mhs
-
Posts
370 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by mhs
-
-
I had a guy who was creeping and resetting himself a lot. So I simply waited until he was still for about two seconds and gave him the beep. He started anticipating the beep and began moving after resetting, so I waited. And waited. And waited.
He finally looked back at me and said, "You gonna give me the beep or not?"
I said, "Sure. When you stop moving."
He was a little irritated with me, but would have fought the penalty harder.
In this situation, with multiple cycles of creeping and "resetting", the easiest way I've found to avoid needing to give a procedural is to start them as soon as they start resetting.
-
What rule supports delaying the start signal until they stop creeping? The rules say start in 1-4 seconds after "Standby", and if they are creeping give them a procedural. The 1-4 second interval is a "should", not a "must", so one could delay a bit, but I see no provision for starting over due to creeping after "Are you ready".
-
One more time. 5.2.4
Should the division restrict the location of the magazines or speedloading devices, carrying them in apparel pocket(s) forward of therestriction point will be allowed providing they are not removed fromthe apparel pocket(s) between the “standby” command and thecommand “ if clear, hammer down and holster”.Which standby command, in the event that it's issued multiple times during a stage? The first one? Last one? Why?
The first one. Because otherwise, you could legally reload with a mag from your front pocket during the first string.
-
Yes, the small ones are production legal. However, when you hand them the gun, make sure it has a stock magazine in it. Then just use your TTI mags when shooting the match.
Alright, I think I might have worded it a bit incorrectly so here's the expanded explanation.
Yes, the small basepads will fit the box. They were designed for production. However, if you've done any other crazy modifications on it that increase the weight of the gun, the pad may put you over the top. To that end, they're heavier than the standard floor plate on a stock glock magazine.
On a completely stock Glock, the pads will most certainly fit the box and weight will be fine. We're just trying to avoid people modding out their productions guns to the max weight, throwing on the basepads, and then being bumped up a division because the pad put them over the top.
Glad that it was just bad wording. On my first read, I thought that you were advocating running guns that did not make the weight limit with your mags, and cautioning shooters to use other, lighter mags when there was a chance that the gun would be weighed by an official. Almost like cheating. Glad that I just misread it.
-
Alright, I think I might have worded it a bit incorrectly so here's the expanded explanation.
Yes, the small basepads will fit the box. They were designed for production. However, if you've done any other crazy modifications on it that increase the weight of the gun, the pad may put you over the top. To that end, they're heavier than the standard floor plate on a stock glock magazine.
On a completely stock Glock, the pads will most certainly fit the box and weight will be fine. We're just trying to avoid people modding out their productions guns to the max weight, throwing on the basepads, and then being bumped up a division because the pad put them over the top.
-
I emailed JA again:
"If only one hit on a target is challenged, do the rules allow the CRO or RM to re-score the entire target, or is he only allowed to score the challenged hit?"
He replied:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If the RM is called for a scoring challenge, that their primary objective is the scoring issue, but the RM is not restricted to that area of the target only, in other words, he can score the hole target and call the hits, if they are not the same as written down, then obviously the original call is over rode and the RM is the final authority on scoring issues."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you're not happy with how I worded this, or his reply, feel free to email him yourself.
-
I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice.I see nothing that prevents me from re-scoring the entire target. I also see nothing that requires that I look at anything other than the challenged hit. But here's my question for the folks who are fairly in the "can't do that" camp:
Do you believe that each competitor is entitled to have each target scored accurately for not only him or herself, but for every other competitor in the match?
9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge.
Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially.
So just because the hit wasn't challenge it means it's ok to score it incorrectly?
No, it means that there's not a mechanism under 9.6.7 to correct it if it is not challenged.
OK, so tell me why does Chapter 9 exist in the rule book at the length it does? Summarize it's purpose in a sentence or two.....
Off the top of my head, without reference:
Chapter 9, apart from the challenge-related areas, covers the gigantic majority of scoring situations. Challenges apply to a very small subset, and focus on disputed calls. The people who wrote the rules assumed the general competency of the ROs, and did not see the need to review their non-challenged calls.
-
I emailed JA:
Hello,
There’s been a discussion on the BE forum concerning scoring challenges, and I would appreciate your input to post to the forum.
During a scoring challenge, should the CRO or RM score the entire challenged target, or only the specific hit or hits that have been challenged? The last sentence of 9.6.7 implies that only challenged hits are to be scored:
“Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge.”
Thanks, Mark
He replied:
The competitor is not challenging the entire target, just disagreeing with the RO’s call on a specific hit, if for an example the hit in question is close to the next scoring line, the RO may call a C and the competitor disagrees as he/she thinks it is an A. Most calls are for the perceived double, and the RM is called to make the call on that hit as to if there is one or two bullet marks to either call an A and Mike or two A’s.
John
-
All it says is you need to indicate which hits you are challengeing. Nowhere does it say that the hits can't be CORRECTLY scored if not done so.
The scoring policy is defined fairly clearly, as is the challenge policy. What rule or rules support having a CRO or RM rescore non-challenged hits?
-
I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice.I see nothing that prevents me from re-scoring the entire target. I also see nothing that requires that I look at anything other than the challenged hit. But here's my question for the folks who are fairly in the "can't do that" camp:
Do you believe that each competitor is entitled to have each target scored accurately for not only him or herself, but for every other competitor in the match?
9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge.
Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially.
So just because the hit wasn't challenge it means it's ok to score it incorrectly?
No, it means that there's not a mechanism under 9.6.7 to correct it if it is not challenged.
-
So what would you have me do if I notice an error in how the score was called, that involves one of the hits that was not challenged? Do I ignore what I plainly see?
Keep in mind that an imperfectly scored target affects not only the competitor who engaged it, but every other competitor in the division......
You're correct that under 9.6.7 the hit or hits subject to challenge need to clearly indicated -- because some time might elapse between the moment the target is pulled and the time the RM arrives to settle the dispute.
You're inferring though that no indication = no challenge.....
I see nothing that limits me to only evaluate the challenged hit......
If the rulebook writers had wanted to be that restrictive, they could have taken care of that....
If they didn't want to be that restrictive, why did they say "...and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge."? You excuse this away by guessing that their intent was to let officials know which hit was challenged, should a significant amount of time pass. If the entire target may be rescored, why would it matter if they knew which hit was challenged? Your added interpretation makes the final clause of the rule worthless.
-
I see nothing that prevents me from re-scoring the entire target. I also see nothing that requires that I look at anything other than the challenged hit. But here's my question for the folks who are fairly in the "can't do that" camp:
Do you believe that each competitor is entitled to have each target scored accurately for not only him or herself, but for every other competitor in the match?
I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice.
9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge.
Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially.
-
Agreed unless the shooter causes it. Could it be argued that by trying to stand a gun up in its nose the shooter caused it to fall?You may be right, but I would argue my ass off if you tried to DQ a shooter if the wind knocked it over as long as it is still on the table and aimed in a safe direction.
What if it was laying on its side and the wind blew and caused the gun to rotate a little bit, still within the prescribed start position and pointed in a safe direction.
Falling, applies to falling out of the shooters control. Not changing position when the wsb prescribes that the gun be out of the shooters hands.
If the shooter kicked the barrel and the gun went flying, that is falling. The gun going from upright to flat doesn't designate falling.
What if the gun has a thumb rest that is right on the tipping point and the wind causes the gun to go from the three points of contact - magwell, thumb rest, muzzle, to magwell, beaver tail, thumbrest? It changed position, it didn't fall, it never left contact with the prescribed starting position (table). Same same as far as I'm concerned.
I may be wrong, but I'd be willing to spend $100 to find out.
I think I am probably with you. Tipping over and staying on the barrel or table doesn't really constitute being dropped or falling.
my point was that just tipping over seems to be different from falling. At least it could be argued that way pretty effectively.
I think the real key is what you posted earlier about requesting that shooters honor the intent of the classifiers. I wouldn't quibble if someone used that and just said "no, the gun has to be lying on its side, like everyone else does it."
This is the beauty of USPSA. The shooter realizes that having the gun balanced upright is faster. He realizes that it is less stable, and that if it falls, he will be DQ'd. He weighs the risks. Freestyle.
-
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 10:20 PM
To: dnroi@uspsa.org
Subject: 8.5.1Hello,
I have a question regarding 8.5.1. If a competitor is moving, and aiming at a target through a snowfence wall (hardcover), is he allowed to have his finger in the trigger guard? I'm not clear on this since I'm not sure if it is possible to aim through hardcover.
Is it okay for me to post your reply on the BE forum?
Thanks for your help,
And the answer:
As per 4.1.4.1 hard cover is use to hide the targets, snow fence started being used as hard cover for a couple of reasons, easier to set up, camera friendly but it is still listed as hardcover and per the description, hides the target (even though you can see them) and as 8.5.1 states except when the competitor is actually aiming or shooting at targets, if you cannot see them, you cannot aim at them, so based on the principles of hard cover and movement, the answer is NO. Much like you cannot shoot from under the snow fence as 2.2.3.3 states they go from the ground up unless stated otherwise.
Yes, you can use my reply on the BE forum.
John
-
To really address your question though: While we can see targets through a snowfence, we can also tell that a wall has been erected between us and the targets. And we can then apply our knowledge of the rules to realize that this wall -- for purposes of the sport -- is a solid vision barrier, and the targets are not really visible. Or, if you prefer, since they are partially obscured by the mesh, and since the wall has not been declared as softcover, they are not really visible.....
Thanks for the detailed reply. The part about snowfence that I still don't understand is whether it is legal to move, with your finger on the trigger, while aiming at a target through snowfence. There was a thread a couple of years ago that had brought this up, but I don't think that it was ever resolved.
-
2.1.4 Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations other than immediately downrange, organizers and officials must protect or restrict surrounding areas to which competitors, officials or spectators have access. Each competitor must be allowed to solve the competitive problem in his own way and must not be hindered by being forced to act in any manner which might cause unsafe action. Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire.
Again -- if the competitor can see it, he can engage it without penalty......
I don't see that the rules specifically require that the competitor be able to engage it without penalty, but do feel that it may be unreasonable to have a course that cannot be shot without receiving penalties.
Perhaps you need to reconsider 1.1.5:
1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.
If you look at the sentence in red -- it's pretty clear. The "Without penalty" part may be implicit -- but no I know believes it to be unclear.
The portion in blue then amplifies the definition of freestyle, and prohibits what your stage description suggested -- namely dictating that a target that is visible may not be engaged.....
I have trouble with the implicit "without penalty", but agree that that was likely the intent of the rule, and is a reasonable way to interpret it.
If we do accept the part in red as clear and correct, how do you feel about targets visble through snow fence?
-
1.2.2.1 “Standard Exercises” - Courses of fire consisting of two or more separately timed component strings. Scores, with any penalties deducted, are accumulated on completion of the course of fire to produce the final stage results. Standard Exercises must only be scored using Virginia Count or Fixed Time. The course of fire for each component string may require a specific shooting position, procedure and/or one or more mandatory reloads. Standard Exercises must not require more than 24 rounds to complete. Component strings must not require more than 6 rounds (12
rounds if a mandatory reload is specified).
While this might permit what you want to do, during a component string, your proposed stage does not contain multiple strings, hence it's a no-go.
Interesting. Do you think that a Standard Exercise would be legal if it said something like: First string, engage three targets from Box A. Second string, engage the other three from Box B.
2.1.4 Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations other than immediately downrange, organizers and officials must protect or restrict surrounding areas to which competitors, officials or spectators have access. Each competitor must be allowed to solve the competitive problem in his own way and must not be hindered by being forced to act in any manner which might cause unsafe action. Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire.
Again -- if the competitor can see it, he can engage it without penalty......
I don't see that the rules specifically require that the competitor be able to engage it without penalty, but do feel that it may be unreasonable to have a course that cannot be shot without receiving penalties.
I'm not comfortable trying to decide what USPSA wanted to say in the rulebook. I try to go by what they did say.
Why aren't you comfortable trying to decide what USPSA said in the rulebook? Is it for lack of training? The CRO course deals heavily with the nuts and bolts of stage design as supported by the rulebook....
I'm not comfortable with it because so many people interpret the rules because they don't know them well enough to apply them correctly, or don't take the time to figure out how they apply when when considered as a set, not as unrelated bits in a book. There certainly are many times that rules do need to be interpreted, but too many people seem to use that as a crutch.
I don't think that the stage as I proposed it is legal, but for a different reason than has been brought up in this thread.
The best way (for me) to understand the nuances of the rules is a discussion like this. Thanks for your participation.
-
The rule book is pretty mature. Heck, we have beat it around here for over a decade and it holds up well.
I am sure if USPSA wanted to say you could shoot some targets some time, and other targets other times (like proposed here)...it would be clear in saying that. It doesn't.
I'm not comfortable trying to decide what USPSA wanted to say in the rulebook. I try to go by what they did say. In this stage:
"Imagine a simple stage consisting of a shooting box and a single array of six scoring paper targets. WSB:
Engage any four targets with a minimum of one round each, on those four targets the best two hits per target will be scored.
Engage the other two targets with a minimum of zero rounds each, for those targets the best zero hits per target will be scored.
If more than four targets receive scoring hits, one proceedural for each target over four will be applied."
the round requirements are allowed by 9.5.1. No one has come up with a rule (as written, not "interpreted") that makes the stage illegal. You've been intimately involved with the rules for a long time, can you come up with one?
-
How can I engage with zero rounds?
WSB's have to comply with the rules. You just can't make stuff up.
I don't believe that you can engage with zero rounds. That's why you would get a FSA penalty for each target that you didn't shoot at. The reason the WSB specified "a minimum of zero rounds" was to prevent miss penalties.
9.5.1 seems to specifically allow the WSB to state minimum rounds required:
9.5.1 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, scoring paper targets must be shot with a minimum of one round each, with the best two hits to score.
You can't write something into a WSB to negate a rule, unless the rulebook specifically grants you an exemption for that....
What rule would be negated? You would still get the applicable number of mikes, the number would just be zero.
-
I think what 9.5.1 is saying is unless otherwise stated all targets are best 2 per paper but you wont get a FTSA penalty if you shoot at it once, it also leave it up to the WSB to state the number of required hits if it is going to be some number other than 2 (1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, or 12) it also implies that a evil MD could say that a target would need to be engaged with a number of shots other than 1 in order to avoid FTSA penalties. the problem I have is I don't think you can specify ZERO as a number of rounds, you have either engaged a target (meaning fired one or more rounds at it) or you haven't (meaning you have fired zero rounds at it) I don't think you can have both.
Mike
No one is arguing that, as far as I can tell. If you don't shoot at it, you haven't engaged it.
The reason the WSB would specify zero as the minimum number of rounds is to eliminate miss penalties under 10.2.7:
10.2.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2 apply.
If zero rounds are allowed in the WSB, you get zero penalties for missing, since you didn't. You do get one FTS per target that you didn't shoot at.
-
How can I engage with zero rounds?
WSB's have to comply with the rules. You just can't make stuff up.
I don't believe that you can engage with zero rounds. That's why you would get a FSA penalty for each target that you didn't shoot at. The reason the WSB specified "a minimum of zero rounds" was to prevent miss penalties.
9.5.1 seems to specifically allow the WSB to state minimum rounds required:
9.5.1 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, scoring paper targets must be shot with a minimum of one round each, with the best two hits to score.
-
So I shoot 6 alphas and get 30 points, and then I get 3 procedurals and lose 30 points. The best score I can get on the stage is zero.
Good point. How about if the WSB were changed to:
"Engage any four targets with a minimum of one round each, on those four targets the best two hits per target will be scored.
Engage the other two targets with a minimum of zero rounds each, for those targets the best zero hits per target will be scored.
If more than four targets receive scoring hits, one proceedural for each target over four will be applied."
In this case you could get 20 points.
-
I really can't understand the fascination with this sort of stage. Our sport is about shooting. It's not about figuring which 3 targets to engage to give you the best hit factor.
If I saw a stage like that, i would arbitrate it and reference the following rules:
1.1.2 Quality – The value of an USPSA match is determined by the qualityof the challenge presented in the course design. Courses of fire must bedesigned primarily to test a competitor’s USPSA shooting skills, nottheir physical abilities.
I know 1.1.2 specifically references physical abilities, but I think the same applies for the stage above. Does the stage listed primarily test a competitor's shooting skills?
1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permittedto solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoottargets on an “as and when visible” basis.....
How can you have targets that I'm not allowed to shoot?
1.1.6 Difficulty – USPSA matches present varied degrees of difficulty. Noshooting challenge or time limit may be appealed as being prohibitive.This does not apply to nonshooting challenges, which should reasonablyallow for differences in competitor’s height and physical build.
Again, 1.1.6 references physical differences, but it also makes reference to nonshooting challenges. IMO the stage listed above is about figuring out which targets to engage, not about shooting.
Somehow you completely ignore 10.2.7, even though you reference it in your own post. It says you must engage each target with at least one round, not zero rounds.
1. Standing in a box and shooting three targets of your choice, in my opinion, would primarily test shooting skills.
2. You are allowed to shoot them, it just might not get you the best score. Just like shooting targets more than twice is allowed, but might not get you the best score. It's freestyle, the shooter gets to decide.
3. I don't see how 1.1.6 applies. The nonshooting challenges here would not be influenced by height or physical build.
4. 10.2.7 would require one proceedural per target not engaged with at least one round. If you do engage all the tagets you wouldn't get the FTSA penalties, but you would get the WSB penalties. Since you wouldn't get any points for engaging the last three targets, and a proceedural per each regardless of your actions, there would be no reason to engage them.
-
9.5.1 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, scoring paper targets must be shot with a minimum of one round each, with the best two hits to score.
10.2.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2 apply.
Imagine a simple stage consisting of a shooting box and a single array of six scoring paper targets. WSB:
"Engage any three targets with a minimum of one round each, on those three targets the best two hits per target will be scored.
Engage the other three targets with a minimum of zero rounds each, for those targets the best zero hits per target will be scored.
If more than three targets receive scoring hits, one proceedural for each target over three will be applied."
This way you get three proceedurals regardless of whether you engage more than three targets, and you don't get any extra points for engaging more than three. Legal?
Shooting order of targets?
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
Doesn't 1.2.2.2 allow classifiers to specify pretty much anything?