Foot Faults, advantage gained & procedurals

[Neil Beverley]

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?

racerba

I suspect you are going to be in the minority with this. I hate gamers probably as much (more?) than you but I really don't think we need to massively penalise shooters for a relatively minor error. The penalty per shot in the case of significant advantage should be adequate to take care of blatant gamers.

I think it is important that we remember that the intention is to have a shooting contest and not a foot fault avoidance contest.

Fault lines are an artificial addition to the concepts of the sport. I have pasted below the relevant rules

2.2.1  Charge Lines and Fault Lines – Competitor movement should preferably be restricted through the use of physical barriers, however, the use of Charge and Fault Lines is permitted.  Charge Lines and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material and should rise at least 2 centimeters (0.79 inches) above ground level.  This will provide both physical and visible references to competitors to prevent inadvertent faulting.  Fault Lines and Charge Lines must be fixed firmly in place to ensure they remain consistent throughout the match. 

2.2.1.1  Charge Lines are used to restrict unreasonable movement by competitors toward or away from targets.

2.2.1.2  Fault Lines are used to force the competitor to shoot at targets from behind physical barriers.  They may be positioned at any angle extending to the rear of these barriers.  Fault Lines should be a minimum of 1 meter (3.28 feet) in length and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, they are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity.

Competitors should be focusing on shooting targets and should not have to spend undue time and effort avoiding foot fault problems.

[racerba]

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:

The shooter IS guilty - guilty of violating the fault line. No matter the intent, the fault line has been violated. Either shoot by the rules or don't shoot at all. Why would you not entertain the notion that a shooter has to follow a set standard of the rule. if a shooter AD over a berm, they are DQ'ed - whether in was safe or not, intentional or not, they are DQ'ed. Why can't you give a procedural for every shots fired while faulting a line? It takes all other variable out of the picture. It does not necessary mean that the shooter will zero the stage if it is a big stage and a small array. And what if the shooter does zero the stage? It's part of the game. play by the rules or not have fault lines at all. In football, if a runner steps out of bounds but he did not intend to do so, is he given reprieve and allowed to continue running? Of course not - it's the rule!!!

However, I agree that better stage design and construction could have prevented this discussion from happening in the first place. But this discussion has extended to more than just the stage in question. It has brought about a rule which there is no set standard. The rule allows the RO to assess 1 procedural to as many as there were shots fired. Even with Vince's proposed change, the penalties are arbitrary - making the RO make judgement calls instead of having a set standard.

If you're going to have rules, you have to stick by them. Shooters know the rules and they know they have to follow the rules or suffer the penalties. It is a shooting contest but everybody must shoot within the same constraints of the stage design and the rules.

[Sterling White]

I understand what is meant in rules 2.2.... but it's not what is said in the rules that has been said here on this thread. The fault lines on this stage changed the game from a shooting contest to situational awareness. Again....the fault lines were tight > IMO > adding a stressor to each port which required the shooter to be in full awareness of surroundings and body position. If the description would have said that walls extend to infinity then all thoughts of gaming the stage would have been dropped.

Don't get me wrong about fault lines because I think they add to the game requiring the shooter to think...Doah!...instead of react. When I went into programming mode for that stage I knew exactly where the faults were at. During the walk thru I adjusted my body positioning several times to find what worked without faulting. My focus was directed more on body positioning first, target acquisition second, and shooting third. The stage was about survival because of 1) awkward ports; 2) tight fault lines; and, 3) no shoots.

Guess I would say this stage gets an A+...one truly deserving of a National contest.

[schoonie]

GM wanna' be,

I'm with you, that stage was an excellent test. Being off balance for the tight target required enhanced situational awarness! I think the shooter needs to be challenged in every way possible, it keeps things interesting!

Cudos to Flex and Vince for straightening out the procedural situation.