties - some say 6 some say 7 and I can argue both sides to this, and won't (T6 was engaged properly with the first round, improperly on the second round.) Does that clear it up? If not, I hear you arguing for what you think is possible - I'm not seeing the basis in the rules - at all. So - if you are going to respond, I highly suggest you walk through the rules and lay out your case. Quote them - so we can see what you are trying to say.
  8. Two separate things: 1. Extra hits are scored on the targets, regardless of what happens during the procedure. Simply look at the evidence, and the required hits per target and score appropriately - which becomes interesting when targets aren't separated or overlap (thing one bullet scoring two targets) 2. Extra shots only happen during the string or strings. Someone can either make a mistake or miss and shoot too many than prescribed. You don't double penalize one action, so, what I think you are looking at is 10.2.2.1 10.2.2.1 Procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures do not apply to the number of shots fired. Penalties for firing insufficient or additional shots are addressed in other rules and must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2.
  9. I do - often. I or another experienced RO is on the clipboard. We coach them, help them through calls, hand them overlays to see how to use them, and of course, let them get experience. It's how some other very bright people brought me into getting involved.
  10. Based on 2.1.8.5, this sounds like an illegal stage. Was this never called? 2.1.8.5 Appearing scoring targets must be designed and constructed to be obscured to the competitor (during the course of fire) prior to activation. It's not illegal - it's simply no longer an appearing target. From the appendix: Appearing target A target which is not visible until activated or revealed. Being that the target is available before activation, it no longer fits the definition, and 2.1.8.5 doesn't apply, that's why it's available for engagement.
  11. Absolutely true, I see too many ROs that just chat much more than necessary while holding the timer. I love to talk with the guys just as much as the next guy but when you are on the timer, it should be all business. The same thing happened at an Area match I was ROing and a foreign competitor heard the CRO say something about waiting to make ready and he started to draw. He just barely cleared the holster and was DQ'ed. The RM reinstated him. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk This is simple. Run a match with 2 stages in 2 hours with 36 people there. 18 people on a squad in an hour. The first time someone starts that jibber jabbering stuff with the clock in their hand they have 4 people coming up to them going dude - if you want to talk, give me that....We gotta go...
  12. Let me expand upon the process IN the rules that Nik talked about. What happens when a state or locality that has an affect on magazine capacity legally allowed to be used at a match? Let's say that you are not allowed to have a magazine LOADED with more than 10 rounds? For the match, you change the divisional requirements, to some thing like production, for Open. Lim-10 exists, so there's no reason to do limited whatsoever. Open now becomes Open -10. Now - if someone loads 11, in either production, limited or open, they are now all shooting for no score, under 6.2.5.1 because there is NO division that exists for them to compete in. Now - every match, every stage, the read-in states - Rules are per the USPSA Handgun Rulebook. So therefore, by your logic, someone violating 11 rounds in Production Nationals should also be DQ'd for violating the rules. No. Just because you stand in front of a shooters meeting and state "By State Law, if you load 11 rounds in your mag, by accident or on purpose, you are DQ'd" I'd call BS. The rules permit you to limit the division capacity to 10 - and act accordingly to the rest of the rules - they do not permit you to change that rule in the shooters briefing to a DQ and then call it failing to follow a match officials instruction. Re-read 10.6.1 - it says "... failing to comply with the REASONABLE instructions of a match official..." Changing the penalty for violating division requirements to a match DQ is not reasonable - it's not permitted. The only possible move I see that is valid is for you to try and DQ for bringing the sport into disrepute for violating the law - but then again - you unless you want to parse whether shooters have violated the law or not, by loading an 11th round at the match by mistake - you can't possibly DQ for that. You can get indignant all you want about people disagreeing with you - you havn't provided the logic that gets you to the DQ legitimately.
  13. Let me ask one question here, are you going to detain the person and call up LEO, swear out a statement for the report and show up in court to testify that the competitor broke the law? I didn't think so. DQ is not the way to go, because if you are not going to all of the above, you have no business trying to push a 10.6
  14. Because we have so many new shooters to the indoor Tuesday night matches, I've gotten in the habit of giving extra guidance during the reading of the stage briefing. Anything that isn't the standard holstered standing start, such as a table start, mags placed on props, doors, etc., gets an additional set of comments and demonstrations to the entire squad. It's very difficult for a new shooter that hasn't grabbed a loaded gun off a table under time to keep the focus on the required concepts. They just see me snatch the gun and take off - they don't see where my eyes are watching the gun into my grip or my movement design to keep the gun in front of me and not take off before bringing it up in front of me. They just see me take off and try to do it. They miss grabbing the gun. They start moving forward of the table before bringing the gun up in front of them "slinging" it around often either coming close to 180 or busting it. Realizing those gotchas, in addition to the temptation to draw a gun out of the holster as Mike noted, I always give a reminder bit of these challenges when presented in the course. DQ'ing the newbie for doing what they did is required. One way you could help the situation is briefing as above.
  15. This is the core of it. The rule is there so that ROs can keep people from dry running the stage with their "sight picture". Generally, if I don't have to move to keep proper position on you - do what you want within the rules, 3 steps within the space of 1, semantics aside. Generally, if you stay within 5 feet in front of me, you could dance a jig if you want to get ready - just don't take 5 minutes to do it. We're called to assist shooters achieve their goals. Using the semantics of 3 small steps vs. 1 large one is using the rules to hinder the shooter. I abhor that. At all major's I've worked, most will ask me if they're going to do something like that and again, as long as they aren't moving farther then the general area where I have to move with them - it's good.
×
×
  • Create New...