Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
diablodawg

Retroactive Rules Decisions / Cheating

Recommended Posts

Since as has been stated those are the rules then the rules need to be changed. They should read that any competitor using equipment not allowed in the Division they have entered will be DQd upon discovery of the violation irrelevant to any othe rules or time limits. Who ever this was should be suspended for competition for at least 6 months if not longer and should have to return all awards received. The shooters in this Division should be moved up in the standings.

I'm still waiting to see which rule Jay cites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the other shooters did not inform the staff because they thought it was an honest mistake because the 1X was allowed in Heavy Metal Limited for the last two years.

That way the shooter could've gone in to Linda and said he made a mistake and changed to Heavy Metal Optics...while still at a disadvantage, it would be more competitive than Open, which USPSA rules state he will be placed in if his equipment is in non-compliance.

Just my educated guess! :closedeyes:

Denise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since as has been stated those are the rules then the rules need to be changed. They should read that any competitor using equipment not allowed in the Division they have entered will be DQd upon discovery of the violation irrelevant to any othe rules or time limits. Who ever this was should be suspended for competition for at least 6 months if not longer and should have to return all awards received. The shooters in this Division should be moved up in the standings.

I'm still waiting to see which rule Jay cites.

I believe a previous poster mentioned it came up AFTER the 1 hr arbitration period. After that time had lapsed, the standings are final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since as has been stated those are the rules then the rules need to be changed. They should read that any competitor using equipment not allowed in the Division they have entered will be DQd upon discovery of the violation irrelevant to any othe rules or time limits. Who ever this was should be suspended for competition for at least 6 months if not longer and should have to return all awards received. The shooters in this Division should be moved up in the standings.

I'm still waiting to see which rule Jay cites.

I believe a previous poster mentioned it came up AFTER the 1 hr arbitration period. After that time had lapsed, the standings are final.

I still want the rule citation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6.3.1 Time Limit for Arbitration Request – Written requests for arbitration must be submitted to the Range Master within one hour of the disputed incident or occurrence. Failure to present the required documentation within the time specified will render the request invalid and no further action will be taken.

8.8.3 If a competitor detects an error in the provisional results at the end of the match, they must file an appeal with the Stats Officer not later than 1 hour after the Final Results are posted. If the appeal is not filed within the time limit, the posted scores will stand and the appeal will be dismissed.

Off the top of my head I'd say these two apply. I really, really don't like the actions of this competitor but there has been a pretty well established history that once the results are final they are final. No couple day later decision to give a competitor a FTDR or DQ. Not to say a competitor can't self impose a change. There really does have to be a limit of when the results are final. To use the example I've been using today. If a competitor competes with a magazine thinking it is legal in Limited all season and then goes to a major and finds out it's 142.5mm long we don't vacate any of the wins they had earlier in the year. Sure he gets bumped to open for that match, but everything else complete is complete. It's a real mess to do otherwise.

I think it was an opportunity to display some great sportsmanship that was lost and really can't be earned again by that competitor.

As to Denise's comment about it being legal for the last couple years. I'm still waiting on a copy of the previous rules but I really don't think it was. I could be wrong on this but my recollection (and Chris Endersby's since we bonked noggins on this earlier today) is that HML was always Iron sight only in USPSA. I very clearly remember leaving it that way when we allowed red dots in Limited to allow the true Iron Sight only guys a division all to their own. I could be wrong on this but I'm pretty sure USPSA HML has never allowed red dots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chuck, but I really wanted the RM to cite the rule he used to support the lack of action. 6.3.1 does not apply since this infraction would either be a move to open or a DQ based on the RM's determination (there are rules for both of those). 8.8.3 is when a "competitor" detects an error, not the RM, so that does not apply either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That one hour rule is the craziest thing I ever heard of, at least when taken to the extreme, imagine: "Hey turns out Bill used a Siaga, a Glock 18, and a suppressed SAW and finished 1st in Limited, but since scores have been out for 61 minutes, I guess we are stuck. It did make for some good video though. Good Job Bill, you the man!"

Edited by Lead-Head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That did not happen until it was way too late to resolve under the rules.

Would you please cite the rule you are using?

disregard. Asked and answered already. And still under discussion.

Edited by Sarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That one hour rule is the craziest thing I ever heard of, at least when taken to the extreme, imagine: "Hey turns out Bill used a Siaga, a Glock 18, and a suppressed SAW and finished 1st in Limited, but since scores have been out for 61 minutes, I guess we are stuck. It did make for some good video though. Good Job Bill, you the man!"

It was not 61 minutes. It was closer to 3 hours. I posted online each night of the match & daily at the range. Once posted online, I individually emailed each competitor to let them know scores were posted each night. As the match ended, finals from stages were posted & as the "protest hour" started, I posted on USPSA at the same time as we posted on the range, because most of the shooters had left the range. They were checking results on smart phones and tablets. For close to 2 hours at the range, I waited for "corrections" via phone or email. Nothing. I packed up and went to the awards ceremony. After about 45 minutes there, I was approached a shooter who reported that a division winner used equipment that was not legal for the division. As the statistician, I understood that the match results were final, so I gave that information immediately to the Match Director & the 2 Range Masters at the match.

Linda Chico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it wouldn't be allowed on this forum, I believe situations like these need to be aired as widely as possible including all the facts and names of the offending individual. Being allowed to remain in the shadows is unacceptable IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chuck, but I really wanted the RM to cite the rule he used to support the lack of action. 6.3.1 does not apply since this infraction would either be a move to open or a DQ based on the RM's determination (there are rules for both of those). 8.8.3 is when a "competitor" detects an error, not the RM, so that does not apply either.

Well that's your opinion Mark, but I disagree. 6.3.1 is the process by which another competitor could file a third party arbitration. They were well past the time to do so. 8.8.3 would have covered when the other competitors reported it to the RM. By the time the RM was notified the competitor had already packed his gear and it was not visible. Do you expect competitors to present their equipment for inspection after the match is completed, and if so, for how long? 60 minutes, 2 hours, 3 days? You know as well as I do that the results are considered final one hour after the final posting. If you think something is missing from the new MG rule book, please just state it instead of trying to play games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chuck, but I really wanted the RM to cite the rule he used to support the lack of action. 6.3.1 does not apply since this infraction would either be a move to open or a DQ based on the RM's determination (there are rules for both of those). 8.8.3 is when a "competitor" detects an error, not the RM, so that does not apply either.

Actually though, 8.8.3 is how we decide the match is done. One hour after scores are posted, the results are final. End of story....

6.3.1 could apply -- if a competitor had informed match staff, been told no action would be taken, and had decided to file a third party protest....

But again, there are time limits, and at some point the match has to be "over" and the results need to be "official."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chuck, but I really wanted the RM to cite the rule he used to support the lack of action. 6.3.1 does not apply since this infraction would either be a move to open or a DQ based on the RM's determination (there are rules for both of those). 8.8.3 is when a "competitor" detects an error, not the RM, so that does not apply either.

Mark,

under what rule would you have taken action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chuck, but I really wanted the RM to cite the rule he used to support the lack of action. 6.3.1 does not apply since this infraction would either be a move to open or a DQ based on the RM's determination (there are rules for both of those). 8.8.3 is when a "competitor" detects an error, not the RM, so that does not apply either.

Mark,

Sorry about the delay, but I normally do not monitor the BE forum on a regular basis. Chuck's citation 8.8.3 is the one that applies in my opinion. Matches have the one hour waiting limit to allow issues to be resolved. As Linda stated we did not hear from anyone until we were sitting at the Awards.

As far as whether a RM could take action after that point, 12.1.6 limits the RM's authority to persons and activities within the range and application of rules. 8.8.3 ended the period for any appeals and the results were final at that point. The RM's authority ended with the final results being posted.

Since your question has been answered, it would not be appropraite for me to continue in this conversation.

Jay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is yet another example of why USPSA needs to stay out of three gun, the rules they come up with are are ludacris, and don't focus on the big picture, which is having a fun match. Instead you get a super complex scoring system. Which thankfully is gone, and a different set of rules than all the other "outlaw matches". When is USPSA going to realize they are the outlaws and all the other matches are normal.
Putting on an event called the nationals, then fail to check any compedators equipment. Then say that since no-one contested the results is pitiful, that is the responsibility of the match staff, period.

I like XXXXX and he is a good guy but everyone makes mistakes, when the rules are changed a few weeks before the match. And I know for a fact he did not take the highest value prize off the table.

So if he indead used a red dot, he should loose the title and it should be given to Jeff Gross regardless of the amount of time after the match is concluded.

Edited by sperman
Removed competitors name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An equipment check, even if only performed at the first stage would have prevented this problem, as well as the issue that affected Svetlana at last year's Nationals. Both issues could have been resolved before a shot was fired and the competitors could have fixed the problems, removed the scope or changed belt position respectively and competed in their preferred division.

Its a simple thing to remedy, so hopefully the BOD will add this to the future Nationals this year and amend it into the rule-book at the next iteration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . but everyone makes mistakes, when the rules are changed a few weeks before the match.

Are you kidding? The MG proposed rules were posted on USPSA for comments nearly 8 months in 2012 - the BOD vote to adopt the rules was in December 2012. The rules in their current form were posted since early February 2013. Since the HM Limited rules NEVER allowed electronic optics in 2012 or earlier, there was no real change in that division. Does someone really need more than 90 days to figure that out?

Linda Chico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall a similar situation had a profound impact on the 3GN finals a few years back. And the standings were changed several days later after. You can't really want to give someone a national championship who used equipment that could be perceived as giving a huge advantage and being prohibited by the rules just because an hour passed?

If USPSA want's Multigun nats to be a "major" 3 gun match and not get out drawn by a start up in their 2nd year they are going to have to offer a legitimate national title. An equipment check would be a good start. At some point, the BOD or someone has to say no, we can't let someone win a national title with illegal equipment.

And at this point why hasn't the shooter just come forward and said I made a mistake, please invalidate my scores, I'm mailing my trophy to the guy in 2nd? "Let me tell you about the time I cheated and won a national title by beating less than 10 people..." Cool story bro... I doubt it's stigma that anyone wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Multi-Gun rule book is 79 pages. But it seems within USPSA multi-gun right and wrong do not matter, because we have the rules.

Kind of like our national politics, isn't it?

Edited by Bryan 45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck, not playing games, just wanted the answer from the person who likely had the actual authority.

Nik, I honestly can't second guess what occurred. While I hate what happened, the solution is to not let it happen again. My suggestions have already gone to Phil and Chris.

Jay, thanks for the answer.

Linda, you still rock in my book!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck, not playing games, just wanted the answer from the person who likely had the actual authority.

Nik, I honestly can't second guess what occurred. While I hate what happened, the solution is to not let it happen again. My suggestions have already gone to Phil and Chris.

Jay, thanks for the answer.

Linda, you still rock in my book!

I was sitting at the table, in between Linda and Jay when the situation was brought to our attention. It wasn't just a Jay decision.

As for the guy who brought up the 3GN change. There is a huge difference. That was addressed at the time it occurred. During that event, not hours after. It just took 3GN a few days to make it right.

Which rules that we have in place should we overlook? There is no good answer here. There is no simple fix. In order to yank the title we have to violate the rule of when the match is finalized.

As another example. A shooter was credited with a double on his last stage. Another competitor took a photo of that. Should we have an RM review it a week later and say it was an FTN? That would change another National Title just like this one.

I'm not trying to say we did right here. I'm pissed. But there is only one person can make this right now.

On the subject of equipment checks. I'm not a fan. Particularly for multigun. I've never seen it done at any multigun match. I have seen competitors bumped to other divisions but its always done by the ROs, maybe other competitors who see and report. I'm surprised he made it through 12 stages without getting called on it, I really am. I would have been curious the first time I saw a competitor with a pump gun and a rifle with a dot. Particularly one shooting as well as he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Chuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it wouldn't be allowed on this forum, I believe situations like these need to be aired as widely as possible including all the facts and names of the offending individual. Being allowed to remain in the shadows is unacceptable IMO.

Post it here.

http://www.doodieproject.com/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=3882

Edited by waktasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very hessitant to trash the guy in public. Every single one of us who has been shooting for any significant amount of time has received grace from an RO or MD at some point in our shooting career. We've all done something, which should have resulted in a DQ and was either missed, overlooked or given grace. I wasn't at this match, but as I understand it, the competitor was unaware of the equipment rule and there was in fact some confusion regarding the application of a rule change to allow 1x sighting devices in HM Limited during the 2012 shooting season. It is also my understanding that he was not made aware of the rule until either late in the match or after the match was complete (not sure which). I'm not overlooking the unsportsman like circumstances which followed and I find this conversation very thought provoking. Only saying that we all live in glass houses in some respect. Regardless of fair play, I think we can all agree that Jeff Gross is the unofficial winner of the division and deserves a pat on the back for a job well done. Regarding red dot's in HM, personally I don't care one way or the other. I'll adapt to whatever the rule set it, but running a red dot in HM when all others are using irons is a significant advantage (due to the close course nature of the event)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Lance Armstrong have all 7 Tour titles stripped? Lot of shit can be done retroactively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...