Peeking question

[Flexmoney]

Hey you IPSC gurus...it's all well and good that you score and paste between strings. But, that is not the USPSA rule. And, the goal is to maximize the hit-factor on the stage...within the rules. The goal is NOT to try to guess the intent of the stage designer.

Not making up a shot (assuming it would improve your hit factor) would be like not making up a miss on a comstock field course.

[BDH]

Hmmm, I can see both the IPSC and USPSA sides of this argument, but I do not have any solutions...

[Loves2Shoot]

OBVIOUS MODE ON

If you have to make up a shot (regardless) in a standards stage, you are screwed anyway... at most it is usually about .65% - 1% difference in the HF if you make it up quick and on the right target, or you can do like me and make it up on the wrong target, get a miss and extra hit, down 25 to start.

[Tman33_99]

or you can do like me and make it up on the wrong target, get a miss and extra hit, down 25 to start.

Even worse for me a few years ago. I knew I had a miss on a string, and I knew what target I had to make it up on. Started the next string, had a jam (so losing lots of time) Then I was confused on which target I needed to make it up on, but took the shot at the target I "thought" I needed it on. Instead it was the wrong target, AND it edged the No-Shoot. So I get Penalty for Extra Shot, Extra Hit, Mike, AND No-Shoot. That extra Shot Cost me 30 points. I should have just ate the Mike and be happy.

Travis

[Jim Norman]

Even worse for me a few years ago.  I knew I had a miss on a string, and I knew what target I had to make it up on.  Started the next string, had a jam (so losing lots of time) Then I was confused on which target I needed to make it up on, but took the shot at the target I "thought" I needed it on.  Instead it was the wrong target, AND it edged the No-Shoot.    So I get Penalty for Extra Shot, Extra Hit, Mike, AND No-Shoot.    That extra Shot Cost me 30 points.  I should have just ate the Mike and be happy. 

Travis

Maybe we need another new rule. Only one penalty per shot fired. Afterall, a Mike, a NS, an Extra Hit and an Extra Shot! New shooters must be leaving in droves! 4 penalties for one shot! The horror! The inhumanity. Someone quick, call an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee! This cannot be fair!

Ok, switching off attempt at humor. (mainly because it really isn't funny, someone may actually suggest that as a rule, then where would I be. Ok, THIS IS NOT REALLY A SUGGESTION FOR A NEW RULE!) It was HUMOR!

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

Not making up a shot (assuming it would improve your hit factor) would be like not making up a miss on a comstock field course.

Um, no. In a Comstock stage, you can keep shooting 'till the cows come home. On the other hand, Standard Exercises limit the number of rounds you can fire, the idea being that every shot should score. Vive le difference.

As I said earlier, Standard Exercises are separate encounters, where you have a fixed number of rounds at your disposal, hence the thought of "making up" shots after the bad guys have already departed, is flawed. In one way, "making up" shots is tantamount to giving yourself a re-shoot. Our old Irish mate Mulligan only shoots golf, not IPSC

The obvious solution for USPSA competitors is to whip out the binoculars between strings.

Um no. The bad guys already left - remember, separate encounters.

~67 KM for you metric folks.  I can see the RO's jumping at the chance..  NOT

Maybe not, but most ROs I know need the exercise - me included - so the IPSC rule is far more health conscious, and that's gotta be a good thing

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

I'm not debating which way is better (the IPSC vs. USPSA method).

But, you have plainly mis-spoke on this matter.

A standards exercise is a stage with multiple strings...and scored Virginai or Fixed (as you pointed out). However, the shots fired are NOT "limited", they are regulated (or whatever wording suits this best).

A shooter is free to fire as many shots as they deem appropriate...and the RO will score them appropriate as well (meaning...there will be penalties for the extra shots).

There is nothing stopping a shooter from "shooting until the cows come home" in either Virginia or Comstock...nothing, except their hit factor.

As I said earlier, Standard Exercises are separate encounters,...

That line of thinking might work just fine for IPSC...where you score between strings, but it just doesn't apply to a USPSA Standards stage...where the scoring is done at the end of the stage.

[Vince Pinto]

That line of thinking might work just fine for IPSC...where you score between strings, but it just doesn't apply to a USPSA Standards stage...where the scoring is done at the end of the stage.

Actually the USPSA rule variant allows for a COF to require scoring and patching between strings, and I'm just suggesting that that is a solution to the problem of "make-up" shots.

Even if you don't consider strings to be separate encounters (and I'm willing to bet body parts that my old mate John Amidon and other prominent Americanos agree), the fact remains that competitors should not be able to "make-up" shots. Each string (basically a mini-COF) is over when it's over, and the ability to "make-up" shots after the fact, at a lesser distance, is tantamount to (and I really hate to use this word), cheating.

Sure, I understand that it's become an "accepted practice" on your side of the Big Pond, but you've definitely swayed from the path of good and righteousness.

REPENT ........ REPENT, the Lord Vader says to you

[Flexmoney]

Jeeeezz....I can't believe I am having this discussion with a "rules guru" ...but, here goes...

...the fact remains that competitors should not be able to "make-up" shots.

That is NOT fact...it is opinion. Virginia count does NOT prevent make-up shots...it merely provides for a penalty for extra shots that are taken.

Each string (basically a mini-COF) is over when it's over, and the ability to "make-up" shots after the fact, at a lesser distance, is tantamount to (and I really hate to use this word), cheating.

Sorry, but that just isn't the case. It just plain isn't the way the rulebook works. If you want to say that someone is "cheating", then site the rule.

Furthermore, each string isn't really "over when it's over". If the scoring is done at the end of the stage (as the USPSA stage in question was ran), then nothing is "over" until the last shot of the stage is fired, the gun is holstered and the scoring of ALL the hits on the target is complete.

[Neil Beverley]

Flex

The rule (9.2.3) describing VC now states: "limited number of shots to be fired". This is declared in the stage briefing.

The old rule (9.2.2.1) states: "The number of rounds is fixed".

To me this is explicit in the meaning of VC. However, we have a problem because we need to prescribe a penalty in case a competitor infringes the rule.

We shouldn't, mustn't and almost certainly couldn't physically interfere to stop an extra shot being fired.

We mustn't restrict the number of rounds that are loaded at the start of the stage or string for reasons I'm sure we don't have to rehearse here.

We therefore have no alternative but to penalise an extra shot being fired by way of a penalty because there is no other sensible option. This doesn't alter the rule for VC above which does not permit extra shots to be fired, it is explicit.

Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, the rule is being exploited.

The problem disappears if the strings are scored and patched separately but I hear and appreciate the comments about the distances if Standards are set to start at 50 yards/metres.

Increasing the value of the procedural penalty to be applied would solve the problem by completely neutralising any gain but surely we don't want to go there, do we?

There's gaming and gaming. If a course designer leaves something open to be exploited on a stage then fair enough but to be able to miss a shot at 50 yards/metres and then pick it up again at (say) 10 yards/metres is going a bit far, isn't it?

[short_round]

Increasing the value of the procedural penalty to be applied would solve the problem by completely neutralising any gain but surely we don't want to go there, do we?

Why not?

[Flexmoney]

Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, the rule is being exploited.

The rules are the rules...we shoot within them. There is no "FTDR" in USPSA/IPSC.

If a course designer leaves something open to be exploited on a stage then fair enough but to be able to miss a shot at 50 yards/metres and then pick it up again at (say) 10 yards/metres is going a bit far, isn't it?

That question answers itself...course design.

We don't get to apply the rules where we see fit....just by the book.

[Neil Beverley]

Increasing the value of the procedural penalty to be applied would solve the problem by completely neutralising any gain but surely we don't want to go there, do we?

Why not?

short_round/Flex

Why not? Because I would prefer not to have to keep writing rules to deal with exploitation issues.

When I started in IPSC the rule book was half it's current size. So many of today's rules have had to be written to defend against competitor behaviour.

As Flex says this issue isn't strictly illegal but morally? Then again we can't run a sport like ours based simply on morals. This whole subject wouldn't be the same issue if everyone scores and patches between strings. I don't agree with the exploitation but I'm not going to beat anyone up over it. However, I will propose that we try to plug the gap.

It will probably be better to leave the value of the procedural penalties alone and instead create a new rule whereby the highest scoring hit on the string/stage is deducted from score per additional shot fired. That would return VC to it's intentions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone remember the days when Virginia Count was often also called "Limited Comstock"?

Somewhere in my files I have a document written by Nick Alexakos in the form of a theoretical court case discussion which argues the pros and cons of retaining Virginia Count in IPSC (and before anyone launches into one at me I'm very much in favour of retaining it). It was written in the late 80s or early 90s and I'll try to dig it out. I may even post it here if I think it's still relevant enough considering the passage of time. I thought it was well argued at the time (in both directions).

Does anyone else remember it?

[Flexmoney]

short_round/Flex

Why not? Because I would prefer not to have to keep writing rules to deal with exploitation issues.

I never said a word about changing the rules. I don't think it is a problem.

As Flex says this issue isn't strickly illegal but morally?

Strictly illegal??? It's not even lossely illegal. Not even close. Making up shots in Virginia count is not illegal. Unless there is some rule I am missing. If so, please point it out.

As for the moral issue...I'm having problems with you guys calling this "exploitation". We shoot our game within the rules, with the goal of getting the highest hit-factor. It should be as simple as that.

But, we have kinda drift into whether extra shots should be allowed. The original topic is whether a shooter can move forward a few extra steps (or a lot of extra steps) between strings. And, if there is a rule to cover this?

[mactiger]

Try these:

8.3.1.1/US 8.3.1.1 and 8.3.8.

Once LAMR is given, you can't leave the start position until the signal to fire. In a standards with multiple strings, whether they are shot from one spot or whether the competitor moves closer, these rules won't allow you to just walk up to take a look, especially if LAMR is only given once, and you don't have to UL&SC between strings.

10.2.9 might be stretching it; depends on how the stage briefing is worded.

Troy

[Vince Pinto]

...the fact remains that competitors should not be able to "make-up" shots.

That is NOT fact...it is opinion. Virginia count does NOT prevent make-up shots...it merely provides for a penalty for extra shots that are taken.

Sorry but, with all due respect, you've lost the plot. The issue is not Virginia Count scoring because, as you stated, you can shoot as many shots as you like, and you'll be given the appropriate penalties.

The crux of the issue is that each string is a separate encounter. In other words, the targets you shot in String 1 are simply unavailable for String 2. This is not merely an opinion. It is a fundamental fact of IPSC shooting.

Don't believe me? Ask BE, TGO, Mike Voigt, John Amidon or anybody else who knows the background.

In IPSC, we deal with this by using the same two targets, but we restore targets which have already been shot to "new" status by scoring and patching after each string. Hence, each string is shot with targets devoid of holes from a previous encounter. In essence, each string is a like a new COF within a COF.

The fact that the USPSA rule variant allows for "end of stage" scoring is merely a matter of convenience, but it creates a situation where a competitor can essentially "go back in time" and "make-up" for earlier errors. And, as Neil pointed out, he might be "making up" shots freestyle at a closer distance for earlier mistakes made SHO at a greater distance.

And Troy is spot-on quoting Rule 8.3.1.1 in response to the original question.

[Flexmoney]

And Troy is spot-on quoting Rule 8.3.1.1 in response to the original question.

On that, we can agree. Especially since I posted the same back on page one.

...which was well before...somebody...lost the plot.

The crux of the issue is that each string is a separate encounter. In other words, the targets you shot in String 1 are simply unavailable for String 2. This is not merely an opinion. It is a fundamental fact of IPSC shooting.

Cite the rule.

[Vince Pinto]

OK, I give up.

[Flexmoney]

awwwhh shucks....that's no fun.

[Jim Norman]

I repeat my earlier comment: If I can see my holes and make up a miss in the current string it is OK, but if I can't see the holes until I move forward and choose to make up a miss from the first string in the second string you would have a problem with this.

I don't get it. If the stage is Standards, it is Virginia Count. That does not mean I can't take and extra shot, it just means I get a 5 point penalty for it. THat is 5 points better than a Mike.

Jim Norman

[jspruance]

Since there are some experts involved in the question I would like clarification on a point. In a multi string COF. the shooter generally completes a string and while in that box makes his gun ready for the next string. He is then escorted to the next box by the RO and given the " are you ready " prompt. If the shooter is allowed to bypass this shooting position and walk down range, then turn around and walk back up range is this the proper safety procedure. I thought a shooter could only face uprange with a loaded was when he was standing in the shooting box.

I am not trying to be a range lawyer, I would just like to have an answer in case I am misunderstanding the issue.

[Tman33_99]

The only time the shooter should ever be allowed past the shooters box or starting point on a multi-string COF is after the "Range Clear" Command,

[mactiger]

There is no prohibition on walking or facing in any direction, as long as the gun is safely holstered, and the muzzle doesn't point past the 1 meter "safety" cone around the competitor. There is, however, a prohibition on leaving the start area--see the rules cited previously. The competitor should not be allowed to walk forward of the next start position.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

Jim S.,

You have cut to the core of this question.

As Troy covered, I don't think there is anything that would prohibit a shooter from facing uprange with a holstered gun.

The walking forward of the next shooting position...this one is a little questionable, I think. My read is that the red book (current USPSA, 14th, 2001 edition) likely doesn't cover this. The new rule book...from what I see...would likely cover this as there is an addition.

8.3.1.1 adds that the competitor can't move away from the start position without prior approval and under the RO's supervision.

[Jim Norman]

Two points.

I was not advocating walking forward of the second shooting position. Some multi-string COFs use the same start box for succeeding strings. But I have time between the strings to focus my old eyes and see whether or not I Miked on the earlier string.

Currently this is allowed. A younger shooter with better eyesight might see that Mike and choose to make it up during the current string. He would not get an additional penalty beyond the extra shot, but certain people are advocating tha I would because of my older eyes!

Gee that sounds very fair.

Jim