Closing the "actions off the clock" loophole

[Nik Habicht]

This rule requires the target to be activated, but allows that to happen off the clock.

Again, what's the problem? Activation buys you better target exposure, right? Access to the A-zone?

[Steve J]

Eliminate the "no penalty miss". Every cardboard target on the stage must be engaged with two rounds and every steel target must fall to score. Eliminating the NPM solves the problem of actions off the clock as well as actions that pervert the intent of the stage designer.

[sperman]

If two NROI guru's can't agree on 2.1.8.5, how are us mere mortals supposed to figure it out. It sounds like it's time to ask for a ruling from DNROI.

[twodownzero]

"...it's pretty clear to me that that target was intended to be hidden until activated."

1. It was never the intent to obscure the target before it was activated (to my knowledge).

This is an important point and isn't resolved based solely on what was or wasn't "...to your knowledge". Unless you designed and built the stage and can comment definitively on the matter of whether the target was intended to be available before activation, we still don't know for certain.

No...wait. I think we do know.

Resolving "intent"...either way..isn't really relevant.

What we have, once the stage is on the ground and running, is the rules to work with.

This rule requires the target to be activated, but allows that to happen off the clock.

Agreed. Although, for the record, it was myself, JThompson, and two other people who "built" most of that stage.

I don't know who designed it.

[SLM]

I don't see it as a problem, just another option in the stage. IMO,, leave it the way it is.

[ac4wordplay]

One thing I'm getting from reading these posts (and a couple other threads) is that there was a target available to be shot without being activated. (Can someone confirm or deny that?)

Troy, below is the stage (and run) that sparked this discussion. It is the 4th stage in the video, and the target in question is the 3rd target that I engaged:

Of course the beautiful, sweet irony of it all is that I am so used to unloading and showing clear after the shooting is finished that I never activated the stomp plate, thus inuring 1 procedural per the wsb.

Micah,

The target at ~ 29 seconds into your vid?

Thanks for posting that. Vid looks good, stages look fun.

Best,

ac

[wgnoyes]

[never mind; this has already answered to death.]

Edited July 27, 2010 by wgnoyes

[JThompson]

One thing I would like to see if nothing else is changes is the word "obscure" changed to "not visible" They use obscure in the book to mean two things. Just because something is "obscured" does not mean it's not visible. I know when you look at the definition of "appearing target" it uses the phrase "not visible." However that is inconsistent and is easy to fix.

Personally, I think that "appearing targets should be able to be visible before activation and leave it to the course designer to decide, how much if any, portion of the target is visible until activated. This is very cool freestyle in my opinion. Then the shooter has to figure out whether a possible C/D hit is worth it to save time. A good designer can make that very close and I see no reason to prevent them from doing so. In the case of a non disappearing target, which this was, the target has to be engaged anyway. Once engaged, why bother making someone activate? It makes no sense. So we have a rule that is basically used only for disappearing targets... The suggestion of doing away with NPMs should be given thought as well. I know the sport has gone away from a lot of the practical aspects, but those targets do signify threats and you sure don't want to leave one because it ducks behind cover. You could be required to neutralize all threats. Once you do that, the whole issue is resolved......

Edited July 27, 2010 by JThompson

[Singlestack]

I do not like the idea of the word "Threat" being used in our rule book at all.

[JThompson]

I do not like the idea of the word "Threat" being used in our rule book at all.

There would be no need for it, nor the word "neutralize." What about the word, "engage?" Hmmm, maybe we can change that to address... "Address as visible." You know I'm just fun'n ya buddy.

[mactiger]

I'll agree with George and Flex that this could be called a moving target, and not be hidden prior to activation, and even go so far as to say that might keep the stage legal. I think it's weasel words, but there it is.

As for needing a rule: if you are going to do this, (partially hide or obscure a target that is activated) then it's the competitor's option, it's a stage design issue (intentional), and activation is still not required, if you are going to give the competitor the option of a harder shot without activation or more target with activation. Still no need for a rule to cover up poor course design and construction.

From some of the comments I read here, nobody seems to know what the damn thing was supposed to be. And, from looking at Micah's video, I don't want to see any more of that match.

I also don't want to start using strong-arm tactics via the rulebook to make competitors comply with the course designer's or Range Officials intent, even though the stage wasn't built to satisfy that intent. With all due respect, there's another sport for that.

Doing away with NPM's or any of the other proposals I've read here only serve to curb the freestyle aspect of our sport. Do your homework in designing and setting up the stage (and again, I've been guilty of this in the past and probably will make some mistakes in the future), and then let the competitor solve the problem.

I said I quit, but I guess I had more to say.

Troy

[Aristotle]

One thing I'm getting from reading these posts (and a couple other threads) is that there was a target available to be shot without being activated. (Can someone confirm or deny that?) And, that some people shot it, then went and activated it by stepping on the activator, thereby not increasing their time for the stage. Legal actions on the part of the competitor per the current rules.

Problems: if this was a level II or higher match, that stage was not legal. The problem with the activated target should have been caught right off the bat, but it wasn't. (I'm not criticizing anyone here--I've had my share of things like this that fell through the crack--I'm just saying what should happen in a perfect world).

The activated target should have been covered up, or if it was a disappearing target, there should have been some value in activating and engaging it, or competitors just skip it and activate it last, off the clock. Which is what it looks like happened here. What do you do if you are the CRO and RO on that stage? Live with it.

So: definitely a stage design/setup/management(?) issue, yet now there is a call for a rule (seriously, among this bunch? ) to remove the responsibility for following the rules and setting up a course correctly, and allow a penalty for not doing what the stage designer intended. (Seems like I've heard that "intent" word around here before.) Isn't that what the forbidden action rule does? The same rule that caused so much howling and gnashing of teeth when it was put into place--taking away freestyle, not allowing competitors to exploit an error in the stage setup or design, allowing lazy course designers/match officials to just "rule out" an inherent error in their course? C'mon--can't have it both ways, and just because the stage staff is offended by some competitor's actions is no reason to add another rule to the book.

Fix the problem by designing,setting up, and running the course correctly, per the rule book. It doesn't bust the Comstock method to do this--it's part of the "solve the problem" attitude we promote by designing freestyle courses of fire. If you don't want the competitor to do it, build it right or fix the stage, don't make rules against it.

This problem all boils down to course design, NOT rules issues--the loophole is closed if the course is designed, built, and managed properly.

Troy

I have not read any post beyond this, but I'll call this a perfect double.

[SLM]

To specifically address the stage at Indiana, I would like to know the intent of the stage designer. Moving the barrel stacks 3 inches would have closed up the option of shooting the targets in question without activating them first. Not a hard thing to do and it was pretty obvious they were intentionally placed where they were on purpose as they were in the same position on both tje left and right sides.

In my opinion it was done on purpose to give the competitors yet another freestyle option on how to solve the challenge. If the rule was to be changed you take that option away from both the shooter and the stage designer. Why would we want to do that?

[JThompson]

Weasel Words!!!

Edited July 27, 2010 by JThompson

[rvb]

George,

Can you please explain 9.9.3? I always read this as a "failure to activate" penalty. Otherwise, target scoring would be all that's necessary and we wouldn't need this rule, right?

Glad to.

Some history (which is pertinent). ... [cut]

So 9.9.3 was added to provide a penalty for skipping targets. So, there is no direct penalty for "failure to activate", but there is a resulting penalty for FTE and misses on the targets in question.

This is one of those things which affects how matches are put on the ground. Without 9.9.3, how long would it have been before designers stopped trying to design the more complex stages? "If I build it and they don't shoot it... why build it in the first place?".

So, if something is not activated, but the targets have been engaged, there is no penalty to apply.

And I would hope that someone doesn't suggest adding a WSB procedure to activate something. That would be contrary to freestyle (1.1.5) and the start down the slippery slope of "shoot it this way or else!"

Hope this helps.

Thanks, George.

I was away for a day and I guess the discussion has moved on, but I'll put out my thoughts anyway...

9.9.3 just says moving targets... so appearing/moving/disapearing/etc can all be considered moving depending on implementation. So it seems that it's possible, as happened in this match, that the target could be engaged, and by the wording of this rule, still have the penalty applied.

Sounds like the rule exists for the specific case of disapearing apearing targets

History for rules is important, but as the book evolves, I always think it's important that a first timer who has no understanding of the history can read the words and apply the rule. In this case, it says "will always incure ... penalties if... fails to activate."

After a quick skim of all the posts, I think what I'm seeing is that if the target is visible elsewhere (just a "mover") then you wouldn't need to activate it because if engaged there are no penalties. But if it's truly hidden (an "appearing" target) then the penalties apply because you wouldn't have shot at it.

So I guess I come back to my original idea... do we need that rule? More specifically, knowing the history, can we just remove the "always" and apply it to apearing targets?*

-rvb

*Alternately: I'm all for getting rid of NPMs.

Edited July 27, 2010 by rvb

[mhs]

From some of the comments I read here, nobody seems to know what the damn thing was supposed to be. And, from looking at Micah's video, I don't want to see any more of that match.

Troy

Care to elaborate on this? I may be involved in helping with future matches here, and I'd like to know what else we should try to correct.

[George Jones]

*Alternately: I'm all for getting rid of NPMs.

Well, that sure would simplify everything. But I'm not sure this would be a majority opinion.

By removing NPMs, you would be taking an option away from the shooter. It would also make disappearing targets, especially quick ones, have an unbalanced effect on match scores, particularly for lower class shooters. Is that what you intend?

[twodownzero]

To specifically address the stage at Indiana, I would like to know the intent of the stage designer. Moving the barrel stacks 3 inches would have closed up the option of shooting the targets in question without activating them first. Not a hard thing to do and it was pretty obvious they were intentionally placed where they were on purpose as they were in the same position on both tje left and right sides.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Moving the barrels a few inches towards the start position simply would have presented the other side of the target's D ring to the shooter. Either way they'd have a view of the target, I think. I'm not absolutely certain that's the case, but as I remember it, the shooter would have had the "option" of hitting it either way.

I'm the one who staked the barrels down, but it wasn't my job to position them or approve the stage. That fell on the designers and the range master. After the stage was approved, I staked the barrels where I was told to stake them.

Edited July 28, 2010 by twodownzero

[Steve J]

*Alternately: I'm all for getting rid of NPMs.

Well, that sure would simplify everything. But I'm not sure this would be a majority opinion.

By removing NPMs, you would be taking an option away from the shooter. It would also make disappearing targets, especially quick ones, have an unbalanced effect on match scores, particularly for lower class shooters. Is that what you intend?

I agree NPMs are a bad thing, and yes because of the effect they have on match scores, but not as it relates to slower shooters. NPMs are bad because they allow shooters to intentionally not shoot at DTs and thereby achieve a better score than someone who shoots at the DT. If the target is there it's intended to be shot and engaging it should be required, or the shooter should be penalized. That goes to the essence of practical shooting.

[Nik Habicht]

*Alternately: I'm all for getting rid of NPMs.

Well, that sure would simplify everything. But I'm not sure this would be a majority opinion.

By removing NPMs, you would be taking an option away from the shooter. It would also make disappearing targets, especially quick ones, have an unbalanced effect on match scores, particularly for lower class shooters. Is that what you intend?

I agree NPMs are a bad thing, and yes because of the effect they have on match scores, but not as it relates to slower shooters. NPMs are bad because they allow shooters to intentionally not shoot at DTs and thereby achieve a better score than someone who shoots at the DT. If the target is there it's intended to be shot and engaging it should be required, or the shooter should be penalized. That goes to the essence of practical shooting.

Again it's one of those freestyle trade-offs -- the game isn't about shooting all the targets; it's about generating the highest hit factor....

I'd like to preserve some of those trade-off options; I wouldn't necessarily want to see them on every stage, but when it's well executed it becomes very difficult to tell whether skipping the target is worth it....

[mactiger]

NPM's are not a bad thing. The challenge is to make the competitor want to shoot the disappearing target, either by making it easy, or by putting enough "value" on it (middle of the course, other targets to engage while the target starts it's movement, etc.), to make skipping it costly.

You can't just stick a DT out in the middle of nowhere without thinking about whether it will be shot or not. If the answer is no, then use a static target. If the answer is yes, your course allows for competitor options.

Removing the NPM and making shooters shoot at all targets, destroys one of the freestyle aspects of our sport.

Here's the deal: think about your stages, set them up right, and then think about them again. Pay attention, and get some other eyeballs on it, and always question the value of a disappearing target, or some other presentation that may lead to administrative issues. A little due diligence will go a long way when the match is on the ground. Calling for removal of this or that only brings things down to the lowest common denominator. If you want to stand and shoot, go shoot bullseye or PPC (nothing wrong with those, either, just sayin'). If you want to run and gun, build the stages right.

Troy

[Steve J]

*Alternately: I'm all for getting rid of NPMs.

Well, that sure would simplify everything. But I'm not sure this would be a majority opinion.

By removing NPMs, you would be taking an option away from the shooter. It would also make disappearing targets, especially quick ones, have an unbalanced effect on match scores, particularly for lower class shooters. Is that what you intend?

I agree NPMs are a bad thing, and yes because of the effect they have on match scores, but not as it relates to slower shooters. NPMs are bad because they allow shooters to intentionally not shoot at DTs and thereby achieve a better score than someone who shoots at the DT. If the target is there it's intended to be shot and engaging it should be required, or the shooter should be penalized. That goes to the essence of practical shooting.

Again it's one of those freestyle trade-offs -- the game isn't about shooting all the targets; it's about generating the highest hit factor....

I'd like to preserve some of those trade-off options; I wouldn't necessarily want to see them on every stage, but when it's well executed it becomes very difficult to tell whether skipping the target is worth it....

IMHO, it should be about getting the highest hit factor by shooting ALL the targets.

[SA Friday]

I agree NPMs are a bad thing, and yes because of the effect they have on match scores, but not as it relates to slower shooters. NPMs are bad because they allow shooters to intentionally not shoot at DTs and thereby achieve a better score than someone who shoots at the DT. If the target is there it's intended to be shot and engaging it should be required, or the shooter should be penalized. That goes to the essence of practical shooting.

I disagree. It's simply a stage design option. Skip these NPM's and I guarantee you the lower half of the stack for the stage.

Lit\'l Evil.doc

[George Jones]

IMHO, it should be about getting the highest hit factor by shooting ALL the targets.

And you are free to do just that if that is your preference.

But don't force everyone else into your decision. They get a choice too. Let the better hit factor win.... as it should and does.

The attraction fo this sport for many of us is freestyle and the necessity to think and shoot at the same time. Putting it all in a one-choice-only box goes against the fundamental foundation of this game and would dilute it to something much less than it is now.

[rvb]

*Alternately: I'm all for getting rid of NPMs.

Well, that sure would simplify everything. But I'm not sure this would be a majority opinion.

By removing NPMs, you would be taking an option away from the shooter. It would also make disappearing targets, especially quick ones, have an unbalanced effect on match scores, particularly for lower class shooters. Is that what you intend?

Oh, I had no illusion it would be a majority opinion.

As for the unbalanced effect, all that means to me is scores are not as close and you'll see more separation between classes. I don't see loosing some match points by missing a hard target as a problem. Would we say the same about a 50yd target?

Again it's one of those freestyle trade-offs -- the game isn't about shooting all the targets; it's about generating the highest hit factor....

I'd like to preserve some of those trade-off options; I wouldn't necessarily want to see them on every stage, but when it's well executed it becomes very difficult to tell whether skipping the target is worth it....

Well, it's making a HF w/in the rules. If the rules change, so would the strategy. I don't see it as a big change. On a philosophical level, HF comes from DVC, and it's hard to relate skipping targets to DVC.

I have faith our course designers are creative enough to still enable this type of freestyle decision from time to time.

NPM's are not a bad thing.

Removing the NPM and making shooters shoot at all targets, destroys one of the freestyle aspects of our sport.

I don't think they are a bad thing either. Just an thought I've always had that related to the topic at hand, so I threw it out there. I think to say it "destroys freestyle" is a bit strong. It changes the balance on one aspect of breaking down a course is all.

I feel like this is a thread drift, but I got there because of the history lesson on how we got to 9.9.3. And it seems that all those rules about activators, etc, are there ultimately because targets were left on the course that were not penalized w/ FTEs and Mikes.

-rvb

Edited July 28, 2010 by rvb