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

George Jones

Classifieds
  • Posts

    849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by George Jones

  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 9.5.2.1 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.
  14. I normally don't hang around a thread this long. Usually, it's one comment and I leave it to the players. I suspect some of you are still confused why "double jeopardy" is treated differently on some of the scenarios which have been quoted here. The simple explanation is that it depends on the action(s) involved. For example - If a single shot were to result in two different violations, you would need to consider which of the two to penalize to avoid DJ. A bit of judgment applies here. If, on the other hand, the two violations were to be the result of two separate shots/events (such as in the subject of this thread), then both penalties apply. In this scenario, both the Stacking and the Failure to Reload. I hope this helps. VC can be a challenge to a shooter, but it's also a challenge to the RO. In both conditions, you have to be mentally prepared for the challenge, lest you Zero the stage or apply incorrect penalties.
  15. Just when you thought you were out...... The reload was required after engaging T1-T5 (which can be engaged in any order). So after those five targets were engaged, the reload was required and only three more shots were taken before the stage was done. So 2 for stacking and 3 for missing a mandatory reload. Now can I go make some ammo?
  16. Southpaw, The stacking violation was early in the stage. The reload violation occurred later in the stage Stacking is oenalized because the shooter saves target transition time. T1 and T2 were engaged with consecutive shots. The other targets were engaged with individual shots. The reload is not a shooting action so it's an independent violation. Not the same as the blog example. I'm taking the rest of the week off.
  17. No need. The explanation covers it. You seem to keep insisting that the definition/example of STACKING should include the reload violation.
  18. Damn! Made me go back to the OP. Two targets incorrectly engaged. Two procedurals. Plus the reload thing.
  19. We would have to do that with every rule. Two different actions. Two different rules. Two different violations. That's why I peek in occasionally.
  20. A definition of one term in the glossary is unrelated to another action. Trying to link the two is incorrect. Each rule stands on its own. Both rules apply. The failure tom reload is one per shot fired from the point the reload was required until the end of the stage. The reload was required after engaging T5. The number of (incorrect) shoots fired at each target is irrelevant. The penalty applies after T5 was engaged.
×
×
  • Create New...