Is this a penalty

[j1b]

OK - the stage is a field course, and it has several shooting positions with targets specified from each position. Shooter goes to one position, engages all targets necessary from there, but accidentally shoots two other targets. Shooter goes to the next box, where those two targets were supposed to have been engaged from, and shoots them again they way they were supposed to be.

My question is does s/he get penalized for engaging the targets from the wrong area?

If they had done this same thing, and not re-engaged from the appropriate area I would have said yes. Since the shooter did complete the course of fire though, I would think no. We had a debate on this some time ago, everyone but me saying yes - the shooter would get penalized. I fought it hard though. I'm not convinced I wouldn't have spent the arbitration money and told them I did everything the course asked me to do.

Some of you rules gurus would be able to tell me if I would have wasted my money

Thanks

JB

[Garfield]

Hi there,

I think two questions should be answered before we can really comment:

1. Are we talking USPSA or IPSC rules ?

2. What was the exact written stage briefing ?

[j1b]

It was a USPSA match.

I don't recall the exact stage description - but lets say for arguments sake that it says "Engage T1 through T4 from Box B, Engage T5-T8 from Box C"

Thanks

Jack

[Flexmoney]

Jack,

The course isn't following the guidelines in the rulebook. So...that is an issue for sure (should be freestyle - 1.1.5).

But, for the sake of arguement...if the written stage procedure says to engage T12 from on top of a canoe...then you must engage that target from on top of the canoe. If you don't, then you haven't followed the written procedure, and should recieve one procedural. (Not a FTE, not miss penalties...one procedural, for failing to follow that one procedure.)

Note, that you can engage a target with one round...then shoot it some more from some place else...unless the procedure specifically prohibits that (like: engage T12 ONLY from on top of the canoe).

[L9X25]

The next question would be:

How many procedurals (if any) would the shooter get?

I have faced this situation too many times and feel that it is often handled incorrectly. Under the old old rules, the RO would decide if the shooter had gained any advantage by shooting the targets from the incorrect position (closer, better angle, more stable, fewer shooting positions, etc) and then give him the appropriate procedurals. If an advantage was gained it would be one P per shot fired. If no advantage was gained you would get 1 P. If no advantage was gained and the shooter made up the shots from the correct location I would likely not call a procedural, but I can see where 1 might be appropriate.

Leo

[Vince Pinto]

Jack,

Frankly I hate making rule calls in respect of bad courses of fire such as the one you've described, which had targets you could see but which you were not permitted to shoot. Having said that, I'll presume the subject stage was at a Level I or II match, which had the benefit of Rule 1.1.5.1., so the shooting positions and target engagement order could be lawfully (but nonetheless yuckily) specified.

Based on the limited information provided, it seems that a single procedural for failing to comply with the stage requriements would probably be correct. And no, you cannot "cancel" a procedural by subsequent actions.

[Flexmoney]

Jack,

Re-reading what you posted...and the way you worded it...it sounds like there should NOT be any penalties applied.

The procedure said to "engage from", an inclusive statement. Which you complied with (eventually).

If it said "ONLY", that would exclude engaging them from another position.

Leo,

I'm not sure the "advantage gained" arguement will hold any water. Procedure is procedure, right?

If the course desinger has something else in mind, then they might need to spell that out in crystal-clear detail in the stage briefing...and ensure that it complies with the rulebook.

I know that doesn't directly jive with your question though...

So...to address your question, I read the following:

"Engage T1-T4 from Box A"

...as a seperate procedure for each of the four targets. (One procedure for failing to engage T1 from Box A...one for failing to engage T2 from Box A...etc.)

[edit: looks like Vince was posting while I was typing...for the record...this post wasn't a reply to his. I think it is all in the wording of the written procedure]

[j1b]

That's kind of what I thought. If specified "only" then I can totally understand penalties incurred.

Isn't it always in how the stage briefing is written?

JB

[L9X25]

Flex,

If the "advantage gained" argument has gone the way of the dodo bird, why would it not be 1 P per shot fired? There are numerous scenarios where taking 1 P for shooting targets from the wrong position would be a blessing!

Vince?

Leo

[Flexmoney]

He isn't getting any penalties for the shots fired...it is the lack of firing (engaging) that would earn the penalties (the way it was worded).

If the procedure reads:

Engage T1-T4 from Box A, Engage T5-T8 from Box B...

...and the shooter shoots T1-T6 from Box A, then just shoots T7 & T8 from Box B, the Procedure(s) they didn't follow is the LACK of shooting T5 & T6 from Box B. Nothing in the procedure excludes shooting those targets from anywhere else. In this case, as long as the shooter puts a shot on each target (engages) from the appropriate Box, then they have meet the stage requirement. They could then go on to shoot all (T1-T8) from Box C (for instance)...if they liked.

[Vince Pinto]

Leo.

The "If you can see them, you can shoot them" concept not only observes the spirit of our freestyle credo, it also prevents "how many procedurals" questions which invariably arise, such as in cases like this. And while the "advantage gained" concept still survives in the rulebook, Jack didn't state whether shooting the subject targets prematurely actually provided an advantage. Jack?

Anyway, given the limited information available, I think the first line of Flex's last post "He isn't getting any penalties for the shots fired...it is the lack of firing (engaging) that would earn the penalties" hits the nail on the head.

[L9X25]

Vince, Flex,

Thanks.

The last few controversial situations (at out local matches), for which a consensus could not be reached, fell along these same lines. A stage was constructed in a manner not supported by the new rulebook. The comment often made (by the stage designer) is that the rulebook does not prohibit this type of stage, or this particular situation. Sometime in the future it would be beneficial to elaborate on what is or is not acceptable to do within the current rulebook.

Leo

[Vince Pinto]

Leo,

I'd be a happy man (and so would Flex) if we could delete the following rule in it's entirety:

1.1.5.1 Level I and Level II matches are not required to comply strictly with the freestyle requirements or round count limitations.

-:however I can imagine the objections from smaller clubs and ranges who would they claim they are unable to comply. Having said that, I'm definitely going to have a shot at deleting the words in red in a future rulebook.

It's my view that if your range is too small to offer mutliple shooting positions, fine, but don't write silly stage briefings along the lines of "Shoot T1-T3 from Box A, do a double somersault with a pike and half twist while whistling Dixie, then shoot T4-T6 from Box B ........".

The first three rules of Course Design are:

1. If you can see it, you can shoot it.

2. No free-standing penalty targets.

3. No other possible shoot throughs.

[mactiger]

The first three rules of Course Design are:

1. If you can see it, you can shoot it.

2. No free-standing penalty targets.

3. No other possible shoot throughs.

Exactly! Well put, Vince. I HATE freestanding penalty targets, especially when they get used as vision barriers out in the middle of a course.

One of the (original) reasons for that "lifting" of the freestyle requirements was that it was believed that many clubs didn't have, or wouldn't build, the walls, barricades, etc., that freestyle might require. I think now though, that most shooters want to shoot freestyle stages, therefore they "make it happen" at the local level. If those words were removed from the rulebook, I don't think it would cause major heartburn anywhere.

Troy

[Shooter Grrl]

The answer is all in the way the course description was written...

Scenario 1

Engage t1, t2 & t3, from box a

Engage t4, t5, t6 from box b

Shooter engages 1, 2, 3, & 4, from box, but then still does 4,5&6 from box b, no penalties. He followed the course description.

Engage t1, t2 & t3, from box a only

Engage t4, t5, t6 from box b only

Then you get the procedural for not following the description. And, because you did re-engage, I'd only give you one.

[Jim Norman]

Leo,

I'd be a happy man (and so would Flex) if we could delete the following rule in it's entirety:

1.1.5.1 Level I and Level II matches are not required to comply strictly with the freestyle requirements or round count limitations.

The first three rules of Course Design are:

1. If you can see it, you can shoot it.

2. No free-standing penalty targets.

3. No other possible shoot throughs.

Vince,

With all due respect, if you want to work to delete the freestyle exemption from Level 1 & 2 I can't object too strongly, although it will impose a burden that may be alieviated by some smaller clubs by their no longer providing matches. I would not address a round count restrictino, either in how many can be required from a given position or especially how many rounds can be designed into a stage.

Item two which I take exception to is: Number one in your rules of course design. This is fine, but does it mean that I must build 50 feet of wall to obscure a piece of steel that was to be engaged from the beginning of a course and if not knocked down will be visible for the rest of the course? You mean we can't use charge lines?

Item three which I take exception to is: Number two in your rules of course design. We already have had long discusions on that. If properly used free standing No-Shoots are not a problem and give a lot of freedom in course design. Shoot throughs onto No-Shoots or through a scoring target onto either a No-Shoot or another scoring target are of course to be avoided.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

I'd LOVE for the rulebook to get rid of that loophole. However, as Vince/Troy mentioned, some clubs don't have the resources (materials, manpower, etc.) to run full-on freestyle all the time.

And, some just don't make the effort.

Vince, as you know, it's the "not required to comply strictly" part that gives the problem. Feel free to delegate the re-writing of this one...I'll be happy to provide wording options.

[Vince Pinto]

Troy,

Once again we're on the same page. I'm getting afraid here. Very afraid

Shooter Grrl,

You go Grrl

Jim,

Your objections are duly noted, with thanks. However my proposal has nothing to do with preventing the use of charge lines. It's to do with using more vision barriers instead of writing complicated stage briefings to compensate for the lack of vision barriers.

Flex,

I think if we give any leeway, lazy course builders will still use it without making an effort. The concept of freestyle is a fundamental aspect of IPSC shooting and having "memory" courses goes right against the grain. Having said that, if you'd like to suggest an alternate wording of Rule 1.1.5.1, please let me know - I'm all ears (and a large nose).

[mactiger]

Hey, Vince. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, my friend.

Troy

[Jim Norman]

Vince,

You said: However my proposal has nothing to do with preventing the use of charge lines. It's to do with using more vision barriers instead of writing complicated stage briefings to compensate for the lack of vision barriers.

You say I can still use a charge line but you also say I should use a vision barrier. This is exactly the problem I am addressing. If you have a pit that is short, you can only engage the steel from the rear of the pit (Uprange end) If I have to put up a vision barrier so that I can only see the steel it means I need currently 30 feet of wall to screen a single popper. That pit just lost the use of steel as it became too much work to build the stage. Now, if I can say, "You may only engage the steel through "Port A" before moving down range yadda-yadda" I can still have the rest of the course of fire be freestyle and I can still incorporate the steel.

Doesn't need to be complicated it just needs to be. Personally I agree that it is a workaround at best and in a perfect world we wouldn't have it.

Flex,

Regarding your comment regarding "Memory Courses" just yesterday we ran a 7 stage match. There were two courses that presented the some of the same targets from at least three positions. Since you saw them from a different angle many of them may have at first looked like a different array. Memory? I suppose, Good stage? You bet. Both were given high marks by the shooters, even from the ones that ran past a target thinking that it was the one they shot, or shot one twice because they weren't sure.

This type of course, presenting multiple views and multiple ways to solve the problem is the ultimate in freestyle. Otherwise it seems to me we are just running between shooting positions as fast as we can. At a Nationals when the Super Squad shoots a stage in 3-4 different ways, that is generally the best course of the match, when they all agree that there is one best way, where is the freestyle?

Troy,

You said: Exactly! Well put, Vince. I HATE freestanding penalty targets, especially when they get used as vision barriers out in the middle of a course.

One of the (original) reasons for that "lifting" of the freestyle requirements was that it was believed that many clubs didn't have, or wouldn't build, the walls, barricades, etc., that freestyle might require. I think now though, that most shooters want to shoot freestyle stages, therefore they "make it happen" at the local level. If those words were removed from the rulebook, I don't think it would cause major heartburn anywhere.

Troy, we use freestanding No-Shoots all the time. You can shoot before them or after them, some times the shot is tight, and sometimes it is wide open, it all depends upon where you put the No-Shoot. If I put up a piece of Construction fence, what is there to tell me I didn't shoot through the fence/net? If I use a wall, it is obvious if the edges of the wall are new and clean, but a couple edge hits and that goes away. The No-shoots provide an effective cost effective way to steer a shooter and still give multiple engagement possibilities. Putting the No-Shoot tight to the target removes that because the angle of engagement never changes if the No-shoot and the target are in the same plane.

As usual we can all agree to disagree, but I feel I am correct or at least more correct in my point of view and I think that the shooters at our matches would agree that the courses we shoot are excellent. Their words, not mine.

Jim Norman

[mactiger]

If I put up a piece of Construction fence, what is there to tell me I didn't shoot through the fence/net? If I use a wall, it is obvious if the edges of the wall are new and clean, but a couple edge hits and that goes away. The No-shoots provide an effective cost effective way to steer a shooter and still give multiple engagement possibilities. Putting the No-Shoot tight to the target removes that because the angle of engagement never changes if the No-shoot and the target are in the same plane.

I don't like no-shoots used merely as vision barriers. That doesn't mean that you can't build a good course of fire with them, and I'm sure you do. There was no intent to disparage your course setup techniques.

I do think there are better ways to do it, in general, than by using no-shoots. One problem with using no-shoots is a shoot-through potential is always present--how do you score that in a wide open field course? No-shoots are supposed to be impenetrable, as are shoot targets. Since they are cardboard, we know they are not, but overlapping them eliminates the scoring problems this presents.

With construction fence, I suppose there isn't a good way to tell whether the shot went through the fabric or through a space. With a wall, however, the holes should be taped so that new hits can be seen. That's elemental to any stage. If the end or edge of a wall is getting shot up, it must be repaired, otherwise the course of fire has been changed.

Bottom line, though--while I'd like to see more courses set up using walls or screen or real vision barriers, no-shoots will continue to be used. I also don't think that the rule is going to drastically change anytime soon, especially for Level I matches. However, I also think that some match directors use this exemption to hide poor or lazy course design, and that's my real frustration with the use of no-shoots as vision barriers.

Troy

[Jim Norman]

Troy,

We'll have to agree to sort of agree and disagree.

We use the No-Shoot method and it works for us. Using a wall or other solid barrier does a few negative things. It takes longer to build and we are already time strapped, It can get shot up and it is a bear to tape the edges back to undamaged condition and using a replaceable edge is still a problem, repairs and time again.

Construction netting doesn't work for me. If you can see it you can shoot it except when you can see it? Explain that one :-)

We have not had a serious problem with No-Shoots and bogus hits. Part of this is the angles that we use are such that it is usually eay to see the radical entry angle and also the RO is usually in a position that he can tell. I won't disagree however that at a "Major" ie., Nationals level match or even an Area match, I might say that the solid barrier and repairable edge is a better method, but there you have the time to build and the crew to repair. We all know the worl load of a local match. We run seven stages almost all year, weather permitting and starting in April we run a sidematch as well. That's 8 stages to build starting at 0700 and have torn down and put away by 1700, add in squadding and repairs as well as trying to shoot and you understand even more.

So, we can agreeabley disagree as well as agree to a point. Damn, i think I've gone PC here.

Next thing you know I'll be agreeing with Vince.

Jim Norman

[38supPat]

Vince,

You said: However my proposal has nothing to do with preventing the use of charge lines. It's to do with using more vision barriers instead of writing complicated stage briefings to compensate for the lack of vision barriers.

You say I can still use a charge line but you also say I should use a vision barrier. This is exactly the problem I am addressing. If you have a pit that is short, you can only engage the steel from the rear of the pit (Uprange end) If I have to put up a vision barrier so that I can only see the steel it means I need currently 30 feet of wall to screen a single popper. That pit just lost the use of steel as it became too much work to build the stage. Now, if I can say, "You may only engage the steel through "Port A" before moving down range yadda-yadda" I can still have the rest of the course of fire be freestyle and I can still incorporate the steel.

Betcha I could do it with one or two wall sections. I have set up this type of arrangement many times, on ranges that varied from well supplied with VB/probs, to smaller clubs that have limited props. It can be done, it just takes some ingenuity.

[Nik Habicht]

Flex,

Regarding your comment regarding "Memory Courses" just yesterday we ran a 7 stage match. There were two courses that presented the some of the same targets from at least three positions. Since you saw them from a different angle many of them may have at first looked like a different array. Memory? I suppose, Good stage? You bet. Both were given high marks by the shooters, even from the ones that ran past a target thinking that it was the one they shot, or shot one twice because they weren't sure.

This type of course, presenting multiple views and multiple ways to solve the problem is the ultimate in freestyle. Otherwise it seems to me we are just running between shooting positions as fast as we can. At a Nationals when the Super Squad shoots a stage in 3-4 different ways, that is generally the best course of the match, when they all agree that there is one best way, where is the freestyle?

Jim Norman

Picking up on one of Jim's comments --- and drifting this thread even further --- I really liked the stages he described, because it gave me lots of options in shooting the stage. I could have run to six different positions on one stage to engage all the targets with pretty much wide open targets available. Since I don't move that well, I chose option B, used a total of four positions and had some longer, tighter shots to make --- which I can do fairly well....

At no point did I find myself wishing for the extra capacity of a limited gun, either...

[Flexmoney]

I am scratching my head in wonder.

Jim/Nik,

I NEVER have said that the stage you described is a MEMORY stage!!! Jim, you have misunderstood what I meant about a memory stage ever since I posted it.

I think stages without options suck!

What I define as a memory stage is pretty easy to see...once the results come out. It is the stage that can't be figured out in the 5-minute walk thru. It's the stage at a Major that the local shooters have an advantage...because they have seen it for a week, ran it in local matches to "test" it, and they helped set it up. It's the stage where the 1st place shooter takes 15 second to run it...the second place shooter takes 20, and everybody else (that didn't get in on the buddy system/squad) takes 25+ seconds.