Proceedural Penalties For Non-shooting Stuff

[shred]

Lately several matches I've been to (even big ones) have had stages where the shooter had to do some task entirely before shooting the stage... at one it was knock the block off the post with the bat, at another match, grab the baby and put it in the bed lying flat, and so on.

In these cases, the RO's said failure to do the first thing just-so was "one proceedural per shot fired" for the whole rest of the stage. And we're talking 20+ round field courses.

Is that the way it should be? I'm sure the MD said "I don't want people blowing this off and taking only a 10 point hit, so I'll make it one-per", but is this really the right answer? One screwup, bounced baby or brain-fart and it's a zero?

There is an advantage gained if you blew it off on purpose-- the time you didn't spend doing what you were supposed to, but if you tried and still missed getting the baby perfectly flat, is that an advantage?

Assuming you did blow off the prop on purpose, is a faster time just one advantage gained (you didn't save any more time after the shooting started) or a whole lot of advantages gained?

Discuss.

[Vince Pinto]

Shred,

I don't know whether to scream or cry, and my reaction depends on whether or not the penalty was stated in the written stage briefing from the very outset.

Generally speaking though, there's no way any COF of fire should impose a "one procedural per shot fired" penalty unless there's an advantage for each shot fired. In the stages you've described, the competitor merely failed to comply with a single stage procedure. The most relevant rules (in the IPSC 2004 Handgun Rulebook) are:

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground beyond a Fault or Charge Line will receive 1 procedural penalty. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage while faulting, the competitor will be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting, instead of a single penalty. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting a line.

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur 1 procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance).

[shred]

Generally speaking though, there's no way any COF of fire should impose a "one procedural per shot fired" penalty unless there's an advantage for each shot fired. In the stages you've described, the competitor merely failed to comply with a single stage procedure. The most relevant rules (in the IPSC 2004 Handgun Rulebook) are:

...

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur 1 procedural penalty for each occurrence.  However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance).

I believe they make the claim under 10.2.2 in as much as whatever they're asking you to do takes several seconds to complete and thus you get a 'significant advantage' if you don't do it right.

Typically it's specified in the stage briefing to be one-per-shot-fired penalties for not having the baby flat in bed, or the bomb completely in the box, or the briefcase stowed in the overhead compartment, or the dollar bill in the G-string or whatever while you're shooting.

I really don't like the idea of a stage zero as a penalty, but neither do I want shooters blowing off every starting prop if it's going to take more than a second.

[Vince Pinto]

Given that you confirm the "per shot fired" penalty is stated in the written stage briefing from the very outset, it might not be what I want to hear (because I think it's excessive on a "punishment should fit the crime" basis), but at least it's stated up front, so I guess there should be no excuses for non-compliance.

Postscript: The other issue is that under our freestyle credo, a COF (at least at a sanctioned Level III or higher match), should not force a competitor to do something by merely stating "put the bomb in the box before you start shooting". Remember we're conducting competitions to test your shooting ability, not your "basketball", "pole vaulting" or other abilities.

However having, say, a (weighted) bomb activate a moving target or similar when it's placed correctly inside the box would be better.

[ErikW]

No procedural penalty should be per-shot unless the procedure involves firing shots (e.g., while holding a prop). Otherwise, per shot penalties unsportsmanlike conduct on the part of the designer.

Except for mandatory reloads, but they're special.

[JFlowers]

Shred and Vince,

While the specifics of how this should be penalized are specific to each sport, this issue itself is not. SASS recently made changes to it ruleset to provide a penalty mechanism for competitors who "blew-off" a non-shooting stage activity.

Personally, I have always (As a SASS RO) believed in the good faith attempt. If the competitor threw the baby at the crib and missed, oh well thats was their choice and they eat the penalty. If the competitor made a good faith effort to put the baby in the crib and it not just perfectly aligned just so, well thats a reasonable attempt.

I also agree that a penalty-per-shot is extremely steep for a non-shooting activity. The penalty should be appropriate to the amount of time gained by not doing the activity. If the activity will take 5 seconds then 10 seconds is appropriate. I do like Vince's suggestion that the activity be linked to something else. The weighted object activating swingers or opening a port is an excellent example of a way to force the activity to be done without needing a penalty mechanism. However, its not one that is always easy at the club level.

James Flowers

[DaveP]

I don't know whether to scream or cry

Scream is good

[DaveP]

In these cases, the RO's said failure to do the first thing just-so was "one proceedural per shot fired" for the whole rest of the stage. And we're talking 20+ round field courses.

Typically it's specified in the stage briefing

But we are not talking "typically"

In this instance, was this the RO's comments or was it part part of the written brief ?

As if "said" then 10.1.3 would apply...

A competitor disputing the aplication or number of penalties may appeal to the Chief Range Officer and/or Range Master. A competitor who continues to be aggrieved may then lodge an appeal for arbitration

I'm sure the MD said "I don't want people blowing this off and taking only a 10 point hit, so I'll make it one-per"

The MD may of been acting with the best of intentions, BUT, would 10.1.3 of upheld what he wanted " !

[shred]

Given that you confirm the "per shot fired" penalty is stated in the written stage briefing from the very outset, it might not be what I want to hear (because I think it's excessive on a "punishment should fit the crime" basis)

That's kinda my thoughts. We have two penalties available. "One" or "One Per Shot". Neither fit very well in this case, but I can't think of a middle ground unless it's something like:

1- Retrieve the Baby (one proceedural for failing this step)

2- Put the Baby in the Crib (one proceedural for failing this step)

3- Make sure the Baby is lying flat (one proceedural for failing this step)

4- shoot the targets

That way an honest attempt would probably avoid all but one of the proceedurals, but a blatent ignore-the-prop gets -30.

I still don't like it much, but it's the best I've come up with so far.

[Vince Pinto]

Shred,

There's nothing stopping you from stating in the written stage briefing (more simply) that "failure to do X" will incur (pick a number) procedural penalties, but I still think it's excessive for a non-shooting challenge, especially if the action does not activate targets, and there's no way you'd encounter such a penalty at, say, a World Shoot.

OK, I realise you're probably referring to a club match, and using such ancilliary props is part of the fun, but it's important not to lose sight of the fact that, first and foremost, we're testing everybody's shooting abilities.

[Jim Norman]

Oh Boy, here I go again!

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground beyond a Fault or Charge Line will receive 1 procedural penalty. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage while faulting, the competitor will be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting, instead of a single penalty. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting a line.

This is an example of a rule that sounds good, but is very open to a discussion. Just what is a significant advantage? And who gets to decide it? and how do you make sure that every case is decided the same way?

Belive me, PLEASE! I am not trying to start another TFH here. There should perhaps be a mechanism that provides for a specific special penalty, such as Failure to perform the correct starting procedure will incur 4 Procedurals. It eliminates zeroing the stage, but is significant enough not to be blown off.

I have been to matches where a shooter has "gamed" a stage and said, the procedural isn't worth the time it takes to do the skill.

Jim Norman

[IPSCDRL]

I have been to matches where a shooter has "gamed" a stage and said, the procedural isn't worth the time it takes to do the skill.

Jim Norman

And they have a very valid point Jim. I am currently working on a stage design for our upcoming area championship that will have a certain non-shooting activity as part of the course of fire. One of the things that I have looked VERY hard at is making sure that the activity is appropriate to the scenario and that it will be worthwhile for the shooter to perform. It is an important aspect of stage design and must be understood. I hate gimmicks that are unrealistic and really have nothing to do with shooting challenge.

Keep it real.

[shred]

This is an example of a rule that sounds good, but is very open to a discussion. Just what is a significant advantage? And who gets to decide it? and how do you make sure that every case is decided the same way?

Belive me, PLEASE! I am not trying to start another TFH here. There should perhaps be a mechanism that provides for a specific special penalty, such as Failure to perform the correct starting procedure will incur 4 Procedurals. It eliminates zeroing the stage, but is significant enough not to be blown off.

I'm with you on this one.. It would be nice if there was a standard for 'significant advantage'. Most of the time it's pretty straightforward "That was an advantage, that was not", but sometimes you do get into the grey areas. Of course this may end up with the dictionary-sized rulebook Vince so wants (NOT) if we list everything.

The current standard seems to be that it's the RO's opinion on advantage, which could then be appealed to the MD, RM & Arb Committee if the shooter disagrees. Not perfect maybe, but it mostly works.

Vince did say I could declare something to be a "four proceedural" (or whatever number) error for not doing some task. I agree that for non-shooting tasks, it's still likely to be excessive, but at least it's there.

[Jim Norman]

Jim Norman

And they have a very valid point Jim. I am currently working on a stage design for our upcoming area championship that will have a certain non-shooting activity as part of the course of fire. One of the things that I have looked VERY hard at is making sure that the activity is appropriate to the scenario and that it will be worthwhile for the shooter to perform. It is an important aspect of stage design and must be understood. I hate gimmicks that are unrealistic and really have nothing to do with shooting challenge.

Keep it real.

I agree that the skill shold be appropriate to the stage. I have had a shooter have to retrieve a briefcase with a "Bomb" in it, carry it from a certain point in the course, deposit it a "Bomb Disposal Unit" (Barrel) and then engage additional targets. How the stage description is actually written and read makes all the difference on a course like this.

The shooter has to engage targets essentially one handed until the "bomb" is disposed of. One thing to remember is that there should be a maximum number of required shoots in a situation like this. Usually 6, so that after the shooter picks up the item, he does not have to put it down to reload, although if all the shooters in a division have the same haandicap, ie, 10 required shots would require all revolver shooters to reload and all the Production/L-10 shooters should not have to reload until the deposit the item, but will have to immediately afterwards, this should be OK. If the stage is described properly, you can I think require that the "Bomb" be in the shooters possesion (Hand) while engaging Tragets and that he cannot leave it, run forward, engage the targets, run back retreive the "Bomb" then run back forward and dispose of it. Important to remember that the final arrays, must be called out that they cannot be engaged until after the "Bomb" is disposed of, otherwise if you didn't call out a per-shot on the earlier targets, the shooter could just leave the bomb behind and only get one proceedural, which would probably be worth doing.

Whew! It took less time to draw, build, shoot and teardown that stage, then it did to describe it!

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

The current standard seems to be that it's the RO's opinion on advantage, which could then be appealed to the MD, RM & Arb Committee if the shooter disagrees.  Not perfect maybe, but it mostly works.

Bingo-bango

In most cases, the "significant advantage" is "You were closer to the targets than everybody else who shot the stage" in the case of a charge line, or "You had an easier angle for your shots" in the case of a fault line, and both cases incur a "per shot" penalty (up to the maximums allowed).

Of course half the battle is a properly written stage briefing which spells out the number of Procedural Penalties which will be applied for doing X or Y, particularly if there's likely to be some contention.

No, it's not an exact science, but a good written stage briefing can eliminate most disputes, but the appeal process is still there should there be any doubt.

[Garfield]

No, it's not an exact science, but a good written stage briefing can eliminate most disputes, but the appeal process is still there should there be any doubt.

Hi,

I fully agree with this. I feel that in most occasions the system works nicely in this way.

Sidenote: I studied Mechanical Engineering, specialism Materials Science at the University. Materials Science involves a lot of very "low-level" reasearch, on an atomary level. Many consider such a thing an "exact science". However, I can assure you that in even science nothing is "exact" - it's just that the margins are waaaaay smaller