Can we please define Significant advantage? Please?

[Sarge]

From my understanding of this and how its been explained to me by both USPSA RM/RMI / IPSC RM, it ALL depends on the target array presented to you.

In other words at 6meters is the view different from what you seen at 5meters.

Example: At 6meters, you might have to lean left / right or move left / right to see all targets, but at 5meters you can just stand there and see all targets.

But in general terms I would consider 1 meter over the line a significant advantage, so 1 Procedural per Shot fired.

Cheers ....

There is a prime example of the real issue. You just contradicted yourself. You said it depends on the target array then go on to give examples. Then you just say being closer warrants a per shot. Imagine how many different ways an advantage can be perceived by a hundred RO's.

[CHA-LEE]

At the Battle in the Bluegrass, I had a brain fart, and when I was inserting another mag, I stepped ONE FOOT out of the shooting area. I was hit for TWENTY-SIX procedurals. The targets (plates and paper) were 15 yds away. Needless to say, it knocked me down to the bottom of Production.

In the NROI RO and CRO courses I took they talked about what defines a significant advantage or not. Basically it comes down to common sense to determine the difference between an "Advantage" and a "Significant Advantage". If a shooter is foot faulted and is a foot or two closer to the same targets they would be engaging from a normal shooting position, that is NOT a Significant Advantage. It may be an advantage being slightly closer to the targets but its not a significant advantage.

The only time I will consider issuing a per shot fired significant advantage is if the shooter is able to engage targets from a faulted position that others can't engage while staying in a valid shooting position. Or if they can engage the same targets as everyone else from a far better stance or gun handling condition by faulting. Such as standing outside of the shooting area to avoid a vision barrier that forces a shooter to go prone, shoot one handed or something like that.

Lastly, when you have RO's that obviously don't know the rules or how to apply the rules you need to get the RM or MD involved to resolve the issue. If you let these uninformed or misinformed RO's apply rules incorrectly they will never learn. We all screw up from time to time. Its all a learning process. The guys who don't want to learn are the ones who need to be told to stop ROing.

If you disagreed with the call made by the RO then why didn't you ask for the RM and or Arbitrate it? I should as hell would have if I got hit with what you did.

[Nik Habicht]

Based off of the conversation last night, depending on who is the RM for a given match you could get a totally different ruling than you could get at any other match, including the Nationals. That should never be the case.

Maybe. I like to think that each stage is unique -- so if I'm RMing a match, I'll walk the stage with the staff, and discuss the various faultlines, and what the implications of faulting are. Then we agree on something, and that's how it gets called for the entire match.

Stepping one yard over on a six yard array is different from stepping one yard over on a 50 yard array. Both of those -- stepping forward -- are different from stepping out to the side, and avoiding a lean/tighter shot....

[Nik Habicht]

Lastly, when you have RO's that obviously don't know the rules or how to apply the rules you need to get the RM or MD involved to resolve the issue. If you let these uninformed or misinformed RO's apply rules incorrectly they will never learn. We all screw up from time to time. Its all a learning process. The guys who don't want to learn are the ones who need to be told to stop ROing.

Before this gets too out of control I am going on record as saying this was not the case. First it was a practice league environment. The MD was one of the RO's involved in the discussion. Second I would put any of the RO's involved up against the best anywhere. They are all good RO's, even the guy who gave me the procedurals. That is not the problem with this rule. If anybody needs to get on the same page it is NROI and the RMI's. That is not a critical statement it is just a fact. The conversation went something like this. Me- Guys I think 12 procedurals for that was a little much. I was told by an RMI that a significant advantage is more than what I did. RO 2 I agree but the RO made the call so it is what it is. RO 2 I think it is the right call because RMI "X" told me it is automatic significant advantage if you are closer to a target, period. RO 3 THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THE RULE NEEDS CHANGED!

I think any rule that leaves something open to such broad interpretation should at least be addressed at higher levels so us RO's are getting consistent info from our chain of command.

Based off of the conversation last night, depending on who is the RM for a given match you could get a totally different ruling than you could get at any other match, including the Nationals. That should never be the case.

I completely agree that an RO at Nats should assess it the same as an RO at a Lvl I club match. IMHO the easiest thing to do is draw a line in the sand. Make any advantage a "significant" advantage.

That assumes that the stages/situations are truly identical....

[Neomet]

Maybe until/if there is a rule change the way to go forward is to include in the SD if stepping slightly outside the fault lines will be considered a significant advantage. A bit of a PITA to need to include it but it should end a lot of surprises, hard feelings, and time spent with appeals. Hell call them strict fault lines and judgment fault lines. If you know having a toe over the line will nick you for 16 procedurals on an array at least you are on notice.

[Kevin Pledger]

From my understanding of this and how its been explained to me by both USPSA RM/RMI / IPSC RM, it ALL depends on the target array presented to you.

In other words at 6meters is the view different from what you seen at 5meters.

Example: At 6meters, you might have to lean left / right or move left / right to see all targets, but at 5meters you can just stand there and see all targets.

But in general terms I would consider 1 meter over the line a significant advantage, so 1 Procedural per Shot fired.

Cheers ....

There is a prime example of the real issue. You just contradicted yourself. You said it depends on the target array then go on to give examples. Then you just say being closer warrants a per shot. Imagine how many different ways an advantage can be perceived by a hundred RO's.

You just give your scenario, but you have not showed us the target array was so how can one try to give a ruling your case, if it was a significant advantage.

So I outlined how I was told to look at the situation.

So based on what you said that you were over the line by 1 meter, then I would give you the 1 procedural per shot.

I dont see any contradiction here, perhaps I should have been more clearer in replying.

In the attachment a quick and dirty example maybe a little extreme(but I have seen short courses similiar to this), to try and illustrate my view.

Starting with feet on red line:

P1 can see T2,3,4,5,6 then move to P2 to see T1

P2 can see T1,2,3,4,5 then move to P1 to see T6

So if you have brain fade and run to P3 which is 1 meter from P1/P2, you will get to see ALL the targets from 1 position. So to me this is a significant advantage, so you are given 1 procedural per shot fired.

Even if the competitor put their foot over any of the fault lines at P1/P2 in order to engage T1/T6 to me its still a significant advantage so 1 procedure per shot, as the view changes and becomes easier to engage this targets.

If the competitor doesnt agree push it to the RM.

Cheers ....

[jester121]

Wow, I still have a lot to learn about the rules. I guess I've always skimmed over that part of 10.2.1, because every time I've fired a shot with a foot over the fault like I've been assessed a procedural per shot -- most memorably, at the Indiana Sectional this year I shot a nearly clean stage (2 charlies, rest alphas, good time for me) but was assessed 6 procedurals for not stepping forward into the shooting area after the start. Should I have appealed?

[BSeevers]

This is the worst rule in USPSA. It reminds me of FTDR. Why are we requiring a RO opinion if something is an advantage? Many ROs do not have the experience to determine if something is an advantage because of their skill level and experience.

I will tell you I have seen many bad calls using this rule. Realize that to an Open M/GM practically everything is an advantage. When you give them one penalty sometimes you are pushing them to a false placement in the results. You could make a case that to a D its true too. Its a bad rule.

Isnt easier to say you get 1 Prod for each shot? Its just like that stupid rule when you could only get 2 No shoots for your 6 hits. Hey you shot em you earned em. Isnt that easier and fair?

Edited September 12, 2012 by BSeevers

[twodownzero]

This is the worst rule in USPSA. It reminds me of FTDR. Why are we requiring a RO opinion if something is an advantage?

Because the point of a procedural is not to impose a punitive sanction, but rather, to remove the advantage received by violating the stage procedure.

If it's insignificant, we give a slap on the wrist.

If it's significant enough that one procedural isn't enough, we measure it one per shot.

[lugnut]

In the NROI RO and CRO courses I took they talked about what defines a significant advantage or not. Basically it comes down to common sense to determine the difference between an "Advantage" and a "Significant Advantage". If a shooter is foot faulted and is a foot or two closer to the same targets they would be engaging from a normal shooting position, that is NOT a Significant Advantage. It may be an advantage being slightly closer to the targets but its not a significant advantage.

The only time I will consider issuing a per shot fired significant advantage is if the shooter is able to engage targets from a faulted position that others can't engage while staying in a valid shooting position. Or if they can engage the same targets as everyone else from a far better stance or gun handling condition by faulting. Such as standing outside of the shooting area to avoid a vision barrier that forces a shooter to go prone, shoot one handed or something like that.

100% agree.

[sperman]

And now we've reached the crux of the problem. Each RO is going to have a different definition of what constitutes a "significant advantage."

I am only aware of 1 match in this country where each stage has the same CRO for every shooter in the match. And that is the nationals (OK, it's 2 matches.) Every other match that I know of has different RO's on the first day of the match, sometimes they used imbedded RO's, so you could have 8 or 9 different RO's making the SA call on each stage.

Until someone can come up with a better way to determine a way for every RO to make the same call, I fall into the camp of "one procedural per shot fired."

[atbarr]

there were 26 shots available from where you stepped out?

Yep, it was a 32 round stage.

[Neomet]

And now we've reached the crux of the problem. Each RO is going to have a different definition of what constitutes a "significant advantage."

I am only aware of 1 match in this country where each stage has the same CRO for every shooter in the match. And that is the nationals (OK, it's 2 matches.) Every other match that I know of has different RO's on the first day of the match, sometimes they used imbedded RO's, so you could have 8 or 9 different RO's making the SA call on each stage.

Until someone can come up with a better way to determine a way for every RO to make the same call, I fall into the camp of "one procedural per shot fired."

Ding Ding Ding Ding!! And we have a winner. Well said. The fact that there are various interpretations of what constitutes a significant advantage because of rotating ROs means that all competitors will not be judged equally . The more I think of it the more I like the idea that the SD should state if any step out is a SA or if as long as you have one foot in it is not considered a SA and only one procdural. Would that not solve the issue?

edited to add Perhaps have the SA fault lines in red on the SD.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Neomet

[JakeMartens]

if it is not one per shot fired then why have fault lines?

The procedure is to engage targets as and when visible from with in the fault lines

if you are outside of the fault lines and fire a shot then it is procedural for each shot

[Skydiver]

Ding Ding Ding Ding!! And we have a winner. Well said. The fact that there are various interpretations of what constitutes a significant advantage because of rotating ROs means that all competitors will not be judged equally . The more I think of it the more I like the idea that the SD should state if any step out is a SA or if as long as you have one foot in it is not considered a SA and only one procdural. Would that not solve the issue?

edited to add Maby have the SA fault lines in red on the SD.

Most of the clubs I go to have a RO/squad leader walkthrough a few minutes before the shooters meeting. The RM/MD goes with the ROs and Squad Leaders from stage to stage to read the course description, highlight any issues like 180s, targets that must be activated, engaging steel too close, etc, and open up the forum for questions about the stage or stage procedure. At times, they also note cases when particular foot faults, or leaning against props outside the fault lines will be considered a significant advantage vs. just a single procedural. Basically they try to establish this equitable judging before the first shot is fired.

[Paul Santiago]

if it is not one per shot fired then why have fault lines?

The procedure is to engage targets as and when visible from with in the fault lines

if you are outside of the fault lines and fire a shot then it is procedural for each shot

Sounds simple enough and eliminates the 'judgement'. Not counting the aerial acrobatics arguments of when you're in/out, if the decision is that you were outside the fault lines, then one procedural per shot.

[Skydiver]

Is this "get rid of significant advantage judgement call" only for 10.2.1 (foot faults), or does it apply to 10.2.2 (not following stage procedures) as well?

As I've been taught the USPSA/IPSC game, sometimes it is worth "taking the procedural" because of the time gained. ex. Don't bother moving a prop from point A to point B because it'll save 3 seconds, and the estimated HF for the stage makes those 3 seconds worth it.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Skydiver

[GrumpyOne]

there were 26 shots available from where you stepped out?

Yep, it was a 32 round stage.

This is the stage AT is talking about... It damn near killed me....AT is a good friend, and I was filming him, and could not say a word....

http://www.bgslinc.com/userfiles/file/sports/Battle%20in%20The%20Bluegrass/MajorMinor.pdf

[Nik Habicht]

This is the worst rule in USPSA. It reminds me of FTDR. Why are we requiring a RO opinion if something is an advantage?

Because the point of a procedural is not to impose a punitive sanction, but rather, to remove the advantage received by violating the stage procedure.

If it's insignificant, we give a slap on the wrist.

If it's significant enough that one procedural isn't enough, we measure it one per shot.

Hey,mark today in red in the calendar -- Tim and I completely agree on something! :D

[Nik Habicht]

And now we've reached the crux of the problem. Each RO is going to have a different definition of what constitutes a "significant advantage."

I am only aware of 1 match in this country where each stage has the same CRO for every shooter in the match. And that is the nationals (OK, it's 2 matches.) Every other match that I know of has different RO's on the first day of the match, sometimes they used imbedded RO's, so you could have 8 or 9 different RO's making the SA call on each stage.

Until someone can come up with a better way to determine a way for every RO to make the same call, I fall into the camp of "one procedural per shot fired."

This year's MASC had the same CROs on the stages for the entire match.....

Last year's MASC, which used rotating staff, had the second session CRO working as an RO on the same stage during the first half-day session. That allowed for communication among the staff, and ensured that calls were being made consistently....

This doesn't need to be rocket science -- it can be made to work with both dedicated and rotating staff members, with a little preparation and forethought...

[atbarr]

This is the stage AT is talking about... It damn near killed me....AT is a good friend, and I was filming him, and could not say a word....

http://www.bgslinc.c.../MajorMinor.pdf

Yep, me stepping forward one foot, was a significant advantage!

[Neomet]

And now we've reached the crux of the problem. Each RO is going to have a different definition of what constitutes a "significant advantage."

I am only aware of 1 match in this country where each stage has the same CRO for every shooter in the match. And that is the nationals (OK, it's 2 matches.) Every other match that I know of has different RO's on the first day of the match, sometimes they used imbedded RO's, so you could have 8 or 9 different RO's making the SA call on each stage.

Until someone can come up with a better way to determine a way for every RO to make the same call, I fall into the camp of "one procedural per shot fired."

This year's MASC had the same CROs on the stages for the entire match.....

Last year's MASC, which used rotating staff, had the second session CRO working as an RO on the same stage during the first half-day session. That allowed for communication among the staff, and ensured that calls were being made consistently....

This doesn't need to be rocket science -- it can be made to work with both dedicated and rotating staff members, with a little preparation and forethought...

My concern isn't really larger matches. It is more our every weekend matches where we have rolling ROs with no overlap. I shoot a lot more of those.

edited to add Then again, every time I have seen someone step out it has always been called a penalty for every shot, so that certainly is parity.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Neomet