Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
nasty618

Order of target engagement on a classifier

Recommended Posts

At a recent all classifier match, on Bang and Clang (99-62),  shooters were forced to engage targets in a specific order. They were told to engage T1 first, then P1-4.

Several shooters protested this, pointing out that the WSB wording: "...engage T1 and PP1-4..." does not indicate an order of engagement and further relying on 1.1.5. 

 

One of the CROs(actual) interpreted the classifier WSB as "well, why would they (USPSA) specifically call out the targets instead of just saying engage targets as they become visible?" and stated that Standards can require a shooting order.  When countered that 99-62 is not a Standard exercise and asked to describe the primary differences between the two, the CRO said he's not doing it and walked away.  He refused to take a look at the rule book when one of the shooters asked him to do so.

 

After the protest, three CROs (the other two were the local club's MDs/RMs) got together and discussed the situation, upholding the original order of engagement. 

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At a recent all classifier match, on Bang and Clang (99-62),  shooters were forced to engage targets in a specific order. They were told to engage T1 first, then P1-4.
Several shooters protested this, pointing out that the WSB wording: "...engage T1 and PP1-4..." does not indicate an order of engagement and further relying on 1.1.5. 
 
One of the CROs(actual) interpreted the classifier WSB as "well, why would they (USPSA) specifically call out the targets instead of just saying engage targets as they become visible?" and stated that Standards can require a shooting order.  When countered that 99-62 is not a Standard exercise and asked to describe the primary differences between the two, the CRO said he's not doing it and walked away.  He refused to take a look at the rule book when one of the shooters asked him to do so.
 
After the protest, three CROs (the other two were the local club's MDs/RMs) got together and discussed the situation, upholding the original order of engagement. 
 
Thoughts?
certifications don't make individuals less idiotic. just means they passed a test

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
certifications don't make individuals less idiotic. just means they passed a test


Yep, I’d say they missed this call.

We’re blessed at my local club to have very smart and capable people running and helping to run the show. It would take almost all of the fun out of it to have to deal with some of the situations I read about on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At a recent all classifier match, on Bang and Clang (99-62),  shooters were forced to engage targets in a specific order. They were told to engage T1 first, then P1-4.
Several shooters protested this, pointing out that the WSB wording: "...engage T1 and PP1-4..." does not indicate an order of engagement and further relying on 1.1.5. 
 
One of the CROs(actual) interpreted the classifier WSB as "well, why would they (USPSA) specifically call out the targets instead of just saying engage targets as they become visible?" and stated that Standards can require a shooting order.  When countered that 99-62 is not a Standard exercise and asked to describe the primary differences between the two, the CRO said he's not doing it and walked away.  He refused to take a look at the rule book when one of the shooters asked him to do so.
 
After the protest, three CROs (the other two were the local club's MDs/RMs) got together and discussed the situation, upholding the original order of engagement. 
 
Thoughts?
You quoted "then engage". If you look up the wsb on the uspsa app it says t1 and pp1-4. It does not say "then".
Reason I say this that your club should have used the most current wsb and this discussion would not have taken place. Using outdated materials caused this.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mstamper said:

You quoted "then engage".

That's not what I quoted... I quoted the actual WSB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not what I quoted... I quoted the actual WSB.
Did the wsb you quoted talk about pcc start position? If it did not then you were using an older outdated wsb.
Again, the wsb in the current uspsa listing of classifiers and on their application states a different set of verbiage. Any use of other wsb is grounds to toss a classifier from a match or at least have it only be a stage for score and not classification

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mstamper said:

Did the wsb you quoted talk about pcc start position?

As I said, I'm quoting the actual WSB of the classifier. I do not have any older versions of the classifier available to me but the official language of the WSB in question is/was the same.  That is:  "...engage T1 and PP1-4..." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said, I'm quoting the actual WSB of the classifier. I do not have any older versions of the classifier available to me but the official language of the WSB in question is/was the same.  That is:  "...engage T1 and PP1-4..." 
Please reread your first paragraph

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mstamper said:

Please reread your first paragraph

"Shooters were told" vs "WSB wording"... I am not sure what's causing the misunderstanding here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mstamper said:

Using outdated materials caused this.

Materials were fine, it was just a simple mistake in interpretation. Printed WSB said "engage T1 and PP1-4", but was read aloud as "engage T1 then PP1-4". Not a big deal, competitive equity is still there as long as everyone in the match shoots it the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Materials were fine, it was just a simple mistake in interpretation. Printed WSB said "engage T1 and PP1-4", but was read aloud as "engage T1 then PP1-4". Not a big deal, competitive equity is still there as long as everyone in the match shoots it the same way.
That is why in RO school they stress to READ the web's verbatim AND have it posted. Actually I believe it is a uspsa rule

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lstange said:

Materials were fine, it was just a simple mistake in interpretation. Printed WSB said "engage T1 and PP1-4", but was read aloud as "engage T1 then PP1-4". Not a big deal, competitive equity is still there as long as everyone in the match shoots it the same way.

 

Not a big deal as a individual stage but what about the other USPSA shooters at other matches that shot it correctly?

 

Just because someone has "CRO" behind their name does not make them any smarter.  To top it off, they actually got two more CROs to agree with the first CRO's faulty interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Flatland Shooter said:

what about the other USPSA shooters at other matches that shot it correctly?

They have an advantage since they can pick a better engagement order (left to right or right to left). Shooting paper first causes a longer transition between steel.

 

I'm not saying it's not a mistake (it is), just that it does not invalidate overall match results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an old question and one that has been answered numerous times before. If the people at your match can't stay current, won't learn then I say shoot a different match. I'd rather not shoot at all than shoot a bad match. And to me things like paper scoring and using force of personality versus tablet scoring and the rule book are a bad match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't treat a classifier match as a "real match" in terms of competition, personally.  For me, it's a convenient opportunity to either get a quick classification in a new division or to bring up your current division percentage.  So I don't care much about overall match results or competitive equity... However, I do care deeply that all stages are set up and ran correctly and a stage is not thrown out. At this match two stages were thrown out, due to exactly these issues - lack of updated materials and match officials lack of knowledge. It is also not ok when you're forced to lose .25 or more on a 2.5 second run due to the incorrectly interpreted order of target engagement. 

 

2 hours ago, rowdyb said:

I say shoot a different match.

Lesson learned, the match is the second one on my list that I will not be attending again any time soon. There are other significant reasons why, but this one was also important. 

 

Edited by nasty618

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, nasty618 said:

I don't treat a classifier match as a "real match" in terms of competition, personally.  For me, it's a convenient opportunity to either get a quick classification in a new division or to bring up your current division percentage.  So I don't care much about overall match results or competitive equity... However, I do care deeply that all stages are set up and ran correctly and a stage is not thrown out. At this match two stages were thrown out, due to exactly these issues - lack of updated materials and match officials lack of knowledge. It is also not ok when you're forced to lose .25 or more on a 2.5 second run due to the incorrectly interpreted order of target engagement. 

 

Lesson learned, the match is the second one on my list that I will not be attending again any time soon. There are other significant reasons why, but this one was also important. 

 

 

So did you at least bring this thread to the offending CRO/RO's attention? I say give these people the opportunity to learn from their mistakes to keep it from happening again. The "I am going to say nothing and never come back" strategy doesn't help fix anything long term. We can whine about stuff and not be part of the solution or we can point out things that can be improved while engaging in the solution. I guess this is the primary difference between a consumer shooter who expects everything to be catered for them and a volunteer shooter who pitches in to help make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mention it to the section coordinator so hopefully he can educate them.

I don't know how you can have been around for long enough to be a CRO and not seen this classifier about 400 times....and probably 90% of the people shoot it left to right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, waktasz said:

....and probably 90% of the people shoot it left to right

 

I'm right handed and one of the 10% that shoot it right to left.  I've been that way since back surgery back in 2015.

 

I agree that the section coordinator should be the one to lower the boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you have a reason for it.

I'm not sure if most seem to shoot that way because we are English language readers and our eyes are used to moving in that direction or if it has to do with most people being right handed and that's the order we shoot on turn and draw stages

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2019 at 11:20 AM, nasty618 said:

At a recent all classifier match, on Bang and Clang (99-62),  shooters were forced to engage targets in a specific order. They were told to engage T1 first, then P1-4.

Several shooters protested this, pointing out that the WSB wording: "...engage T1 and PP1-4..." does not indicate an order of engagement and further relying on 1.1.5. 

 

 

someone should have brought it to the attention of the MD. WSB should be read word for word.  The WSB doesn't say anything about "then"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, waktasz said:

Well you have a reason for it.

I'm not sure if most seem to shoot that way because we are English language readers and our eyes are used to moving in that direction or if it has to do with most people being right handed and that's the order we shoot on turn and draw stages

 

 

The back surgery was an L4/L5 Laminectomy.  Took several months to realize I had become faster going right to left versus left to right.  Part of my dry fire practice is running different classifiers and so far it seems to work best for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...