Question on stacking in 03-18

[ChuckS]

2 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

That's the language from the rulebook, not the updated ruling.  The ruling changed it from insufficiently engaged to incorrectly engaged.  So if you engage targets in the incorrect sequence as specified in the stage briefing then it's stacking, even if they're still sufficiently engaged (correctly total number of rounds).

There ya go. I still think you just like being mean, though...

[Southpaw]

32 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

There ya go. I still think you just like being mean, though...

Maybe a little

 

Actually the reason I feel I should jump in on threads about stacking like this, and the one linked to earlier in this thread, is that ruling came about from a question I asked DNROI.  Note:  I did not request that confusing wording in the ruling, just that the rule needed to be changed

 

If you look at the old wording in the current rulebook it says stacking only refers to how many shots you fire per string and there needs to be targets insufficiently engaged in a string.  Well many classifiers are just one string with a reload in the middle.  So according to the old wording it's impossible to have stacking on classifiers like that.  Take El Pres for example, if you shot that by firing 4 into T1, 2 into T2, reload, 2 into T2, and 4 into T3 that wouldn't be stacking according to the old wording!  Plus you couldn't assess a procedural for 10.2.2 because of 10.2.2.1 and you still reloaded after the 6th shot.  We all know this is wrong and you can't shoot El Pres like this; however, during my RO course a few years ago I was basically told this was ok and would be no procedurals by the RMI.  Obviously this is "wrong", but technically the wording of the old rule does say this is ok.  So I asked DNROI about it and the rule was reworded...only kinda poorly and now causes other confusion , but at least it does fix the issue with the old wording and I think if you basically just read the example from the ruling it then makes sense.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Southpaw

[motosapiens]

12 hours ago, Nik Habicht said:

Can't assess under 9.4.5.3:

Targets 1, 2, and 3 were each engaged 4 times during the string -- exactly as required.  No individual target was engaged more than required, and no individual target was engaged less than required; so the offense as described does not meet the definition of stacking.

 

the clarification ruling posted above uses a similar example and calls it stacking.

 

https://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-NROI-ruling-details.php?indx=73

[JAFO]

It would be so much simpler if they just said, "One procedural penalty for each target incorrectly engaged per the WSB."

 

Freestyle is essentially out the window for classifiers anyway, so if you don't shoot it exactly as described in the WSB, you get procedurals.

Edited September 19, 2017 by JAFO

[motosapiens]

10 minutes ago, JAFO said:

It would be so much simpler if they just said, "One procedural penalty for each target incorrectly engaged per the WSB."

 

Freestyle is essentially out the window for classifiers anyway, so if you don't shoot it exactly as described in the WSB, you get procedurals.

 

except that in this case, it's the same target being incorrectly engaged 2 separate times, both before and after the reload. That's why it *feels* like it should logically be 2 procedurals.

[JAFO]

So it would be one procedural for the shot after the mandatory reload was required, and one for stacking on the single target that was incorrectly engaged (since the clarification wording refers to the number of targets, not the number of times a target was incorrectly engaged).

Edited September 19, 2017 by JAFO

[Gary Stevens]

This is why VC needs to be abolished.

[motosapiens]

1 minute ago, Gary Stevens said:

This is why VC needs to be abolished.

you'd also have to abolish multi-string classifiers, wouldn't you? or else I would shoot a crapload of shots on the freestyle string, and not so much on the WHO/SHO.

 

I think you just need a clear rule that would justify the two penalties that were earned.

Edited September 19, 2017 by motosapiens

[Southpaw]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

except that in this case, it's the same target being incorrectly engaged 2 separate times, both before and after the reload. That's why it *feels* like it should logically be 2 procedurals.

 

Procedurals for stacking are assessed based on the number of targets that were incorrectly engaged per string, not based on number of times you engaged a target incorrectly within a string. So if you fired 4 shots before the reload and zero after at 1 target or 3 before reload and 1 after it'd be 1 stacking procedural either way.

 

1 hour ago, JAFO said:

So it would be one procedural for the shot after the mandatory reload was required, and one for stacking on the single target that was incorrectly engaged (since the clarification wording refers to the number of targets, not the number of times a target was incorrectly engaged).

 

Yup!

[Nik Habicht]

21 hours ago, Southpaw said:

That's the language from the rulebook, not the updated ruling.  The ruling changed it from insufficiently engaged to incorrectly engaged.  So if you engage targets in the incorrect sequence as specified in the stage briefing then it's stacking, even if they're still sufficiently engaged (correctly total number of rounds).

OK -- Here's the language from the ruling:

 

Quote

Rule 9.4.5.3 is reworded to read: 9.4.5.3 Stacked shots (i.e. shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing) will incur one procedural penalty per
target incorrectly engaged in the string or stage. This penalty will not be applied if the written stage briefing specifically authorizes stacked shots.

Example: A VC scored stage requires two shots only at T1 and T2, a mandatory reload, and two shots only at T1 and T2. Firing 4 shots at T1, making the mandatory reload, and firing 4 shots at T2 is considered stacking and the competitor will be assessed two procedural penalties, one for incorrectly shooting at T1 and one for incorrectly shooting at T2.

I still don't see that stacking applies -- while the competitor fired more than the required number of rounds at T3 prior to the reload, he did not also engage another target with fewer than the required number of rounds.....

 

So, I'd overturn a procedural issued under 9.4.5.3 - either version.  This ain't stacking folks, it's failing to make the reload when required. 

[Southpaw]

Yeah I agree the wording of the ruling seems to support that, but like I said, I don't like the wording of that ruling

 

Seem to me like stacking should apply even with only one target incorrectly engaged.  Like on a stage where it's shoot each target 2 shots freestyle, then 2 each weak handed, if you shot 4 shots freestyle into one target, then zero shots into it weak handed, but engaged the rest of the targets correctly that still seems like stacking to me, no?  Maybe we need another ruling to clarify this ruling

[JAFO]

[Nik Habicht]

On 9/20/2017 at 12:47 AM, Southpaw said:

Yeah I agree the wording of the ruling seems to support that, but like I said, I don't like the wording of that ruling

 

Seem to me like stacking should apply even with only one target incorrectly engaged.  Like on a stage where it's shoot each target 2 shots freestyle, then 2 each weak handed, if you shot 4 shots freestyle into one target, then zero shots into it weak handed, but engaged the rest of the targets correctly that still seems like stacking to me, no?  Maybe we need another ruling to clarify this ruling

Doing that in a VC stage would likely result in two procedurals for not making the reload where required.....

 

Given the max point value of such a stage -- that's not gping to be a winning strategy.....

[bret]

On 9/18/2017 at 2:59 PM, teros135 said:

I'd say just one procedural.  He fired an extra shot during the pre-reload pass, then corrected it on the second pass. Stacking would be like four shots on T1 and two on T2, reload, two more on T2 and four on T3.  

 

So, one penalty for the extra shot before the reload.  There's no provision for penaltes for too few shots.  And from what you wrote, there were no extra hits, so no penalty there.

You can not Correct a procedural after you screwed up.

10.1.4 Procedural penalties cannot be nullified by further competitor action. For example, a competitor who fires a shot at a target while faulting a line will still incur the applicable penalties even though he subsequently shoots at the same target while not faulting the line.

 

[teros135]

11 minutes ago, bret said:

You can not Correct a procedural after you screwed up.

10.1.4 Procedural penalties cannot be nullified by further competitor action. For example, a competitor who fires a shot at a target while faulting a line will still incur the applicable penalties even though he subsequently shoots at the same target while not faulting the line.

 

 

Deja vu.  Hasn't that already been said?