Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals

[tewlman]

ok, i'm probably posting a little late on this thread but here it is anyway.

i shot the stage in question at the nationals and did the same thing, went to kneeling position to engage the three targets to the left thru port and inadvertently had one foot outside the fault line (i really couldn't even tell). The RO gave me 3 procedurals: two for a gained advantage on the extreme right target that was in tight to the wall and then i guess one general procedural for being outside the fault line.

i didn't really agreewith the RO but took the procedurals anyway, at that point in the match it wasn't really going to change the overall outcome of things.

[Skywalker]

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

No, even if he could have done it, since his "force" is very strong...

It came from my very own reflection: the issue of wether there is a gained advantage on one or more targets is too delicate not to nail it down clearly.

I mean, the issue of competitive advantage can be debated up to the Arb. Com., with argumentations from each party.

But the issue of which and how many targets benefited of the (possible) competitive advantage shouldn't be disputed, and should be left completely to the officiating RO, because he's the one witnessing the competitor's position and alignment at the time the charge/fault line is being faulted.

I mean, in the above example, if the RO reports you gaining competitive advantage on the first two targets, but not on the last, you can arbitrate if the competitive advantage was there or not, but you cannot dispute the RO call on how many targets benefited of the competitive advantage (e.g. only one instead of two), because this should be based on the instantaneous RO perception of the whole action, not on subsequent speculations such as "I was there, I couldn't even see the second target ..."

To me is the same issue of a DQable offense: you can dispute (up to the Arb. Com.) if what you did was a safety infraction or not, but you cannot dispute the facts as the RO perceived them.

Hope this makes sense to you all as it does to me (otherwise I'll have to take a new english course...).

[Neil Beverley]

Hey, Vince, I protest!

I wasn't the one beating you up over "in the opinion of", I think it was Bob the Dinosaur. There are many rules that become de facto "in the opinion of" and I wasn't too bothered whether we kept the expression or not.

You're just feeling sensitive and unloved! You are also so hurtful by calling me "evil".

I suspect your proposed change will receive wide support but the suggestion should be allowed to run some more first.

Luca

Can I first say that from the very start I latched on to the intent of Flex's question rather than the actual circumstances of the stage used as an example and so my views ignore some of the additional info revolving around 2 apertures and 2 arrays of targets.

I note that there have been a couple of references to Rule 10.2.3. You have highlighted some of the text but this is given as an example. It is not the rule itself, the text merely serves to help by offering an interpretation not the interpretation.

You are then left with: 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. This isn't relevant to the thrust of the question.

This leaves us with:

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 while faulting, the competitor will be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting, instead of a single penalty.  No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting a line.

I've highlighted what I consider to be the critical text. Flex has submitted that 6 shots are fired, 2 each at 3 targets. Shot 1 did not gain a significant advantage while faulting. Nor did shots 2, 3 or 4. Shot 5 and shot 6 did gain a significant advantage (in the theoretical case).

I believe that as no significant advantage can be attributed to shots 1 - 4 they can't be penalised as such. Instead I believe the rule can already be read to mean per shot.

Please consider 3 targets immediately in front of a shooter at say 3 metres (10 feet) distance and in plain unobstructed view. The competitor faults by placing a foot over the line. No significant advantage so just 1 Procedural.

Now add in a 4th target screwed hard around to the side and screened by a barricade. The competitor advances their foot another 10 cms (4") to get a better bead on it and fires 2 shot. The competitor is still faulting and has always been faulting. We can't and shouldn't for a minute clobber him with 8 procedurals because there can be no significant advantage for the first 6 shots.

It should be noted that if there was only a single target requiring 2 hits and 2 shots are fired while faulting and while gaining a significant advantage we only award 2 procedurals, 1 for each shot. We do not award 1 for each shot and an extra 1 for the act of faulting as well. This is why I believe that having awarded 2 procedurals it would be wrong to award a third as well unless there was a further problem such as faliure to comply with the briefing.

I hope my reasoning comes across clear enough.

I think Flex has done a good job in highlighting this potential problem in the rules.

[racerba]

2 procedurals were probably given for the two shots advantage gained by the foot fault and one procedural given for the remaing 4 shots through the same port. As Nik said, the shooter could have gotten 6 procedurals according to the rules. They were "nice" and only gave him 3.

[Skywalker]

Neil,

I understand your point of view, and I am grateful Flex brought this issue up, because I truly believe that, in general, the rule needs to make room for the possibility not all the shots fired while faulting could/would gain a competitive advantage, and it's not fair to assess penalties for shots that didn't give an advantage.

Having said this, I have to disagree with you on the interpretation of the actual rule; I can uderstand your point on my quoting of the example in rule 10.2.3, we will refer then to rule 10.2.1 only.

According to the text you highlighted,

However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage while faulting, the competitor will be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting, instead of a single penalty.

The keywords are each shot fired while faulting, not for each shot that benefited from a competitive advantage.

The action of faulting is there for all shots, not only for those that give the competitor an advantage.

The proposed addition from Vince nails it: shots, fired while faulting, that gain a significative advantage are to be penalized with procedurals; shots, fired while faulting and not gaining that advantage, are to be penalized collectively with one procedural.

[racerba]

What Vince fail to address is the combination of shooting while faulting but not gaining an advantage for some target and also gaining an advantage from the same position on another target as the situation in this thread. Let's look at another scenario:

A shooter shoots 4 shots at an array while faulting but not gaining an advantage. He then moves to a different position and shoots at one target, again faulting, this time gaining an advantage. How many procedural does the shooter receive?

Answer: 1 for the first array and two for the second array (which consist of one target) = total of 3 procedurals.

Kind of the same situation being described here except the shooter doesn't really move his position. I still agree with the 3 procedural assessed for the array. Better than giving him 6.

[Vince Pinto]

You're just feeling sensitive and unloved!  You are also so hurtful by calling me "evil". 

Yes because, as you know, I'm a shy and retiring type ......

Anyway, never mind. I'll get my revenge with you and Bob The Dinosaur in Bali - I just hope you guys have a high tolerance for tequila.

BWA-HA-HA

[Neil Beverley]

Hi Luca

I guess this is going to be be a case of "in the eye of the beholder".

I believe that "each shot fired while faulting" links and points back to the earlier condition in the same sentence i.e. "if the competitor has gained a significant advantage while faulting".

There are 2 conditions to be met: "a significant advantage" and "faulting". If only 1 condition is met then either no procedural penalties or just 1.

The rule does not state (words in red) "if the competitor has gained a significant advantage while faulting on any target, the competitor will be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired at all targets while faulting, instead of a single penalty.

The additional penalties are to penalise the significant advantage not to wipe out the stage.

[Neil Beverley]

You're just feeling sensitive and unloved!  You are also so hurtful by calling me "evil". 

Yes because, as you know, I'm a shy and retiring type ......

Anyway, never mind. I'll get my revenge with you and Bob The Dinosaur in Bali - I just hope you guys have a high tolerance for tequila.

BWA-HA-HA

I confess to not being too keen on tequila although I've been known to enjoy "Body Slammers". Remind me to introduce you to "Woodpeckers" some day. They involve Green Chartreuse and fire and kick like a b*stard.

[Skywalker]

I confess to not being too keen on tequila although I've been known to enjoy "Body Slammers".  Remind me to introduce you to "Woodpeckers" some day.  They involve Green Chartreuse and fire and kick like a b*stard.

C'mon guys, let's be kinda refined...

Daiquiri is the only tasteful way of getting sloshed...

Ernest Hemingway docuit!

(Ernest hemingway taught it!)

[BDH]

Luca/Neil/Vince, NOW you guys are making me wish I was going to Bali again! Oh well, sounds like Bali might be a 'liver-toxic' environment, so I will just look at my absence as some amount of life extension....

[Vince Pinto]

Luca/Neil/Vince, NOW you guys are making me wish I was going to Bali again!

Never mind. I guess this time we'll just have to be content launching a full-out liver assault on Americans Joel Dix, Gordon Bierman and Roger Madiou .......... but your time will come!

[Skywalker]

Brian,

unfortunately I won't be in Bali, I'm done with abroad matches for this year...

...but I'll gladly toast one or three with y'all from here, if you tell me the right moment!

[Skywalker]

[Never mind. I guess this time we'll just have to be content launching a full-out liver assault on Americans Joel Dix, Gordon Bierman and Roger Madiou .......... but your time will come!

Hey, whenever you happen to meet Roger, please say him hello for me!

[ivanhu]

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

To add some more dust, and to heat the discussion more, please let me humbly ask: was it really two different faults that we saw on the video?

I mean, were the shooter not fault when on the left port, he surely wouldn't fault when on the front; and were the shooter fault at the left, he most likely would fault on the front. Between the two positions they moved only the minimally necessary distance (that is, a small jump). I know these are different ports, they changed their stance, whatever, but is it really two fault, or just one? And - does it really matter whether he changed stance or not? He actually faulted the very same charge line, and 10.2.1 is silent about the number of "locations" served by the charge line!

To abstract from this case, suppose the shooter has to lay down, but without moving his feet a bit. Then, he basically remains in the same place, but by changing the position of his body (changing the shooting stance), he shoots from two different positions. (By the way, the rules don't define how to mean "different location or view". By my interpretation, two locations (or views) are different if some kind of "movement" is required between the two; and 8.5 clearly defines movement.) In this case, only one faulty action on the part of the shooter present. Do we have to assess two penalties for that single action?

Hope that by now you see what I'm after, but here you are the short summary:

10.2.1 gives us the option to assess penalties on a "per shot" or on a "per occurrance" basis, but it doesn't say a word about the time constraints. If the shooter faults the very same charge line several times during the COF, we still have only these two options (strictly speaking), as that's just ONE charge line that was faulted. The same goes to the location/view constraints: regardless of how many locations/views are being served by that charge line, we still have only these two options.

DVC,

Ivan "The Terrible"

[ivanhu]

Actually, by reading this 10.2.1 more, it seems to me it doesn't even define that we should consider how many fault/charge lines were faulted. All it says is that if during the COF, the shooter takes shots while faulting a fault/charge line (any fault/charge line!), then we must give him ONE PE, unless he gained a significant advantage while faulting - in this later case, he must earn one PE per shot taken (regardless of the number of shots actually meaning significant advantage).

DVC

Ivan "The Terrible"

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

Your first draft looks good.

While I choose to look at the current rule the same as Neil, it is much easier to read where the rule implies that 6 procedurals should be issued. Clarity is needed.

I don't know that we need the in the opinion of wording. I also think that is implied? And, wouldn't want to tip the scales too far in favor of the RO's opinion. This stage is a good example of that...many (here) have posted that they didn't feel the target in question/position offered a significant advantage. I think that should be open to debate. I don't know if adding the in opinion of words makes much of a difference one way or the other, but it would seem to favor the RO's judgement over other evidence. And, I'm not really in favor of that.

(By the way, our squad shot this stage in the AM on day 2...so we might have saw the call that set the precedent for the 5 day match. )

OK...I'm feeling a bit of closure on the first issue, let me address two more which are related:

B: The call at the match was to give a procedural in addition to, not instead of...as the rule states. I don't know that any wording needs to change to address this (seems like it is there)...I just want to hammer to point home a bit, since it was apparently missed.

C: I would say that changing positions is starting over...and if the shooter faults at the new position, then they recieve another procedural. This case (and the video) are also a good example of that. When the shooter left the first port, went prone to shoot thru the second port, that was a change of position. It could be argued that their foot never came back into the shooting area, thus they didn't "refault". I'd disagree with that arguement. (But, is that covered in the rule book?)

[Neil Beverley]

...but I'll gladly toast one or three with y'all from here, if you tell me the right moment!

Luca

I hope you don't possibly mean that there could be a wrong moment?

[davidwiz]

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...

I didn't come up with how many procedurals to call for that stage, John Amidon did.

[Neil Beverley]

The net result of this entire discussion is that it has been very useful and constructive and I'm sure that the change being presented by Vince will be a much fairer result.

There are no losers on this one.

[davidwiz]

I'm just curious why, if people think that procedurals were given wrongly or unevenly, no one filed an arbitation?

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

And now hopefully you all see the challenge facing the rule writers. We do our very best to try covering all possible scenarios, and we don't always succeed, but it's extremely frustrating to think that this entire discussion (and a shitload of procedurals), could've been avoided by using an extra 3 feet of plywood.

Anyway, as to the question of "How many times did he fault the line" (ignoring "signficant advantage" for a moment), you'll note that the first competitor in the video stuck his foot over the line for the first port, but his foot remained over the line while he changed position for the second port. In this case, I presume we'd all be happy with 1 procedural?

However what if he faulted the line for the first port, moved his foot back inside while changing position, then stuck his foot over the line again after he went prone? Does this justify 2 procedurals? I can see good Yea and Nay arguments but, in either case, we need to address this issue, as well as Flex's other point about the application of the "single vs multiple" procedurals.

I therefore submit a 2nd draft of the proposed rule revision for your comments:

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 for each occurrence. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor (delete "will") may additonally be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. (delete "instead of a single penalty"). No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting a line.

Note 1: The expression "for each occurrence" means that the guy who crossed the fault line twice would get 2 procedurals. Harsh, but clear.

Note 2: The expression "may additionally" gives the option to the RO, but of course this remains subject to appeal.

Are we there yet? (I really gotta go pee!)

[Nik Habicht]

David,

Had I been hit with those procedurals, and had I been in contention for a win, I might have filed an arbitration. Absent either one of those conditions, I probably would have moved on with the match without the distraction of a major disagreement.

Discussing this issue here, isn't meant to criticise the specific stage, or any of the people involved in running it throughout the match. (Flex even tried to start this thread of without identifying the stage in question) Rather it's an opportunity for all of us to learn the rules more thoroughly than is possible in any RO/CRO class. That way, hopefully we can learn what the call should be when we are running our stages and matches, be they club, sectional, area, national or world level.....

My direct question to you was asked because the cat was out of the bag (Stage identity wise) and I thought that you might be able to offer some insight into the reasoning that led to how the procedurals were handed out.

[Nik Habicht]

I therefore submit a 2nd draft of the proposed rule revision for your comments:

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 for each occurrence. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor (delete "will") may additonally be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. (delete "instead of a single penalty"). No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting a line.

Note 1: The expression "for each occurrence" means that the guy who crossed the fault line twice would get 2 procedurals. Harsh, but clear.

Note 2: The expression "may additionally" gives the option to the RO, but of course this remains subject to appeal.

Vince,

Almost. but by using the word additionally in place of the word instead, you're setting up a potential other problem. Take the shooter who faults a line gaining significant advantage on all three targets. Under the proposed rule, he'd get one procedural for faulting plus six procedurals for each shot fired, unless the RO remembers that the procedurals max out at a number equivalent to the maximum scoring hits possible. I changed one word in your proposed rule --- you should notice it easily.

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 for each occurrence. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor (delete "will") may instead be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. (delete "instead of a single penalty"). No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting a line.

[ivanhu]

Note 1: The expression "for each occurrence" means that the guy who crossed the fault line twice would get 2 procedurals. Harsh, but clear.

Hmmm, how would you rule if the shooter faults the line once, but shoots from three different locations whlle faulting. Let's say, he gained a significant advantage as in this way he was able to spare some time from changing positions, but otherwise gained no significant advantage on any particular target. Could it happen? I was unable to imagine such a stage, but is there anybody here who's brave enough to say 'it's impossible'?

How about giving the option for the RO to assess one PE for each location/view if he thinks that's due?

DVC,

Ivan "The Terrible"