What's The Definition of a Significant Advantage?

[JKSNIPER]

Good point Nik that the staff at a match would be well advised, whenever practical, to do a walk through prior to the match to iron out any issues and a Q&A session would help out with any confusion over rules and how to apply them to a particular COF.

IMHO the staff at any match is not recognized enough...remember they're all volunteers donating their time so others can have fun and shoot.

Because the RO on a stage may not be as observant or knowledgable as the shooter is no reason to berate, belittle, or malign them.

I'm sure 99.9&% of them are truly trying to do a great job under difficult circumstances..not easy to resolve a dispute when you have an "audience" of X # of shooters PLUS the shooter who just shot the COF and time keepers etc....all looking to see what your ruling on a possible violation will be.

When things and calls don't go our way....and the boiler starts to heat up.....Lets all of us try and remember that if not for these people volunteering we wouldn't have a match to shoot in the first place.

JK

[Skydiver]

For matches with a dedicated staff for stages, the staff match is gives the RO's, CRO's, and other match officials a chance to "gel" as they shoot the stages. It answers the preliminary questions about the stages as the last bugs are worked out, and any other questions that may come up for the main match are hashed out. In my experience, this "gelling" period also provides an opportunity for the staff to have confidence each other so that when it's time to make a hard call, everybody feels that they are on the same page. It lessens the "pressure" that an RO or CRO feels when they have to make a call, and it gives them confidence to talk to the RM to either confirm the call, or not have any feelings hurt should the RM overturn the call.

[West Texas Granny]

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.

+1

+1

As it should be. So why is it not a per shot penalty?

[Yardbird]

If it's a wide open array and your toe touches down over the fault line there's no advantage gained whatsoever.

[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.

+1

+1

As it should be. So why is it not a per shot penalty?

Because there's a difference between an advantage and a significant advantage...... :devil:

Much like there's a difference between speeding 10 mph over the limit and more than 30 mph over the limit in my state: The former will get you a ticket, if caught, the latter just might result in an immediate trip to see the judge....

[JKSNIPER]

Nik,

Thats whats so hard to define....when does it go from an advantage to being a significant advantage?

Everyone says to rely on an RO's judgement and thats fine if we had the same RO judging the entire match.

Maybe I feel that going 5 feet over a line constitutes a sig. adv. to shooter "A" but going 4 feet did not.

Maybe the next RO would say going 3 feet meant a significant advantage.

Its just too subjective....theres no way to define it to anyone satisfaction.

At top levels the shooters in the top five spots might be separated by only a few points so shooter "A" who faults intentionally to gain time on a stage may gain a significant advantage that will not show up until later on when all the scoring has been tabulated.

Thats why I say get rid of the lang saying significant advantage and just penalize the guy for each shot fired over the fault line.

I must agree with the camp that states if a guy knows he's going to incur a penalty for each shot fired then he will be VERY careful where he places his feet.

Also the RO is not put on the spot trying to figure out if the guy gained an advantage or a significant advantage in faulting.

JK

[remoandiris]

The only match I'm aware of where the same RO's work the stage from start to finish is Nationals. I've worked a couple of sectionals this year, and the RM never came around to discuss how foot faults should be applied. That may be how it SHOULD be done, but it rarely happens that way.

This year's Fl state match (main match, not RO/early shooters on Friday) had dedicated ROs.

So what happened if someone committed a foot fault on Friday? Those guys don't deserve to have the rules applied the same as the rest of the match?

Who is to say the rules weren't applied to the same to everyone?

[sperman]

The only match I'm aware of where the same RO's work the stage from start to finish is Nationals. I've worked a couple of sectionals this year, and the RM never came around to discuss how foot faults should be applied. That may be how it SHOULD be done, but it rarely happens that way.

This year's Fl state match (main match, not RO/early shooters on Friday) had dedicated ROs.

So what happened if someone committed a foot fault on Friday? Those guys don't deserve to have the rules applied the same as the rest of the match?

Who is to say the rules weren't applied to the same to everyone?

You're right. I screwed up when I responded to your post.

What I should have said was:

Having different RO's on Friday doesn't qualify as having the same RO on the stage from the start of the match to the finish.

[remoandiris]

The only match I'm aware of where the same RO's work the stage from start to finish is Nationals. I've worked a couple of sectionals this year, and the RM never came around to discuss how foot faults should be applied. That may be how it SHOULD be done, but it rarely happens that way.

This year's Fl state match (main match, not RO/early shooters on Friday) had dedicated ROs.

So what happened if someone committed a foot fault on Friday? Those guys don't deserve to have the rules applied the same as the rest of the match?

Who is to say the rules weren't applied to the same to everyone?

You're right. I screwed up when I responded to your post.

What I should have said was:

Having different RO's on Friday doesn't qualify as having the same RO on the stage from the start of the match to the finish.

I'll give you that. So you're advocating ROs shouldn't shoot matches they work. Is that you're position? If so, how do MDs/RMs get ROs to work matches?

[Jim Norman]

Area 8 and also the Double Tap have dedicated ROs and the RM visits.

[sperman]

Jim,

I see your scores are included in both the 2011 Area 8 results and the 2011 Double Tap results. The match may have dedicated RO's on most of the days, but there must be different RO's when the staff shoots the match. Some people are saying that dedicated RO's solve the "significant advantage" problem. The ONLY match I am aware of where the same RO's work the stage for EVERY shooter is Nationals. Since we rely on the RO's judgment to determine what constitutes a significant advantage, it opens the possibility to different interpretations with different RO's.

I'm NOT advocating that the staff shouldn't be able to shoot the match. I will stop working matches if I have to make a choice between working or shooting. I AM advocating eliminating the "significant advantage" wording and applying a per shot penalty for every offense.

[Jim Norman]

Actually what we do is the ROs for each stage RO the ROs on their respective stages. Therefore the ROs for the ROs are the same ROs as for the rest of the shooters. No one RO ROs the entire match, the team of 2-4 usually take turns running squads. One RO running 10 squads a day for 3 days is likely going to wear out most of us. But the same crew on a stage for the whole match is achievable.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Jim Norman

[Sarge]

I know this horse is long dead but I'm going to whip it one more time.

In a local match where you don't have dedicated RM etc how in the world can you make a call on a significant advantage especially since there is no clear definition of one or clear examples of one.

I was shooting with a friend last night and he stepped out to the side of a wall to engage three targets to his direct front. He stepped out with one foot instead of leaning around the wall like every other shooter did. To me there is no more clear example of a significant advantage than this. It doesn't matter how much of a lean it is, etc.. Especially if you take into account that shooting an open gun it makes dot aquisition easier if you can just draw straight to the target instead of leaning around a wall. Of course he disagreed and I was not about to get into a full fledged debate over a monday night league.

[Schutzenmeister]

I know this horse is long dead but I'm going to whip it one more time.

In a local match where you don't have dedicated RM etc how in the world can you make a call on a significant advantage especially since there is no clear definition of one or clear examples of one.

I was shooting with a friend last night and he stepped out to the side of a wall to engage three targets to his direct front. He stepped out with one foot instead of leaning around the wall like every other shooter did. To me there is no more clear example of a significant advantage than this. It doesn't matter how much of a lean it is, etc.. Especially if you take into account that shooting an open gun it makes dot aquisition easier if you can just draw straight to the target instead of leaning around a wall. Of course he disagreed and I was not about to get into a full fledged debate over a monday night league.

Kevin

First off - EVERY match is required to have a RM, either certified or appointed. Reference: Appendix A1, #4. If your local club isn't designating someone during your Monday night matches, they should be.

Now, to your inquiry ... "Significant advantage" gets WAY over applied. The mere fact that one steps out of bounds, even if it is around a barricade, does not in and of itself rise to the level of "significant." Did they fault the line (or whatever) - Sure. Then give them one procedural. But for it to be "significant" it must give them some kind of a substantial advantage on every shot fired. This is by its very nature a subjective call. Some things to consider:

- Could they see targets they could not have seen had they not faulted?

- Could they see scoring zones (or significantly more of higher zones) than they would have had they not faulted?

- Have they gained a substantial difference in the ability to get a steady sight picture on a target? (And by this, it had better be more than just a little lean!)

- Did it allow them to shoot two-handed where otherwise they would have had to shoot one-handed (due to prop limitations)?

- Did they fault a line by a foot, or 10 feet? (or something in-between?)

If you can't say with a straight face that one procedural penalty would clearly NOT be enough to offset the "advantage" gained by the infraction, then you probably should not be considering it "significant," unless there is a specific rule which REQUIRES it to be per shot. (e.g., Failure to Reload when required 10.2.4, illegal use of one hand 10.2.8.X, etc.)

[ima45dv8]

Mike beat me to it, but I would instead cite 7.3.1:

7.3 Appointment of Officials

7.3.1 Match organizers must [emphasis added], prior to commencement of a match, appoint a Match Director and a Range Master to carry out the duties detailed in these rules. The nominated Range Master should preferably be the most competent and experienced certified Range Official present (see Rule 7.1.6). For Level I and Level II matches a single person may be appointed to be both the Match Director and the Range Master.

That's probably the most overlooked change in the rules I've seen in the last few years.

And that puzzles me. I would expect an MD to want to publically state prior to the start of a match just who is thge person to seek when problems arise. Even it is the MD himself/herself, it at least lets the participants know better than to resolve conflicts in a vacuum.

[Schutzenmeister]

Mike beat me to it, but I would instead cite 7.3.1:

7.3 Appointment of Officials

Thanks! That's actually the rule I really wanted to quote, but I found it in the appendix first. Guess I got lazy!!!

That's probably the most overlooked change in the rules I've seen in the last few years.

[...]

Curious ... 7.3.1 (without looking to see if it's word-for-word) was in the 2004 book, but that is the earliest I can find it. I'm not really certain I'd call it a "change," but I will definitely agree that it is frequently overlooked. However, I would opt the MOST overlooked rule (in this respect) is the number of folks who do not seem to know the difference between the MD and the RM, and the duties of each! For a local match, they're probably the same person, which is where I think much of the confusion originates.

[Seale]

I didn't read every post, but as long as its called the SAME way for EVERY shooter, what does it matter?

[steel1212]

I didn't read every post, but as long as its called the SAME way for EVERY shooter, what does it matter?

That's the issue. It's not

[lcs]

I know this horse is long dead but I'm going to whip it one more time.

In a local match where you don't have dedicated RM etc how in the world can you make a call on a significant advantage especially since there is no clear definition of one or clear examples of one.

I was shooting with a friend last night and he stepped out to the side of a wall to engage three targets to his direct front. He stepped out with one foot instead of leaning around the wall like every other shooter did. To me there is no more clear example of a significant advantage than this. It doesn't matter how much of a lean it is, etc.. Especially if you take into account that shooting an open gun it makes dot aquisition easier if you can just draw straight to the target instead of leaning around a wall. Of course he disagreed and I was not about to get into a full fledged debate over a monday night league.

Kevin, If your going to post to the forum, you need to give a little more background information for everyone. First, the RM (The RM is an RM I might add) on Monday nights allows a half a foot over the line as we use tape for fault lines 90% of the time. Pretty hard to feel tape!

Second, your implying "leaning around the wall like every other shooter did" there was some great lean angle. It was a very minor lean and even less of lean for a 6'3" person. In fact, if I remember correctly, the tape fault line was approximately six inches past the edge of the wall.

Third, the same four targets were engaged that everyone else had to engage. No other targets were gamed or did stepping a half a foot more gain some great advantage.

In the above post by Schutzenmiester, he clearing outlines what an RO should ask himself before applying a per shot penalty. I could really care less what penalties I get on Monday night league, but when penalties are applied incorrectly, I will contest those penalties. I believe I clearly explained to you why "a per shot penalty" was not warranted that night. Either I did not clearly explain my position or you just didn't believe me. (Yes, I was the shooter)

.

[EkuJustice]

prime example of not a significant example would be he video flexmoney posted a while ago where he dropped down and shot an array from the ground and his foot touched past the fault line when doing so. I say one penalty unless its very obvious there is a large advantage gained. I just dont see a foot rolling over the fault line as a significant advantage