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

George Jones

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Ramsey, NJ
  • Real Name
    George Jones

Recent Profile Visitors

2,563 profile views

George Jones's Achievements

Sees Sights

Sees Sights (6/11)

  1. Agreed that the option is available for anything except classifiers, but the target changes must still be identical to the first set. In either case, careful alignment is still necessary.
  2. For the target presentation displayed on Page 119, only Rule applies. The concept is that the scoring area (including the perforation line) of the "over" target is impenetrable by rule, therefore whatever is underneath that impenetrable area cannot be impacted by the bullet. This is explained in detail during the RO Seminar. HTH
  3. The problem with these VC scoring threads is that the original information is commonly lacking detail. Without the exact scenario, it is impossible to reach a correct score. Prior to a VC stage, the RO must clearly understand the WSB and closely observe the shooter's run. If the RO doesn't count shots (or is unable to recreate the shot sequence/cadence), or other details of the run, it is probably not possible to determine what violations may have occurred. If the scorekeeper is not attentive to what's going on, the timer RO has no support. One of my sig lines applies here.
  4. He engaged "T2" after the reload on his second string? Really, or is that a typo?
  5. Based on the original sequence: Stacking on T1 and T2 - Two procedurals Failure to reload after the first shot on T4 - three procedurals. The fundamental difficulty with scoring this stage is that it only requires one shot per target.
  6. You can suspect evil intent but you can't prove it. You rule on what you observe. Score them the same.
  7. Mike, I get your point but let's consider what really happened here. The shooter had an obvious brain fart and lost complete track of where he was on the stage. Under Troy's "Don't be a d**k" concept I would consider this an action where the classic stacking scenario might not be the case. Why pile on penalties? What I suggest is that there are times when the rules/violations are clear. No problem. But there are cases where the RO should also consider if another rule exists that would not penalize the action at all, or is it possible that the rule in question leaves some leeway. We do expect reasonable judgment from ROs and as such strict rules interpretations can sometimes be contrary to common sense. In this case we have a minor conflict between the narrow definition of stacking and the intent of the stacking rule in the first place. I choose not to add a third penalty. YMMV depending on what you observe at the moment.
  8. Shooter engages T1 with two shots, T2 with two shots, and T3 with one shot. Shooter then makes a reload, and engages T5 with one shot, T4 with one shot, and T3 with one shot. You misquoted the OP's engagement order (quoted above). Your third penalty does not exist.
  9. Mikeg, As you listed it, you are correct. Unfortunately, you misquoted the original sequence so only two stacking penalties.
  10. I don't disagree with your concern. That's a problem with the "one shot" procedure. It doesn't fit the usual mold. So if you understand the "normal" concept of stacking you recognize that you have a problem here. So what I rely on is my concept that you don't apply penalties unless you are certain of the violation. In this case, I would not call it because it's a grey area and I don't penalize that color.
  11. I agree. The reload is not required until engaging all five targets, so no penalty for that since he wouldn't have fired any shots after it was required. Isn't VC fun? It's a bit like alcohol. If there are too many violations, VC makes my head hurt.
  12. Yes, each are penalized. Each of those actions are independent and all penalized under separate specific rules. DJ primarily applies to 10.2.2 (stage procedure i.e. "Do this" or "Don't do that") which is a "general rule". Whenever a specific rule applies, you use that and don't also apply 10.2.2
  13. Southpaw, The rule says "incorrectly engaged". In this case, they are supposed to be engaged with one shot at a time. T1 and T2 were engaged with consecutive shots. Two stacking penalties. All other targets were only engaged with single shots, so no penalty there. I understand that you are wanting to link it to the reload (as would likely be done if more shots were required), but because only one shot was required that simply confuses the issue in this case. Penalties (all penalties) have to be obvious.
  • Create New...