virgina count penalties

[Flexmoney]

No Extra Shot. No Extra Hit.

I would however award one procedural for 10.2.2, Failure to comply with the WSB (fired too many rounds before the reload).

I don't see 10.2.2.1 as prohibiting that because it's not about the number of shots fired. It's about the sequence of the shots fired.

[ima45dv8]

No Extra Shot. No Extra Hit.

I would however award one procedural for 10.2.2, Failure to comply with the WSB (fired too many rounds before the reload).

I don't see 10.2.2.1 as prohibiting that because it's not about the number of shots fired. It's about the sequence of the shots fired.

I wondered if that would make your head spin and thought I should edit it. Take two Tylenol and send me the bill.

"....it's not about the number of shots fired in the string."

[Flexmoney]

...shows that while we know it as "stacking", by the rules as written you cannot issue a penalty for such.

I've changed my mind and concur with the 1 procedural for not following the WSB

So...

1. It is stacking, but...

2. The rules, as currently written, don't allow you to give a penalty for that. So...

3. Lets wrap a different rule around it.

?

[ima45dv8]

...shows that while we know it as "stacking", by the rules as written you cannot issue a penalty for such.

I've changed my mind and concur with the 1 procedural for not following the WSB

So...

1. It is stacking, but...

2. The rules, as currently written, don't allow you to give a penalty for that. So...

3. Lets wrap a different rule around it.

?

So I could fire 11 rounds, reload and fire one, and you'd be OK with that as long as each target had only two hits when I finished?

[Flexmoney]

No Extra Shot. No Extra Hit.

I would however award one procedural for 10.2.2, Failure to comply with the WSB (fired too many rounds before the reload).

I don't see 10.2.2.1 as prohibiting that because it's not about the number of shots fired. It's about the sequence of the shots fired.

I wondered if that would make your head spin and thought I should edit it. Take two Tylenol and send me the bill.

"....it's not about the number of shots fired in the string."

Take a re-read, 10.2.2.1 doesn't say anything about a "string".

[Flexmoney]

So I could... and you'd be OK with that ...

Why would I be "OK with that" ?

Not the point. Everybody is trying to use a rule that isn't right. (because there needs to be a procedure given)

The 9.4.5 rules need tweaked. They are the proper rules and should be the ones that apply.

[Corey]

...shows that while we know it as "stacking", by the rules as written you cannot issue a penalty for such.

I've changed my mind and concur with the 1 procedural for not following the WSB

So...

1. It is stacking, but...

2. The rules, as currently written, don't allow you to give a penalty for that. So...

3. Lets wrap a different rule around it.

?

We all see it as shot stacking, but b/c of 9.4.5.3's wording on number of shots per target required to be considered stacking and be a penalizable offense, its not technically a penalty (there are no extra nor missing shots on the targt at the end of the string). bc of that no penalty there.

shooter did however fail to follow WSB which is a penalty as written.

1 procedural is my call now. Not trying to find a rule to issue a penalty, just trying to find THE rule that best applies.

[DWFAN]

Would it help any to focus on the second part of the WSB that states T1-T6 with 1 round each, which he did not do ? Instead of the two shot on T1 before the reload.

[ima45dv8]

No Extra Shot. No Extra Hit.

I would however award one procedural for 10.2.2, Failure to comply with the WSB (fired too many rounds before the reload).

I don't see 10.2.2.1 as prohibiting that because it's not about the number of shots fired. It's about the sequence of the shots fired.

I wondered if that would make your head spin and thought I should edit it. Take two Tylenol and send me the bill.

"....it's not about the number of shots fired in the string."

Take a re-read, 10.2.2.1 doesn't say anything about a "string".

That's true. It mentions "stage". But the penalty I would award isn't based on 10.2.2.1. It's based on 10.2.2.

10.2.2.1 doesn't apply because we're not dealing with insufficient or additional shots. We're dealing with shots taken out of the sequence mandated by the WSB.

[Flexmoney]

That's true. It mentions "stage". But the penalty I would award isn't based on 10.2.2.1. It's based on 10.2.2.

10.2.2.1 doesn't apply because we're not dealing with insufficient or additional shots. We're dealing with shots taken out of the sequence mandated by the WSB.

Well, no...it mentions "stage procedure".

Anyway...

10.2.2.1 Procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures

do not apply to the number of shots fired. Penalties for firing

insufficient or additional shots

is addressed in other rules

and

must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2.

The shooter fired an additional shot before the reload, and an insufficient number of shots after the reload. In this case, the "other rules" that should apply are the 9.4.5 rules. But, they have a loophole.

There are a lot of people on this thread that have "made up their mind"...and would call this a few different ways. All of them need some "explanation" to apply the rule they are choosing.

Ideally, shouldn't it simply be stacking? That would be clear. And, accurate.

[Corey]

ideally, its stacking shots, but b/c of said loophole, arguement can and has been made that it doesnt apply.

(is this what you were talking about how it could be shown that no penalty could be given? )

[George Jones]

I would suggest that what some of you are calling a "loophole" in 9.4.5 is not a loophole at all. It is an important part of the definition of stacking as is has always been known. Stacking has always been a "gaming" technique and is unrelated to someone taking that (unintended?) extra shot on the first target (not an uncommon occurence when we are preconditioned to usually firing two shots).

Trying to make this scenario fit into stacking is simply not valid in this case since the shooter did not fire insufficient rounds on any target.

My premise is this: Did the shooter violate the "fire 6-reload-fire 6" course requirement?

If the answer is Yes, then one procedural per 10.2.2.

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

As an added note - I don't know when 10.2.2.1 was added to the on-line rulebook, but I did not see it there until tonight. I have prior knowledge of that sub-rule since I suggested it to NROI as a replacement for the last sentence in 10.2.2. Unfortunately, it appears that last sentence (which was new itself) was retained.

[mhs]

That's true. It mentions "stage". But the penalty I would award isn't based on 10.2.2.1. It's based on 10.2.2.

10.2.2.1 doesn't apply because we're not dealing with insufficient or additional shots. We're dealing with shots taken out of the sequence mandated by the WSB.

Well, no...it mentions "stage procedure".

Anyway...

10.2.2.1 Procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures

do not apply to the number of shots fired. Penalties for firing

insufficient or additional shots

is addressed in other rules

and

must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2.

The shooter fired an additional shot before the reload, and an insufficient number of shots after the reload. In this case, the "other rules" that should apply are the 9.4.5 rules. But, they have a loophole.

There are a lot of people on this thread that have "made up their mind"...and would call this a few different ways. All of them need some "explanation" to apply the rule they are choosing.

Ideally, shouldn't it simply be stacking? That would be clear. And, accurate.

To me, and I think to most shooters, stacking is when you try to shoot more shots on a target or targets so you can shoot fewer shots on them later in the stage.

In this case the shooter screwed up and did the best he could to finish the stage correctly.

I think that ideally, the penalty should be one proceedural for not following the WSB. Happily, as I read them the current rules support this.

[Flexmoney]

I would suggest that what some of you are calling a "loophole" in 9.4.5 is not a loophole at all. It is an important part of the definition of stacking as is has always been known. Stacking has always been a "gaming" technique and is unrelated to someone taking that (unintended?) extra shot on the first target (not an uncommon occurence when we are preconditioned to usually firing two shots).

Trying to make this scenario fit into stacking is simply not valid in this case since the shooter did not fire insufficient rounds on any target.

"Intention" ?

The shooter put two scoring shots on the target when they were only supposed to put one on the target, then they didn't put any on the target on the second pass (when they were supposed to). That equals stacking.

I was with you on 10.2.2... until I saw 10.2.2.1, which refers to "other rules"....which don't fit due to the "loophole."

I agree, the shooter didn't follow procedure. But, 10.2.2.1 negates giving the penalty under 10.2.2

[Flexmoney]

In any event, it seems apparent that the rules here aren't as clear as they could be, or need to be.

[HoMiE]

WSB calls for fire 6, reload, fire 6. If the competitor fires 7, realizes what they did, reload, fire 5. The way the rules are, you should give extra shot penalty for stacking. You don't worry about the hits until you go to score. I guess its assumed you may or may of not hit the target yet and a miss is penalty enough.

[aztecdriver]

WSB calls for fire 6, reload, fire 6. If the competitor fires 7, realizes what they did, reload, fire 5. The way the rules are, you should give extra shot penalty for stacking. You don't worry about the hits until you go to score. I guess its assumed you may or may of not hit the target yet and a miss is penalty enough.

9.4.5.1 Extra shots (i.e. shots fired in excess of the number specified in a component string or stage), will each incur one procedural penalty. Additionally, during scoring, no more than the specified number and highest scoring hits will be awarded.

In order for this to be an extra shot, the string (there is only one string thus) the stage must have more shots than stipulated. This is a 12 round virginia count stage. 12 rounds fired. 9.4.5.1 will not sustain the proper penalty. As ima45dv8 suggested it's the sequence demanded of the wsb that counts.

[spanky]

If someone had a gun malfunction and was unable to complete the COF, would you give them procedurals for not completing some of the shots after the reload? (Aside from mikes and FTEs) If so, why? If not then you cannot justify giving one simply for not firing. The shooter obviously knew he screwed up by firing two shots at T1 the first time so why would he further penalize himself by firing at it again and giving himself an extra shot and an extra hit?

We don't penalize for not firing at targets as per WSBs since we already have mikes and FTEs. I can't see any justification for giving a procedural for not firing the required number of shots as long as targets have been engaged.

[aztecdriver]

In any event, it seems apparent that the rules here aren't as clear as they could be, or need to be.

This I'll concede that point if you would concede that 10.2.2 is where the proper penalty should be issued. 10.2.2.1 should read:

10.2.2.1 Procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures do not apply to the total number of shots fired for a specified string or stage. Penalties for firing insufficient (eg. miss penalties) or additional shots (eg. extra shot penalties) are addressed in other rules and must not be penalized additionally under the provisions of 10.2.2.

ETA: The bolding is my additions to the existing text

Edited September 22, 2010 by Flexmoney

[spanky]

10.2.2.1 is talking about total number of shots. I don't believe it disallows for a procedural for firing more than the required number before (or after) a mandatory reload.

[Nik Habicht]

I would suggest that what some of you are calling a "loophole" in 9.4.5 is not a loophole at all. It is an important part of the definition of stacking as is has always been known. Stacking has always been a "gaming" technique and is unrelated to someone taking that (unintended?) extra shot on the first target (not an uncommon occurence when we are preconditioned to usually firing two shots).

Trying to make this scenario fit into stacking is simply not valid in this case since the shooter did not fire insufficient rounds on any target.

"Intention" ?

The shooter put two scoring shots on the target when they were only supposed to put one on the target, then they didn't put any on the target on the second pass (when they were supposed to). That equals stacking.

I was with you on 10.2.2... until I saw 10.2.2.1, which refers to "other rules"....which don't fit due to the "loophole."

I agree, the shooter didn't follow procedure. But, 10.2.2.1 negates giving the penalty under 10.2.2

I'm still on 10.2.4.....

Stage description says to engage T1-6 with only one round each (6 total rounds fired) then make a mandatory reload.....

Shooter fired 7 rounds -- thereby not reloading when required, after the sixth shot -- seems simple to me, and I don't need to read into any of the other rules.....

It doesn't matter to me where/at which target he fired the extra round -- he didn't reload after six....

[staudacher]

Looks like a clear cut 10.2.4 to me as well. FWIW

[aztecdriver]

I'm still on 10.2.4.....

Stage description says to engage T1-6 with only one round each (6 total rounds fired) then make a mandatory reload.....

Shooter fired 7 rounds -- thereby not reloading when required, after the sixth shot -- seems simple to me, and I don't need to read into any of the other rules.....

It doesn't matter to me where/at which target he fired the extra round -- he didn't reload after six....

The ONLY reason I switched my opinion was after reading the rule as it directly applied to the WSB. The WSB specifically stated engage T1-T6 with one shot each, then make a mandatory reload, etc. The implication of 6 shots is there, but it's not defined specifically as, shoot 6 shots then make a mandatory reload. Let's look at it again:

10.2.4 A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur one procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed.

According to the strict reading of the WSB, the reload was REQUIRED after T1 through T6 were engaged with one round each, not after firing 6 shots. Additionally, that's why I stated it changes based on the engagement pattern. Had the shooter, shot T1-T5 with one round each, then engaged T6 with 2 rounds, 10.2.4 kicks in, because the requirement for the reload occurred after the first shot at T6. Every subsequent shot fired after that point falls under 10.2.4

Edited September 22, 2010 by aztecdriver

[George Jones]

Folks,

10.2.4 does not apply here - he did reload after 6 (it doesn't say "after 6 and before 7").

9.4.5.3 does not apply either - you cannot stack unless you fire too many at one (or more) target and fire too few at one (or more) in the same string.

10.2.2.1 should not apply either since there were no insufficient or additional shots taken.

The only possible procedural is for not following the WSB per 10.2.2. Since there was no significant advantage, only one procedural.

[Flexmoney]

10.2.2.1 is talking about total number of shots.

No. In fact, it seems clear that it is specifically excluding ANY talk about shots fired.

10.2.2.1

Procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures

do not apply to the number of shots fired

. ...

It's not talking about shots fired at all. Not total, and no distinction between total...or string...or component of a string, etc.

I don't believe it disallows for a procedural for firing more than the required number before (or after) a mandatory reload.

10.2.2.1

...Penalties for firing insufficient or additional shots is addressed in other rules and

must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2.