2015 Benelli Rockcastle Tactical Shotgun Match

[kurtm]

Results can be found ?

[MarkCO]

http://www.practiscore.com/results.php?uuid=60e3e87f-70dd-40e4-8632-98fc6ca1a68f

[Matt in TN]

Thanks to everyone for working so hard to put on a good match. I learned a lot and had a great time, and everyone was very friendly and helpful to a newbie -

[7.62mm]

Thanks for all the hard work of the RO's, Stats officials, setup crew and all that made this Match happen. It is always a pleasure to shoot at Rockcastle, as it is an A1 facility.

The 1 major criticism for me was the steel. Stuff like this should not be allowed to happen at a major event:

This was a common theme, it did not happen to me personally, but it is pretty disheartening to see a shooter move on from a target like this that is almost impossible to see. And then to not have a proper application of the rules used when the RM is called over to assess it. This match was touted as using the IPSC rule set, and many aspects of the rules were not applied correctly. I realize some here don't like the IPSC rule set....but good or bad, there is a rule book that should have been adhered to.

Edited August 9, 2015 by 7.62mm

[MarkCO]

The rulebook was followed and I even showed the rule to you after you quoted one that was from 2009. Plus that is a staged photo. Let's at least be honest about that.

[sarpau]

Out of curiosity, which rule would allow a partially turned plate to not be issued a reshoot?

I'm seeing 4.3.1.1 making that an illegal target to begin with.

On a side note, I saw video of the stages and am pissed I had to miss this match.

[MarkCO]

Find the REF rule and we will go from there.

This really boils down to sour grapes and a few competitors not knowing the rules had been changed. Arbitration is an option of you do not like the RMs call and since the call in question was not arbitrated and the competitor did not even know the rules, nothing good can come of this.

Two competitors sought arbitration, one was on a call of an RO and one was on the call of the RM. One had the call reversed, one did not. But if you do not even ask and then complain on the internet, we ask know what that is.

Edited August 9, 2015 by MarkCO

[sarpau]

Yup, I've read section 4.6

You'll have to give me a hint though as I'm not seeing it.

Just to be clear, I'm only wanting to learn from all of this.

You've spent a lot of time with the rule book preparing for this match so I'm, trying to leverage off your research.

Edited August 9, 2015 by sarpau

[7.62mm]

The rulebook was followed and I even showed the rule to you after you quoted one that was from 2009. Plus that is a staged photo. Let's at least be honest about that.

I am sorry you mis understand. I wasn't part of the parties arguing the rules.

As was pointed out Rule 4.3.1.1 expressly prohibits these types of targets in an IPSC match, as they should be prohibited in any type of event, and for good reason.

The attempt by the RM to apply rules that simply aren't relevant just made matters worse.

Taking 2 calibration shots at a target that cant be calibrated properly, and for circumstances that didn't apply, was just ridiculous.

The shooter should have been given a re-shoot for range equipment failure...full stop. At the very least, since the rules were not being followed, given the target as scored with no penalty.

The photo was taken from the position the shooter shot at it. I took the photo from within the shooting area. How could any one deny that on a good look that the shooter would see that the target was down. The very idea that the RM stepped out of the shooting area to engage the target with the 2 "calibration" shots was beyond the pale, but it did show how far the attempt was made to justify the bad call, and the unfortunate use of improper steel targets. These types of rotating targets do not provide a fair target to each competitor, and should be rid of entirely at all shooting events.

Edited August 9, 2015 by 7.62mm

[MarkCO]

But you ignoring the rules on Enos is okay? Kind of hypocritical. The complete issues was explained and the competitor accepted the ruling, so still, just sour grapes.

I did not spend 100+ hours studying the rules and how they are applied by IPSC officials to not follow them. If you need more, feel free to send me a note.

[kurtm]

I'm thinking that a Canadian shooter, who has always shot under IPSC rules and competes regularly in IPSC shotgun matches may have a valid point. It didn't come across a sour grapes, it came across as experience, but I wasn't there so I'm not sure. The target sure looks "outlaw" to me given my very slight exposure to the IPSC rule set, as for the rest, it is about what I expected.

[7.62mm]

I don't see why this can't be discussed openly.

I am stating that the application of the rules was in error...the fact that the steel plates being used were non compliant, and other competitors on my squad, as I am sure other squads had issues as well, had issues with plates rotating, and taking extra shots at them certainly indicates a problem.

If you want to discuss this privately that's fine...I am willing to do that. I am just stating for the record, the application of the IPSC rules were not followed...and there was no way to follow them, because the targets were not compliant within the rule set. ( for the very same reason that some want rifle targets painted every shooter, or at least contrasting colour backer boards behind them....so it is fair for every shooter)!

I have spent many more hours than 100 studying the IPSC rule set.

[sarpau]

Interesting that calibration shots were taken on a non-calibratable (is that even a word??) target.

If that target array was on the "outlaw" stage then it might be excusable that "it must fall to score"

If it was an IPSC stage, the rules clearly outline what type of targets are to be used, in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

when shot, a metal target is supposed to either fall or stay in its original position so that the competitor can re-engage it as originally intended, with the original (and consistent for all) level of difficulty.

I may not have as many hours in the rule book as 7.62, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express once.

[MarkCO]

They were not Calibration shots, they were target test shots, which were explained, the rule reference given.

I did it exactly as advized by more than one person I contacted who only run IPSC matches after I saw that the targets that were supplied (used and approved by IPSC) from a prior match.

When the competitor declines arbitration when it is offered with the fee waived, and the rules explained, yes, complaining after the match is over is sour grapes. BTW, there were only 4 such challenges made in the match total.

Edited August 10, 2015 by MarkCO

[sarpau]

would it be possible to reference the rule?

I'd like to see/learn what was applied in this situation.

[MarkCO]

There is no rule for REF related to spun plates, it was deleted. Only target test procedure in the Appendix.

Edited August 10, 2015 by MarkCO

[7.62mm]

would it be possible to reference the rule?

I'd like to see/learn what was applied in this situation.

They were not Calibration shots, they were target test shots, which were explained, the rule reference given.

I did it exactly as advized by more than one person I contacted who only run IPSC matches after I saw that the targets that were supplied (used and approved by IPSC) from a prior match.

When the competitor declines arbitration when it is offered with the fee waived, and the rules explained, yes, complaining after the match is over is sour grapes. BTW, there were only 4 such challenges made in the match total.

It can't be any more clear...I am NOT the competitor (I just preferred Not to be involved in the "discussions" because I was trying to focus on winning the Standard Manual Division title.

Shotgun Competition Rules

January 2015 EDITION

4.3.1.1 Metal targets and no-shoots which can accidentally turn edge-on or sideways when hit are expressly prohibited. Using them may result in withdrawal of IPSC sanction

The actions to take test shots...or calibration shots, or whatever someone wants to call them, is simply ridiculous, especially outside of the shooting area...again...it is beyond the pale.

When the RM walks up, and has the mind already made up, and when the RO's on the stage tell the competitor that if the target turns, and doesn't fall....that it won't count for score.....well...I think you can get the point. The application of the IPSC Rule set was not used.

It is ok to admit you don't understand the IPSC rules....learn from it and move on.

I advocate that steel should never be able to rotate, and that when hit, it positively falls....anything else is just stupid.

[MarkCO]

So your way is the only posible answer??? Too bad IPSC officials do not agree with you, but you don't care as long as you can sling mud... While expressly violating the forum rules. Yes, that is clear.

[sarpau]

There is no rule for REF related to spun plates, it was deleted. Only target test procedure in the Appendix.

I see.

I'll only say this and don't think it needs to be drawn out any further.

There is no rule for spun plates because the very first thing in the rule book relating to approved metal targets (4.3.1.1) states targets allowed to spin are not legal in IPSC.

There is no reference to them in 4.6 because they shouldn't really be in the match in the first place, so no need to discuss them further within the rules.

Also 4.6.1 reads " includes but not limited to..."

So it could really be argued that a spinning plate is included in the list of REF scenarios/items but to list them all would make the rule book the size of a telephone book.

[MarkCO]

Agree, but we are talking level 1. And the target package, generously supplied by FNH, were used and approved prior.

Edited August 10, 2015 by MarkCO

[7.62mm]

So your way is the only posible answer??? Too bad IPSC officials do not agree with you, but you don't care as long as you can sling mud... While expressly violating the forum rules. Yes, that is clear.

Please explain how any other answer works! The rule book is very clear....is it slinging mud to state what happened and what RO's stated?

I have no personal investment in the outcomes of the decisions that were made. It made/makes no difference to my match/stage scores.

I am an IPSC RO "official" myself, and have personally devoted a great many hours on the rule set. I dont know who the IPSC Officials are that dont agree with me, but would certainly like to be afforded the opportunity to discuss these matters with them.

Edited August 10, 2015 by 7.62mm

[sarpau]

I hear you on the level 1 thing

We go through this a bit here at home.

I'm refreshing my knowledge of the rules here so please indulge me.

Also this discussion will help if anything occurs at the world shoot and I have to go all "range lawyer"

Reading app C1 6c) if the "test shots" were fired outside the shooting area then the testing wasn't in accordance of the rules, and a reshoot should have been given.

I wasn't there so I can only go by what was written in this thread.

This is an interesting discussion.

Edited August 10, 2015 by sarpau

[7.62mm]

I hear you on the level 1 thing

We go through this a bit here at home.

I'm refreshing my knowledge of the rules here so please indulge me.

Also this discussion will help if anything occurs at the world shoot and I have to go all "range lawyer"

Reading app C1 6c) if the "test shots" were fired outside the shooting area then the testing wasn't in accordance of the rules, and a reshoot should have been given.

I wasn't there so I can only go by what was written in this thread.

This is an interesting discussion.

Umm....this doesn't even apply to this discussion....test shots are just that...."test shots" ...prior to the commencement of a match.

There is no "test shot" or "calibration shot" or any such term that someone wants to make up to a metal plate after the start of a match.

[sarpau]

6c is a precursor to section 8 of the appendix which discusses what options a competitor has if a target doesn't fall.

8c states the competitor can request the target be "tested"

if the target was tested (which it sounds like is what happened), and not done so in accordance with 6c, then it wasn't a proper test.

The target was moved by a match official prior to a proper test conducted so a reshoot should have been ordered.

I feel so lawyery.

Hopefully I only get the opportunity to be a competitor and food eater in Italy.

Edited August 10, 2015 by sarpau

[kurtm]

Easy 308 man. We will sit at a cafe in Italy and enjoy a " rule session" talk over some nice Italian beer, and all this will just melt away! It truly isn't worth arguing over. Anyone can interpret a rule set any way they want when the governing body is not directly involved. As for who is right and who is wrong I'll just say my meager understanding of the rules says Canadian beer is the best in this instance.