What's The Definition of a Significant Advantage?

[Singlestack]

He couldn't tell because he didn't try hard enough to. I don't think it is naive at all to believe a shooter should know where his feet are. What if the ground on the outside of the fault line was not there? Like a 10 foot drop off? Would it be naive to believe he would know where his feet were?

Uh, World Shoot, Defending Champion ??? it's a long match, but 10 points is a lot more than separated 1st from 4th going into the last day of Open. I'm thinking he was trying pretty hard not to give away points like that.

And B, even if it were a 100 foot dropoff right at the other side of the fault line, he'd have been fine. It was only one toe over.

We have "off-limits areas" to simulate 100 foot drops. There's a reason they have to be preceeded by fault lines.

Uh, yep. Defending World Champion and all. If it were a per shot penalty his toe would not have been over. He would have been a lot more careful.

[Nik Habicht]

He couldn't tell because he didn't try hard enough to. I don't think it is naive at all to believe a shooter should know where his feet are. What if the ground on the outside of the fault line was not there? Like a 10 foot drop off? Would it be naive to believe he would know where his feet were?

Uh, World Shoot, Defending Champion ??? it's a long match, but 10 points is a lot more than separated 1st from 4th going into the last day of Open. I'm thinking he was trying pretty hard not to give away points like that.

And B, even if it were a 100 foot dropoff right at the other side of the fault line, he'd have been fine. It was only one toe over.

We have "off-limits areas" to simulate 100 foot drops. There's a reason they have to be preceeded by fault lines.

Uh, yep. Defending World Champion and all. If it were a per shot penalty his toe would not have been over. He would have been a lot more careful.

My biggest issue with not changing the rule, is the amount of shoddy faultline I see. If you can guarantee that fault line will always be high enough above the ground to be felt, then I might get on board. But until that happens, at all matches across the country, at all levels, I'll stay on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it path....."

[Flexmoney]

But we can't have it both ways. And on the local level it is just a different animal. I realize many many people on here only shoot the occasional local match to tune up for a major. But the vast majority of shooting going on is at the local level.

Sure we can. We have plenty of Level 1 exemptions already. If we have to have one or the other -- keep the status quo, and make the RM work....

This rule isn't designed with any kind of exemption in mind.

[Flexmoney]

My biggest issue with not changing the rule, is the amount of shoddy faultline I see. If you can guarantee that fault line will always be high enough above the ground to be felt, then I might get on board. But until that happens, at all matches across the country, at all levels, I'll stay on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it path....."

That is covered in the rule book. Bad fault lines equate to REF.

[lcs]

It's the right call under the current rulebook. I bet if it were a per shot penalty Travis would make sure he didn't fault the line.

I could argue that he gained an advantage over the shooters who made sure their foot landed within the shooting area.

I don't think a per shot penalty is excessive. If you don't want the penalties, make sure you stay within the shooting area. You say it's like declaring a no-shoot to be -100 points. I say your way is like saying we should only count the first hit in a no-shoot.

I'm not going to write Linda and lobby to have this rule changed, but I do think it is a rule that leaves room for penalties to be applied inconsistently.

To me the folks in the camp of "per shoot" seem to equate "advantage" to "significant advantage". Rarely do I see instances of "significant advantage". The adjective "significant" was put in the rule for a reason. Most of the time I see the per shot given, it is used incorrectly. Stepping over a fault line by an inch or two is hardly significant, but it can be!. Most of the time the shooter has screwed up his position and blows his shot anyway.

[Chris iliff]

Nope, I equate "per shot" = " less someone elses judgement call".

It's the inability to standardize the "meaning" of significant advantage. It is not applied the same by all RO's. That's it. Period.

Per shot eliminates all guesswork. But hey, I got funny notions about popper calibration challenges too.

I'm all for being reasonable. Unfortunately that's me. I can't control or inject "reason" in someone else. Therefore, i feel that "per shot" eliminates what I can't control.....other peoples definitions/ ideas.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Chris iliff

[shred]

Uh, yep. Defending World Champion and all. If it were a per shot penalty his toe would not have been over. He would have been a lot more careful.

I doubt it. He wasn't anywhere near the line in the walkthrough. Just the way the prop did it's thing. I don't see an accidental toe over the line being worth 40+ points off.

But, in any case, for people that 'significant' is too hard for the RO to get right (why on earth do we ever trust them with timers???) -- we have a full escalation process to address that all the way up to arbitration.

Arb's are cheap at the local level too-- the fee can't exceed the match fee.

[shred]

Uh, yep. Defending World Champion and all. If it were a per shot penalty his toe would not have been over. He would have been a lot more careful.

I doubt it. He wasn't anywhere near the line in the walkthrough. Just the way the prop did it's thing. I don't see a toe over the line being worth 40+ points off.

But, in any case, for people that think 'significant' is too hard for the RO to get right (why on earth do we ever trust them to get 180 calls right???) -- we have a full escalation process to address that all the way up to arbitration.

Arb's are cheap at the local level too-- the fee can't exceed the match fee.

[jar]

Uh, yep. Defending World Champion and all. If it were a per shot penalty his toe would not have been over. He would have been a lot more careful.

If this penalty is incorrectly applied as often as you state, doesn't he have almost as much incentive to be a lot more careful, since there's a decent chance he'll get a per shot penalty anyway?

[pjb45]

As I remember it was the mud bowl.

Many, many lines/boards, etc was covered over with mud, water, straw, etc. It was impossible in some places to know where the fault line was really located.

Toes over a line did not provide him a significant advantage. TT is a true sportsman and did not argue the call (to the best of my knowledge). So maybe his Karma took over and made up for it the following year.

From a personal perspective, I did not agree with the call.

Again, at last year's National, the fault line/board was difficult for me to feel with my foot. My foot touch the other side. It did not alter my body to provide me with an advantage at shooting the target array. The CRO call per shot fired. The MD came and said no significant advantage gained, hence one penalty.

A shooter before me, incurred the same problem and said nothing. I unfortunately questioned the call. The CRO changed the other shooters score also.

To me significant advantage means just that, Did moving beyond the fault line provide a better opportunity to score more hits in a shorter time? Then that is significant advantage. IF not, then no significant advantage.

[Sarge]

Uh, yep. Defending World Champion and all. If it were a per shot penalty his toe would not have been over. He would have been a lot more careful.

I doubt it. He wasn't anywhere near the line in the walkthrough. Just the way the prop did it's thing. I don't see an accidental toe over the line being worth 40+ points off.

But, in any case, for people that 'significant' is too hard for the RO to get right (why on earth do we ever trust them with timers???) -- we have a full escalation process to address that all the way up to arbitration.

Arb's are cheap at the local level too-- the fee can't exceed the match fee.

I don't understand your post about being too hard for RO's to figure out. It's generally not a question of an RO figuring something out. It's all about EVERY RO scoring shooters the same as EVERY OTHER RO.

In my local this week(and for me locals are what I shoot a lot of and they are less structured than majors) we had to step on an activator pad outside the shooting area and then step back in to shoot(of course). There were two separate activators in two separate areas of the stage. A D level shooter stepped on one pad and fired from it, then when he stepped on the other one he remembered to get back into the shooting area. For him this meant looking down and very deliberately getting his foot back in bounds and then reaquiring targets. In his case it was a pretty significant advantage to shoot from the pad.

[sperman]

Again, at last year's National, the fault line/board was difficult for me to feel with my foot. My foot touch the other side. It did not alter my body to provide me with an advantage at shooting the target array. The CRO call per shot fired. The MD came and said no significant advantage gained, hence one penalty.

A shooter before me, incurred the same problem and said nothing. I unfortunately questioned the call. The CRO changed the other shooters score also.

This is a perfect example of the problem with the rule. At the Nationals, the CRO and RM weren't on the same page as to whether or not it was a significant advantage. I wonder how many shooters before you got per shot penalties. (Sure he changed the score of the other shooter on your squad, but there's no way he could go back and fix everyone who faulted on that stage, assuming others did.) Maybe a per shot penalty is excessive, but at least it would be applied consistently.

[shred]

Uh, that's why you appeal to the RM if you don't agree with the call. Happens all the time and not just on foot faults.

[Nik Habicht]

My biggest issue with not changing the rule, is the amount of shoddy faultline I see. If you can guarantee that fault line will always be high enough above the ground to be felt, then I might get on board. But until that happens, at all matches across the country, at all levels, I'll stay on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it path....."

That is covered in the rule book. Bad fault lines equate to REF.

Yep. And then you get the club that doesn't own enough, and winds up using firehose because they have that and someone designed a stage with 40 yards of fault line.....

Should that happen? Nope. Does it? Yup.....

I'm all about elevating the quality of the game -- but I'm also pragmatic enough to know that it often takes time.....

[Nik Habicht]

Uh, that's why you appeal to the RM if you don't agree with the call. Happens all the time and not just on foot faults.

Actually, this is where smart RMs discuss the likely problem areas with their match staff, and decide how to call it ahead of time.....

It's much faster and more consistent if everyone on the staff is on the same page before the first shot goes off.....

[Flexmoney]

Should that happen? Nope. Does it? Yup.....

And, when it does happen, it is a reshoot for REF. Nuff said. (I'm the one that argued for the current rules which allowed for clubs to use fault line they had...as long as it worked on their range. )

[Nik Habicht]

Should that happen? Nope. Does it? Yup.....

And, when it does happen, it is a reshoot for REF. Nuff said. (I'm the one that argued for the current rules which allowed for clubs to use fault line they had...as long as it worked on their range. )

You're not the only one......

I bent George's ear pretty good on that one too.....

[sperman]

Uh, that's why you appeal to the RM if you don't agree with the call. Happens all the time and not just on foot faults.

Shouldn't we strive to have consistent rules, and RO's that apply them appropriately? You're the 2nd person in as many weeks that told me that it's too bad the CRO blew the call. The shooter should have asked for the RM. How about we do our best to get it right the first time?

[pjb45]

Perhaps they did their best at that time.

Hindsight is usually 20/20.

Humans make errors no matter how tight the rules might be.

It is just a game. Bad calls happen, even in professional sports with professionally trained officials.

Do you expect gnats ass tight rules will prevent errors?

[Nik Habicht]

Uh, that's why you appeal to the RM if you don't agree with the call. Happens all the time and not just on foot faults.

Shouldn't we strive to have consistent rules, and RO's that apply them appropriately? You're the 2nd person in as many weeks that told me that it's too bad the CRO blew the call. The shooter should have asked for the RM. How about we do our best to get it right the first time?

Sure, we should strive to get it right the first time -- experienced ROs, CROs, and RMs do that.....

How do they get to be experienced? Generally by blowing a call, and having the shooter appeal it. Then the call makes its way up the chain, and is eventually overturned -- at which point the RO generally gets an explanation of why the call was overturned, and what the thinking was behind the decision. Essentially it becomes a teachable moment....

That's the only way it works with volunteer officials of diverse backgrounds....

Doesn't mean we should dumb down the game, to make it easier to officiate....

[Singlestack]

Uh, that's why you appeal to the RM if you don't agree with the call. Happens all the time and not just on foot faults.

Shouldn't we strive to have consistent rules, and RO's that apply them appropriately? You're the 2nd person in as many weeks that told me that it's too bad the CRO blew the call. The shooter should have asked for the RM. How about we do our best to get it right the first time?

Sure, we should strive to get it right the first time -- experienced ROs, CROs, and RMs do that.....

How do they get to be experienced? Generally by blowing a call, and having the shooter appeal it. Then the call makes its way up the chain, and is eventually overturned -- at which point the RO generally gets an explanation of why the call was overturned, and what the thinking was behind the decision. Essentially it becomes a teachable moment....

That's the only way it works with volunteer officials of diverse backgrounds....

Doesn't mean we should dumb down the game, to make it easier to officiate....

I don't think anybody is wanting to dumb the game down. What I'm seeing is a desire to remove the subjectivity and add consistency.

[Nik Habicht]

Uh, that's why you appeal to the RM if you don't agree with the call. Happens all the time and not just on foot faults.

Shouldn't we strive to have consistent rules, and RO's that apply them appropriately? You're the 2nd person in as many weeks that told me that it's too bad the CRO blew the call. The shooter should have asked for the RM. How about we do our best to get it right the first time?

Sure, we should strive to get it right the first time -- experienced ROs, CROs, and RMs do that.....

How do they get to be experienced? Generally by blowing a call, and having the shooter appeal it. Then the call makes its way up the chain, and is eventually overturned -- at which point the RO generally gets an explanation of why the call was overturned, and what the thinking was behind the decision. Essentially it becomes a teachable moment....

That's the only way it works with volunteer officials of diverse backgrounds....

Doesn't mean we should dumb down the game, to make it easier to officiate....

I don't think anybody is wanting to dumb the game down. What I'm seeing is a desire to remove the subjectivity and add consistency.

What I'm seeing is a desire to whack all competitors at all levels of matches over the head with penalties, in order to deal with a problem created by not having dedicated stage staff......

Now, that problem could be fixed in a few different ways -- for those matches that run with embedded ROs, while leaving matches with dedicated staff alone......

[sperman]

What about adding something like this to 10.2.1:

Unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, penalties will always be assessed per occurrence (not per shot.)

All I'm looking for is a way to ensure that the rule is applied consistently to all competitors during the match.

[shred]

What about adding something like this to 10.2.1:

Unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, penalties will always be assessed per occurrence (not per shot.)

All I'm looking for is a way to ensure that the rule is applied consistently to all competitors during the match.

That would be better, as-would marking the WSB diagram for areas of concern, but there's still the problem of the guy that accidentally hangs a toe out of a cramped box because he's 6'8" tall or whatever, and the guy that takes two steps past the line to shoot a whole raft of targets they're not supposed to.

It's just not that hard to appeal RO calls, even at a local roving-RO match. 99% of the time around here the lines are used to guide shooter movement, not to whack them over the head with you-missed-the-dance-step penalties and I see no reason to change that.

[lcs]

What about adding something like this to 10.2.1:

Unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, penalties will always be assessed per occurrence (not per shot.)

All I'm looking for is a way to ensure that the rule is applied consistently to all competitors during the match.

Works for me.