austex
-
Posts
155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by austex
-
-
I agree it was the smoothest and fastest run scoring I've seen at any major match. I'm a big fan of using practiscore in the local match I run, but as a shooter at a big match I'd love to see it done the way they did it this week.
As an RO at this match and many other national and major matches, I strongly prefer to use paper scoring. It's much more efficient at the stage level when a paper backup is required and the schedule is critical.
At the club level, though, we brought Practiscore online in early 2012 and have been very pleased with it for the local matches.
-
Is anybody experimenting with Practiscore on any of the Onyx android e-ink readers?
-
Is it correct that when the shot occurred the mag was fully inserted in the gun, the slide was closed into battery, and the shooter's finger was out of the trigger guard? And that the DQ was issued under 10.4.3 for a shot that occurred while "loading"?
How do you answer the shooter when he points out that the mag was fully seated and the gun was in battery when the shot occurred, and thus that loading was already complete the microsecond before the shot occurred?
Loading ............................"The insertion of ammunition into a firearm. Loading is completed when ammunition is inserted and firearm is in battery, (slide forward or cylinder closed), and ready to fire."
-
Can we get a report from somebody that shot today? How muddy are the roads and the bays?
-
What are the range surfaces and internal roads going to be like this weekend if 2" - 3" of rain falls Tuesday and Wednesday?
-
Who is the match directory now? I need to make some registration and squadding changes.
-
9.4.5.3 doesn't say there has to be more than one string. It says ANY string. This classifier is one string. Stacking penalties can be applied to any virginia count stage.
Shadowrider’s Melody Line example is that the shooter draws and fires 2 rounds at T1 then fires 1 round each at T2-T6, performs the mandatory reload and fires 1 round at T2-T6. Are you saying that you would impose one stacked-shot procedural for not shooting at T1 after the reload?
9.4.5.3 Stacked shots (i.e. obviously shooting more than the required rounds on a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in any string), will incur one procedural penalty per target insufficiently engaged in any string.
Melody Line is one string, and Shadowrider’s hypothetical assumes the shooter fired 2 shots at each target. No target was insufficiently engaged in that single string.
A couple of hypothetical examples might illustrate the point better.
Example 1: Virginia count, 2 targets, 2 strings, best 2 hits per target score. WSB is for string 1, draw and engage T1 and T2 with one round each, and for string 2, draw and engage T1 and T2 with one round each. In string 1, shooter draws and shots T1 with 2 rounds and stops. In string 2, shooter draws and shoots T2 with 2 rounds and stops. Targets are scored, each has 2 hits. Then 9.4.5.3 kicks in and the shooter gets a procedural for insufficient engagement of T2 in the first string, and a procedural for insufficient engagement of T1 in the second string.
Example 2: Virginia count, 2 targets, 1 string, best 2 hits per target score. WSB is draw and engage T1 and T2 with one round each, perform a mandatory reload and engage T1 and T2 with one round each. Shooter draws, engages T1 with 2 rounds, performs a reload, and engages T2 with 2 rounds. Targets are scored, each has 2 hits. It’s only one string, so the shooter did not shoot more than the required rounds on any target in that string or shoot any target with fewer shots than specified in that string. No stacked shot penalties apply. (This example is intended to reignite the debate about scoring the reload mistiming issue, just to show that stacked shot penalties don’t apply).
I was careful not to say that stacked shot penalties can’t apply to a single string—I only said that 9.4.5.3 doesn’t apply to Shadowrider’s Melody Line example. I haven’t tried to consider all possible instances where a stacked shot penalty might apply in a single string, and I don’t have time to try right now. My intuition, however, is that there may not be any examples to find. Generally, miss and failure to shoot at penalties will apply to any target insufficiently engaged in that single string. So I’d be interested to see any valid example you may find.
-
It's one procedural under 9.4.5.3 for stacking on T1.
Agree that it's one procedural, but under 10.2.2 not 9.4.5.3. Melody Line is one string, so 9.4.5.3 doens't apply to this situation.
-
This version has some nice upgrades. But how long before the Android version gets direct export of files to upload to uspsa.org for classifiers and match scores?
-
You're missing the point I think. Your stage required a reload before T2 could be engaged, and that reload was performed. Therefore all rounds fired at T2 occurred without violation. Looking at T1, the stage required engagement with six rounds prior to the reload. The competitor fired five rounds. The competitor was allowed to fire five rounds at T1 without being required to make a reload -- so no violation occurred there. The only thing left to do is to score the miss......
----------------------------------------------
Applying your analysis of the 08-01 ruling to Skydiver’s case:
You're missing the point I think. Skydiver’s stage required a reload before T1-T6 could be engaged a second time, and that reload was performed. Therefore all rounds fired at T1-T5 and the second round at T6 occurred without violation. Looking at T1-T5, the stage required engagement with one round prior to the reload and one round after the reload. The competitor fired one round at T1-T5 before the reload and one round at T1-T5 after the reload. Looking at T6, the stage required engagement with one round prior to the reload and one round after the reload. The competitor fired one round at T6 after the reload. The only thing left to do is to penalize the shooter for not firing a shot at T6 before the reload...... So one procedural.
----------------------------------------------
I understand your point. I understand my point. I understand that each of our points has a rational, reasonable basis in the rules and the rulings. When it comes to a textual and contextual analysis of our two points, I’m not convinced that either has a better foundation in the rules and rulings. But if I have two reasonable approaches, and neither has a better foundation than the other, I’ll go with the one that doesn’t bury the shooter in penalties disproportionally to the severity of the infraction or to any advantage gained by the infraction. For Skydiver’s 5-reload-7 situation, I think one procedural would be sufficient to deter intentional violations (i.e., no malfunction, but an intentional early reload) and to penalize minor brain malfunctions appropriately.
Let’s assume Skydiver is a GM shooting limited and normally shoots 99-08 perfectly with 60 points at 6.45 seconds for a 9.2999 HF and a 100% score on the national scale. Let’s say he can save a full second by doing a 5-reload-7 over a 6-reload-6 because he saves one target transition. With one procedural, that’s a 9.1715 HF for a 98.6183% national score—one procedural is enough to keep it from being a winning strategy. The examples I tried indicated the 5-reload-7 strategy would be even worse for lesser skilled shooters.
With respect to massive penalties, for example the 7 procedurals some have advocated, I noticed some comments to the effect that “oh well, you zeroed the stage so it will not hurt your classification.” Most classifiers, though, are shot in matches, and zero points on the stage hurt the shooter’s match results a lot compared to imposing only one procedural, which likely would only cost somewhere from 1 to 6 or so stage points. For a minor mental slip, that seems enough.
You might be right about a DNROI ruling on Skydiver’s situation. It wouldn’t be the first DNROI ruling that I think is based on debatable interpretations of the rules. But if so, I will certainly follow its literal mandate, and try to apply its spirit in what seem to be similar contexts. In the absence of a ruling, though, it will take a much better argument than I’ve seen in this topic to convince me that 7 procedurals is the right call.
-
There is an NROI ruling that strongly implies that the shooter should not get the procedurals for "failing to make the reload." He did reload. The double jeopardy ruling says:
Question:
We were shooting classifier CM08-01 Virginia Count. The procedure is: String1: On signal, engage one target with only six rounds freestyle, make mandatory reload, etc. The shooter engages first target with five (5) rounds, makes mandatory reload and completes the COF. RO gives the shooter one miss penalty (well deserved) plus a procedural penalty for shooting less than six rounds required sighting the per rule 10.2.2.Answer:It is scored as a miss with no procedural for failing to fire the 6 rounds, the competitor is already being penalized for the infraction. 10.2.2 stipulates a procedural per shot for failing to comply with a stage procedure, this would mean for example, carrying a briefcase while engaging targets, the competitor leaves it behind and shoots without it.Different scenario though in that the same target wasn't being reengaged after the reload.......
In your scenario the competitor reloaded early, but before engaging the second target. So he had fulfilled the reload requirement prior to engaging T2.
The miss is the correct penalty for not engaging T1 with sufficient rounds prior to the reload.....
CM08-01 requires a shooter to engage one target with 6 rounds (let's say T1, as you assume), make a mandatory reload, and engage another target with 6 rounds (let's say T2, as you assume). According to your logic in an earlier post, the shooter could complete 5 reloads after each of the first five shots on T1 -- but none of those reloads satisfy the requirements in the stage description, which requires engaging T1 with SIX rounds before the reload. Under your logic, he should then get SIX procedurals, one for the six shots on T2, because the reload didn't happen after engaging T1 fully with all 6 rounds.
I don't see anything in the rules that justifies a distinction about the timing of the reload in one situation requiring 6 rounds on 1 target before the reload versus another situation requiring 1 round on 6 targets before the reload. The shooter didn't get failure to reload penalties in the ruling, and shouldn't in Skydiver's situation. In the 08-01 situation, the miss is the penalty for the error, and in Skydiver's situation the procedural for firing one of the shots on T6 out of sequence is the penalty. That one procedural seems suffcient to deter someone from trying to get an advantage by double tapping T6 at the end, instead of transitioning to it twice. Burying the shooter in excess penalties in Skydiver's case is not correct, it seems to me. But if a shooter really tried to game it, for example, by shooting T1 with one round, reloading, and then shooting T1 with another round and double tapping T2-T6, then rule 10.2.2 could justify one procedural penalty for each shot fired because that's likely a significant advantage.
-
Here's my understanding of the circumstances: Shooter engaged T1 through T5 with one round each, then performed a reload, then engaged T1 through T6 with one round each, then engaged T6 again with one round. Total of 12 shots, total of 12 hits, 2 on each target. The stage procedure requires the shooter to engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, then make a mandatory reload and engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, Virginia count - 12 shots, 12 hits.
There is an NROI ruling that strongly implies that the shooter should not get the procedurals for "failing to make the reload." He did reload. The double jeopardy ruling says:
Question:
We were shooting classifier CM08-01 Virginia Count. The procedure is: String1: On signal, engage one target with only six rounds freestyle, make mandatory reload, etc. The shooter engages first target with five (5) rounds, makes mandatory reload and completes the COF. RO gives the shooter one miss penalty (well deserved) plus a procedural penalty for shooting less than six rounds required sighting the per rule 10.2.2.Answer:It is scored as a miss with no procedural for failing to fire the 6 rounds, the competitor is already being penalized for the infraction. 10.2.2 stipulates a procedural per shot for failing to comply with a stage procedure, this would mean for example, carrying a briefcase while engaging targets, the competitor leaves it behind and shoots without it.In this ruling, the stage required 6 shots, reload, and 6 shots. The shooter shot 5 times, reloaded, and shot 6 more times. Only penalty was the miss. In the situation at hand, the shooter shot 5 times, reloaded, and shot 7 more times. The rules don't seem to contemplate a different result for this situation with respect to the "per shot" penalties for failing to reload. Although the WSB for 99-08 expressly says "failure to perform mandatory reload will result in one procedural penalty per shot fired" and the WSB for 08-01 does not, Rule 10.2.4 would seem to mandate equivalent penalties in 08-01.
From this perspective, in the current situation the shooter would only get one procedural. None for failing to reload (he did reload, like in the ruling), no extra shots (only shot 12 times) and no extra hits (only 12 hits). No failure to shoot at, because each target had at least one hole. He did, however, not follow the WSB's mandate to shoot 6, reload, shoot 6 -- he shot 5, reloaded, and shot 7. Thus, he failed to comply with the WSB's mandate on the sequence of shots and would get a procedural under 10.2.2.
The provisions of rule 10.2.2.1 would not apply. That rule says that procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures do not apply to the number of shots fired, and that penalties for firing insufficient or additional shots are addressed in other rules and must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2. Here, the shooter is not being penalized for the number of shots fired, or for firing insufficient or additional shots - 12 shots were required, and the shooter fired 12 shots. Instead, the shooter would be penalized for the improper sequence of shots, which is not proscribed by 10.2.2.1.
This may not be the "right" perspective, but it seems as well grounded in the rules and rulings as any other proposal so far.
-
Because we already have too many divisions. I would resist the creation of *any* new division until we clean up what we have. Maybe we just need to stop offering every division at every match. Shoot the popular ones, but if less than 5 people show up for your division, then you get scored in limited or open. I dunno.
I must have missed it somewhere in this long topic. Why does having 6 or 7 divisions in a match pose any problem? I might agree if we had to score by hand, but every club has at least EZWinScore to handle that drudgery. And the rulebook already provides for not recognizing various divisions based on turnout.
-
Can't speak about the Dallas area.
From downtown Austin you have USPSA matches (no IPSC, all USPSA):
1st Saturday at Austin Rifle Club about 20 miles east
2d Sunday at La Grange about 70 miles east
3d Sunday at Temple about 80 miles north or Bulverde about 70 miles south
4th Sunday at San Antonion about 100 miles south
A few other USPSA matches are held a little further out (120 to 140 miles)
You can fill in with closer IDPA or steel matches if you want.
-
It's legal because there is a shooting area, not a single shooting position. I just went through all of this for the OK sectional and it's a fine line.
If it dictated "while seated, engage all targets" that would make it illegal, from what I understand.
Just guessing, but the shooting area will probably be big enough to provide some advantage to moving. For example, stand up and shoot from the center, and you face the stacked poppers and no-shoot backdrop. Move to a corner, and the no-shoots and poppers are not lined up anymore. Might be something for a shooter that will have to reload anyway to consider.
-
Will this version implement export of a USPSA classifier upload file?
-
Perhaps the RO could supervise as you removed the barrel while still on the stage. The RO could call range is clear after you placed the frame and slide in a bag or case that someone else brought up. Then you could go anywhere except a safe area to pull out the rest of the case. That would avoid both issues you identified.
-
At the Cowtown Classic, they had a nice suspension bridge that had about a 4x8 shooting platform. Had lateral coil springs on each corner damping the sway, but it still moved enough to present a challenge. The shooting deck had fault lines within the perimeter, thus making contact with anything a fault while shooting.
-
What I end up with is a screen with the "Drag to Unlock". When I do that, it asks if I want to complete action using ADW.launcher or ReLaunch.
Does the popup that presents this question to you have a checkbox to have the choice be the default in the future? If so, check it, pick ADW, and see if that addresses your issue.
-
A little pricier than Charlie's, but will come relatively quickly and has a direct plug in connector. Even get the T5 torx driver
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FGSRY5A/ref=oh_details_o02_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
-
Ooo, god, your desktop is BUSY!
You must be looking at the app drawer (5th image from left). The desktop (4th image from left) only has 3 buttons: settings, Practiscore, and the button that opens the app drawer. I use each of them regularly. And I agree about the auto update. All apps are set to notify of new versions, but need authorization to update.
-
You really might want to just look at rootnscoreit.com and re-root one with that and see how you like it. It's clean, ridiculously simple (the hardest part is creating the card), and gives you a dedicated ready-to-use scoring device.
JC has done a tremendous service to the practical shooting community with rootnscoreit. It fits the needs of many nook users.
I'm pretty happy with my custom Nook-Touch-Mod root, though, and think I'll stick with it. I stripped out all of the junk B&N leaves in, and it only has the stuff I use now. It's a bit peppier, since it's overclocked to 1 ghz from the standard 800 mhz. All of the screens are custom, and the desktop is clean. And it has Google Market access and gmail.
-
I have the screensaver down pat it is the wallpaper/background thing I trying to get rid of the giant n in the middle. I got that stupid ADW wallpaper/background on the home page on one of the nooks I am trying to get rid of
Sorry, but I don't know a basic method to get the file to the nook. I don't think the root directory and other subdirectories off the root can be accessed by just plugging the nook into a PC.
I use ADB to do the transfer. Most rooting methods install that on the nook. You'll have to get an android SDK to install ADB on your PC, though, and the learning curve is somewhat steep.
Alternatively, a rooted Nook can run most any Android file manager. I use "ES File Explorer" on mine. You can get it in Market if you rooted your system with access the Google store. If you can get the wallpaper image file to your nook some way, for example by emailing it, posting it on a website for download, or using dropbox, then you can use the file explorer to move it to the right directory.
-
If you want only your custom screen saver to be thIe one used on the device, you have to create a separate directory under /system/media/screensaver
I just deleted the author images and moved the image I wanted to use into the author subdirectory.
Swinger Target Plans
in Target & Prop Design and Construction
Posted
Nice! One of your best designs, I think.