Another 10.2.1 Question

[Graham Smith]

So if he executed his plan correctly and fired shots within the fault lines, would you have dinged him with 10.2.2 procedurals instead of 10.2.1 instead?

Nope. Cutting across was not illegal so 10.2.2 does not come into play. However he was trying to gain an advantage through his actions so when he faulted that should be taken into account.

[Steven Cline]

However... I had stepped into the shooting area between the fault lines with one foot but had not yet cleared the ground with the other foot. I was clearly faulting during two shots.

Does this mean you were shooting the target while static?

No sir, I was moving "forward" into the targets along the arrow indicated on the diagram. Had I delayed about 1/4 second and moved 1' further on that same angle there would have been no faulting of a fault line at all.

[Steven Cline]

So if he executed his plan correctly and fired shots within the fault lines, would you have dinged him with 10.2.2 procedurals instead of 10.2.1 instead?

Nope. Cutting across was not illegal so 10.2.2 does not come into play. However he was trying to gain an advantage through his actions so when he faulted that should be taken into account.

The rules says if the shooter gains a significant advantage by faulting.

Let's remember how the rule is written:

10.2.1

A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching

the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a

Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an

object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or

Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence...

The rule starts out making it clear that a faulting should be penalized with a single procedural no matter the shots fired. I believe this is because we recognize that mere inches difference inside or outside a fault line does not matter significantly.

However, there are times the fault lines are designed to make a shot more difficult and that faulting on purpose can give the shooter a significant advantage. We know these situations. In fact at the end of this very state was a fault line which made the shooter choose to go to either- 1) both sides of a wall, or 2) contort badly aroud the wall from either side. Faulting at that point would have given the shooter a significant advantage with less than a 1' fault because the shooter would no longer be required to contort; significant advantage.

So the rule allows for us to penalize the avoidance of those situations where faultline is intended to make the shot more difficult.

However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any

target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one

procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while

faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots

while faulting.

The default, the status quo is a single procedural. If the shooter gains a significant advantage then one procedural per shot. That we have disagree leads a reasonable person to observe that a significant advantage was not gained.

That people have trouble articulating that a significant advantage was gained proves the same point that no significant advantace was gained.

If significant advantage was gained it should be easy to state how the significant advantage was gained...

[Steven Cline]

Yet another prime example of why "significant advantage" should go away.

If I was on the timer you would have received one per.

Why? Because it's too hard?

(I totally buy that at a level 1 match with embedded ROs a blanket decision may be the fairest -- at least on a stage by stage basis....)

No. Because the shooter was have been able to engage the target earlier by his own description. Advantage.

But was it a significant advantage. 6" close is an "advantage" but it's not a significant advantage on it's own. It requires additional circumstances for that 6" to become present. Those circumstance are not present.

If I was the King, any area outside the shooting area would be treated as if it were not there when it comes to shooting. As in the edge of a building. Not there so you can't use it to shoot from.

If it is not an advantage to fault a line, why are you doing it?

Mistake. Please re-read the description. I was moving into the shooting area and got anxious to get on the trigger. It shaved a moment of time- an advantage, but not a significant advantage.

[Steven Cline]

Simple answer: Give the shot per penalty and then ask the RM to review it. A purpose of the RM is to maintain consistentcy. There is nothing wrong with asking for help either. As an RO, that is what I would do.

As a RM, I agree that I would have to look at the stage and target angles. Clearly the competitor expressed that he did feel it was advantageous to shoot it this way. It allowed a more aggressive approach to the specific target. For that reason alone, I would be inclined to enforce a 1 per shot as the RM.

I did say it was advantageouos to shoot this way. I felt it advantageous to cut across the corner. More for safety. It's advantageous to shoot 3" closer. Is it significantly advantageous? No.

I was faced with the choice, run further making a 90 deg turn at B and then slow as I approached the targets to safely engage, or run at the targets and slow to engage then make a 90 deg turn to left.

But again, my choice to approach is not at issue. I'm sorry that distracts.

The real and sole issue is if faulting with a foot further away from the target was a significant advantage. 1/4 second later my rear foot leaves the ground and I am not longer faulting. In that 1/4 second I might move 1' closer with the barrel of my gun.

The angle doesn't change.

The difficulty of the shot doesn't change.

Body position doesn't change.

I intended to fire four shots coming into the target will stepping forward with my right foot in the air with left foot in the shooting area. I instead fired two with the foot on the ground but coming up.

I then planted the right foot, turned left and proceeded with the course of fire.

If someone can't clearly state how that 1/4 second and 1' difference is significant then the rule says one procedural for faulting.

If anyone would like to see video of the stage as I shoot it from my perspective, here it is:

Skip to 2:20 to see the stage.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Steven Cline

[Scott R]

While I was not there to see the stage or watch you shoot while faulting, I can see where it could be argued that not only did you save the time by shooting early but you also gained an advantage by having fewer shots to fire once completely in the shooting area thus not having to put on the brakes and then re-accellerate after completing the required shots. I probably would have given you 1 per.... Love you Steve!

[lcs]

But did I gain a significant advatange?

I agree that I would really have to see the stage to see the angle of the target, width of the passage, etc, but here is how I see the argument.

You gained time by cutting across.

By cutting across the open area, you were better able to line up your shots which gave you an advantage.

You weren't more than one step further away than you would have been had you stayed within the boundary you weren't really "further away".

To me the three things add up to a significant advantage.

I agree with this.

Sorry but I don't, none of the above would be an issue had he lifted his foot 1" off the ground. Should the focus not be on his foot fault not what he did before the shots where fired?

I agree with Jon also. The focus should be on the foot fault not all the actions before the fault.

[Steven Cline]

While I was not there to see the stage or watch you shoot while faulting, I can see where it could be argued that not only did you save the time by shooting early but you also gained an advantage by having fewer shots to fire once completely in the shooting area thus not having to put on the brakes and then re-accellerate after completing the required shots. I probably would have given you 1 per.... Love you Steve!

LOL

Back at ya brother.

However, I did still have to brakes, change direction, and accelerate- that was happening whether it was 1/4 second later or not.

Was the advantage significant? Did I really get over on the stage by those errant shots beign a little soon?

[Bunchies95]

After reading this thread, I thought, Man I have a lot to learn. Shooting this stage that way never even crossed my mind.

I personally think that it should only be a single procedural. The biggest advantage was the angle of attack on the target, not that two shots were fired with one foot outside the shooting area. Waiting until you had your foot off the ground would not change you position much as the last shot was fired. You would have maintained the forward motion maybe an extra half foot. That would have put you 6" further from the next array.

[Graham Smith]

The problem with this rule is that it is arbitrary. If someone steps one toe across a line leaning around a barricade that's not a significant advantage. If they put their whole foot outside they gain a better angle which is a significant advantage.

You (the shooter) intentionally cut across an open area in order to gain an advantage. Regardless of whether you did or not, your intent was to gain an advantage. But in the act of trying to gain an advantage you faulted. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to foot faults but not in this case. You tried to game the stage and made a mistake.

[Flexmoney]

...none of the above would be an issue had he lifted his foot 1" off the ground. Should the focus not be on his foot fault not what he did before the shots where fired?

Right.

The only penalty is for faulting.

Steve C. I didn't quite get where the targets were at in you post/diagram? Did you have a better angle on them (more A-zone? C-zone?)? Were you closer? Easier position around a wall for the shot?

Are the targets "D", and you shot them from "C"?

[Scott R]

While I was not there to see the stage or watch you shoot while faulting, I can see where it could be argued that not only did you save the time by shooting early but you also gained an advantage by having fewer shots to fire once completely in the shooting area thus not having to put on the brakes and then re-accellerate after completing the required shots. I probably would have given you 1 per.... Love you Steve!

LOL

Back at ya brother.

However, I did still have to brakes, change direction, and accelerate- that was happening whether it was 1/4 second later or not.

Was the advantage significant? Did I really get over on the stage by those errant shots beign a little soon?

"Was the advantage significant?"... and there is the delima, with the way the rules are currently written it is entirely too subjective. So a shooter fires one shot prior to being completely in, you fired two, the next guy three, and then four. At some point it becomes worth eating 10 points and probably "significant". That point is going to vary with more than just stage design as the shooters physical ability and shooting skills come into play as it affects hit factor. In my opinion it is not possible for the term "significant" to be applied consistently and therefore should be changed to a per shot penalty, maybe harsh in some instances but much easier to apply consistently.

[bbbean]

You (the shooter) intentionally cut across an open area in order to gain an advantage. Regardless of whether you did or not, your intent was to gain an advantage.

That's irrelevant. Nothing illegal about cutting across an open area. The only thing the shooter did was foot fault. Doing things to gain an advantage is what we all do to get better.

And, of course, our rules are based on what we do, not what we intend to do. I intend to hit all Alphas faster than everyone else at the match, but it seldom works out that way.

BB

[lcs]

The problem with this rule is that it is arbitrary. If someone steps one toe across a line leaning around a barricade that's not a significant advantage. If they put their whole foot outside they gain a better angle which is a significant advantage.

You (the shooter) intentionally cut across an open area in order to gain an advantage. Regardless of whether you did or not, your intent was to gain an advantage. But in the act of trying to gain an advantage you faulted. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to foot faults but not in this case. You tried to game the stage and made a mistake.

What is arbitrary about your example of the barricade --Nothing, excellent example.

By your second example, your applying the "I'm pissed cos I did not think of that" penalty . Every shooter has the intent to gain an advantage on every stage they shoot. All the actions of the shooter were legal and by the book until he foot faulted. Did his foot fault give that shooting position a significant advantage---No. You can't be lenient when it comes to scoring and your choosing when to be lenient on not? How is that fair? . You follow the rules.

[Bunchies95]

I pulled this still off of Steve's Video

Here is a video of me shooting the stage a different way. Go to 0:45.

The problem with this rule is that it is arbitrary. If someone steps one toe across a line leaning around a barricade that's not a significant advantage. If they put their whole foot outside they gain a better angle which is a significant advantage.

You (the shooter) intentionally cut across an open area in order to gain an advantage. Regardless of whether you did or not, your intent was to gain an advantage. But in the act of trying to gain an advantage you faulted. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to foot faults but not in this case. You tried to game the stage and made a mistake.

It is a part of this sport to game stages. Steve saw a way to shoot it that most others did not. Let's look at the scenario in a different aspect: start 3 ft. outside of the shooting area facing downrange. Draw and engage the same 4 shot array before moving 90 degrees left. If that was the intent of the stage, would you give two procedurals for getting two shots off with one foot inside the box and another out, but on its way up? What if someone took the first two shots static with one foot faulting but corrected for the next two?

[Skydiver]

As best as I can tell after watching the video (specially around the 2:30 time when the targets at point D are shot), I don't see any significant advantage gained due to having a clearer view of the targets going through the open area versus having gone down the hallway. Since, the hallway was composed of snow fencing, any shooter could have had eyes on target as soon as they were going down the hallway, just as the OP could have eyes on target going around the open area. Once at point C, the target presentation looks to be the same irregardless which route. The only potential advantage I could see is that by going down the open area, the gun could be up and pointed at the target sooner as compared to somebody going down the hallway having to pie around the wall because of the narrowness of the hallway.

[Scott R]

The problem with this rule is that it is arbitrary. If someone steps one toe across a line leaning around a barricade that's not a significant advantage. If they put their whole foot outside they gain a better angle which is a significant advantage.

You (the shooter) intentionally cut across an open area in order to gain an advantage. Regardless of whether you did or not, your intent was to gain an advantage. But in the act of trying to gain an advantage you faulted. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to foot faults but not in this case. You tried to game the stage and made a mistake.

What is arbitrary about your example of the barricade --Nothing, excellent example.

By your second example, your applying the "I'm pissed cos I did not think of that" penalty . Every shooter has the intent to gain an advantage on every stage they shoot. All the actions of the shooter were legal and by the book until he foot faulted. Did his foot fault give that shooting position a significant advantage---No. You can't be lenient when it comes to scoring and your choosing when to be lenient on not? How is that fair? . You follow the rules.

"Did his foot fault give that shooting position a significant advantage---No."

I don't think the shooting position is what is in question here but the fact that the shots were fired before being in the shooting area. In fact after reading this again...

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching

the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a

Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an

object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or

Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any

target(s) while faulting , the competitor may instead be assessed one

procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while

faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots

while faulting.

I would apply that as he did gain a significant advantage on that one target by shooting it prior to being in a legal shooting area, thus saving time. Had he been faulting the line in any other fashion that did not gain an advantage of position, distance or time then probably one penalty no matter how many shots.

[MarkCO]

Using the video to understand the stage better, I would have issued only 1 penalty.

[lcs]

The problem with this rule is that it is arbitrary. If someone steps one toe across a line leaning around a barricade that's not a significant advantage. If they put their whole foot outside they gain a better angle which is a significant advantage.

You (the shooter) intentionally cut across an open area in order to gain an advantage. Regardless of whether you did or not, your intent was to gain an advantage. But in the act of trying to gain an advantage you faulted. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to foot faults but not in this case. You tried to game the stage and made a mistake.

What is arbitrary about your example of the barricade --Nothing, excellent example.

By your second example, your applying the "I'm pissed cos I did not think of that" penalty . Every shooter has the intent to gain an advantage on every stage they shoot. All the actions of the shooter were legal and by the book until he foot faulted. Did his foot fault give that shooting position a significant advantage---No. You can't be lenient when it comes to scoring and your choosing when to be lenient on not? How is that fair? . You follow the rules.

"Did his foot fault give that shooting position a significant advantage---No."

I don't think the shooting position is what is in question here but the fact that the shots were fired before being in the shooting area. In fact after reading this again...

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching

the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a

Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an

object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or

Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any

target(s) while faulting , the competitor may instead be assessed one

procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while

faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots

while faulting.

I would apply that as he did gain a significant advantage on that one target by shooting it prior to being in a legal shooting area, thus saving time. Had he been faulting the line in any other fashion that did not gain an advantage of position, distance or time then probably one penalty no matter how many shots.

I don't think your going to win when a shooter gets the RM involved or ARBs the call. I've heard to many RMs explain "Significant Advantage".

[vluc]

While the video is nice, it tells us little about what the RO saw that caused them to call what they did. And it shows us why videos are not used in arbitration.

[Flexmoney]

Faulting is positional.

The folks that are trying to add in some other element are adding in the very thing they don't like...the arbitrariness of "significant".

If you want to argue more than one penalty...then do so from the previous fault line...the one he left (position A).

[CHA-LEE]

His actions during that stage run are by no means representing a significant advantage. If you take his plan of navigating through the stage out of the picture the answer to this is pretty simple. The two targets he engaged while reentering the shooting area were engaged in a manner that was how much different than staying within the shooting area? The only difference is half a step at most between the "Intended" engagement location of those targets and his plan. Are you REALLY going to call half a step difference a significant advantage??? If so, that is insane. He still had to stop in the same general location to engage those targets no matter where he came from before getting there.

The only time I even think about assessing a significant advantage penalty is if a shooter is able to completely eliminate one or more shooting positions by engaging targets while foot faulting.

As I said before, if you put the shooting position in question verses fault into perspective against a "Normal" stage run its usually pretty easy to figure if its a significant advantage or not.

Just because a shooter figured out that its faster to exit the shooting area to run around a wall and reentering the shooting area at a different location has no bearing on assessing a significant advantage penalty.

In the case at hand, the shooter should have been assessed 1 procedural penalty for shooting while foot faulting.

Edited February 28, 2012 by CHA-LEE

[Scott R]

His actions during that stage run are by no means representing a significant advantage. If you take his plan of navigating through the stage out of the picture the answer to this is pretty simple. The two targets he engaged while reentering the shooting area were engaged in a manner that was how much different than staying within the shooting area? The only difference is half a step at most between the "Intended" engagement location of those targets and his plan. Are you REALLY going to call half a step difference a significant advantage??? If so, that is insane. He still had to stop in the same general location to engage those targets no matter where he came from before getting there.

The only time I even think about assessing a significant advantage penalty is if a shooter is able to completely eliminate one or more shooting positions by engaging targets while foot faulting.

As I said before, if you put the shooting position in question verses fault into perspective against a "Normal" stage run its usually pretty easy to figure if its a significant advantage or not.

Just because a shooter figured out that its faster to exit the shooting area to run around a wall and reentering the shooting area at a different location has no bearing on assessing a significant advantage penalty.

In the case at hand, the shooter should have been assessed 1 procedural penalty for shooting while foot faulting.

So using your logic he could have got off all 4 shots prior to being in the shooting area and still get 1 procedural penalty as long as he still enters in the same place not eliminating a position?

[CHA-LEE]

Scott R> I am not using made up logic, I am using the observation of his actions in the video he posted. He started engaging the targets in question HALF a step out of what would have been the "Normal" shooting position. Half a step between his faulting shooting position and the "Normal" shooting position does NOT constitute a significant advantage. Look at this from an alternate vantage point. Lets say a shooter ran up to the shooting position the "Normal" way going between the walls, then took half a step to the left putting their left foot outside the shooting area then fired two shots before realizing the foot fault and moving their foot back into the shooting area. Would you still consider this a "Significant Advantage". I would think that the answer would be a glaring "NO". Because its essentially the same general shooting position.

The point I am trying to make is that he still engaged the targets in question in the same general shooting position as every other shooter had to. He simply got to the shooting position from a different path, which is not illegal. You can get to any shooting position however you feel like. If one path to the shooting position ends up being faster than another then it is what it is. Just because a stage designer or RO didn't "Think" of that alternate path while setting up the stage does not justify penalizing a shooter with a significant advantage penalty.

Now it would have been different if he created a completely different shooting position that was not possible to perform while staying within the shooting area. For example, if the would have ran straight forward from the left side wall about 10 feet then stopped to engage the targets in question and others targets that would eliminate future shooting positions from his faulting shooting position, then kept running straight forward to reenter the shooting area. This would have been considered a significant advantage.

Edited February 28, 2012 by CHA-LEE

[Scott R]

Scott R> I am not using made up logic, I am using the observation of his actions in the video he posted. He started engaging the targets in question HALF a step out of what would have been the "Normal" shooting position. Half a step between his faulting shooting position and the "Normal" shooting position does NOT constitute a significant advantage. Look at this from an alternate vantage point. Lets say a shooter ran up to the shooting position the "Normal" way going between the walls, then took half a step to the left putting their left foot outside the shooting area then fired two shots before realizing the foot fault and moving their foot back into the shooting area. Would you still consider this a "Significant Advantage". I would think that the answer would be a glaring "NO". Because its essentially the same general shooting position.

The point I am trying to make is that he still engaged the targets in question in the same general shooting position as every other shooter had to. He simply got to the shooting position from a different path, which is not illegal. You can get to any shooting position however you feel like. If one path to the shooting position ends up being faster than another then it is what it is. Just because a stage designer or RO didn't "Think" of that alternate path while setting up the stage does not justify penalizing a shooter with a significant advantage penalty.

Now it would have been different if he created a completely different shooting position that was not possible to perform while staying within the shooting area. For example, if the would have ran straight forward from the left side wall about 10 feet then stopped to engage the targets in question and others targets that would eliminate future shooting positions from his faulting shooting position, then kept running straight forward to reenter the shooting area. This would have been considered a significant advantage.

All I am suggesting of your logic is that if used there is no clear point that it becomes a significant advantage. I have no issue with the path that he took. In fact the OP has shot with me enough (and on stages that I have designed) that I am sure he would tell you himself that I don't care how you get from one part of the legal shooting area to another.

"Lets say a shooter ran up to the shooting position the "Normal" way going between the walls, then took half a step to the left putting their left foot outside the shooting area then fired two shots before realizing the foot fault and moving their foot back into the shooting area."

In this I agree with 1 penalty as he did not gain an advantage of position, distance or time. Understand when I say "distance" I mean of the shot not of the path traveled by the shooter.

In the scenario presented by Steve I feel that every shot fired prior to being in the legal shooting area had the advantage of time and each shot should be penalized.