Unable to shoot weak hand

[MstngLX50]

I just got back into competing after being wounded in Iraq. I don't have a rulebook and have been told several different things about how I will be scored. I lost the most of the thumb, and from the 2nd joints on my index and middle fingers to an IED in Iraq. I also have diminished use of the rest of the hand. As such I am no longer able to shoot weak hand. In a stage calling for weak hand only I assume I shoot strong hand with some sort of handicap placed on my score.

I have been told everything from 1 procedural for every shot fired(better not be) to various percentages of the score removed(I think this is more likely).

Hopefully somone here is familiar with the scoring used and who needs to be notified at a match.

Thanks,

Alan

[Yoda]

Hi Alan,

sorry to hear about your injuries, glad that you are considering starting shooting again.

The rules you are looking for are quoted below. You have to seek permission from the Range Master prior to shooting the exercise you have problems with. He will judge whether the special penalty can be applied to you and if yes he will also determine the nature of the penalty - 1 or more Procedure Errors with a maximum of 20% of your points shot.

Hope this helps you in the right direction.

10.2.11 Special penalty: A competitor unable to fully execute any part of a course of fire due to incapacity or injury may, prior to making his attempt at the course of fire, request that the Range Master apply a penalty in lieu of the stated course requirement.

10.2.11.1 If the request is approved by the Range Master, a minimum of one procedural penalty, up to a maximum penalty of 20% of the competitor's points “as shot” (rounded up to the nearest whole number), will be deducted from the competitor's score. For example, if 100 points are available in the course of fire and the competitor actually scores 90 points, the special penalty is a deduction of 18 points.

[Vince Pinto]

Alan,

IEDs are particularly insidious, and I'm genuinely sorry to hear of your injuries. However I'm nonetheless delighted to learn that you intend to resume shooting competitively at home. You're truly an inspiration to the rest of us, and I wish you every success and happiness for the future.

My dear friend and colleague Kees has already given you the correct advice in respect of IPSC rules so do not, under any circumstances, accept a "one procedural per shot fired" penalty.

[Garfield]

Tssssss .... I go out for an hour lunch break and everything has already been said and done .

Alan, I had to look IED up, sounds nasty.

Hope you will adjust to your new capability level and enjoy IPSC shooting as much as the rest !

(For those who don't know : IED = Improvised Explosive Device).

[Vince Pinto]

I knew what they were because I sell devices which disarm/disrupt them to the HK Police!

[Flexmoney]

Alan,

Where are you located.

The above post cover the international IPSC rules...under the "new" rule book.

In the USA, you would likely be shooting under the USPSA rules, which haven't switched over to the new rule book quite yet.

Here is how the rule reads for USPSA right now:

10.1.4.5

If a competitor is unable to fully execute any part of a course of fire as a result of incapacity, or previous injury the competitor may request a penalty in lieu of the stated course requirement. It is permissible in this case to apply a penalty by deducting 20% of the competitor's target points as shot. This penalty should be specified prior to the start of the stage and shall be at the option of the Match Director.

I would print this thread out...and talk with yuor local Match Directors (and, maybe your Section Coordinator) to make sure you are all on the same page.

[MstngLX50]

Flex,

I'm now competing in the Texas South Section, I shot Saturday but no weak hand was required and I just read somewhere that it will be for the upcoming Space City match. I appreciate everyones support and quick response to the question.

Thanks,

Alan

[tightloop]

Where did you read that? I have looked over the stages and don't see any WHO strings...

[MstngLX50]

Ummm yeah, after going back through it I have no idea where I got that. Oh well, at least it's one less thing to have to worry about now.

Alan

[3quartertime]

Just like this place to always make you think of something new,,,

Alan, I'm impressed and in awe of your strength and determination in your desire to be as competitive as possible considering your situation. Good luck with your shooting and I hope Uncle Sam is treating you well. Those taxes I gladly pay.

This thread made me wonder about the idea of assessing a penalty for inabilities.

Maybe Vince or one of the other rules types can answer this. ( I looked in my rule book but found nothing. Of course I could have missed it. I've done that before!!!)

Has the rules commitee ever considered scoring disabled shooters differently than the rest? Understandably allowing one shooter to perform a WHO stage with his strong hand is an advantage, but the fact that the same shooter may not be able to perform a reload or have the benefit of weak hand grip recoil control seems to negate that.

I assume there could be a different scoring division created for example...Junior, Senior, Super Senior...etc. But just as has been hashed over countless times that would make the competition pool smaller and reward shooters just because they happen to fall into that category.

Just wondering if a + and - handicaping system has ever been considered?

[Vince Pinto]

3QT,

A "disabled" handicap is something I would be delighted to consider and work on, but I don't think there's sufficient demand. The funny thing is that I have two guys in Hong Kong who each have a prosthetic leg, and I've asked them for suggestions, but even they admit it's tough to be objective with disabilities.

I'll try to find out how they handle the Paraolympics, but the primary issue is still a lack of demand, although the adage "If you build it, they will come" (Wayne's World) may be valid.

On the other hand, I've been pushing for years for the Senior category to be based on a 1% "category bonus" per year of age over 50, but I just can't seem to sell the idea to my colleagues. However since I turn 48 this year, I guess I better try harder

[Nik Habicht]

VP and 3QT,

I'd suggest that we have a handicapping system already --- it's called classification. There are any number of things that I can't do as well as David Sevigny, and that's why he's a GM and I'm a lowly C shooter. Part of that is that he's half my weight and size, part of it is that he's younger and in much better shape, and a large chunk of it's got to do with shooting and practice and desire. I firmly believe that if I had the desire and commitment required I could make GM. Beating David --- now that's a whole 'nother story....

[Vince Pinto]

Nik,

Classification and Handicapping are two different things. The former tells you how you fare with everybody shooting "as is".

If we were to "handicap" people, we'd give Dave Sevigny a bolt action Glock and make him wear blinders and lead boots

[JMD]

Alan,

Flex mentioned:

“Here is how the rule reads for USPSA right now:

10.1.4.5

If a competitor is unable to fully execute any part of a course of fire as a result of incapacity, or previous injury the competitor may request a penalty in lieu of the stated course requirement. It is permissible in this case to apply a penalty by deducting 20% of the competitor's target points as shot. This penalty should be specified prior to the start of the stage and shall be at the option of the Match Director.”

The key language is “as shot”. If you are forced to engage 3 of 10 targets WHO then those 3 are subject to the 20% penalty. I spent well over a year and a half unable to shoot SHO after a surgical event and it is a nice acknowledgement.

Welcome back,

Joel

[Vince Pinto]

The key language is “as shot”. If you are forced to engage 3 of 10 targets WHO then those 3 are subject to the 20% penalty.

No Sir. The 20% applies to the points "as shot" for the entire stage, and it's spelt out very clearly in the rules quoted above by Yoda, as follows:

For example, if 100 points are available in the course of fire and the competitor actually scores 90 points, the special penalty is a deduction of 18 points.

Unless the USPSA used their exemption to modify this rule (which I didn't see on "the list"), then the above will also apply to matches held on US soil. I also know that's how WinMSS handles the 20%, and I suspect EzWinScore does the same, but I can't be certain.

The good news is that it's possible to reduce the 20% penalty on a large stage through the use of one or more procedural penalties.

[MstngLX50]

After downloading the USPSA 14th edition and reviewing it myself I find no mention of "entire" stage. While I appreciate the example I am curious as to where it came from (newer handbook perhaps). If the purpose is to reduce the procedurals incurred by being physically unable to comply with the course description then why would the 20% penalty be imposed on all targets shot? If only a portion of the targets were not shot in the manner specified by the course description then it seems unfair to remove points from the whole, procedurals are not given for all targets on the course so why does the 20% not follow the same guidelines. It is my contention that "as shot" can be construed to mean "as shot in violation of the course description". This to me would seem more fair by far than a blanket 20% for the entire stage, as such I hope this is the way it was intended. If I'm to take procedurals for every shot fired what is to stop me from shooting freestyle? There is no mention of strong hand only in addition to the penalty, this would give me an unfair advantage and I would not even consider doing so.

Unless I missed it in the book, computer scoring software is not allowed to make a determination as to intent of a rule. As such I find that a groundless argument. If the rules were perfect and set in stone there would be no arbitration process, and certainly no need for a Board of Directors to vote on amendments to said rules.

While I am not familiar with USPSA rulebook interpretations per se, in other sanctioning bodies when a rule is left intentionally vague it is done so to allow applicability to be determined on a case by case basis.

The rule(10.1.4.5), is incredibly vague and I find it hard to believe that anyone intended to take more points from me than necessary. As 3quartertime pointed out the advantage of shooting strong hand only is, in my opinion, countered by the fact that performing reloads and stabilizing the gun are now far more difficult. Though I do disagree about a disabled scoring division, I would much rather compete with everyone else to the best of my ability. However I feel 10.1.4.5 as interpreted by Vince Pinto is unfair and prevents me from doing so.

I intend to request interpretation from USPSA/IPSC and failing satisfactory results will submit a first party protest on any and all such occasions that 20% is removed from my total stage score.

Sorry for the rant but I am very disappointed by this unfairness in what I find to be an otherwise very enjoyable sport.

Alan Elam

[Yoda]

Unless I missed it in the book, computer scoring software is not allowed to make a determination as to intent of a rule. 

Alan,

it is up to the Range Master to decide how much penalty to apply to individual cases. You have to report to him and he will judge the situation (sort of handicap, number of targets involved, time involved). Based upon these variables he will apply 1 or more Procedure Penalties or go for the full 20% deduction.

The software (MSS, WinMSS and EZWinscore) just do what they are supposed to do, process the data written on the scoresheet entered by the Stats guys.

The possibility to LOWER the penalty in 10.1.4.5 is newly introduced in the latest version of the rules just because of that - it might be unfair to apply -20% on a large stage if a competitor just cannot comply with a tiny part of it.

Hope this helps (a little). And yes - this is IPSC stuff, I suppose USPSA will handle it likewise.

[Skywalker]

Alan,

3QT has already stated it, but let me echo his words: I'm very impressed by your will to compete again in USPSA/IPSC shooting, despite what happened to you while (most important) serving your country and all of us.

Now, let me point out for you what you are (maybe) missing from the rules, at least from the IPSC rules.

The penalty of up to 20%, intended for those competitors that are not able to fully comply with the stage written procedure, is exactly what it says. It is a penalty that will be determined and assessed by the RM according to what he feels is the advantage you gained by not fully complying with the stage procedure.

For IPSC rulebook it is not a fixed penalty where you have 20% of scored points detracted from your actual stage score: it's a penalty ranging from 1 procedural (-10 points) up to 20%of the scored points as shot.

The fairness of application of this rule is evident: let's assume the stage procedure will require you to shoot the last 2 targets WHO, after having previously shot 10 targets freestyle. This is a 120 points stage where, let's say, you score 100 points shooting last 4 shots SHO instead of WHO.

If the special penalty didn't exist, you would probably end up receiving 4 procedurals (-40 points) for 4 shots not compliant with stage procedure.

The RM summoned to assess the special penalty will have the chance to assess a penalty ranging from 1 procedural (-10 points) up to -20% of your score (i.e. -20 points in the above example). This allows for flexibility of judgement on the RM side: if I were the RM, I'd probably assess only 1 procedural, since the advantage gained on the last 2 targets is balanced by the disadvantage of shooting 10 targets almost SHO instead of two-handed.

On the contrary, if the same stage had required you to shoot 2 targets free-style, and the remaining 10 WHO, in the case of you shooting those targets SHO instead of WHO, I'd go for the full -20% penalty.

My guess is that, if the USPSA rulebook doesn't allow this discretionality of judgement on the RM side, it would be better to align it with the IPSC rulebook.

[Vince Pinto]

Alan,

I regret you're disappointed with my interpretation - perhaps you should ask John Amidon for a ruling.

[MstngLX50]

Does this apply in USPSA:

10.2.11.1 If the request is approved by the Range Master, a minimum of one procedural penalty, up to a maximum penalty of 20% of the competitor's points “as shot” (rounded up to the nearest whole number), will be deducted from the competitor's score. For example, if 100 points are available in the course of fire and the competitor actually scores 90 points, the special penalty is a deduction of 18 points.

If so I am not taking issue with it and find it acceptable

Here is the rule I take issue with, if it has been superseded/amended then all is well.

10.1.4.5 If a competitor is unable to fully execute any part of a course of fire as a result of incapacity, or previous injury the competitor may request a penalty in lieu of the stated course requirement. It is permissible in this case to apply a penalty by deducting 20% of the competitor's target points as shot. This penalty should be specified prior to the start of the stage and shall be at the option of the Match Director.

[Nik Habicht]

Alan,

Right now in the US we're using the 14th edition USPSA rules, i.e. the little red book, which is available for download at USPSA. This will change at an as yet unknown date later this year, when USPSA adopts with revisions the latest version of the IPSC rules. In my three years in the sport, I've generally found people to be fair. At local matches I don't think it'll be an issue, at the Area or National level, your best bet would be to talk to the RM before shooting. Most likely there'd be only one or two stages, if any, where SHO or WHO becomes an issue and it'll really depend on how much of an advantage you gain. Three targets straight in front of you wide open, is different than three targets hidden behind a wall in such a manner that you really have to lean to your weak side.....

[JMD]

Alan, Kees, Vince,

It wasn’t my intent to create muddle from clarity but the discussion to that point – when I retired for the night – was on the slippery slope. Others have ably pointed out the dichotomy of the “20% to all targets” and the RM latitude to maneuver. A further statement of clarification seems in order.

EX: Consider a 32 round long course and last shots, dictated by description and prop require a single last WHO target (or SHO if SH is object of disability). Let’s say I have 30 A’s on the first 15 paper with a C/D on the remaining.

Fair question?

Joel

[Garfield]

I fail to see the problem ?

The RM doesn't HAVE to apply 20% over the whole stage as shot, it's just a maximum.

I think that no RM will apply 20% over the whole stage as shot in the example described by Joel.

[Yoda]

EX: Consider a 32 round long course and last shots, dictated by description and prop require a single last WHO target (or SHO if SH is object of disability). Let’s say I have 30 A’s on the first 15 paper with a C/D on the remaining.

Joel,

in your example the points scored are 156 points (considered shooting MAJOR!). It does not matter where the points are scored, it is just the point total what we need to know.

We can score this two ways - USPSA (2003) and IPSC (2004)

USPSA - subtract 20% of points shot equals - 32 points. It would have been better to not ask for the special penalty and receive 2 Procedure Errors for not firing shots with the WHO (or SHO for that matter).

IPSC - the RM has the discretion to apply 1, 2 or 3 Procedure Errors OR 20% of the points scored. I expect the RM to use common sense and only apply 1 PE.

What do you think about this?

[bgary]

Speaking as a stats guy...

I have always interpreted 10.1.4.5 (US "red book") to mean:

IF we can determine exactly which points were scored in non-compliance with the course requirements, we will apply the 20% penalty to those points. If we cannot determine specifically which points were scored in non-compliance, we have to apply a penalty to the total score

So, in the example that Alan gave (a 24-round stage, 10 targets strong-hand-only, last 2 targets weak-hand-only)... when the scorecard came into the stat shack, I would toddle out to the stage, verify with the RO that the shooter complied with the course requirements on the first 10 targets, and only failed to comply on the last two targets. If that is confirmed, I will figure out what 20% of his score is on those last two targets, and deduct that number of points from his score using the field specifically for that purpose on the EZWinScore screen.

In other cases, doing this may take some planning. The most common place where we see weak-hand-only stuff is on Standards... string 1 is (do a bunch of stuff), string 2 is (do a bunch of different stuff), etc.

If a stage like that is scored all at the end, it is impossible to determine which points were made in non-compliance with course requirements. So, when I get the notice that a shooter is going to be taking a penalty-in-lieu-of course requirements, I'll toddle out to the stage and give the ROs specific instructions to score the shooter after each string (using the back of the scorecard), and to specifically note on there which strings were shot in non-compliance.

So, if string 3 of a 3-string, 120-point standards stage says "shoot T-1 and T-2 two rounds each, freestyle, then reload and shoot T-3 and T-4 two rounds each, weak hand only"... I can figure out specifically which points were shot on T-3 and T-4 in the third string, and apply the penalty to ONLY those points which were shot in non-compliance with the course description.

Now... having said all that... that *is* an approach that has been blessed by John Amidon, and it *is* the approach used at any Area or National match I'm scoring... but I'd have to say that there is considerable "variation in interpretation" at other places. Best thing I can suggest is to work it out with the RM ahead of time, and if saying "this is how they do it at the Nationals" helps your case, have at it.

Bruce

USPSA / Area-1

PS - Thank you for your service to all of us. If you ever find yourself in Western Washington, let me know. Your match fee will be on me...