What's The Definition of a Significant Advantage?

[Singlestack]

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.

The more I think about it, the more I like this. Makes sense on several levels.

(I didn't think of it because I just want to wack shooters with match-killin procedurals )

[sperman]

The only thing worse than whacking every shooter over the head with match-killin penalties, is only whacking some shooters over the head, when they all committed the same offense.

Edited October 29, 2011 by sperman

[wide45]

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.

Realistically, this won't work. Asking the RM to find all the possible problem areas, and write them into the WSB just is not going to happen.

Being a good RO requires knowledge of the rules, and some judgment. That won't change.

The problem seems to be that we have too many bad RO's. That can change.

Edited October 29, 2011 by wide45

[Singlestack]

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.

Realistically, this won't work. Asking the RM to find all the possible problem areas, and write them into the WSB just is not going to happen.

Your probably right. It's too easy and makes too much sense. I mean really, how hard is to spot areas where someone would have to lean to take a target and then write a line in the wsb like "Faulting the line while engaging T4 and T5 will incur per shot penalties."

And whats so bad if they choose not to write it up?

[Sarge]

The problem seems to be that we have too many bad RO's.

deleted

Edited October 30, 2011 by Kevin Sanders

[wide45]

.....I mean really, how hard is to spot areas where someone would have to lean to take a target and then write a line in the wsb like "Faulting the line while engaging T4 and T5 will incur per shot penalties."....

If this was so easy you would be doing it now.

[Singlestack]

.....I mean really, how hard is to spot areas where someone would have to lean to take a target and then write a line in the wsb like "Faulting the line while engaging T4 and T5 will incur per shot penalties."....

If this was so easy you would be doing it now.

Good point. It would also open a huge can of worms.

[Nik Habicht]

.....I mean really, how hard is to spot areas where someone would have to lean to take a target and then write a line in the wsb like "Faulting the line while engaging T4 and T5 will incur per shot penalties."....

If this was so easy you would be doing it now.

Good point. It would also open a huge can of worms.

Here's the other contrary point -- and why this won't work:

Currently if someone faults a line with a toe touch you can assess them a single procedural, and assess the competitor who runs 40 yards downrange one per shot......

I'm not in favor of changing the rule -- I'm in favor of improving the officiating.....

That said, if we deemed it necessary to amend it, I'd favor a per shot fired stipulation for those matches that use embedded, rather than dedicated ROs.....

[Singlestack]

.....I mean really, how hard is to spot areas where someone would have to lean to take a target and then write a line in the wsb like "Faulting the line while engaging T4 and T5 will incur per shot penalties."....

If this was so easy you would be doing it now.

Good point. It would also open a huge can of worms.

Here's the other contrary point -- and why this won't work:

Currently if someone faults a line with a toe touch you can assess them a single procedural, and assess the competitor who runs 40 yards downrange one per shot......

I'm not in favor of changing the rule -- I'm in favor of improving the officiating.....

That said, if we deemed it necessary to amend it, I'd favor a per shot fired stipulation for those matches that use embedded, rather than dedicated ROs.....

That was the "huge can of worms" I was refering too. I'm back on the per shot no matter what.

[Chris iliff]

RO'd Indiana over the weekend. Stage had a shooting area with a box outside. WSB said to step inside shooting area before shooting. Buzzer goes off and guy draws and fires 8 rounds. I gave him 1 procedural.

Talking to another RO I learn he would have given him more. CRO said one and agreed with me.

Now here's the thing. A lot of competitors don't know when

they should call for a CRO/RM. They just eat the call thinking they screwed up. You don't know what you don't

know.

After talking to the first RO it occured to me that his reasoning was reasonable. Not my reasoning, but

reasonable. Now to a competitor that's not rule savvy,

thats stage death. Guy doesn't even know or THINK that anything is wrong. His RO was reasonable and he thinks

he just muffed it.

This can not be trained. We can't train every competitor.

Although I feel like my reasoning is correct and I make good judgements, I would prefer the "1 penalty per shot" rule. It would actually protect the silent majority of non rule savvy shooters. Which I think probably far outnumber the rule savvy crowd. IMHO

Edited October 31, 2011 by Chris iliff

[Flexmoney]

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.

Nah...I'd just shoot everything from outside the fault lines and eat the one "occurrence".

[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.

Nah...I'd just shoot everything from outside the fault lines and eat the one "occurrence".

Nah....10.6

[sperman]

Or at the very least, 2.3.1.1.a

[Flexmoney]

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.

Nah...I'd just shoot everything from outside the fault lines and eat the one "occurrence".

Nah....10.6

Never...ever.

We shoot a free-style sport. Design and write up better stages. Don't ever get in the mindset of a FTDR.

[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.

Nah...I'd just shoot everything from outside the fault lines and eat the one "occurrence".

Nah....10.6

Never...ever.

We shoot a free-style sport. Design and write up better stages. Don't ever get in the mindset of a FTDR.

I was thinking more along the lines of doing it on every stage. I would think you would really be pushing "free-style" sport.

[Gary Stevens]

I have always taught and also made rulings as an RM, that we should look for specific things. Did the shooter get a view of more targets than were visible from within the fault line. Did they get a better angle on the target. Did they get closer to the target, not by an inch or two either. Did they get a more stable platform. I don't normally over turn the RO/CRO's call, but often after a discussion and pointing out to them they will need to explain and justify the per shot fired penalty at an ARB committee, they often assess one penalty rather than a per shot.

I had a call at Area 8 a couple of years ago after a heavy rain. The earth had piled up around a fault line. It was normal to stand on the fault line at this position. I did over turn that penalty on the basis that if the crew had kept the earth raked away from that spot the shooter would have been able to feel being outside of the fault line. In this case the earth was at the same level as the fault lne which in effect made it no fault line.

Talking your way through these issues can be helpful.

Gary

[lcs]

I have always taught and also made rulings as an RM, that we should look for specific things. Did the shooter get a view of more targets than were visible from within the fault line. Did they get a better angle on the target. Did they get closer to the target, not by an inch or two either. Did they get a more stable platform. I don't normally over turn the RO/CRO's call, but often after a discussion and pointing out to them they will need to explain and justify the per shot fired penalty at an ARB committee, they often assess one penalty rather than a per shot.

I had a call at Area 8 a couple of years ago after a heavy rain. The earth had piled up around a fault line. It was normal to stand on the fault line at this position. I did over turn that penalty on the basis that if the crew had kept the earth raked away from that spot the shooter would have been able to feel being outside of the fault line. In this case the earth was at the same level as the fault lne which in effect made it no fault line.

Talking your way through these issues can be helpful.

Gary

I learned that from your class and working for you at matches. All the RM s I have worked with seem to follow the same approach.

[Nik Habicht]

I have always taught and also made rulings as an RM, that we should look for specific things. Did the shooter get a view of more targets than were visible from within the fault line. Did they get a better angle on the target. Did they get closer to the target, not by an inch or two either. Did they get a more stable platform. I don't normally over turn the RO/CRO's call, but often after a discussion and pointing out to them they will need to explain and justify the per shot fired penalty at an ARB committee, they often assess one penalty rather than a per shot.

I had a call at Area 8 a couple of years ago after a heavy rain. The earth had piled up around a fault line. It was normal to stand on the fault line at this position. I did over turn that penalty on the basis that if the crew had kept the earth raked away from that spot the shooter would have been able to feel being outside of the fault line. In this case the earth was at the same level as the fault lne which in effect made it no fault line.

Talking your way through these issues can be helpful.

Gary

I learned that from your class and working for you at matches. All the RM s I have worked with seem to follow the same approach.

What Gary's saying mirrors what I've heard from George, both in classes and at matches.....

And I've seen what Larry's seen from other RMs as well....

I'm also crazy enough, when working as an RM to talk through the major potential penalty issues I see during a staff walkthrough the night before the match. If we can identify the potential holes, and discuss our approach to dealing with the situation, it makes the actual match run smoother and faster, as well as more consistently....

I learned that from your class and working for you at matches. All the RM s I have worked with seem to follow the same approach.....

[ihatepickles]

Read this thread a few weeks ago, put it to use this weekend. I accidentally backed out of a fault line and in the process fired 2 shots. The targets weren't more easily engaged from where I stepped out. The RO assessed 2 Procedurals. I argued no significant advantage was gained and he realized per shot penalty wasn't justified. It was amended to a single Procedural.

Know the rules, just saying... Thanks for the thread, it's been a good one.

[Chris iliff]

I was your RO. Might not have been so lucky with someone else.

That match was my RO low point for big matches Thanks for your quick questioning. I was on autopilot or something and knew immediately "no significant advantage" as soon as you spoke up.

Hope your match went well!!

Edited November 2, 2011 by Chris iliff

[ihatepickles]

I was your RO. Might not have been so lucky with someone else.

That match was my RO low point for big matches Thanks for your quick questioning. I was on autopilot or something and knew immediately "no significant advantage" as soon as you spoke up.

Hope your match went well!!

Don't be too hard on yourself, as I recall we were the first squad through that bay (maybe second?) so the RO juices weren't fully flowing on a chilly fall morning. The match was quality and the ROs were a huge part of that experience.

[Coach]

RO'd Indiana over the weekend. Stage had a shooting area with a box outside. WSB said to step inside shooting area before shooting. Buzzer goes off and guy draws and fires 8 rounds. I gave him 1 procedural.

Talking to another RO I learn he would have given him more. CRO said one and agreed with me.

Now here's the thing. A lot of competitors don't know when

they should call for a CRO/RM. They just eat the call thinking they screwed up. You don't know what you don't

know.

After talking to the first RO it occured to me that his reasoning was reasonable. Not my reasoning, but

reasonable. Now to a competitor that's not rule savvy,

thats stage death. Guy doesn't even know or THINK that anything is wrong. His RO was reasonable and he thinks

he just muffed it.

This can not be trained. We can't train every competitor.

Although I feel like my reasoning is correct and I make good judgements, I would prefer the "1 penalty per shot" rule. It would actually protect the silent majority of non rule savvy shooters. Which I think probably far outnumber the rule savvy crowd. IMHO

I had to eat 7 procedurals for faulting a line in the same match on a different stage. I faulted the line with each shot the same way you described. One guy gets one and other guy gets 7. Hmmm. I asked RM and he talked to the RO and ruled per shot.

[Skydiver]

Does the significant advantage also take into account the shooter's build? For a tall shooter to have a toe touching outside the fault line as they try to lean around wall is probably going to be a negligible advantage, but for a short shooter that extra 1 or 2 inches may make the shot significantly easier. So the tall shooter gets only 1 procedural, but the short shooter gets a per shot procedural? (And then the flip side also come back as noted earlier in this thread about shooters going prone: no significant advantage for the short shooter whose foot touches outside the fault lines, but significant for a tall shooter.)

[Gary Stevens]

Does the significant advantage also take into account the shooter's build? For a tall shooter to have a toe touching outside the fault line as they try to lean around wall is probably going to be a negligible advantage, but for a short shooter that extra 1 or 2 inches may make the shot significantly easier. So the tall shooter gets only 1 procedural, but the short shooter gets a per shot procedural? (And then the flip side also come back as noted earlier in this thread about shooters going prone: no significant advantage for the short shooter whose foot touches outside the fault lines, but significant for a tall shooter.)

I would say it is the totality of the situation that should be the deciding factor. That being said, I don't think I would give too much "weight" (no pun intended) to the physical build of the shooter.

[ihatepickles]

I had to eat 7 procedurals for faulting a line in the same match on a different stage. I faulted the line with each shot the same way you described. One guy gets one and other guy gets 7. Hmmm. I asked RM and he talked to the RO and ruled per shot.

So with your foot fault, did you gain a significant advantage? I shot the match, can you name the stage or describe it?