Regional Championship (manchester, Tn)

[crday]

Did any of ya'll shoot this match?

If so, does anyone have the whole story on why the stage with 'aligning' movers was thrown out?

I've heard it was because the movers would align and the SO 'encouraged' people to engage them with two shots instead of 4. Have also heard the 'fault line' was illegal. Also that the scoring was messed up.

Anyone know the real story?

crday

[Jim Watson]

All of the above.

Multiple flaws in design, setup, and administration.

[melman_1]

According to the RO that ran the stage along with other RO's at the match, a prominent shooter was beaten by a marksman on the stage. The prominent shooter said there was noway a marksman could beat him on that stage and that the RO for that stage must not have kept up with the shooter on the run to the barricade. Therefore the timer didn't pick up the shooters last shots. The marksman shot two shots at both targets getting the shoot throughs and was down zero on both targets. The prominent shooter did the same and was down 1. The prominent shooter told the marksman to reshoot the stage wich the marksman said no. I wouldn't reshoot the stage either and take a chance on getting a lesser score. So complaints lead to the stage being thrown out. There was probably a lot of truth to what the prominent shooter said about the RO not keeping up with the shooter and registering the shots on the timer and it could have happened on other shooters as well. The way it was presented to me by the RO was more like the Prominent shooter was whining about being beaten by a marksman on a stage rather than saying it was unfair to all the other shooters because it could have happened more than once. I sure hope that wasn't the reason because I have a lot of respect for the prominent shooters ability but that was how several match officials conveyed it to me and to others around me.

Edited June 10, 2006 by melman_1

[crday]

According to the RO that ran the stage along with other RO's at the match, a prominent shooter was beaten by a marksman on the stage. The prominent shooter said there was noway a marksman could beat him on that stage and that the RO for that stage must not have kept up with the shooter on the run to the barricade. Therefore the timer didn't pick up the shooters last shots. The marksman shot two shots at both targets getting the shoot throughs and was down zero on both targets. The prominent shooter did the same and was down 1. The prominent shooter told the marksman to reshoot the stage wich the marksman said no. I wouldn't reshoot the stage either and take a chance on getting a lesser score. So complaints lead to the stage being thrown out. There was probably a lot of truth to what the prominent shooter said about the RO not keeping up with the shooter and registering the shots on the timer and it could have happened on other shooters as well. The way it was presented to me by the RO was more like the Prominent shooter was whining about being beaten by a marksman on a stage rather than saying it was unfair to all the other shooters because it could have happened more than once. I sure hope that wasn't the reason because I have a lot of respect for the prominent shooters ability but that was how several match officials conveyed it to me and to others around me.

Interesting. I share your respect for the prominent shooter. I've SO'd for a lot of the big names and that guy is the best I've ever seen. If I remember the scores correctly, the next closest was 15 seconds behind him over the 14 scored stages.

I'm hesitant to criticize the SO directly, having been in his shoes many times.

I suppose it all turned out OK. The faulty stage was thrown out, the best shooter there won, and we all learned a little something.

[COF]

I guess nobody thought to check the timer for the number of shots fired??

[melman_1]

I guess nobody thought to check the timer for the number of shots fired??

I think this was brought up after a few shooters had ran through and it was found out that a marksman had that low of a score instead of right there at the line as soon as he was done shooting.

[Flexmoney]

I really like the timers that show the number of shots fired right there on the main screen...without having to go digging through the timer's review function to see that number.

I always check it.

Not keeping up with the shooter, walls that block the sound, bad batteries...there are lots of things that can go wrong and give a faulty time.

An RO/SO ought to be able to review the splits between shots and tell what happened on a stage as well.

[kdmoore]

I suppose it all turned out OK. The faulty stage was thrown out, the best shooter there won, and we all learned a little something.

I agree, the learnings are there and I'm glad it's brought up here so that we all get the benefit. Too bad it happens at a major match, as the amount of thought, effort and running the stage are not minimal.

I'll add a few things I have as a take away. I know the VA state stages are often run a month or so prior so that we can make sure that props work and flaws are found. This might have helped?

Comment on batteries are spot on, I'm thinking a fresh set in everytimer used at a major match is a cheap insurance policy.

I've never tested it, but I'd swear that my cheap PACT timer picks up sound better than other timers. I know it's adjustable, and maybe it's turned up a bit(?) but I never get a neighboring stage picked up with it, and as long as I'm within 4 or 5 yards it gets it all. (No, I don't work for the company). It will pick up echo's (indoors) ... or I'm running .1 splits without trying. Also, if you have any marathon stages, that little pact timer keeps counting up. I've never had the need except in some 3 gun stuff involving precision and some running around and a high round count (you know, all of the good stuff.)

I like the idea of checking number of shots too.

[Flexmoney]

Comment on batteries are spot on, I'm thinking a fresh set in everytimer used at a major match is a cheap insurance policy.

New battery every day for Major matches.

[Steve Moneypenny]

I really don't like the "prominent shooter " tone. as we can all pretty much figure out who it was.

I have seen this happen in numerous major matches. Timers make mistakes. If you see another shooter shoot something and their time looks unreal it probabally is. It's happened to me on both sides. This is especially perceptible when there is only one way to shoot a stage for everyone like in most IDPA matches.

If this prominent shooter who's name wasn't mentioned but could only be Dave Sevigny (which posted comments lead everyone to belive) then he felt he he was right and used propper methods to express himself others agreed with his view point and the stage was removed from overall match results due to inconsistancy.

I was not at this match, but have seen top shooters get a bad rap when they say, or express something at a match. Being a nice and fair person does not mean you have to be meak, and not make an issue of things you believe to be just. Text written on the internet does not present the tone or intent of ones speach.

[Kurt Glick]

As Match Director of the Southern Regional I thought I would set the record straight about the stage being omitted from scoring. I guess it is human nature to want to believe negative things about others. That is why The National Enquirer and other tabloids sell millions each week. In this case the negative comments about the prominent shooter, a.k.a. Dave Sevigny, affecting the final outcome of the stage being omitted from the match couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact over the years I have found Dave to be one of the most polite, helpful, and humble contestants on the range.

The decision to throw out the stage was made by me and other club officers after very inconsistent times were noticed on the stage, and indications that the SO had altered the course procedure in such a way that it did not strictly comply with IDPA rules or course designer intent. This decision was made prior to finding out that Dave Sevigny had raised concern about stage times and prior to the end of the match.

One reason we feel that the timer did not accurately pick up all shots was the large foam blocks used by the club to form walls. Thoughts are that the foam blocks absorbed too much of the sound of the shot to activate the timer if the SO did not fully reach it around the wall with the shooter. This is a mistake that any SO could have made as it was the first time we have used this type of wall in a match and did not foresee its acoustic properties. The result was a pattern of inconsistent times being recorded.

The SO on the stage, without approval of the Match Director, added a fault line to the course layout. While making the stage easier to judge it did not comply with IDPA rules or the course designer intent. The only recourse after several squads had completed the stage was to omit the stage from the final score.

The decision was not based on one or two people’s scores it was based on a pattern. I fully believe that any shooter can beat any other shooter on a given stage from time to time. This is what keeps people shooting, but this was not the case here. Evidence was that it was a bad stage and in fairness to all shooters the stage had to be omitted from scoring. Middle Tennessee Shooters Club has hosted 15 major matches over the years and this is the first stage that has been omitted. We do not take such a decision lightly but we feel it is our responsibility to operate the best match possible and will do what it takes to be fair all shooters from Marksman to Master. We feel that the other 14 stages of the match were a comprehensive and accurate judge of shooter ability and stand by our decision to omit stage 6.

[crday]

Good call Kurt.

We had to leave before learning the fate of that stage, or even knowing there was consideration being given to removing it. All the way home, my shooting partner and I discussed stages and that was the one that kept us up half the night reading the rule book.

Your call was correct given the circumstances and is greatly appreciated and admired.

[Joe D]

Dang, I thought I was the "prominent shooter" being talked about.

[Jim Watson]

It was a good MATCH and I enjoyed it as I have every other I have been to at Manchester. And I will be back for more.

But that was a bad STAGE.

It violated rule CoF 8 "No threat target shall be located so that it can be hit by shooting through another threat target." I was on Sevigny's squad and his jaw about hit the ground when the SO told him it was OK to fire two shots through the double swinger to count on both. But explicitly given the opportunity, he took it. So did I, though it took me 3 tries to get 4 hits that way.

It also may have violated Cof 20 "No foot-fault lines may be used on any scenario stage." if you call drawing a stripe on the ground and instructing shooters that they must begin shooting before they cross the line establishing a "foot-fault line."

[GmanCdp]

Dang, I thought I was the "prominent shooter" being talked about.

dang it ..i just lost a $ 5.00 bet with another shooter from Al.....

on that stage during the walkthru with our squad, i brought up the fact that it was a 9 shot course of fire..S.O. said yeah,but it can be done in 7 shots like this,in which he showed us how the targets lined up ..and like he also said ,several shooters did it in 7...but the foot fault line in paint on gravel was for the min 10 yd rule they had for steel..still they did call it a foot line and we were warned at least 15 times that we would get dinged if we fired a shot past the line...was told to go back to the edge of car and shoot it from there...other then that, i thought it was a very good ,challenging match,and ran the shooter thru very well ..besides the best part was that by throwing that stage out...it kept me from getting bumped..

[Joe D]

I have always enjoyed the Tn matches. I did not do too bad considering I had to shoot the last 5 stages weak hand.