3gun penalty

[dqshooter]

What is the max penalty you can give for a competitor that fails to do something in the written stage description or fails to neutralize a target because they can't shoot 350 yrds ie, A competitor steps up to the target and throws a round down range and says he's done. is it a standard penalty or can I add some time to at least make competitors try to hit it. opinions or rule quote would be great.

[blairmckenzie1]

make the target a "high value target". Give it a 30 second penalty for not hitting it.

8.2.8.2.5 Steel rifle target values may be increased 10 points for each 100 yards of distance

0-99 yards value is 5 or 10 points

100-199 yards value may be up to 20 points

200-299 yards value may be up to 30 points

300-399 yards value may be up to 40 points

8.2.8.3 Enhanced target values for steel should comply with the following constraints:

8.2.8.3.1 Enhanced target values are defined at the discretion of the course designer or match

director, before the match begins. There is no requirement that steel target values be

enhanced; this only provides an option that the course designer may use to make targets “worth

shooting”.

8.2.8.3.2 Enhanced target values should be used only to ensure competitive equity and to

remove any competitive “benefit” which might arise by choosing to ignore a distant target.

Enhanced target values should not be used abusively or punitively (eg, assigning high target

values to difficult shots, resulting in a large number of “zero-scores” on a stage)

8.2.8.3.3 Enhanced target values should be used sparingly, in order to preserve “balance”

in the stage designs. It is recommended that no more than 50% of the points in any stage be

derived from “enhanced target values”.

Theres a bunch more but I think you get the point...

Edited March 7, 2014 by blairmckenzie1

[Paul-the new guy]

In 3 G N the penalty goes up as the distance goes out. At least at the regional it did

[Benelli Chick]

We had similar difficulty with this. I hate to penalize the poorer shooters even more with high penalty misses, (but that works and can even be assigned in USPSA), just to make the fast shooters shoot at something, so we use:

l. Failures to engage that are NOT due to forgetfulness or running out of time, but are rounds sent downrange or not even fired with no real attempt to hit the target will be assessed a higher, poor sportsmanship FTE penalty. These penalties can range from 30 seconds upwards, and for severe offenses may even receive a stage or match DQ.

We also have a spirit of the rules clause.

We try to make the targets worth shooting at with stage design and such, but on long range rifle...well, it can be a challenge to get people to get into an uncomfortable/awkward/difficult shooting position to engage a difficult target instead of just blowing it off! It can be a pretty subjective call and the higher penalty misses aren't subjective.

It's just an option!

Edited March 7, 2014 by Benelli Chick

[dqshooter]

I would never penalize a shooter that just can't hit a target at that distance. Its the gamer that thinks he can just throw one shot out and walk away, take the miss. I want the guys that think they can game the stage, not get away with it. I have seen it to many times.

Do I have to put it in the stage description? thank you guys.

[usmc1094]

You could add the penalty in to the stage description, or use the rules (or your own version) in your match rules.

[blairmckenzie1]

I think it would be tough to penalize anyone without telling them about the penalty first (stage description)

[CJW]

If it is your own 3-gun match, you can use whatever penalties you want, or course.

The most common variation I have seen is that a regular target is a 10sec miss and a target beyond 100 yards is a 20sec miss. That seems reasonable to me—it's enough of a penalty to make you shoot it for real if you can hit it (five or six well aimed shots), and if you hose one round and keep rolling, you are losing out to the people who really can hit it.

[M ammo]

It is different from match to match,, and the rules of the club.

[MarkCO]

When I went to MD school, I was taught that If the MD can hit the target, it should be a 60 second penalty, if the MD can not hit it, go with 5 to 10 seconds.

Kidding aside, what ruleset would you like the answer based upon? There are several.

[bikerburgess]

I am a fan of the increasing penalty with distance rules, the penalty is not based on the low level shooter that has a hard time hitting the target they will almost allays make a attempt because they are there to SHOOT not win (regularly they will be the ones with the Surfire 60 rounder going to war with it) its the top shooter that you may need to pod into getting into the position and making the shot, they are the ones that can do the math, if it is not worth the time to shoot the better guys will take the miss, and the ones that struggle will use lots of ammo.

[GM2B]

Correct me if I am wrong Benny Hill but I watched him a couple years ago shoot a .22 carbine at about 10, 120 yard targets taking one shot at each and moving on. It only made sense because you couldnt even hear the hits it was so windy. His time ended up being a stage win!!!! People were pissed but he gamed it and I watched with a big smile!

I think making the penalty for a miss high enough that you are forced to shoot it makes sense. Such as 15+ seconds. If it is a nasty position and only one target then make it 30+!!!!

[urikagold]

I shot a match where the md made a spinner a 30 second penalty for not spinning. You are never going to stop the gaming. If you make the penalty huge you hurt the guys that try hard to hit it and can't and the gamers are still going to find a way around it.

Just hit the target on the first shot. Then you got him by at least 9 sec.

[glock34shooter]

I have always used the idea of making the penalty higher than it takes the average shooter to hit the target. That way everyone has to give it an honest effort. I use a 60 second penalty on a MGM spinner, 10 second on all steel unless it is designated a HVT, and 5 seconds on clays. Andy Horner uses a 10 second penalty on less than 100 and 15 seconds on over 100. The goal in setting up your stage should be to have your targets set in a manner that the penalty for a miss is higher than the average shooter takes to hit it.

Matt

[CB45]

3 Gun seems like a lot of math

[MarkCO]

3 Gun seems like a lot of math

Trust me, if you are doing math during a match, you are either going to be near the bottom, or near the top. The vast majority of 3Gunners don't sweat the small stuff. They load their crap in a truck, go shoot the match, have fun and enjoy a cool drink afterwards.

[ClintDismore]

I like the idea of this even though I'm going back to irons and the distant shots can be a challenge for me in the past

[CJW]

I'd like to offer one additional point to the OP... Once you decide on your penalty system and you run your match, it may turn out you guessed wrong—you may have shooters who do "game" (I put it in quotes because it is a game and we all try to do our best to win, of course!) your stages and blow past your high penalty targets and still do well.

If/When that happens, don't get mad at or take it out on the shooters. As long as they stay within the rules and are safe, anything they do should only be looked upon as good strategy by them and a lesson learned for your next match. Having done my share of stage design and MDing, I have never, ever gotten mad at a shooter for doing a stage some way I didn't think of, and I am unimpressed by MD's who blame the shooters for their own lack of foresight and planning.

[mpeltier]

I hate higher penalties to try to thwart the "gamers" (ug, I hate that word). If someone feels its necessary on their stage there's something wrong with the target size, presentation or stage design. I would prefer a "failure to do right" penalty. We use that at our club. Yes it is subjective, but it forces the competitors to stick to the spirit of the stage and not pass up targets knowing they will probably get hit with it.

[T Bacus]

I'm not wanting to sound harsh here but I really believe excessive penalties for not shooting targets are nothing more than a fix for poor course design. If I as a stage designer come up with a stage that is so difficult that not shooting a target can result in a better score than shooting it, the competitors are not the problem.

I think there is also a common issue that many stage designers have in that they feel they must somehow design stages that will 'test' the top shooters. This mindset leads to stages that punish average shooters. The problem is you can't test the top shooters, they can only test themselves. They have the mental discipline to perform at or close to the top of their ability regardless of the stage difficulty. No problem for the best, punishing for the rest. If anything, the thing that will most often give a great shooter trouble is an easy, wide open stage. A stage that is so easy they don't put much mental prep into shooting it, or has some speed traps that 'seduce' them into trying to go faster than they can. A shooter walking away from a stage thinking, "man, I screwed that one up big time" is not a problem, walking away thinking, "I was screwed before I even pulled the trigger" is.

Way back in the day when I ran a lot of matches my goal in course design was always, 'is the C class shooter going to walk away from this match and say that he had fun'? If the answer was yes, then I felt I had done a good job. This does not mean that that match couldn't be challenging, just that the challenges have to be kept in balance. Keep the shots doable. Keep the targets past 200 yards at least 4moa, 6 would be better. A 3moa target at 300 yards is still no problem for the pros, but the average weekend shooter might as well just skip it and take the 30 second penalty. No matter what targets you put down range the best shooters are going to hit them faster, the only real issue is how hard do you want to make it for everyone else?

Lets use this example. We have a stage that has eight long range rifle targets at the end of it, between 150 and 350 yards. Our shooters are two top competitors and an average shooter. If the targets down range are all small, say 4moa or less. The two pros are not going to think about each other very much, it's focusing on the shots and applying the fundamentals that is important. The average shooter will not make all of the shots and pick up a bunch of penalties. Now make the targets huge, lets say 10moa. Now the two pros have a problem. They both know the other is most likely going to shoot the plates eight for eight, and it's not the fundamentals that are most important, it's how fast you can apply them. Each knows he HAS to be fast to win. So the bigger targets are going to put more mental pressure on the pros and the average shooter will still finish third, but at least he will have had a lot more fun doing it.

The question comes down to, who are you designing the match for? The 25 or so competitors who have a chance at winning, or the other 200 who are doing it just for fun?

My 2 cents.

[Jadeslade]

3 Gun seems like a lot of math

Trust me, if you are doing math during a match, you are either going to be near the bottom, or near the top. The vast majority of 3Gunners don't sweat the small stuff. They load their crap in a truck, go shoot the match, have fun and enjoy a cool drink afterwards.

This is it. Why I like the Noveske Match in Colorado.

[Moltke]

I'm not wanting to sound harsh here but I really believe excessive penalties for not shooting targets are nothing more than a fix for poor course design. If I as a stage designer come up with a stage that is so difficult that not shooting a target can result in a better score than shooting it, the competitors are not the problem.

I think there is also a common issue that many stage designers have in that they feel they must somehow design stages that will 'test' the top shooters. This mindset leads to stages that punish average shooters. The problem is you can't test the top shooters, they can only test themselves. They have the mental discipline to perform at or close to the top of their ability regardless of the stage difficulty. No problem for the best, punishing for the rest. If anything, the thing that will most often give a great shooter trouble is an easy, wide open stage. A stage that is so easy they don't put much mental prep into shooting it, or has some speed traps that 'seduce' them into trying to go faster than they can. A shooter walking away from a stage thinking, "man, I screwed that one up big time" is not a problem, walking away thinking, "I was screwed before I even pulled the trigger" is.

Way back in the day when I ran a lot of matches my goal in course design was always, 'is the C class shooter going to walk away from this match and say that he had fun'? If the answer was yes, then I felt I had done a good job. This does not mean that that match couldn't be challenging, just that the challenges have to be kept in balance. Keep the shots doable. Keep the targets past 200 yards at least 4moa, 6 would be better. A 3moa target at 300 yards is still no problem for the pros, but the average weekend shooter might as well just skip it and take the 30 second penalty. No matter what targets you put down range the best shooters are going to hit them faster, the only real issue is how hard do you want to make it for everyone else?

Lets use this example. We have a stage that has eight long range rifle targets at the end of it, between 150 and 350 yards. Our shooters are two top competitors and an average shooter. If the targets down range are all small, say 4moa or less. The two pros are not going to think about each other very much, it's focusing on the shots and applying the fundamentals that is important. The average shooter will not make all of the shots and pick up a bunch of penalties. Now make the targets huge, lets say 10moa. Now the two pros have a problem. They both know the other is most likely going to shoot the plates eight for eight, and it's not the fundamentals that are most important, it's how fast you can apply them. Each knows he HAS to be fast to win. So the bigger targets are going to put more mental pressure on the pros and the average shooter will still finish third, but at least he will have had a lot more fun doing it.

The question comes down to, who are you designing the match for? The 25 or so competitors who have a chance at winning, or the other 200 who are doing it just for fun?

My 2 cents.

This is a slam dunk answer.

Who should be expected to burn 30 seconds on the clock for a target they don't think they can hit (or for many IRONS shooters, a target they can't even see easily)?

10 MOA might be a little large... but 4-6 MOA is actually quite reasonable. 3 Gun long range shooting is not about who can get their hits... its still about who can get their hits the fastest.

Even with 4 MOA targets there's going to be people in every division who miss, and miss, and miss, and timeout.

Even if they were 10 MOA targets, the better shooters are going to shoot them faster and the rest of us are going to shoot them slower, so why put a small target (1-3) MOA target downrange in the first place?

If there's any target downrange that can't easily be seen with the naked eye, or can't be shot by the average 3 gunner, ... then shame on whoever put it there.

4 MOA & easily visible should be a reasonable expectation for any match.

Separately, it's an interesting point observation that as the targets get larger, the Pro's are probably going to have to be MORE on their game because their Pro competitors & everyone else is going to be closer to their leading scores.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Moltke

[LoganbillJ]

Bacus hit the nail on the head. Have targets large enough that the average shooter can hit them but makes the top shooters push the limits for speed and accuracy. Everyone goes home happy and you as an MD have accomplished the goal of providing a fun yet challenging match for everyone.

[pmt]

I'm not wanting to sound harsh here but I really believe excessive penalties for not shooting targets are nothing more than a fix for poor course design. If I as a stage designer come up with a stage that is so difficult that not shooting a target can result in a better score than shooting it, the competitors are not the problem.

I think there is also a common issue that many stage designers have in that they feel they must somehow design stages that will 'test' the top shooters. This mindset leads to stages that punish average shooters. The problem is you can't test the top shooters, they can only test themselves. They have the mental discipline to perform at or close to the top of their ability regardless of the stage difficulty. No problem for the best, punishing for the rest. If anything, the thing that will most often give a great shooter trouble is an easy, wide open stage. A stage that is so easy they don't put much mental prep into shooting it, or has some speed traps that 'seduce' them into trying to go faster than they can. A shooter walking away from a stage thinking, "man, I screwed that one up big time" is not a problem, walking away thinking, "I was screwed before I even pulled the trigger" is.

Way back in the day when I ran a lot of matches my goal in course design was always, 'is the C class shooter going to walk away from this match and say that he had fun'? If the answer was yes, then I felt I had done a good job. This does not mean that that match couldn't be challenging, just that the challenges have to be kept in balance. Keep the shots doable. Keep the targets past 200 yards at least 4moa, 6 would be better. A 3moa target at 300 yards is still no problem for the pros, but the average weekend shooter might as well just skip it and take the 30 second penalty. No matter what targets you put down range the best shooters are going to hit them faster, the only real issue is how hard do you want to make it for everyone else?

Lets use this example. We have a stage that has eight long range rifle targets at the end of it, between 150 and 350 yards. Our shooters are two top competitors and an average shooter. If the targets down range are all small, say 4moa or less. The two pros are not going to think about each other very much, it's focusing on the shots and applying the fundamentals that is important. The average shooter will not make all of the shots and pick up a bunch of penalties. Now make the targets huge, lets say 10moa. Now the two pros have a problem. They both know the other is most likely going to shoot the plates eight for eight, and it's not the fundamentals that are most important, it's how fast you can apply them. Each knows he HAS to be fast to win. So the bigger targets are going to put more mental pressure on the pros and the average shooter will still finish third, but at least he will have had a lot more fun doing it.

The question comes down to, who are you designing the match for? The 25 or so competitors who have a chance at winning, or the other 200 who are doing it just for fun?

My 2 cents.

Your 2 cents is the million dollar answer. I know I'm a little late to this thread, but this is the kind of discussion I like. Anytime someone uses the word 'gamer' I respond with 'course design' To add to what you said, if the 200 don't have fun and don't return, the 25 top competitors won't have much of a match next time.

[sfinney]

Not to mention, to the OP (hey bud!) it seems like you would have to enforce a penalty for everyone the same across the board.... You miss, you get the penalty. Only selectively giving the penalty to those you deem as having "gamed" is to subjective.

Example - one shooter takes a shot and misses but looks like he tried, no penalty.... But if I take a fast shot and miss, but look like I didn't try hard enough (by your opinion) I'd get a penalty?

Has to be the same penalty for missing for all shooters.