Virginia Count, not enough rounds fired

[RePete68]

Today at a local match a shooter fired insufficient shots in a Virginia Count classifier CM 03-07 Riverdale Standards. Round count for the three string classifier was 20 rounds & shooter only fired 19 shots. On the last string & last target the shooters gun malfunctioned & was unable to finish the COF. As the RO I gave the shooter a mike & procedural for not firing the last shot. But after I read the rule book & couldn't find anywhere that firing insufficent shots in a Virginia Count COF is a procedural, only extra shots & hits incur penalties. Did I make the wrong call? Thanks

[coldchar]

Think so, NROI did a determination titled Double Jeopardy around 2008. If you will check the web site under NROI you will see the ruling. Addtionally the latest rule book spells it out, but it was just published.

On a Virginia course they are already being penalized for this miss and adding the procedural for not shooting the required number of shots was excessive.

This is a ruling I have always struggled with not expanding upon. But, I have more or less managed to restrict it to the situation of a virginia count with a miss and insufficient shots.

[High Lord Gomer]

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the

written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during

non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural

penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple

shots contrary to the required position or stance). Do not apply

two different penalties for the same offense, (e.g. not firing the required

rounds in a Virginia Count stage; competitor gets a miss and no procedural).

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.

[Nik Habicht]

Look to 10.2.2.1. In that particular case, only a miss would apply....