Classifier Procedural Penalty?

[SPINGE]

Good afternoon, how many penalties are incurred if you shoot a classifier 6 shots on Target 1, mandatory reload, six shots on Target 3 but a shooter thinks hes gaming and shoots the closer Target 3 first, reloads and then shoots Target 1? The written stage brief is clear and concise about the order. The stage in Classifier in question is The Roscoe Rattle. 

 

Thanks!

-SPINGE

[RJH]

I would probably give him one procedural, but my real question becomes when looking at that stage diagram, t1 and t3 should be equidistant from the shooter's box. Was the stage not set correctly?

 

And if it wasn't set correctly, those scores need to be tossed and not turned in for classification

 

PS the one procedural would be for not following the WSB. If the stage was set up correctly there would be no actual advantage when shooting the targets, so the one procedural should suffice

[SPINGE]

The start position is facing up range, turn, draw and engage. The stage was set correctly, the reason I said "closer" is because based on how the shooter turned, T3 came into view first. My bad with the confusing terminology.

[Joe4d]

well the Procedure in the stage diargram doesnt match the written stage briefing..  Bad editing by USPSA  . So which one was read ? IF the one off the diagram was read I'd say no penalty. It shouldnt be a panalty anyways as the two targets are mirror image and it shouldnt matter left to right right to left so as to not handicap a left handed shooter

 

[RJH]

https://uspsa.org/viewer//13-04.pdf

 

 

@Joe4d While not verbatim, the wsb and stage diagram seem to be saying the same thing to me. Where are you finding a discrepancy? Maybe I'm just not seeing it

 

 

@SPINGE And one procedural still seems to be the correct answer to me per 10.2.2

 

What was the ruling at the match?

Edited July 24, 2023 by RJH

[Schutzenmeister]

In reading the classifier information I think it is poorly written.  Specifying T1 THEN T3 on the 2nd string the procedure violates rule 1.1.5 ... Freestyle.  There is no exemption under 1.1.5 that would allow for specifying target order here.

 

The intent is clearly "engage one target, reload, and then engage the other target."  DNROI an HQ should revisit this classifier and update the wording on it to bring it in alignment with the rules.

 

I would be hard pressed to approve a penalty at all for what was described.

 

JMHO ... YMMV

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

In reading the classifier information I think it is poorly written.  Specifying T1 THEN T3 on the 2nd string the procedure violates rule 1.1.5 ... Freestyle.  There is no exemption under 1.1.5 that would allow for specifying target order here.

 

The intent is clearly "engage one target, reload, and then engage the other target."  DNROI an HQ should revisit this classifier and update the wording on it to bring it in alignment with the rules.

 

I would be hard pressed to approve a penalty at all for what was described.

 

JMHO ... YMMV

 

But 1.2.2.2 says otherwise.

 

Maybe somebody else to look it up, I'm not going to that much effort but I'm about 99% positive that there was a ruling on this sort of thing a couple of years back. The ruling basically stated if the WSB on the classifier says something to the effect of shoot Target one, then shoot Target 3 you had to do them in that order. If the WSB said something along the lines of shoot t1 through t3, you could shoot them in any order.

[Schutzenmeister]

Agree to disagree ... 1.2.2.2 does not grant any exemption to 1.1.5 in terms of freestyle and specifying target order.  I still think the procedure needs to be reworded to bring it into clear compliance with the rules.

 

You may be right on a previous ruling, but I don't recall it.

[TaterHead]

What is the competitive advantage gained that would merit a procedural? This is a freestyle stage, and freestyle is clearly defined in the glossary. Non issue I would say.

[jwhittin]

No competitive advantage whatsoever.  Procedural is for not following the order stated in the WSB.  
 

I agree the classifier should be updated.   
There really is no reason to dictate the order of T1 and T3.   

[Joe4d]

2 hours ago, RJH said:

https://uspsa.org/viewer//13-04.pdf

 

 

@Joe4d While not verbatim, the wsb and stage diagram seem to be saying the same thing to me. Where are you finding a discrepancy? Maybe I'm just not seeing it

 

 

@SPINGE And one procedural still seems to be the correct answer to me per 10.2.2

 

What was the ruling at the match?

Not being verbatim is the problem,, you have two completely different stage descriptions..  Adding THEN completely changes the description...   One just has a list of things that must be accomplished. The other an order.
The stage description,,, which is usually all that is available to the shooter is basically jacked up anyway..  If that was read to me, I would shoot all 12 shots to get my time,, and then reload...   Basically piss poor writing and editing. 

To the op ? Like I said if the Procedure with the stage drawing was read,, no penalty....    If you followed 1.2.2.2 and read the later notes,, I could see a single penalty as no advantage was gained...
On the entire situation,, as presented its an illegal stage and should be tossed till the WSB gets fixed

 

 

 

[Sarge]

3 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Agree to disagree ... 1.2.2.2 does not grant any exemption to 1.1.5 in terms of freestyle and specifying target order.  I still think the procedure needs to be reworded to bring it into clear compliance with the rules.

 

You may be right on a previous ruling, but I don't recall it.

According to the classifier guidebook of 2013 classifiers are exempt from freestyle. If you think about it they have to be technically speaking. Telling a shooter to shoot only one array then another array violates freestyle

[jwhittin]

 

2 hours ago, Joe4d said:

Not being verbatim is the problem,, you have two completely different stage descriptions.

 

The only document that matters is the official WSB!  It doesn't matter what a stage description states (even if its wrong, unclear, etc.). The WSB states T1 then T3.   That's on the shooters if they didn't follow the WSB.

 

 

[shred]

Except the WSB can't override the rules, which is the argument here (if the WSB said, say "all magazines only have 3 rounds in them" or "engage in Tactical Sequence", it would be unenforceable).

[IVC]

He would get one procedural penalty under 10.2.2 (10.1.1 is about the authority of those procedurals). 

 

WSB on page 2 of the official diagram is the controlling description. Text on page one has no official meaning except to help with the setup. In fact, that's why the keyword "Written Stage Briefing" is used throughout the rules, to make sure there is one central place where all the requirements are spelled out and which is read verbatim to each squad. 

 

There are no per-shot procedurals because there is no significant competitive advantage. Sure someone can try to make a case there is, but that almost certainly wouldn't pass arbitration. 

[IVC]

4 minutes ago, shred said:

Except the WSB can't override the rules, which is the argument here (if the WSB said, say "all magazines only have 3 rounds in them" or "engage in Tactical Sequence", it would be unenforceable).

Principles of USPSA, item 7, and 1.2.2.2 allow classifiers to specify non-free style requirements. Since they are approved by the NROI, nobody can use them to circumvent the free style nature of the USPSA matches. 

[waktasz]

5 hours ago, RJH said:

 

But 1.2.2.2 says otherwise.

 

Maybe somebody else to look it up, I'm not going to that much effort but I'm about 99% positive that there was a ruling on this sort of thing a couple of years back. The ruling basically stated if the WSB on the classifier says something to the effect of shoot Target one, then shoot Target 3 you had to do them in that order. If the WSB said something along the lines of shoot t1 through t3, you could shoot them in any order.

 

I seem to remember a ruling about this one also, but can't seem to find it on NROI site after a quick search. 

[broadside72]

I think it's technically a procedure for not following the WSB as it is worded now (remember the blog post comment that ONLY means ONLY and THEN means THEN), but I don't think I'd be willing to give it to anyone. There is no advantage.

 

T1 is an array of 1, T3 is an array of 1. So they are saying array 1, then reload, then array 2, but it unfairly penalizes lefties, so I wouldn't feel right applying the penalty if they shot T3, reloaded, then shot T1

[Joe4d]

 

7 hours ago, jwhittin said:

 

 

The only document that matters is the official WSB!  It doesn't matter what a stage description states (even if its wrong, unclear, etc.). The WSB states T1 then T3.   That's on the shooters if they didn't follow the WSB.

 

 

Was involved with this sport from 1994 to about 2016....... NEVER saw anything on a stage other than that first page that had stage description.  Has that changed ?
 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Joe4d

[waktasz]

Yes. They updated all the classifiers with a second page with a written briefing. Probably 6-8 years ago

[Joe4d]

and yet couldnt make them match ?

 

[Schutzenmeister]

3 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

and yet couldnt make them match ?

 

 

[waktasz]

Have you read the NROI blog? Not exactly pulitzer winning.

[waktasz]

This was posted by Troy on this site about 9 years ago. Not that forum posts are legitimate rulings or anything but here it is

 

https://forums.brianenos.com/topic/204901-shooting-order-of-targets/

  

On 11/10/2014 at 8:58 PM, mactiger said:

FWIW, Mara didn't ask me about this before she posted. I learned about the discussion this afternoon from George W. She is correct, though, there is no order of engagement on this classifier. It was not shot in a specific order at Nationals. I do agree the course description could be cleaner. Sounds like a good project--writing wsb's for all the classifiers.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by waktasz

[SPINGE]

No penalty was given. In my opinion, the author was using periods in lieu of "THEN" but this is sloppy and just messes everything up. I do believe the intent of the writer was to have a structured order. They should be written the same, clearly and concisely to avoid mishap.

 

Whoever said this stage screws lefties, I agree 100% and this needs also to be addressed.

 

Personally I can see a competitive advantage gained, a right handed shooter pivoting on their left foot to engage T3 then to T1 is seems to be beneficial T3 is right there after you pivot, avoiding going 12 feet to the left then coming back to T3 after reload (maybe I am wrong). If a right handed shooter were to pivot on their right foot the draw is doesn't seem to be as quick, again, IMO! Arguments can be made such as the reload makes it not matter but again, this is IMO. We can argue all day about the reload taking time, maybe say if you told a shooter to do 6R6 with no target order and find what way is fastest T1RT3 or T3RT1 we might find an answer...I would be comfortable guessing it would be the latter though. Again, we can go back and forth all evening long but who wants to do that?...the proof is in the pudding, out of 50 shooters, this shooter was 2nd on the stage and only because of a PCC. I obviously don't know how the other shooters not in my squad did it, but everyone else in my squad did Turn T1RT3..maybe we're all chumps. 

 

I can see being a bit more lenient with interpretations that are ambiguous at club matches when its a normal stage, but it being a classifier made me curious...but this just comes back to WSB's and classifiers needing to be unambiguous!

 

The guy was quite into the rules and his interpretation of them throughout the match, one of the shooters said that there are a lot of lawyers in this game and I am inclined to agree. 

 

I am a novice competitor and new to the whole thing, thats why I didn't make mention of it at the time. I do feel bad because the classifiers carry sport wide results no?

 

Again, just opinions from a newb who does this for fun. Peace.

 

Best Regards

-SPINGE

Edited July 25, 2023 by SPINGE