Closing the "actions off the clock" loophole

[Flexmoney]

(I apologize for my hand in the drift of this thread into what happened at some specific match. But, I originally started this thread as a stand alone, to purposely address a specific issue. There was already a thread on the other thing.

With George's help, maybe we can steer it back on track...)

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.

Good discussion points. I want my freestyle too!

Perhaps a bit more fundamental is Accuracy, Power and Speed...

Which, of course, we measure that with Points divided by Time.

I believe those are the deeper foundations of our sport. Freestyle would then be the ground floor. Vitally important as well. I never ever...ever...ever... want to do anything to diminish freestyle problem solving. At the same time, as important as freestyle is, I don't believe it should get in front of DVC, points, and time.

What we have here is a statutory rule...for proper safety reasons, etc...that states the cof *technically* ends at the command of Range Clear. There are good reasons for that distinction. I agree with them.

For competitive purposes however, we effectively stop the cof on the last shot fired. That is the time aspect of it. And, the points aspect is how many points you can collect (and penalties you can avoid) between the start signal and the last shot fired. That is our measuring stick.

What we have is a ripple in the rule book between what we measure (last shot) and the official distinction of the end of the cof.

Within that ripple, competitors can do things off the clock (Time) that can change their Points.

Shouldn't our freestyle attempts at the cof fall within the start signal and the last shot fired? I love to game. I want my gaming measured.

[mactiger]

Shouldn't our freestyle attempts at the cof fall within the start signal and the last shot fired? I love to game. I want my gaming measured.

That can be achieved through proper design and setup, due diligence so that all competitor actions are "on the clock". Personally, I like to give competitors the option.

Let's get specific: this course you ran had a target that was available to be shot without being activated. You called it a "moving target", not an "appearing" target, but that's just semantics. So what? Some people shot it without activating it on the clock, which is perfectly legal under the rules, since it was visible.

Here's what you had to say about that: "I don't know the stage designers intent, but he/she may have wanted to give the option of of taking the D/C line, or waiting for a full target to drop out after activation. (It certain was a factor in timing, reloading, and deciding to shoot on the move or not, etc.)"

Again, what's the problem? It didn't take any more effort to score, or cause any big problems, did it? It was simply the competitor's choice to solve the problem as they saw fit.

If that was the case, then it's still legal, and all freestyle. No need to even activate the target because it was a "moving" target, not an "appearing" target, except for that pesky 9.9.3 rule. Some competitors solved that problem by shooting the visible portion of the target, and then stepping on the activator at the end of the cof, without shooting again--"off the clock" in your words. Big deal--that's how it was set up, and that action is also within the rules.

You want to stop that? Hide the targets, don't start hollering for a rule.

The forgetful few who didn't activate it earned a procedural, and some of the ones who did stated they only got a D or maybe a C hit at the most. But, they saw a way to possibly improve their time. (Points divided by time, right?) Worth it? Maybe not, but it was the competitor's option--it wasn't dictated by a rule, and that's what 1.1.5 is all about.

I maintain that all gaming is measured, whether it's on the clock or not, by points earned or lost, time saved, or penalties incurred. I think it's an integral part of the sport, and that giving a competitor an option is not a bad thing--it's a desirable thing, and it's the way the game is played.

Troy

Edited July 28, 2010 by mactiger

[markcic]

It's not a rules problem. It's a stage design WSB problem.

It is both.

The two need to mesh up. They don't.

And, frankly...once the stage is on the ground and running...it doesn't matter. It is then a rules problem, for sure.

It's FUBAR...has been for years...lets fix the damn thing.

But it isn't FUBAR.

For a level 1 match it is an issue and the fix is the WSB. The level 1 exemptions to the rules exist to fix a lack of props and a lack of design time and frankly a lack of imagination. If there is a hole, fix it in the WSB.

For a level 2 and higher match there is no issue. There is plenty of time to fix the stage and plenty of props to put on a level 2 match. Also, the stages are submitted to the NROI. If there is a hole then TFB. Enough eyes have seen the stages to fix the hole if there is a hole and if that hole in unintentional.

Freestyle should be just that, don't handicap the shooter if the find a better way to shoot the stage.

[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....

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

You already have that option -- design all of your stages to not have disappearing targets, or set the stage in such a way that skipping a target leads to a worse score....

Don't try and force the rest of us to play by those standards though....

[Nik Habicht]

They're penalized -- by not adding ten points per target -- just not whacked by also subtracting (already earned on other targets) points.....

That can be a 30 point swing just by having someone miss a fast drop turner, a 40 point swing if their gun jams and they don't get to engage it.....

That's a hefty penalty....

[Flexmoney]

Shouldn't our freestyle attempts at the cof fall within the start signal and the last shot fired? I love to game. I want my gaming measured.

That can be achieved through proper design and setup, due diligence so that all competitor actions are "on the clock".

Well, sure..it can.

That just isn't the issue that I am bringing up here.

[Jack T]

I agree with Flex 100% here. Any actions which occur after the last shot fired/off the clock is not heads up racing. That is what the sport is about, who can negotiate the course of fire with the best time/score. Not what happens off the clock.

It is flat out ridiculous not to have a change in the rules which will fix this problem. It is not stage design, WSB, etc., it is a rules problem.

What fun is it to watch some lard ass waddle up to the stomp plate after the last shot fired and activate the target? Is this really what you guys want? Total BS.

Just like Flex said at the beginning: All actions must occur between start signal and last shot fired or words to that effect.

Jack

[mactiger]

Well, I've seen Jerry Barnhart, Todd Jarret, uh, Phil Strader, Rob Leatham, and lots of other, non-lard ass shooters take advantage of this course design problem.

Any course of fire that allows competitor action "off the clock" (which is a slight misnomer, because the clock is still running, the competitor just isn't shooting), is a badly flawed course. A course like that has several opportunities to be fixed: upon review by the sanctioning authority, upon setup, when the CRO first lays eyes on it, and lastly, when the first competitor drives his big ol' freestyle truck through that huge course design hole. At that point, to use this specific course as an example, the targets could have been hidden, the competitor required to reshoot, and all would have been well.

Good course design, setup, and operation are fundamental to a well-run match. Adding a rule to allow course designers and range officials to be sloppy is not smart--it only makes the book more restrictive.

Of course, I suppose we could go back to shooting everything from boxes, designated target arrays, target order, all that stuff. That way, nobody would have to think about it,right?

Troy

[SA Friday]

Well, I've seen Jerry Barnhart, Todd Jarret, uh, Phil Strader, Rob Leatham, and lots of other, non-lard ass shooters take advantage of this course design problem.

Any course of fire that allows competitor action "off the clock" (which is a slight misnomer, because the clock is still running, the competitor just isn't shooting), is a badly flawed course. A course like that has several opportunities to be fixed: upon review by the sanctioning authority, upon setup, when the CRO first lays eyes on it, and lastly, when the first competitor drives his big ol' freestyle truck through that huge course design hole. At that point, to use this specific course as an example, the targets could have been hidden, the competitor required to reshoot, and all would have been well.

Good course design, setup, and operation are fundamental to a well-run match. Adding a rule to allow course designers and range officials to be sloppy is not smart--it only makes the book more restrictive.

Of course, I suppose we could go back to shooting everything from boxes, designated target arrays, target order, all that stuff. That way, nobody would have to think about it,right?

Troy

Troy, what do you think about RVB's suggestion about getting rid of the rule about activation in leu of additional rules? Do you see pitfalls in the suggestion?

[driver8M3]

if someone had showed me this thread with the names of the contributors hidden, and asked me to guess who started it...i would never have guessed flex.

[Jack T]

Well, I've seen Jerry Barnhart, Todd Jarret, uh, Phil Strader, Rob Leatham, and lots of other, non-lard ass shooters take advantage of this course design problem.

Any course of fire that allows competitor action "off the clock" (which is a slight misnomer, because the clock is still running, the competitor just isn't shooting), is a badly flawed course. A course like that has several opportunities to be fixed: upon review by the sanctioning authority, upon setup, when the CRO first lays eyes on it, and lastly, when the first competitor drives his big ol' freestyle truck through that huge course design hole. At that point, to use this specific course as an example, the targets could have been hidden, the competitor required to reshoot, and all would have been well.

Good course design, setup, and operation are fundamental to a well-run match. Adding a rule to allow course designers and range officials to be sloppy is not smart--it only makes the book more restrictive.

Of course, I suppose we could go back to shooting everything from boxes, designated target arrays, target order, all that stuff. That way, nobody would have to think about it,right?

Troy

Because of the loophole you have to shoot it like that or you will lose the stage. I talk and shoot with some of the top shooters in the country and they agree it is wrong, but unless you want to lose the stage, then you have to do it also.

Has nothing to do with going back to boxes and such, that again is BS.

It is a rules problem plain and simple.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Jack T

[mactiger]

Well, I've seen Jerry Barnhart, Todd Jarret, uh, Phil Strader, Rob Leatham, and lots of other, non-lard ass shooters take advantage of this course design problem.

Any course of fire that allows competitor action "off the clock" (which is a slight misnomer, because the clock is still running, the competitor just isn't shooting), is a badly flawed course. A course like that has several opportunities to be fixed: upon review by the sanctioning authority, upon setup, when the CRO first lays eyes on it, and lastly, when the first competitor drives his big ol' freestyle truck through that huge course design hole. At that point, to use this specific course as an example, the targets could have been hidden, the competitor required to reshoot, and all would have been well.

Good course design, setup, and operation are fundamental to a well-run match. Adding a rule to allow course designers and range officials to be sloppy is not smart--it only makes the book more restrictive.

Of course, I suppose we could go back to shooting everything from boxes, designated target arrays, target order, all that stuff. That way, nobody would have to think about it,right?

Troy

Troy, what do you think about RVB's suggestion about getting rid of the rule about activation in leu of additional rules? Do you see pitfalls in the suggestion?

It might work, but again, no change comes without consequences. If a target is a difficult shot when not activated, but way easier if activated, and activation was optional...I can see the logic in that. Not currently possible within the rules, but better, IMO, than adding the rule originally suggested.

RVB's suggestion adds another freestyle option for both the competitor and the course designer. I can see some issues arising over target visibility, what is "appearing" versus hidden, but overall, I'm not opposed to the suggestion.

Troy

[mactiger]

Well, I've seen Jerry Barnhart, Todd Jarret, uh, Phil Strader, Rob Leatham, and lots of other, non-lard ass shooters take advantage of this course design problem.

Any course of fire that allows competitor action "off the clock" (which is a slight misnomer, because the clock is still running, the competitor just isn't shooting), is a badly flawed course. A course like that has several opportunities to be fixed: upon review by the sanctioning authority, upon setup, when the CRO first lays eyes on it, and lastly, when the first competitor drives his big ol' freestyle truck through that huge course design hole. At that point, to use this specific course as an example, the targets could have been hidden, the competitor required to reshoot, and all would have been well.

Good course design, setup, and operation are fundamental to a well-run match. Adding a rule to allow course designers and range officials to be sloppy is not smart--it only makes the book more restrictive.

Of course, I suppose we could go back to shooting everything from boxes, designated target arrays, target order, all that stuff. That way, nobody would have to think about it,right?

Troy

Because of the loophole you have to shoot it like that or you will lose the stage. I talk and shoot with some of the top shooters in the country and they agree it is wrong, but unless you want to lose the stage, then you have to do it also.

Has nothing to do with going back to boxes and such, that again is BS.

It is a rules problem plain and simple.

If the course design flaw didn't exist, then nobody would be forced to take advantage of it. In my experience, it's usually the top shooters who find and exploit the flaw, hence the rest of them have to follow suit. This is simple: no flaw in the course, no "loophole" to take advantage of.

Troy

[Jack T]

Definitely have to agree with ya in that regard (Proper Stage Design). Little thread drift here. I am back in Louisiana (Fort Polk) and the club here will not re-affiliate with USPSA because they find it too difficult to conform to the USPSA rules with regards to stage design/set up. They actually do a pretty damn good job.

I suggested we re-affiliate. I volunteered to take care of score keeping, interface with Val, USPSA and all administrative duties. No takers. They are happy without USPSA. Starting to see more and more outlaw clubs lately.

Jack

[driver8M3]

It is flat out ridiculous not to have a change in the rules which will fix this problem. It is not stage design, WSB, etc., it is a rules problem.

Definitely have to agree with ya in that regard (Proper Stage Design)

i see troy is doing a good job convincing you...

[mactiger]

Definitely have to agree with ya in that regard (Proper Stage Design). Little thread drift here. I am back in Louisiana (Fort Polk) and the club here will not re-affiliate with USPSA because they find it too difficult to conform to the USPSA rules with regards to stage design/set up. They actually do a pretty damn good job.

I suggested we re-affiliate. I volunteered to take care of score keeping, interface with Val, USPSA and all administrative duties. No takers. They are happy without USPSA. Starting to see more and more outlaw clubs lately.

Jack

Too bad. I bet they're still using our safety rules, although I don't see what issues a club could have with the course design rules. They are pretty straightforward and there are level one exceptions which were put in to give clubs some relief relative to prop purchase and construction. In fact, the level one exception on hiding appearing targets/requiring activation prior to engagement would have fit the scenario we are discussing perfectly.

My guess is they don't want to pay activity fees, but it's just a guess. Unfortunate for the USPSA members who shoot there, since they won't get any classifiers or slot opportunities, and at "outlaw" clubs, you run into local rule application and interpretation--nothing is standard, so you are at the mercy of the club officials. Good luck to them.

Troy

[Jack T]

I agree it is a stage design problem, But, here is the but, how are you going to ensure designers implement proper stage design if there is not a rule to enforce it. It is being left up to the stage designer to do this and we are all not rule gurus. Personally, I do not enjoy immersing myself in the rule book. I am about shooting, not studying the damn rulebook!

I have (this year) participated in two matches, one State, one Area, where the stage designers intentionally set up the basic scenario we are talking about, visible target, activated by a stomp box, into the stage. OK, most of us are aware of this aspect now, so what is the point of even doing it. Just screws some poor new shooter who isn't aware of this aspect of the sport. It isn't about shooting and I don't think this curtails freestyle.

I don't think having a rule which states; all shooter actions must occur between the start signal and the last shot fired is an infringement on "Freestyle". It is a common sense rule, which I considered an unwritten rule since I have been shooting, as do/did many others.

Freestyle as of late has become a play on words and "Lawyer Speak", rather than ones ability to shoot and negotiate a course of fire.

I got banned from a range down in Florida because I lost my temper when a complete squad made a play on words, said the stage was not a legal stage, etc., etc., and made a mandatory magazine change AFTER the last shot fired, off the clock. Yes the clock is still running, and the sun is still shinning, but it doesn't mean sh#t if another shot is not fired to establish a stop time.

Personally, I don't get the mentality of a person who thinks this is good sportsmanship and heads up competition. Plenty out there who disagree with me and consider this good gamesmanship. More power to ya. Probably can't spell honor and integrity anyway.

It is a race, plain and simple.

Jack

PS: I took an online anger management course, I am much better now!!

Edited August 4, 2010 by Jack T

[Jack T]

Definitely have to agree with ya in that regard (Proper Stage Design). Little thread drift here. I am back in Louisiana (Fort Polk) and the club here will not re-affiliate with USPSA because they find it too difficult to conform to the USPSA rules with regards to stage design/set up. They actually do a pretty damn good job.

I suggested we re-affiliate. I volunteered to take care of score keeping, interface with Val, USPSA and all administrative duties. No takers. They are happy without USPSA. Starting to see more and more outlaw clubs lately.

Jack

Too bad. I bet they're still using our safety rules, although I don't see what issues a club could have with the course design rules. They are pretty straightforward and there are level one exceptions which were put in to give clubs some relief relative to prop purchase and construction. In fact, the level one exception on hiding appearing targets/requiring activation prior to engagement would have fit the scenario we are discussing perfectly.

My guess is they don't want to pay activity fees, but it's just a guess. Unfortunate for the USPSA members who shoot there, since they won't get any classifiers or slot opportunities, and at "outlaw" clubs, you run into local rule application and interpretation--nothing is standard, so you are at the mercy of the club officials. Good luck to them.

Troy

Yes, to all the above!! Still working on it and I will take over the club and get it straight.

Jack

[Aristotle]

I agree it is a stage design problem, But, here is the but, how are you going to ensure designers implement proper stage design if there is not a rule to enforce it. It is being left up to the stage designer to do this and we are all not rule gurus. Personally, I do not enjoy immersing myself in the rule book. I am about shooting, not studying the damn rulebook!

I have (this year) participated in two matches, one State, one Area, where the stage designers intentionally set up the basic scenario we are talking about, visible target, activated by a stomp box, into the stage. OK, most of us are aware of this aspect now, so what is the point of even doing it. Just screws some poor new shooter who isn't aware of this aspect of the sport. It isn't about shooting and I don't think this curtails freestyle.

I don't think having a rule which states; all shooter actions must occur between the start signal and the last shot fired is an infringement on "Freestyle". It is a common sense rule, which I considered an unwritten rule since I have been shooting, as do/did many others.

Freestyle as of late has become a play on words and "Lawyer Speak", rather than ones ability to shoot and negotiate a course of fire.

I got banned from a range down in Florida because I lost my temper when a complete squad made a play on words, said the stage was not a legal stage, etc., etc., and made a mandatory magazine change AFTER the last shot fired, off the clock. Yes the clock is still running, and the sun is still shinning, but it doesn't mean sh#t if another shot is not fired to establish a stop time.

Personally, I don't get the mentality of a person who thinks this is good sportsmanship and heads up competition. Plenty out there who disagree with me and consider this good gamesmanship. More power to ya. Probably can't spell honor and integrity anyway.

It is a race, plain and simple.

Jack

PS: I took an online anger management course, I am much better now!!

Jack, with all due respect, there are two disciplines that is more of a straight up race than USPSA. IDPA and Steel Challenge. In IDPA, they restrict how and when and where. There is "some" freestyle, but for the most part, it's all about who can get done, what they specifically ask to get done the most efficiently. There's not as much gaming, because everything is essentially spelled out, and less likely for a stage to be "gamed". Steel Challenge is the same way.

USPSA "could" be, but it will require for volunteers to care enough to make it so. I put anywhere from 20-30 hours of work into each one of my monthly matches. I design all of the stages for my match, and there will be times I will work on one stage for 5-10 hours. Then when I think I am done with the stages, I distribute my stages to 6 of my most trusted guys to review them, weeks before my match, and poke holes through them. Then on set up day, I play a hand in building all of my stages, and review them. I invite some of the best gamers and most experienced shooters in my area to come and air gun and help build my stages, then I ask them for the "holes". And I do any necessary fix to get the stage to run like how I wanted it to be run. If I need to, I'll go to Home Depot to buy essentials. But I don't go home until I am satisfied with all of my stages. I try and become a better MD/Stage designer by attending as many other matches in and outside of my stage, just to see how they run things. Then I bring back what I learn and apply them here. Because of this, I am able to shoot my match with the rest of the guys, and I can count on one hand the times I have had to be pulled from shooting to get clarification on my stages this year. Everything is pretty much straight forward, "shoot em as you see em". If not, oh well, I learn to protect against it next time.

Bottom line, USPSA is about getting the highest hit factor, I learn that rite away. My fast feet will only get me so far, in this sport, you need a creative mind as well. And I like a sport that rewards the creative, just as much as the physically able.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Aristotle

[SA Friday]

Bottom line, USPSA is about getting the lowest highest hit factor,

This is what he meant. We knew that.

[Aristotle]

Bottom line, USPSA is about getting the lowest highest hit factor,

This is what he meant. We knew that.

lol, yes, just updated it, thanks.