[Wrong time recorded]

For you RO's out there..... watch the timer to see that it increments on the last shot, and keep it out of the way of brass flying from the gun, so it doesn't get hit and increment after the last shot!

Brian

You're spot on with this effective but simple technique. However, I'm amazed by how few ROs actually seem to be doing it.

[what i love]

I love seeing newbies that I have taught and/or introduced to the sport getting the same enjoyment from it that I have for so many years.

[Skill vs. Capacity]

Mag capacity, especially fixed mag tubes, makes a huge difference in shotgun matches.

On the other hand I believe Open should be Open. In the other divisions, for shotgun at least, it makes a lot of sense to control capacity to achieve competition fairness. Then as Pat points out it's skill that counts.

IPSC Shotgun Standard division restricts guns to 9 rounds and no detachable mags

IPSC Modified Division restricts capacity in a different way by specifying a max overall length of the gun but no detachable mags

[It's Garfield's Birthday]

Happy birthday, Arvid, I hope you have a good day.

[Interpretation of the rules]

[Mutley voice mode on]

Medals...Medals...Mutley wants medals...

[/MVMO]

   

Thanks Vince, can I wear a badge saying Skywalker no longer fights Darth Vader, we´re in complete agreement now? 

You sad puppy!

Of course you can't have a badge. Besides what would Vince do if everyone stopped fighting him? And it offers him a change from some of the dust ups he and I had. We had some humdingers in the past!

Nobody could ever say we didn't have proper debate!

We've made up now.

[Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals]

If the shooter is not shooting according to the course description and abide by the rules, shouldn't he be given a zero for the stage?!?!  Isn't that the reason for rules?  Everybody else seems to be able to follow the rules, why should one or a few shooter be able to bypass the rule with a small penalty and possibly gain an advantage on the stage?

racerba

I suspect you are going to be in the minority with this. I hate gamers probably as much (more?) than you but I really don't think we need to massively penalise shooters for a relatively minor error. The penalty per shot in the case of significant advantage should be adequate to take care of blatant gamers.

I think it is important that we remember that the intention is to have a shooting contest and not a foot fault avoidance contest.

Fault lines are an artificial addition to the concepts of the sport. I have pasted below the relevant rules

2.2.1  Charge Lines and Fault Lines – Competitor movement should preferably be restricted through the use of physical barriers, however, the use of Charge and Fault Lines is permitted.  Charge Lines and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material and should rise at least 2 centimeters (0.79 inches) above ground level.  This will provide both physical and visible references to competitors to prevent inadvertent faulting.  Fault Lines and Charge Lines must be fixed firmly in place to ensure they remain consistent throughout the match. 

2.2.1.1  Charge Lines are used to restrict unreasonable movement by competitors toward or away from targets.

2.2.1.2  Fault Lines are used to force the competitor to shoot at targets from behind physical barriers.  They may be positioned at any angle extending to the rear of these barriers.  Fault Lines should be a minimum of 1 meter (3.28 feet) in length and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, they are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity.

Competitors should be focusing on shooting targets and should not have to spend undue time and effort avoiding foot fault problems.

[Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals]

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground beyond a Fault or Charge Line will receive 1 procedural penalty for each occurrence.  However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor (delete "will") may instead be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. (delete "instead of a single penalty").  No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting a line.

Vince

Good job. I think you are nearly there, however, I would suggest we need a slight change to the wording of the first sentence because I believe it could be miscontrued.

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground beyond a Fault or Charge Line will receive 1 procedural penalty for each occurrence.

This could be read that "for each occurrence" links to "for each shot fired". It is not explicit that it links to each occurrence of touching the ground. I think everyone reading this thread is reading it as they understand it rather than as written.

For the avoidance of any doubt I would suggest/prefer something like:

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground beyond a Fault or Charge Line will receive 1 procedural penalty for each occurrence of faulting.

[Shotgun and rifle troubles]

For shotgun I would advise you to aim low unless there is a specific reason for you not to. Unless you are really comfortable with your point of aim and achieve your hits most every time then it adds in a safety margin. Over the years I've analysed a lot of misses and mostly they are high. By shooting low you help to compensate.

Also read the target array. There can be sucker traps. e.g. If you shooot left to right and there are (say) 6 targets with the first 3 or 4 climbing (in presentation) from left to right and then the next one drops down so the plane it's on is below the others then that can be the sucker target and you will see shooters missing that one in the array more than the others. It is so predictable that a course designer can build in the problem if he is of such a mind.

Indeed on any SG stage there can be a problem target or two. Make sure you have indentified them and have the defeat of them in your mind before you shoot. This may just be the positioning, especially if they are screwed around at an acute angle. Focus on being in position for the difficult target. The ones that start off in plain view remain in plain view but often seem to take precedence in shooters minds, which in my opinion is the wrong priority.

[Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals]

The net result of this entire discussion is that it has been very useful and constructive and I'm sure that the change being presented by Vince will be a much fairer result.

There are no losers on this one.

[Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals]

...but I'll gladly toast one or three with y'all from here, if you tell me the right moment!

Luca

I hope you don't possibly mean that there could be a wrong moment?

[Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals]

You're just feeling sensitive and unloved!  You are also so hurtful by calling me "evil". 

Yes because, as you know, I'm a shy and retiring type ......

Anyway, never mind. I'll get my revenge with you and Bob The Dinosaur in Bali - I just hope you guys have a high tolerance for tequila.

BWA-HA-HA

I confess to not being too keen on tequila although I've been known to enjoy "Body Slammers". Remind me to introduce you to "Woodpeckers" some day. They involve Green Chartreuse and fire and kick like a b*stard.

[Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals]

Hi Luca

I guess this is going to be be a case of "in the eye of the beholder".

I believe that "each shot fired while faulting" links and points back to the earlier condition in the same sentence i.e. "if the competitor has gained a significant advantage while faulting".

There are 2 conditions to be met: "a significant advantage" and "faulting". If only 1 condition is met then either no procedural penalties or just 1.

The rule does not state (words in red) "if the competitor has gained a significant advantage while faulting on any target, the competitor will be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired at all targets while faulting, instead of a single penalty.

The additional penalties are to penalise the significant advantage not to wipe out the stage.

[Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals]

Hey, Vince, I protest!

I wasn't the one beating you up over "in the opinion of", I think it was Bob the Dinosaur. There are many rules that become de facto "in the opinion of" and I wasn't too bothered whether we kept the expression or not.

You're just feeling sensitive and unloved! You are also so hurtful by calling me "evil".

I suspect your proposed change will receive wide support but the suggestion should be allowed to run some more first.

Luca

Can I first say that from the very start I latched on to the intent of Flex's question rather than the actual circumstances of the stage used as an example and so my views ignore some of the additional info revolving around 2 apertures and 2 arrays of targets.

I note that there have been a couple of references to Rule 10.2.3. You have highlighted some of the text but this is given as an example. It is not the rule itself, the text merely serves to help by offering an interpretation not the interpretation.

You are then left with: 10.2.3 Where multiple penalties are assessed in the above cases, they must not exceed the maximum number of scoring hits that can be attained by the competitor. This isn't relevant to the thrust of the question.

This leaves us with:

10.2.1  A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground beyond a Fault or Charge Line will receive 1 procedural penalty.  However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage while faulting, the competitor will be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting, instead of a single penalty.  No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting a line.

I've highlighted what I consider to be the critical text. Flex has submitted that 6 shots are fired, 2 each at 3 targets. Shot 1 did not gain a significant advantage while faulting. Nor did shots 2, 3 or 4. Shot 5 and shot 6 did gain a significant advantage (in the theoretical case).

I believe that as no significant advantage can be attributed to shots 1 - 4 they can't be penalised as such. Instead I believe the rule can already be read to mean per shot.

Please consider 3 targets immediately in front of a shooter at say 3 metres (10 feet) distance and in plain unobstructed view. The competitor faults by placing a foot over the line. No significant advantage so just 1 Procedural.

Now add in a 4th target screwed hard around to the side and screened by a barricade. The competitor advances their foot another 10 cms (4") to get a better bead on it and fires 2 shot. The competitor is still faulting and has always been faulting. We can't and shouldn't for a minute clobber him with 8 procedurals because there can be no significant advantage for the first 6 shots.

It should be noted that if there was only a single target requiring 2 hits and 2 shots are fired while faulting and while gaining a significant advantage we only award 2 procedurals, 1 for each shot. We do not award 1 for each shot and an extra 1 for the act of faulting as well. This is why I believe that having awarded 2 procedurals it would be wrong to award a third as well unless there was a further problem such as faliure to comply with the briefing.

I hope my reasoning comes across clear enough.

I think Flex has done a good job in highlighting this potential problem in the rules.

[Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals]

..... clearly that is NOT the call (intent) that would be fair to the shooter.

I agree, and I'm working on revised wording which would allow an RO to issue procedurals on a kinder and gentler "per target, per shot" basis.

Watch this space -------------> <--------------------

Vince

As I said earlier I believe we should be looking at this and I will support a re-write of the rule.

I would have called it as 2 because I believe there is a way of reading that into the rules even as written. That excludes any penalty to fail to comply with the written briefing.

[Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals]

I'm going to really stretch the imagination here but let us suppose a theoretical case on the same stage.

The competior faults the line as described and fires 2 shots each at the "easy" targets. Easy and no significant advantage. The competitor then has a malfunction and stops shooting to clear it. During the clearing process they adjust their position and stand. After clearing the malfunction they resume shooting at the last target, the difficult target. By faulting once again they gain a significant advantage for the 2 shots. How many procs now?

What would you do if they initially forgot to shoot the 3rd target and left the "box" and started to move away and then returned to it when they remembered the missed target?

As described it doesn't seem that 1 procedural would be fair. To me 6 procs is grossly unfair and wrong. There was no significant advantage on shots 1 - 4.

From the info to hand I can understand the logic of applying 3 although I favour imposing just 2. I personally don't support either 6 or 1 and perhaps this becomes another rule that needs to be tweaked to clarify this type of occurrence.

[Of class, foreign shooters, and USPSA Nationals]

It is very simple, to win the National TITLE you must be a US citizen or hold a green card. To win the CLASS title in Division you must be a US citizen or hold a green card. I know of several people who got second place in class to a non citizen or no trophy for placing fourth because of non citizens. It's the US Nationals people only US citizens or green card holders should recieve titles or trophies. Just my opinion.

Rich

Rich

I'm afraid we are going to have to disagree on this one.

In June this year we held the British Open Shotgun Championships, a Level III IPSC match.

Kurt Miller from the US shot the match and came first in Standard Division. I was second. Kurt won because he was the better shooter. I personally don't want to, and will not, call myself the winner of the British Open because I'm British and Kurt isn't, when I know I was fairly beaten by someone who shot better than I did.

There is never any shame in being beaten by a better shooter.

I guess it could be said that I'm the British Champion of the division but Kurt is very definitely the British Open Champion and deservedly so.

[Of class, foreign shooters, and USPSA Nationals]

The problem only lies with those who may try to sandbag the results and therefore the prize table. I am not hearing anyone particularly moaning about shooters who have a classification level higher than their ability level.

All (most ?) shooters at matches try their best to get the best result.

There are many who try particularly hard to move up a classification because they take pride in it. They are not the problem.

Why not try to conceive a method where the classification at matches with regards to the prize table is the higher of either the classification system or the average of nn matches over the last or previous xx months?

I'm not against moving non current shooters into Unclassified. They can always make the effort to get themselves up todate

Add in a rule at matches that the classification has to be current (based on xyz criteria) to be eligible for prizes and you end up with a fairer system.

In the end I am generally in favour of a classification system at matches, it benefits a wider range of shooters, some of whom will never make M or GM. Personally I prefer trophies to prizes, but that's a separate issue. The important thing is to focus on a system at matches which makes the distribution of prizes as fair as possible. The system at matches does not have to totally conform (solely) to the existing classification system.

Target the defeat of sandbagging regardless of where the shooter comes from. The target is a fair system at the prize table.

[Getting DQ'd]

An interesting case and thank you, Unleashed, for sharing it with us.

If I may add to the discussion in the spirit of what is intended, and by no means making any specific claims about this case, I would like to add some of my observations formed over many years.

I wholeheatedly endorse Vince's statement that often competitors will completely disbelieve that they committed the action described to them.

There is another side to it. I'm convinced that in many cases the RO absolutely sees the incident but then quotes the circumstances incorrectly. I've known perfectly sound calls from an RO be overturned at arbitration because the RO writes it down incorrectly.

In the first few seconds following a DQ the RO's mind is often buzzing. There are some ROs who cope with events very well indeed but I've known ROs who have been qualified and working for say 3 years and never had to deal with a DQ. Then BANG and everything kicks in.

I have a number of friends who are police firearms instructors and for many years I have been helping as a civvy on a number of courses, not on the range but on "excercises". One police force has employed a FATS simulator to create scenarios of various firearms incidents. They started to run specialised courses for senior police officers and the judiciary. With a FATS simulator the "students" react, including shooting if they think it appropriate, to the events on the screen which is played close to real life scale. Those on the courses would take the role of a serving "on duty" LEO. Others would become bystander witnesses to what happens.

During the course, under course manufactured stress, and following a played out incident the participants were "interviewed" to determine what they saw. The findings were that mostly they could indentify that the shooting (or other response) was usually justified but often the facts were distorted because of stress.

Some guys couldn't even properly remember how many shots they had fired. They would remember what happened but not always in the correct order.

However, they found if they took only brief statements immediately after the incident followed by a fuller debrief the next day the accuracy of the statements significantly increased.

I haven't been involved with this particular police force for some time and so I don't know if they have continued with these specialised courses but there was good evidence that they had an impact. I'm sure there are many LEOs on this forum far more qualified than I to comment much more on this.

Finally I would just add that the courses I described above were brought about partly as a result of a police officer ending up in court following the death of a rioter. The LEO had shot him with a batton (riot control) round. The original statement of the LEO had been that the rioter had been in a yellow top whereas he had in fact been wearing a blue top and the LEO also believed the rioter had been much closer to him than in reality. The court was highly suspicious of the incorrect evidence. It was a difficult time for the LEO. Fortunately he was eventually cleared because there were other independent witnesses who were able to substantiate that the actual events were such that the LEO had been justified in his actions. There then followed an investigation as to why the LEO had got his facts wrong and the new courses evolved.

I hope you find this story of some interest. I believe it has some relevance to our sport. When there is an incident things happend VERY quickly and decisions are mostly split seconds ones.

[It's Yoda's Birthday]

Happy birthday, Kees. May you have many of them!

[Dropped Gun]

Please see below (my added emphasis):

10.5.14 Retrieving a dropped firearm.  Dropped firearms must always be retrieved by a Range Officer who will, after checking and/or clearing the firearm, place it directly into the competitor's gun case, gun bag or holster.  Dropping an unloaded firearm or causing it to fall outside of a course of fire is not an infraction, however, a competitor who retrieves a dropped firearm will receive a match disqualification.

[Of class, foreign shooters, and USPSA Nationals]

Deadbuff

Perhaps I should have added that we average the match percentages (not HFs) then at the end of the year we grade as follows:

M = 92% +

A = 75.00% - 91.99%

B = 65.00% - 74.99%

C = 55.00% - 64.99%

D = 54.99 or less

There are some discussions at the moment to lift the threshold for A grade because we are finding an imbalance in this grade.

Luca

I think we need to accept that for some Regions classifiers are the only way to go. It is my personal preference for the UK system and in the main it gives a reasonable result. I ask that nobody reads my posts on this subject as an attack on the system (I hastily add before I get any hate mail ), I'm merely advising on a different system and adding my personal preference.

IMHO in larger Regions such as the US a huge great many guys would not get anything like a sensible grade unles they could shoot matches head to head with the top US GMs. Initially the UK system could work for a while but there would be a slow deterioration in the results and eventually the classifications from state to state would see a disparity across the grades.

From IPSC Region to Region I can't think of any better system. Unfortunately.

Barry Pollard, who sometimes frequents these forums, also has a problem with the consistency of some of the classifiers but then no system is perfect.

[Of class, foreign shooters, and USPSA Nationals]

Only USPSA has a classification system; the rest of the world just shoots for the big prize 

Alex

The UK operates a clasification system with competitors being graded: M, A, B, C, D and Open. Open being the same as US "U".

However, we don't employ classifiers. Our system is to average the results of a number of Level II and Level III matches that are shot in a competition year.

For new shooters they are graded after their first 3 matches even if in 2 competition years. Otherwise grades are analysed at the end of each season and a minimum of 3 matches need to have been shot to change a grade, preferably more. If a competitor shoots 4 - 7 matches they can drop their worst result and then the others are averaged. If they shoot 8 or more matches they drop their worst 2 results. This deals with any possible major match screw ups such as a stage wipe out as a result of a malfunction. We ignore any matches where a competitor has a DQ. The grade system is to analyse shooting ability and to classify them based on that. A malfunction or a DQ would distort the results. A match is declared void for classification puposes if it is not attended by at least 2 M grade shooters or 1 M grade + 4 As. This isn't really ever an issue but it does set a minimum standard and if this isn't met the match doesn't count.

I like the system because it assesses ability in match conditions across a wide range of stages. All results are referenced to the best achievements on the day at that match. It automatically adjusts for wind, rain, sleet, snow, mud, tempests and plagues of locuses.

I must confess I'm not a fan of published classifiers because it enables a shooter to practice the hell out of them whereas I personally believe that stages and matches should constantly be changed and I believe in Rule 1.1.4 - "<snip> no single course of fire must be repeated to allow its use to be considered a definitive measure of IPSC shooting skills."

However, I also like to think I'm a realist. I accept that in a smaller geographical Region such as the UK our system can work. In the US it would be much more difficult if not impossible to use any other system than classifiers. Likewise for a world wide classification this can only be calculated via classifiers. I therefore absolutely accept that classifiers are here to stay and need to be employed.

It would certainly mean that the UK grades would be useless in the US and UK shooters should be slotted in as "U" shooters.

[In Celebration of the Sunset]

I love the pictures you guys have posted. I love sunsets!

One of my favourites below. Unfortunately the print I've had to scan is about 24 years old and it shows some discolouration.

[Yet another dropped gun]

I don't think you should eliminate the words "Once the competitor's hands are clear of the holstered handgun," from the rule. It signals to the RO that the competitor has finished holstering his gun and can now give the "range is clear" command ending the COF.

Proposed:

8.3.7.3 If the gun proves to be clear, the competitor must holster his handgun. Once the competitor's hands are clear of his holstered handgun, the Range Officer will give the "Range Is Clear" command signifying that the course of fire has ended.

Ah! But what if there are multiple competitors on a common firing line sharing the same bay?

The RO can't issue a "Range is Clear" command. This needs to remain with the area CRO.

There is an added consideration that in the case I describe above a competitor will remain responsible for his/her gun, even after clearing it and holstering it, until after someone else finishes and eventually the CRO declares Range is Clear. This extends the period during which a competitor can be DQed.

[Handgun Nats BE get together!]

Hi Angus

Sod the bombers! If we change our plans because of them they win. We would never have done the NI matches if we let stuff like that rule us.

So ....................... Bali will be the place where we can repay the very generous arrangements that Vince set up. Although I obviously wasn't there I still much appreciate what Vince did. It not just the cost but actually the thought.

Great picture by the way!

Now then, Angus dissappears into the bushes. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?