Production bump to Open: stuck declaring minor

[twodownzero]

Cliff's notes: production shooters bumped to open are stuck shooting minor even if they have a major gun and chrono major. We should change this.

I've been out of the rules loop for a while, but while taking my RO Exam (recert) today I noticed what I think is an addition to D4 regarding Production. I have actually observed this scenario and it makes no sense to me, so unless there's a reason this is part of the rules, it is my position that we should seek to change it. The language follows:

Anyone signing up for Production is declaring minor regardless if the

ammunition makes major at the chronograph. Should they be moved to

another division, they will shoot minor for the entire match or sub-minor

should their ammo fail to meet the minimum.

A few years ago, I observed a shooter whose Production gun would not fit in the box. We never did figure out how a gun that was on the production-approved list did not fit in the box, but the competitor had two different types of basepads and the gun would not fit in the box no matter which magazines were used. The gun was a .45 that held more than ten rounds, and so once the competitor was bumped to the Open Division, I kindly informed him that he might as well load his magazines up all the way for the last few stages, since there was no use in loading them only to ten rounds (because he was no longer constrained by the Production Division rules once bumped to open).

I also told him that he should seek to be scored Major for the entire match, because otherwise he was shooting Open/Minor with a .45 and iron sights. I'm not sure if the language quoted above is new, but I do remember a few people wondering if it would be possible for a competitor bumped to open to declare major once he'd been pulled from Production. The debate went back and forth since all Production competitors by default declare Minor, but if one is shooting major ammo in Production, it was my position that he should be allowed to declare major, and as long as his gun chronos major, that his score should reflect the fact that he has shot the entire match with that ammo.

Does anyone know of a good reason to not allow this declaration? The only thing I can think of is that it increases the penalty for violating the division rules, and encourages people to assure that their equipment is division-compliant. But that doesn't seem to make much sense here, because Single Stack has even more restrictive requirements in some ways (no DOH holsters for men, for example) and we would not tell a person who got bumped from SS to Open that they had to now declare minor and shoot Open Minor with iron sights and an 8 round .45.

It is my position that if a competitor has declared production/minor but is bumped to open, that if his gun and ammo chrono major, that he should be allowed to declare major power factor. I would bolster this position by pointing out that while production is all minor to encourage the use of 9mm handguns and keep them competitive, open is not so constrained, and allowing major power factor in this case: 1. reinforces DVC by allowing the competitor to "profit" from shooting a more powerful handgun and 2. enhances competitive equity by not penalizing a competitor more harshly than we would in another case. A bump to Open is theoretically possible from any division (say, for example, an L10 competitor who loads his gun with too many rounds, or a Limited competitor who uses a 170mm magazine), and the penalty should be the same across the board for both circumstances. Penalizing Production shooters more harshly than other division competitors who fail to comply with their division's requirements is unfair.

Does anyone else have another perspective on this? I don't think this is that big of a deal, but if we can change the rules in such a way that add common sense and enhance competitor equity, I see no reason not to do it. Does anyone oppose such a change? If so, I'd like to hear what others think. I'd also like to know if this is new to the recent rulebook or if it's been there for a while, because I haven't noticed it before.

Edited May 27, 2012 by twodownzero

[ima45dv8]

It's mostly a scoring issue. EZWinScore doesn't do multiple PF's for a single competitor.

[Nik Habicht]

It's mostly a scoring issue. EZWinScore doesn't do multiple PF's for a single competitor.

Under Tim's scenario -- there wouldn't be multiple power factors. The competitor's reclassified to Open -- for all stages. Assuming that the competitor chronos major, there shouldn't be an issue with power factor selection.....

The problem comes in when the competitor decides to change gear, and for those folks shooting minor.....

[ima45dv8]

It's mostly a scoring issue. EZWinScore doesn't do multiple PF's for a single competitor.

Under Tim's scenario -- there wouldn't be multiple power factors. The competitor's reclassified to Open -- for all stages. Assuming that the competitor chronos major, there shouldn't be an issue with power factor selection.....

The problem comes in when the competitor decides to change gear, and for those folks shooting minor.....

He started the match in Production, which is a defacto declaration of Minor. If he is allowed to shoot Major after the move to Open, what would you do with the scores from those stages shot as Production/Minor? Scoring them as Major awards points the shooter didn't earn while shooting those stages.

[coldchar]

Goes back to the concept that a Major caliber award is a bonus and not an entitlement.

Jim

[Sin-ster]

It's mostly a scoring issue. EZWinScore doesn't do multiple PF's for a single competitor.

Under Tim's scenario -- there wouldn't be multiple power factors. The competitor's reclassified to Open -- for all stages. Assuming that the competitor chronos major, there shouldn't be an issue with power factor selection.....

The problem comes in when the competitor decides to change gear, and for those folks shooting minor.....

He started the match in Production, which is a defacto declaration of Minor. If he is allowed to shoot Major after the move to Open, what would you do with the scores from those stages shot as Production/Minor? Scoring them as Major awards points the shooter didn't earn while shooting those stages.

I would argue that point, on the basis of technicality. If a shooter were to switch PF during a match and remain in the same Division, or begin shooting Production Minor and then get bumped to Open and pull out Major ammo, that's one thing.

Technically, he's been shooting Major the whole time; he earned every point he shot, as the scoring comes after the fact. He's already suffered the disadvantage of loading below capacity (if applicable) for those earlier stages, and of course isn't running big sticks, a dot or a comp... No one from Production or Open is going to gripe on terms of fairness to them as rival competitors.

To put it in perspective-- he declared Minor by default of the Division, which obviously means he declared Production also. As his gear was not sufficient to keep him in that Division, why must his PF (arguably a part of the gear) be ignored?

[uzi]

Technically, he's been shooting Major the whole time; he earned every point he shot, as the scoring comes after the fact. He's already suffered the disadvantage of loading below capacity (if applicable) for those earlier stages, and of course isn't running big sticks, a dot or a comp... No one from Production or Open is going to gripe on terms of fairness to them as rival competitors.

hello, ipsc make very good rule 6.2.53 on this one and it happen tp me one tiem.

[Nik Habicht]

It's mostly a scoring issue. EZWinScore doesn't do multiple PF's for a single competitor.

Under Tim's scenario -- there wouldn't be multiple power factors. The competitor's reclassified to Open -- for all stages. Assuming that the competitor chronos major, there shouldn't be an issue with power factor selection.....

The problem comes in when the competitor decides to change gear, and for those folks shooting minor.....

He started the match in Production, which is a defacto declaration of Minor. If he is allowed to shoot Major after the move to Open, what would you do with the scores from those stages shot as Production/Minor? Scoring them as Major awards points the shooter didn't earn while shooting those stages.

Well, by that logic, the shooter would need to reshoot those "Production" stages, because he hadn't shot them in Open division yet. Pretty sure we don't want to go there....

I see some validity to Tim's point -- the shooter's entire match is scored in Open, his (same for all stages) ammo chronographed at major, so why shouldn't he get the credit?

I also see the validity of "you declared both division and power factor at registration," the rulebook addresses how to deal with division-busting infractions (i.e. move to open) while purposefully ignoring the re-declaration of power factor.

I'm not advocating for a change here -- merely playing devil's advocate -- because I suspect that for match efficiency (and possibly competitive equity in some circumstances) it's best not rock this particular boat....

[Nik Habicht]

Technically, he's been shooting Major the whole time; he earned every point he shot, as the scoring comes after the fact.

Technically the only rounds fired out of a shooter's gun at major or minor power factor are the 3-7 rounds fired over the chrono....

Every other round in the match is "considered to be equivalent," but not proven to be.... :devil:

[The Antichrome]

I see no reason for such a rule change.

PF is declared before the match. Once you declare it, you own it. It's yours for the entire match. It is verified at chrono. There are rules and procedures in the event that your PF does not meet the minimum that you declared.

You dont get to change your declaration, otherwise it wouldnt be a declaration. (there are some good reasons for this)

de·clare (d-klâr)

v. de·clared, de·clar·ing, de·clares

v.tr.

1. To make known formally or officially.

2. To state emphatically or authoritatively; affirm.

The fact that Production forces you to declare Minor is beside the point.

Dont want to shoot Minor? The first step would be to shoot a different Division.

There should be no reason to reduce the consequences when a rule is broken.

The real issue here is that the shooter made poor choices in one or more of the following:

1.Equipment

2.Ammo

3.Division selected

A better approach would be to determine why/how his gun didnt fit.

I suspect aftermarket pads and/or sights.

[bikerburgess]

I think the bump to open is supposed to make you non competitive that way people don't push it knowing they are only risking a bump to a division they are competitive in. I don't see a reason to make breaking a division rule easier on anyone, at a major you are still shooting for score and still get to walk a prize table, all after breaking the rules

Mike

[double_r76]

I think the bump to open is supposed to make you non competitive that way people don't push it knowing they are only risking a bump to a division they are competitive in. I don't see a reason to make breaking a division rule easier on anyone, at a major you are still shooting for score and still get to walk a prize table, all after breaking the rules

Mike

+1

I think the shooter should be happy they are even allowed to finish the match and keep the scores for all of the stages they shot with equipment that was illegal for their declared division.

-Randy

[twodownzero]

Goes back to the concept that a Major caliber award is a bonus and not an entitlement.

Jim

But it is a fundamental principle of our sport. To dismiss it as not an "entitlement" isn't very meaningful because it fails to account for the fact that the competitor has earned the points boost and we're giving to some but not others.

I see no reason for such a rule change.

PF is declared before the match. Once you declare it, you own it. It's yours for the entire match. It is verified at chrono. There are rules and procedures in the event that your PF does not meet the minimum that you declared.

You dont get to change your declaration, otherwise it wouldnt be a declaration. (there are some good reasons for this)

de·clare (d-klâr)

v. de·clared, de·clar·ing, de·clares

v.tr.

1. To make known formally or officially.

2. To state emphatically or authoritatively; affirm.

The fact that Production forces you to declare Minor is beside the point.

Dont want to shoot Minor? The first step would be to shoot a different Division.

There should be no reason to reduce the consequences when a rule is broken.

The real issue here is that the shooter made poor choices in one or more of the following:

1.Equipment

2.Ammo

3.Division selected

A better approach would be to determine why/how his gun didnt fit.

I suspect aftermarket pads and/or sights.

First of all, let's not make this about a specific instance or it will be closed without being able to have the discussion. This is not about a specific instance or one specific competitor. This IS about a rule that has recently changed and treats the Production bump to Open differently than any other division's bump to Open.

You are correct that PF is "declared" prior to the match, but it is impossible to declare Production/Major, so you are imposing something on the competitor that he cannot perform. There is no rule that says one cannot shoot a major PF gun in Production. Production doesn't recognize major power factor so there is nothing to "declare." Your gun either makes the required power factor (minor), or it doesn't. That is why this is a unique issue to the Production division.

I started this thread and I selected the title, so I get to decide what the "real issue" is. The real issue here is that a competitor who is competing in the Production division who is bumped to Open suffers different consequences than a competitor who is bumped from Limited, L-10, or Revolver for that matter, to Open. My position is that the penalty should not be greater for one division than it is for another, since the ultimate consequence is the same either way--the competitor's score is in the "Open" division.

It might make more sense to modify the penalty and bump the competitor to a division in which their equipment is legal, but that's not the rule. The rule is that everybody gets bumped to Open. And as long as that's the rule, the bump to Open should have the same consequences.

I am not asking to reduce the consequences. The bump to Open is a harsh penalty and I think it should stay that way. I just think it should come with the same "bite" for anyone who gets sent to Open.

I think the bump to open is supposed to make you non competitive that way people don't push it knowing they are only risking a bump to a division they are competitive in. I don't see a reason to make breaking a division rule easier on anyone, at a major you are still shooting for score and still get to walk a prize table, all after breaking the rules

Mike

Then would you support requiring all competitors who are bumped to Open to shoot the match as minor power factor regardless of what their equipment chronoed? So if I use a thumb rest in Limited, or have 11 rounds in my gun after the start signal in L-10, or have my holster forward of my hip bones in Single Stack, would you force me to shoot minor in that circumstance as well?

I'm fully sympathetic to the view that we should not reduce the "sting" of shooting Open with a Production gun after a rule violation. But a one-size-fits-all penalty has to be equitable across divisions.

Perhaps it'd be better to force competitors who violate the rules to shoot the match for no score, but that's just not the rule we have, and so my position is that if we're going to have the rule we have, it needs to be fair.

The current rule is unfair and should change.

I think the bump to open is supposed to make you non competitive that way people don't push it knowing they are only risking a bump to a division they are competitive in. I don't see a reason to make breaking a division rule easier on anyone, at a major you are still shooting for score and still get to walk a prize table, all after breaking the rules

Mike

+1

I think the shooter should be happy they are even allowed to finish the match and keep the scores for all of the stages they shot with equipment that was illegal for their declared division.

-Randy

I'm sympathetic to that view as well, but it still fails to account for the fact that a competitor who shoots with illegal equipment in any division other than Production doesn't suffer the bump to Open/Minor, merely a bump to Open with whatever power factor he or she declared.

Edited May 28, 2012 by twodownzero

[ima45dv8]

Well, by that logic, the shooter would need to reshoot those "Production" stages, because he hadn't shot them in Open division yet. Pretty sure we don't want to go there....

Oh, yes,.....let's do go there.

Reshoot based on what exactly? There's no need or excuse to reshoot those early stages in which the competitor was participating in the Production division (before a bump). Getting bumped to Open for a divisional equipment infraction has NEVER been grounds for a reshoot of previously completed stages. Of course, I say that based on my limited experience. Can you possibly enlighten me as to when this was an actual rule?

I see some validity to Tim's point -- the shooter's entire match is scored in Open, his (same for all stages) ammo chronographed at major, so why shouldn't he get the credit?

For the reason previously stated: if you don't shoot Major, you can't be scored as Major. That you may get moved to Major at some point in the future has no bearing on the fact that when you shot the stage, you were shooting Minor.

I also see the validity of "you declared both division and power factor at registration," the rulebook addresses how to deal with division-busting infractions (i.e. move to open) while purposefully ignoring the re-declaration of power factor.

Ignored it How?! Nik, I apologize for having to ask this of you, of all people, but have you read the rulebook lately?

— Anyone signing up for Production is declaring minor regardless if the ammunition makes major at the chronograph. Should they be moved to another division, they will shoot minor for the entire match or sub-minor should their ammo fail to meet the minimum. {In Special Conditions, item 4, under Appendix D4}

I'm not advocating for a change here -- merely playing devil's advocate -- because I suspect that for match efficiency (and possibly competitive equity in some circumstances) it's best not rock this particular boat....

Devil's-Advocate-mode seems misplaced.

[Sin-ster]

For the reason previously stated: if you don't shoot Major, you can't be scored as Major. That you may get moved to Major at some point in the future has no bearing on the fact that when you shot the stage, you were shooting Minor.

I'm pushing a 230 grain bullet @ 740 FPS.

Am I shooting Minor or Major?

I know, I know-- it depends on what I declared.

If I declare myself match winner before donning my gear, does it make it so? If I declare myself a purple duck, is that in reality what I am?

We're not arguing the wording of the rules, or what the book obviously has to say about the situation. We're just saying that without the constraints of declarations and Divisions, the guy is shooting Major. Every other Division who gets a bump to Open benefits from that-- IF they delcared Major of course. But since he cannot do so in Production, he gets doubly screwed?

The guy is shooting Major for a Minor PF score; that's pretty contradictory to the notion of pushing the rules of the Division for an edge-- and doesn't seem to warrant a doubly-harsh punishment with the bump to Open. At least IMO.

I would bet dimes to dollars that the intention/spirit of the rule that requires them to shoot Minor for the rest of the match was NOT intended to hurt folks like this, but to prevent people from pulling out Major PF ammo after they'd already shot stages with Minor and then complicating the scoring process.

[ima45dv8]

Sin-ster,

I think you may be approaching this from the wrong direction. Several have said this was intended to be punitive. Many actions in our rulebook are, but this isn't one of them. It's about scoring.

While you're busy betting dimes to dog-biscuits, let me ask if you have ever scored a match with EZWinScore? I bet you have. You'll likely remember that it assigns points based on PF. If you sign up for Production, it doesn't give a hoot in Hell what your actual PF is (nor would I). It assigns the appropriate scoring for that division.

So let's examine someone who gets swapped from Production to Open and wants to shoot as Major PF. What exactly do we do with the stages already shot as Minor? Are you advocating just giving points to the competitor? Is the stats officer now the "Points Fairy" because someone screwed up their own match and got bumped to Open?

Nah...

[Sin-ster]

Sin-ster,

I think you may be approaching this from the wrong direction. Several have said this was intended to be punitive. Many actions in our rulebook are, but this isn't one of them. It's about scoring.

While you're busy betting dimes to dog-biscuits, let me ask if you have ever scored a match with EZWinScore? I bet you have. You'll likely remember that it assigns points based on PF. If you sign up for Production, it doesn't give a hoot in Hell what your actual PF is (nor would I). It assigns the appropriate scoring for that division.

So let's examine someone who gets swapped from Production to Open and wants to shoot as Major PF. What exactly do we do with the stages already shot as Minor? Are you advocating just giving points to the competitor? Is the stats officer now the "Points Fairy" because someone screwed up their own match and got bumped to Open?

Nah...

I am hesitant to say it, because I didn't write it down or put it on tape recorder... But I am 90% certain that Troy referenced the fact that it was something of a punishment in order to discourage people from pushing the borders of cheating.

But that's not really the crux of the matter, at least as I see it.

Nope, never scored with EZWinScore-- though I've tried my hardest to get the folks who do to explain it to me in a bit more detail. All I know is from looking over shoulders and being annoying with questions-- and that scoring issue with Production, though referenced already in this thread and a couple of times within my earshot, was only now made clear to me. (But I bet you knew that already-- dimes to dog biscuits. )

I think I'm approaching this from the wrong direction not so much in terms of seeing the argument and issues, but in terms of explaining my/our side of the debate-- and more importantly, the motivations.

The rule exists; the scoring system (so aptly named "EZ") exists. To change them would be difficult, for sure-- although I'll bet there's a programmer or 3 around here that'd be willing to help out with the latter. I'd be happy to help out with the former-- but I ain't paying for new Rule Books to be published!

Leaving things alone is the "EZ" way. Is it the fair way, to the competitor?

You're arguing practicality-- and rightly so, it's important! I believe the rest of us are arguing ethically, theoretically... etc.

If we could wave our magic wands and make all of the difficulties go away, would you still be in favor of the rule as it stands now?

((Just a mild aside-- what little I know about EZWinScoring is that it's a specialized Excel in the grand scheme of things, and barring the chance of some ridiculously complicated proprietary scripting language, it should not be hard to fix/alter at all. Getting everyone to update it to every pertinent device, however...))

Edited May 28, 2012 by Sin-ster

[Singlestack]

The points were not availible to the shooter when he shot a stage prior to the bump to Open. Y'all are trying to give them something that is not there.

[ima45dv8]

Sin-ster,

I think you may be approaching this from the wrong direction. Several have said this was intended to be punitive. Many actions in our rulebook are, but this isn't one of them. It's about scoring.

While you're busy betting dimes to dog-biscuits, let me ask if you have ever scored a match with EZWinScore? I bet you have. You'll likely remember that it assigns points based on PF. If you sign up for Production, it doesn't give a hoot in Hell what your actual PF is (nor would I). It assigns the appropriate scoring for that division.

So let's examine someone who gets swapped from Production to Open and wants to shoot as Major PF. What exactly do we do with the stages already shot as Minor? Are you advocating just giving points to the competitor? Is the stats officer now the "Points Fairy" because someone screwed up their own match and got bumped to Open?

Nah...

I am hesitant to say it, because I didn't write it down or put it on tape recorder... But I am 90% certain that Troy referenced the fact that it was something of a punishment in order to discourage people from pushing the borders of cheating.

But that's not really the crux of the matter, at least as I see it.

Nope, never scored with EZWinScore-- though I've tried my hardest to get the folks who do to explain it to me in a bit more detail. All I know is from looking over shoulders and being annoying with questions-- and that scoring issue with Production, though referenced already in this thread and a couple of times within my earshot, was only now made clear to me. (But I bet you knew that already-- dimes to dog biscuits. )

I think I'm approaching this from the wrong direction not so much in terms of seeing the argument and issues, but in terms of explaining my/our side of the debate-- and more importantly, the motivations.

The rule exists; the scoring system (so aptly named "EZ") exists. To change them would be difficult, for sure-- although I'll bet there's a programmer or 3 around here that'd be willing to help out with the latter. I'd be happy to help out with the former-- but I ain't paying for new Rule Books to be published!

Leaving things alone is the "EZ" way. Is it the fair way, to the competitor?

You're arguing practicality-- and rightly so, it's important! I believe the rest of us are arguing ethically, theoretically... etc.

If we could wave our magic wands and make all of the difficulties go away, would you still be in favor of the rule as it stands now?

((Just a mild aside-- what little I know about EZWinScoring is that it's a specialized Excel in the grand scheme of things, and barring the chance of some ridiculously complicated proprietary scripting language, it should not be hard to fix/alter at all. Getting everyone to update it to every pertinent device, however...))

What is there to "fix"? It ain't broken.

Let's try this and see if it addresses your ethical concerns...

As a competitor in Production, let's say you shoot two Charlies on a target. For that effort you earn 6 points. Later, because you screwed up your own situation (no one else -- you), we're supposed to re-code EWS so that the Good Points Fairy can give you two extra points that you had not previously earned? What's ethical about that?

The current rule is for certain 'fair to the competitor', and more importantly, it's fair to their competition (the ones who did not screw themselves up, and who also will not be visited by the Good Free Points Fairy).

[twodownzero]

Sin-ster,

I think you may be approaching this from the wrong direction. Several have said this was intended to be punitive. Many actions in our rulebook are, but this isn't one of them. It's about scoring.

While you're busy betting dimes to dog-biscuits, let me ask if you have ever scored a match with EZWinScore? I bet you have. You'll likely remember that it assigns points based on PF. If you sign up for Production, it doesn't give a hoot in Hell what your actual PF is (nor would I). It assigns the appropriate scoring for that division.

So let's examine someone who gets swapped from Production to Open and wants to shoot as Major PF. What exactly do we do with the stages already shot as Minor? Are you advocating just giving points to the competitor? Is the stats officer now the "Points Fairy" because someone screwed up their own match and got bumped to Open?

Nah...

The points were not availible to the shooter when he shot a stage prior to the bump to Open. Y'all are trying to give them something that is not there.

First of all, no stages were shot as "minor" or anything else for that matter. That's what the chrono stage is for, and until we are chronoing every round fired in a match, there is no "points fairy" and every shot a competitor fires is presumed to be at whatever power factor the competitor wishes to declare until we prove otherwise. That's not in question in this thread or anywhere else. In fact, the rampant cheating on that particular point is worthy of its own thread, but that's not the crux of what we're discussing here.

My proposition also is not inventing anything that was not there previous. If the competitor's handgun could not satisfy the requirements for major power factor, then he would not be able to declare Open/Major. The vetting process for determining whether the competitor could satisfy the division requirements for power factor is the same in this scenario as it is everywhere else in our sport--all competitors would have to submit ammo for testing.

Nobody has yet presented a principled reason for a more punitive rule for Production shooters compared to all other divisions. That's the real problem with this rule--not the fact that it'd be a pain to score or that we'd have to assume things that we don't have any method of verifying (the pf of prior-shot stages). Those issues are present any time a competitor is bumped to open from any division. There's no reason to believe that a guy shooting a Glock 35 who gets bumped from Limited-10 to Open for having 11 rounds in his magazine after the start signal is any different than a guy shooting the same Glock 35 who gets the bump to Open for his gun being overweight. Either way, we don't presume that all of the rounds he's shot prior to that instant in the match were actually at something other than his chronoed power factor. The competitor can declare anything he wants, and the proper process for determining whether his equipment meets the power factor requirements is already in the rule book.

We don't need any new rules to fix this. We merely need to eliminate the language that doesn't allow the Production competitor who has been bumped to Open to re-declare Major if his equipment can satisfy those requirements.

The key here is that, theoretically, the same competitor, using identical equipment and violating the same rule (11 rounds after the start signal in L-10 versus Production), could face different sanctions for the exact same rule infraction. That makes no sense and I'm still waiting for someone to defend that particular distinction.

The potential administration of such a rule change is debatable, but until someone can present a principled reason for the inequitable treatment in the first place, I simply cannot understand how that is an obstacle.

[Nik Habicht]

This IS about a rule that has recently changed and treats the Production bump to Open differently than any other division's bump to Open.

Tim,

actually the only recent change is the printing of an interpretive statement. Production shooters in the past were not able to change their power factor, if they busted division requirements....

Production isn't treated differently -- bust the criteria for a division while shooting Lim/L10/R/SS minor, and you'll still be shooting minor in Open. Bust while declaring Lim/L10/R/SS Major and you'll still be shooting major in Open. Production shooters shoot minor -- always have, probably always will. If they bust the division criteria, they're treated exactly the same as the folks who bust the criteria in the four other divisions who declared minor power factor.....

[ima45dv8]

First of all, no stages were shot as "minor" or anything else for that matter.

According to your first post in this thread, there were. You said you advised the guy to load his mags up for the last few stages after being bumped to Open.

That's what the chrono stage is for, and until we are chronoing every round fired in a match, there is no "points fairy" and every shot a competitor fires is presumed to be at whatever power factor the competitor wishes to declare until we prove otherwise.

But as you correctly pointed out in that same opening post, "Anyone signing up for Production is declaring minor..."

In the case of Production, no chronograph is needed for that unless the ammo doesn't even live up to 125.

Guys, it really is about scoring. If the points weren't available when the stage was shot (in Production), there's no logical reason to give out free points after someone gets moved to Open.

If you wish it to be otherwise, you might want to contact your Area Director and petition a change proposal for the BoD.

[Nik Habicht]

Well, by that logic, the shooter would need to reshoot those "Production" stages, because he hadn't shot them in Open division yet. Pretty sure we don't want to go there....

Oh, yes,.....let's do go there.

Reshoot based on what exactly? There's no need or excuse to reshoot those early stages in which the competitor was participating in the Production division (before a bump). Getting bumped to Open for a divisional equipment infraction has NEVER been grounds for a reshoot of previously completed stages. Of course, I say that based on my limited experience. Can you possibly enlighten me as to when this was an actual rule?

I think you missed something there -- I was responding to this:

He started the match in Production, which is a defacto declaration of Minor. If he is allowed to shoot Major after the move to Open, what would you do with the scores from those stages shot as Production/Minor? Scoring them as Major awards points the shooter didn't earn while shooting those stages.

Well, by that logic, the shooter would need to reshoot those "Production" stages, because he hadn't shot them in Open division yet. Pretty sure we don't want to go there....

I was facetiously suggesting, that since the competitor completed those stages in Production, we might not want to count them as Open division stages; following the principle of not wanting to award major power factor points for stages shot under "production declaration," regardless of power factor.... :devil:

[Nik Habicht]

I see some validity to Tim's point -- the shooter's entire match is scored in Open, his (same for all stages) ammo chronographed at major, so why shouldn't he get the credit?

For the reason previously stated: if you don't shoot Major, you can't be scored as Major. That you may get moved to Major at some point in the future has no bearing on the fact that when you shot the stage, you were shooting Minor.

Assuming the competitor was shooting 165+ PF ammo for the entire match (no gun or ammo change following the move to open) how does this logically make sense? He shot major power factor ammo.....

(Yes, I know, not according to the rules. And I'm not really arguing for a rule change -- I'm just playing along a bit.....)

[Nik Habicht]

I also see the validity of "you declared both division and power factor at registration," the rulebook addresses how to deal with division-busting infractions (i.e. move to open) while purposefully ignoring the re-declaration of power factor.

Ignored it How?! Nik, I apologize for having to ask this of you, of all people, but have you read the rulebook lately?

— Anyone signing up for Production is declaring minor regardless if the ammunition makes major at the chronograph. Should they be moved to another division, they will shoot minor for the entire match or sub-minor should their ammo fail to meet the minimum. {In Special Conditions, item 4, under Appendix D4}

Whoops, forgot about that..... :lol: