What's The Definition of a Significant Advantage?

[Chris iliff]

Yeah Coach, what stage? This "pesky" RO wants to know.

[West Texas Granny]

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

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

Substitute something different next time if the fire hose is causing problems.

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

The competitor should not be penalized for COF degradation. The COF should be the same at the beginning,middle and at the end of the match. If not then those shooting first have an advantage over those shooting later.

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

Not the competitors fault and the competitor should not be penalized because those putting the match on ignore the condition of the COF.

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....

There is no excuse for gaps. They should not exist and no competitor should be penalized because they can't see the imaginary lines. If you can have imaginary lines then you can have imaginary timers and A zone hits.

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.....

Now now grasshopper don't mess with the force. Embrace it. Make it yours. Game the heck out of it.

Edited November 18, 2011 by West Texas Granny

[aztecdriver]

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

Substitute something different next time if the fire hose is causing problems.

The book states what it needs to be...

[Skydiver]

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

Substitute something different next time if the fire hose is causing problems.

The book states what it needs to be...

2.2.1.1 only uses the word "should" for materials to be used for fault lines, but uses the word "must" for the function. Additionally, there is an absolute minimum the size - presumably height since the next sentence recommends a taller height for other surfaces.

2.2.1.1 Shooting Boxes and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material, must be fixed firmly in place, and provide both physical and visual references to competitors. For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75 inch material is the minimum allowable size. On other range surfaces, such as covered with turf, sand, gravel, wood chips or similar, thicker material which rises at least 1.5 inches above the surface is recommended.

I think that if the fire hose is thick enough (0.75 inch or more), is fixed firmly, and provides a physical and visual reference, it should be good.

[Skydiver]

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

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....

There is no excuse for gaps. They should not exist and no competitor should be penalized because they can't see the imaginary lines. If you can have imaginary lines then you can have imaginary timers and A zone hits.

Yeah, I don't think gaps should be allowed.

On the other hand, there is a provision for imaginary lines.

2.2.1.3 Fault Lines extending rearward (uprange) should be a minimum of 3 feet in length, and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, are deemed to extend rearward to infinity.

[West Texas Granny]

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

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....

There is no excuse for gaps. They should not exist and no competitor should be penalized because they can't see the imaginary lines. If you can have imaginary lines then you can have imaginary timers and A zone hits.

Yeah, I don't think gaps should be allowed.

On the other hand, there is a provision for imaginary lines.

2.2.1.3 Fault Lines extending rearward (uprange) should be a minimum of 3 feet in length, and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, are deemed to extend rearward to infinity.

Let me go out on a limb here and presume that rule 2.2.1.3 is for straight lines. Yes . No.

[remoandiris]

Let me go out on a limb here and presume that rule 2.2.1.3 is for straight lines. Yes . No.

Depends on whether you mean the physical lines you see, which could be straight or curved, or if you mean the lines that go to infinity. If you mean the latter, yes, they are straight.

What are you fishing for now?

[JKSNIPER]

I have read with great interest all the rules and opinions on this issue here and the many posts make you think a lot about it.

I must agree with losing the ambiguity of the rule which seems to make it a matter of opinion as to what constitutes a "significant advantage."

What I consider a significant advantage you may not. Common sense rules don't get it done. WHat seems plain to me is confusing to another.

Its better to have clear cut rules and penalties for violating them. Anytime you have a rule thats open to interpretation you can be sure there will be 2 guys ROing a match that are at exact polar opposites.

I like the proposal that the rule should be if you step over the "fault line" and fire 5 rounds then you should receive a penalty for each round fired while over the fault line.

A long time ago my ESU bunch went to the SWAT Round-Up in Orlando Florida. It was around 1990 or 1991.

TEams come from all over the USA and (if I remember correctly) we even had some foreign teams.

During a briefing on a room entry COF there was a "safety line" pointed out to all which consisted of stakes pounded into the ground which left about 6-8" of stake above ground and there were yellow masons line wound around the stakes making the safety line about 6" above ground and pretty noticeable in addition to how you'd have to purposefully step over it.

We were told ahead of time that any stepping over the line while firing would be a "major safety violation" which would then cause the team performing it to be put automatically in last place and add an additional 30 seconds onto the teams time.

Every event called for one person to have to sit out and basically be an observer.

Joe B. was our designated observer for our first event while everyone else was engaged in different portions of the event.

When it was over we looked at our unofficial stopwatch time from Joe who had it as beating teams like LAPD SWAT which had us thinking that we had a real chance in the competition to do well.

But Joe was being VERY quiet and not saying much of anything.

We were partners so while we're waiting on the official results to be posted I go up to him off to the side and ask "Whats up?" He quietly tells me one of my teammates, Pat, stepped over the line when firing and stepped at LEAST 2 steps over the line. All while firing his weapon.

He says "I saw it plain as day through the door way. Pat stepped over the line and kept moving forward while the RO was right there."

The official results get posted and, sure enough, we're in last place plus 30 seconds.

We have a team huddle right there and Joe tells the rest of the team what I already know. Pat vehemently denies doing it.

Our Sgt goes to argue with the officials about it and Pat continues to deny doing it.

The RO who made the call eventually came over to us and explained that he yelled "You're over the line." when Pat took his first step. According to him Pat took 3 additional steps past the line all while firing his weapon.

He says "Sorry guys but if he would have jumped back when I warned him I would have let it go but he kept walking forward while firing."

Pat is practically throwing a hissy fit and we basically tell the guy it's ok buddy you did what you had to do. ( All the Ro's were USMC volunteers from a local USMC base and were extremely professional and courteous)

Pat's violation was confirmed by Joe B. who witnessed the violation.

Pat himself totally denied doing it and had absolutely NO memory of doing it.

My opinion? We deserved the penalty and I considered us damm lucky for not getting thrown out of the competition for having one of our team members perform a major safety violation on our first COF.

Stress does funny things to people. Like Dave Grossman says "Throw some stress at someone and get that heart rate zooming past 220 and the thinking human exits stage right and the gorilla is now running the party."

IMHO if you have a fault line especially one which requires you to make an effort to violate it and you step over it then you should be penalized for every shot you fire.

Now I have shot in matches which had a painted line and I can understand why someone would be a little peeved over being called for violating that line but if theres going to be a serious penalty for going over it then you'll see guys watching VERY carefully where they place their feet.

Also if you make it a hard and fast rule then there's no room for complaints or questioning someone's judgement.

Just my .02

JK

[Skydiver]

That's one judgement call, but there are also judgment calls made about applying procedurals: 4.5.1 (disturbing props and/or surface of the COF), 8.6.2 (coaching), 9.1.1 (shooter gets closer that 3 feet to a target during scoring), and 10.2.2 (not following a stage procedure can be per shot penalty). I think that if we trust an RO to make judgement call for these that I listed, then we should also trust the RO to make a judgement call for 10.2.1 (faulting).

[JKSNIPER]

Skydiver...you're obviously much more "up" on the rules than I am and I'm not being sarcastic....what I know about the rules you could shove up a gnats butt and have room for a clown circus.

Respectfully .....IMHO you're comparing apples to oranges.

The decision on whether or not a violation of the rules has occurred is one thing and the appropriate penalty is a different argument.

Disturbing props is one the RO either sees the person move something he shouldn't or he does not see it.

Closer than 3 feet IS a pretty good one but to negate any "judgement" being involved I think it would behoove stage set up personnel to take a tape measure and mark off the 3 foot line with string or tape, or some other way so theres no argument on whether or not a competitor crossed the 3 foot line.

With my poor eyesight I may get closer just so I can see what the scorer is talking about without any intention of interfering with scoring or breaking the 3 foot rule.

A "barrier" of some sort would make it clear where the shooter can and cannot stand.

I feel the language of the rule needs to be changed.

Even if it's not a per shot penalty the lang that allows for judgement as to what is/is not a "significant advantage" is the problem with the rule.

AND not to be even more evil in my thoughts...... Some competitors will, as one member here suggested, use as part of their intended strategy the intentional breaking of the rule because the penalty given will not impact them enough to justify not breaking the rule.

In other words they will "game it" and figure that "if I break the fault rule I can then gain X and even if the RO catches me the penalty is only Y so I gain more than I lose."

Perhaps the RO is not familiar with the competitors place in the overall match and is not aware that by faulting he IS gaining a significant advantage that will not be made clear until after all the scoring for the entire match is over.

Making it a per shot penalty and removing the "significant advantage" lang from the rule , I feel, will negate the "gaming" and make it a violation that competitors will strive to avoid committing.

JK

[Skydiver]

My point is that if the RO has to make a judgement call whether to even apply a penalty for those other violations, and we trust an RO to make those judgments, then shouldn't we trust the RO to make judgment between applying just one penalty vs a per shot penalty? I feel that we should.

A toe touching outside a fault line may not give the same advantage as the shooter standing with both feet over the fault line. Also remember that there is also the appeal process. The shooter can appeal to the RO, CRO, and RM. I've also seen arb requests with regards to procedurals.

As mentioned previously, I think that for a match to be run consistently, either have dedicated ROs to a stage, or have the match staff walk and discuss the stages prior to the first shot being fired and come to a consensus about one penalty versus per shot penalty for faulting at particular locations.

Anyway, let's say that we change 10.2.1 (foot faults) to a per shot penalty, are we also going to change 10.2.2 (not following stage procedures) or leave that to the RO's judgement about significant advantage being gained?

[remoandiris]

As mentioned previously, I think that for a match to be run consistently, either have dedicated ROs to a stage, or have the match staff walk and discuss the stages prior to the first shot being fired and come to a consensus about one penalty versus per shot penalty for faulting at particular locations.

+1 on dedicated ROs per stage. That way no matter what the call, you have the same person making the call. Will ROs get every call right? No. But until robots take over, the human element is the best option we have. Trust the NROI trained ROs to do their job correctly.

[JKSNIPER]

Good points Skydiver.

I'm not implying that RO's do not possess good judgement. IMHO most if not all are serving the shooting community by volunteering to be Ro's, safety officers, match directors, etc....

I HAVE seen one or 2 that do NOT belong wearing any sort of authoritative role because they lack "people skills".

I believe, and this is only one man's opinion, that the ambiguous language should be entirely stricken from the rule book.

Any time you have a "judgement" call you're going to have disputes over it.

"I got this penalty handed to me while shooter X only got THAT penalty handed to him for the same violation."

Its bad enough to have to deal with a competitor like in my story (Pat) who denies performing the violation, but now we have a dispute over the appropriate penalty.

If the penalty is clearly spelled out "for performing violation X you get penalty Y" ....its one less thing there can be a bone of contention about.

Makes an RO's job easier and cuts down on grumblings and bad feelings from shooters and match personnel alike.

I have served at matches as safety officer and range master for some real doozies of disputes at national lever competitions. NOT fun during them.

I learned that the more you can "nail down" the exact wording of rules and COF's and penalties the less headaches you have to deal with.

Years ago....One nat match sniper comp we have a COF where the weapons start was specified as unloaded.

100% of the competitors use bolt action rifles. Semis just won't hold the accuracy necessary for the type of comp.

99% of the competitors had standard config rifles...you have to load them one round at a time into the internal mag.

A couple enterprising guys found a gunsmith who could make the Rem 700 so that it would accept Accuracy International magazines for their weapon.

These guys kept there mags in their pockets until the start command whereupon they drop down behind their rifles, whip out their fully loaded mags , insert, and proceed to mow down the course while the other teams on the line are still struggling to either load or shoot one round at a time.

Points for creativity, inventiveness, adapting, overcoming, etc.... but the hoo-hah was NOT fun to deal with.

Big head shed among the red shirts and the outcome was that to level the playing field everyone would start with completely unloaded firearms to INCLUDE unloaded external magazines.

Guys who owned these guns cried foul saying they "run what they brung" and shouldn't be penalized because they saw a problem and adapted to solve it.

Guys who owned standard stuff were crying foul because it gave an "unfair advantage" to the guys with external mags.

A Big kahuna head shed followed where it was ruled that THIS year the rule would stand as COMPLETELY UNLOADED but the following year it would be back to run what you brung.

Unhappy guys all around.

I talked with the head guy and said 2 things.

1. If the rule was run what you brung you should foresee guys adapting their equipment to overcome a perceived disadvantage.

They "gamed" it and were successful and shouldn't incur any penalties because of it.

2. A fair is a place where you eat cotton candy and step in elephant crap.

The ruling was made that the teams that had external mags would shoot the COF again this time with unloaded mags to make it "fair" to the other teams.

BUT we STILL had teams crying about it "They have an unfair advantage because they've already shot the COF and are familiar with it and its unfair to our team who had to shoot it cold."

The next day of the competition the big kahuna wound up throwing out that particular COF for everyone in the overall match stats due to the incessant bickering and arguing among the competitors.

AND there was disputes and arguing among some of the staff who sided with one side or the other.

The following year...the match had published prior to the date of the match the policy of run what you brung applied to EVERYTHING .

However......there would be no going to the vehicle for stuff to get your super whiz bang crap thing that you only use for this competition at this particular COF. You had to carry EVERYTHING you'd normally carry on a "call out".

I was briefing one team on a range for this particular COF when the guy asks me "Can I go get my XXXX?"

I said "Sure ( I try to be accommodating) ...if you think you can run there and back before the time runs out you're welcome to go get anything you want to."

That ended a LOT of the gaming by specialized equipment....but the external mag idea survived and is used by a LOT of teams now and is actually a good idea.

Some teams load one mag with their "open air" rounds and one with "intermediate barrier rounds" and tape or otherwise change the mags feel so they can tell the difference by feel in the dark.

My long winded point is that the clear cut rules on the match's policies and penalties would have lessened a lot of grief we took.

The range staff (normally we're on the exact same page for everything) couldn't agree among themselves on a ruling and the judgement calls would have been different depending on which RO you had for that particular COF.

JK

[Coach]

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

[Skydiver]

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

So a per shot penalty for the first shooter in the video in this post? http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16944&view=findpost&p=198846

[Coach]

Yeah Coach, what stage? This "pesky" RO wants to know.

Mine were earned in Bay 5.

[sperman]

That's one judgement call, but there are also judgment calls made about applying procedurals: 4.5.1 (disturbing props and/or surface of the COF), 8.6.2 (coaching), 9.1.1 (shooter gets closer that 3 feet to a target during scoring), and 10.2.2 (not following a stage procedure can be per shot penalty). I think that if we trust an RO to make judgement call for these that I listed, then we should also trust the RO to make a judgement call for 10.2.1 (faulting).

We've seen several examples where the foot fault rule is applied inconsistently. Can you provide any examples of the rules you quoted above being called differently by different RO's?

As mentioned previously, I think that for a match to be run consistently, either have dedicated ROs to a stage, or have the match staff walk and discuss the stages prior to the first shot being fired and come to a consensus about one penalty versus per shot penalty for faulting at particular locations.

+1 on dedicated ROs per stage. That way no matter what the call, you have the same person making the call. Will ROs get every call right? No. But until robots take over, the human element is the best option we have. Trust the NROI trained ROs to do their job correctly.

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.

[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.

[ima45dv8]

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.

I wouldn't have assigned you as a CRO if I didn't have confidence in your good judgment in these matters.

[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?

Edited November 23, 2011 by sperman

[Coach]

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

So a per shot penalty for the first shooter in the video in this post? http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16944&view=findpost&p=198846

I would say yes per shot fired. He faulted the line with every shot. I have been rung up the same way in similar situations. If not faulting the line is not a big deal then don't do it. This also makes it consistent. If you guy gets it called per shot everyone should.

Don't fault the line and make the rule support per shot would seem a logical fix.

[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.

I wouldn't have assigned you as a CRO if I didn't have confidence in your good judgment in these matters.

And I have the utmost respect for you as RM. The point I was trying to make was that the "significant advantage" wording creates the opportunity for problems, no matter how well the match is run.

[Gary Stevens]

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.

I wouldn't have assigned you as a CRO if I didn't have confidence in your good judgment in these matters.

And I have the utmost respect for you as RM. The point I was trying to make was that the "significant advantage" wording creates the opportunity for problems, no matter how well the match is run.

And that is where the RM should step in and keep things on an even keel. The problem that might occur though is with a shooter who does not know enough about the rules to ask for the RM and just humps up and takes it.

Gary

[Nik Habicht]

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.

I wouldn't have assigned you as a CRO if I didn't have confidence in your good judgment in these matters.

And I have the utmost respect for you as RM. The point I was trying to make was that the "significant advantage" wording creates the opportunity for problems, no matter how well the match is run.

I disagree. If the foot faults are consistently applied for the stage, for every competitor, then there's no problem --- even if on 50 yard standards the decision is to apply one per occurrence, and on the next stage one per shot is assessed. As long as the stages are run consistently, no problem....

One of the things I learned from George Jones, watching him at the 2010 Mid-Atlantic Sectional, was that he conducted a match walkthrough on Friday evening with most of the staff. During that walk, stage briefings were read, and discussed. George provided guidance from the rules (essentially suggested what he could support) and as much as possible allowed the stage staff to decide how to "interpret the start position" or call faults for example. There was some note-taking, and I know a couple of the WSBs were adjusted as a result of the walk.....

The point was to do a final round of troubleshooting, identify any potential areas of contention or confusion, and either address them with a fix, or decide how to handle the situation.

I don't believe, looking at Mark's comment above, that this was any part a "mistrusting" of the staff's abilities. Rather, I believe that George was offering to share his expert knowledge of the rules and his experience in working countless matches. In essence, it was an opportunity for the staff to learn from George, and I'll bet that Goerge learned one or two things as well -- as these situations are usually not one way....

When working as an RM, and being asked to rule/uphold/overturn a call, it's much easier for me to sell my decision, if I have an idea from the outset how things were probably handled. I believe the key to a successful match is to sweat the details in prep, and then to let the actual match simply happen....

[West Texas Granny]

Let me go out on a limb here and presume that rule 2.2.1.3 is for straight lines. Yes . No.

Depends on whether you mean the physical lines you see, which could be straight or curved, or if you mean the lines that go to infinity. If you mean the latter, yes, they are straight.

What are you fishing for now?

I'm not fishing for anything. Just seeking clarification.