Cheating, Or Good Approach?

[Waltermitty]

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!

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!

I agree. I started to list everything wrong with the stage and just some of the arguments it would cause plus some ways to fix it and said to heck with it.

We need more folks going through CRO certification to learn how good course design is critical to match success.

[Steve J]

Wow. I agree with everything that's been said here about this stage being poorly designed and even illegal... even in a Level I match.

That said. It was in the match. It apparently was a Level I club match. And it's supposed to be fun. Given that the stage description said:

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.

Just do it. Anyone who didn't do it that way either screwed it up, or was trying to cheat. Either way it was correct to assess procedurals.

Shoot it the way it's supposed to be shot as per the COF, then go to the MD and try to get it thrown out as being illegal.

[n2ipsc]

I agree with everything that's been said here about this stage being poorly designed...

It is, or was...

Wow. I agree with everything that's been said here about this stage being ... illegal... even in a Level I match.

It isn't (for a Level I match), but - refer to poorly designed, above.

Just do it. Anyone who didn't do it that way either screwed it up, or was trying to cheat. Either way it was correct to assess procedurals..

And there's the rub. As has been mentioned, the manner in which the stage was scored (Comstock) and the targets laid out (overlapping scoring zones, multiple positions) makes it essentially impossible to determine or assess procedurals on a consistent basis ("I just missed...several times...").

The stage won't be tossed because of non-compliance with the rules - but is a lead-pipe cinch to get tossed for inconsistent officiating/scoring/assessment of penalties.

Chalk it up as a learning experience - a stage may be "legal," but that doesn't necessarily mean it's, in reality, operable/manageable in actual application. Shame, too, as it's easily "fixed"...

[Chuck Anderson]

You, know I was called a gamer at the recent Single Stack match. By a shooter who got really pissed about it. But that's what I was doing, gaming. For a shooter to deliberately shoot at the wrong target? That's cheating. Now if he wants to satisfy the course requirements and shoot 6 at the narrow target, and some more targets? Who cares. As long as he engages each target from each position with the required amount of rounds.

I think a shooter who deliberately looks at a course of fire and ignores it to shoot it his own way, in disagreement with the rules? Cheater. And for those that don't think an RO can tell the difference on this stage? You're not giving RO's a lot of credit. At the far targets they're supposed to be shooting at one target and two targets close. I can't imagine it would be all that difficult to tell the difference. Especially when you get up close and see 3 A on each of the outside targets. Uh, geez, my gun shoots a little to the left, except after three rounds the scope shifts and it shoots to the right.

I don't have any problem with gaming stages. My instance was a swinger that was exposed at rest and the stage designer didn't specify anything about activating before engaging. While I hate the words, "stage designer intent" as a means of telling someone they're wrong. I'm having a hard time believing that there's anyone that can't figure out what the SD wrote the course to reflect.

[TDean]

I remember that swinger well Chuck.

A lot of us were stunned that the RuleBook didn't mandate activation of moving targets before engaging them (weird). The written COF didn't specify either. I learned something that day.

[SteveZ]

I remember that swinger well Chuck.

A lot of us were stunned that the RuleBook didn't mandate activation of moving targets before engaging them (weird). The written COF didn't specify either. I learned something that day.

I wasn't there so I don't know what the COF looked like, but if the COF didn't specify "open door THEN engage T1" or "step on bear trap THEN engage T1" or "T1 must be activated prior to engagement" then theres' no problem....but wait. Maybe there is!

4.2.4.4 says that "Hard cover must not completely obscure the highest scoring zone on a partially hidden paper target."

I guessing that the target in question was obscured by hard cover and some small portion of the target (prior to engagement) may have been visible...like maybe the C or D zone? If so, then if this target is to be treated as a "static" target prior to activating it and by 4.2.4.4 it would be an illegal target...and therefore you'd be shooting an illegal stage.

The RM has 3 choices here; 1) toss the stage (2.3.4) or fix the stage and 2) have everyone re-shoot it (2.3.3.2) or 3) continue shooting the stage for all competitors who haven't yet shot it and require that the shooter that caused the change to reshoot it also.

Since everyone else shot the stage as a "legal" stage, I'm guessing from a RM's point of view, he probably would have fixed the stage and strived for option #3 and have you reshoot the stage.

Of course, if the target in question wasn't obscured by hard cover....then its a different story.

[Chuck Anderson]

Well, getting a bit off topic now. The target actually did expose a little bit of A prior to engagement. I got an A/C on the target.

I found out from Amidon that they can't specify that it must be activated prior to engagement outside of a Level I match. Inteferes with the freestyle nature of IPSC. It's on the stage designer to cover that puppy up if they want you to activate it.

[SteveZ]

Well, getting a bit off topic now. The target actually did expose a little bit of A prior to engagement. I got an A/C on the target.

Sounds like you did good Chuck! +1 on figuring out a better way to solve the stage.

I found out from Amidon that they can't specify that it must be activated prior to engagement outside of a Level I match. Inteferes with the freestyle nature of IPSC. It's on the stage designer to cover that puppy up if they want you to activate it.

I agree...there's nothing in the rule book prohibiting this....if the targets comply...and you can see them....you can shoot them. Either the written WSB needs to address the problem...or the course designer needs to address the problem. Until then...have at it!

[n2ipsc]

...For a shooter to deliberately shoot at the wrong target? That's cheating. Now if he wants to satisfy the course requirements and shoot 6 at the narrow target, and some more targets? Who cares. As long as he engages each target from each position with the required amount of rounds...

Not disputing that point, but, absent dimensions, I've no idea whether the targets were at a distance such that deliberate mis-engagement would be clear.

By way of example, I've seen at least two 50-yd standards that "required" each of three targets to be engaged on each pass. The targets were placed very close together so they could have multiple competitors to the line. It was definitively impossible to tell which targets were being engaged on each pass - period.

If the subject stage were more than ~10 yards distant (freely admitting that it might not have been), I would suggest that we'd have a similar issue (worse, a younger CRO with better eyes might NOT have the same issue, which gets me back to the roving CRO risk compounding the issue/call).

...I think a shooter who deliberately looks at a course of fire and ignores it to shoot it his own way, in disagreement with the rules? Cheater. And for those that don't think an RO can tell the difference on this stage? You're not giving RO's a lot of credit...

I'm sorry if my intent was misconstrued. I give CRO's and RO's (been there, done that, got the RM) all the credit in the world, but I merely suggest that cheesy course designs can make their lives difficult, even if they do accord (strictly) with the rules.

Go back to my 50 yd COF example. Two times I've seen this at the same club, which has sand berms. Event 1 - raining like the proverbial cow on a flat rock...Event 2 - hot, dry, and dusty, and bullet impacts into the berm were CLEARLY evident. Event 1 - tough to assert mis-engagement. Event 2 - easy to assert mis-engagement. Ergo, distance and conditions can also play into it.

...I don't have any problem with gaming stages...

Nor do I. Regrettably or otherwise, though, this means different things to different folks, to the extent that "engage each target with two rounds," by way of example, turns into "engage the targets with six rounds 'cause no one can see me transition" for some folks.

Now, having said all this, if, as I fully suspect was the case, the original COF was close in, there's a huge difference between six shots scattered in the C-D zones on the targets surrounding the narrow center target and a hit or two in the center target...and two nice groups on the peripheral targets and clearly Bill-drilling the (clean when he got there) center target. How would I have called it IF I can clearly discern transitions and hits? Congratulations, twelve procedurals.

At the end of the day, I merely submit that all this could have been forestalled with better course design, which was my sole intent...