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

[RJH]

47 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

I honestly do not see VC leaving anytime soon.

 

 

That's easy enough.  I won't even call you a sissy or a whiner.......

[ddc]

1 hour ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

What practical skill is VC testing?

 

In total and complete jest I say:

Typically the ability to count to two.

On one well known classifier the ability to count to five.

[broadside72]

While I hate VC, I do like that is tests a few things. First, one's reading comprehension since many don't read the WSB let alone understand it. Second, it tests cognitive ability under the tiny bit of stress from the buzzer. A lot of folks are habitually pulling the trigger and do makeup shots and/or spraying and praying. 

[Joe4d]

18 hours ago, Cuz said:

At the very least, I just don't see how you can talk your way out of at least 1 procedural for the extra shot before the required reload:

10.2.4 A competitor who fails to comply with a mandatory reload will incur one procedural penalty for each shot fired after the point where the reload was required until a reload is performed.

 

The WSB says it's a mandatory reload after engaging targets with 2 rounds each.  Seems very clear to me.

Very clear to anyone that reads English.. Have no idea what language NROI uses. Because based on this and several contrary "rulings" It sure doesnt seem to be English. 
Same thing with the recent not moving on a classifier isnt a penalty because the boxes werent that much closer to the targets... Umm GTFOH..  

Oh VC purpose ? to test ability to make every shot count and not spray and pray  would be my guess. 

[motosapiens]

biggest reason for VC is on standards type COF with multiple strings, to reduce confusion, gaming, the kind of borderline cheating that caused this thread, etc....  The rules worked fine for that before someone decided we were doing it wrong the last 20 years and the same words suddenly mean something different.

[waktasz]

1 hour ago, ddc said:

 

In total and complete jest I say:

Typically the ability to count to two.

On one well known classifier the ability to count to five.

 

There's one that has 6 that I can think of

And a few that have 1

[Boomstick303]

Well there you have it.  I can't count so maybe that's why I loath VC so much.

[Racinready300ex]

 

1 hour ago, Joe4d said:

Oh VC purpose ? to test ability to make every shot count and not spray and pray  would be my guess. 

 

 

Maybe that's the secrete I've been missing, spray and pray. 

[RoundEye]

This whole thing is kind of dumb, and makes it even more challenging to be an RSO and administer the rules properly.  A stage that was intended to be shot 222r222 could actually be shot 333r111, and still be within the rules.

 

A simple change would be to redefine engagement to mean that a target has been considered engaged when the required number of shots (in most cases 2) has been satisfied.  This is something IDPA got right in their book.  Just my $0.02.

 

[regor]

14 hours ago, ddc said:

My semi-serious Psych 101 analysis of this is that the question of the month was written by someone who was thinking to themselves "wow, here is this interesting little corner condition in the rulebook, I wonder how many shooters are aware of it."

 

and then laid out the scenario described.

At this point they probably realize how bad this looks and is perhaps trying to figure out the best way to handle a bad situation. At least I hope that is what is happening behind the scenes.

 

 

I agree with you. I think it was a bad idea for them to post this Question of the Month; they manufactured a problem for rules administration and certain matches will be scored inconsistently as a result.

 

It seems like there is pretty solid consensus that before this folks would administer 1 procedural in this example. Now many ROs who have seen NROI's answer to this problem will enforce the NROI interpretation (perhaps reluctantly), and folks who haven't seen it will continue to issue a procedural. 

 

IMO they should have changed 10.2.2.1 and provided an explanation that it created potential for an interpretation of procedurals that conflicts with conventional wisdom/intention in particular Virginia Count applications.

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

Interpretation is the problem. Rule should be cut and dry when it comes to Penalties. 
The lack of wording around certain rules is what gives gray areas for the competitors to express their creativity but that Has  to be intentional when the rule is conceived and written down. 

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

If I’m the RO at the local match and this happens there getting 1 procedural. 

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

The fact that the 3rd shot on the first string was to make up a miss, this has no relevances. 
Give procedurals after the course of fire then score targets to assess extra hits. 

[IVC]

5 hours ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

What practical skill is VC testing?

 

The same as any other course of fire - the ability to figure out the correct tradeoff between points and time. You can shoot as many shots as you want in VC, just some of them are treated as hitting a no-shoot. It's still the same HF calculation, just different penalties. Arguing against VC is similar to arguing against procedurals when using various contraptions that make shooting more difficult. 

 

A more practical gaming skill that VC tests is whether you fire a make-up shot on a called Mike in a VC course of fire (you always do). And how well you called that Mike to avoid the extra hits penalty. 

[IVC]

22 hours ago, broadside72 said:

This situation still isn't stacking as the shooter didn't shoot more than required at one target while shooting fewer at another target. 

Per current rules, it's literally no different than shooting 4-4-4, stopping the timer on the 12th shot, then reloading to comply with the WSB. It's the same as in the past when a guy walked on the outside of the wall, stood on the support, shot the swinger before activating it, then before finishing the COF but after firing the last shot casually walked to the activator and stepped on it to avoid a procedural. The rules got changed after that to prevent that type of shooting, not to make it easier to do it. 

 

In this case, if the NROI explanation is that the reload must happen after engaging targets, 4-4-4 complies. And if the number of shots pre/post reload doesn't matter, than 4-4-4 also complies. Neither current rulebook nor the NROI explanation apply any differently to 4-4-4-reload than they do to 2-2-3-reload-2-2-1. And if I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. 

[Boomstick303]

8 minutes ago, IVC said:

A more practical gaming

 

Trust me I get it.  In my world there is nothing Practical about VC.  If you life depends on it are you reserving shots?  Nope.  Are you calculating in your head if you need to take another shot based on a point system in the real world?  Nope.  You shoot until the threat is neutralized.  

 

If everyone wants to make an argument its for a game that's fine.  There is zero practical use for VC in the real world.  Hence the reason I phrased the question "What is the practical skill"?  

 

Is VC a gaming skill?  Sure.  Is it a practical skill?  Not so much.

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Boomstick303

[Boomstick303]

3 minutes ago, IVC said:

In this case, if the NROI explanation is that the reload must happen after engaging targets, 4-4-4 complies. And if the number of shots pre/post reload doesn't matter, than 4-4-4 also complies. Neither current rulebook nor the NROI explanation apply any differently to 4-4-4-reload than they do to 2-2-3-reload-2-2-1. And if I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. 

 

This is the exact can of worms NROI opened with that decision.  

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

4-4-4 then reload and no reengagement ? 
stacking would apply because you saved yourself 2 transitions 

on top of not reengaging the targets after the reload. Amongst other penalties 
 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Superkaratemonkeyfighter

[Southpaw]

22 minutes ago, Superkaratemonkeyfighter said:

4-4-4 then reload and no reengagement ? 
stacking would apply because you saved yourself 2 transitions 

on top of not reengaging the targets after the reload. Amongst other penalties 
 

 

What other penalties? According to this article shooting it 2-2-3, reload, 2-2-1 doesn't violate 10.2.2 or 10.2.4. So why would 4-4-4, reload be any different?

 

And 4-4-4, reload actually isn't stacking according to current definition per glossary: "Shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing." 

 

There are no "other targets" that are shot too few times, it's the same targets.

 

So the more I think about it, the more it seems 4-4-4, reload would be allowed according to this article, like IVC said. 

[broadside72]

Side note but still on the stacking subject:

 

The proposed rule change for stacked shots 9.4.5.3 is going to change the number of penalties one would get for stacked shots. 

 

Previously it was one penalty for each incorrectly engaged target given the commentary on NROI blog posts about VC (ignoring the what the rules actually say path we've now gone down)

 

Proposed is on penalty for each saved transition. There will always be one less transition than targets engaged. 

Example: WSB says "Engage T1-T2 with only two shots each, perform mandatory reload, engage T1-T2 with two shots only. ". Shooter shoots 4 at T1, reloads and shoots 4 at T2, much like the El Prez example in this thread.

 

Old rule would have two penalties as both T1 and T2 were incorrectly engaged. But the proposed rule would have only one penalty since there is only one transition saved, that going from T1 to T2 (or vice versa)

 

Better yet, only a single target with 6, reload, 6 WSB. Dump 12 rounds then reload at the end is no penalty under the proposed rule since no transition.

 

Can we just drop VC now and tweak Fixed Time?

[IVC]

1 hour ago, Boomstick303 said:

If you life depends on it are you reserving shots?  Nope.  Are you calculating in your head if you need to take another shot based on a point system in the real world?  Nope.  You shoot until the threat is neutralized.

Even if we look at real life and for a moment forget it's a game, Virginia Count teaches you to be accountable for each shot. If anything VC is more applicable to self defense than Comstock simply because in real life there is huge accountability for any shot that can hit a bystander. But we are getting off track here, and I don't want to get flamed too much...

[IVC]

46 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

And 4-4-4, reload actually isn't stacking according to current definition per glossary: "Shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing." 

I would say that either both, 2-2-3-reload-2-2-1 and 4-4-4-reload ARE stacking or NEITHER IS. My plain English reading of the rules is that they both ARE stacking because it's not the correct number of shots per WSB - sure the total is correct, but that's not how the rule is worded and engaging target with 1 or 3 shots when 2 are specified is, at least to me, an incorrectly engaged target. 

 

But if the NROI says it's not and that the reading of the rule means that the incorrect number of shots applies only to the total (with which I disagree), then one cannot argue that there is anything wrong with 4-4-4-reload because that one ALSO entails the correct TOTAL number of shots. So, either both are wrong or both are right. I say both are wrong, but NROI says both are right, so the next time I'll shoot the El Prez 4-4-4-reload and then submit it for the question of the month and link back to the interpretation in the OP.

[waktasz]

4-4-4 reload is no good because it says engage the targets, reload then engage the targets. You have to shoot at least one shot to Engage a target, per the rulebook. So 3-3-3-r-1-1-1 would work

 

[waktasz]

or 1-2-3 reload 3-2-1. 

My favorite

 

[Southpaw]

13 minutes ago, waktasz said:

4-4-4 reload is no good because it says engage the targets, reload then engage the targets. You have to shoot at least one shot to Engage a target, per the rulebook. So 3-3-3-r-1-1-1 would work

 

 

Ah that's right. So the WSB said "engage T1-T3 with only two rounds per target, make a mandatory reload, then engage T1-T3 with only two rounds per target".

 

So the word "engage" is strictly enforced and procedural if don't engage both before and after reload, but "with only two rounds per target" can be ignored. Got it.

 

It's hard to keep track of which words from WSB are enforced and which can be ignored 

 

And I think 3-2-1 reload 1-2-3 is gonna be way faster than your 1-2-3 reload 3-2-1