Closing the "actions off the clock" loophole

[JThompson]

I was the one that set those props in place and there was no C available when I did so. If you leaned way out you could see about 1 of delta, for all intents it was not shootable. We didn't hang the targets, only used one to make sure the props were in the right place. The next day the targets were added... the prop left room for the targets to lean after it was jarred... so when it activated a few times it moved about 3-4 inches leaving more exposed. It wasn't caught by Coach or myself until late in the day after the staff was shooting it. We talked about it and decided there was nothing to do about it at that point because it had been shot and changing the presentation at that point would not be equatable. Neither of us liked it, but Coach decided to leave it and I agreed with his assessment. The fact is we probably would have added a barrel or two or other vision barrier had there been the props to do so.... there weren't. The guys used everything that wasn't nailed down and some things that were.

JT

Edited July 26, 2010 by JThompson

[rvb]

There is no rule which directly requires activators to be activated. If a shooter fails to activate something (preventing a target from presenting itself), there is no penalty for "failure to activate". There are penalties (procedural for FTE and apprpriate misses) applied to the "unpresented targets".

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?

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss

penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates

the target movement.

Thanks!

-rvb

Edited July 26, 2010 by rvb

[twodownzero]

So if they weren't any faster, and gave up all those points why would anybody care? If the answer is "because that's not what the stage designer intended" then the stage designer should have done something different. Letting people make poor stage strategy decisions is actually part of freestyle, but we don't normally think about it that way.

I don't really care one way or the other, but it does seem like good stage design can eliminate most of these issues, and most of the time it seems like when folks try these sorts of things they only screw themselves. R,

I don't know why "anybody" would care, but I have a problem with a competitor doing something off the clock that increases his score. Such action defeats the purpose of comstock scoring, which is among the cornerstones of our sport. All points should be scored, including avoiding procedural penalties, while "on" the clock. No competitor should be allowed to take any action that changes his or her score while off the clock, regardless of whether it benefits him or not.

This isn't really about whether it's an advantage or not. It's really a question of whether or not you're comfortable with competitors stopping the clock by not shooting and then taking action that increases their overall score. There's room for disagreement here. Some will just call it freestyle and call it good. I take the opposing position not because I think it's unfair, but because I think it goes against what the method of scoring is attempting to measure.

Edited July 26, 2010 by twodownzero

[Flexmoney]

If the answer is "because that's not what the stage designer intended"...

No that is not the answer.

[G-ManBart]

So if they weren't any faster, and gave up all those points why would anybody care? If the answer is "because that's not what the stage designer intended" then the stage designer should have done something different. Letting people make poor stage strategy decisions is actually part of freestyle, but we don't normally think about it that way.

I don't really care one way or the other, but it does seem like good stage design can eliminate most of these issues, and most of the time it seems like when folks try these sorts of things they only screw themselves. R,

I don't know why "anybody" would care, but I have a problem with a competitor doing something off the clock that increases his score. Such action defeats the purpose of comstock scoring, which is among the cornerstones of our sport. All points should be scored, including avoiding procedural penalties, while "on" the clock. No competitor should be allowed to take any action that changes his or her score while off the clock, regardless of whether it benefits him or not.

This isn't really about whether it's an advantage or not. It's really a question of whether or not you're comfortable with competitors stopping the clock by not shooting and then taking action that increases their overall score. There's room for disagreement here. Some will just call it freestyle and call it good. I take the opposing position not because I think it's unfair, but because I think it goes against what the method of scoring is attempting to measure.

They aren't increasing their score, they're avoiding penalties....not necessarily the same thing.

Write the WSB properly, and build the stage such that there isn't an option to do anything off the clock and it becomes a non-factor.

Edited July 26, 2010 by G-ManBart

[G-ManBart]

If the answer is "because that's not what the stage designer intended"...

No that is not the answer.

You're answering for everybody now?

I didn't say it was the answer, I said if it was the answer. It would seem people might have different reasons for opposing such an action. R,

[Flexmoney]

The fact is we probably would have added a barrel or two or other vision barrier had there been the props to do so.... there weren't. The guys used everything that wasn't nailed down and some things that were.

We had a similar issue with a stage at an Ohio match a few years ago. We ran out of props and time trying to hide things on the stage. And, then when the issue of "activating off the clock" came up I gave it a hard look to see about changing it.

--------------

Folks...I don't think anybody can argue the fact that it would be great if it was taken care of in stage design. That is like saying ice cream tastes good. But, stuff happens. (I've seen a heck of a lot worse in my travels to matches.)

When it does... the loop hole gets exploited. (as it should...since that is how the rule reads now)

But, we can close the loop hole.

I am as much of a gamer as anybody, but I can't even begin to make any kind of serious argument that this is the type of gaming we want to "test".

Lets just fix it. It doesn't seem that hard.

[George Jones]

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). 9.9.3 was added many years ago (mid-late '90s ?) to prevent shooters from simply skipping activated targets. Prior to this rule, if you never saw the target, there was no penalty per 9.9.2. Sometimes, skipping those targets would save enough time to make-up for the lost (non-shot) points on those targets, which means the shooter's hit factor would be better than if he had taken the time to shoot everything. End result, the more complex stage designs (activators. movers, etc) occasionally went to waste when the shooters simply skipped them.

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.

[George Jones]

And beware of unintended consequences. Everything has a price.

[twodownzero]

So if they weren't any faster, and gave up all those points why would anybody care? If the answer is "because that's not what the stage designer intended" then the stage designer should have done something different. Letting people make poor stage strategy decisions is actually part of freestyle, but we don't normally think about it that way.

I don't really care one way or the other, but it does seem like good stage design can eliminate most of these issues, and most of the time it seems like when folks try these sorts of things they only screw themselves. R,

I don't know why "anybody" would care, but I have a problem with a competitor doing something off the clock that increases his score. Such action defeats the purpose of comstock scoring, which is among the cornerstones of our sport. All points should be scored, including avoiding procedural penalties, while "on" the clock. No competitor should be allowed to take any action that changes his or her score while off the clock, regardless of whether it benefits him or not.

This isn't really about whether it's an advantage or not. It's really a question of whether or not you're comfortable with competitors stopping the clock by not shooting and then taking action that increases their overall score. There's room for disagreement here. Some will just call it freestyle and call it good. I take the opposing position not because I think it's unfair, but because I think it goes against what the method of scoring is attempting to measure.

They aren't increasing their score, they're avoiding penalties....not necessarily the same thing.

Write the WSB properly, and build the stage such that there isn't an option to do anything off the clock and it becomes a non-factor.

I'm not sure if it'd be legal to state that the activators had to be activated "on the clock" or not, actually. I would think not. What do others think? Short of a forbidden action, I'm not sure about that.

Avoiding penalties inevitably increases one's score unless the score was zero otherwise. Therefore, avoiding a penalty is a sufficient, but not necessary way to increase one's score.

So while you're correct that they are not necessarily the same thing, it is sufficient that avoiding a procedural penalty increases one's score, under the constraining assumption that the competitor's score is nonzero.

Edited July 26, 2010 by twodownzero

[Flexmoney]

And beware of unintended consequences. Everything has a price.

That is why I suggested it here in this thread...where it can be seen and vetted by a large and diverse group.

[SA Friday]

And beware of unintended consequences. Everything has a price.

I think that's why I like RVB's suggestion so much. I regularly make shooting decisions like this in my stages intentionally. It forces decisions, it forces thinking about HF's too. I understand the "why build it if they aren't going to shoot it" aspect of the discussion though. I could see this as frustrating for some, but personally I learn so much every time someone 'games' one of my stages I now actually hope for it. So, taking away the incentive to do something off the clock by taking away a procedural sounds like 1.1.5 to me all the way. Almost always, there's a target stand that could have been used for a NS if the option wants to be taken away or made so difficult it's not worth it. I understand stuff happens at matches having worked my share of level II and a level III match and being an MD at local matches, but in that very rare occasion, I think it a bit silly to overthink a solution. Ya, it changed the stage in comparison to designer intent. So what. It's still a fair and equatible measurement of shooting ability.

[benos]

We often run into some intense gaming of a stage where a shooter will fire their last shot...thus stopping the clock...and then proceed to actuate a moving target off the clock (multiple examples of this over the years, be it stepping on a stomp plate or pulling a rope...).

That that is acceptable to me just seems stupid.

be

[Joe4d]

Exploiting loopholes in the WSB's is part of the game, If I can think of way within the WSB and rules that result in a better score more power to me, I really dont think this is an issue that needs to be addressed by rule.

[JThompson]

We often run into some intense gaming of a stage where a shooter will fire their last shot...thus stopping the clock...and then proceed to actuate a moving target off the clock (multiple examples of this over the years, be it stepping on a stomp plate or pulling a rope...).

That that is acceptable to me just seems stupid.

be

Indeed...

Edited July 27, 2010 by JThompson

[mactiger]

I like the foot pads. They work well, force movement, and are effective. I don't think we should have to put up hard cover at every possible contingency in order to force people to use them while on the clock, as well.

I saw an interesting stage design a few months ago that had a footpad in front of a blank wall at the end of a corridor that activated swingers. There were no other targets to engage while in the corridor. To shoot the swingers, I have to retreat about 25 feet to get to the port where the swingers were available. Since it was a level I match, the WSB stipulated that the swingers had to be activated before engaging. If it were a level II match, I would have "gamed" the stage by shooting all the other targets, and then taken the partially available B/C/D hits from the port, and then done my unload and show clear standing on the pad.

If it were a level II match, you should not have been able to see any of the targets prior to activation, therefore you couldn't have gamed it that way.

Troy

[mactiger]

We often run into some intense gaming of a stage where a shooter will fire their last shot...thus stopping the clock...and then proceed to actuate a moving target off the clock (multiple examples of this over the years, be it stepping on a stomp plate or pulling a rope...).

That that is acceptable to me just seems stupid.

be

The only time that works, though, is on a disappearing target that is rife with penalty points, or really gives the shooter no advantage if he takes the time to shoot at it. It's a course design issue, not a rules issue.

Troy

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Explain it to me --- why is it a problem if I choose to take harder shots, to potentially gain a time advantage? What's not freestyle about that? Why would you want to change it? Where's the problem?

[Flexmoney]

Exploiting loopholes in the WSB's is part of the game, If I can think of way within the WSB and rules that result in a better score more power to me...

Sure.

That doesn't mean we need to keep a bunch of loop holes around.

Unless that is what you want to test.

I don't think anybody here is thick enough to suggest that is the test they want to present...or win, for that matter.

[mactiger]

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

[Flexmoney]

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.

Explain it to me --- why is it a problem if I choose to take harder shots, to potentially gain a time advantage? What's not freestyle about that?

Who said it wasn't ? I am perfectly OK with choice. You know that.

If you really want it freestyle then kill the rule all together. (like Smitty and others have said)

Why would you want to change it? Where's the problem?

The problem is pretty freakin simple...

Last shot is fired...timer stops...then we have further shooter action on the cof, off the timer, that happens between the loop hole that is the last shot and the "writing" that is the "official" end of the stage.

You don't get that?

[Flexmoney]

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.

Correct. And, that is fine...per the current rules. I am suggesting the rules need changed, in this particular aspect. I pulled up a thread from half a decade ago on the same issue.

if this was a level II or higher match, that stage was not legal.

Huh? How so?

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).

I don't live in that perfect world either.

The activated target should have been covered up,

While that would have been nice...that isn't necessarily the case. 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.)

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 beat that same message on my drum, but...

With due respect...that is easy to say...until the stage is on the ground and running. You now have to run it by the rule book. And the rule book has a loop hole that you can (literally) walk through.

[SmittyFL]

Well I'm either too smart for all ya'll or too stupid but it seems to me everybody is missing the point.

I said this in the other thread but I see 9.9.3 as handcuffing stage design, not helping it. I like the fact that I could throw some disappearing targets in a stage that may or may not be shot.....they are not only there for the challenge of hitting a moving, disappearing target but also to figure out comstock wise if it is in fact worth it or not. It's adding to the freestyle aspect of the stage in my opinion.

Sure if you put it 20 yards down range with a foot activator setting it off and nothing to shoot while you wait folks are going to blow it off.....but that leads back to crappy stage design.

I feel like all these rules are designed to the lowest common denominator stage designer and just not thought through very well. Maybe like welfare they had their place when implemented, but now just abused…or used as a crutch.

Another example would be 2.1.8.5 "Appearing scoring targets must be designed and constructed to be obscured to the competitor (during the course of fire) prior to activation."

I designed a stage where your gun was in a box on a table. Opening the box activated a swinger which I wanted to just swing freely in the open, visible the whole stroke...something you don't normally see. Well Range Master wouldn't allow that saying the target had to be obscured prior to activation. Totally worthless as you couldn't have your gun in your hand until the target was activated....but none the less, by rule that’s how we had to do it. So it popped out from behind a barrel just like every other swinger you've ever seen in your life.

I think maybe we need a stand alone stage design guide instead of an additional 40 pages of a rule book.

Bottom line….get rid of 9.9.3 and it would solve this thread and the other one.

My 2 cents of course.

[George Jones]

It's not a loophole....

It's a shooter option!

[SmittyFL]

Damn, now I'm actually agreeing with George. Whats this world coming to?