Quick Question about FTSA Penalties and Multiple Strings

[RJH]

Once again me, the rule book, and the English language is proven wrong by DNROI. 

 

WTF, why do we even have a rule book, if the rules and definitions in it are going to be disregarded time and again?

 

And my humblest appoliges to Lastcat, apparently i was mistaken....

[ima45dv8]

I'd like to know if one of our resident RMI's still agrees with his own opinion here...

Have you guys discussed this, George? 

Maybe in your annual conference?

[RJH]

13 minutes ago, ima45dv8 said:

I'd like to know if one of our resident RMI's still agrees with his own opinion here...

Have you guys discussed this, George? 

Maybe in your annual conference?

 

George's interpretation sure looks correct to me.  

 

 

[Lastcat]

 

26 minutes ago, DKorn said:

 

I think the way Troy explained it is the logical interpretation of the spirit of the rules, but there are some wordings that probably need to be clarified to help avoid confusion. 

 

Basically, I would think the penalties make sense, but if the shooter wanted me to find a rule that states they apply to individual strings I couldn’t find one, and they would be able to point out at least a few rules that seem to imply otherwise. 

 

Really, all that would need to change to make this obvious is to change a couple rules to say “course of fire OR string”. 

 

Thanks DKorn for the reply from Troy. First time I heard of a string as a separate component of a stage, I'll go with it. If I were to call FTSA on the last 4 targets, as in string 2. I would have to go by the WSB. Where the word engage is used and rule 10.1.1 (non-compliance to the WSB).

 

Did the shooter engage all targets in String 2?

No = FTSA

Yes = No procedure

 

I changed my mind last night from my first post. When it comes to scoring, considering the shooter did engage all targets in String 1, I would have not considered any FTSA.

 

According to Troy and if I ever encounter this, I would site Rule 10.1.1 ".....when a Competitor fails to comply with procedures specified in a WSB." Even though Rule 9.5.1 states one round each. Must point back to the word engage in the WSB. Being an RO has a way of creating dirty looks (must have thick skin). Good discussion, thanks.

[Lastcat]

24 minutes ago, RJH said:

Once again me, the rule book, and the English language is proven wrong by DNROI. 

 

WTF, why do we even have a rule book, if the rules and definitions in it are going to be disregarded time and again?

 

And my humblest appoliges to Lastcat, apparently i was mistaken....

 

RJH, much props and honor to you. Nothing I lose sleep over. That's one of the reasons Brian started this site. To allow us to have healthy discussions. I later changed my mind last night too, argh!...lol. How can you give a FTSA since the first stage they had at least 1 round each? 

 

So Troy states, each string is a separate component of a stage. If this comes up, I'll point to  Rule 10.1.1 ".....when a Competitor fails to comply with procedures specified in a WSB." Then point to the word in String 2, "engage". 

[Sarge]

3 hours ago, DKorn said:

 

I think the way Troy explained it is the logical interpretation of the spirit of the rules, but there are some wordings that probably need to be clarified to help avoid confusion. 

 

Basically, I would think the penalties make sense, but if the shooter wanted me to find a rule that states they apply to individual strings I couldn’t find one, and they would be able to point out at least a few rules that seem to imply otherwise. 

 

Really, all that would need to change to make this obvious is to change a couple rules to say “course of fire OR string”. 

Most of our discussion focused on dropped mags. Since the layout of the boxes called for running right through where many dropped mags we were picking them up as a courtesy and to prevent damage. Then it dawned on me that we should leave them lay because a shooter technically could reuse it if needed and could potentially get a reshoot if we took his mags. Some thought a shooter could not use a mag dropped in a different string. 

[NickBlasta]

2 hours ago, Lastcat said:

 

 

Thanks DKorn for the reply from Troy. First time I heard of a string as a separate component of a stage, I'll go with it. If I were to call FTSA on the last 4 targets, as in string 2. I would have to go by the WSB. Where the word engage is used and rule 10.1.1 (non-compliance to the WSB).

 

Did the shooter engage all targets in String 2?

No = FTSA

Yes = No procedure

 

I changed my mind last night from my first post. When it comes to scoring, considering the shooter did engage all targets in String 1, I would have not considered any FTSA.

 

According to Troy and if I ever encounter this, I would site Rule 10.1.1 ".....when a Competitor fails to comply with procedures specified in a WSB." Even though Rule 9.5.1 states one round each. Must point back to the word engage in the WSB. Being an RO has a way of creating dirty looks (must have thick skin). Good discussion, thanks.

 

10.2.2.1 still applies, since it tells you that you can't give stage procedurals for number of shots fired, including insufficient shots, and "zero" is a number of insufficient shots. You have to use a different procedural.

[DKorn]

21 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Most of our discussion focused on dropped mags. Since the layout of the boxes called for running right through where many dropped mags we were picking them up as a courtesy and to prevent damage. Then it dawned on me that we should leave them lay because a shooter technically could reuse it if needed and could potentially get a reshoot if we took his mags. Some thought a shooter could not use a mag dropped in a different string. 

 

Unrelated to the issue we had on our squad, but I would think you’d need to pick the magazines up due to 5.2.4 (same reason you can’t start with magazines on a table or barrel unless the WSB tells you you can). 

[Sarge]

23 minutes ago, DKorn said:

 

Unrelated to the issue we had on our squad, but I would think you’d need to pick the magazines up due to 5.2.4 (same reason you can’t start with magazines on a table or barrel unless the WSB tells you you can). 

My point is 5.5.2 says you can pick up mags dropped after the start signal and reuse them. But it doesn’t clarify a stage or string start signal. If a string is just part of a stage then they should be able to reuse them? If it is argued they can’t be reused then it stands to reason FTSA’s can be given for failing to engage in a different string.

[Lastcat]

3 hours ago, NickBlasta said:

 

10.2.2.1 still applies, since it tells you that you can't give stage procedurals for number of shots fired, including insufficient shots, and "zero" is a number of insufficient shots. You have to use a different procedural.

 

Yes and no. I’ll explain with as much respect to the rules as I understand and to you Nick.

 

10.2.2.1 is a subsection of 10.2.2:

 

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with the procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance).

 

10.2.2 is about a competitor that does not follow the WSB. Whether it is position, stance, or action that is required in the WSB, etc… Also about separating the failure to follow the WSB and the number of shots (or lack of) fired.  Say for example, they are required to hold a Panda with both hands downrange and arms parallel to the ground. But they only use 1 hand. One procedure 10.1.1.

 

Did they gain a significant advantage? not really, so only one procedure and no further penalties for each shot fired thereafter. Unless the competitor did gain a significant advantage, then 1 procedure for each occurrence. Somehow competitors in the past, did not follow the WSB (properly holding the Panda) and they were penalized for each shot thereafter.

 

10.2.2.1 states not to penalize a competitor for not following the WSB for the number of shots fired. Even though the Panda was held by only 1 hand, then any shots taken after that shall not apply for non-compliance to the WSB (unless they gained a significant advantage). This rule also redirects the RO to apply the correct rules for additional or insufficient shots and not be penalized under 10.2.2

 

Can you imagine at the “Range is Clear” command, you get 32 procedures for not holding the Panda with 2 hands? So it protects the competitor for a simple mistake and defines 10.2.2 as a WSB procedure.

 

So yes, 10.2.2.1 was followed and no to rule 10.2.2, which was not applied in this case for the Classifier 18-08 The Condor.

 

In this case, as posted by the OP. The competitor had a gun malfunction on String 2. Left 4 targets that he did not engage. 1 FTSA for each target, as written in the stage briefing.  Score the targets as you see them.  

 

If I would state Rule 9.5.1 and/or  9.5.7 (fails to shoot one round each target…..) Then the competitor could argue, “yes I did, look, there is 1 shot on each target”. And I stick with my call  9.5.1 and/or 9.5.7. Now I have one angry competitor, who feels cheated and his 5 angry buddies, great, that’s all I need, where’s the exit and how do I get out of this? 

 

I rather site 10.1.1 for not following the WSB where it states to engage T1-T8. I would state that he failed to engage as written in the briefing and stick with the word “engage”. Less conflict and I avoid 6 guys looking for revenge. Hope this helps.

 

[NickBlasta]

The correct call is no procedurals and 4 mikes for the unfired shots.

[DKorn]

12 minutes ago, NickBlasta said:

The correct call is no procedurals and 4 mikes for the unfired shots.

 

That’s what I thought as well, but Troy disagrees. 

[NickBlasta]

2 minutes ago, DKorn said:

 

That’s what I thought as well, but Troy disagrees. 

 

Troy's opinion isn't a rule, if he wants a ruling that is completely the opposite of the language in the rulebook he should have written it that way.

[ima45dv8]

It's entirely possible that when he has a minute to think about it, he'll disagree with his statement, too.

[driver8M3]

29 minutes ago, Lastcat said:

 

Yes and no. I’ll explain with as much respect to the rules as I understand and to you Nick.

 

10.2.2.1 is a subsection of 10.2.2:

 

[trimmed the rest of this long post]

that is not what 10.2.2.1 is for.

 

10.2.2.1 means do not give a procedural for failing to shoot the number of rounds stipulated in the WSB. El Prez says 6-reload-6. If they fire 6-reload-5 or 6-reload-7 (for whatever reason), do not give a procedural for not firing the correct number or rounds.

[Lastcat]

1 hour ago, driver8M3 said:

that is not what 10.2.2.1 is for.

 

10.2.2.1 means do not give a procedural for failing to shoot the number of rounds stipulated in the WSB. El Prez says 6-reload-6. If they fire 6-reload-5 or 6-reload-7 (for whatever reason), do not give a procedural for not firing the correct number or rounds.

 

Negative.

10.2.21 "...failure to comply with stage procedure...."  10.2.2.1 "...procedures do not apply to number of shots fired, which are addressed in other rules". 

9.4.5.1 Extra Shots (6-reload-5 does not apply. 6-reload-7 applies)

9.4.5.2 Extra Hits    (6-reload-5 does not apply. 6-reload-7 applies, if 7th shot hits)

Edited March 26, 2019 by Lastcat

[NickBlasta]

1 hour ago, Lastcat said:

 

Negative.

10.2.21 "...failure to comply with stage procedure...."  10.2.2.1 "...procedures do not apply to number of shots fired, which are addressed in other rules". 

9.4.5.1 Extra Shots (6-reload-5 does not apply. 6-reload-7 applies)

9.4.5.2 Extra Hits    (6-reload-5 does not apply. 6-reload-7 applies, if 7th shot hits)

 

You can't give people a general procedural for engaging or not engaging targets. The rule is telling you that there are other procedurals for non-engagement, or under, or over-engagement of targets, and to use those in place of a general procedural.

 

"String 2 - engage array 2 with 2 rounds each" is WSB procedure. If they do not engage the targets in that string you do not give them a general procedural, you pick from the procedurals related to engaging targets. If they engaged them in string 1, and failed to engage them in string 2, all they can really get are mikes.

 

Additionally, think of it like this - the most common procedure on a field course is "engage targets as visible from inside the fault lines". If I do not engage a target do you give me both a general procedural (for not engaging a target according to the WSB) and a FTSA? No, you cannot give me the general procedural because of 10.2.2.1, you can only use the FTSA.

[Lastcat]

1 hour ago, NickBlasta said:

 

You can't give people a general procedural for engaging or not engaging targets. The rule is telling you that there are other procedurals for non-engagement, or under, or over-engagement of targets, and to use those in place of a general procedural.

 

"String 2 - engage array 2 with 2 rounds each" is WSB procedure. If they do not engage the targets in that string you do not give them a general procedural, you pick from the procedurals related to engaging targets. If they engaged them in string 1, and failed to engage them in string 2, all they can really get are mikes.

 

Additionally, think of it like this - the most common procedure on a field course is "engage targets as visible from inside the fault lines". If I do not engage a target do you give me both a general procedural (for not engaging a target according to the WSB) and a FTSA? No, you cannot give me the general procedural because of 10.2.2.1, you can only use the FTSA.

 

That first paragraph, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Explain "a general procedure". Is that what you tell competitors? Your time was 14.25, a hit factor of 5.236 and a general procedure. Write Troy McManus, go bust his balls. You know who that is right? The Director of the NROI. Go back to the beginning and read what the OP posted. The conversation here, for the most part, hinges around his post. 

[NickBlasta]

7 minutes ago, Lastcat said:

 

That first paragraph, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Explain "a general procedure". Is that what you tell competitors? Your time was 14.25, a hit factor of 5.236 and a general procedure. Write Troy McManus, go bust his balls. You know who that is right? The Director of the NROI. Go back to the beginning and read what the OP posted. The conversation here, for the most part, hinges around his post. 

 

 

You receive a general procedural for violating "general regulations", or section 10.1, and is the procedural you give a competitor for failing to comply with a written stage brief. It's also what you're giving when you hit the "general procedural" button in Practiscore while scoring. Do you understand now?

[Brooke]

No doubt a clarification is needed in the rules. However it seems totally correct to me to do as Troy said. The stage procedure clearly says fire one shot at each target in each string. I would have given a FTSA.  

[RJH]

8 hours ago, NickBlasta said:

 

Troy's opinion isn't a rule, if he wants a ruling that is completely the opposite of the language in the rulebook he should have written it that way.

 

I agree %100.  I do not understand all the "clarifications" that directly contradict the rule book.  I will just go with the rulebook from now on

[Gary Stevens]

Position power allows for those in that position to make decisions.

 

Position power does not guarantee that those decisions will be correct.

[Sarge]

With the new green deal rulebook this is supposed to be fixed already if the wording needs changed. Remember? That’s why we can’t have real rulebooks. 

DNROI makes a clarification, messages board members, board members message back, a few key strokes later and boom its fixed.

[bret]

10 minutes ago, Sarge said:

With the new green deal rulebook this is supposed to be fixed already if the wording needs changed. Remember? That’s why we can’t have real rulebooks. 

DNROI makes a clarification, messages board members, board members message back, a few key strokes later and boom its fixed.

So they can change the rules any time they want without following the bylaws of how rules are changed and when?

[euxx]

 As an RO, I think it would be just easier to enter Zero for this Stage.

If we follow your logic it would be even easier for RO if competitor haven't shot stage at all. [emoji846]

You can enter Zero scores, but that is not the case when you should be doing that as an RO. Stage should be scored as shot.