Little Bill Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Yesterday at a local club match, one of stages had a design flaw that wasn't fixed, and had a shoot through from one position. One of the guys in the squad I was shooting with is an A-class Open / understands the rules well and I RO'd him through this poorly designed stage. He ran through the stage cleanly, and when he came to the shoot through position, I could tell he was lining up to make the shoot through. He blasted twice at the target / shoot- through, and then a pair of rounds in the berm. This saved a bit of time, not having to move into another position. Soooo, here I am thinking about whether I made the right call. I gave him the hits on the front target, and mikes on the rear target. I had also given him a FTE penalty, but took it back when he said that he fired two shots in that array meant for the target. (yeah right) Whaddayathink? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 I'd give the two mikes, for sure. The FTE...questionable. I doubt I would award it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 I agree with Flex, since he did fire the extra shots, no FTE, but since you saw him deliberately take the shoot-through, no choice but to award two misses. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 He blasted twice at the target / shoot- through, and then a pair of rounds in the berm. He did not "shoot at" the last target, and should get the procedural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 He blasted twice at the target / shoot- through, and then a pair of rounds in the berm. He did not "shoot at" the last target, and should get the FTE. Rich, IMHO, impossible to prove.... therefore no FTE.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 You don't prove it. You see what you see, and you call what you see. If you are sure, make the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 In actuality, couldn't you also award him a DQ for Unsportsmanlike Conduct? The shoot throughs are one thing, bad/poor design, we've probably all been guilty of that. But to deliberately take the shoot through and then dump two rounds intot the berm in order to try and fool the RO into awarding the points is just plain wrong. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 In actuality, couldn't you also award him a DQ for Unsportsmanlike Conduct? I'm not thinking DQ here. It is cheating, rather than gaming, so I see your point. Just scoring it properly should end the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajarrel Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 "I could tell he was lining up to make the shoot through. He blasted twice at the target / shoot- through, and then a pair of rounds in the berm. " I have always wondered why people will expend so much energy and time in working out how to get an advantage, (real or percieved, legal or not) than to go ahead and do it right. It seems to me if the competitor had to take the time to line up for the shot and then put a pair in the berms, they could have done it right in the first place and probably gotten better hits. JMHO dj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 In actuality, couldn't you also award him a DQ for Unsportsmanlike Conduct? I'm not thinking DQ here. It is cheating, rather than gaming, so I see your point. Just scoring it properly should end the problem. Cheating is by the very definition, Unsportsmanlike. Tough call, I agree. I would have to be sure he lined up and took the two then DELIBERATELY shot into the berm. If I were SURE, I would DQ. We don't need cheats. Next time maybe he'd not do it. BTW, Further question, as the RO, you knew about the potential, it is obvious that the shooter did as well, did he make his intention to cheat known before he shot? If he did, did you perhaps tell him that that was not legal? Or did he ask if what he was planning was legal? If he did not, I MIGHT not DQ him. I might ask him if he knew what he was doing was illegal and if he said yes, then DQ, no, then two mikes and an FTE. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 And now would be about when the shooter would ask that the stage be thrown out of the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Kyle, At anything above a local match, I would agree. At local matches, we will occasionally have astage problem such as described. Everyone will acknowledge it and agree that it is there and agree to act as if it were not. This bit of sportsmanship has saved many a stage at the local level over the years, I am sure. Lets face it, we often set-up and tweak under ennormus time preasure. We can't start till 0730 because it is dark, we have to get shooting by 1000 or so or we won't get done tearing down till after dark. The problem goes un-noticed and not taken advantage of until Georgie Gamer sees it, if we toss the stage, it dissapoints eveyone. It may be the otherwise best stage of the match. So we all agree that teh problem does not exist. If GG wants to shoot it his way after that, then At the very least, 2 Mike, 1 FTE and if he is really miffed and makes a sceane, the USC. My opinion. In the real worls, we'd all have perfect stages, a day to build, a day to shoot and a day to tear down, followed by 4 days of practice or another match. In the real worls, we mostly have to get up and go to work far too early the next day where our triumps the day before are of little or no interest to the peol;e we work with. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 He could file an Arb citing (US 14th) 2.1.8, asking for the stage to be brought into compliance. I'd not like to be on that Arbcom. Around here that action might get him the unsportsmanlike DQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 He ran through the stage cleanly, and when he came to the shoot through position, I could tell he was lining up to make the shoot through. He blasted twice at the target / shoot- through, and then a pair of rounds in the berm. If I saw what you saw, I'd score the rear two targets as 2 misses and 1 FTE each. The way you describe the (poor) course construction, the paper targets were in-line (not side-by-side like the poppers in the shotgun stage discussed in another thread). If you're sure the competitor deliberately lined up each shot to generate shoot throughs, then deliberately fired two shots into the berm, he did not engage the rear two targets, because the two in front are deemed to be impenetrable. Unsportsmanlike conduct does indeed come to mind too, but I'd hope that the penalties would be a sufficient wake-up call for the competitor. However I'd still give him my "Come to Jesus" speech afterwards just to drive the point home, but an A-Class competitor should already know better than to try that stunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Am I the only one considering a shoot through situation as Range equipment failure, thus requiring a re-shoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Am I the only one considering a shoot through situation as Range equipment failure, thus requiring a re-shoot? See Section 9.1 for the possibilities. In respect of the subject incident, it seems that Rule 9.1.5.1 applies (in addition to Rule 10.2.7). However if, and only if, the extreme outer perforation of the scoring area of the "front" target is broken, then Rule 9.1.5.3 or 9.1.5.4 applies, as the case may be. The only time a reshoot would apply is in relation to the events described in Rule 9.1.5.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 See Section 9.1 for the possibilities. In respect of the subject incident, it seems that Rule 9.1.5.1 applies (in addition to Rule 10.2.7). A hard wake-up, no doubt... I need to drink more coffee before posting in the morning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 When I am asked to RO a stage at a local match, one of the first things I do is to check the stage for potential shoot throughs. If there is a potential shoot through then I tell the match director that I can't RO the stage until the problem is corrected. If I am shooting a stage and discover that I could make a shoot through then I tell the RO that I am not going to shoot until the shoot through is fixed. I see no sense in shooting a stage that could get thrown out or that I might have to reshoot after the problem has been reported by someone else. I sometimes think that I had more fun shooting before I bothered to read the rules. I can hardly wait for USPSA to send me a new rule book so I can start reading all over again. 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