"We Play Games" and failure to move penalty

[Stuntman]

Shot classifier "We Play Games".  Timer goes off, shooter engages targets, reloads but forgets to move to next box and engages the remaining targets for the string.

Single procedure or procedure per shot? 

We initially settled on single procedure but this seems like it could be exploited.  Does this rise to a significant advantage?

 

 

Course description:

String 1: On the audible start signal, from shooting box A, engage each target with only one round each freestyle, perform a mandatory reload, and engage each target with only one round each from shooting box B, strong hand only.

String 2: On the audible start signal, from shooting box B, engage each target with only one round each freestyle, perform a mandatory reload, and engage each target with only one round each from shooting box C, weak hand only 

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by Stuntman

[pskys2]

IMHO 1 procedural per shot fired in the wrong box, a significant advantage from not moving.  

[jwhittin]

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).

 

Not moving to a new position per the WSB definitely saves time and could be considered a significant advantage. Judgement call for the specific stage. I called per shot penalty on competitor for same error.   

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by jwhittin

[Thomas H]

Given that the other box is only a diagonal 7.5 feet away, that isn't much movement---as long as they shot the correct SHO after the reload (or WHO, depending on which string it was) given the fact that the box was farther away from the targets than the box they should have used, I wouldn't really call that a significant advantage.

 

They didn't move---but that lack of movement didn't make any of the shooting easier.  They just didn't have to move a short distance, so one procedural.  (If the lack of movement had led to shooting from a better position, that would definitely have been a significant advantage.  In this case, though, at least on the first string, it was demonstrably a worse shooting position.)

 

The "significant advantage" thing is sometimes difficult to parse.  In the case of classifiers, I wish commentary on procedurals were a standard part of the WSB.

 

(Note:  if this indeed was a 'significant advantage' occasion and we get told that by NROI, I'm good with that too.  Given no other instruction, though, I wouldn't call it such for the first string.)

[Joe4d]

The rules specifically state "

". firing multiple shots contrary to the required

position or stance" as deserving of a per shot penalty.. why was this even a discussion ?
Even if it didnt state that.. a 10 point procedural, equals about 1 second to 1.5 seconds,, Dont think a shooter is gonna have a sub 1 second split with the movement.. So a significant advantage would be gained by not moving that exceeds the points lost for a single procedural,   
Per shot either way

[jwhittin]

It was on the second string. 
 

Thanks  Joe!

Edited October 24, 2022 by jwhittin

[Thomas H]

21 hours ago, Joe4d said:

The rules specifically state "

". firing multiple shots contrary to the required

position or stance" as deserving of a per shot penalty.. why was this even a discussion ?
Even if it didnt state that.. a 10 point procedural, equals about 1 second to 1.5 seconds,, Dont think a shooter is gonna have a sub 1 second split with the movement.. So a significant advantage would be gained by not moving that exceeds the points lost for a single procedural,   
Per shot either way

 

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).

 

I'm pretty sure that your comment about "firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance" automatically being a per shot penalty is flat-out wrong---because if (for example) the movement required was stepping one step from one box to another, that is indeed a "required position" but a per-shot penalty would make no sense as it is in no way a significant advantage.  The question is there an actual significant advantage?

 

Again---the movement is about 2 steps, giving a closer set of shots for one-handed shooting.  The competitor didn't take those two steps, and had harder shots.  If you think that is a significant advantage, ok.  But I don't.

 

Again, if NROI decides that not doing movement automatically conveys a significant advantage, then okay.  I'll go with that.  But....at the moment, that's not what the rule says.

[Joe4d]

I beg to differ,, thats EXACTLY what the rules say.  E.G...  or for example..  I think you are reading into what is a pretty plain English sentence.  I think its the "may" that screws things up Thats something you would expect to find in an IDPA rule book. That verb should be changed to SHALL or SHALL NOT.. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Joe4d

[motosapiens]

based on my experience at nats and area matches over the last 10 years, joe4d has it right. 100% a per shot penalty, all day, every day. if it were only a single procedural, you would always score higher by just taking the procedural instead of moving.

[Thomas H]

13 hours ago, Joe4d said:

I beg to differ,, thats EXACTLY what the rules say.  E.G...  or for example..  I think you are reading into what is a pretty plain English sentence.  I think its the "may" that screws things up Thats something you would expect to find in an IDPA rule book. That verb should be changed to SHALL or SHALL NOT.. 

 

I'm thinking that plain english sentence isn't what you think it is.  After all, I've seen DNROI give a single procedural penalty when a person fired multiple shots from the wrong position---but that wrong position was farther away from the targets than the required position.  In other words, I have direct experience of experienced RMs who did not agree with your absolutist position.

 

Given that this situation's difference was "7.5 feet of movement" versus "taking WHO shots from a greater distance" I think it is up in the air.

 

It would not surprise me that, since it is a classifier, the end result might be a per shot penalty.  This doesn't change the fact that the rule, as given, is not an absolute.

 

12 hours ago, motosapiens said:

if it were only a single procedural, you would always score higher by just taking the procedural instead of moving.

 

And if the shooting was equal, or easier (which is literally the point of a per-shot penalty, in which a significant advantage is gained--literally, having an advantage on more than one shot) I'd agree.

 

But that isn't the case here.  Saying "always score higher" means that you think that for people shooting WHO, a farther-distance shot is not harder. 

[motosapiens]

2 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

And if the shooting was equal, or easier (which is literally the point of a per-shot penalty, in which a significant advantage is gained--literally, having an advantage on more than one shot) I'd agree.

 

But that isn't the case here.  Saying "always score higher" means that you think that for people shooting WHO, a farther-distance shot is not harder. 

i don't think it matters whether the shooting is easier or not here. it matters that the shooter avoids a significant movement.

[GigG]

On 10/26/2022 at 9:29 AM, motosapiens said:

i don't think it matters whether the shooting is easier or not here. it matters that the shooter avoids a significant movement.

 

But is the lack of movement an ongoing significant advantage?

[motosapiens]

17 minutes ago, GigG said:

 

But is the lack of movement an ongoing significant advantage?

there is no mention of the word 'ongoing' in the rules. it's simply a significant advantage, period.

 

an example of something that isn't a significant advantage is the stage I ran at CO nationals, where the start was 1 foot in and 1 foot out. A number of shooters neglected to move their left foot and fired 4-6 shots while faulting, but that didn't change the presentation of the targets or the difficulty of the shots, and everyone who practices knows it doesn't change the draw speed to move 1 foot, so we deemed it a single procedural instead of a per-shot.

 

It would have been a per-shot penalty if the start had been both feet outside, or if keeping one foot out avoided a lean, or caused an additional target to be available.

 

I do agree that there is a little bit of subjectivity as to what constitutes a 'significant' advantage, so at a major match I recommend confirming these things with the RM *before* the match starts, so that it is scored consistently for both the staff match and main match, and so everyone is on the same page. After conferring with a number of RM's on this topic at several national and area and section matches tho, I think I have a reasonably good idea of how it otta be.

Edited October 27, 2022 by motosapiens

[GigG]

I added ongoing because it is clearly a significant advantage for the first shot after the movement was supposed to happen. But is it a significant advantage for the following shots?

Edited October 27, 2022 by GigG

[motosapiens]

35 minutes ago, GigG said:

I added ongoing because it is clearly a significant advantage for the first shot after the movement was supposed to happen. But is it a significant advantage for the following shots?

it doesn't matter. 

[GigG]

42 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

it doesn't matter. 

 

Sure it does.  If the significant advantage continues for every shot then there is a penalty for every shot. 

[motosapiens]

20 minutes ago, GigG said:

 

Sure it does.  If the significant advantage continues for every shot then there is a penalty for every shot. 

Read the rule again. It doesn't say anything of the sort. 

[Schutzenmeister]

23 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

It would have been a per-shot penalty if the start had been both feet outside, or if keeping one foot out avoided a lean, or caused an additional target to be available.

 

 Uhhh ... Negative ghost rider.  Suggest you read (reread?) the following NROI discussion on this very topic.  Pay attention to the example given towards the end.

 

Significant Advantage (nroi.org)

 

Cheers

[motosapiens]

1 minute ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 Uhhh ... Negative ghost rider.  Suggest you read (reread?) the following NROI discussion on this very topic.  Pay attention to the example given towards the end.

 

Significant Advantage (nroi.org)

 

Cheers

thanks for the link and the education. Still seems to me that it actually takes more time to draw when moving both feet, but I'll test it in dryfire today. Maybe it's not enough to be 'significant'.

 

I think that discussion reinforces my point regarding the original topic however.

[Schutzenmeister]

[jwhittin]

Good discussion on the topic.  My main takeaway is if in doubt, consult with the RM.  That will ensure consistent penalty for all competitors.

[attakmint]

Well, in 30-ish days we'll find out NROI's view.

[Artemas]

On 11/1/2022 at 5:19 PM, attakmint said:

Well, in 30-ish days we'll find out NROI's view.

can't wait for the conflicted results and the blog author to spend a paragraph taking a dump on their RO's

 

Seriously though, I wish they would stop doing the poll and just talk about the why of it. That would be more valuable and informative.

[waktasz]

How many classifiers with box to box movement are there and how many of them could you shoot a better score if you didn't have to move and just ate a -10 penalty. 
Of course it's per shot. You are basically faulting/wholy outside the designated shooting area. 

[broadside72]

1 hour ago, Artemas said:

can't wait for the conflicted results and the blog author to spend a paragraph taking a dump on their RO's

 

Seriously though, I wish they would stop doing the poll and just talk about the why of it. That would be more valuable and informative.

 

They will discuss it once the poll period is over.