2 NS Hits Maximum, Good Or Bad?

[Jim Norman]

There is a new rule that will be foisted on the membership with the formal adoption of the newest edition of the USPSA rulebook. Henceforth you will only be accessed two, that is 2, hits on a No Shoot target regardless of how many hits you actually have.

At first pass this seems like an innocuous rule. Lets face it, who is going to benefit? Just the new shooter? Right? Wrong!

Take a look at this scenario: 15 targets, one array within the stage has a single target with a NS covering to the A zone, another array ahs a NS target covering to the A zone of two targets. Two shooters of roughly equal skill that regularly finish together are shooting and this is the stage that will determine the match. Shooter A gets two NS hits on each array, but breaks the perf on all the hits therefore scoring 4 A's as well as the 4 penalties. Shooter B, his nemesis, shoots the stage in EXACTLY the same time, and has EXACTLY the same number of A hits and The EXACT same number of No Shoot hits, EXCEPT!! He has all 4 of his hits on the second array where one NS covered two scoring targets. He even breaks the perf on each side of the NS so that the EXACT same number of shots is fired. He just won the match, because with the new rules he will only be accessed for 2 NS hits and that gives him about a 20% lead on this stage!

I have posted this scenario to the IPSC List, and I have e-mailed the entire Board of Directors. Only three members of the board have responded and only two commented. One to thank me for writing. The basic reply seems to be that this is a done deal and that the majority of the board wanted to do away with USPSA exceptions and have one rulebook. This new rule was evidently started by Vince Pinto, a hard working individual that I believe has the best interests of the sport in mind, but in this case is simply wrong. The genesis of the rule is that new shooters when they are penalized for more than two NS hits tend not top return to the sport. If that is the case, why do we even keep score? How about no additional miss penalties after 2?

I would like to see the Board of Directors of USPSA call a special meeting and change this rule back the way it was. Maybe if everyone that agrees with me writes to their AD and to the rest of the board and to the President, then maybe this will be changed. Or you can write me and tell me what I am full of and that this new rule is the greatest thing since sliced bread and tell me what I am full of. I can be convinced I am wrong, but so far no one has been able to tell me just what this rule will really do to enhance our sport and why we need it!

Jim Norman

PS, And yes I am upset about this! I see it as a step onto the slippery slope.

[shred]

Oh yeah, a poll with one "wrong" answer and two "right" ones. Yippee.

I could care less personally, and in fact am starting to lean towards "this is a good idea" for the new shooter's sake when some evil MD sticks a US Popper at 20 yards with a NS behind it. It's meaningless for everybody else.

1 NS blows me out of a match, and the number of times I've seen three or more NS assessed on a single target at a non-club match I could count on one hand with fingers left over.

Ever tried to score a NS that's been hit by birdshot by accident in a 3-gun match? How many NS are you going to give? One for each #8 pellet?

Sure I'd like the rule to be "no more than the maximum number of scoring hits" instead of "two", but that can be dealt with later.

[Jim Norman]

Shred,

The three gun question is not what we are talking about here. And we are not talking about a NS at 25 yards behind a popper. We are talking about two arrays, one having a NS over a score target to the A zone and one having a NS over two scoring targets to the A zones. If you hit two NS on each you get 4 NS, but now if you hit all 4 on the second, you get only two! All other parts of that stage being equal, that is not a fair situation!

I won't even argue that the poll could have been worded better. It looks like there really are three distinct choices though. Keep the rule, Change it the next time around or change it now.

Jim

[Nate]

What about classifiers with multiple passes on the same array? Is this addressed in the new rule? That might slightly affect classification.

[Jim Norman]

So far it has not been addressed in the USPSA. As an example, Hosers heaven. It won't affect the high hit, but we mere mortals are going to get it.

Jim

[Chriss Grube]

I don't see where this is really that big a deal. Some things aren't worth getting all excited about and this seems like one of them. Since IPSC started as a "practical" sport this rule would make sense. You shoot the good guy once or 100 times and he either dies and the family sues your butt or he lives and sues your butt off. You can always come up with a scenario where damn near any rule will benefit somebody if you want to waste your time doing it.

Jim,

Quit bitching and go practice or I'll have to shoot limited and whip your butt!

[Jim Norman]

Come on down!

Seriously, If it was written so that the numbber of penalties equaled the number of possible scoring hits, I would not be as concerned. That is to say, If a NS covered two or three targts, than you could get two hits per covered target. That would at least cover the possible number of shots or scoring hits.

Jim

[shred]

The three gun question is not what we are talking about here. And we are not talking about a NS at 25 yards behind a popper.

Why not? We use the same scoring rules for 3-gun, we use the same rules for NS' behind poppers as NS' beside targets. If a rule works across the board I prefer it over one that doesn't. The only case people cite for yanking this rule change is the stack-o-targets in a save-the-target-sticks array, and course design can easily fix that (and should.. arrays suck)

I just don't see the big deal on this. Put two NS in there if you want to make sure people get screwed each possible way. This is a game. Why do touchdowns score 6 points in football?

[Rob Boudrie]

The survey is missing a "middle ground" of doesn't make much difference either way. I do not think it will help the sport, but I don't think it will hurt either. It's like asking "Should handguns be banned or should anyone including children be allowed to carry them loaded and concealed?" and trying to pass it off as a "survey".

I would not have voted for this rule if we were starting from scratch, but saw no reason to push for a USPSA exception - in fact, this did not even register as a big issue for myself or any other board member when we went over the rules - Rules which were posted for review and comment for some time leading up to the board meeting. This was not a "sneak attack" or a "foisting".

Based on what I saw of the board discussion of other rules, I can state with confidence that if any member had made an issue of this prior to the Orlando meeting, it would have resulted in about an hour's discussion on the issue.

I don't understand the "slipper slope" argument. If some feel this was about political correctness, would it make things better if the board resolved "whereas two hits represents a neutralized target..."?

The classificaiton impact is that some existing scores on record for classifiers alrady shot will represent a lower hit factor than they would have under the new system, particularly for lower rated shooters. While not perfect, I don't think this undermines the current system.

As to USPSA/IPSC - There has been considerable progress towards a much more productive working relationship. While USPSA has the go-ahead for regional rules, I think it's important that USPSA recognize the spirit of what both parties intended and try to avoid changes to anything as basic as scoring. To me, changing the 2 hits rule (even though I do not personally prefer it) would be the same as deciding no-shoots are -12 in the US because -10 isn't a severe enough penalty.

[warpspeed]

IMHO,

as long as the rules are enforced equally regardless of divsion or classification, then there is no problem.

If you score best 2 on paper, it should not make any difference if it is a NS or not. In the case of a NS, its score the worst 2 Or am I missing something?

[Jim Norman]

I am amazed, I'll admit it. Has anyone done the math?

An example of why this is wrong: Picture a 15 target stage, one target

has a single NS and two targets are covered to the A with a single NS.

Currently that has 3 places where scoring borders and NS converge. If

Shooter A gets 2 NS on the first array and two NS on the second array he is

down 40 points of the 150 possible. Shooter B cleaned array 1, but gets all

4 of his NS's on the second array, he is now down the same 40 points, BUT

after the change, he will be down only 20 points. Assuming that both of

their times are the same, the first shooter is screwed big time in

comparison to the second using the new rules.

When I first ran this I assumed a 10 Second run if I remeber correctly. That amounted to a 100 perscent score for shooter B and a 78% for Shooter A. Do the math yourselves and then comment.

You all still think this is a fair rule that won't change things? Wait until you are the shooter that gets screwed out of a win.

[Jim Norman]

Take a look at the three arrays in CM99-14 Hosers Heaven. This is the type of array that will dissapear or at the very least be changed by this new rule.

At the very least, It will take an additional target at each location, or we will simply cut the NS in half making it two separate targets to avoid the possible elimination of the penalty under the new rule.

Shred,

Youmentioned the pellets on NS in 3-gun. I erred in thinking you ment 3-gun, not IPSC Shotgun. BIG Difference. In 3-gun, there is generally a large penalty for hitting a NS. you don't have to wory about hitting it twice, once is more than enough. In IPSC, it is a realtively small penalty such that speed can actually overcome the penalty.

In practice, we will call a single pellet a mis and multiple pellts a hit. Also, when using paper for SG, it is our practice to use it only for slugs and buckshot. We use steel NS that fall when hit when using shot.

[Yoda]

Jim,

please get back to earth. A shooter with 2 PT (Penalty Target) hits is screwed already and will NOT score 100% on that stage. IMO the limitation of 2 PT scoring hits is enough to punish the shooter for his "lousy marksmanship". It all comes down to speed vs. accuracy. If you have trouble making that shot where a target is partially covered with one or more PT targets slow down and aim more carefully.

It is also a matter of course design. If you want to screw the shooter bigtime then setup one single target with a PT on each side leaving only the A-zone exposed. In your reasoning the competitor will only be awarded 2 PT hits even if he hits both PT with 2 shots each because there are only 2 hits requested on the target.

I think the shooter who hits the PT more than twice is heavily enough punished with the -20 points he earns with it. If you subtract more you will completely destroy the score for that stage. Especially new shooters in our sport are likely to encounter those circumstances, the way the rule is written now will probably not make them happy but not upset them so much taht they will be disencouraged and leave the sport.

[cz75ipsc]

A shooter with 2 PT (Penalty Target) hits is screwed already

Amen

[Jim Norman]

Yoda,

Again, I think all your hearts are in the right place, but you aren't thinking. You say that with two penalty hits you can't get 100%. Yees yo can. all you have to do is be better than the rest. My example is not designed to to prove a stage winner, but rather a relative difference between two shooters.

Everyone talks about the new shooter. OK, Here are tw onew shooters in the same scenario as i described. Our scoring is tough enough tounderstand. In fact as an aside we generally tell new shooters, don't worry about the score in your first several matches. just walk thorough and learn the ropes of how to shoot safely. But, I digress. If two new shooters are placed in the above situation, You explain why since they both have the same hits and the same NUMBER of NS hits, one should do so much better thatn the other. Making that sound fair will be interesting.

I have also asked the shoters at my club that have been shooting this sport a year or so and they agree that this is a bogus rule. That the accuracy required along with the speed and the challange is why they are here. This wouldn't have interested them. And son of them trust me would have benefited by this rule, as I would have when I started.

Whats next. Only two miss penalties on a stage? No more than One proceedural. no more per shot fired because of advantage gained?

[Neil Beverley]

Jim

As Yoda has said, we already penalise a competitor 10 points per penalty hit (up to 2 hits), even if they only hit the D zone. However, on a scoring target a D is only scored as a D.

From our "practical" origins - by the time there were 2 hits on any target the target wouldn't be there for the 3rd and 4th hits.

If a competitor pulled 2 shots on a pair of scoring targets and hit one target 4 times we restrict the scoring to just 2 hits. Why? And why not allow a competitor to fire as many shots per target as they like and then score all hits and not just 2?

And with 00 Buckshot in a shotgun match should we apply 9 penalties for a single bad shot on a paper target? If not 9 then how many and why? And if the answer for this is (say) 2 then why not the same argument for HG and Rifle.

If it is perceived as being such a huge problem then at your matches fix it with stage design.

For me, with all things taken into account, this is a good rule with many plusses and very little downside.

[Vince Pinto]

Jim,

If you want to count every hit on every Penalty Target, why do you want to only count 2 hits on every Scoring Target (i.e. the former system)?

To me, logic says it should be one way or the other, for each Scoring and Penalty Target.

If you want to count every hit on every Penalty Target, why aren't you arguing to score every hit on every Scoring Target, especially since we use the actual time taken to complete the COF, regardless of how accurately you shoot?

[Nik Habicht]

Vince,

While I don't think that this issue is as big of a deal as many of my brethren, I'd prefer to see the rule re-written to count the same number of hits on a no-shoot as we count on a shoot target in the stage. (In the case of scoring the best three hits on a target, we'd also score three hits on a penalty target.) That would probably restore the balance....

[Vince Pinto]

Nik,

An interesting (and equitable) point, and I've already made a note to consider this in the next rule review, but of course the vast majority of stages only count "the best two hits" on scoring paper targets. Having said that, it's a relatively "easy fix" and, thinking on the run, the solution could be as follows:

Draft 9.4.2 Each hit visible on the scoring area of a Penalty Paper target will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit on a Scoring Paper Target. However the number of hits counted on each Penalty Paper Target must not exceed the maximum number of hits counted on each Scoring Paper Target (i.e. if "best two" are counted on each Scoring Paper Target then only the "worst two" are counted on each Penalty Paper Target).

In fact, this would tie in very nicely with the way we currently treat the application of Procedural Penalties, viz:

Existing 10.2.3 Where multiple penalties are assessed in the above cases, they must not exceed the maximum number of scoring hits that can be attained by the competitor. For example, a competitor who gains an advantage while faulting a Fault or Charge Line where only 4 metal targets are visible will receive 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting, up to a maximum of 4 procedural penalties, regardless of the number of shots actually fired.

However the issue here is that Jim argues that there should be no upper limit on the number of hits we count on Penalty Paper Targets, regardless of how many hits are counted on Scoring Paper Targets, and I don't see any logic in that viewpoint.

[Shooter Grrl]

I want a fourth choice

"Don't care, won't effect anything at all"

That's my opinion

[George]

I want a fourth choice

"Don't care, won't effect anything at all"

Dat's Right!

[Neil Beverley]

Interestingly even a single and "loaded" "Yes" question is still polling better than two "No" Votes.

The additional suggestion from Shooter Grrl as a neutral option would have been fairer.

[Jim Norman]

Vince,

Since the dawn of time we have counted all the NS hits. I would prefer that w continue to do so. HOWEVER, the idea Nik put forth is an acceptable alternative. If a NS borders two targets that each receives two hits, then the NS could have 4 hits. That would eliminate my biggest problem with this ill-conceived change.

In one of my earliest post on this subject in another place I mentioned that very idea.

As an aside, yesterday we had a work party at our range and there were 4-5 new shooters, about a year or less in the sport. They felt this new rule to be insulting to them. They felt unanimously that we should be 100% responsible for our shots.

Using your original logic in promoting this rule, do you also advocate only a maximum number of procedurals or misses per stage? Since a new shooter may not understand the rules fully, it is conceivable that they might put their foot on the wrong side of a line and get a procedural per shot fired and there could be multiple arrays, sufficient to cause them to zero a stage. They could shoot freestyle where strong or weak hand is called for, again zeroing a stage. Using your logic that 2 NS hits will cause you to lose a stage, which I take means to finish dead last, why didn't you also advocate an upper penalty limit on a stage?

Jim

[Neil Beverley]

Jim

We are not responsible for 100% of our shots.

We restrict that the number of scoring hits we're responsible for to 2.

We restrict the number of procedural penalties to the same number as the potential scoring hits available at the time (location/targets available).

Misses are restricted to the same number of scoring hits nominated as being required per target. If a competitor was to fire 6 shots at a single popper at 40 metres we don't give him 6 misses.

I think you are confusing this issue by relating misses and procedural penalties to the stage. They are related to a target or target array within a stage. This is similar to what has been adopted with 2 hits per penalty target.

If a competitor has a really bad shoot and hits a penalty target say 6 times what is the logic for applying 6 penalties or 60 points off? The best score available on a scoring paper target is only 10 points irrespective of shots fired. And that is a "practical" principal.

[Garfield]

Shooter A gets two NS hits on each array, but breaks the perf on all the hits therefore scoring 4 A's as well as the 4 penalties. Shooter B, his nemesis, shoots the stage in EXACTLY the same time, and has EXACTLY the same number of A hits and The EXACT same number of No Shoot hits, EXCEPT!! He has all 4 of his hits on the second array where one NS covered two scoring targets. He even breaks the perf on each side of the NS so that the EXACT same number of shots is fired. He just won the match, because with the new rules he will only be accessed for 2 NS hits and that gives him about a 20% lead on this stage!

Hi Jim,

I respectfully disagree.

Shootter A and B have NOT shot the stage in exactly the same way.

They may have shot the exact same number of A hits and NS hits, and in the exact same time, but due to the place where the shots landed, the end result is different. But, the way the end result is calculated is for every shooter the same !

All other parts of that stage being equal, that is not a fair situation!

Fair to me means that the stage & rules are the same to all competitors.

They are, so to me there is no problem at all.