Gaming Cm 99-58

[davidball]

I (foolishly I'm thinking) selected CM 99-58 for our classifier this weekend. Already have scoresheets printed and everything.

CM 99-58 is a Comstock course with six targets. Draw and engage each target with one shot each, reload, and engage each target with one shot each again.

My lovely wife was reading the stage description and pointed out that someone could shoot twice at each target before the reload (Comstock) and then reload and "throw" six rounds downrange quickly. This would allow the shooter to keep their index on each target for two shots to shoot faster and more accurately.

I contend that this would violate the stage procedure which states "Upon start signal, from Box A, engage T1-T6 with one round each target, perform a mandatory reload, and from Box A, engage T1-T6 with one round each target." Further, under penalties, the description states "Failure to perform mandatory reload will result in one procedural penalty per shot fired." It seems to me the reload MUST occur after six shots.

It is my contention that if anyone "stacks" before the reload, that person would incur a one per shot fired penalty for every shot over the required six. Further, if said person did not shoot six shots after the reload, there would be an additional penalty for not following the stage description ("engage T1-T6 with one round each target" after the reload). It seems to me that shots can only be picked up after the reload.

Another scenario would be the shooter who fires one quick shot, reloads and then engages the targets with two shots each, again for the indexing advantage. I would contend that this is a procedural penalty for violating the stage description.

Any thoughts?

[D.Hayden]

Stacking is bad... um'k...

One of the things the ROs needs to watch for and levy penalties for..

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=24844

[Nolan]

It's a comstock stage, so if I missed a shot on a target and made up the shot even though I engaged all the other targets with only one round, I would get penalties?

My read is on comstock stages you can't specify a limit on the number of rounds fired at a target or before a reload.

Nolan

[schoonie]

The way I see it is six required shots before a reload and six required shots after a reload. Extra shots are not penalized since it is a Comstock course of fire.

[AikiDale]

Jane's response would appear to be legal but I doubt one could make up the time for 5 transitions with 6 extra shots.

[ChuckS]

Rhetorical question: I wonder why Bob made the stage Comstock?

[Calamity Jane]

Just so everybody knows......I only want to stack shots on 2 targets not all of them! T1 and T2 to be specific. This has been such a hot topic of debate at our house today that I'm no longer allowed to talk about it. I'll probably end up shooting it just like the course designer intended.

[ima45dv8]

Taken from the USPSA Classifier Handbook:

"Every possible effort has been made to ensure that all the stages in this book are “game proof.” The courses have been repeatedly reviewed by many people with hundreds of years of combined practical shooting and course design experience. These include Range Officers, Chief Range Officers, Range Masters, Range Master Instructors, and the Director of the National Range Officers Institute. The nature of the project is such that there are probably undetected errors in spite of all that effort. In most cases the intent of the course will be obvious. USPSA requests that you honor that intent. [emphasis added]

Practical shooting is distinct from other shooting disciplines in that the responsibility for determining the best, safe solution to the problem presented by a course of fire is the competitor’s. In other words, practical shooting intends to test the ability to think in addition to testing the ability to shoot rapidly and accurately. That intent is formalized in the Practical Shooting Handbook, in which IPSC 1.1.5 says, “IPSC matches are freestyle.” It is, however, necessary to establish an exception in the case of the classification system. The classification system is able to determine a competitor’s accuracy and speed as those abilities are quantifiable. The system is not able to measure the ability to “game” a stage as those intangible skills are not quantifiable. If competitors are allowed to outsmart the classification course designer the results are meaningless. [emphasis added]

The primary responsibility for honoring this concept of fairness as it applies to the classification system lies with the competitor." [emphasis added]

The above is not included in the Rulebook, but probably should be.

Edited March 18, 2006 by ima45dv8

[AikiDale]

If I understand your strategy you would fire two shots at T1 and T2, one shot each at the remaining 4 then reload, pick up the 4 shots on T3-T6, and fire 2 extra rounds to satisfy the requirement to engage T1-T6? I think that would not be at all what the stage designer had intended and still be perfectly legal. I think you should shoot it that way for score and again against the clock just to see if there is a difference.

And then while I was dealing with the dog some 45dv8 comes along and brings up the honor system. You're right, that should be in the rule book, I've never seen the classifier book. Now that you've brought that up Jane has to decide whether to bow to peer pressure and do "the right thing" or to stick to her guns and execute her formerly Brilliant plan.

[ima45dv8]

If you click on the "Additional Content" tab of USPSA.org, and then "Classifier stage Diagrams", there's a selection at the top of the page for the National Classifier Course Book.

[AikiDale]

Yeah, but it sure is a lot easier to justfy cheatn' if you don't know about the rule....

[Loves2Shoot]

Just so everybody knows......I only want to stack shots on 2 targets not all of them! T1 and T2 to be specific. This has been such a hot topic of debate at our house today that I'm no longer allowed to talk about it. I'll probably end up shooting it just like the course designer intended.

Stacking, my take only, just say no. It is unsportsman like conduct, but that's just my opinion.

[AikiDale]

If the classifiers were not scored as part of a match I would agree wholeheartedly, but if you can legally stack and the stage is part of the match I would suggest it is unsportsman like not to try one's best to legally win.

[Loves2Shoot]

That statement opens a can of worms I'm not touching, especially when the intent of the stage is crystal clear.

[Flexmoney]

I don't see a probem with doubling each target before the reload, but you'd still need to "engage" all 6 targets after the reload. (burning 6 into the berm really isnn't "engaging" the targets)

[davidball]

Rhetorical question: I wonder why Bob made the stage Comstock?

I've wished all day that he hadn't . . .

[davidball]

I don't see a probem with doubling each target before the reload, but you'd still need to "engage" all 6 targets after the reload. (burning 6 into the berm really isnn't "engaging" the targets)

Yep. I think the key to compliance with the "intent" is to legitimately engage all six targets both before and after the reload. How many shots are taken during each "engagement" is entirely up to the shooter, as long as each is engaged twice. It just doesn't appear possible to force that to happen by imposing penalties as I described above.

Edited March 18, 2006 by davidball

[AikiDale]

That statement opens a can of worms I'm not touching, especially when the intent of the stage is crystal clear.

The intent of that stage designer is crystal clear; maybe. We are making an assumption about that. The freestyle principle is not only crystal clear, it is so written. When a stage designer is disappointed because someone devises a better, or just different, way to shoot a stage, that is to the shooters credit as long as it falls within the rules and I would suggest a stage designer has other tools than "you know what I meant" to dictate how a stage is run. It could have been Virginia Count, but it was Comstock. Had it been Virginia the designer could have specified "one shot only." That was the designers choice. Perhaps the designer was hoping to find that brilliant shooter who would realize stacking was the way to go.

[ima45dv8]

Dale, if you were talking about any stage other than a Classifier, I'd agree with you 100%! Game the pure Hell out of it! Freestyle rules!!!

But this is a Classifier.

No doubt the collective talent on this forum can pick a stage apart with the best of them. If there's a loophole, we'll find it. But the point being made in the Classifer Course Book is that while we might be able to seek and sometimes find a loophole in a Classifier, we shouldn't, whether one exists or not. That document specifically addressed Freestyle in Classifiers:

".....in which IPSC 1.1.5 says, “IPSC matches are freestyle.” It is, however, necessary to establish an exception in the case of the classification system."

To each his own, but I'll shoot it straight-up.

Edited March 19, 2006 by ima45dv8

[AikiDale]

So will I but I can find no reason to disapprove anyone else finding another legal way to shoot it.

[Bwana Six-Gun]

I haven't looked at CM 99-58, so I don't know if it states in the procedure or the penalties that stacking is not allowed, although to me the intent would be that it is not. Having said that, I can see where someone could double tap each target, make the reload and burn six into the berm. If anyone questions the doubletaps, they would have to be prepared to swear that the guy was stacking on a stack of bibles. If the shooter claims he was afraid he had a miss and fired another shot to be sure each time, who is to say he lied? I admit it is a stretch, but when in doubt the benefit should go to the shooter, right?

Personnally, since I am a wheel-gunner most of the time I would shoot it the way it was intended.

[Ron Ankeny]

I don't see a probem with doubling each target before the reload, but you'd still need to "engage" all 6 targets after the reload. (burning 6 into the berm really isnn't "engaging" the targets)

I am with Flex all the way. If I were the RO, I'd let you stack the shots all you want whenever you want. But I would assign the appropriate penalties for not engaging each target after the reload, then let you appeal to anyone that would listen.

[AikiDale]

Exactly!

[davidball]

I don't see a probem with doubling each target before the reload, but you'd still need to "engage" all 6 targets after the reload. (burning 6 into the berm really isnn't "engaging" the targets)

I am with Flex all the way. If I were the RO, I'd let you stack the shots all you want whenever you want. But I would assign the appropriate penalties for not engaging each target after the reload, then let you appeal to anyone that would listen.

Therein lies the rub . . . determining if targets were engaged or if shots were just dumped into the berm . . .

[Bwana Six-Gun]

I don't see a probem with doubling each target before the reload, but you'd still need to "engage" all 6 targets after the reload. (burning 6 into the berm really isnn't "engaging" the targets)

I am with Flex all the way. If I were the RO, I'd let you stack the shots all you want whenever you want. But I would assign the appropriate penalties for not engaging each target after the reload, then let you appeal to anyone that would listen.

But Again, how do you you determine "engaging" and who do you appeal to?

It should have been Virginia!