What is the penalty

[Loves2Shoot]

The WSB said as visible,

If you only wanted shooters using the side outlined port, you needed either a better WSB, or better props,

Bad WSB's and confusing props arnt the shooters fault.

Are you saying that you are confused between the shooter ports and winds slits in the OP's picture? It seems crystal clear that they are slits to prevent the walls from falling over, and they went to great lengths to make the shooting ports very clear.

We have a windy range certain times of the year, so I empathize with others who have such issues where whole wall sections can be blown away, even if securely anchored. That might be why I can't imagine anyone thinking it is OK to shoot through a slit made to prevent the wall from falling over.

If I came to visit/shoot the match, how would I know that? If you say as visible, either mean it or add "through ports appearing on the WSB" or some other clarification....

And no, if I knew the purpose of the slits, I wouldn't engage targets through them -- well, at least not without checking with an RO prior to my run....

Because you would be smart enough to ask why the square ports with paint were there and what were the slits in the tarp for

[kevin c]

Sperman, was the port outlined in red, or did you do that just in the pic?

Snowfence walls are understood to be solid walls. Solid tarps on walls are understood to be solid. Solid tarps with holes deliberately cut into them, to me that is not so clear.

Misunderstanding/confusion on the part of the shooter or deliberate act on his part by shooting through the wind slit, either way it seems to me that a decision needs to be made right then to allow or not allow others the same, ah, mistake... If the answer is no, then the shooter gets a reshoot and a FA gets put into the WSB. If the answer is yes, congratulate him on finding a loophole and then rib him for screwing it up afterwards. Either way, no penalties.

[twodownzero]

Tim,

Since you seem intent on turning this into an arguement, I'll play along.

The shooter screwed up. He knew he screwed up and he made up the shots through the legal port. 200 people shot this match, and as far as I know, he is the only one that made that mistake. I see no reason to get the RM involved, and re-write the stage breifing in the middle of the match because 1 shooter had a brain fart. If the shooter was intentionally exploiting a hole in the WSB, then it might be time for the FA rule. He wasn't, so IMO, yes, his subjective intent matters.

The reason I started this thread is becasue the CRO on the stage awarded a procedural to the shooter, and it didn't seem right to me. The consensus seems to be that the procedural penalty was unwarranted.

I agree with almost everything you've said here, except for the forbidden action discussion and the statement about subjective intent of the shooter.

The rules in this game NEVER turn on the subjective intent of the shooter. We do not speculate about what was going through the mind of a shooter when we issue penalties. No rule depends on this. E.g. If you break the 180, you're DQed. It doesn't matter if you didn't want to break the 180. It doesn't matter if it was a brain fart. It doesn't even matter if you acted in self defense! Our rules have plenty of nuances, but they don't ever turn on the mental state of a competitor. Sometimes there are judgment calls by the ROs (e.g. 1 per occurrence or 1 per shot) but if you think the interpretation of the rule turns on what the shooter was thinking when he pulled the trigger, you're probably not applying the rule correctly, because it's somewhat obvious that the rules intentionally remove that factor from applying the rules.

Also, I fail to see how this created any "unfair" competitive advantage. In fact, if I were there and it made more sense/was more competitive to shoot through the "cuts" rather than the "port," I would have done so.

One thing common to these sorts of discussions (that I've seen) is that people often try to complain/issue procedurals in instances where the person gained no advantage at all. Something like this makes no sense. If you design a stage that allows someone to take a certain advantage (within the rules), and they do so, chalk it up to bad stage design and drive on. Trying to circumvent the rules because you don't like how a competitor shot a stage isn't what this game is all about. Forbidden actions are not the rule book's method of turning this into IDPA (no offense to IDPA shooters, but USPSA is not a game, especially in longer courses, where we expect every shooter to shoot a stage the same way. Simply put, there's far more creativity in most USPSA stages, if for no other reason that they are longer and target engagement order is not specified).

The part I agree with you on is the procedural issue. The first question I ask myself before I issue any procedural is "what part of the procedure did the shooter violate?" If I can't answer that question to myself, I don't issue a penalty.

There are no "legal ports" and "illegal ports." The stage instructions were to shoot the targets when visible. The shooter did that, which complies with the stage procedure. The answer to the question presented by this thread is "there is no penalty."

So I agree with you, at least about the outcome. The correct result is no penalty.

[sperman]

Sperman, was the port outlined in red, or did you do that just in the pic?

Snowfence walls are understood to be solid walls. Solid tarps on walls are understood to be solid. Solid tarps with holes deliberately cut into them, to me that is not so clear.

Misunderstanding/confusion on the part of the shooter or deliberate act on his part by shooting through the wind slit, either way it seems to me that a decision needs to be made right then to allow or not allow others the same, ah, mistake... If the answer is no, then the shooter gets a reshoot and a FA gets put into the WSB. If the answer is yes, congratulate him on finding a loophole and then rib him for screwing it up afterwards. Either way, no penalties.

I didn't do any doctoring to the photo. The red outline around the port was from a wood frame.

[Jim Norman]

There are no "legal ports" and "illegal ports." The stage instructions were to shoot the targets when visible. The shooter did that, which complies with the stage procedure.

Taking this to a slight extreme, I can see the targets through Construction fence and screening so I can shoot them, Right??? No Penalties.

[remoandiris]

Trying to circumvent the rules because you don't like how a competitor shot a stage isn't what this game is all about. Forbidden actions are not the rule book's method of turning this into IDPA (no offense to IDPA shooters, but USPSA is not a game, especially in longer courses, where we expect every shooter to shoot a stage the same way. Simply put, there's far more creativity in most USPSA stages, if for no other reason that they are longer and target engagement order is not specified).

What?? USPSA isn't a game? What? Of course USPSA is a game! Unless you want to say it is a sport. Sure it is a sport, just like baseball. Baseball is also a game.

Why would you "expect every shooter to shoot a stage the same way"? That isn't what this game is all about. Check out 2.1.4. If a stage is built that the best way to shoot the stage is the same for everyone, fine. But that is NOT what this game/sport is about. If a production shooter completes a COF in the same manner as an Open shooter, is that a good or bad stage design? I don't know. I think it depends on target placement, obstacles, etc.

And, IMO, you are also wrong about the purpose of forbidden actions. I suggest you review 2.3.1.1.a. One reason to declare a FA is; "prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole. That is EXACTLY what happened. Doesn't matter if it was accidentally exploited (which it seems to have been) or not.

[spanky]

Trying to circumvent the rules because you don't like how a competitor shot a stage isn't what this game is all about. Forbidden actions are not the rule book's method of turning this into IDPA (no offense to IDPA shooters, but USPSA is not a game, especially in longer courses, where we expect every shooter to shoot a stage the same way. Simply put, there's far more creativity in most USPSA stages, if for no other reason that they are longer and target engagement order is not specified).

What?? USPSA isn't a game? What? Of course USPSA is a game! Unless you want to say it is a sport. Sure it is a sport, just like baseball. Baseball is also a game.

Why would you "expect every shooter to shoot a stage the same way"? That isn't what this game is all about. Check out 2.1.4. If a stage is built that the best way to shoot the stage is the same for everyone, fine. But that is NOT what this game/sport is about. If a production shooter completes a COF in the same manner as an Open shooter, is that a good or bad stage design? I don't know. I think it depends on target placement, obstacles, etc.

And, IMO, you are also wrong about the purpose of forbidden actions. I suggest you review 2.3.1.1.a. One reason to declare a FA is; "prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole. That is EXACTLY what happened. Doesn't matter if it was accidentally exploited (which it seems to have been) or not.

Reread his post. He didn't say it's not a game. He said it's "not a game, especially in longer courses, where we expect every shooter to shoot a stage the same way."

[remoandiris]

Reread his post. He didn't say it's not a game. He said it's "not a game, especially in longer courses, where we expect every shooter to shoot a stage the same way."

Ahhh, now I get it. Thanks for clarifying. He's saying we do NOT expect everyone to shoot stages the same way. Those tricky commas got me. I need to read slower. Edited October 13, 2011 by remoandiris

[aztecdriver]

Reread his post. He didn't say it's not a game. He said it's "not a game, especially in longer courses, where we expect every shooter to shoot a stage the same way."

Ahhh, now I get it. Thanks for clarifying. He's saying we do NOT expect everyone to shoot stages the same way. Those tricky commas got me. I need to read slower.

Commas are called reading speed bumps... Back to the argument.

There is a difference between a solid sheet of material with a cut in it, than a consistently not solid material, like snow fensing. One HAS a hole, the other is made OF holes.

Why do we always get into these discussions when a stage design is broken? Either fix the stage - or don't, but I don't see anywhere in the rules, the stage design or WSB that says shooting through a deliberately cut hole the wall is illegal.

[Skydiver]

I believe that the WSB was clear in stating "as visible" with no further elaboration that only marked ports be used, so no penalty.

For those who believe that no penalty should apply only because the shooter went to the square port to correct his mistake, if the targets shot by shooter through the slits were steel targets and they fell, there would be no reason for the shooter to go to the port since there would be nothing for him to shoot from there anymore. Would you now apply a penalty?

[twodownzero]

For those who believe that no penalty should apply only because the shooter went to the square port to correct his mistake, if the targets shot by shooter through the slits were steel targets and they fell, there would be no reason for the shooter to go to the port since there would be nothing for him to shoot from there anymore. Would you now apply a penalty?

10.1.4 Procedural penalties cannot be nullified by further competitor action.

For example, a competitor who fires a shot at a target while faulting a

line will still incur the applicable penalties even though he subsequently

shoots at the same target while not faulting the line.

I believe that resolves the dispute regarding whether the shooter can "un-do" a previous, alleged procedural error.

If the walls are hard cover and the port invalid, I see problems scoring it, and the remedy for that would be re-shoot, not procedural.

If we're going to compare intentionally cut slits to snow fence, we need this rule:

2.2.3.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such

barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be

considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.

Assuming that they go from the ground to the height as constructed, this doesn't negate a hole in the fence.

If you want a solid wall, build one. That includes snow fence (as we assume it's a "solid" wall for the sake of applying the rules). Otherwise, if you cut a hole in a wall, expect shooters to possibly use it.

[aztecdriver]

For those who believe that no penalty should apply only because the shooter went to the square port to correct his mistake, if the targets shot by shooter through the slits were steel targets and they fell, there would be no reason for the shooter to go to the port since there would be nothing for him to shoot from there anymore. Would you now apply a penalty?

10.1.4 Procedural penalties cannot be nullified by further competitor action.

For example, a competitor who fires a shot at a target while faulting a

line will still incur the applicable penalties even though he subsequently

shoots at the same target while not faulting the line.

I believe that resolves the dispute regarding whether the shooter can "un-do" a previous, alleged procedural error.

If the walls are hard cover and the port invalid, I see problems scoring it, and the remedy for that would be re-shoot, not procedural.

If we're going to compare intentionally cut slits to snow fence, we need this rule:

2.2.3.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such

barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be

considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.

Assuming that they go from the ground to the height as constructed, this doesn't negate a hole in the fence.

If you want a solid wall, build one. That includes snow fence (as we assume it's a "solid" wall for the sake of applying the rules). Otherwise, if you cut a hole in a wall, expect shooters to possibly use it.

I do not see procedural errors, regardless of whether they are valid ports or invalid ports in the premise.

If they are deemed to NOT be ports - and it's a steel target, it's a reshoot - there is no other possible remedy. There is no "shooting your way out of a penalty" because there is no procedurals assigned.

[Jim Norman]

The problem lies entirely within the WSB and the material used to build the wall. Not with the shooter.

Screening as used at the Nationals or Orange Construction fencing both allow you to see the targets other than past a wall or through a port.

If it truly is Shoot'em as you see'em then at least with respect to the orange fence, unless I hit one of the webs with a FULL DIAMETER hit, it should count. Now at a Level One, we can state 'You may only engage targets through ports outlined in red' Can't do that above a one.

UNLESS we make a rule that specifically denotes fence as Solid we will have problems like this.

Now, that said. If we all step back just a minute and think, put our DRL hats aside, there are PORTS framed in RED on the tarps that are being used as vision barriers or walls. Due to the wind and in order to not have the stage blow down, vents were cut in the tarps. The shooter KNEW he did wrong because he made up the shots. What should have happened is for the RM to order a reshoot and amend the WSB with a Forbidden Action or being a Level One, simply state that ONLY the RED FRAMED PORTS are actually PORTS.

We run into this at our matches, we use stockade fence, a lot of it has had ports cut in, in other instances there are gaps where the walls join that someone will attempt to use. Sometime we allow it because it is ALMOST always the wrong way to shoot the stage. Other times we will write into the Stage Brief 'ONLY THE PORTS DRAWN ON THE DIAGRAM ARE REALLY PORTS' in order to eliminate the questions regarding a knot hole that opened up in the fence.

Sometimes we go too far in gaming a stage. When is is obvious (as in this case) that the slits were not ports, why are we arguing about it?

It is why a lot of people shoot other sports and look upon us with derision when we show up. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of Gaming. I just thing that sometimes we go too far.

[aztecdriver]

One issue that I have with your premise:

If it truly is Shoot'em as you see'em then at least with respect to the orange fence, unless I hit one of the webs with a FULL DIAMETER hit, it should count. Now at a Level One, we can state 'You may only engage targets through ports outlined in red' Can't do that above a one.

UNLESS we make a rule that specifically denotes fence as Solid we will have problems like this.

2.2.3.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”

With the above quoted rules, I can't agree with your premise that snow fencing has "holes" through which one can shoot. Walls can be created specifically with snow fencing and unless otherwise denoted, are hardcover.

Now, I get what you are saying about if it were "truely" shoot them as you see them, and you can, but that doesn't change the fact that if you see them through a vision barrier and take those shots - the rules walls make those shots stop at the wall.

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

But your point to as the WSB should deal with this is clear.. all that was required is to denote that those slits are not ports and all would be solved - but the same ruling applies here. The shooter shot the target from a position that was impenetrable, then shot the target from an area that was penetrable. If the RO can not score the target by not knowing which shots from where scored what - then a reshoot is ordered. Being that no one else did the same act, you could simply amend the WSB that those are slits are not ports and move on. An FA is not really necessary unless a bunch of people could conceivably do it and that doesn't seem to be the case.

I hear what everyone is saying, but consider that a hole cut in an otherwise continuous piece of material is a valid interpretation of a port, regardless of the intent of the construction, without something in the WSB denoting it. Holes appearing in an continuous piece of material such as screening or snowfencing do not.

Edited October 13, 2011 by aztecdriver

[Jim Norman]

I'll concede the snow fence point as frankly we don't use it so I wasn't aware it was specifically covered. Didn't have time to look through the rules at work.

[Modoc]

Foolish question, but why were the slits cut in a "V" shape instead of just a single slash? Wouldn't a single slit (multiples cut that do not join) that doesn't open more than an inch make it less likely for a shooter to take a shot through it?

[twodownzero]

I'd also like to see someone analyze whether forbidden action can even be used here. I think it'd be difficult to make the necessary showing that there is an "unfair competitive advantage" here but I recognize that reasonable minds may differ on how unfair such a 'loophole' might be.

[remoandiris]

I'd also like to see someone analyze whether forbidden action can even be used here. I think it'd be difficult to make the necessary showing that there is an "unfair competitive advantage" here but I recognize that reasonable minds may differ on how unfair such a 'loophole' might be.

There is NO NEED to show ANY type of competitive advantage to declare a FA.

IMO, the applicable excerpt from 2.3.1.1.a is " to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement

The unintended loophole was shooting thru the V cuts. What some in this thread are claiming was a course requirement is using the port outlined in red. The FA is the only way to prohibit use of the Vs given the SB as it was presented by the OP.

[Skydiver]

I'd also like to see someone analyze whether forbidden action can even be used here. I think it'd be difficult to make the necessary showing that there is an "unfair competitive advantage" here but I recognize that reasonable minds may differ on how unfair such a 'loophole' might be.

There is NO NEED to show ANY type of competitive advantage to declare a FA.

IMO, the applicable excerpt from 2.3.1.1.a is " to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement

The unintended loophole was shooting thru the V cuts. What some in this thread are claiming was a course requirement is using the port outlined in red. The FA is the only way to prohibit use of the Vs given the SB as it was presented by the OP.

I feel that there is a need, because you are taking the 2.3.1.1a out of context by trimming the last part of the second clause of the rule. The full rule reads:

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage.

I've highlighted the two different reasons for declaring a Forbidden action in red and blue.

[Nik Habicht]

I'd also like to see someone analyze whether forbidden action can even be used here. I think it'd be difficult to make the necessary showing that there is an "unfair competitive advantage" here but I recognize that reasonable minds may differ on how unfair such a 'loophole' might be.

There is NO NEED to show ANY type of competitive advantage to declare a FA.

IMO, the applicable excerpt from 2.3.1.1.a is " to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement

The unintended loophole was shooting thru the V cuts. What some in this thread are claiming was a course requirement is using the port outlined in red. The FA is the only way to prohibit use of the Vs given the SB as it was presented by the OP.

I feel that there is a need, because you are taking the 2.3.1.1a out of context by trimming the last part of the second clause of the rule. The full rule reads:

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage.

I've highlighted the two different reasons for declaring a Forbidden action in red and blue.

Well, we do have the and/or in front of that last clause -- meaning it can be read either way. I'm o.k. in windy conditions, with walls that have slits, with identifying those as serving a function, namely to keep the walls upright. If I were to encounter them while working as an RM at a match, they would be an item for discussion during the shooter's meeting, and there would be language on every relevant stage description identifying them as non-ports/windows. In addition, they would be of a clearly different shape, size and location from any ports or doors.....

Basically remove the confusion for the competitors, and let's shoot.....

[remoandiris]

I'd also like to see someone analyze whether forbidden action can even be used here. I think it'd be difficult to make the necessary showing that there is an "unfair competitive advantage" here but I recognize that reasonable minds may differ on how unfair such a 'loophole' might be.

There is NO NEED to show ANY type of competitive advantage to declare a FA.

IMO, the applicable excerpt from 2.3.1.1.a is " to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement

The unintended loophole was shooting thru the V cuts. What some in this thread are claiming was a course requirement is using the port outlined in red. The FA is the only way to prohibit use of the Vs given the SB as it was presented by the OP.

I feel that there is a need, because you are taking the 2.3.1.1a out of context by trimming the last part of the second clause of the rule. The full rule reads:

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage.

I've highlighted the two different reasons for declaring a Forbidden action in red and blue.

Well, we do have the and/or in front of that last clause -- meaning it can be read either way.

EXACTLY!!

There are THREE reasons for a FA, not 2; possibility of unsafe conditions, exploit an unintended loophole, gain an unfair advantage. The OP's scenario did NOT have an unsafe component as he relayed it. It WAS an unintended loophole. There is not enough info to determine if there was an unfair advantage.

If the and/or is an "and", that would make FOUR reasons for an FA.

Edited October 14, 2011 by remoandiris

[Skydiver]

I'd also like to see someone analyze whether forbidden action can even be used here. I think it'd be difficult to make the necessary showing that there is an "unfair competitive advantage" here but I recognize that reasonable minds may differ on how unfair such a 'loophole' might be.

There is NO NEED to show ANY type of competitive advantage to declare a FA.

IMO, the applicable excerpt from 2.3.1.1.a is " to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement

The unintended loophole was shooting thru the V cuts. What some in this thread are claiming was a course requirement is using the port outlined in red. The FA is the only way to prohibit use of the Vs given the SB as it was presented by the OP.

I feel that there is a need, because you are taking the 2.3.1.1a out of context by trimming the last part of the second clause of the rule. The full rule reads:

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage.

I've highlighted the two different reasons for declaring a Forbidden action in red and blue.

Well, we do have the and/or in front of that last clause -- meaning it can be read either way.

EXACTLY!!

There are THREE reasons for a FA, not 2; possibility of unsafe conditions, exploit an unintended loophole, gain an unfair advantage. The OP's scenario did NOT have an unsafe component as he relayed it. It WAS an unintended loophole. There is not enough info to determine if there was an unfair advantage.

If the and/or is an "and", that would make FOUR reasons for an FA.

I'm sorry, I'm only seeing three.

If I follow your logic that the and/or is the parsing point so that "gain on unfair advantage" becomes a reason, I'll end up with this construction which doesn't seem to work because I'll lose the verb phrase "to prohibit". Here's the breakdown:

Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made:

1) to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition; (or)

2) to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement; (and/or)

3) gain unfair competitive advantage.

Simplified to:

1) Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition;

2) Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement;

3) Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made gain unfair competitive advantage.

The 3rd statement does not make any grammatical sense.

This seems to make more sense to me. Breaking down 2.3.1.1a, and breaking up the "and/or" to be repeated, I'm seeing:

Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made:

1) to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition; (or)

2) to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and gain unfair competitive advantage;

3) to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement or gain unfair competitive advantage.

Simplified to:

1) Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition.

2) Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and gain unfair competitive advantage.

3) Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement or gain unfair competitive advantage.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Skydiver

[ebg3]

I shot the match and frequently shoot their monthly matches. I am very familiar with the walls used and probably cut a few V's myself. The thought of shooting through the V's never crossed my mind but after reading this thread I have to agree that the V's could have been used as ports. The WSB said everything was to be shot from within the faultlines and mentioned nothing of the ports. I'm actually surprised no one else shot through any of the V cuts. I think the correct way to have handled the OP's shooter would have been to declare shooting through the V's a Forbidden Action and given him/her a reshoot.

[Skydiver]

I shot the match and frequently shoot their monthly matches. I am very familiar with the walls used and probably cut a few V's myself. The thought of shooting through the V's never crossed my mind but after reading this thread I have to agree that the V's could have been used as ports. The WSB said everything was to be shot from within the faultlines and mentioned nothing of the ports. I'm actually surprised no one else shot through any of the V cuts. I think the correct way to have handled the OP's shooter would have been to declare shooting through the V's a Forbidden Action and given him/her a reshoot.

Once the debate for the V cuts is settled, the next point of contention would be the gap between the tarp and vertical poles. Look closely at post #1, and notice what seems to be 2"-3" gaps about halfway up the wall where the poles are.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Skydiver

[remoandiris]

Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made:

1) to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition; (or)

2) to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and gain unfair competitive advantage;

3) to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement or gain unfair competitive advantage.

Simplified to:

1) Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition.

2) Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and gain unfair competitive advantage.

3) Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement or gain unfair competitive advantage.

After editing out a whole bunch of blah, blah, blah, the root of the issue is the only way to prevent someone from using the Vs is to declare a FA. In a previous post, you said there are 2 reasons to declare a FA. I cited the rule and proved that incorrect. Now you want to pull out an English Comp book. Fine, if that is what you need to float your boat.

Bottom line on 2.3.1.1(a) the RM can declare a FA

1) to prevent competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition

2) declare a FA to prevent exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement

3) declare a FA to prevent exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to gain an unfair advantage

4) declare a FA to prevent exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement AND gain an unfair advantage.

So there you have it...the FOUR reasons why a RM may declare a FA in accordance with rule 2.3.1.1(a).