"We Play Games" and failure to move penalty

[GigG]

2 hours ago, Artemas said:

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'll discuss it after the voting. I think the voting is good.  It makes ROs think and not just read the info and promptly forget it.

 

Look at the previous one about FTSA penalties when there a squib. 80% got it wrong.

[Schutzenmeister]

23 hours ago, waktasz said:

Of course it's per shot. You are basically faulting/wholy outside the designated shooting area. 

 

Which does not, necessarily, mandate a per shot penalty.

 

The definition of Significant Advantage does include “Having both feet outside of a shooting area and firing shots (10.2.1.2)”  However, please note this specifically refers to 10.2.1.2.  What has been described in the OP does not qualify under 10.2.1.2.

 

The best fit for what was described has been addressed in an official NROI posting some months ago.  As I previously stated, this is best addressed by the posting here:  Significant Advantage.   Pay specific attention to the last example given near the end of the article.
 

[Schutzenmeister]

Double tap ...

Edited November 5, 2022 by Schutzenmeister

[RJH]

Well, I voted per shot. First I don't have to move, second I don't have to reset, and since we're only talking a difference in distance of 6 ft the shot doesn't get dramatically easier by moving up so in other words you're gaining a significant advantage staying where you're at.  If the second box was 10 yards closer, then you may not be gaining a significant advantage by staying where you're at and shooting weak hand. But 2 yards, yeah it needs to be per shot. Not to mention you're wholly out of the shooting area

[Stuntman]

NROI responded it is one procedural for failing to follow the stage procedure and not being a significant advantage (shooting targets from further away with non-movement).

 

 

[GigG]

https://nroi.org/q-of-month-results/following-the-stage-procedure/

[waktasz]

Nonsense. 

 

By ruling it that way they haven't really clarified anything at all. 
So if the second part was freestyle and not weak hand it would the answer be different? They are basing the answer on it being hard to shoot weak hand from slightly farther away. How about if the box was 60 feet away horizontally instead of only a few yards and the same distance from the targets. Their reasoning forces ROs to determine the answer on the fly instead of there being a clear cut answer. NROI fail. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by waktasz

[Thomas H]

3 hours ago, GigG said:

https://nroi.org/q-of-month-results/following-the-stage-procedure/

 

Well, amazing how that works out.

 

 

2 hours ago, waktasz said:

 

So if the second part was freestyle and not weak hand it would the answer be different? They are basing the answer on it being hard to shoot weak hand from slightly farther away. How about if the box was 60 feet away horizontally instead of only a few yards and the same distance from the targets. Their reasoning forces ROs to determine the answer on the fly instead of there being a clear cut answer. NROI fail. 

 

Free style versus weak hand?  No, still no different. 

 

The entire point is that the lack of movement gets a penalty.  (Noting that in the NROI example, there is a reload which would have been during the movement also.)  After that point, is there any significant advantage gained?  Not at all.  Was there any significant advantage gained from not moving?  No, because there was a standing reload that would take up time, plus shooting from that position was farther away so the shots certainly weren't easier.  An advantage versus not moving?  Sure.  That's what the penalty is for.  But significant?  Not at all. 

 

If the movement had been further, where a significant amount of time had been saved by not moving?  Well, that's a different story.  How much movement will it take?  That depends on the stage and the RM---which is why, in that case, the CRO for the stage would have a discussion with the RM previous to anyone running the stage, so that it would be clearly known prior to anyone screwing it up.

 

This isn't something done "on the fly" --- it is literally the RM and CRO's job to figure this out prior to anyone shooting the stage, so they are clear on it. 

[waktasz]

Not on the fly but match to match and stage to stage. ROs and the application of rules are subject to enough randomness as it is. I don't like it.

[Dirty_J]

4 hours ago, waktasz said:

Nonsense. 

 

By ruling it that way they haven't really clarified anything at all. 
So if the second part was freestyle and not weak hand it would the answer be different? They are basing the answer on it being hard to shoot weak hand from slightly farther away. How about if the box was 60 feet away horizontally instead of only a few yards and the same distance from the targets. Their reasoning forces ROs to determine the answer on the fly instead of there being a clear cut answer. NROI fail. 

100% agree. 

[motosapiens]

it takes a lot less time to reload standing than it does to move and reload. it would be interesting to do some testing, and see if you consistently get a better score by not moving and taking the procedural.

 

This is one of those situations where NROI really stepped on it, and muddied a situation where it would have been easy to introduce clarity.

[ddc]

The concept of "significant advantage" is something that really bugs me.

 

One of the objectives of a rulebook should be to remove as much subjectivity as possible.

 

Instead we have exactly the opposite situation. This is a rule that intentionally introduces a subjective judgement into the officiating process.

 

Is this rule really necessary? 

[broadside72]

It would be much easier if the WSB's could just call out the major expected penalties and take the ambiguity out of it. 

[waktasz]

It would be easier if the rulebook did it. 

For example, being completely out of the shooting area, as in this case. 

Oh wait, that's already in the rulebook, but I guess they don't care because it's a classifier? 

Edited December 2, 2022 by waktasz

[broadside72]

3 minutes ago, waktasz said:

It would be easier if the rulebook it. 

For example, being completely out of the shooting area, as in this case. 

Oh wait, that's already in the rulebook, but I guess they don't care because it's a classifier? 

there is ambiguity in many things and calling it out for classifiers makes the standard application standard for everyone.
 

think about the new 22 proposed classifiers, specifically 22-03 Double Stacked. The leans for the front targets are decent enough when going fast and the corners of the walls are right there, how does one know if the support gained by leaning on those walls is significant or not? they are outside the shooting area so it's a penalty, but how much of one?

[Boomstick303]

31 minutes ago, waktasz said:

Oh wait, that's already in the rulebook, but I guess they don't care because it's a classifier? 

 

Yea that decision makes zero sense, but I have come to expect that.

[waktasz]

How about this one? I am sure I'd get a better score not leaving the box and eating the penalty but there is 15 feet of movement. Is that significant? 

 

https://uspsa.org/viewer//18-01.pdf

[waktasz]

How about this. There's a decent amount of movement on string 1, but the shots would be harder staying in Box A. Nah, probably not significant. 

 

https://uspsa.org/viewer//18-08.pdf

[vluc]

waktaz, I might try it when next I shoot those...

[broadside72]

On 12/2/2022 at 10:45 AM, waktasz said:

How about this one? I am sure I'd get a better score not leaving the box and eating the penalty but there is 15 feet of movement. Is that significant? 

 

https://uspsa.org/viewer//18-01.pdf

 

I'd say significant on this one since there is no difference in target distance but you are saving a ton of time without the lateral move. 

[pjb45]

On 12/1/2022 at 5:21 PM, motosapiens said:

it takes a lot less time to reload standing than it does to move and reload. it would be interesting to do some testing, and see if you consistently get a better score by not moving and taking the procedural.

 

This is one of those situations where NROI really stepped on it, and muddied a situation where it would have been easy to introduce clarity.

+1

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

I’ve said this other places but I’ll say it here 

making rules/writing them down is very hard and you need to be able to see into the future a bit. 
being Vague in wording a rule Had to be deliberate. Because you’re leaving it vague to allow competitors to gain an advantage if they’re clever enough. 
a hard rule is easy to make.
Example gun had to weigh …oz. 

that’s an easy rule to make and enforce. 
words like may,can,advantage,disadvantage, significant are grey terms that should only be used in allowing competitions to play the game to there skill level. 
not be a basis for a Penalty or for bid an action. 
just my opinion. 

[rtkwe]

On 12/1/2022 at 2:43 PM, waktasz said:

Nonsense. 

 

By ruling it that way they haven't really clarified anything at all. 
So if the second part was freestyle and not weak hand it would the answer be different? They are basing the answer on it being hard to shoot weak hand from slightly farther away. How about if the box was 60 feet away horizontally instead of only a few yards and the same distance from the targets. Their reasoning forces ROs to determine the answer on the fly instead of there being a clear cut answer. NROI fail. 

I think it's pretty clear for the QOTM; the determination is do they save significant time by not moving and in this case the answer is probably not because 1) the move is very short 2) there are other tasks you're forced to do that the competitor did do that take about the same amount of time.

 

In the case of your 60 foot movement but same distance to the target the answer is also pretty clear they saved time by not moving so that would constitute a significant advantage. Significant advantage is always going to be a bit murky because it's possibly going to change per competitor too. Imagine a competitor with mobility issues that can still safely shoot but is very slow moving, not moving a shorter distance like the one in the QOTM might constitute significant advantage for them.

 

The fairest way to look at it is always going to be tough but looking at the time vs shooting difficulty, since Hit Factor is the whole game, is the only real way to evaluate it and imo practically impossible to write hard rules for.

[motosapiens]

1 minute ago, rtkwe said:

The fairest way to look at it is always going to be tough but looking at the time vs shooting difficulty, since Hit Factor is the whole game, is the only real way to evaluate it and imo practically impossible to write hard rules for.

 

it's easy to write hard rules for this, and we already have one imho. The shooter has both feet entirely out of the designated shooting area, so by the rules it *should* be a per-shot penalty. NROI has decided that we will do something kinder and gentler and more subjective instead, but the situation is actually pretty clearly dealt with in the current rules, should we decide to read and use them.

[rtkwe]

Just now, motosapiens said:

 

it's easy to write hard rules for this, and we already have one imho. The shooter has both feet entirely out of the designated shooting area, so by the rules it *should* be a per-shot penalty. NROI has decided that we will do something kinder and gentler and more subjective instead, but the situation is actually pretty clearly dealt with in the current rules, should we decide to read and use them.

The previous boxes are still A designated shooting area and I don't think there are any rule provisions for invalidation or changing shooting areas as part of the WSB.

 

Also I think you're talking about 10.2.1.2 here? That says after leaving the shooting area which our hypothetical competitor hasn't done. Box B is definitely at the start and to my knowledge remains a shooting area even after the WSB tells you to leave it.