Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals

[Vince Pinto]

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 I understand you correctly, the question you're really asking is: "Can a competitor gain a significant advantage on only one target in an array of three targets visible through a single port?". If so, my answer is "Yes", but:

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.

-:I must agree with Nik and his interpretation of the rule.

POSTSCRIPT: I'll raise this issue with my colleagues on the Rules Committee to see if we can come up with a revision which would allow the "per shot" penalty to be applied on a "per target" basis. It would be nice to offer a "softer" option, as like we did with Rule 10.2.11.

[ErikW]

If you were to stand up and shoot around the left side of that wall with one or both feet faulting, that is a significant advantage. Have the toes of one foot outside while you shoot from the same tight squatting or kneeling position as everybody else is not an advantage and if it were, it would be insignificant.

What is it the kilted one always says? Don't beat the competitor over the head with the rule book.

[kdj]

Since this was a club match

That particular video was filmed at the Nationals and they aren't allowed to take the easy way out

Kevin

[wide45]

The RO ran out of fingers. A sure sign of doom.

Define position. Each target? Each port? Each shooting area? When the feet move?

The faulted foot did not move. Why did not anyone say 12 proc.?

The rear fault might simulate the back wall of the room. It forces an awkward stance. If this was not intended, it should not have been there. Faulting it should be considered an advantage for all shots through the high port.

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

The ruling that Amidon (RM) upheld was 3 procedurals (for that array).

I say 2.

It seems they called the two "signifcantly advantaged" shots in addition to...not instead of (as the rule states)...the procudural for that array.

That is my question. Two or three?

[shred]

I thought the call on the left port was 2 proceedurals for the "advantaged" shots on the target by the wall, and 1 proceedural on the targets off to the left for no advantage gained on them. I don't know if they fall under the 'same array' requirement or what.

The remaining (4th) proceedural was assessed for the shots on the prone port.

Btw, the targets visible on the left side at the start of the video are the targets in question. No others were engaged from the left side. An overview photo of the entire stage is here.

[Gwhiz]

I too fell in to this trap. My last stage having a clean match up to this point. This type of fault line port set up is poor stage design,IMO. It is especially hard on us plus size competors.

What really chaps me is the gravel had built up even with the fault line, where you could not feel the fault line with your foot. I slid my right foot along the ground not feeling the fault line, so I thought I was within the shooting area. The capper is my squad was told that we could not move any rocks because we were "materially changing the stage." I thought fault lines had to rise 5cm above the ground. Are fault lines allowed to be covered by gravel?

There is no advantage gained I had the same view that I had in the walk through when I looked back and placed my feet just inside the line.

There were this and a couple of akward ports that were more or less a problem depending on your body size and shape.

That said I loved the stages and thought the match was well run.

[Vince Pinto]

The ruling that Amidon (RM) upheld was 3 procedurals (for that array).

Since John was there on the ground and I wasn't, I'm not in a position to disagree with his ruling, especially since my comments are based on illegal (!!!) video evidence

Having said that, and for a bit more second-guessing, perhaps the 3 procedurals arose from 2 for the left-hand port for the target which had the "significant advantage", and 1 for the front port. I can't think of any other reason for 3 procedurals.

[Nik Habicht]

Vince,

The ruling that Amidon (RM) upheld was 3 procedurals (for that array).

I say 2.

It seems they called the two "signifcantly advantaged" shots in addition to...not instead of (as the rule states)...the procudural for that array.

That is my question.  Two or three?

Kyle,

After thinking it over long and hard the night after the incident, I agreed with your contention of it's one OR the other not both. However, I don't find anything in the rule to support two procedurals. It comes down to 1 or six.....

Got anything in the rule book that allows you to award just two? BTW, I did run this past one of the RMs on the final day --- and I think we agreed on that interpretation....

[Gwhiz]

they gave 3 procedurals on the left port. 2 for the right target which you "gained an advantage" and 1 procedural for the foot fault with "no advantage gained" on the 2 left targets. I moved forward when I went prone so my feet were within the shooting area then.

one more wall section added and there would have been no problems.Such is Life.

[Nik Habicht]

The ruling that Amidon (RM) upheld was 3 procedurals (for that array).

Since John was there on the ground and I wasn't, I'm not in a position to disagree with his ruling, especially since my comments are based on illegal (!!!) video evidence

Having said that, and for a bit more second-guessing, perhaps the 3 procedurals arose from 2 for the left-hand port for the target which had the "significant advantage", and 1 for the front port. I can't think of any other reason for 3 procedurals.

Vince,

The shooter was awarded a total of four procedurals --- one for faulting the left port, two and three for advantage on the one target through the left port, and one more for faulting on the six rounds through the low forward port....

FWIW in retrospect, I think the shooter got hosed.

Mark,

if you read this --- thanks for the education you're continuing to provide....

[Sterling White]

This was a tough stage....just glad it wasn't under 6 inches of water or scuba gear would have been needed. The question that ran thru my mind when we shot this stage and has come up several times in conversation is this: were the procedurals given to each shooter consistent? or were different penalties given based on who was performing the RO function?

The call that Amidon made was a little different than one given earlier so IMO there was some inconsistancy....but what do I know!

[davidwiz]

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.

You're referring to Stage 20 at the Nationals, right?

As for the procedurals, the CRO and ROs for that stage (before I got transfered there) discussed the topic of procedurals w/ John Amidon and that is what they came up with. If you faulted while firing all of the shots at the port behind the chair - 3 procedurals: 1 b/c you didn't follow the course description and 2 b/c on 1 target you did gain an advantage. If you faulted on the low port (the one most people went prone on), it was only 1 procedural for not following the course description & no advantage gained.

To the best of my knowledge, the # of procedurals were handled consistently, no matter who was running the timer.

-David

[MVZ]

The original call by the RO was 12 proceedurals. Durring the discussion the RO & CRO determined that the faults were basicaly the same as a shooter the day before and that 3 proceedurals for the side port and 1 for the low foreward port was assesed. I disagreed and asked for the RM. His decision was that the RO was correct as an advantage on one target and not the other 2 was worth 3 proceedurals and an additional fore the foreward array.

On the walk through I had no problem just squating and seeing all the targets and therfore never even thought about having to worry about the rear fault line.

Durring the COF I didn't feel comfortable and dropped to a knee once again not thinking about the rear fault line

I didn't and still don't think the call was correct but since they assesed the penalties the same way previously I accepted the call

[Nik Habicht]

David,

moving away from the specifics of the stage, where in the rulebook do you find anything allowing you to assess only two procedurals if the shooter had a significant advantage? Nothing I've read allows for a target specific interpretation --- it seems to call for a position specific interpretation...

[Flexmoney]

I am convinced that the call at then match was in error.

Nik/Vince, while I agree that it (the wording of the rule) does appear to be position specific rather than target specific...it really just doesn't say.

I also know that there is know way that I can allow myself to interpret the rule so that I would have awarded 6 procedurals. Even though the wording might seem to support that... (I can't believe I am getting ready to say this) clearly that is NOT the call (intent) that would be fair to the shooter. It would be like awarding bonus procedurals.

[MikeFoley]

tewlman got the 3 procedurals for this too

don't let rhino see the pic of Julie

I suppose everyone who got this one should have arbitrated it, I hate that crap, but they should have. The finals were very close all the way down, and tewlman could have used 20 more points.

[Vince Pinto]

..... clearly that is NOT the call (intent) that would be fair to the shooter.

I agree, and I'm working on revised wording which would allow an RO to issue procedurals on a kinder and gentler "per target, per shot" basis.

Watch this space -------------> <--------------------

[Neil Beverley]

..... clearly that is NOT the call (intent) that would be fair to the shooter.

I agree, and I'm working on revised wording which would allow an RO to issue procedurals on a kinder and gentler "per target, per shot" basis.

Watch this space -------------> <--------------------

Vince

As I said earlier I believe we should be looking at this and I will support a re-write of the rule.

I would have called it as 2 because I believe there is a way of reading that into the rules even as written. That excludes any penalty to fail to comply with the written briefing.

[Skywalker]

With the limited field of view provided by the pictures, I'd say that there was no significant advantage in faulting the charge line, thus I'd say only one procedural.

Neil,

you say that

I would have called it as 2 because I believe there is a way of reading that into the rules even as written.

Care to expand this, since in reading (IPSC) rule 10.2.1 in conjunction with rule 10.2.3

10.2.3 Where multiple penalties are assessed in the above cases, they must 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 only 4 metal targets are visible will receive 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting, up to a maximum of 4 procedural penalties, regardless of the number of shots actually fired.

I wouldn't have thought of that possibility.

Anyway, I agree that the rule should make allowance for the RO to discriminate among the targets on which the competitor could have gained an advantage, thus assessing a different number of procedurals than the number of shots fired while faulting.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi kids,

My first draft of a proposed revision:

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground beyond a Fault or Charge Line will receive 1 procedural penalty. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor will be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting, instead of a single penalty. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting a line.

Comments welcome.

[Skywalker]

Vince, it seems a good one.

I have a question about it, though: this new provision makes room for RO discretionality when it comes to deeming which and how many targets benefited of a competitive advantage from faulting the charge/fault line.

Now, wouldn't it be better to specify "...However, if, in the opinion of the officiating RO, the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor ..." just to clarify that the judgement of the RO on the (possible) competitive advantage on which target(s) is not under discussion?

[BDH]

Well, I had to go away for a few hours because this post was making my head spin! I just re-read it from the beginning, and at least now I do understand how it could have been deemed that they gained significant advantage on one target out of the array, and not the other two (thx Shred for the photo). Also, now I actually understand Flex's original question, and can support his position of two Procedurals. That said, I wasn't on the stage, nor did I see this happen, so it seems that while a little more clarity in the rules might help, I would think that as long as the Procedurals were applied consistently throughout the match, everything should have worked out.

What really chaps me is the gravel had built up even with the fault line, where you could not feel the fault line with your foot. I slid my right foot along the ground not feeling the fault line, so I thought I was within the shooting area. The capper is my squad was told that we could not move any rocks because we were "materially changing the stage." I thought fault lines had to rise 5cm above the ground.  Are fault lines allowed to be covered by gravel?

Gwhiz, would YOU have been changing the stage, or did the shooters before you change the stage?? I would guess that those rocks did not obscure the charge line on day one, squad one. Again, I wasn't there, but I try to keep things consistent for everyone, so I may have made a different decision (or just kept the rocks cleared out myself because shooters would NEED to feel this line).

[BDH]

Vince, looks good to me.....

Luca, while I understand your desire to nail this down even further, I foresee a bunch of upcoming arbs based on whether significant advantage was gained or not. However, after thinking about it, I guess the arb possibility is there right now anyway since this is a judgement call by the RO already....

[Vince Pinto]

Now, wouldn't it be better to specify "...However, if, in the opinion of the officiating RO, the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor ..." just to clarify that the judgement of the RO on the (possible) competitive advantage on which target(s) is not under discussion? 

Did the evil Neil Beverley put you up to this ???????

I guess you could call this an "inside joke" among the Rules Committee, because I wanted to use that particular expression many more times throughout the rule book, but I was jumped on from a very great height. My colleagues thought it was "understood", and to keep repeating it would be overkill.

Anyway, the scars have finally started to heal, but I'm still waiting for someone to send me flowers and candy