Virginia Count Stage Penalties

[Skydiver]

My "full reload" was to dump the mag I had the stovepipe on, and grabbed a fresh mag.

To make things even murkier, consider CM 99-12 Take Your Choice. If the sequence were T1-T2-malfunction-reload-go to other side of barricade-T6-T5-T4-reload-return to other side and shoot T3, would the correct penalties be 6 procedurals?

[austex]

Here's my understanding of the circumstances: Shooter engaged T1 through T5 with one round each, then performed a reload, then engaged T1 through T6 with one round each, then engaged T6 again with one round. Total of 12 shots, total of 12 hits, 2 on each target. The stage procedure requires the shooter to engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, then make a mandatory reload and engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, Virginia count - 12 shots, 12 hits.

There is an NROI ruling that strongly implies that the shooter should not get the procedurals for "failing to make the reload." He did reload. The double jeopardy ruling says:

Question:

We were shooting classifier CM08-01 Virginia Count. The procedure is: String1: On signal, engage one target with only six rounds freestyle, make mandatory reload, etc. The shooter engages first target with five (5) rounds, makes mandatory reload and completes the COF. RO gives the shooter one miss penalty (well deserved) plus a procedural penalty for shooting less than six rounds required sighting the per rule 10.2.2.

Answer:

It is scored as a miss with no procedural for failing to fire the 6 rounds, the competitor is already being penalized for the infraction. 10.2.2 stipulates a procedural per shot for failing to comply with a stage procedure, this would mean for example, carrying a briefcase while engaging targets, the competitor leaves it behind and shoots without it.

In this ruling, the stage required 6 shots, reload, and 6 shots. The shooter shot 5 times, reloaded, and shot 6 more times. Only penalty was the miss. In the situation at hand, the shooter shot 5 times, reloaded, and shot 7 more times. The rules don't seem to contemplate a different result for this situation with respect to the "per shot" penalties for failing to reload. Although the WSB for 99-08 expressly says "failure to perform mandatory reload will result in one procedural penalty per shot fired" and the WSB for 08-01 does not, Rule 10.2.4 would seem to mandate equivalent penalties in 08-01.

From this perspective, in the current situation the shooter would only get one procedural. None for failing to reload (he did reload, like in the ruling), no extra shots (only shot 12 times) and no extra hits (only 12 hits). No failure to shoot at, because each target had at least one hole. He did, however, not follow the WSB's mandate to shoot 6, reload, shoot 6 -- he shot 5, reloaded, and shot 7. Thus, he failed to comply with the WSB's mandate on the sequence of shots and would get a procedural under 10.2.2.

The provisions of rule 10.2.2.1 would not apply. That rule says that procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures do not apply to the number of shots fired, and that penalties for firing insufficient or additional shots are addressed in other rules and must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2. Here, the shooter is not being penalized for the number of shots fired, or for firing insufficient or additional shots - 12 shots were required, and the shooter fired 12 shots. Instead, the shooter would be penalized for the improper sequence of shots, which is not proscribed by 10.2.2.1.

This may not be the "right" perspective, but it seems as well grounded in the rules and rulings as any other proposal so far.

Edited August 20, 2014 by austex

[Nik Habicht]

Nik - I understand the logic you are applying in your analysis...

I was operating based on what the OP stated... "full reload".

IF he cleared the malfunction by a procedure that included removing the magazine and then put the same mag back, I would agree with you....

BUT, if he "reloaded", which I interpret to mean replacing one mag with another one... which is what I would interpret the OPs words to mean, then I would submit that this satisfies the "mandatory reload" as per the WSB...

So whether you call the failure to engage T6 an FTE or Procedural failure to follow the instructions in the WSB, it's the same net result.

Firing TWICE at T6 AFTER the "reload" is either 1) extra shot, or 2) procedural for failure to follow WSB instructions (fired 7 with 2 on one target vs. 1 per target/six total) same net result.

Once again, we're back at the extra shot/extra hit question which if it is ruled #2 Procedural for failing to comply with WSB, then it isn't an "extra shot"...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, this is why I requested further discussion of this scenario... would make a fine Level I RO Class discussion.

To arrive at the 6 procedurals "solution", one has to conclude that the "reload" was not really a reload....

So, I guess the first/key question that has to be adjuticated prior to addressing any of the rest of this scenario is:

Was there a "reload"? Or was the "reload" only part of malfunction clearing?

I submit, barring a ruling from NROI, that it would have been an RO judgement call as to what the shooter's INTENT was based on observation by the RO... [EDIT: In light of the applicable rules]

If the shooter reloaded a 2nd magazine, and...

If the shooter re-engaged from T1-T6, the shooter INTENT was to NOT engage T6 and to proceed with the stage from the madatory reload...

I submit that the evidence points to the INTENT of the shooter to choose NOT to engage T6 the first time as instructed, and move on to the mandatory reload.

_______________________________________________________________________

Again, I may well be wrong, but I think there is sufficient ambiguity to make an argument either way...

Someone PM Troy...

[EDIT: I wrote a PM to ask Troy if he would care to comment and/or rule]

PS - Jay, Nik, et al. Not trying to argue or be obstinate or anything... I am genuinely intrigued with the scenario and am simply discussing it as an academic exercise.

Clay,

sure there was a reload. a shooter could complete 5 reloads after engaging each of the first five targets -- but none of those reloads satisfy the requirements in the stage description.

Engage T1-T6 with only one round each, then make a mandatory reload and re-engage.......

Seven procedurals because the reload didn't happen after engaging T6 (shooter instead reengaged T1-T5 and engaged T6 twice AFTER the point in the COF where the mandatory reload was prescribed) and because 10.2.4 lays out:

1. 10.2.4 A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur one procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed.

Another way to look at it is that the reload was required before the shooter re-engaged T1-5......

And Clay, I get that you're trying to discuss and learn, aren't discounting that Jay teaches the material/that I may have absorbed a little of it when sat in on a Level 1 seminar again a couple of years ago....

[Nik Habicht]

But he did fire an extra shot at T6. The WSB says "Upon start signal, turn, then draw and from Box A engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, then make a mandatory reload and from Box A engage T1-T6 with only one round per target."

In this classifier, which is Virginia Count, you only get that one round before the reload and one round after it - hit or miss - and you don't get "make-ups" from when you forgot to engage during the first string, before the mandatory reload. That's the whole point of Virginia Count (as in CM 06-03, Can You Count).

He also didn't engage T6 the first time around (he forgot - geez, I do that regularly when I have a malfunction), and that would seem to be a FTE. He didn't shoot at it when he was supposed to.

I know, I know, the FTE or "failure to shoot at" text says "in a course of fire", but he clearly neglected the WSB instruction to "engage T1-T6 with only only one round per target". So I guess that would be a procedural for not following the WSB instead of a FTE. Either way, what was done violates the instructions for the classifier.

(No dig at the shooter - we've all had those brain farts! I recently went past a popper that was right next to a paper target - duh!. It wasn't a regulation shape popper (it was Level 1) but the darn thing was right there...)

In order to call an extra shot he would have needed to fire three rounds at the target. The rule says an extra shot needs to be fired during the component string or stage -- not during a portion of the string.....

And since he already engaged a bunch of targets after the point where the reload was supposed to have been made, he gets the penalties for that larger mistake. We don't assess dual penalties for the same action....

[Nik Habicht]

Here's my understanding of the circumstances: Shooter engaged T1 through T5 with one round each, then performed a reload, then engaged T1 through T6 with one round each, then engaged T6 again with one round. Total of 12 shots, total of 12 hits, 2 on each target. The stage procedure requires the shooter to engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, then make a mandatory reload and engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, Virginia count - 12 shots, 12 hits.

There is an NROI ruling that strongly implies that the shooter should not get the procedurals for "failing to make the reload." He did reload. The double jeopardy ruling says:

Question:

We were shooting classifier CM08-01 Virginia Count. The procedure is: String1: On signal, engage one target with only six rounds freestyle, make mandatory reload, etc. The shooter engages first target with five (5) rounds, makes mandatory reload and completes the COF. RO gives the shooter one miss penalty (well deserved) plus a procedural penalty for shooting less than six rounds required sighting the per rule 10.2.2.

Answer:

It is scored as a miss with no procedural for failing to fire the 6 rounds, the competitor is already being penalized for the infraction. 10.2.2 stipulates a procedural per shot for failing to comply with a stage procedure, this would mean for example, carrying a briefcase while engaging targets, the competitor leaves it behind and shoots without it.

In this ruling, the stage required 6 shots, reload, and 6 shots. The shooter shot 5 times, reloaded, and shot 6 more times. Only penalty was the miss. In the situation at hand, the shooter shot 5 times, reloaded, and shot 7 more times. The rules don't seem to contemplate a different result for this situation with respect to the "per shot" penalties for failing to reload. Although the WSB for 99-08 expressly says "failure to perform mandatory reload will result in one procedural penalty per shot fired" and the WSB for 08-01 does not, Rule 10.2.4 would seem to mandate equivalent penalties in 08-01.

From this perspective, in the current situation the shooter would only get one procedural. None for failing to reload (he did reload, like in the ruling), no extra shots (only shot 12 times) and no extra hits (only 12 hits). No failure to shoot at, because each target had at least one hole. He did, however, not follow the WSB's mandate to shoot 6, reload, shoot 6 -- he shot 5, reloaded, and shot 7. Thus, he failed to comply with the WSB's mandate on the sequence of shots and would get a procedural under 10.2.2.

The provisions of rule 10.2.2.1 would not apply. That rule says that procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures do not apply to the number of shots fired, and that penalties for firing insufficient or additional shots are addressed in other rules and must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2. Here, the shooter is not being penalized for the number of shots fired, or for firing insufficient or additional shots - 12 shots were required, and the shooter fired 12 shots. Instead, the shooter would be penalized for the improper sequence of shots, which is not proscribed by 10.2.2.1.

This may not be the "right" perspective, but it seems as well grounded in the rules and rulings as any other proposal so far.

Different scenario though in that the same target wasn't being reengaged after the reload.......

In your scenario the competitor reloaded early, but before engaging the second target. So he had fulfilled the reload requirement prior to engaging T2.

The miss is the correct penalty for not engaging T1 with sufficient rounds prior to the reload.....

[Nik Habicht]

Fascinating discussion, guys.....

You've made me a better RO by making me think about this again.....

[Nik Habicht]

My "full reload" was to dump the mag I had the stovepipe on, and grabbed a fresh mag.

To make things even murkier, consider CM 99-12 Take Your Choice. If the sequence were T1-T2-malfunction-reload-go to other side of barricade-T6-T5-T4-reload-return to other side and shoot T3, would the correct penalties be 6 procedurals?

No penalties for what you describe since it's comstock, and requires a single reload when switching sides the first time.....

Your penalty for such a boneheaded plan would be the extra time on the clock that it would take to switch back.....

[austex]

There is an NROI ruling that strongly implies that the shooter should not get the procedurals for "failing to make the reload." He did reload. The double jeopardy ruling says:

Question:

We were shooting classifier CM08-01 Virginia Count. The procedure is: String1: On signal, engage one target with only six rounds freestyle, make mandatory reload, etc. The shooter engages first target with five (5) rounds, makes mandatory reload and completes the COF. RO gives the shooter one miss penalty (well deserved) plus a procedural penalty for shooting less than six rounds required sighting the per rule 10.2.2.

Answer:

It is scored as a miss with no procedural for failing to fire the 6 rounds, the competitor is already being penalized for the infraction. 10.2.2 stipulates a procedural per shot for failing to comply with a stage procedure, this would mean for example, carrying a briefcase while engaging targets, the competitor leaves it behind and shoots without it.

Different scenario though in that the same target wasn't being reengaged after the reload.......

In your scenario the competitor reloaded early, but before engaging the second target. So he had fulfilled the reload requirement prior to engaging T2.

The miss is the correct penalty for not engaging T1 with sufficient rounds prior to the reload.....

CM08-01 requires a shooter to engage one target with 6 rounds (let's say T1, as you assume), make a mandatory reload, and engage another target with 6 rounds (let's say T2, as you assume). According to your logic in an earlier post, the shooter could complete 5 reloads after each of the first five shots on T1 -- but none of those reloads satisfy the requirements in the stage description, which requires engaging T1 with SIX rounds before the reload. Under your logic, he should then get SIX procedurals, one for the six shots on T2, because the reload didn't happen after engaging T1 fully with all 6 rounds.

I don't see anything in the rules that justifies a distinction about the timing of the reload in one situation requiring 6 rounds on 1 target before the reload versus another situation requiring 1 round on 6 targets before the reload. The shooter didn't get failure to reload penalties in the ruling, and shouldn't in Skydiver's situation. In the 08-01 situation, the miss is the penalty for the error, and in Skydiver's situation the procedural for firing one of the shots on T6 out of sequence is the penalty. That one procedural seems suffcient to deter someone from trying to get an advantage by double tapping T6 at the end, instead of transitioning to it twice. Burying the shooter in excess penalties in Skydiver's case is not correct, it seems to me. But if a shooter really tried to game it, for example, by shooting T1 with one round, reloading, and then shooting T1 with another round and double tapping T2-T6, then rule 10.2.2 could justify one procedural penalty for each shot fired because that's likely a significant advantage.

Edited August 20, 2014 by austex

[Skydiver]

My "full reload" was to dump the mag I had the stovepipe on, and grabbed a fresh mag.

To make things even murkier, consider CM 99-12 Take Your Choice. If the sequence were T1-T2-malfunction-reload-go to other side of barricade-T6-T5-T4-reload-return to other side and shoot T3, would the correct penalties be 6 procedurals?

No penalties for what you describe since it's comstock, and requires a single reload when switching sides the first time.....

Your penalty for such a boneheaded plan would be the extra time on the clock that it would take to switch back.....

Ack! I grabbed the wrong classifier. Let me try to find the Virginia count variant that I was thinking off... (it may have been retired already...)

Did a quick search, and can't find it any more. For now, let me substitute with CM 03-04 3-V and this sequence: T1-T2, malfunction, reload, other side T7-T4, reload, back to other side, T3. Would the penalties be 6 procedurals?

Edited August 20, 2014 by Skydiver

[Nik Habicht]

There is an NROI ruling that strongly implies that the shooter should not get the procedurals for "failing to make the reload." He did reload. The double jeopardy ruling says:

Question:

We were shooting classifier CM08-01 Virginia Count. The procedure is: String1: On signal, engage one target with only six rounds freestyle, make mandatory reload, etc. The shooter engages first target with five (5) rounds, makes mandatory reload and completes the COF. RO gives the shooter one miss penalty (well deserved) plus a procedural penalty for shooting less than six rounds required sighting the per rule 10.2.2.

Answer:

It is scored as a miss with no procedural for failing to fire the 6 rounds, the competitor is already being penalized for the infraction. 10.2.2 stipulates a procedural per shot for failing to comply with a stage procedure, this would mean for example, carrying a briefcase while engaging targets, the competitor leaves it behind and shoots without it.

Different scenario though in that the same target wasn't being reengaged after the reload.......

In your scenario the competitor reloaded early, but before engaging the second target. So he had fulfilled the reload requirement prior to engaging T2.

The miss is the correct penalty for not engaging T1 with sufficient rounds prior to the reload.....

CM08-01 requires a shooter to engage one target with 6 rounds (let's say T1, as you assume), make a mandatory reload, and engage another target with 6 rounds (let's say T2, as you assume). According to your logic in an earlier post, the shooter could complete 5 reloads after each of the first five shots on T1 -- but none of those reloads satisfy the requirements in the stage description, which requires engaging T1 with SIX rounds before the reload. Under your logic, he should then get SIX procedurals, one for the six shots on T2, because the reload didn't happen after engaging T1 fully with all 6 rounds.

I don't see anything in the rules that justifies a distinction about the timing of the reload in one situation requiring 6 rounds on 1 target before the reload versus another situation requiring 1 round on 6 targets before the reload. The shooter didn't get failure to reload penalties in the ruling, and shouldn't in Skydiver's situation. In the 08-01 situation, the miss is the penalty for the error, and in Skydiver's situation the procedural for firing one of the shots on T6 out of sequence is the penalty. That one procedural seems suffcient to deter someone from trying to get an advantage by double tapping T6 at the end, instead of transitioning to it twice. Burying the shooter in excess penalties in Skydiver's case is not correct, it seems to me. But if a shooter really tried to game it, for example, by shooting T1 with one round, reloading, and then shooting T1 with another round and double tapping T2-T6, then rule 10.2.2 could justify one procedural penalty for each shot fired because that's likely a significant advantage.

You're missing the point I think. Your stage required a reload before T2 could be engaged, and that reload was performed. Therefore all rounds fired at T2 occurred without violation. Looking at T1, the stage required engagement with six rounds prior to the reload. The competitor fired five rounds. The competitor was allowed to fire five rounds at T1 without being required to make a reload -- so no violation occurred there. The only thing left to do is to score the miss......

That's John's interpretation......

The original scenario is different.

A reload was required and not performed before re-engaging for the second pass over the targets. Every round fired after the point where the reload was required is subject to procedural penalty until such a reload is completed with no maximum. So when the shooter fixed his malfunction, and then engaged T1-6 (T6 twice) he fired seven rounds after the point where the reload was required, hence seven penalties.

I don't think John will interpret that differently, based on how the material is taught.....

[austex]

You're missing the point I think. Your stage required a reload before T2 could be engaged, and that reload was performed. Therefore all rounds fired at T2 occurred without violation. Looking at T1, the stage required engagement with six rounds prior to the reload. The competitor fired five rounds. The competitor was allowed to fire five rounds at T1 without being required to make a reload -- so no violation occurred there. The only thing left to do is to score the miss......

----------------------------------------------

Applying your analysis of the 08-01 ruling to Skydiver’s case:

You're missing the point I think. Skydiver’s stage required a reload before T1-T6 could be engaged a second time, and that reload was performed. Therefore all rounds fired at T1-T5 and the second round at T6 occurred without violation. Looking at T1-T5, the stage required engagement with one round prior to the reload and one round after the reload. The competitor fired one round at T1-T5 before the reload and one round at T1-T5 after the reload. Looking at T6, the stage required engagement with one round prior to the reload and one round after the reload. The competitor fired one round at T6 after the reload. The only thing left to do is to penalize the shooter for not firing a shot at T6 before the reload...... So one procedural.

----------------------------------------------

I understand your point. I understand my point. I understand that each of our points has a rational, reasonable basis in the rules and the rulings. When it comes to a textual and contextual analysis of our two points, I’m not convinced that either has a better foundation in the rules and rulings. But if I have two reasonable approaches, and neither has a better foundation than the other, I’ll go with the one that doesn’t bury the shooter in penalties disproportionally to the severity of the infraction or to any advantage gained by the infraction. For Skydiver’s 5-reload-7 situation, I think one procedural would be sufficient to deter intentional violations (i.e., no malfunction, but an intentional early reload) and to penalize minor brain malfunctions appropriately.

Let’s assume Skydiver is a GM shooting limited and normally shoots 99-08 perfectly with 60 points at 6.45 seconds for a 9.2999 HF and a 100% score on the national scale. Let’s say he can save a full second by doing a 5-reload-7 over a 6-reload-6 because he saves one target transition. With one procedural, that’s a 9.1715 HF for a 98.6183% national score—one procedural is enough to keep it from being a winning strategy. The examples I tried indicated the 5-reload-7 strategy would be even worse for lesser skilled shooters.

With respect to massive penalties, for example the 7 procedurals some have advocated, I noticed some comments to the effect that “oh well, you zeroed the stage so it will not hurt your classification.” Most classifiers, though, are shot in matches, and zero points on the stage hurt the shooter’s match results a lot compared to imposing only one procedural, which likely would only cost somewhere from 1 to 6 or so stage points. For a minor mental slip, that seems enough.

You might be right about a DNROI ruling on Skydiver’s situation. It wouldn’t be the first DNROI ruling that I think is based on debatable interpretations of the rules. But if so, I will certainly follow its literal mandate, and try to apply its spirit in what seem to be similar contexts. In the absence of a ruling, though, it will take a much better argument than I’ve seen in this topic to convince me that 7 procedurals is the right call.

[racerba]

Sorry for the thread hijack, but I'm still annoyed to this day about how I was scored when shooting CM 99-08 Melody Line once.

I was shooting left to right. I hit T1-T5, but had a stove pipe when I pointed the gun to shoot at T6. Trying to clear the malfunction forced me to do a full reload, so I reloaded, then shot left to right again from T1-T6 + T6. I was penalized 7 procedurals for not performing the mandatory reload after having engaged T6.

In the light of 10.2.2.1, would it have been better if I'd just shot T6 once, and therefore only be penalized for the miss? Or would I just earned the 6 procedurals, and a miss?

Interesting question from an academic perspective... I would actually appreciate some further discussion on it. Personally, I do not see a valid justification for assessing 1 procedural per shot fired after the reload.

If this stage was shot as described above, I would have been tempted to score it as follows:

1 FTE for failing to engage T6 prior to the reload. (The WSB specifically requires the shooter to engage EACH target TWICE during the stage, once before and once after a mandatory reload. The shooter did not fire at T6 before the reload)

1 Procedural for the extra shot on T6 after the reload. (The shooter clearly fired more than 6 rounds after the reload which violates the 1 shot per target requirement in the WSB)

Scoring would depend on what T6 looked like after the Range is Clear command:

T1-T5 - scored as shot

T6:

If zero hits: 2 Mike (-20 points)

If one hit: as shot plus 1 Mike (MAX 0 points)

If two hits: as shot plus 1 Extra Hit (MAX 0 points)

In no case, with two hits, can shooter be awarded the points for both hits, as the second hit is clearly from an extra shot.

_____________________________________________________________________

If my analysis is incorrect, as an RO, I would certainly appreciate having it explained to me where I have gone awryy in my thinking. I want to understand.

Regardless of the way it is scored, Jay is spot on. This classifier would not likely count on anyone's record due to it being a 60 point classifier and extra time incurred from malfunction clearing. Best case scenario, the shooter can't possibly score better than 30 points.

50 MAX possible (No possible positive score for T6)

-10 FTE

-10 Extra Shot

---------------------

30 MAX possible.

i disagree. you cannot score a target based on what happened at the line. you have to score the target independently. there are supposed to be 2 hits on the target...there are 2 hits on the target...therefore you cannot give an extra hit penalty. how do you know which hit was the "extra" hit??? What if the shooter was off and he missed all the shots but fortunately, they all hit a target (might not be the target he was aiming for, but hit the target nonetheless). It's like if you have 3 hits on T2 and one hit on T1. The shooter did not shoot an extra shot, however he gets a miss on T1 and an extra hit on T2. You can't give the shooter an extra shot based on 3 hits on a target.

Now - FTE would be a different story. I will agree with that one and score 1 FTE and 1 extra shot for penalties.

We score targets based on "what happened at the line" all the time. Every FTE I award is based on what the shooter does "at the line" (during the course of fire).

In this case, I know for a FACT that the shooter did not engage the target prior to the reload. I KNOW that he ONLY fired 5 shots. I KNOW that he fired 7 shots AFTER the reload. I KNOW that it is mathematically impossible for him to have more than one "legal" hit on T6.

As for which hit is the "extra shot" and how to score it... there is a rule to cover that... On any target having more hits than are scorable, for instance if a shooter fires a makeup on a target and has three hits, then the RO scored the two hits with the highest score.

The only issue is whether there is IN FACT an extra hit OR NOT. Extra hits are NOT scored.

In MOST circumstances the RO could not rule 1 of 2 hits on a target as an extra hit due to an extra shot because the RO could not reasonably KNOW which of the shots hit the paper and which did not... In this case, we KNOW there is 2 shots, one of which is definitely an "extra shot". Unlike when there are three hits on a paper target... no definitve way to know which of the three are the extra shot... which is why the "arbitrary" decision was made to grant the HIGHEST two scoring vs. some other method.

SO, I am simply following the same logic... scoring the highest one of two hits...

Bottom Line: Question: Is a hit resulting from a known extra shot scored as an "extra hit".

As I said, I have no dog in this race and am not trying to push it either way... I simply analyzed it according to the way I have read the rules. If I'm wrong, cool... just want to know the "why", because to my reading of the rules, there is nothing that clearly addresses this situation.

We do not score targets based on what happen on the line. FTE penalty is given at the line (you are correct), missed are given at the target during scoring. What you think you know, you may not actually know. We don't score targets on assumptions. We score targets on what we see as evidence on the target itself.

Here's my understanding of the circumstances: Shooter engaged T1 through T5 with one round each, then performed a reload, then engaged T1 through T6 with one round each, then engaged T6 again with one round. Total of 12 shots, total of 12 hits, 2 on each target. The stage procedure requires the shooter to engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, then make a mandatory reload and engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, Virginia count - 12 shots, 12 hits.

There is an NROI ruling that strongly implies that the shooter should not get the procedurals for "failing to make the reload." He did reload. The double jeopardy ruling says:

Question:

We were shooting classifier CM08-01 Virginia Count. The procedure is: String1: On signal, engage one target with only six rounds freestyle, make mandatory reload, etc. The shooter engages first target with five (5) rounds, makes mandatory reload and completes the COF. RO gives the shooter one miss penalty (well deserved) plus a procedural penalty for shooting less than six rounds required sighting the per rule 10.2.2.

Answer:

It is scored as a miss with no procedural for failing to fire the 6 rounds, the competitor is already being penalized for the infraction. 10.2.2 stipulates a procedural per shot for failing to comply with a stage procedure, this would mean for example, carrying a briefcase while engaging targets, the competitor leaves it behind and shoots without it.

In light of this ruling, I revert back to my original ruling. One penalty for an extra shot at the line when he shot at T6 the second time. No other penalty.

Edited August 20, 2014 by racerba

[garp]

This is off topic some, but in the original statement, the word "engaged" was brought up. I looked in the index and glossary out of curiosity and did not find it defined. Is "shooting" at a target considered engaged with or without a least one hit, or just simply pointing the gun at the target area, as was stated before the jams, considered "engaging?"

I still working on trying to learn the rules...

Thanx

[justaute]

garp...you'll often hear or read the term "fail to engage" within the USPSA community; however, such a phrase does not exist. The appropriate phrase is "...fails to shoot...". See Rule 9.5.7.

This is off topic some, but in the original statement, the word "engaged" was brought up. I looked in the index and glossary out of curiosity and did not find it defined. Is "shooting" at a target considered engaged with or without a least one hit, or just simply pointing the gun at the target area, as was stated before the jams, considered "engaging?"

I still working on trying to learn the rules...

Thanx

[teros135]

Here's a parallel example that will hopefully clarify what should happen. See what y'all think.

(1) Same classifier, six targets, one shot each - reload - one shot each, Virginia count, same WSB. Shooter fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), reloads, fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), then fires an extra round at T6. There are two holes in T1-T5 and 3 holes in T6. Under the rules, how would you score/penalize this?

I'd score T6 as shot and call an extra shot at T6 (on the last pass) and an extra hit on T6 - two penalties, if I understand 9.4.5.1 and 9.4.5.2 correctly, per the Virginia count rules. Do we agree on this?

(2) Now take the example to the current debated stage. Shooter fires 5 rounds at T1-T5 and doesn't shoot at T6, reloads, and fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), then fires an extra round at T6. There are 2 holes in each of the six targets. How do you score/penalize this?

Rationale: It seems the same as the hypothetical example under (1) above, dynamically. T6 should only have one hit, because by the WSB you can't do a "make-up" shot after the reload (which is what our competitor did). The WSB only allows one shot in each pass, one before and one after the reload. You can't determine which of the two hits is the second (extra/illegal) hit, so you score both and assess the same penalties as in (1) above.

You can't score a M from the first pass (where he didn't engage it) because he hit it both times on the second pass (and if he didn't, you can't tell if the missing hole was from shot #6 (legit) or #7 (illegal) on the 2nd string.

Does that work?

[garp]

justaute,

Thank you , that was the type of wording I was looking for.

Now I know.....

**g***

[garp]

teros.

I was under the impression that the RO with the shooter, watches the shooter for safety violations. The scorer should be watching "targets"/down range for such just occurrences of (word of the day) "fails to shoot at."

At least that is what I do when helping out at our local shoots. I get shooters all the time asking where they hit this or that. I tell them I do not know, I was you you(them) and the gun for "unsafe" violations.

Should I pay more attention down range of the shooter?

[garp]

type error...

insert "I was "watching" you...."

[teros135]

garp...you'll often hear or read the term "fail to engage" within the USPSA community; however, such a phrase does not exist. The appropriate phrase is "...fails to shoot...". See Rule 9.5.7.

This is off topic some, but in the original statement, the word "engaged" was brought up. I looked in the index and glossary out of curiosity and did not find it defined. Is "shooting" at a target considered engaged with or without a least one hit, or just simply pointing the gun at the target area, as was stated before the jams, considered "engaging?"

I still working on trying to learn the rules...

Thanx

Yes, "failure to shoot at" is the wording in 9.5.7 and 10.2.7. We also see "Failure to Engage" in the Index (under Procedural Penalties), which points at 10.2.7. They seem to be functionally equivalent, and everybody seems to know what they mean. FTS = FTE, basically. (No intention to get into unending arguments about inconsistencies in the rule book; perhaps this is one that will be adjusted eventually.)

[teros135]

teros.

I was under the impression that the RO with the shooter, watches the shooter for safety violations. The scorer should be watching "targets"/down range for such just occurrences of (word of the day) "fails to shoot at."

At least that is what I do when helping out at our local shoots. I get shooters all the time asking where they hit this or that. I tell them I do not know, I was you you(them) and the gun for "unsafe" violations.

Should I pay more attention down range of the shooter?

As the primary ("timer guy") RO I spend more time watching the shooter, especially if they're new or if I'm not familiar with them. Taking a position behind (of course) and to the gun side I can also see generally where they're aiming and when they traverse from one target to another (although that's not my primary purpose). In classifiers/Virginia count I'll count shots, if I can, but again safety is the first priority. As the scoring RO I'll watch the direction of gun and aim, targets, and hits more. Depends on the situation.

Edited August 21, 2014 by teros135

[aztecdriver]

Here's a parallel example that will hopefully clarify what should happen. See what y'all think.

(1) Same classifier, six targets, one shot each - reload - one shot each, Virginia count, same WSB. Shooter fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), reloads, fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), then fires an extra round at T6. There are two holes in T1-T5 and 3 holes in T6. Under the rules, how would you score/penalize this?

I'd score T6 as shot and call an extra shot at T6 (on the last pass) and an extra hit on T6 - two penalties, if I understand 9.4.5.1 and 9.4.5.2 correctly, per the Virginia count rules. Do we agree on this?

(2) Now take the example to the current debated stage. Shooter fires 5 rounds at T1-T5 and doesn't shoot at T6, reloads, and fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), then fires an extra round at T6. There are 2 holes in each of the six targets. How do you score/penalize this?

Rationale: It seems the same as the hypothetical example under (1) above, dynamically. T6 should only have one hit, because by the WSB you can't do a "make-up" shot after the reload (which is what our competitor did). The WSB only allows one shot in each pass, one before and one after the reload. You can't determine which of the two hits is the second (extra/illegal) hit, so you score both and assess the same penalties as in (1) above.

You can't score a M from the first pass (where he didn't engage it) because he hit it both times on the second pass (and if he didn't, you can't tell if the missing hole was from shot #6 (legit) or #7 (illegal) on the 2nd string.

Does that work?

No.

You continue to apply assumptions that things not done during the procedure are illegal and as such don't matter if they happen. They are not illegal, they are procedural errors, which is why extra shots and extra hits are procedural penalties. I still can choose how I solve the competitive problem, no matter what happens during that solving.

Your scoring of your example 1 is correct. I thought I missed on the first pass, so I fired a makeup shot, but I was wrong. So because I chose to fire the makeup shot (13 vs. 12 rounds.) 1 extra shot penalty. Because I was wrong about the hit being a miss, there are 3 rounds into the target instead of two, one extra hit. If I was right and the first shot missed t6 - I would only have the extra shot, (13 v 12). The only hits on the target would be 2 and those would be scored as best two, as always - no extra hit.

In your example 2 - and all of these examples, it's one string, 12 rounds required. The only penalty for extra shot would happen if the 13th shot is broken. Here's the rule with the relevant text highlighted.

9.4.5.1 Extra shots (i.e. shots fired in excess of the number specified in a component string or stage), will each incur one procedural penalty. Additionally, during scoring, no more than the specified number and highest scoring hits will be awarded.

IF we remove the mandatory reload and then change it to two separate strings, like draw 1 each freestyle, string 2, draw one each strong hand only, and it goes 5 then 7, then there is an extra shot taken during the second component string. That is not the case here. It's one string, 12 rounds - it's fine from the extra shot stand point. You have no basis in calling it an extra shot because it happened after the mandatory reload.

Secondly, scoring targets is ALWAYS based on the evidence on the target - EXCEPT, as pointed out, in the case of FTEs which are known from the line. The reasoning is simple, the ambiguity you point out about which hit was fired from there is NEVER consider. If there is a whole in the paper and there is a scoring hit on the target - it's a scoring hit. A missed shot, whether it was noticed to be a miss from the line and was made up, or whatever - has no bearing. If there's supposed to be 2 hits and there's 3, you always take the best two and the extra hit is scored. If 3 rounds were fired at a target and you know an extra shot was taken in the second component string (as my splitting it into two component strings discusses) - it's a valid scoring hit. I can look after string 1 and say - gee - I missed a round on t2, and shoot that make up shot if I choose to in string two. I'm debating whether the -10 plus the extra .5 for the shot is worth it or do I take the -15 for the mike. When scoring, it doesn't matter how they got there, the evidence is the evidence and you score it appropriately. This policy is lined out in 9.5. In order for me to consider what you are attributing in the rules - where does your stance lie in 9.5?

Lastly, the point people have been making about the reload procedural is because the stage procedure states - "Engage T1-T6, then, make a mandatory reload and engage T1-T6. The reload happened before the first part of the procedure was satisfied, so the reload never satisfied the mandatory reload component. The word, THEN is important. Which is why every target engaged twice after the non-mandatory reload incurred a procedural because we never did it.

10.2.4 A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur one procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed.

When T1 was engaged again before T6 was and the mandatory reload then performed, every shot fired there after was penalized.

Extra shots - one string, requiring 12 shots - 12 shots fired - no extra shot.

Extra hits - each target had two holes, no extra hits

Procedural - mandatory reload penalties - some say 6 some say 7 and I can argue both sides to this, and won't (T6 was engaged properly with the first round, improperly on the second round.)

Does that clear it up? If not, I hear you arguing for what you think is possible - I'm not seeing the basis in the rules - at all. So - if you are going to respond, I highly suggest you walk through the rules and lay out your case. Quote them - so we can see what you are trying to say.

[racerba]

10.2.4 A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur one procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed.

When T1 was engaged again before T6 was and the mandatory reload then performed, every shot fired there after was penalized.

Extra shots - one string, requiring 12 shots - 12 shots fired - no extra shot.

Extra hits - each target had two holes, no extra hits

Procedural - mandatory reload penalties - some say 6 some say 7 and I can argue both sides to this, and won't (T6 was engaged properly with the first round, improperly on the second round.)

Does that clear it up? If not, I hear you arguing for what you think is possible - I'm not seeing the basis in the rules - at all. So - if you are going to respond, I highly suggest you walk through the rules and lay out your case. Quote them - so we can see what you are trying to say.

I agree with this assessment due to 10.2.4 and your reasoning that the reload does not satisfy the mandatory reload requirement...I changed my ruling and would give 7 procedural penalty...6 or 7 it really doesn't matter, does it?

[racerba]

Here's a parallel example that will hopefully clarify what should happen. See what y'all think.

(1) Same classifier, six targets, one shot each - reload - one shot each, Virginia count, same WSB. Shooter fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), reloads, fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), then fires an extra round at T6. There are two holes in T1-T5 and 3 holes in T6. Under the rules, how would you score/penalize this?

I'd score T6 as shot and call an extra shot at T6 (on the last pass) and an extra hit on T6 - two penalties, if I understand 9.4.5.1 and 9.4.5.2 correctly, per the Virginia count rules. Do we agree on this?

(2) Now take the example to the current debated stage. Shooter fires 5 rounds at T1-T5 and doesn't shoot at T6, reloads, and fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), then fires an extra round at T6. There are 2 holes in each of the six targets. How do you score/penalize this?

Rationale: It seems the same as the hypothetical example under (1) above, dynamically. T6 should only have one hit, because by the WSB you can't do a "make-up" shot after the reload (which is what our competitor did). The WSB only allows one shot in each pass, one before and one after the reload. You can't determine which of the two hits is the second (extra/illegal) hit, so you score both and assess the same penalties as in (1) above.

You can't score a M from the first pass (where he didn't engage it) because he hit it both times on the second pass (and if he didn't, you can't tell if the missing hole was from shot #6 (legit) or #7 (illegal) on the 2nd string.

Does that work?

No...here is an example of why your reasoning does not work:

I shoot T1-T6 with one round each, performed my mandatory reload and shoot T1-T6 with one round each, I also shot an extra round at T6.

i get one penalty for an extra shot...i think everybody is in agreement here.

You go to score and there are 2 holes in every target...How do you score T6?

You can't give an extra hit penalty because there is only 2 holes...you know 3 shots were fired at T6 and I know you really want to give an extra hit penalty. However, you can't because you do not know which hit is the extra hit? was it the first, second or third shot that missed? you don't know, therefore you cannot give an extra hit penalty on T6. You score with the evidence presence...not what you thought happened at the line. Back to the situation at hand, you still cannot give extra hit because of what happen at the line.

[Skydiver]

Lastly, the point people have been making about the reload procedural is because the stage procedure states - "Engage T1-T6, then, make a mandatory reload and engage T1-T6. The reload happened before the first part of the procedure was satisfied, so the reload never satisfied the mandatory reload component. The word, THEN is important. Which is why every target engaged twice after the non-mandatory reload incurred a procedural because we never did it.

Following that logic about the significance of the word THEN, if a shooter decides to shoot the right side port first in in CM 99-34 Ported View, then they would get at least 6 procedurals. The WSB does not make provisions for being able to choose which side to shoot first unlike the other classifiers. Or is this a case when the "intent" of the classifier is considered rather than the exact wording?

Additionally, I've also seen some shooters shoot both sides of the barricade first, and then the port last in CM 99-19 Payne's Pain. Again shouldn't procedurals be assessed in that case as well?

[Nik Habicht]

Here's the stage description for 99-34:

Upon start signal, through the left port, engage only T1, T2, PP1, and PP2. Then make a mandatory reload and through the right port, engage only T3, T4, PP3, and PP4. All shots must pass through respective ports.

Given the last sentence, and that the arrays mirror each other, I'd let a shooter start on either side. We have some classifiers that spell it out a little more clearly -- but if that wasn't the intent, the entire last sentence could be omitted.....

Payne's Pain:

Upon start signal, from Box A engage T1-T4 with only one round per target around either side of the barricade. Then make a mandatory reload and from Box A engage T1- T4 with only one round per target through Port B, then make a mandatory reload and from Box A, engage T1-T4 with only one round per target from the remaining side of the barricade.

Sure -- but it would be one procedural for not following the stage description, unless someone skipped a mandatory reload.....

I'm not certain there's really any loss of competitive equity though.....