Jack Suber Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 We shot Classifier 99-30 Man Down, this weekend. The stage required the shooter to engage two targets and a popper from Box A and then procede to Area B and engage one target and then end up in Box C and engage 3 targets from behind a barricade. The target on the right side of the barricade was to be engaged from under a bar on the right. The middle target from over the barricade, and the left from under a bar on the left side of the barricade. Question - Shooter arrives at Box C and engages T6 (right target) under the bar on the right,then T5 (middle) over and then turns and engages T4 (left) over the bar. Shooter starts lowering the gun and then realizes mistake, drops and fires two more shots at T4 from the correct position (under bar on left side of barricade). The mistake cost the shooter 2.58 seconds (realizing the mistake and reacting). All four hits on T4 were A's. Does the shooter get procedurals if he made up the shots from the correct position? This happened to me this weekend. I figured the procedural(s) counted but the RO indicated that since I took the time to make up the shots from the correct position, the procedurals were "offset." Had I not made the shots up, I would have had a 9.32 second run with 4 points down. Instead, I ended up with a 11.90 run with 4 points down. Can you "offset" procedurals if you correct the procedural by making up the incorrectly fired shots? I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Hi Jack, I don't know the classifier you mention but, no, you don't get "time credits" for procedural penalties, regardless of the circumstances. The erroneous advice you were given is not supported by the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Suber Posted February 3, 2003 Author Share Posted February 3, 2003 Vince, Thanks for the reply. Let me make sure I understand. The procedurals should have been applied regardless of the fact that I made the shots up correctly? Thats what I thought the call should have been. Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Jack, Your understanding is correct. Yes, you should've been given a procedural, regardless of any corrective action you took. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 I think it would be two procedurals in this case. I'll have to do some digging, but here is what I'm thinking... 10.1.4.3 ...for each occurrence. I would have thought that 10.1.4.1 applied, but it states falut/charge line. In any case, I don't think it matters at all what hits where on the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 First, what Vince said about no such thing as time cancelling out penalties. >Does the shooter get procedurals if he made up the shots from the correct position? Yes, if the procedure says to engage the target from that position only. No, if the procedure merely says to engage the target from that position. This allows engagement from other locations. According to the 99-30 procedure wording, you could re-engage from the correct position to avoid a penalty. (However, by shooting at T4 from position C2, you earned another penalty.) Rather than restricting certain targets to certain positions, the 99-30 wording restricts certain positions to certain targets. Get the difference? This is one of those things that makes some of us want a freestyle-only field course mandate. Few people can write a procedure like that correctly, few shooters can follow it, and few range officers can interpret it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Flex, I would probably just give 'one' procedural, as the shooter didn't seem to gain an advantage (in fact, it seems that he gained a disadvantage by having to make up the shots). However, I am open to those 'younger' and wiser than me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 I'm not sure if I was clear in my earlier post when I said "a procedural", but one seems correct to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Well crap...I had a nice long post typed out...covering all the bases...and I hit the wrong button and lost it all. Short version, I think 10.1.4.3 applies. Two procedurals. 10.1.4.1 isn't applicable. It deals with foot faults (though, going into this, I thought this would be the proper rule). The hits on the target don't matter, nor does the fact that the shooter then went on to shoot from the proper position. It is simply a matter of not following the written stage procedure. In this case, there are two occurrences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Flex, Sorry, but I must disagree. Rule 10.1.4.3 would only apply in the event of, say, two different doors where the competitor used the wrong hand. With the case at hand, he was required to shoot a target from a certain position, but he didn't do so, one time, despite needing to fire two shots. Hence he merely failed to comply with one COF requirement. Had he crosssed a charge line, thereby taking two shots from a closer position, then 2 procedurals would apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Vince, You are still applying rule 10.1.4.3, right? You are saying that the shooter only engaged the target once, so that is one occurrence? I'm not sure that I agree. I would say the shooter engaged the target twice...two occurrences. I think what we really could use is a glossary of terms...as they apply to our rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 This doesn't matter with regards to how the rules read...but, I ran some numbers. The shooter ran the 65 point stage down 4. With the single penalty, not shooting from the third position...61 (-10) 9.32 = 5.4721hf Without the penalty, with the extra time... 61 11.90 = 5.126 If we subtract out some time for the extra transition & split taken in C2...say .50 transition and a .25 split (which would seem slow for this shooter at this distance)...we get a time of 11.15 61/11.15 = 5.470 If we adjust the time to something that is likely closer to the shooter ability...say .35 & .20...we get 11.35 61/11.35 = 5.374 Probably ought to account for some reaction time...so the 11.15 number is likely closest. So, with one procedural penalty, we are left with a situation where it may be faster not follow the stage procedure...taking the single penalty might be the route to the highest hit factor. (I hope that is not the goal of this, or any, classifer.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Flex, Yes, I'm still applying Rule 10.1.4.3. The stage procedure says "From Box C, engage only T4 from postion C1, only T5 from position C2 ......". Instead of compying with the bold bit above, the competitor engaged two targets (T4 & T5) from C2 instead of only T5. He therefore made one procedural error (by just ignoring the "only T5" bit), so he gets one procedural penalty. Your numbers may well have identified a way to game the classifier, which is why it's far, far better to always adopt an "If you can see it, you can shoot it" policy. We're supposed to be testing your shooting skills, not your memory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Vince, I'll see Flex this weekend, so if you want me to whack him upside the head with my rule book..... just say the word!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Brian, Naaaah. No need for violence. Just make him stand in a corner in the stats shack and don't give him any milk 'n' cookies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Suber Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 Man, Did I stir the pot or what? Right after I unloaded and showed clear, I was actually questioned as to whether or not I was trying to game the stage (i.e. take the shots over the top and then drop down and fire 2 into the berm). Four hits being in the target addressed that question. I honestly never thought of it that way (I am not that quick). It was nothing but a brain fart. I hit T5 and saw T4 out of the corner of my eye and shot it. If only one procedural applied, it would make this "procedure" very tempting. Interesting. Thanks for the feedback, guys. I hope to see some of you in Florida this weekend. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 You're the RO. I'm the shooter. From box C and position C1, I engage T4 with one round. From C/C2, I engage T5 with one round. From C/C3, I engage T6 with one round. I leave box C and run like my hair is on fire and hose T4, T5, T6 with a couple rounds each from arm's length. What do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Give you 1 procedural per shot fired from outside Box C, up to a maximum of 6. Did I win a set of steak knives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherErik Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I say you wasted a bunch of time but no procedurals. You met he course description by engaging the targets from the appropriate positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Um, excuse me, but the Stage Procedure says " From Box C .....". Erik said "I leave Box C", which means he is no longer in Box C, and he has a distance advantage to boot. Do I also get a salad spinner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 BDH, I am not a sheep to Vince's views. Vince is helpful, knowledgable, and experienced...but, not infallable. I will often take an opposing view point, playing devil's advocate to Vince's position. This, open debate, helps me to learn...I hope it helps others (including Vince) as well. If not on the ruling, then at least on the possiblility that the wording on the rules could be interpreted in more than one way...which can lead to arrbitration(yuck). I usually have my rule book open. Always question authority! Back to the topic... The stage procedure says to... ONLY engage T5 from position C2. As the RO...everything else being equal and safe...it doesn't matter to me where the other rounds go. It makes no difference what else the shooter was engaging. He wasn't engaging T5 ONLY. And the shooter didn't engage T5 ONLY on two occurrences. That is two procedural penalties under 10.1.4.3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Whoa Flex, relax ole buddy!! I was just funnin' with ya!! However, I'll stick with my call of ONE procedural for not following the course description (remember, I don't see that he gained an advantage here, so I am not going to give him two). Vince, my wife was looking over my shoulder and saw your comment about the 'salad spinner'. She commented that she would be happy to give you one of the 17 cheese seving trays we got for wedding presents. If interested, let me know, and we'll take care of you (maybe at Area 3, or is it just a rumor that you may show up there?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Flex, If you're convinced it's two procedurals, so be it, but I'll try another tack. Consider Rule 10.1.4.1 which deals with faulting a charge line while shooting. Not quite what we're talking about here, but there's a method in my madness. Rule 10.1.4.1 says you would get 1 procedural for merely faulting the line with your elbows but if the RO determines you gained a significant advantage, then he can give you one procedural per shot fired. Since we both agree he didn't follow the COF requirements, the only question remaining is the concept of "significant advantage", which is where we differ. I say he had a single advantage by not, say, kneeling or squatting one time to shoot under the bar, which is more difficult and takes more time than remaining standing. You say he had two advantages, but I don't understand why you think so. However the funny thing is that I've dealt long enough with John Amidon to know how he thinks, and he would probably do the calculation you did earlier. If a single procedural didn't compensate enough for being a bad boy, he'd give you two. Anyway, an interesting discourse but one which proves, yet again, that we IPSC folk give more kindler, gentler penalties than the USPSA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 BDH, Yes, Arnie has invited me to work the Area 3 match, and I'll move heaven and earth to make it, but it's too early for me to commit just yet. I'm off to Manila Thursday to conduct an RO Seminar all day Friday, then I depart Saturday morning for Orlando, for four days of rules and other IPSC meetings, and the SHOT Show, but I haven't even started packing yet. Hence the Area 3 match is a long way off, but I'll be seeing Arnie at the meetings and I hope I can firm up my plans by then. I really must get back to Minneapolis because I've still got to find the rental car I left behind at Mall of America on my last visit - the charges are killing me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now