Penalties

[West Texas Granny]

I didn't shoot a match last month because they had a stage that required me to get down on the ground. If I skip the stage I get a penalty. If I shoot standing up I get a penalty. Now being disabled things like getting up and down is not really a safe action for me. Ok I'm done.

[sperman]

8.6.3 Competitors confined to wheelchairs or similar devices may be given special dispensation by the Range Master in respect of mobility assistance, however, the provisions of Rule 10.2.10 may still apply, at the Range Master’s discretion.

This is the only rule I could find that would apply. Hopefully some of the more experienced guys can offer some advice.

[Pro2AInPA]

I didn't shoot a match last month because they had a stage that required me to get down on the ground. If I skip the stage I get a penalty. If I shoot standing up I get a penalty. Now being disabled things like getting up and down is not really a safe action for me. Ok I'm done.

If you can't physically complete the stage per the WSB, just do your best, take your penalties, and move on. Don't skip stages.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Pro2AInPA

[NickJ]

Yep, 10.2.10. Speak with the match director before the match starts, explain your situation, show him the rule if he's not familiar with it.

[wide45]

10.2.10

Special penalty: A competitor unable to fully execute any part of a course of fire due to incapacity or injury may, prior to making his attempt at the course of fire, request that the Range Master apply a penalty in lieu of the stated course requirement.

10.2.10.1 Exception – In a weak hand/strong hand stage, a competitor who has physical use of only one hand may use the same hand for both weak and strong without penalty.

10.2.10.2 If the request is approved by the Range Master, a minimum of one procedural penalty, up to a maximum penalty of 20% of the competitor’s points “as shot” (rounded up to the nearest whole number), will be deducted from the competitor’s score. For example, if 100 points are available in the course of fire and the competitor actually scores 90 points, the special penalty is a deduction of 18 points. The Range Master may waive any or all procedural penalties in respect of a competitor who has a signif- icant physical disability prior to the competitor making his attempt at the course of fire.

[Gary Johnson]

Rule 10.2.10 States:

A competitor unable to fully execute any part of a course of fire due to incapacity or injury may, prior to making his attempt at the course of fire, request that the Range Master apply a penalty in lieu of the stated course requirement.

The 'Special Penalty' that a Rangemaster (or match director) assesses is there to maintain competitive equity. In other words, the penalty would only be large enough to offset any advantage you might gain from not fulfilling one of the course requirements. It isn't there to punish you or put you at a disadvantage.

In most cases there is no advantage so the penalty is trivial (a few points or %). I wouldn't avoid a stage or an entire match because of that.

[coldchar]

I assume this is a Level 1 match where we want to encourage new shooters. Please accept an apology for the way this was handled. The rules give the range officers (normally also match management) a range of options from not charging any penalty to charging a maximum of 20% of your score, as shot. I believe match managers should be making a special effort to keep an eye out for challenged shooters. To expect them to know the rules well enough or force them to swallow their pride and ask for special handling in a public forum does a disservice to shooters at this level and certainly sends the wrong message. My personal approach is to pull such a shooter aside, give them their options, and then have a side conversation with the RO.

Jim G.

[mactiger]

While Rich quoted the correct rule, most posters here have missed a significant portion of it: "The Range Master may waive any or all procedural penalties in respect of a competitor who has a significant physical disability prior to the competitor making his attempt at the course of fire."

This means that the RM doesn't have to apply a penalty at all, and is the way I would handle this for any individual with a permanent disability. There is no need to skip a stage or a match because of an inability to fulfill course requirements.

Troy

[Sarge]

While Rich quoted the correct rule, most posters here have missed a significant portion of it: "The Range Master may waive any or all procedural penalties in respect of a competitor who has a significant physical disability prior to the competitor making his attempt at the course of fire."

This means that the RM doesn't have to apply a penalty at all, and is the way I would handle this for any individual with a permanent disability. There is no need to skip a stage or a match because of an inability to fulfill course requirements.

Troy

I concur, to a point. I shoot steel matches with a guy who is very good with an open gun. But he has very limited mobility and uses devices for getting around. He could pretty easily win the division if he was not penalized. So I think the rule is written well in that it gives the range master and crew some flexibility.

[West Texas Granny]

For me it is first a safety issue then an issue of fairness followed by the desire to compete and win. In a previous match I shot standing up and got the penalty but at that time I was not a member of USPSA. Now that I am I find the rule to be discriminatory. Now that may be because I don't understand everything yet but the rule leaves everything up to the one running the match and at the very least one gets penalized anyway. If I show up to a match and there is a stage where I have to get down to shoot the stage I'm already in a hole before we get to the safety briefing. I don't mind being out shot but to lose based on ones disability is simply wrong. I also brought this up with USPSA via email and they pointed out the same rule but failed to understand that their is no fairness in the rule itself. Oh well it's over. I must accept the fact that I'm no longer The Mean, Lean, U.S. Army Fighting Machine I once was and take solace in the fact that if I'm beaten solely based on such a penalty then I wasn't really beaten at all.

Thanks for letting me vent now it's off to find some 45acp. Just can't seem to get enough of it.

[Pro2AInPA]

For me it is first a safety issue then an issue of fairness followed by the desire to compete and win. In a previous match I shot standing up and got the penalty but at that time I was not a member of USPSA. Now that I am I find the rule to be discriminatory. Now that may be because I don't understand everything yet but the rule leaves everything up to the one running the match and at the very least one gets penalized anyway. If I show up to a match and there is a stage where I have to get down to shoot the stage I'm already in a hole before we get to the safety briefing. I don't mind being out shot but to lose based on ones disability is simply wrong. I also brought this up with USPSA via email and they pointed out the same rule but failed to understand that their is no fairness in the rule itself. Oh well it's over. I must accept the fact that I'm no longer The Mean, Lean, U.S. Army Fighting Machine I once was and take solace in the fact that if I'm beaten solely based on such a penalty then I wasn't really beaten at all.

Thanks for letting me vent now it's off to find some 45acp. Just can't seem to get enough of it.

While I understand what you are saying, we have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

USPSA shooting is a sport. Just like baseball and hockey are sports, for example.

If someone doesn't have the physical capabilities to complete the tasks of baseball and hockey, they are at a disadvantage. The same is true of this sport.

Not trying to be harsh, just putting things in perspective a bit.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Pro2AInPA

[pvhendrix]

Personally I think it is great that folks with [i]physical limitations [/i]want to compete in our sport. I think it quite sad that folks without physical limitations are intimitated by those folks with limitations. If you have a range that is wheelchair accessable that is great. Most of our stages require some sort of movement and to sucessfully do that in a chair or other assistance is quite penalty enough, in my opinion. I keep reading post about wanting our sport accepted as "mainstream" then we isolate folks that want to participate. I wish more ranges were accessable to folks with physical limitations. To the original poster; GOD bless you and my humble thanks for serving our country. Keep shooting and when you beat those without limitations... just SMILE!

Paul Hendrix, L-914 USPSA

prior service US Army

Edited June 16, 2010 by pvhendrix

[Strick]

For me it is first a safety issue then an issue of fairness followed by the desire to compete and win. In a previous match I shot standing up and got the penalty but at that time I was not a member of USPSA. Now that I am I find the rule to be discriminatory. Now that may be because I don't understand everything yet but the rule leaves everything up to the one running the match and at the very least one gets penalized anyway. If I show up to a match and there is a stage where I have to get down to shoot the stage I'm already in a hole before we get to the safety briefing. I don't mind being out shot but to lose based on ones disability is simply wrong. I also brought this up with USPSA via email and they pointed out the same rule but failed to understand that their is no fairness in the rule itself. Oh well it's over. I must accept the fact that I'm no longer The Mean, Lean, U.S. Army Fighting Machine I once was and take solace in the fact that if I'm beaten solely based on such a penalty then I wasn't really beaten at all.

Thanks for letting me vent now it's off to find some 45acp. Just can't seem to get enough of it.

I can say that at the IDPA club that I am a MD/SO at we do make concessions. I think that in either IDPA or USPSA people need to be willing to make our sport available to all and from what I have seen in my area they do.

Having said that you have to expect that some type of "penalty" be added if you are shooting from a more advantageous position. Doing so would be be at the discretion of the MD or RO since they should be able to add just the appropriate amount of time based on the amount of time other shooters take to get into positions you could not. It needs to be fair but as fair for all competitors as possible.

[bdpaz]

... an issue of fairness followed by the desire to compete and win.

I firmly believe that accommodations should be made for anyone who wants to participate, have fun, and compete against themselves to measure their progress. If you can't perform some of the shooting or support functions, who cares? I'll reset steel, tape targets, pick up brass for you .. whatever is needed. If it takes someone five minutes to shoot a stage that others burn through in one, it doesn't bother me.

BUT, if you are competing to win you simply have to perform all the required actions. How could it possibly be fair any other way?

[West Texas Granny]

... an issue of fairness followed by the desire to compete and win.

I firmly believe that accommodations should be made for anyone who wants to participate, have fun, and compete against themselves to measure their progress. If you can't perform some of the shooting or support functions, who cares? I'll reset steel, tape targets, pick up brass for you .. whatever is needed. If it takes someone five minutes to shoot a stage that others burn through in one, it doesn't bother me.

BUT, if you are competing to win you simply have to perform all the required actions. How could it possibly be fair any other way?

You forgot that I mentioned that it was an issue of safety first. I do not want to be falling down with a loaded weapon that's not on safe. Heck I don't want to fall with one on safe either. Yet accidents do happen.

Also USPSA is supposed to be about accuracy not acrobatics performed during the course of fire.

[Sarge]

... an issue of fairness followed by the desire to compete and win.

I firmly believe that accommodations should be made for anyone who wants to participate, have fun, and compete against themselves to measure their progress. If you can't perform some of the shooting or support functions, who cares? I'll reset steel, tape targets, pick up brass for you .. whatever is needed. If it takes someone five minutes to shoot a stage that others burn through in one, it doesn't bother me.

BUT, if you are competing to win you simply have to perform all the required actions. How could it possibly be fair any other way?

You forgot that I mentioned that it was an issue of safety first. I do not want to be falling down with a loaded weapon that's not on safe. Heck I don't want to fall with one on safe either. Yet accidents do happen.

Also USPSA is supposed to be about accuracy not acrobatics performed during the course of fire.

You might get some argument about the acrobatics. There has actually been some very informative discussion on that subject right in these forums.

As for the safety aspect. I get what you are saying. Last year at one of the local matches I attend an elderly gentleman showed up who had just recently decided to take up the sport. He was doing his best to run and gun because he understood that is kinda what the game is about. He fell twice in consecutive matches. There were no safety issues as he did great at controlling the gun. A few guys talked to him about just taking it easy and enjoying the shooting aspect of the game. He was still a competitor at heart and could not bring himself to walk through the COF. I have not seen him in almost a year. It is a shame because you could hear the enthusiasm in his voice as well as the desire to do well. He most likely had to make the tough decision to move on to some other type of shooting. Probably in the interest of safety for himself as well as the other shooters around him.

[George Jones]

Since I have had some input into the rules, I have some interest in this thread, but I am confused about the specific concern.

Is it about "safety" or is it about "scoring"?

If it's about safety, I don't get what it is about the rules which could/should be done to address that concern. Unique safety issues are logically best addressed on the range. If a disability prevents you from shooting a stage, see my last paragraph.

If it's about match scores, then I suggest that Rule 10.2.10.2 is quite adequate in applying a reasonable penalty as determined by the RM, even if that penalty is "no penalty". Simply allowing anyone to bypass a course requirement without regard to some reasonable standard would be unfair to all the other competitors in that division. They may want to win too.

Another aspect of this discussion should probably include the types of stages at the club(s) where you shoot USPSA. If they are prone (no pun intended) to presenting "athletic" stages, a quiet discusion with the MD may solve the problem. If that doesn't help, there's not much the rules can do about that. This sport's historical roots include some rather demanding physical activities - which none of us "mature" shooters miss seeing at today's matches. The occasional Cooper Tunnel is more than enough for me and my knees.

CW4 U.S. Army (Ret)

[boz1911]

While Rich quoted the correct rule, most posters here have missed a significant portion of it: "The Range Master may waive any or all procedural penalties in respect of a competitor who has a significant physical disability prior to the competitor making his attempt at the course of fire."

This means that the RM doesn't have to apply a penalty at all, and is the way I would handle this for any individual with a permanent disability. There is no need to skip a stage or a match because of an inability to fulfill course requirements.

Troy

Level 1 match, we tend to skip the RM and issue no penalties at the squad level. In our case if you're concerned a 75 year man that can't use his left arm is going to beat you than arbitrate.

I know this isn't in line with the rules but in our case we all agree up front.

[Chris iliff]

You wouldn't have gotten a penalty from me. A ribbing, some joking, maybe a beer after, but no penalty. You should always ask the MD or at least the RO on the squad your in. This would have never made it to the MD at our local match. My .02 cents.

[bdpaz]

I may just be having a bad day but as I read it this wasn't a one-armed 75 year old being penalized on top of his already slow time. The OP is concerned about his score and wants to win - so I'm assuming he would be competitive if he didn't have to get to the ground. He can only shoot standing which is faster than getting down and back up yet doesn't think it is fair to be assessed a penalty.

If I'm wrong and his point is that a penalty is just insult on top of injury, then I agree that a penalty isn't called for at the local level. But if he has a shot at winning except for a physical limitation that won't allow him to shoot the stage as specified, and he needs to shoot in a manner which is faster then yes, a suitable penalty should be given to make up for the time he saved by remaining standing.

If you want to have fun, then do whatever it takes to get through the match. But if winning is important then follow the rules. Movement (sometimes approaching acrobatics) is part of USPSA.

[mactiger]

While Rich quoted the correct rule, most posters here have missed a significant portion of it: "The Range Master may waive any or all procedural penalties in respect of a competitor who has a significant physical disability prior to the competitor making his attempt at the course of fire."

This means that the RM doesn't have to apply a penalty at all, and is the way I would handle this for any individual with a permanent disability. There is no need to skip a stage or a match because of an inability to fulfill course requirements.

Troy

Level 1 match, we tend to skip the RM and issue no penalties at the squad level. In our case if you're concerned a 75 year man that can't use his left arm is going to beat you than arbitrate.

I know this isn't in line with the rules but in our case we all agree up front.

This is probably the best way to handle it, and it's well within the rules. Each person's case must be taken individually, and sometimes, stage-by-stage. While we want to maintain competitive equity, we also must avoid "beating the competitor over the head with the rule book", to coin a phrase.

Troy

[aztecdriver]

WTG, I hear what you are saying - and I appreciate your venting. I've witnessed this in play and want to elaborate a few words because I think that while it might sound like a "penalty" for being unable to do something safely - that's not the intent. We use the penalty to keep the competitive challenge equitable to everyone - at least that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be used. For example, let's say that their is a requirement to kneel and engage 4 targets under a bar - and that's one of the issues you have (knees, back what have you.)

The idea is to let you engage those targets standing upright rather than kneeling - but adjust the scoring so that the advantage you gain by not kneeling is nullified. This keeps you from using an impairment from GAINING an unfair advantage versus the rest of your competitive class. Let's dig into the math here - let's say it's a 130 pt stage - and it can be reasonably determined that you will gain a 4 second advantage by not kneeling and just standing. If on average the competitors in your class and division are perfroming the stage in 20 seconds - and you do it in 16 by not kneeling - you have a 25% advantage in the scoring. If you endure a 25% penalty on that stage - because you save that time - you are STILL competitive in the match with your class peers. In this situation - if you shoot better - you're still awarded the accuracy component.

I would suggest you approach the physical requirements question at a match with the MD or other officials like Boz suggests, and say - hey, I can't go prone safely because of xyz, so I would like to step out and shoot around this port. It'll probably make me 3 seconds quicker on this 30 second course - just give me a 10% penalty. Do you agree? Then - you are being equitable to everyone you are competing with and can still beat them!

I watched a particular competitor at a state match that was not capable of seeing through a port literally on the ground that required you to go prone. The solution was to allow him to step out to the side and let him engage the targets where he could see him - together the RM/CRO and competitor agreed it would save him about 20% in time - and that was the penalty assessed. Was it a penalty - not really. It just nullified the advantage he gained by not dropping to the ground and engaging through the port.

The rules as stated by everyone use the word "penalty" because that is the term needed to reduce the score - but it's important to know that it's not a penalty for a physical incapability. It's a correction to erase any advantage that doing something different would hurt the competitive field. If the solution for you to engage the targets safely doesn't gain you a competitive advantage - for example - you have to move way over to a position to engage those targets - and then back - obviously that movement will cost you time - then no penalty should be assessed!

I'm sorry if people are blindly assessing penalties without considering the competitive challenge situation. That should not be happening. If so - then you have a right to vent. But I do want you to continue with this and help others understand that it should be about a fair competitive challenge - not about penalizing people just because it's possible. Challenging a competitor to use positions and techniques is part of the sport. I think that we have built into the rules a great capability to allow a multitude of people - not just the hyperathletes - to be competitive with classes, categories and the exceptions that are possible. They just need to be implemented correctly.

[Tom D]

I have an intrest in this topic from a personal and as an RM. Most of you know that I have an artifical leg. There have been a few times I have asked for a ruling on 10.2. It has gone both ways. I have gotten a penelaty, and I have not gotten a penalty. It must be a case by case situation. Usualy the RM askes how far I can go safely, and we go from there for any penalties (if any).

One stage we duct taped my leg out of the way of bike pedals, (my knee wont bend far enough to pedal a bike). There was a classifier "clame jumpers" I took a 20% penalty. For the same reason.

As an RM, I have run into things like a person who, due to an injury can't shoot week hand. If there is a week hand stage, should we alow him to shoot freestile with no penalty? No.

Before I could move better, I was barliy competive in C class. But at a steel challenge, bolling pin match, man on man, I was competive in M calss. I won A class at the world shootoff championship while I was C class. So while I was no threat to win a match I could win a class. So to sum it up, it needs to be fair to everyone.

Tom

[Tom D]

WTG, I hear what you are saying - and I appreciate your venting. I've witnessed this in play and want to elaborate a few words because I think that while it might sound like a "penalty" for being unable to do something safely - that's not the intent. We use the penalty to keep the competitive challenge equitable to everyone - at least that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be used. For example, let's say that their is a requirement to kneel and engage 4 targets under a bar - and that's one of the issues you have (knees, back what have you.)

The idea is to let you engage those targets standing upright rather than kneeling - but adjust the scoring so that the advantage you gain by not kneeling is nullified. This keeps you from using an impairment from GAINING an unfair advantage versus the rest of your competitive class. Let's dig into the math here - let's say it's a 130 pt stage - and it can be reasonably determined that you will gain a 4 second advantage by not kneeling and just standing. If on average the competitors in your class and division are perfroming the stage in 20 seconds - and you do it in 16 by not kneeling - you have a 25% advantage in the scoring. If you endure a 25% penalty on that stage - because you save that time - you are STILL competitive in the match with your class peers. In this situation - if you shoot better - you're still awarded the accuracy component.

I would suggest you approach the physical requirements question at a match with the MD or other officials like Boz suggests, and say - hey, I can't go prone safely because of xyz, so I would like to step out and shoot around this port. It'll probably make me 3 seconds quicker on this 30 second course - just give me a 10% penalty. Do you agree? Then - you are being equitable to everyone you are competing with and can still beat them!

I watched a particular competitor at a state match that was not capable of seeing through a port literally on the ground that required you to go prone. The solution was to allow him to step out to the side and let him engage the targets where he could see him - together the RM/CRO and competitor agreed it would save him about 20% in time - and that was the penalty assessed. Was it a penalty - not really. It just nullified the advantage he gained by not dropping to the ground and engaging through the port.

The rules as stated by everyone use the word "penalty" because that is the term needed to reduce the score - but it's important to know that it's not a penalty for a physical incapability. It's a correction to erase any advantage that doing something different would hurt the competitive field. If the solution for you to engage the targets safely doesn't gain you a competitive advantage - for example - you have to move way over to a position to engage those targets - and then back - obviously that movement will cost you time - then no penalty should be assessed!

I'm sorry if people are blindly assessing penalties without considering the competitive challenge situation. That should not be happening. If so - then you have a right to vent. But I do want you to continue with this and help others understand that it should be about a fair competitive challenge - not about penalizing people just because it's possible. Challenging a competitor to use positions and techniques is part of the sport. I think that we have built into the rules a great capability to allow a multitude of people - not just the hyperathletes - to be competitive with classes, categories and the exceptions that are possible. They just need to be implemented correctly.

Very well said!!

[West Texas Granny]

I may just be having a bad day but as I read it this wasn't a one-armed 75 year old being penalized on top of his already slow time. The OP is concerned about his score and wants to win - so I'm assuming he would be competitive if he didn't have to get to the ground. He can only shoot standing which is faster than getting down and back up yet doesn't think it is fair to be assessed a penalty.

If I'm wrong and his point is that a penalty is just insult on top of injury, then I agree that a penalty isn't called for at the local level. But if he has a shot at winning except for a physical limitation that won't allow him to shoot the stage as specified, and he needs to shoot in a manner which is faster then yes, a suitable penalty should be given to make up for the time he saved by remaining standing.

If you want to have fun, then do whatever it takes to get through the match. But if winning is important then follow the rules. Movement (sometimes approaching acrobatics) is part of USPSA.

First of it's HER not his and it's SHE and not he. Apparently you only think this is sport is for men also. And yes the penalty is unfair. It tells people like me that I'm not welcomed. Well Thank you very much and I will not renew my membership.