What's The Definition of a Significant Advantage?

[Singlestack]

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.

Well what about forgetting a mag change. Innocent error, right? Or do you want to DQ him too?

The faulting shooter gained an advantage no matter how you look at it. Either he did not have to pay as much attention to his feet as everyone else did or he did not have to lean as far as everyone else did.

[Flexmoney]

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...."

If you are pre-defining how you are going to call a 180, you were mis-informed on how that should be called. It is called by observation of the gun during the course of fire. I see some that like to draw a "Qadhafi line" (aka: shoot here = DQ). That is not how it should be called.

So you'd like us to mention all of the "pre-decided" calls in the WSB at major matches?

If you have taken the time and trouble to do the pre-defining, then absolutely...YES!

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

You didn't suggest it was too much work for the RO to have to read an extra line of clarity in the WSB?

[Flexmoney]

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.

That falls apart during the match, from my observations. The RO's don't always get it...and end up on different pages.

If it is worth discussing in the first place...put it in the WSB. Then, if there is ANY confusion, we have clarity of the EXACT words used...and a process to appeal such.

[Flexmoney]

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?

Poor stage design.

Sometimes lines ought to actually be physical barriers. But, we are used to just using fault lines. (I'm certainly guilty of that)

[Nik Habicht]

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

Because the fault line was fire hose......

Because the fault line had sand/gravel/mud/earth pushed up against it to the point where one couldn't feel it.....

Because the fault line had sunk into the muck.....

Because there was a gap in the fault line -- yep, I've shot at clubs that didn't have enough of it, so there were gaps....

I am amused by the dislike for judgement calls:

ROs are capable of making judgment calls like sweeping, 180 violations, shots into vs. over the berm, finger in the trigger guard.....

ROs are capable of making judgment calls in scoring -- touch the line or not, hit on plate that doesn't fall, hit on plate supporting apparatus that causes plate to fall, etc.

Somehow match staff aren't capable of making a judgment call on significant advantage? I don't agree.....

Now, consistency -- especially at Level 1s, o.k.....

[Nik Habicht]

Innocent errors need not incur such a harsh penalty.

Well what about forgetting a mag change. Innocent error, right? Or do you want to DQ him too?

Blowing through a required mag change is always going to be a significant advantage, that's why it's penalized not only 1 per shot fired, but 1 per shot fired with no upper limit....

.....Well, always for Open and Limited shooters; maybe not as much of an advantage for the other divisions if it's a more than 11 round stage..... :devil:

[lcs]

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.

Your view of the problem is based on your experiences with local matches (by your own admission). I agree there are instances where ROs are not on the same page and bad calls are made. I view this as a chance to teach our less experienced ROs and shooters alike.

Removing "significant advantage" and making every shot a procedural does not address the problem. IMO you punish beginning shooters and not so good more experienced shooters by enacting such a heavy penalty. Most highly experienced shooters hardly ever foot fault so they don't care.

[Schutzenmeister]

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..

Sounds like yet another club needs to be reminded of the provisions of 2.2.1.1. Yellow tape on the ground does not meet the requirements of a fault line. Ergo, penalties cannot be enforced against it. (I've had to remind my own club of this many times ... Especially during the winter when we shoot indoors!)

[Singlestack]

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

Because the fault line was fire hose......

Because the fault line had sand/gravel/mud/earth pushed up against it to the point where one couldn't feel it.....

Because the fault line had sunk into the muck.....

Because there was a gap in the fault line -- yep, I've shot at clubs that didn't have enough of it, so there were gaps....

I am amused by the dislike for judgement calls:

ROs are capable of making judgment calls like sweeping, 180 violations, shots into vs. over the berm, finger in the trigger guard.....

ROs are capable of making judgment calls in scoring -- touch the line or not, hit on plate that doesn't fall, hit on plate supporting apparatus that causes plate to fall, etc.

Somehow match staff aren't capable of making a judgment call on significant advantage? I don't agree.....

Now, consistency -- especially at Level 1s, o.k.....

I'm amused that every call you listed is not a "judgment" call and every reason you gave for faulting a fault line is either poor stage design or could be fixed by the RO.

[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?

Poor stage design.

Sometimes lines ought to actually be physical barriers. But, we are used to just using fault lines. (I'm certainly guilty of that)

Or poor shooter attention to where his feet are.

[Poppa Bear]

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..

Sounds like yet another club needs to be reminded of the provisions of 2.2.1.1. Yellow tape on the ground does not meet the requirements of a fault line. Ergo, penalties cannot be enforced against it. (I've had to remind my own club of this many times ... Especially during the winter when we shoot indoors!)

Mike that is why we use the red industrial tape. It holds 2x2's in place quite well on concrete floors. If you slide into it hard enough you can still knock it loose but that would also be true outside.

On a side note, how are things looking up there? Sounds like you lost a lot of dirt.

The outdoor range we shot at was bought, we hope to get back outside next year.

[Schutzenmeister]

Mike that is why we use the red industrial tape. It holds 2x2's in place quite well on concrete floors. If you slide into it hard enough you can still knock it loose but that would also be true outside.

On a side note, how are things looking up there? Sounds like you lost a lot of dirt.

The outdoor range we shot at was bought, we hope to get back outside next year.

Yep ... Taped down 2x2's work ... Even 1x2's would be OK on a concrete floor. We also use physical barriers ... Like a couple of full boxes of targets. Makes the fault line kind of obvious!

Yeah, we gave up a lot of dirt, but it did save a couple of communities from going under. I don't have to tell you that an underwater mortgage has a rather LITERAL meaning in ND! We're supposed to be reimbursed for all the dirt, but I haven't seen the first check yet. NDOT said they would foot the bill for the labor and equipment to put it back like we want it. It shouldn't take too long ... Hell freezes over EVERY winter in Minot!

Are the new owners of your range interested in keeping it as a shooting range? If so, make nice with them FAST!

[Chris iliff]

I hear you Chris. I have been tagged with this twice. Once I got one per shot, the other one per occurrence. They were slighly different faults. One was a lean out fault line. If you step over it you gain the advantage of not having to lean or have partial targets. I was so pissed at myself for faulting I didn't argue it initially (too late). I complained about it all day, but it was mainly as a reminder to myself

that I was stupid for letting it happen.

The 'one per occurrence' was at IN. I stepped right to open the door, didn't want to flag my hand and that was all I was thinking about. Stepping out and shooting actually put me at a disadvantage as I had to shift to see both targets where as if I were inside the shooting area I could have seen both without moving.

You can see both examples on Youtube. First one was Battle in the Bluegrass. Second was IN state.

I realize your point is that you want there to be no grey area in the rule book. I like the rule as it stands, but having it further defined needs to happen. A different RO (Corey) could have given a procedural for every shot fired outside the fault line regardless of

advantage/disadvantage/planetary status/weather/mood/etc. Then it comes down to which RO you have per given stage.

Here's an example of "No significant advantage". You go prone and your toe hangs over the edge of the fault line. The last 2 shots of an 8 shot array your toe touches the

ground outside the fault line. Where is the SIGNIFICANT

advantage? There is none. One procedural.

This happened to me at my first ever 3 gun match, Area 6 4 years ago.

I was your RO at Indiana State. As you state, you actually shot from a disadvantage, that's my opinion too.

This rule really gripes me. I think it should be worded differently. The problem is that one guy that would take an advantage if it was 1 penalty. We all know someone who would take a procedural to gain time savings on more than 1 target.

[Poppa Bear]

Mike that is why we use the red industrial tape. It holds 2x2's in place quite well on concrete floors. If you slide into it hard enough you can still knock it loose but that would also be true outside.

On a side note, how are things looking up there? Sounds like you lost a lot of dirt.

The outdoor range we shot at was bought, we hope to get back outside next year.

Yep ... Taped down 2x2's work ... Even 1x2's would be OK on a concrete floor. We also use physical barriers ... Like a couple of full boxes of targets. Makes the fault line kind of obvious!

Yeah, we gave up a lot of dirt, but it did save a couple of communities from going under. I don't have to tell you that an underwater mortgage has a rather LITERAL meaning in ND! We're supposed to be reimbursed for all the dirt, but I haven't seen the first check yet. NDOT said they would foot the bill for the labor and equipment to put it back like we want it. It shouldn't take too long ... Hell freezes over EVERY winter in Minot!

Are the new owners of your range interested in keeping it as a shooting range? If so, make nice with them FAST!

They are keeping it as a range so far. The big key is keeping the township board happy with new berms and such. As you know we put a lot into making the range work but the previous owner was happy with 12' berms for the rifle backstop. They are at over 20' now, it will just be what height makes them happy with the pistol berms.

[Sarge]

This happened today.

Shooter moves to the right of the shooting area and steps out and engages 4 targets. But only one target is tucked behind a barrel in such a way as to provide a significant advantage. I made the call to issue two procedurals for the two shots taken at it only. As per most level I's the RO's were traveling with squads. When we finished another squad was waiting for us to finish and some of the RO's there said they would issue one per shot fired period. As you can see this could have created a huge inequity in the scoring. Granted a stage briefing that stated exactly what procedurals were to be issued would have fixed this. But since it was not spelled out I felt I had to make a judgement call.

I must admit this type of situation makes a good argument for one per shot fired always.

[steel1212]

Its another reason why I agree with the one per shot fired standing out side of the fault lines. Its simple, his foot was down its one per. Its consistent. If the MD wants a target to be harder to shoot than others address the fault lines accordingly.

[Nik Habicht]

This happened today.

Shooter moves to the right of the shooting area and steps out and engages 4 targets. But only one target is tucked behind a barrel in such a way as to provide a significant advantage. I made the call to issue two procedurals for the two shots taken at it only. As per most level I's the RO's were traveling with squads. When we finished another squad was waiting for us to finish and some of the RO's there said they would issue one per shot fired period. As you can see this could have created a huge inequity in the scoring. Granted a stage briefing that stated exactly what procedurals were to be issued would have fixed this. But since it was not spelled out I felt I had to make a judgement call.

I must admit this type of situation makes a good argument for one per shot fired always.

For matches with embedded ROs, certainly it's a good argument.....

For matches with a dedicated staff, and an RM, where most/all these areas are identified during the staff walkthrough, not so much.....

[Sarge]

This happened today.

Shooter moves to the right of the shooting area and steps out and engages 4 targets. But only one target is tucked behind a barrel in such a way as to provide a significant advantage. I made the call to issue two procedurals for the two shots taken at it only. As per most level I's the RO's were traveling with squads. When we finished another squad was waiting for us to finish and some of the RO's there said they would issue one per shot fired period. As you can see this could have created a huge inequity in the scoring. Granted a stage briefing that stated exactly what procedurals were to be issued would have fixed this. But since it was not spelled out I felt I had to make a judgement call.

I must admit this type of situation makes a good argument for one per shot fired always.

For matches with embedded ROs, certainly it's a good argument.....

For matches with a dedicated staff, and an RM, where most/all these areas are identified during the staff walkthrough, not so much.....

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.

[sperman]

Unfortunately, there are way too many instances where it isn't handled consistently. Even at level 2 matches, sometimes the ROs shoot on Friday with embedded RO's, or the Friday RO isn't the Saturday RO.

Eliminating the "significant advantage" clause makes sure the penalties are always the same. What is the down side?

[shred]

Unfortunately, there are way too many instances where it isn't handled consistently. Even at level 2 matches, sometimes the ROs shoot on Friday with embedded RO's, or the Friday RO isn't the Saturday RO.

Eliminating the "significant advantage" clause makes sure the penalties are always the same. What is the down side?

The down side is inadvertent, no-advantage-gained faults get excessively penalized. It's like declaring a no-shoot to be -100 points.

At the World Shoot there was a stage where you ran up a giant teeter-totter, then off the other side shot a couple targets at 10+ yards. Travis Tomasie jumps off the board before it hits bottom (a lot of people did this to avoid the shock) and lands with his toe over the line and shoots. The ROs gave him one penalty. That was the right call.

[sperman]

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.

[Nik Habicht]

This happened today.

Shooter moves to the right of the shooting area and steps out and engages 4 targets. But only one target is tucked behind a barrel in such a way as to provide a significant advantage. I made the call to issue two procedurals for the two shots taken at it only. As per most level I's the RO's were traveling with squads. When we finished another squad was waiting for us to finish and some of the RO's there said they would issue one per shot fired period. As you can see this could have created a huge inequity in the scoring. Granted a stage briefing that stated exactly what procedurals were to be issued would have fixed this. But since it was not spelled out I felt I had to make a judgement call.

I must admit this type of situation makes a good argument for one per shot fired always.

For matches with embedded ROs, certainly it's a good argument.....

For matches with a dedicated staff, and an RM, where most/all these areas are identified during the staff walkthrough, not so much.....

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....

[shred]

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.

Travis didn't know he'd done it until the stage was over and the RO called it, confirmed by witnesses in the squad. There was zero advantage.

If the reigning World Champion can't tell if he was over a fault line or not at the World Championship without asking witnesses, then saying "well, just make sure you don't fault the line...." is naive.

Fault lines are currently used to guide shooters like rumble strips on the highway. The 'off-limits' area of the guardrail is well outside the driving area. A mandatory per-shot penalty would significantly change the game.

[Singlestack]

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.

Travis didn't know he'd done it until the stage was over and the RO called it, confirmed by witnesses in the squad. There was zero advantage.

If the reigning World Champion can't tell if he was over a fault line or not at the World Championship without asking witnesses, then saying "well, just make sure you don't fault the line...." is naive.

Fault lines are currently used to guide shooters like rumble strips on the highway. The 'off-limits' area of the guardrail is well outside the driving area. A mandatory per-shot penalty would significantly change the game.

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?

Put me in the ready for significant change camp.

[shred]

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.