Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals

[Flexmoney]

I was at a match recently were I observed the following (USPSA match, so we are still under the 14th ed. "red" rule book).

The stage had two basic shooting positions...each position had the shooter shooting thru it's port/window. Each position had three paper targets (best two hits score).

Fault lines were in place at the rear to form a shooting area to compel the shooters to use the ports (for our purposes...the ports were the only option).

So...the shooter goes to port #1 and engages the three targets in that port (kneeling). While doing so, the shooter inadvertently has one foot faulting the rear line...for all six shots fired at this port.

The RO determines that, by faulting the rear line, the shooter had an advantage for one of the targets (two shots fired at that target).

The shooter never changes position while in this port...the shooter was kneeling while engaging the three targets thru the port.

How many procedurals apply to this situation? (Assume, for the sake of discussion, that the shooter did get a "significant advantage" on the one target.)

Below is the likely rule (feel free to point out any other that applies):

10.1.4.1 If a competitor allows any part of their body to touch the ground beyond a fault line or charge line and fires shots while faulting, the competitor shall receive 1 procedural penalty. However, if the Range Officer determines that the competitor has received a significant advantage while faulting the line, the competitor will be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting instead of the single penalty...

I have underlined the portion of the rule that I think is key. (The rest of the rule deals with shooting prone and faulting the forward line, so I cut it off to remove static in the discussion.)

[uscbigdawg]

1. Failure to follow course description. Boxes and ports where you have to take a knee (especially if you're tall and/or have long legs) are dumb.

Rich

[Ron Ankeny]

I guess two penalties because he/she gained a significant advantage for two shots.

Boxes and ports where you have to take a knee (especially if you're tall and/or have long legs) are dumb.

Well I have arthitis in my back and I am fat, therefore, requiring any shooting other than freestyle from one position is dumb. No movement, no awkward positions allowed.

[mactiger]

One procedural: if you gained advantage by faulting the line, then that applies to all targets. If not, then it's got to be one and only one.

Troy

[BDH]

The RO determines that, by faulting the rear line, the shooter had an advantage for one of the targets (two shots fired at that target).

The shooter never changes position while in this port...the shooter was kneeling while engaging the three targets thru the port.

Since I did not see this, I am having a hard time figuring out two things: First, it is hard to fathom a foot touching over a rear fault line while shooting through a port that gives a 'significant' advantage. Second, if the shooter never changed positions, then it is hard for me to understand how the foot gave them significant advantage only on one of the three targets, but not the other two.

This seems to come down to whether they truly gained a significant advantage. If there was NO significant advantage, then I would give one procedural. OTOH, if there was a significant advantage, then the shooter would get one procedural per shoot fired to the maximum of the scoring hits or six Procedurals (again, I am assuming from the description, that if the shooter never moved, if he gained an advantage on one target, he must have gained an advantage on all three, which 'could' be bad assumption).

10.1.4.2 Where multiple penalties are assessed in the above cases, they shall not exceed the maximum number of scoring hits that can be attained by the competitor. For example, a competitor who gains an advantage while faulting a fault or charge line where four (4) metal targets are visible, shall receive a procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting to a maximum of four (4) procedural penatlies regardless of the number of shots actually fired.

[shred]

I have video of the actual event.. I'll see about getting it posted.

[Sterling White]

This kinda reminds me of the "skin your elbows" stage at the Nat's this year that required a hard nose dive forward to engage targets thru a low port! One of our squad mates didn't realize his toe was outside the fault line til toooooo late!

[Flexmoney]

1. Failure to follow course description. Boxes and ports where you have to take a knee (especially if you're tall and/or have long legs) are dumb.

Rich

I guess I should have added that the course procedure was the standard "engage as visible". (so, no procedural for that).

As for boxes and ports requiring a knee being "dumb"...that is a different discussion.

[Flexmoney]

BDH, The port was on a side wall. The RO determined that the angle was such that being further back gave the shooter a better angle at that port....for the one target that was tight to the inside of the wall.

I didn't want to dilute the question with too many facts, but since the cat is out of the bag...

It was the stage 20 (Get It Done) at this year's (2004) Nationals.

The call that was made for that situation was three (3) procedurals. They gave one for each shoot fired while having an "advantage" on that one target, plus another for the foot fault in general.

Now...the shooter didn't "re-fault" the line while shooting this array. They faulted the one time...while firing 6 shots (two on each target).

To me, the rule reads instead of. It was scored as in addition to.

My call would have been two (2) procedurals.

[Flexmoney]

I've borrowed one of D-Lo's pictures of this stage.

The target's in the far background aren't shot from this port.

The target in the foreground...on the left, in the shadow...is the target that the "advantage" was gained on.

The other two targets in this array were a bit further left and didn't require getting into the hole/port quite as much. They were more in the open.

The shooter was in basically the same position as Julie, but had their right knee down...and ended up with their right foot touching just behind the rear fault line.

[shred]

Here is the actual event and a following non-faulting run:

Click Here For Video (6MB, MPEG-1)

FWIW, the shooters foot never goes back inside the fault line. Does that matter?

[diehli]

If the RO determines there was a significant advantage gained, then it's six procedurals. If the RO doesn't determine there was a significant advantage, it's one. The language seems pretty clear to me... but we know how that one goes.

[Skywalker]

If the RO determines there was a significant advantage gained, then it's six procedurals. If the RO doesn't determine there was a significant advantage, it's one. The language seems pretty clear to me... but we know how that one goes.

Ditto.

The rule is quite clear.

The call that was made for that situation was three (3) procedurals. They gave one for each shoot fired while having an "advantage" on that one target, plus another for the foot fault in general.

This one really has me astonished!

Either one (no advantage) or six (advantage), but three seems to me the RO was having contrasting feelings and didn't want to take a decision or the other...

[racerba]

Athena Lee faulted on this stage when she went prone. Her right leg was outside the rear fault line. She received one procedural penalty because it didn't gain her any advantage. Guess she was too tall.

The shooter got 2 procedural because they gained an advantage on two of the shots through the left port. He was given the 3rd procedural for the foot fault when he was shooting the remaining 6 shots at the three targets through the low port.

[Skywalker]

Racerba, the rules don't allow you to break in segments the "string" fired from a single position while faulting a charge line (technically, that's a charge line, not a fault line).

Either you apply one penalty per shot fired from that position, or one penalty for all.

[kdj]

It's interesting how many interpretations of the clear rule there are

I would have thought 3 was the right answer:

There were 2 shots fired from the first position which were deemed to have benefited from the foot position. Hence 1 procedural per shot fired with advantage, instead of the 1 procedural for that position. Then 1 additional procedural for the foot fault with no significant advantage for the second position.

So far the range in discussion has been from 1 (a single procedural for a foot fault) to 12 (one per shot fired since the foot was out during the entire stage and I assume the person believed this gave an advantage).

Isn't it good that rules as so clear and not open to any interpretation by the reader

(By the way, that's not a knock at the rules writer, in a previous existance, I wrote mathematical semantics. I know how hard it is to be completely unambiguous in any natural language!)

Kevin

[shred]

I think for the purposes of discussion let's remember this is NOT to attack the RO's on this particular stage. They called it as best they could at the time.

A decision had been made before we got there that shooting the close target was advantage-gained while faulting and the others were not.

[Neil Beverley]

I'm going to really stretch the imagination here but let us suppose a theoretical case on the same stage.

The competior faults the line as described and fires 2 shots each at the "easy" targets. Easy and no significant advantage. The competitor then has a malfunction and stops shooting to clear it. During the clearing process they adjust their position and stand. After clearing the malfunction they resume shooting at the last target, the difficult target. By faulting once again they gain a significant advantage for the 2 shots. How many procs now?

What would you do if they initially forgot to shoot the 3rd target and left the "box" and started to move away and then returned to it when they remembered the missed target?

As described it doesn't seem that 1 procedural would be fair. To me 6 procs is grossly unfair and wrong. There was no significant advantage on shots 1 - 4.

From the info to hand I can understand the logic of applying 3 although I favour imposing just 2. I personally don't support either 6 or 1 and perhaps this becomes another rule that needs to be tweaked to clarify this type of occurrence.

[Flexmoney]

There were 2 shots fired from the first position which were deemed to have benefited from the foot position. Hence 1 procedural per shot fired with advantage, instead of the 1 procedural for that position. Then 1 additional procedural for the foot fault with no significant advantage for the second position.

That is not how it went. (though I do agree that is how it should have went.)

I puposely left the second array out of the discussion to avoid more confusion. There were three (3) procedurals given for the first array, and one more (for a total of four(4) given for the whole stage).

-----------

I really didn't want to get too far into what "happened with this shooter at this stage at this match". I just wanted to use the example. Lets try to stay (if we can) on the first array.

My call...

In a similar situation, I'd give the shooter one procedural for shooting the array while faulting the line. If I determine that the shooter took a shot while faulting and had an advantage for that shot...I would give a procedural for that shotinstead of (not in addition to) the general procedural for faulting. I would then give one procedural for each shot fired that was at an advantage (up to the maximum possible scoring hits per target, as covered under 10.1.4.2)

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

DISCLAIMER: Despite watching the video a dozen times, I wasn't there, so my comments are based solely on the visual information provided in the video, which does not give a view of the "uprange" targets visible through the left-hand port.

1. With all due respect to the construction crew, the COF looks to me like a "Procedural Trap". If the side wall was 3 feet longer and if the rear charge line was moved rearwards accordingly, this discussion would be moot.

2. I do not see any "significant advantage". Both competitors "swayed" for angle, but neither of them shifted their knees.

3. The subject rule must be applied on an "either/or" basis (i.e. either a single "general" procedural or a multiple "per shot" procedural, not both).

4. My conclusion: 1 procedural for faulting the rear charge line.

[uscbigdawg]

4. My conclusion: 1 procedural for faulting the rear charge line.

The above is what I meant. By not following the course description, I imagine that it required all shots be fired from Area 'A', which didn't happen.

Rich

[Random site note]

After watching the video. Since it was Mark V. that faulted and fellow Army man Michael C. was the RO, give him six. (I'm kidding of course)

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

That answers the questin we ended up with (for this) particular stage. And, I agree...I didn't realy see an advantage gained there either.

But, lets forget the specific...and this stage in particular. I just meant to use it as an example (poor choice on my part...I knew it would get recognized and broken down).

If we can go more generic...

So...the shooter goes to port #1 and engages the three targets in that port (kneeling). While doing so, the shooter inadvertently has one foot faulting the rear line...for all six shots fired at this port.

The RO determines that, by faulting the rear line, the shooter had an advantage for one of the targets (two shots fired at that target). let's assume this is the case

The shooter never changes position while in this port...the shooter was kneeling while engaging the three targets thru the port.

How many procedurals?

[uscbigdawg]

Kyle,

Given:

The RO determines that, by faulting the rear line, the shooter had an advantage for one of the targets (two shots fired at that target). let's assume this is the case

If the position gained the competitor a considerable advantage, I'd say two procedurals. If it wasn't a "considerable advantage", meaning if you could shoot the same target without NEEDING to step outside and it was just a bad position, I'd only give the competitor one.

Clear as mud!

Rich

[JFlowers]

Having watched the video and read the rulebook (but not an RO), the following is my opinion.

Two (2) procedurals for the stage. I do not see where any advantage was gained by the positioning. In fact I would be hard pressed to come up with a position where faulting the rear charge line gives an advantage, but I am sure its possible.

Personally, I think rear charge lines, especially as tight as these look to be are poor stage design or the result of lack of stage props. I agree with Vince that extending the wall a couple of feet and then placing the charge line would have resulted in a much more friendly stage.

Since this was a club match and club matchs are not required to strictly adhere to certain rules, why not simply state the arrays had to be engaged through the ports and do away with the rear charge line?

[Nik Habicht]

If we can go more generic...

So...the shooter goes to port #1 and engages the three targets in that port (kneeling). While doing so, the shooter inadvertently has one foot faulting the rear line...for all six shots fired at this port.

The RO determines that, by faulting the rear line, the shooter had an advantage for one of the targets (two shots fired at that target). let's assume this is the case

The shooter never changes position while in this port...the shooter was kneeling while engaging the three targets thru the port.

How many procedurals?

Kyle,

I'm assuming that when you postulate that the competitor had an advantage, that you meant a significant advantage. If the advantage, on that one target, was significant, the rules as written require you to assess six procedurals. The pertinent sentence from rule 10.1.4.1 is

However, if the Range Officer determines that the competitor has received a significant advantage while faulting the line, the competitor will be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting instead of the single penalty...

There is no option for assessing procedurals on a per target basis, only on a position basis. If there's a significant advantage, you must assess one procedural per shot fired while faulting the line. The competitor faulted for six shots, there were six scoring scoring hits possible from the position, ergo six procedurals.