NROI question of the month on Virginia Count, stage procedure, and penalties

[IVC]

There is nothing in the current rules that would differentiate (4, 0 - 0, 4) from (3, 1 - 1, 3). There is an example in A3, but it's just an example, not an exhaustive list. The wording only uses "more/fewer", so even if we argue that more/fewer applies to the totals for the COF and not before/after reload, still the two cases cannot be differentiated under the current rule wording. They are either both valid (no procedurals) or both invalid (stacking). 

 

It's even more weird that the NROI would want to change the rules to explicitly allow these types of misuses, instead of trying to clean it up. If it was up to me, I would say that there is one procedural for too many shots fired before the reload and one procedural for too few shots fired after the reload. If the guy fired the 13th shot and hit the target more than 12 times, it would be an extra one for the extra hit. But it's obviously not up to me

[mikeg1005]

3 minutes ago, IVC said:

There is nothing in the current rules that would differentiate (4, 0 - 0, 4) from (3, 1 - 1, 3). There is an example in A3, but it's just an example, not an exhaustive list. The wording only uses "more/fewer", so even if we argue that more/fewer applies to the totals for the COF and not before/after reload, still the two cases cannot be differentiated under the current rule wording. They are either both valid (no procedurals) or both invalid (stacking). 

 

 

There is....NROI has an article saying this is ok and the rule stipulates stacking requires lack of transition (current rule and new clarification).

[mikeg1005]

7 minutes ago, IVC said:

 

It's even more weird that the NROI would want to change the rules to explicitly allow these types of misuses, instead of trying to clean it up. If it was up to me, I would say that there is one procedural for too many shots fired before the reload and one procedural for too few shots fired after the reload. If the guy fired the 13th shot and hit the target more than 12 times, it would be an extra one for the extra hit. But it's obviously not up to me

 

That would be a wrong application of extra shots.  Extras shots apply to the whole string or stage...not a part of it(before the reload) rulebook specifically says this. 

 

No penalty for lack of 2nd shot since the hit is on paper from before (no Mike) and you engage it "again" after reload.

Edited February 3, 2023 by mikeg1005

[abigger04]

This question feels more like an LSAT question. It should not be this complicated. 

[Fishbreath]

14 hours ago, IVC said:

This also makes no sense. Imagine that the COF was to shoot weak hand after the reload. Using this argument, I could shoot 3-3-3 free style, then shoot 1-1-1 weak hand. 

 

Shooting a one-handed target freestyle is engaging a target incorrectly, under that interpretation, so stacking penalties would apply 3-3-3 FS, 1-1-1 WHO.

 

In the same way, shooting a freestyle target freestyle is not engaging a target incorrectly, so penalties would not apply 3-3-3 FS, 1-1-1- WHO.

 

I don't hold that interpretation myself (I think both instances are stacking, and if the rules don't agree, the rules should be fixed), but beyond NROI, I know a few experienced ROs who agree with the blog post.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Fishbreath

[Southpaw]

6 hours ago, waktasz said:

 

Not on the clock, but the scores would be better, I'd wager

 

 

I'd think so too.  Not by much, but all it'd take is someone to get a stage win at a major shooting it 3-3-3, reload, 1-1-1, and then everyone would start doing it.

 

Is this really what NROI wants?  El Prez and similar stages to be shot 3-3-3, reload, 1-1-1?  Jeff Cooper would be rolling over in his grave...

[IVC]

5 hours ago, mikeg1005 said:

 

There is....NROI has an article saying this is ok and the rule stipulates stacking requires lack of transition (current rule and new clarification).

This is not in the current rulebook. At least I couldn't find it between section on penalty for stacking and the definition of stacking. I understand NROI is considering making changes, but we are talking about what is in the rulebook at the moment.

 

Rule 9.4.5.3 specifies procedural for "incorrectly engaged target" and then references appendix A3 for the definition. Appendix A3 states verbatim: "Shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing." If the NROI claims that the target are "correctly engaged" and that 9.4.5.3 doesn't apply, then what's the point of specifying in the WSB: "engage T1-T3 with only two rounds per target?" Cleary engaging with three rounds isn't the same as engaging with "only two rounds" and engaging with three rounds is not a correctly engaged target per the WSB. 

[Brooke]

This is stage 19 of the 2022 Limited/Open Racegun Nationals at Talladega. I was lucky enough to be on a squad with the well known RMI George Jones. A super nice guy for the record.You can see the WSB and stage diagram for yourself. Target 3 is the open target. 

 

George shot this 1 to target 3 followed by 2 to each of the others targets without a reload, then reloaded and shot 3 to target 3.

 

This caused untold confusion among everyone who witnessed it including the RO's on the stage. The confusion was how many procedurals is this. I don't think anyone in Alabama thought it was zero procedurals other than George. RM was called and after he discussed it with the CRO and George (who was legitimately in the conversation as the shooter) it was ruled zero procedurals. I have never thought this was correct until reading this ruling from NROI.

 

Apparently zero procedurals is the proper ruling and it will certainly change my behavior going forward. I can't post the stage picture. Google 2022 Racegun Nationals Matchbook and go to stage 19

 

[STAGE 19]

RUNAROUND SUE

STARTING POSITION:

stage sponsored by

 

In shooting area, wrists below belt, handgun loaded and holstered.

STAGE PROCEDURE:

Upon audible start signal engage T3 with only four rounds, then perform a mandatory reload and engage T1,T2,T4,T5 with only two rounds each. Arrays may be engaged in any order.

TARGETS: 5 IPSC
SCORING: Virginia Count | ROUNDS: 12

50 BACK TO BACK NATIONALS 2022

Edited February 3, 2023 by Brooke

[Cuz]

I don’t have the rules handy, or the time to look them up at the moment, but if the WSB says fire 2 at each target, reload and fire 2 at each target, why wouldn’t it be 2 procedurals. 
1 for an extra shot before the reload, and 1 for not firing enough shots after the reload?

 

I’ll dig into the rules after work. 

[Blackstone45]

Interesting, the rules say this:

 

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).

10.2.2.1

Procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures do not apply to the number of shots fired. Penalties for firing insufficient or additional shots are addressed in other rules and must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2

 

 

Speaking as an IPSC shooter reading the USPSA rulebook, you guys have some weird rules. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Blackstone45

[RJH]

10 hours ago, IVC said:

The reload is at the correct time since WSB says to reload after engaging T1-T3 which he did.

 

But I'm not following why 9.4.5.3 doesn't apply (stacked shots) since the default is that stacked shots are NOT allowed (unless specifically authorized). The appendix A3 defines stacked shots as: "Shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing." which is exactly what the shooter did. 

 

No, the WSB says the reload is required after engaging targets t1 through t3 with ONLY two rounds each, which he did not do. Words mean things, if they don't what's the use of even writing a WSB

 

 

As a side note 10.2.2.1 pertains only to 10.2.2 because there are other rules to deal with that business according to 10.2.2.1. That other rule is 10.2.4

 

 

 

[IVC]

4 hours ago, Blackstone45 said:

Procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures do not apply to the number of shots fired. Penalties for firing insufficient or additional shots are addressed in other rules and must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2

And one such rule is 9.4.5.3 which uses the term "...per target incorrectly engaged." My point is that if the WSB says "with two rounds only," the plain reading of the rule would be that engaging T3 with three rounds would be an "incorrectly engaged target." And the glossary in appendix A3 doesn't add any extra light or changes the plain reading of the 9.4.5.3, it even starts the definition with: "Shooting more than the specified shots...", and by my reckoning shooting three while the WSB specifies two is pretty much the definition of "shooting more than the specified shots" since 3 > 2. I think. 

 

More importantly, we also have a rule 10.1.4 which states: "Procedural penalties cannot be nullified by further competitor action." which is logical and how it should be (there is an example in that rule, but that's just an example; the rule is complete in the initial sentence). 

 

If the NROI indeed means what they say in this analysis and if they indeed want to change the rules to muddy the waters with skipped transitions, they have to change the other rules that simply state "follow the WSB or get a procedural." This discussion isn't even about the correct number of procedurals, it's about whether to apply ANY. It's going to be interesting to see how this whole mess develops. 

[IVC]

4 hours ago, RJH said:

No, the WSB says the reload is required after engaging targets t1 through t3 with ONLY two rounds each, which he did not do. Words mean things, if they don't what's the use of even writing a WSB

The timing of the reload here is not contentious, but if it was, I would argue that the comma in the WSB makes a big difference since it says that the first part is to engage T1-T3, reload, then something else. While it does also say how to engage (not only what to engage), the timing of the reload is based on the initial part of the sentence which primarily declares which targets need to be engaged. 

 

My guess is that a regular person would give two procedurals, one for the one shot too many and one for the one shot to few. This is what I would like the rules to be (looks like they are not going to be that way and it's debatable whether they are that way at the moment, which is what we are trying to sort out). Anything short of two procedurals puts upside down all VC classifiers. 

[IVC]

I'm rereading the explanation of the call and in the blog they say: "And 10.2.2.1 says we can’t assess a procedural penalty for failing to follow the stage procedure for shooting too many shots at T3 before the reload." This is factually incorrect. 10.2.2.1 says that we cannot assess a procedural under that rule, not that we cannot asses a procedural penalty at all. It even states that the "...penalties... are addressed in other rules..." 

 

There are just way too many inconsistencies and stretched interpretations of the rules (to the point beyond breaking them) in that writeup that I looked up if it was posted on 4/1. It wasn't, unfortunately. 

[Southpaw]

5 hours ago, Blackstone45 said:

Interesting, the rules say this:

 

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).

10.2.2.1

Procedural penalties for failure to comply with stage procedures do not apply to the number of shots fired. Penalties for firing insufficient or additional shots are addressed in other rules and must not be penalized under the provisions of 10.2.2

 

 

Speaking as an IPSC shooter reading the USPSA rulebook, you guys have some weird rules. 

 

I'm still not sure that a penalty for 10.2.2 isn't appropriate here. We're not saying competitor fired the incorrect number of shots (which is where 10.2.2.1 comes into play). Instead competitor didn't comply with procedure in WSB that specifies the timing of shots and reloads. 

 

So number of shots is correct, but sequence of shots before and after reload is wrong, which is a different procedure in WSB than just the number of shots. 

 

Thoughts? 

 

Should still clean up rule wording to be more clear, as I don't think we really want this type of incorrect shooting order to be allowed, right? 

[Rookie]

The question as originally posed used the word "only".  The answer posted by NROI in the recent communication does not state this in the procedure used to make their argument.  The phrase "...engage targets with only 2 rounds each..." is a reasonable indication that any shots fired in excess of 2 violates the written procedure!  Therefore, there should be a procedural awarded.  

 

The only possible alternative is that somewhere in the USPSA rules there is a USPSA definition provided for the word "only" that I have not yet found.

[broadside72]

8 minutes ago, Rookie said:

The question as originally posed used the word "only".  The answer posted by NROI in the recent communication does not state this in the procedure used to make their argument.  The phrase "...engage targets with only 2 rounds each..." is a reasonable indication that any shots fired in excess of 2 violates the written procedure!  Therefore, there should be a procedural awarded.  

 

The only possible alternative is that somewhere in the USPSA rules there is a USPSA definition provided for the word "only" that I have not yet found.

That is where 10.2.2.1 come into play, where it says you can not penalize for not following the WSB based on number of shots. 

Now does 10.2.4 come into play? Several of us here believe so

[usmc1974]

On 2/2/2023 at 1:58 PM, Racinready300ex said:

This seems like a case to dump Virginia count.  

 

 

If we dump everything, gamers complain or cry about! will be playing yahtzee.

[ddc]

So even though common sense... lol... says that there should be a penalty NROI says their interpretation of the rule book says otherwise.

 

So the next question in my mind is: "Do we just live with this apparent rules corner condition or does the rulebook change such that common sense is satisfied?"

 

It bugs the heck out of me that there can be such an explicit stage procedure and there be no penalty when it is not followed. 

[usmc1974]

1 hour ago, ddc said:

So even though common sense... lol... says that there should be a penalty NROI says their interpretation of the rule book says otherwise.

 

So the next question in my mind is: "Do we just live with this apparent rules corner condition or does the rulebook change such that common sense is satisfied?"

 

It bugs the heck out of me that there can be such an explicit stage procedure and there be no penalty when it is not followed. 

You want to know what a really drive you crazy? Try to set up a stage that cannot be gamed. It can be done it's not easy, especially, if you got gamers advising you.... lol

[sc68cal]

This is why Virginia count is stupid. It can't even force people to shoot the stage the way the stage designer was trying to make the shooter shoot it (2 rounds on each target, mandatory reload, shoot 2). Get rid of it.

[ddc]

5 hours ago, sc68cal said:

This is why Virginia count is stupid. It can't even force people to shoot the stage the way the stage designer was trying to make the shooter shoot it (2 rounds on each target, mandatory reload, shoot 2). Get rid of it.

 

I guess I don't mind Virginia count but I would like to see rules that match up with common sense.

[IVC]

57 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

I guess I don't mind Virginia count but I would like to see rules that match up with common sense.

Agreed - Virginia Count has its place. It changes the risk-reward calculation in similar way that easy-hard (with no shoot)-easy target array would. 

 

The rules could be cleaned up quite easily. Just add a rule that VC penalizes with one procedural any incorrect shots fired on any target, which includes firing shots of the second string (the definition can call WSB-defined shots pre/post reload a "string") before the mandatory reload. So now, anything "El Prez-like" would have to be shot 2-2-2-reload-2-2-2. Any deviation is a procedural, while 2-1-reload-1-2-reload-2-2-2 is still allowed if malfunctions forces a non-mandatory reload. And even more complicated cases such as 2-2-reload-2-2-2-2 would be relatively easy to score with a bit of fine tuning of the rule wording. I believe this is what most of us would want to see, a common sense Virginia count where El Prez is still an El Prez. 

 

But at the moment, it's not about gaming but about consistency. USPSA went to great length (to their credit) to make the match experience uniform across different clubs and different match levels. It's very important that when any of us go to any new or unknown club, we know what the safety protocols are, what the commands are and how the stages are run. If there are VC stages that only a handful of RO/CRO-s will score one way, while everything else is scored the "common sense" way, it's a problem of uniformity. And based on the responses in the NROI blog referenced in the OP, pretty much everyone would score it in some other way. 

[Fishbreath]

2 hours ago, IVC said:

The rules could be cleaned up quite easily. Just add a rule that VC penalizes with one procedural any incorrect shots fired on any target, which includes firing shots of the second string (the definition can call WSB-defined shots pre/post reload a "string") before the mandatory reload.

 

I'd avoid overloading the definition of "string", because a VC standards exercise could have multiple strings in the classical sense (i.e., separately timed runs), along with multiple 'strings' per run.

 

Deleting 10.2.2.1, or adding a note that 10.2.2.1 doesn't apply to VC stages, solves the problem a little more tidily, and makes 'only 2 rounds' in VC WSBs mean something.

[motosapiens]

3 hours ago, Fishbreath said:

 

I'd avoid overloading the definition of "string", because a VC standards exercise could have multiple strings in the classical sense (i.e., separately timed runs), along with multiple 'strings' per run.

 

Deleting 10.2.2.1, or adding a note that 10.2.2.1 doesn't apply to VC stages, solves the problem a little more tidily, and makes 'only 2 rounds' in VC WSBs mean something.

or we could just go back to the previous common sense interpretation of the rules, and give out the same procedurals we have been giving out for years for the same things.

the rule didn't change, and it worked fine until just now. this is dumb.