StealthyBlagga Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) We have made some minor updates to the IMA-SMM3G rules to address key learning from the 2011 match - the changes are highlighted in red text. I'll be happy to address any questions or comments here. Edited November 17, 2011 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullauto_Shooter Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I REALLY like the formalized "no coaching" rule! Well done, sir. I do have a question about the following rule: 6.1.10.2 Enhanced procedural penalties may be applied at the Match Director’s discretion if a participant willfully and egregiously violates stage procedures. Will these "enhanced procedural penalities" be addressed in the WSB? If so, fantastic - but I sure hope the MD doesn't attempt to apply "enhanced penalities" in response to a shooter thinking outside the box and shooting a stage in the most efficient manner. I'm specifically talking about the brilliant "gamer" solution Benny Hill came up with on the pop-up target stage last year - his plan was sheer genius. My point is that a shooter shouldn't be penalized after the fact just because he "out-thought" a stage designer. Can't wait for the 2012 SMM3G - one of my most favorite matches of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 R u kidding? This new rule IS exactly as a result of us gaming that pop up target stage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) ...I do have a question about the following rule: 6.1.10.2 Enhanced procedural penalties may be applied at the Match Director’s discretion if a participant willfully and egregiously violates stage procedures. Will these "enhanced procedural penalities" be addressed in the WSB? If so, fantastic - but I sure hope the MD doesn't attempt to apply "enhanced penalities" in response to a shooter thinking outside the box and shooting a stage in the most efficient manner. I'm specifically talking about the brilliant "gamer" solution Benny Hill came up with on the pop-up target stage last year - his plan was sheer genius. My point is that a shooter shouldn't be penalized after the fact just because he "out-thought" a stage designer... R u kidding? This new rule IS exactly as a result of us gaming that pop up target stage! Actually NO it is not. Indeed, had this rule been in place, I doubt it would have been applicable to Stage 8 (the pop-up target stage) as no "willful and egregious violation of stage procedures" occurred. Folks just outsmarted the stage designer, who is - truth be told - not very bright . Instead, this new rule is the result of the gaming of Stage 10 (the buckshot stage), where some folks thought they saw an advantage to egregiously violating the foot fault lines. The intent is to give the MD the option of applying a punishment short of DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct (the only alternative until now). The same thinking went into the new coaching rule... give Dan a smaller stick. We know the vast majority of 3-gunners are good sports, and so I am confident these new rules will be used exceedingly sparingly, if at all. Edited November 17, 2011 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PacMan Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) R u kidding? This new rule IS exactly as a result of us gaming that pop up target stage! That new rule wouldn't negates 'gaming' solutions because Stage 8 (pop up) was shot by 2 or 3 full squads using the "stage procedure", meaning we all SHOT and ENGAGED the stupid targets from the platform so how could the MD assess the enhanced penalties? Let's face it, the only problem with that stage - Someone was smarter than the stage designer and figured out total penalties would be less than the time it would take for him to stay on the platform until all targets are neutralized. Better to have so called "gamers" proof the stage design before the match, or just accept the consequence that someone will figure out the way to game it. I can tell you the way the new 6.1.10.2 is written, it will not stop 'gaming', unless the stage designer gets mad at those who outsmart them and apply rule 1.4 for unsportsman-like conduct, and then we would have a bigger problem to deal with since gaming the stage has never been associated or called 'unsportsman' conduct. 1.4 Participants and spectators are expected to conduct themselves in a courteous and sportsman-like manner at all times. Any person who violates this rule may be ejected from the event site at the Match Director’s discretion. ETA - StealthyBlagga nailed it. Edited November 17, 2011 by PacMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PacMan Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Instead, this new rule is the result of the gaming of Stage 10 (the buckshot stage), where some folks thought they saw an advantage to egregiously violating the foot fault lines. We know the vast majority of 3-gunners are good sports, and so I am confident these new rules will be used exceedingly sparingly, if at all. I concur! However, the RO could have said "no you can't do that" and assess a penalty for each shot fired with the "leap of faith" and don't allow the "instant replay" from camera. File a protest if you wish but that would be my call as the RO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 ...the RO could have said "no you can't do that" and assess a penalty for each shot fired... In fairness, that is what the RO did, but some competitors felt that the 5 second penalty was worth it. In my view, this crossed the line between "clever" and "unsportsmanlike", but really did not justify a DQ. Hence the rule change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chendersby Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 ...the RO could have said "no you can't do that" and assess a penalty for each shot fired... In fairness, that is what the RO did, but some competitors felt that the 5 second penalty was worth it. In my view, this crossed the line between "clever" and "unsportsmanlike", but really did not justify a DQ. Hence the rule change. Much like the USPSA Forbidden action rule. OK addition, though I like ours better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NMBOpen Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Regarding Stage 8, my suggestion to Dan was that the number of rounds to engage be equal to the number of rounds to neutralize. On all other stages targets could be neutralized with one round. However 2011 Stage 8 required 3 rounds to neutralize but only one to engage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) Regarding Stage 8, my suggestion to Dan was that the number of rounds to engage be equal to the number of rounds to neutralize. On all other stages targets could be neutralized with one round. However 2011 Stage 8 required 3 rounds to neutralize but only one to engage. Indeed, there are many ways Stage 8 could have been fixed, but all of them are stage design issues rather than rules issues. The rule changes are not primarily aimed at what went wrong with Stage 8. Edited November 17, 2011 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gose Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 ...I do have a question about the following rule: 6.1.10.2 Enhanced procedural penalties may be applied at the Match Director’s discretion if a participant willfully and egregiously violates stage procedures. Will these "enhanced procedural penalities" be addressed in the WSB? If so, fantastic - but I sure hope the MD doesn't attempt to apply "enhanced penalities" in response to a shooter thinking outside the box and shooting a stage in the most efficient manner. I'm specifically talking about the brilliant "gamer" solution Benny Hill came up with on the pop-up target stage last year - his plan was sheer genius. My point is that a shooter shouldn't be penalized after the fact just because he "out-thought" a stage designer... R u kidding? This new rule IS exactly as a result of us gaming that pop up target stage! Actually NO it is not. Indeed, had this rule been in place, I doubt it would have been applicable to Stage 8 (the pop-up target stage) as no "willful and egregious violation of stage procedures" occurred. Folks just outsmarted the stage designer, who is - truth be told - not very bright . Instead, this new rule is the result of the gaming of Stage 10 (the buckshot stage), where some folks thought they saw an advantage to egregiously violating the foot fault lines. The intent is to give the MD the option of applying a punishment short of DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct (the only alternative until now). The same thinking went into the new coaching rule... give Dan a smaller stick. Actually, I'd argue that the issue with stage 10 was mainly a design issue as well. As far as I remember there was only one target out on the far right side. Had there been two or three targets there, it would have been a non-issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now