scoring/procedure question - multistring COF - comstock

[kcd19]

I've been pondering a stage from a recent match.

There was one stage that had 3 strings of fire on 6 metric targets. 6 no-shoots partially obscured the other 6. Shooters made 3 passes (freestyle/strong/weak), Comstock.

What (if any) is the rule on scoring for a stage like this?

More specifically... What would stop a shooter from making extra shots on the first freestyle string to mitigate lower scoring shots in the strong/weak position? A shooter would still have to engage all targets with 2 rounds from those positions, but if a shooter were to put 3 'A' shots into each target on the first string, those shots would still count in the overall scoring (one of those 'A' hits would supersede any lower B/C/D hit on another string), right?

Thanks.

[wide45]

Sadly, it is not a legal USPSA stage.

[BayouSlide]

As wide45 noted, not a legal stage and you have discovered the reason it shouldn't be. Substitute Virginia Count or Fixed Time for Comstock, and it's legal per 1.2.2.1 and your scoring problem disappears.

Curtis

[Schutzenmeister]

And remember that a VC is limited to Standards, Classifiers, and Short Courses. (9.2.3.2) Clearly this is not a Classifier, and you do not appear to be attempting a CoF of 8 rounds or less. Ergo, it must be a Standards course.

A "Standards Exercise" also requires a minimum of 2 or more separately timed component strings. No single string may be more than 6 rounds, unless there is a mandatory reload whereby it may be up to 12 rounds. The total number of rounds may not exceed 24. (1.2.2.1)

I also point out that it is unwise to have ANY CoF requiring reengagement of targets (as you seem to be describing) using Comstock scoring as it brings up EXACTLY the scoring connumdrum you describe. Stick with VC or FT for anything that requires target reengagement. It will save you a TON of headaches! (No specific rule number, just YEARS of experience with situations of this sort.)

(Edited for fumble-fingered typing!!!)

Edited May 21, 2011 by Schutzenmeister

[ima45dv8]

And remember that a VC is limited to Standards, Classifiers, and Short Courses. (9.2.3.2) ....

And that new one, Speed Shoots.

[kcd19]

i see. all the replies make good sense, for the reasons noted. no one gamed it like that, but afterwards the gears started turning.

i don't recall if there was a mandatory reload; i didn't really pay much attention to the limited/open guys, and everyone else would have had to by design. there MAY have been a reload required.

thanks for the replies.

[JAFO]

I have seen people take an extra shot penalty on a VC standards course in order to make up for a mike on an earlier string (down 10 for the penalty vs 15 for the possible 5 points and the miss), but it was a close array with a high confidence for an alpha if you slowed down a bit. It was a stage where the same targets were used for all strings and were not scored until the end. But since most standards run the freestyle first, I doubt you'd see people preemptively making extra shots in VC.

I'm still unclear on the legality of that, actually, but I can't find anything forbidding it unless you'd consider it stacking. But 9.4.5.3 states, "Stacked shots (i.e. obviously shooting more than the required rounds on a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in any string), will incur one procedural penalty per target insufficiently engaged in any string." The other targets were not shot with fewer rounds than required so there were no insufficiently engaged targets for which to asses the penalty.

[Schutzenmeister]

I'm still unclear on the legality of that, actually, but I can't find anything forbidding it unless you'd consider it stacking. But 9.4.5.3 states, "Stacked shots (i.e. obviously shooting more than the required rounds on a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in any string), will incur one procedural penalty per target insufficiently engaged in any string." The other targets were not shot with fewer rounds than required so there were no insufficiently engaged targets for which to asses the penalty.

9.4.5.3 applies only to VC and FT. (From 9.4.5) It is not possible nor logical to attempt to issue penalties under Comstock scoring.

And yes ... Speed Shoots, too. (Thanks IMA45DV8 ... I forgot that one!)

[JAFO]

Sorry, I drifted. I meant the legality of the extra shots as make-ups on a VC stage, not Comstock. I was referring to the situation described in the paragraph above the one you quoted.

[Schutzenmeister]

Please forgive the possible tone of this reply, as I honestly do not intend it to be personal ... I really wish folks would stop using the term "legal" or "legality" wrt the rules of our (or any other) sport.

To me, this implies "law" and/or "statute" for which there may or may not be criminal sanctions. Congress has not voted on, nor has the President signed into "law" anything in our rule book!

The USPSA rule book, much as the rule book for any other sport, sets forth what one may and may not do in certain situations. It also prescribes the "penalties" set forth, usually in scoring, for violating certain rules and/or procedures. At this point, the savvey shooter will analyze the penalty to be incurred by violating a given rule or procedure and make a determination as to whether or not he is better off adhering to the rule or procedure (in terms of his HF), or by violating the rule or procedure and accepting the appropriate penalty does he improve his HF and increase the number of points earned in the match. Remember, our scoring system measures HF's and a smart competitor will try to get the highest HF he can on any given CoF. This is why the "designer's intent" is irrelevant in our sport. Note also, that if the infraction is great enough, the RM MAY decare it a "Forbiden Action" and require a reshoot ... but that is not what we are discussing here.

Therefore, it behooves any given shooter to know the rules well enough, as well as his own shooting abilities, to determine whether or not to fire a "make up" shot on a VC CoF. Remember, this is frequently done in mere fractions of a second as otherwise the opportunity to improve one's HF vanishes as the clock is ticking!

JAFO - wrt an FTE on a target ... So long as the shooter fires an actual round somewhere in the general direction of a target, it has been engaged. (General direction is somewhat up to the judgement of the RO on the scene, I admit, but I think you see my point.) WRT when the shooter "chooses" to fire an extra round (and accept the penalty or penalties) ... that is up to the shooter. Assume a 2 string stage. String one is Freestyle/reload/SHO. String two is Freestyle/reload/WHO. Personally, if after the first string I notice I have a definite Mike I will choose to make it up on the freestyle portion of the second string. That is generally where I believe I have the best chance of trading my Mike for and Extra Shot penalty and gain (hopefully) an Alpha in the exchange. If I do it quickly and smoothly enough, my HF will almost certainly be higher than if I had simply let it be.

This is not "illegal" in my view. It is a shooter being willing to accept a penalty (in this case, effectively in trade for another penalty) in order to gain scoring points and improve his HF. I've on occasion heard this called "cheating" ... It is not. It's simply knowing the rules and using them at all times to your best advantage to maximize your HF.

If I have offended anyone, I ask forgiveness ... I mean no offense. I simply have no problem with a shooter who knows enough to trade one penalty for another (on the fly) in order to regain some lost HF.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Schutzenmeister

[JAFO]

No offence taken whatsoever.

Thanks for your comments on the extra shot. When you state it like that, it seems embarrassingly easy to understand.

[gng4life]

Please forgive the possible tone of this reply, as I honestly do not intend it to be personal ... I really wish folks would stop using the term "legal" or "legality" wrt the rules of our (or any other) sport.

To me, this implies "law" and/or "statute" for which there may or may not be criminal sanctions. Congress has not voted on, nor has the President signed into "law" anything in our rule book!

The USPSA rule book, much as the rule book for any other sport, sets forth what one may and may not do in certain situations. It also prescribes the "penalties" set forth, usually in scoring, for violating certain rules and/or procedures. At this point, the savvey shooter will analyze the penalty to be incurred by violating a given rule or procedure and make a determination as to whether or not he is better off adhering to the rule or procedure (in terms of his HF), or by violating the rule or procedure and accepting the appropriate penalty does he improve his HF and increase the number of points earned in the match. Remember, our scoring system measures HF's and a smart competitor will try to get the highest HF he can on any given CoF. This is why the "designer's intent" is irrelevant in our sport. Note also, that if the infraction is great enough, the RM MAY decare it a "Forbiden Action" and require a reshoot ... but that is not what we are discussing here.

Therefore, it behooves any given shooter to know the rules well enough, as well as his own shooting abilities, to determine whether or not to fire a "make up" shot on a VC CoF. Remember, this is frequently done in mere fractions of a second as otherwise the opportunity to improve one's HF vanishes as the clock is ticking!

JAFO - wrt an FTE on a target ... So long as the shooter fires an actual round somewhere in the general direction of a target, it has been engaged. (General direction is somewhat up to the judgement of the RO on the scene, I admit, but I think you see my point.) WRT when the shooter "chooses" to fire an extra round (and accept the penalty or penalties) ... that is up to the shooter. Assume a 2 string stage. String one is Freestyle/reload/SHO. String two is Freestyle/reload/WHO. Personally, if after the first string I notice I have a definite Mike I will choose to make it up on the freestyle portion of the second string. That is generally where I believe I have the best chance of trading my Mike for and Extra Shot penalty and gain (hopefully) an Alpha in the exchange. If I do it quickly and smoothly enough, my HF will almost certainly be higher than if I had simply let it be.

This is not "illegal" in my view. It is a shooter being willing to accept a penalty (in this case, effectively in trade for another penalty) in order to gain scoring points and improve his HF. I've on occasion heard this called "cheating" ... It is not. It's simply knowing the rules and using them at all times to your best advantage to maximize your HF.

If I have offended anyone, I ask forgiveness ... I mean no offense. I simply have no problem with a shooter who knows enough to trade one penalty for another (on the fly) in order to regain some lost HF.

First look at one of the definitions of law and legal -

Law - a system or collection of such rules.; any rule or injunction that must be obeyed:;

Legal - permitted by law; lawful

Law does not have to be the statues or codes passed by a government; it can be just rules that should be followed that are agreed upon. I used to be a police officer and taught law enforcement classes so I just want to give you another perspective on the terms.

[Schutzenmeister]

No offence taken whatsoever.

Thanks for your comments on the extra shot. When you state it like that, it seems embarrassingly easy to understand.

No problems! It took me 2-3 years of competition before I actually figured out the "when to and when not to" of trading one penalty for another ... then another couple of years learning to make the decision "on the clock!"