CM 13-06 Penalty Question

[DirkD]

2 minutes ago, mikeg1005 said:

 

You are correct I did but either way isn't this still a stacking on T3?

 

Shooter put (2) shots on T1, T2, and T3 BEFORE the mandatory reload (mandated after engaging T1-T5).  

T3 (like T1 and T2) cannot be reengaged until a reload is performed upon shooting all 5 targets.

 

Or am I missing something.  What makes T3 different than T1 and T2? 

Shooter engages T1 with two shots, T2 with two shots, and T3 with one shot. Shooter then makes a reload, and engages T5 with one shot, T4 with one shot, and T3 with one shot. Shooter then removes the magazine and reinserts it, and engages T4 with one shot and T5 with one shot. 

After T3, he engaged T5, how is that stacking on T3?

[mikeg1005]

1 minute ago, DirkD said:

Shooter engages T1 with two shots, T2 with two shots, and T3 with one shot. Shooter then makes a reload, and engages T5 with one shot, T4 with one shot, and T3 with one shot. Shooter then removes the magazine and reinserts it, and engages T4 with one shot and T5 with one shot. 

After T3, he engaged T5, how is that stacking on T3?

 

Because T3 was engaged twice before the mandatory reload... or am I missing something?

 

 

 

[DirkD]

1 minute ago, mikeg1005 said:

 

Because T3 was engaged twice before the mandatory reload... or am I missing something?

 

 

 

Stacking would be 2 consecutive shots on a target that required only 1 shot, T3 did not have 2 consecutive shots fired on it, no stacking on T3.

If a shooter fired 1 shot at T3, missed it and fired another shot at T3 would that be stacking?

[mikeg1005]

2 minutes ago, DirkD said:

Stacking would be 2 consecutive shots on a target that required only 1 shot, T3 did not have 2 consecutive shots fired on it, no stacking on T3.

If a shooter fired 1 shot at T3, missed it and fired another shot at T3 would that be stacking?

 

Does it have to be consecutive shot?  If the shooter shot T1, T2, T1, T2 (instead of T1, T1, T2, T2) would it not be stacking? 

Would it then just be a penalty for not shooting them after reloading?

 

I guess I misunderstood stacking, I thought it was shooting more than the required number in efforts to save the shot after a reload, not consecutive. 

[George Jones]

Mike,

I get your point but let's consider what really happened here.  The shooter had an obvious brain fart and lost complete track of where he was on the stage.  Under Troy's "Don't be a d**k" concept I would consider this an action where the classic stacking scenario might not be the case.  Why pile on penalties?

What I suggest is that there are times when the rules/violations are clear.  No problem.  But there are cases where the RO should also consider if another rule exists that would not penalize the action at all, or is it possible that the rule in question leaves some leeway.  

We do expect reasonable judgment from ROs and as such strict rules interpretations can sometimes be contrary to common sense.

In this case we have a minor conflict between the narrow definition of stacking and the intent of the stacking rule in the first place.  I choose not to add a third penalty.

YMMV depending on what you observe at the moment.

[DirkD]

1 minute ago, George Jones said:

Mike,

I get your point but let's consider what really happened here.  The shooter had an obvious brain fart and lost complete track of where he was on the stage.  Under Troy's "Don't be a d**k" concept I would consider this an action where the classic stacking scenario might not be the case.  Why pile on penalties?

What I suggest is that there are times when the rules/violations are clear.  No problem.  But there are cases where the RO should also consider if another rule exists that would not penalize the action at all, or is it possible that the rule in question leaves some leeway.  

We do expect reasonable judgment from ROs and as such strict rules interpretations can sometimes be contrary to common sense.

In this case we have a minor conflict between the narrow definition of stacking and the intent of the stacking rule in the first place.  I choose not to add a third penalty.

YMMV depending on what you observe at the moment.

Does the shooters intent depends on how the stage is scored?

if 2 people shot the stage the same way, one does it on purpose but the other guy had a brain fart, would they both be scored the same or brain fart be cut a break under don't be a dick?

[George Jones]

You can suspect evil intent but you can't prove it.  You rule on what you observe.  Score them the same.

[mikeg1005]

5 minutes ago, George Jones said:

Mike,

I get your point but let's consider what really happened here.  The shooter had an obvious brain fart and lost complete track of where he was on the stage.  Under Troy's "Don't be a d**k" concept I would consider this an action where the classic stacking scenario might not be the case.  Why pile on penalties?

What I suggest is that there are times when the rules/violations are clear.  No problem.  But there are cases where the RO should also consider if another rule exists that would not penalize the action at all, or is it possible that the rule in question leaves some leeway.  

We do expect reasonable judgment from ROs and as such strict rules interpretations can sometimes be contrary to common sense.

In this case we have a minor conflict between the narrow definition of stacking and the intent of the stacking rule in the first place.  I choose not to add a third penalty.

YMMV depending on what you observe at the moment.

 

Got it, and yes that make sense, II was just curious what the 'by the book' way to rule it would be.

 

 So, (2) stacking and (2) failure to reload before engaging since we're assuming the shooter did intentionally stack on T3 would be the 'right' call? 

[George Jones]

Based on the original sequence:

Stacking on T1 and T2 - Two procedurals

Failure to reload after the first shot on T4 - three procedurals.

The fundamental difficulty with scoring this stage is that it only requires one shot per target.

Edited December 24, 2020 by George Jones

[mikeg1005]

23 minutes ago, George Jones said:

Based on the original sequence:

Stacking on T1 and T2 - Two procedurals

Failure to reload after the first shot on T4 - three procedurals.

The fundamental difficulty with scoring this stage is that it only requires one shot per target.

 

Makes sense.  Thank you for clarify that, learn something new everyday. 

[Southpaw]

Nobody wants to use the actual definition per the rule book.  I give up.

[Schutzenmeister]

George ... I think I hear a sucking sound.  Oh wait ... It's quicksand!

 

Merry Christmas my friend!

[waktasz]

https://nroi.org/q-of-month-results/more-virginia-count