Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals

[racerba]

First off, what's the purpose of the fault lines??? Why not just make it plain and simple:

The shooter will receive 1 procedural for each shot fired while faulting a fault line.

This takes away any possibility of an argument of whether 2 or 4 or 6 shots were fired to gain a competitive advantage.

[Flexmoney]

racerba, your solution would mean that a shooter could zero the entire stage just for having a toe outside the fault line. That seems overly harsh.

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

I am with Nik. Instead, NOT in addition.

As for my "item C", I would think that changing positions (while still faulting) would be another occurence, thus it would earn another procedural.

[Dead Buff]

I agree with Vince's propose rule change Revision 2 and the update from Nik, but I am all for the proposal from racerba.

Consider the stage where a significant advantage is gained on all targets by stepping 3m out and behind a fault line. You shoot all targets from there and gain 11.14 seconds on the fastest time of the day. According to the proposals and the current rules the shooter zeros the stage - 1 proc per shot while gaining advantage (on target(s))

Keep it simple - 1 proc per shot while touching ground outside the fault line (in some cases touching top of faultline...RTFI)

This should force the additional 3 ft of plywood - better range construction and design, and be super easy to understand for all.

thread drift: to all range designers and constructors

please minimise fault and charge lines and go for better range construction and design - it makes life for all so much easier...been there, seen it, done it, got the t-shirt, didn't like it....

[racerba]

racerba, your solution would mean that a shooter could zero the entire stage just for having a toe outside the fault line. That seems overly harsh.

Flex,

If the shooter is not shooting according to the course description and abide by the rules, shouldn't he be given a zero for the stage?!?! Isn't that the reason for rules? Everybody else seems to be able to follow the rules, why should one or a few shooter be able to bypass the rule with a small penalty and possibly gain an advantage on the stage?

[Nik Habicht]

racerba,  your solution would mean that a shooter could zero the entire stage just for having a toe outside the fault line.  That seems overly harsh.

Flex,

If the shooter is not shooting according to the course description and abide by the rules, shouldn't he be given a zero for the stage?!?! Isn't that the reason for rules? Everybody else seems to be able to follow the rules, why should one or a few shooter be able to bypass the rule with a small penalty and possibly gain an advantage on the stage?

Bob,

most of the time people don't jump outside the faultlines by several feet to gain an advantage. Usually the people who get nailed are touching part of their foot on the ground outside a fault line while bending around a wall.

I think there's a difference between a mistake --- oops my toes touched on the other side of the fault line --- and a conscious attempt to circumvent the rules and stage description --- I'm going to run out of bounds here and shoot 18 rounds to finish the stage, eliminating three difficult positions.

Hammering people, who've made a mistake, over the head with the rule book isn't going to make them want to come back.....

[Vince Pinto]

If the shooter is not shooting according to the course description and abide by the rules, shouldn't he be given a zero for the stage?!?!

The punishment must fit the crime. Moreover the thought of giving a competitor a zero on a stage for, say, a single fault line infraction, is tantamount to presuming such an infraction was intentional.

People make honest mistakes, especially under time pressue, and it is my view that the competitor in the video did just that.

[Sterling White]

Common sense must prevail!

[Flexmoney]

racerba,

Did you take a look at the video?

I can't see where you'd want a shooter who accidentally faults a line in that manner to zero the stage? That just doesn't seem right to me. Not even close.

If the shooter gains an advantage doing so...well, that is another matter. And, the idea behind our current rule (and the proposed rule) takes that into account.

[davidwiz]

There are some stages that have one big box or shooting area, delineated by fault lines but there are more than 1 position you can engage targets from and/or ports. What if the competitor faults at shooting position 1 (no advantage), doesn't fault at position 2, but faults again at position 3 (no advantage). What result?

[Nik Habicht]

There are some stages that have one big box or shooting area, delineated by fault lines but there are more than 1 position you can engage targets from and/or ports. What if the competitor faults at shooting position 1 (no advantage), doesn't fault at position 2, but faults again at position 3 (no advantage). What result?

David,

Two procedurals --- one for each ocurrence, since no advantage was gained.

[racerba]

The punishment must fit the crime. Moreover the thought of giving a competitor a zero on a stage for, say, a single fault line infraction, is tantamount to presuming such an infraction was intentional.

People make honest mistakes, especially under time pressue, and it is my view that the competitor in the video did just that.

More reason for competitors to realize their boundaries. The fault line is there so competitors does not step outside it. Wether intentional or not, the crime was committed. How do you know that it WASN'T intentional?!?! Can you say for a fact (100% sure) that it was unintentional? You are probably thinking "yes" - but you have to agree that there is a chance that it wasn't. It allows competitors to plead unintentional infraction when, in actuality, it was intentional (I'm not talking about this particular situation alone, I'm talking about any situation). There may be a situation that a competitor may be willing to take a -10 procedural than to take the time to shoot it as deamed by the course description.

[driver8M3]

If the shooter is not shooting according to the course description and abide by the rules, shouldn't he be given a zero for the stage?!?!

at the infamous clown stage at tri-state this year, i was one of the few to try the low port. my elbows were about 1 inch over the line for every shot. i doubt i gained much of an advantage, but i ended up with 16 procedurals. it seemed harsh, but i couldn't argue...i was over the line for every shot.

[Sterling White]

I'd like to take one step back....and think about the intent stage design or the thoughts that inspired the designer to create this stage.

1) Was the intent to create rule controversy?, or

2) maybe the thought behind the design was intential to force the shooter into a difficult situation requiring an awareness of surroundings?

There would be no discussion if the stage had been built with only walls

[Vince Pinto]

The fault line is there so competitors does not step outside it.  Wether intentional or not, the crime was committed.  How do you know that it WASN'T intentional?!?!

We don't, but your proposal to automatically give a competitor a zero for the stage presumes his is guilty, no exceptions, and that's a notion I'm simply not willing to entertain.

The real solution is good course design and construction, however when there are shortcomings (as there invariably are), our rules provide for a penalty based on actions, not intent, because it's generally impossible for us to determine intent. Anyway folks, I'll be taking the following proposed amendment to the Rule Committee:

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.

-:and I thank you all for your input.

1) Was the intent to create controversy of the rules?, or

2) maybe the thought behind the design were intential to force the shooter into a difficult situation requiring an awareness of surroundings?

I'm only second-guessing here but, having been around the traps a few times, my opinion is that the course desginer just didn't want competitors shooting around the side wall (i.e. he just wanted to force all shots through the side port).

[Sterling White]

I'm only second-guessing here but, having been around the traps a few times, my opinion is that the course desginer just didn't want competitors shooting around the side wall (i.e. he just wanted to force all shots through the side port).

I agree to a point however 1) there were fault lines; and, 2) close to the ports.

Simply stated on the other hand, if the designer had wanted port engagement only then that could have been stated in the COF.

[Vince Pinto]

Simply stated on the other hand, if the designer had wanted port engagement only then that could have been stated in the COF.

Not at a Level III match:

1.1.5 Freestyle – IPSC matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an "as and when visible" basis. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions or stances. <snip>

In other words, the written stage briefing cannot say "Shoot this from here, and that from there" but you can build a COF to compel it.

[Flexmoney]

...if the designer had wanted port engagement only then that could have been stated in the COF.

Blasphemy!!!

Freestyle baby!!!

Vince, the new wording looks good to me.

That still leaves the question of"occurrence". To me, a change of position (going from one shooting area to another) would be another occurrence (seperate procedurals).

???

[ivanhu]

There may be a situation that a competitor may be willing to take a -10 procedural than to take the time to shoot it as deamed by the course description.

Apparently! But this is how our sport works. If you are the course designer, build your stages with care. If you make a mistake and the more clever shooters discover it, then just smile and say thanks for them, because you learnt again something. Been there, done that - on both side!

The option is there, and it is the same for everyone, so there's no room for protests. I hate when the stupid, incompetent stage designers are trying to introduce special rules, adding more words to the text of the walk-through, or using other administrative tools to cover their incompetence.

Do not try to increase the penalty in order to avoid something you do not wish to happen. Instead, design and build your stages to prevent it. I know it's the harder way, but it's the only way it should be.

By you, I meant all of us, stage designers - nothing personal, you know. Anyhow, this is my pet peeve, and also the button on me.

[Sterling White]

flex and vince, gotcha - maybe that addition of walls would have sufficed....thanks

[Vince Pinto]

That still leaves the question of "occurrence".  To me, a change of position (going from one shooting area to another) would be another occurrence (seperate procedurals).???

Yes Sir. Each time your foot crosses the line (an "occurrence"), you get a procedural. OK, all together now:

You put your right foot in,

You put your right foot out,

You put your right foot in,

And you shake it all about,

You do the hokey pokey

and you turn yourself around

That what it's all about.

[Flexmoney]

Clear as mud.

[mactiger]

I'm only second-guessing here but, having been around the traps a few times, my opinion is that the course desginer just didn't want competitors shooting around the side wall (i.e. he just wanted to force all shots through the side port).

Correct, Vince, and nice wording on the rule.

Troy

[Sterling White]

omg.....just had a flash of troy in his kilt doing the hokey!

[Neil Beverley]

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.

Vince

Good job. I think you are nearly there, however, I would suggest we need a slight change to the wording of the first sentence because I believe it could be miscontrued.

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.

This could be read that "for each occurrence" links to "for each shot fired". It is not explicit that it links to each occurrence of touching the ground. I think everyone reading this thread is reading it as they understand it rather than as written.

For the avoidance of any doubt I would suggest/prefer something like:

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 of faulting.