virgina count penalties

[Nik Habicht]

Really? Next you'll tell me that the shooter needed to engage T1-6 in order, and that anyone shooting say right to left, would need to be assessed procedurals for not reloading after T6......

'Cause you guys are tying it to engaging a specific target, then reloading.....

Don't overthink it.....

[Singlestack]

This thread hurts my head.

I would have called one procedural for not following the WSB, but Flex makes a valid argument. The way I read it now, I could reload anytime I wanted to after 6 rounds.

I doubt I would be able to write a ARB successfully within the time limit though.

[Flexmoney]

I doubt I would be able to write a ARB successfully within the time limit though.

LOL...

[aztecdriver]

Really? Next you'll tell me that the shooter needed to engage T1-6 in order, and that anyone shooting say right to left, would need to be assessed procedurals for not reloading after T6......

'Cause you guys are tying it to engaging a specific target, then reloading.....

Don't overthink it.....

Actually, I'm not overthinking it, I'm just applying reading of the WSB as written. Dictating a shooting order would violate 1.1.5 and not allowing the shooting of the COF in a Freestyle manner. All that I am saying is that 10.2.4 requires a mandatory reload after a given point in a stage procedure, and one must stipulate in the WSB what that point is. The WSB says after each target is engaged with one round each. Nothing more, nothing less.

To illustrate what I am thinking about, let's say I shot that COF just as the poster stated and I drew out and just wanked the first shot by over pushing, clearly knew it and decided in that split second the make up was worth the extra shot penalty, and fired again. This time, I still had 7 shots prior to the reload, and another 6 after to get my hits. What's the call then? Obviously I'm getting an extra shot penalty, because I fired thirteen. Am I also going to get a procedural for 10.2.4 for not performing a reload after 6 rounds? If you say yes, then I think we still have a problem with the interpretation. If you say no, then I'm going to assert whats the difference if the shot was a miss or a hit - you can't use the reasoning of the shooter for taking that extra shot as part of the ruling, just what happened.

Singlestack - I agree it hurts the head - but I think that this one is a positive one as this situation will happen often in COF's of this nature. I think Flex has an excellent point about 10.2.2.1. I hate to think that a new rule needs to be clarified, but obviously with the experience of some of the people arguing the contrary, it needs this. Has anyone sent anything to DNROI - if not, I'll volunteer.

[Nik Habicht]

Really? Next you'll tell me that the shooter needed to engage T1-6 in order, and that anyone shooting say right to left, would need to be assessed procedurals for not reloading after T6......

'Cause you guys are tying it to engaging a specific target, then reloading.....

Don't overthink it.....

WSB says after each target is engaged with one round each. Nothing more, nothing less.

You left an important word out of the stage description.....

Specifically "only." We call shots on the firing line -- extra shots, extra shots before the reload. We call hits, including extra hits, at the target. I maintain -- in the absence of a ruling from NROI -- that by firing 7 rounds prior to the reload, you've violated 10.2.4. (You may have also violated other rules, but we penalize an infraction once; we don't stack penalties...)

[aztecdriver]

Only doesn't matter in my example. After 6 rounds you STILL have not engaged t6.

I'll send a note to dnroi. There is now 2 questions on the call.

[WDB]

A lot of thought has went into this, maybe to much, or maybe I’m making it to simple. Read the rules for what they are and not what you think they should be. First off, all this talk about a “string” is off. A String is defined in 6.1.1 and this is definitely not a string, so any rules discussed here involving strings are out (9.4.5.3). Whether they should be or not is irrelevant, this is not a string. That simplifies it a little, at least to me. Next, since 10.2.2.1 states “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.”, you cannot apply 10.2.2. We cannot use 9.4.5 rules since there were no extra shots(12) extra hits(12) and 9.4.5.3 applies to strings. So my call would be 1 procedural under 10.2.4. Stage called for 6 reload 6. He did 7 and 5. The order in which he did it is not important. It’s the same as going T1-T6 and coming back to T1 and after shooting it, remembering and performing the reload and finishing the stage.

[Nik Habicht]

Only doesn't matter in my example. After 6 rounds you STILL have not engaged t6.

I'll send a note to dnroi. There is now 2 questions on the call.

Right. You bought the procedural the moment that you dropped the hammer on T1, thereby making it impossible to complete the reload at the appropriate moment.....

[Nik Habicht]

A lot of thought has went into this, maybe to much, or maybe I’m making it to simple. Read the rules for what they are and not what you think they should be. First off, all this talk about a “string” is off. A String is defined in 6.1.1 and this is definitely not a string, so any rules discussed here involving strings are out (9.4.5.3). Whether they should be or not is irrelevant, this is not a string. That simplifies it a little, at least to me. Next, since 10.2.2.1 states “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.”, you cannot apply 10.2.2. We cannot use 9.4.5 rules since there were no extra shots(12) extra hits(12) and 9.4.5.3 applies to strings. So my call would be 1 procedural under 10.2.4. Stage called for 6 reload 6. He did 7 and 5. The order in which he did it is not important. It’s the same as going T1-T6 and coming back to T1 and after shooting it, remembering and performing the reload and finishing the stage.

Someone should give you a cigar.....

[Flexmoney]

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

If the rule doesn't fit, keep on looking for one you can wedge on there. LOL

WBD, I am with you until you get to the reload rule. And, ...

Whether they should be or not is irrelevant...

That particular call at the match is done and gone. What can we do to clear this up in the future?

[aztecdriver]

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

If the rule doesn't fit, keep on looking for one you can wedge on there. LOL

WBD, I am with you until you get to the reload rule. And, ...

Whether they should be or not is irrelevant...

That particular call at the match is done and gone. What can we do to clear this up in the future?

I'm going to send a note to DNROI. I can very much appreciate everyone's position on this scenario. I also think this is worth the effort. At times, we post scenarios that are what I call "edge cases" and we spend 5 pages arguing about something that might happen 1 time out of 10,000 if at all. This situation could happen, at least once, every time a stage like this is shot. Let's get it clarified.

[George Jones]

Only doesn't matter in my example. After 6 rounds you STILL have not engaged t6.

Upon start signal, turn, then draw and from Box A

engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, then make a

mandatory reload and from Box A engage T1-T6 with only

one round per target.

The reload is required after engaging the six targets, not after firing six shots. So I suggest that there is no failure to reload penalty.

[Flexmoney]

The reload is required after engaging the six targets, not after firing six shots. So I suggest that there is no failure to reload penalty.

I completely agree.

[Nik Habicht]

Only doesn't matter in my example. After 6 rounds you STILL have not engaged t6.

Upon start signal, turn, then draw and from Box A

engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, then make a

mandatory reload and from Box A engage T1-T6 with only

one round per target.

The reload is required after engaging the six targets, not after firing six shots. So I suggest that there is no failure to reload penalty.

I continue to disagree -- "after engaging the six targets" is only part of the requirement for the reload. Only engaging each target with one round, is also part of the requirement for performing the reload -- hence the shooter bought a 10.2.4 penalty the moment he pulled the trigger the second time on T1....

But, since George is arguing the point, I'm likely to wind up on the wrong end of this one..... :D

[George Jones]

But, since George is arguing the point, I'm likely to wind up on the wrong end of this one..... :D

That's some of the finest Teutonic logic I have ever seen.

Think of it this way: The reload is required after engaging six targets. "Engagement" only requires one shot. You can do more than required, but you can't do less than required without receiving a penalty.

For example: The shooter has a mind melt and does a reload after engaging two targets, then he engages the remaining four targets and reloads again. Would you give him a penalty for the "early" reload? I doubt it, since he met the requirement of the WSB with the second reload.

The "reload rule" is a specific rule and unrelated to the type of COF (Comstock, VC, FT) it's on. It gets very complicated if we bend that rule depending on the scoring system in use.

[Jerry D]

The real problem here is not which rule to use to apply a penalty. As Flex has pointed out in several posts, the rule book does not clearly address the issue.

The real problem is in the stage design. Requiring a competitor to reengage targets in a VC stage is just asking for situations like this.

If the WSB said, "engage T1-T6 with only one round each, make a mandatory reload then engage T7-T12 with only one round each." life would be much simpler.

[Gary Stevens]

The real problem here is not which rule to use to apply a penalty. As Flex has pointed out in several posts, the rule book does not clearly address the issue.

The real problem is in the stage design. Requiring a competitor to reengage targets in a VC stage is just asking for situations like this.

If the WSB said, "engage T1-T6 with only one round each, make a mandatory reload then engage T7-T12 with only one round each." life would be much simpler.

One of the primary reasons for Virginia count is to re-engage the same targets. If the stage was set up as you described it would be better scored Comstock.

[Jerry D]

The real problem here is not which rule to use to apply a penalty. As Flex has pointed out in several posts, the rule book does not clearly address the issue.

The real problem is in the stage design. Requiring a competitor to reengage targets in a VC stage is just asking for situations like this.

If the WSB said, "engage T1-T6 with only one round each, make a mandatory reload then engage T7-T12 with only one round each." life would be much simpler.

One of the primary reasons for Virginia count is to re-engage the same targets. If the stage was set up as you described it would be better scored Comstock.

Hmmmmmm...I've never heard it stated that way, Gary. Considering some of the more recent trends in stage design, it certainly seems that way sometimes, but if your primary stage design objective is economic use of targets or ease of construction, it may be time for a new perspective or a vacation.

Now, I realize that simple construction is one of the criteria used in choosing classifier stages, but problems like the subject of this thread are the price we pay for a bit of convenience.

Personally, I've always considered VC a stage design tool I can use to encourage accuracy rather than speed. I don't see that adding six targets and scoring only one hit each would change the nature of the challenge to require a change from VC to Comstock.

Anyway, I still think it's more of a design problem than a rule problem.

Jerry Dillard

[Gary Stevens]

You can certainly make individual arrays VC, but to what end? If accuracy is the goal, VC fills that quest by not allowing you to legally make up shots, therefore scoring a Mike.

Think of the re-engagement as another set of targets, without having to use the space that another set of targets might require. Some bays are small and don't allow for a lot of room between arrays. The problem is also magnified on an indoor range.

VC also fills a need for a Standards. You don't have to try to establish a time frame that will ultimately be too easy for some and too hard for others. By using VC you can allow the shooter to shoot at their own speed while still maintaining accuracy.

Personally I hate VC stages for a multitude of reasons. However, they are still a valuable tool in our sport.

[ac4wordplay]

...

For example: The shooter has a mind melt and does a reload after engaging two targets, then he engages the remaining four targets and reloads again. Would you give him a penalty for the "early" reload? I doubt it, since he met the requirement of the WSB with the second reload.

...

This has been a fascinating discussion.

It seems that the extra reload in the quoted example is a competitive disadvantage.

It also seems that the stacked shot on T-1 (IIRC, resulting in 7 shots, reload 5 shots), allowing one less target transition, is a competitive advantage.

Maybe I missed something, but the situations don't seem interchangeable for the purpose of illustrating penalties.

As stated by others, with this many knowledgeable participants unable to agree on the rules/outcome...

Best,

ac

[Jerry D]

You can certainly make individual arrays VC, but to what end?

To avoid situations like the one that prompted this thread. If the stage had been set up with two six target arrays, the two shots on T1 would have been scored 1 extra shot, 1 extra hit...no argument, no question. Any attempt, after the reload, to negate the penalties would have been impossible.

If accuracy is the goal, VC fills that quest by not allowing you to legally make up shots, therefore scoring a Mike.

I agree as far as your statement goes, but by requiring the competitor to reengage targets already engaged, he was able to avoid a penalty (extra shot) by failing to complete the string as described in the WSB.

Think of the re-engagement as another set of targets,

That's exactly what I do, and in almost every instance it results in a better stage.

without having to use the space that another set of targets might require. Some bays are small and don't allow for a lot of room between arrays. The problem is also magnified on an indoor range.

I've seen plenty of good stages in small bays. Lack of space isn't a valid reason for accepting poor stages.

VC also fills a need for a Standards. You don't have to try to establish a time frame that will ultimately be too easy for some and too hard for others. By using VC you can allow the shooter to shoot at their own speed while still maintaining accuracy.

I agree. "If you wanna separate the Men from the Wannabees, put a VC standards in the match". (Merle Eddington) But that's not justification for requiring targets to be reengaged.

Personally I hate VC stages for a multitude of reasons. However, they are still a valuable tool in our sport.

Edit to add: I hope you can figure that out!

Edited September 25, 2010 by Jerry D

[Gary Stevens]

It is somewhat like the metric target and the classic target we are free to use either. If you don't like VC, then I believe you already have figured out a solution.

The real reason we have a rulebook that continues to grow and grow is evident in this thread. Four pages of back and forth because a shooter is too ahhh....challenged to follow the directions.

We then have to slice, dice, dissect, discuss, cuss, and re-discuss the current rulebook. This usually leads to a rule modification that most believe will solve the issue.

Then we will have something else happen (shooter induced) which will cause a wash-rinse-repeat cycle to kick in and here we go again.

No offense intended to anyone, but it just gets old after a while.

[mactiger]

10.2.4

Virginia Count

Limited number of shots fired before the reload (6).

Shooter fired 7, then made a reload.

One procedural.

period.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

Then we will have something else happen (shooter induced) which will cause a wash-rinse-repeat cycle to kick in and here we go again.

No offense intended to anyone, but it just gets old after a while.

Just like getting up every day?

It bets the alternative, right?

Seriously, that is why we have such a good rule book in the first place. USPSA shooters get to see a lot of different things...all over the country. (and, people that care, try to figure it all out and make it better)

The only thing constant in the world, is change.

What is certain is that every so often the rule book changes...we get a new one every few years. And, we will likely see that happen until the end of days. And, with every improvement...we will still see questions. I know we all get asked questions all the time at matches. And heck, just this forum has about 2,000 topics.

There are alternatives out there. I still like our game. One of the draws of USPSA, for me, is the desire for fairness, to get it right, and make it better.

[Gary Stevens]

Then we will have something else happen (shooter induced) which will cause a wash-rinse-repeat cycle to kick in and here we go again.

No offense intended to anyone, but it just gets old after a while.

Just like getting up every day?

It bets the alternative, right?

Seriously, that is why we have such a good rule book in the first place. USPSA shooters get to see a lot of different things...all over the country. (and, people that care, try to figure it all out and make it better)

The only thing constant in the world, is change.

What is certain is that every so often the rule book changes...we get a new one every few years. And, we will likely see that happen until the end of days. And, with every improvement...we will still see questions. I know we all get asked questions all the time at matches. And heck, just this forum has about 2,000 topics.

There are alternatives out there. I still like our game. One of the draws of USPSA, for me, is the desire for fairness, to get it right, and make it better.

Actually getting up everyday is one of the most enjoyable things I do