What is the penalty

[remoandiris]

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.

Zip ties fix that...and adds strength/rigidity.

[aztecdriver]

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. [snip]

I don't know if I agree with this - but then again - I don't know, so I'm going to pose a question.

2.3.1 Match Officials may, for any reason, modify the physical construction or stage procedure for a course of fire, provided that such changes are approved in advance by the Range Master. Any such physical changes or additions to a published course of fire should be completed before the stage begins.

2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any such action after the match begins he must either:

2.3.3.1 Allow the course of fire to continue with the modification affecting only those competitors who have not already completed the stage. If a competitor’s actions caused the change, that competitor must be required to reshoot the altered course of fire; or

Why do we need to use an FA again? We just modify the WSB to state the V slits are there for construction requirements and are not openings in the wall. Only one competitor was affected, the only one to try and shoot through the slits. No one else shot through the ports, the change doesn't affect anyone that shot the course, nor will it genuinely affect anyone that comes through and shoots the course. Why complicate a POSSIBLE engagement through this by causing a competitor to 0 the stage when they just essentially shot through a wall by mistake? I think 2.3.1 and 2.3.3.1 allow us to modify the course, in this situation, and continue with our day without an FA.

[remoandiris]

We just modify the WSB to state the V slits are there for construction requirements and are not openings in the wall. Only one competitor was affected, the only one to try and shoot through the slits. No one else shot through the ports, the change doesn't affect anyone that shot the course, nor will it genuinely affect anyone that comes through and shoots the course. Why complicate a POSSIBLE engagement through this by causing a competitor to 0 the stage when they just essentially shot through a wall by mistake? I think 2.3.1 and 2.3.3.1 allow us to modify the course, in this situation, and continue with our day without an FA.

2.3.1 doesn't apply because the stage had already started. "Any such physical changes or additions to a published course of fire should be completed before the stage begins."

You have a good point in bringing up 2.3.3.1. In your opinion, what action is being meant in the phrase "If the Range Master approves any such action"...? Does it refer to an action under 2.3.1.1?

[Skydiver]

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).

Ah! Thanks. That's what I was missing to get to the fourth reason.

Sorry, I started out with only 2 because I saw the FA to prevent movement, or to prevent exploits of loopholes. As I was reading your previous post, and wanting to agree with your 10:28AM post, I was trying to get to 3 reasons that made sense. What I was seeing was that you had listed the 3 reasons as unsafe condition, exploit unintended loophole, and gain an unfair advantage. I couldn't get "gain an unfair advantage" to stand alone as a reason. It was always used in tandem with the "exploit unintended loophole" which is what you ended doing in the quoted text above.

I really want to agree with your parsing above, and in the end, I'll probably end up remembering it better with your 4 reasons. I like it.

Unfortunately, the third reason "declare a FA to prevent exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to gain an unfair advantage" may have some unintended consequences. This opens up the possibility of declaring an FA that says "It is a forbidden action to activate T1 after the last shot is fired." because of the unfair advantage of being able to do some action off the clock. Maybe this is an advantage with this interpretation. Whereas before either the shooters and staff had to live with that loophole found in a stage (my search-fu is weak, but there was a thread about a major match where people found this loophole in stage and a FA could not be declared), now a FA can be used.

[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.

Zip ties fix that...and adds strength/rigidity.

Yes, they do! Put on those zip ties before the first shooter, otherwise it'll be a course modification that will require one or more reshoots (2.3.3).

[remoandiris]

Unfortunately, the third reason "declare a FA to prevent exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to gain an unfair advantage" may have some unintended consequences. This opens up the possibility of declaring an FA that says "It is a forbidden action to activate T1 after the last shot is fired." because of the unfair advantage of being able to do some action off the clock. Maybe this is an advantage with this interpretation. Whereas before either the shooters and staff had to live with that loophole found in a stage (my search-fu is weak, but there was a thread about a major match where people found this loophole in stage and a FA could not be declared), now a FA can be used.

A few years ago a local match (I missed it) there was a stage that included a mandatory reload during the COF. So guess what? After the last shot was fired, some competitors did a reload. The cause was poor stage design/WSB and resulted in a BIG stink about intent and what not. Intent doesn't matter. The only thing that does matter is what is in the WSB.

[Skydiver]

We just modify the WSB to state the V slits are there for construction requirements and are not openings in the wall. Only one competitor was affected, the only one to try and shoot through the slits. No one else shot through the ports, the change doesn't affect anyone that shot the course, nor will it genuinely affect anyone that comes through and shoots the course. Why complicate a POSSIBLE engagement through this by causing a competitor to 0 the stage when they just essentially shot through a wall by mistake? I think 2.3.1 and 2.3.3.1 allow us to modify the course, in this situation, and continue with our day without an FA.

2.3.1 doesn't apply because the stage had already started. "Any such physical changes or additions to a published course of fire should be completed before the stage begins."

You have a good point in bringing up 2.3.3.1. In your opinion, what action is being meant in the phrase "If the Range Master approves any such action"...? Does it refer to an action under 2.3.1.1?

I think I asked that question before. The response I got was that "any such action" in 2.3.3 refers to "modify the physical construction or stage procedure for a course of fire" in 2.3.1 because the general section 2.3 is entitled "Modifications to course construction".

[remoandiris]

We just modify the WSB to state the V slits are there for construction requirements and are not openings in the wall. Only one competitor was affected, the only one to try and shoot through the slits. No one else shot through the ports, the change doesn't affect anyone that shot the course, nor will it genuinely affect anyone that comes through and shoots the course. Why complicate a POSSIBLE engagement through this by causing a competitor to 0 the stage when they just essentially shot through a wall by mistake? I think 2.3.1 and 2.3.3.1 allow us to modify the course, in this situation, and continue with our day without an FA.

2.3.1 doesn't apply because the stage had already started. "Any such physical changes or additions to a published course of fire should be completed before the stage begins."

You have a good point in bringing up 2.3.3.1. In your opinion, what action is being meant in the phrase "If the Range Master approves any such action"...? Does it refer to an action under 2.3.1.1?

I think I asked that question before. The response I got was that "any such action" in 2.3.3 refers to "modify the physical construction or stage procedure for a course of fire" in 2.3.1 because the general section 2.3 is entitled "Modifications to course construction".

Man oh man, if that is the case, it brings us right back to a FA. Or did I miss something? The last line in 2.3.1 says changes have to be made before the stage begins. If after, it needs a FA.

[Skydiver]

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. [snip]

I don't know if I agree with this - but then again - I don't know, so I'm going to pose a question.

2.3.1 Match Officials may, for any reason, modify the physical construction or stage procedure for a course of fire, provided that such changes are approved in advance by the Range Master. Any such physical changes or additions to a published course of fire should be completed before the stage begins.

2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any such action after the match begins he must either:

2.3.3.1 Allow the course of fire to continue with the modification affecting only those competitors who have not already completed the stage. If a competitor's actions caused the change, that competitor must be required to reshoot the altered course of fire; or

Why do we need to use an FA again? We just modify the WSB to state the V slits are there for construction requirements and are not openings in the wall. Only one competitor was affected, the only one to try and shoot through the slits. No one else shot through the ports, the change doesn't affect anyone that shot the course, nor will it genuinely affect anyone that comes through and shoots the course. Why complicate a POSSIBLE engagement through this by causing a competitor to 0 the stage when they just essentially shot through a wall by mistake? I think 2.3.1 and 2.3.3.1 allow us to modify the course, in this situation, and continue with our day without an FA.

I like the pragmatic approach of not having to go with the FA route, but how do you get around the 1.1.5's "as and when visible"? To quote Tim from post #61:

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.

If the slits have to be there to keep the wall from being blown down or over, the approaches I take would be one of the following:

- Mark's suggestions of having the slits down low at knee level. If the shooter wants to go take time to get down there to shoot through it, it's now their choice for risk vs. reward.

- Stand up a couple of no shoots on the downrange side a few inches away from the slits giving enough room for air to blow by, but obstructing the view.

- Staple some snow fence on the upwind side of the slits since as you noted in your post #64, snow fence is considered hard cover.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Skydiver

[aztecdriver]

Man oh man, if that is the case, it brings us right back to a FA. Or did I miss something? The last line in 2.3.1 says changes have to be made before the stage begins. If after, it needs a FA.

Reading 2.3.1, the word "should" is used describing that the changes "Should happen before the match begins"

With the added council of 2.3.3 - changes CAN occur afterwards, and 2.3.3.1 says that we can continue the match, and if a shooter caused the changes, the shooter must reshoot. You just MUST avoid 2.3.4, which discusses competitive equity of the changes, and the requirement of the shooters affected to either reshoot or toss the stage.

In this situation, there are no competitive equity issues. The modifications clarify the slits are not ports and the walls are continuous. That change only affected the one shooter that used them - it caused the change, the reshoot occurs and the course continues as modified.

[remoandiris]

Reading 2.3.1, the word "should" is used describing that the changes "Should happen before the match begins"

Correct...optional but HIGHLY recommend that it happens before the match begins. Good thing USPSA doesn't use a dictionary definition of should; the past tense of shall.

[LPatterson]

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?

My foolish answer is that with high wind gusts the slits quickly become LARGE tears. Or at least that is the problem at our range where sudden gusts of 45-60 MPH have occurred and leveled plywood walls. Less likely with walls as pictured. Average wind speed in GF is 14 MPH so even snow fence has to be well anchored.

[parashooter38]

I was told a long time ago by a very good shooter that you can never make up for a penalty. Once the shooter shot from the wrong place the penalty should be called. If he then shoots from the correct position it does not take away the penalty.All he did was add more time to his score and waste his ammo

[ktm300]

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.

What rule did the CRO site for the procedural?