Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Cheating, Or Good Approach?


TDean

Recommended Posts

post-1993-1154993209.jpgThe Comstock COF reads...

Starting in box"A" you must engage only T2 with 6rds, from box "B" you must engage only T-5 with 6rds, from box "C" you must engage only T1 and T3 with 3rd each and from box "D" you must engage only T4 and T6 only with 3rds each.

The shooter fires 6 shots from box A, he then Fires 6-7 shots from box B, he then fires 7-8 shots from box C and 6-7 shots from box D. Upon completion, the RO assesses a few procedurals for inproper target engagement. He stated the shooter shot the wrong targets from each position. He "saw" that the shooter engaged the larger T1/T3 targets from box A and the smaller scoring area of T2 from box C.

The truth: The shooter DID do that, he intentionally did that thinking the RO can't determine what he's actually aiming at anyway with the targets that close together.

Can you penalize a shooter for bad aim? :)

Would the procedurals applied stand up in an arbitration hearing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arbitration....if you shot it out of sequence and got caught, you get the penalties...Was it easy to see the wrong targets shot or not..if they were close, should be no question...if you could not see the holes, then he gets the call for him..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the procedurals applied stand up in an arbitration hearing?

Most likely. But arb committees are like jurys, anything can happen.

There are still some shooters out there who think the RO is only allowed to look at the weapon and is somehow not supposed to be aware of anything else going on. Here's something to think about: the RO is a shooter too! ;)

Can you penalize a shooter for bad aim?

The shooter "earns" a penalty for not following the WSB, just as he "earns" a penalty for poor aiming and hitting a no shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a comstock course, as long as you engaged with the proper amount of shots, and if they did not disallow reengagement from other positions then they cannot give procedurals for make up shots or misses that were made up.

There's no such thing as a F***ing psychic R.O. who can look through the shooters eyes and tell where their aiming and if they don't want people shooting it funky then they should not put up funky stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a RO, I'm watching the shooter. I could give a rats ass about which targets are being engaged. That's my scorekeepers job. At local level matches how many scorekeepers are really watching for target procedurals? They're usually fairly new shooters who want to help the squad or who don't like to paste.

As a shooter, I want to shoot this course as fast as possible. Hell yes I'll game this COF. This COF just has to much BS to remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was the shooter involved here....well maybe not the only one, but probably the first.......but the RO said that the stage designers "intent" was obvious and that we (I?) should adhere to it.

My understanding was that we shot the stage as written, not what someone thinks the "intent" was. If there is anything in the USPSA rulebook about intent, please direct me to it.

As the stage description states, it is a Comstock course of fire.

FY42385

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah-ha John, I fiqured a few in our squad weren't the only "cheaters" that day. :D

If this went to arb, the RO would have to "prove" that the shooter was engaging the wrong target (remember the scroing areas of the 3 different targets in the same array are TOUCHING). Even if the RO saw all six shots hit the wrong target, how can the RO "prove" that the shooter wasn't aiming at the proper target just inches away?

I believe honesty plays an important part in sport, but rules as with equipment, are always pushed to the limit.

I think the RO was correct in assessing procedurals based on his interpretation of how the shooter engaged the targets, but I think he'd have a hard time proving it in to a jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a couple of things:

1) I don't have a rulebook in front of me, but I don't think scoring disputes can be arb'd. I think the rangemaster is called, and his ruling is final on scoring issues.

2) as others have noted, it is a bogus stage design, just begging to be gamed. If it is anything other than a Level-I match (in the US), it is an illegal stage.

3) Comstock means "fire as many rounds as you want and stop when you think you are happy with the holes you've made". Even if specific engagement is mandated (illegal in all but level-I matches, see above), there's still no limit on how many shots you can launch after you have met the course requirements. If some of those shots "accidentally" hit a target from the wrong box, my opinion is "oh well <shrug>". There are no penalties in Comstock for extra hits or extra shots.

4) having said all that, if the RO can positively assert that he saw shots hit the wrong target from a box, he *can* assess penalties for failing to follow the course requirements (assuming those penalties are specified in the course description).

Fundamentally, it is a poorly thought out stage, where the designer used punitive penalties to try to plug the holes and make people ascribe to his "intent". Which I HATE.

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can an arbitration committee arbitrate an illegal stage?

Edited to add (from Bruce's comments). Scoring disputes are the RM's bag....procedural penalties can be taken to an arb panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm.... you made me go out to uspsa.org and look at a rulebook...

9.6.4 Any challenge to a score or penalty must be appealed to the

Range Officer by the competitor (or his delegate) prior to the

subject target being painted, patched, or reset, failing which such

challenges will not be accepted.

9.6.5 In the event that the Range Officer upholds the original score or

penalty and the competitor is dissatisfied, he may appeal to the

Chief Range Officer and then to the Range Master for a ruling.

9.6.6 The Range Master’s ruling will be final. No further appeals are

allowed with respect to the scoring decision.

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10.1.3 A competitor disputing the application or number of procedural

penalties may appeal to the Chief Range Officer and/or Range

Master. A competitor who continues to be aggrieved may then

lodge an appeal for arbitration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahhh, good catch. so the 9.6x section is only looking at penalties visible on the surface of "penalty targets"?

B

I think thats probably a good way of summarizing it. Scoring of the "targets" (being good targets or penalty targets) is finalized by the RM...if he says you hit a no-shoot or if he says your perfect double is really a miss, or if he says your A is really a C...you can't aribtrate that. What you can abitrate is procedural penalties (I wasn't really faulting that box, I did shoot the course as described, I did shoot at the popper and shouldn't be assessed an FTE for missing it, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how many stages like this I've seen posted on the forum.

Here is the formula:

1. Poorly designed stage that takes a liberal view of the "freestyle" loophole for a Level I match.

2. How do we award the proper procedurals for the poorly designed stage.

Nearly every Match Director and Stage designer gets a rulebook. The whole first section of the rulebook is about stage design. It's not even that much reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen stages like that where is not your usual stage with a thinking game attached. The stage is crap at a different level. :lol: On one occasion we sacrificed shooting the stage all together and had it torn down.

The next time a stage is prepared speak to the powers at be at the match and offer your concerns. If this is done in a large enough group (i.e. more than 75% of the shooters think is crap), then they should tear down that stage and come up with something that is challenging, but that makes some sense.

Happy shooting! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...we shot the stage as written, not what someone thinks the "intent" was...

Which is all you can do. Just as an RO cannot perceptively intuit which target you "intended" to hit, you cannot perceptively intuit what he or she might have been thinking when they designed this turkey - or any stage, for that matter.

Course designers take note - we can only do what you SAY, not what you INTEND.

2. How do we award the proper procedurals for the poorly designed stage.

You DON'T. What you do is award the course designer the proper penalties by granting any arbitration request for removal of engagement penalties. Usually, watching their "intent" get neutered by an arb committee (once or twice) ensures that future designs are improved.

This COF has no place in any match that purports to be a USPSA event - period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This COF has no place in any match that purports to be a USPSA event - period.

I like your comments so much Floyd...that I'm taking your image and using it for my new avatar...and updating my sig line! :D

I think this stage would be a good candidate for the Level II CRO course for the part where you are required to take a bad stage and turn it into a legal course. Maybe someone should notify Amidon! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what is worse - a poorly designed stage or having it administrated by a self appointed range nazi.

Level 1 = club = fun

What a load of crap. We had one of these a club match but it was worse in the memorization of which targets had to shot from 6 different boxes . F-ing ridiculous.

I think that if I was the shooter I'd tell the RO / scorekeeper to score as they see fit and then ask to be the RO / score keeper when they shot :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have to agree that while it sounds like fun, the stage design/description is flawed.

I can however be easily fixed.

It is possible, and legal at a Level I match, to force the shooter to shoot from the boxes.

Use some vision barriers to leave only the targets you want to shoot visible.

I you have to dictate which targets a shooter can engage, Keep it Simple. Equal number of shots and some fashion of sanity in order of engagement.

Good well planned stages, and very often those picked apart by other shooters for possible problems, help to eliminate problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...while it sounds like fun, the stage design/description is flawed...it can however be easily fixed...it is possible, and legal at a Level I match, to force the shooter to shoot from the boxes...use some vision barriers to leave only the targets you want to shoot visible...

Quite agree. Alternately, spread the targets out to the point where swing/mis-engagement (er, sorry, repeated "missing") is sparkling clear to the most casual observer - and further dis-incent missing with hard cover and/or no-shoots.

Case in point, rather than overlapping scoring zones (and thus setting oneself up for post-mortems such as this ;) ), hard-cover the "C" and "D" zones on the center/distant targets.

Same challenge, no loopholes, "missing" carries some attendant risk...

post-4314-1155514386.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...