What's The Definition of a Significant Advantage?

[Micah]

Why does everything have to be spelled out in black and white. Why can't we as sometimes rational adults apply reasonable judgement. In law they call it a reasonable man rule. The Nazi said anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. In America things are permitted unless forbidden. We follow what is reasonable as a theme in our society.

Three times at last years National i watch Carl S. exercise good judgement in this area. It made sense. A foot over a fault line that at best was hard to feel and did not alter the shooters ability or inability to see the targets was given the judgement on NOT a Significant Advantage.

I also saw Travis robbed at the mud fest Nationals in Tulsa- IMO.

For those who want everything spelled out in black and white and not have an exercise in judgement perhaps you expect too much of humans.

As a not a baseball fan, thank goodness for the no reply rule. Let the game be a game.

I would rather put up with mis-judgements than rigid totalitarianism.

Without having an agreement on the rules, there is variability. Variability that is left up to whomever is running the timer. I do not want myself, nor a beginner shooter to be subjected to an incongruity of the rules. We all shoot more clubs than majors, and in most clubs there is simply a traveling ro for each squad. If they are not on the same page, each ro may interpret significant advantage differently, thus giving an unfair advantage (or disadvantage) a competitor. The rules are there to allow all of us to enjoy this amazing sport with safely and fairness. There is no fairness when it comes to one person's interpretation of an advantage. Either stay in bounds or don't. If you do...groovy. If you don't, then there needs to be one solid overarching rule that can be applied without room for judgement.

[Skydiver]

If the shooter is able to engage a target that they would not be able to engage inside the fault lines, that's a significant advantage. Having your foot accidentally touch outside of the fault line is not a significant advantage. I have seen a few to many RO enjoy giving a shooter per shot fired penalties. Lets not go out of our way to screw the shooter over.

This.

Still not specific enough. Consider CM 06-01 Big Barricade. A shooter can definitely hit all targets within the fault lines either by running to both sides of the barricade, or by staying on one side of the barricade and leaning/hanging out and shoot one handed.

If a shooter plants a foot beyond the left side (or right side) fault line and forward of the wall, they can easily shoot all 7 targets from a single stable position without any leaning or hanging and/or one handed shooting. I feel like that is a significant advantage deserving per shot procedurals, but by the bolded text above, it would not be one.procedural.

No it wouldn't -- you're reading something into the comment that (I think) wasn't intended. That would clearly qualify on a per shot fired, because the competitor cut out a position/had a better angle/more A zone available....

True. I was reading more into the comment, and I realized at that time that I was reading more into it. That's why I felt that it wasn't specific enough and tried to give an example. Of course I just mangled that last sentence in my reply there.

Anyway, I think that this thread has two thrusts in it. One was to try to define what significant advantage was, and the other was discuss just doing away with the judgement call and always make foot faults a per shot fired penalty. I was trying to help refine the definition.

Personally, I think that NROI's RO class covers this topic well and tries to get all RO's on the same page about how to make a judgement call over significant advantage or not.

(I gave a shooter 9 procedurals for a foot fault a couple of weeks ago. Ouch! I felt like I was clobbering him with the rule book. He was not any closer to the targets than other shooters, but he got to stand nice and erect shooting the targets, while all others who stayed within the fault lines had to lean and balance themselves while trying to hit the same set of targets. )

[Supermoto]

What Chris and I might call a competitive advantage might not be what other CROs will call because it is simply up to the CRO.

Its a significant competitive advantage, not just a competitive advantage and its obvious. The RO knows it, the shooter knows. The shooter is already going to penalized for a minor, slight competitive advantage. Whats the point of piling on more penalties? To put them out of the match... is this how we want to win?

[steel1212]

Oh God I agree with chris AND Micah!

[steel1212]

What Chris and I might call a competitive advantage might not be what other CROs will call because it is simply up to the CRO.

Its a significant competitive advantage, not just a competitive advantage and its obvious. The RO knows it, the shooter knows. The shooter is already going to penalized for a minor, slight competitive advantage. Whats the point of piling on more penalties? To put them out of the match... is this how we want to win?

What because somebody can't figure out how to shoot a stage with in the shooting area? If you blow through a fault line or if you go prone and stick your foot out side the shooting area your outside the shooting area figure out how to shoot the stage inside the shooting area.

[Nik Habicht]

How about this. A foot fault is there to prevent somebody from gaining an advantage right? So why isn't it one shot per while outside of the fault line. I never understood why, in reference to the foot fault, it could be not be considered a significant advantage the fault line is there to keep you in a certain place and you stepped over it. Its simple scoring to have it one shot per.

Simple scoring isn't always the best solution. 50 yard standards -- competitor puts one toe over the line. Is he in a significantly advantageous position here? Is a competitor who runs 30 yards downrange?

How about the competitor who's toes touch past the rear fault line of a prone position, because the designers figured no one over 6 feet tall would be shooting the match?

There's all kinds of faulting that simply doesn't confer an advantage....

In my opinon 50 yard standards you put a toe out, one shot per, the fault line was there to keep you in the box not a toe outside. The guy that runs 30 yards down range over the fault line, he ran outside of the shooting area to GAIN an advantage. The last one would be the only one and that is just simple piss poor stage design but if the box was 8 feet long and they put a toe out then one shot per. It is simple scoring.

The fault line may not really be there to keep you in the box -- of course it is, but let go of that concept for a moment and look at the bigger picture. Is being a foot closer at 50 yards an advantage? Probably not......

Do I personally think that "one per" is overkill in that situation? Yep. Could I live with it? Sure......

So lets go back to just issuing 2 penalties per NS hit. Unless the shooter was gaining an advantage by going to fast then we'll just use the per shot. I like black and white rules it takes out the judgement calls, it either is or is not, not maybe sometimes or maybe sometimes not.

Cute -- but seriously off topic.....

The significant advantage language in the faulting has been around -- essentially unchanged -- since long before you came into the game. (For that matter it was already the rule when I joined.)

The two max per no-shoot -- I can remember a time before, during and thankfully after that rule....

[Nik Habicht]

I have a big problem with this, because it leaves it up to interpretation of the individual RO.

Having learned from George, when working as RM at a bigger match, we try to define what might be a significant advantage call for faulting on each stage, during the final staff walkthrough....

That allows us to think about it, argue it out, and arrive at a decision, that fault X will result in call Y for every shooter ahead of time. It allows for consistency.....

The biggest problem for this rule is matches with embedded ROs -- it might be best for those to just announce that every foot fault will incur one per....

If you do all that up front work, it might be good to go ahead and write it into the WSB?

Why? Do you want to read it to every squad? If you're the CRO, and know what the call should be, why do you need to announce it in advance? What other calls should we write into the WSB? :P

Unless of course you meant for matches with embedded ROs -- in which case I think you're right, that should be specified....

First off, I am the world's biggest fan of shortening a WSB (more so than even George)

You ask "why?" Really? Because the RO is not the competitor. The sport...and the rules...are not about the RO. Tell the competitor what is expected. Kinda like the RO creed.

It is my duty to assist all competitors in their attempts to accomplish their goals and not to hinder them by undue harassment and authoritarian behavior.

Huh? So you'd like us to mention all of the "pre-decided" calls in the WSB at major matches? We should be sure to let competitors know that there will be a penalty for faulting, and what it will be? Perhaps we should also let them know how we are planning on calling the 180 on the fifty yard standards stage? I really think I'm missing something here....

....and clearly you are as well, since I never said or thought that it was "about the RO...."

[wide45]

Oh God I agree with chris AND Micah!

I don't.

I've been playing this game since '93. The rule on per shot procedurals, and competitive advantage has remained essentially the same. It is not broken, and does not need to be fixed.

[Nik Habicht]

Chris and I have discussed this at length and find that it is in the realm of an FTDR: meaning that it is a gut-check decision without the rules backing it up one way or the other.

I STRONGLY suggest that we do to foot faults the same thing that we did with no-shoots. If you shot a no-shoot 5 times, you now have 5 procedurals. If you took 5 shots out of bounds, you now have 5 procedurals. What Chris and I might call a competitive advantage might not be what other CROs will call because it is simply up to the CRO.

Take the guess work out of the equation and make it a 1 procedural per shot fired.

I disagree with that sentiment -- that it's a gut check. I firmly believe that if I have you walk any stage in any match, it will be strikingly obvious where faulting presents a significant advantage, and where it doesn't.....

I do think that consistency -- for every competitor in the match -- is of the utmost importance.

I'll concede right off the bat that it's impossible to ensure that at most Level 1 matches -- really in any match that utilizes embedded ROs. It's pretty easy to ensure in big matches, with a dedicated staff on the stages....

[Chris Keen]

Oh God I agree with chris AND Micah!

Ha Ha ... yeah

I do however, agree for the most part with what Corey x 2, Nik, micah, and Jim Norman have been saying here.

But I hope people don't think I'm trying to be mean, and punish people who foot fault by throwing the rule book at them. I'm just a very big fan of things that are black and white, when they're written into part of a book of rules. Rules are meant to be rigid, and not bent, or interpreted. This is why the police / court system is so messed up, because everyone wants to interpret the laws in a way that benefits one party or the other. We shouldn't have such a gray-ness in our sport.

And, without getting into the political correctness part .... when you look at why we now penalize for any amount of no-shoot hits on a penalty target, instead of just a max of 2, I'd have to say that someone smarter than myself decided that a penalty target is just that .... a penalty. Well, the same could be said about a fault line. It is really a penalty / or boundary line. So why not penalize for each shot fired past that line?

Don't like the 3 no-shoots you got? Be careful where you put your bullets.. Dont want 8 foot faults? Be careful where you put your feet.

I'd like to see it one way or the other, if only for the sake of consistency. But we can't just make it a blanket ''1 shot per occurrence'', or people will be blatantly standing outside the fault lines to engage 4,or 5 targets, and then we dont really need the fault lines anymore, do we?

I think we should exercise judgement calls on things that aren't so easy to define draw lines around, like engaging a target while AD'ing, or the perfect double. Not something so clear as a line in the sand.

Just My 2 cents .......

[Supermoto]

What because somebody can't figure out how to shoot a stage with in the shooting area? If you blow through a fault line or if you go prone and stick your foot out side the shooting area your outside the shooting area figure out how to shoot the stage inside the shooting area.

It has nothing to do with "figuring out how to shoot a stage". Its about having the penalty equal the action. Minor violations should not carry huge penalties, major violations should.

[steel1212]

So lets go back to just issuing 2 penalties per NS hit. Unless the shooter was gaining an advantage by going to fast then we'll just use the per shot. I like black and white rules it takes out the judgement calls, it either is or is not, not maybe sometimes or maybe sometimes not.

Cute -- but seriously off topic.....

The significant advantage language in the faulting has been around -- essentially unchanged -- since long before you came into the game. (For that matter it was already the rule when I joined.)

The two max per no-shoot -- I can remember a time before, during and thankfully after that rule....

its off topic because you don't agree with it? Its along the same lines because it leaves the question up to the RO as to what is gaining a significant competitive advantage instead of it being black and white in the rule book its left up to interpretation. Then on top of that Flex points out another simple solution of simply stating that if you fault the line it will be one shot per in the WSB. You don't seem to like that either because that eliminates the shooter from trying to gain the advantage over a RO that doesn't know better by arguing your way out of the one shot per.

[steel1212]

What because somebody can't figure out how to shoot a stage with in the shooting area? If you blow through a fault line or if you go prone and stick your foot out side the shooting area your outside the shooting area figure out how to shoot the stage inside the shooting area.

It has nothing to do with "figuring out how to shoot a stage". Its about having the penalty equal the action. Minor violations should not carry huge penalties, major violations should.

Then don't put your foot outside of the line and you won't get the procedural. Don't shoot the no shoot 5 times and you won't get those either. In the end it doesn't matter because that isn't the way the rules are written and I'll just have to live with the RM says.

[Skydiver]

I'll concede right off the bat that it's impossible to ensure that at most Level 1 matches -- really in any match that utilizes embedded ROs. It's pretty easy to ensure in big matches, with a dedicated staff on the stages....

The clubs in my section have been trying to address the consistency issue of embedded ROs by having an RO/squad leader walkthrough all the stages right before the shooter's meeting. It lets the MD/RM declare ahead of time what calls should be made for particular situations, as well as let the RO's to ask any questions about other situations they foresee with the stages like legal start positions or stage gaming. It's also provides for another set of eyes to fix issues with a stage before the first shots go downrange.

[Supermoto]

Then don't put your foot outside of the line and you won't get the procedural. Don't shoot the no shoot 5 times and you won't get those either. In the end it doesn't matter because that isn't the way the rules are written and I'll just have to live with the RM says.

The rules are fine. The only time you run into a problem is when shooter is dishonest or RO thinks they're paid by the procedural.

[steel1212]

Then don't put your foot outside of the line and you won't get the procedural. Don't shoot the no shoot 5 times and you won't get those either. In the end it doesn't matter because that isn't the way the rules are written and I'll just have to live with the RM says.

The rules are fine. The only time you run into a problem is when shooter is dishonest or RO thinks they're paid by the procedural.

Thats your opinion, obviously others disagree or there wouldn't be 66 posts :-)

[Supermoto]

Thats your opinion, obviously others disagree or there wouldn't be 66 posts :-)

And yours is your opinion, obviously USPSA disagrees or the rule book would be written differently

Edited August 24, 2011 by Supermoto

[steel1212]

Thats your opinion, obviously others disagree or there wouldn't be 66 posts :-)

And yours is your opinion, obviously USPSA disagree or the rule book would be written differently

Like I said in an earlier post, I'll have to live with it. But I'm a big boy I think I can handle it.

[Singlestack]

Easy fellows.

[Singlestack]

I dislike the judgment call too. Put me in the per shot camp.

If it was not an advantage, then why are you faulting it?

[steel1212]

Easy fellows.

Its all good. Gotta know when to agree to disagree. As it stands my opinion is just that as it contradicts the current rule book. Thats fine I don't have to agree with it I just have to follow it.....I like to speed too

[Poppa Bear]

Foot faults are part of stage design. Good design has clear faults that make it easy to determine an advantage or not. My problem area with fault lines might be like the 2004 match video linked to earlier. Going prone in a small shooting area that makes it easy for a 6 foot plus competitor to fault while being much more difficult for the shooter under 6 foot to fault. It cannot be helped though because we also have to deal with 6 foot plus competitors being able to see over No Shoots that block most peoples vision and vertically challenged shooters :roflol: that can shoot under obstacles that restrict those of us who are taller.

My thought is make it easy and tack one procedural per shot fired. It will not take long for the people to learn to not fault lines or at least get them to speak up if they notice sand and gravel building up as the squads run through so that it can be pushed back into place. They will also spend a little more time checking their shooting position to see what they can shoot without faulting. A big part of the game is mental.

Some will say that is too harsh because it might be the difference between winning the match or losing the match. Look at the number of shooters that DQ'ed at Area 3 because they lost focus. A DQ is a lot harder on your match then accruing a bunch of procedurals on a stage.

[carlosa]

How about this. A foot fault is there to prevent somebody from gaining an advantage right? So why isn't it one shot per while outside of the fault line. I never understood why, in reference to the foot fault, it could be not be considered a significant advantage the fault line is there to keep you in a certain place and you stepped over it. Its simple scoring to have it one shot per.

I would support a rule change like this.

If you don't want the penalties, don't fault the line.

This can be very irritating when local clubs use yellow tape instead of 2 inch wooden planks to draw the shooting area..

People at one of the clubs I attend love to give foot faults over boarders you can't even feel..

One of the ro's tried to give me 6 procedurals for stepping on the tape once..

[twodownzero]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

It's consistently defining the "crime" that is at issue here.

Foot touching outside the box/fault line seems a like an easy way of doing so.

Does it compare with other types of procedural errors? Why is this one so much worse that it needs to be one per shot?

In fact, I might favor 1 per occurrence no matter what, and just DQ the competitor for unsportsmanlike conduct if they did it deliberately. One penalty per seems to be manifestly beyond the "crime" in the vast majority of incidents.

If it was not an advantage, then why are you faulting it?

Innocent errors need not incur such a harsh penalty.

[Jim Norman]

A 5-0 shooter and a 6-0 shooter on the same COF both fault shooting around the end of a wall. Same advantage??? Shooter's foot is in exactly the same place for both shooters. 5-0 would need to go to both sides without faulting, 6-0 can see everything regardless of fault.

This is why setting the penalty as per shot is bad. Problem is with embedded ROs we are never sure what the call will be. Ideally the 6-tall guy gets one, no advantage and the short guy gets per shot since in his case he gained and advantage. So is it bad design? do we have no choice but to maintain the current system? I tink that some specific non-exclusive examples inserted into the rules similar to USGH examples might be the answer.

Oh and yes, I have modified my position in light of having given the subject more thought.