PaulW Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Ok, wanted to share this with you and get some feed back on what you thought. Here was the stage. Starting in box "a" holding a rope in your strong hand. At signal pull rope (which activates a moving target, target can be seen from two windows, thus it appears, disappears, and then appears again, then disappears for good). There were also 2 plates and a static target, you could shoot the targets in any order. Competitor gets ready, at signal he pulls rope, goes to draw and his Ghost Holster was locked (I can attest first hand that their locking system works, he was yanking so hard on his gun I thought his pants were going to fall off.) Anyways, by the time he does get the gun out the moving targets are long, long gone. He shoots the two plates and the static and shows clear. Madder than a wet rattle snake because he know he just got 4 mikes, and they are "NOT" no-penalty mikes because the targets are reappearing targets, thus they are scored as regular mikes. This is where it gets tricky, they also give him 2 failure to engage penalties. But there was nothing to engage was his argument, which he was right, those two targets flipped him the bird as they went by while he was yanking on his gun. I guess the call was right because the way the targets are scored, scored as mikes and not as no-penalty mikes. But that is really rough on the shooter. What is your take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 I'm gonna forward this to some higher ups...but if the targets dissappear for good at the end of their travel...regardless of how many times they did appear, they should be scored as disappearing targets...even if they finish minutes later...if they are gone..they are gone...no mikes, no FTE's....bad RO/stage designer, bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted March 20, 2002 Author Share Posted March 20, 2002 Not in our new rule book Pat. I don't have the rule book in front of me but basically it says if you are given multiple exposures to a target (ie, swinging target betwen two windows, but when at rest is not visible, or the example at the State Match, then they are scored as mikes.) Kinda crazy, but it's in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Gotta re-read the rule books...both IPSC and USPSA...I'm pretty sure that in IPSC disappearing targets are not allowed at all, you must have a certain amount (including A zone ) visible when it comes to rest. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Ok my Bad!...just read both rulebooks, and they are the same on this point. Yes if there are multiple exposures they do incur misses. But adding the FTE on top seems nasty, I'll wait to hear reply from higher ups Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted March 20, 2002 Author Share Posted March 20, 2002 Nasty, my thoughts exactly. Talking to the MD and RM later on I asked, well if he had thrown two shots in the general direction of the targets what would have been the call? They both said then there would not have been the failure to engage penalty. Just does not seem right. I'll be interested to see wht the "higher ups" say about this, please be sure to post when you find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Rock Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 This was a tricky stage if you were the first shooter and had not seen the stage run before. I shot it first on Friday, pulled too hard on the rope and darn near knocked my gun loose from the holster caught the end of the grip and managed to get two hits on the targets before they disappeared . I overheard several competitors say they had similar problems. A gentle tug was all it really took. (Edited by Sgt Rock at 8:01 pm on Mar. 20, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted March 21, 2002 Author Share Posted March 21, 2002 Hey David!! Thanks for working your butt off on the longest stage out there. It was tricky, stupid ole' tried not to tug to hard and I dropped the rope!! I gave up 11 points out of the 24 that I lost by on that one little stage. Oh well, live and learn....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Rock Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 Thanks Paul, I had a blast of fun and sun! Check out the thread in tip's for improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 I think there is no FTE penalties in USPSA. Our rule 10.1.4.8 states that there are no miss or fte penalties for a disappearing target. While 9.9.1 ONLY specifies that miss penalties will apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 Was it Troy McManus who recently wrote in Front Sight, "Don't beat the shooter over the head with the rulebook!" (or words to that effect)? You can't add a failure to engage if the targets aren't available at the end of the stage. Four Miss penalties on top of the lost points already puts the shooter's name in the basement of the stage results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 As far as I'm concerned, the whole "Failure to Engage" fiasco is an indictment of Stage designers and Match Directors who can't figure a way out. Bad course design should not be used as a stick to beat competitors with. As for the "reappearing" target counting as if it came to rest visible, if someone can explain that one to me in rational terms then I'll vote for them for Pope. It sounds just as irrational as scoring paint nicks on no-shoot poppers as hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted March 21, 2002 Author Share Posted March 21, 2002 Well before we start blamming the course designer or the MD I have to say that the satge was very fun. Most people loved it. Actually the only guy who did not like it was the guy who locked his holster and could not engage the targets. It was fun and fair, even the lower classes had no problems with it. As to the rule about multiple exposures resulting in mike penalties and not no-mike penalties...well i'm not sold on that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Hi guys, Sorry to enter the fray so late but I've been swamped. The answer to the question, under IPSC and USPSA rules, is that Failure to Engage penalties do apply, as do the relevant misses. I refer you to Rule 10.1.4.8. and also to the final sentence of Rule 9.9.1. (disappearing targets but with multiple exposures). The fact that the competitor failed to draw his pistol in time is irrelevant. The theory behind this rule comes from our defensive roots: if you fail to engage a real-life bad guy, you're toast! I hope this clarifies the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Sorry, won't wash. If in real life someone races past two windows and I don't tag him, but he never reappears, he can't hurt me, so I'll let the guy on the right flank with the belt-fed deal with him. If he gets me while running, but I missed him, his reappearing doesn't change much. Matches aren't real life, and trying to apply real-life logic makes things confusing. An example: In real life, hitting a no-shoot isn't just ten point down, it's a years-long ordeal of legal, medical and moral agony. The point is, in this situation, the competitor is being double-penalized. Penalty for the misses, and penalty because he didn't shoot in time. The only deliberate double penalty we had before this was a miss & no-shoot hit, where the shot is fully inside the scoring border of the no-shoot. It is a double penalty because it is two mistakes, the miss and the no-shoot hit. (One of which can be corrected.) So, do we want to deliberately double-penalize a shooter in this situation? Or are the misses sufficient penalty? (I'm not talking rules, but scoring as a theoretical concept) I seems to me FTE should be used sparingly, and only when it is apparent the competitor has failed to engage in an attempt to gain an advantage. If FTE is used wholesale, it is due to course design and a failure to de-bug a stage. If a target completely disappears, it is lost to the shooter, and I don't care how many windows it goes by. If it stops with a sliver of scoring zone visible, it isn't lost, and the shooter better pick it up or get the penalty. Who slipped this rule change in, and how do we admonish them for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 23, 2002 Share Posted March 23, 2002 You asked: "Who slipped this rule change in, and how do we admonish them for it?". The rule was written by John Amidon, Ivan Ketler and I. It was supported unanimously by the IPSC General Assembly in Cebu in 1999, which is why it appears in the IPSC and USPSA rule books. So, to answer your question, if you feel so strongly about this rule, I guess you would need to admonish every Regional Director in IPSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted March 23, 2002 Share Posted March 23, 2002 Vince, I realize you're on the committee that devised the rule. That probably makes you just a tad biased. I have to agree with Patrick. It's a bad rule. I've probably talked to over 20 folks about it. Every one of them agrees it's a bad rule. It severely penalizes lesser shooters (new shooters, D class, etc.) and shooters that have equipment malfunctions. Let's face it, these folks are penalized enough. Disappearing targets shouldn't encounter miss penalties, period. As Pat said, the "defensive roots" theory doesn't wash. If the person's gone, they are no longer a threat. I'd say get rid of the rule in the next rulebook. This rule just doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted March 23, 2002 Share Posted March 23, 2002 It also fails the "vagueness" test for any enacted law. Reappears? How often? Over what time span? For how long? So, I make a mover on my stage that appears within .327 seconds from the start signal,disappears within two feet and it later reappears at a slot two inches wide, traveling at a dead run. You all just got two misses and an FTE. Why? It reappeared, that's why. Don't come whining to the MD that it was too fast, it meets the rules for multiple exposures. Silly example? Yes. Does making the exposure time one second and the later window 12" help a new shooter? Not a chance. The point of having a mover stop in view is so a shooter can correct a mistake, even at the expense of more time. A target that disappears does not allow for a mistake to be corrected, and therefor should not have additional penalties. Hey, I just thought of another one. You're shooting a Standards with turning targets. You go for the draw, but get a bad hold, and in the interests of safety focus on keeping the gun under control rather than shooting. Did you fail to engage? Those targets are going to reappear, aren't they? Another silly example, I'll admit, but I'm tryng to point out rules exist for a reason. What is the reason for the multiple-exposure rule? Was there some problem with shooters passing up targets moving past several windows? Or was the rule simply the last line in an otherwise solid rule, that no one spent time on? Nothing personal Vince, but I run a club here in Michigan, and if an MD made such a ruling here as we're discussing, the troops would be very unhappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 23, 2002 Share Posted March 23, 2002 Hi guys, Actually I'm not biased in any way because it's not a "personal" favorite. I don't mind how we handle the application of penalties in such a situation, because I see valid arguments for and against, but I certainly don't have strong feelings either way. Hell, there are those who argue vociferously to ban disappearing targets altogether (and Patrick, you seem to fall into that category!). However bear in mind that if we have disappearing targets with no FTE penalties or misses, they effectively become "optional" targets, which seems to defeat the purpose of having them in the first place. Storm, you mention that it penalises lesser shooters. Don't you think a mini-popper at 25 metres also penalises them? What about moving targets in general? What about low ports? Like any other sport, we cannot "set the bar" for the least capable competitor. Moreover, we do not create all course designs to be, say, revolver friendly just because they have the lowest capacity, nor do we set the speed of swinging targets for handguns with iron sights. Patrick, you mention a really rapid mover which disappears. OK, but what about swinging targets which make, say, fifteen (or pick a nunmber) passes before finally disappearing? How should we deal with them? You also query the "multiple exposure" exception. The answer is partly a solution for lower grade shooters. A single rapid pass of a "flop" target is too much for anybody other than our top competitors. Multiple exposures allow lower grade or less experienced competitors a chance to engage them on the second or subsequent passes. Bottom line: the primary objective of a rulebook is to clarify the rules. There are some rules which I personally detest but, once I know what they are, I live with them and I know they apply to all competitors. Frankly it is impossible to write a rule book which pleases everybody. However if either of you feel strongly about this or any other rule, the Chairman of the current Pistol Rules Review Committee is USPSA President Mike Voigt and I'm sure he would be delighted to hear from you. As I said, I have no strong feelings either way, and I will go with the flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted March 25, 2002 Share Posted March 25, 2002 Don't you think a mini-popper at 25 metres also penalises them? What about moving targets in general? What about low ports? No. They at least have the "opportunity" to shoot at the targets. OK, it may take 5 rounds to hit the mini-popper. It may take a long time and a couple extra shots to hit the mover. But, once a target fully disappears, it's gone. The penalty should just be the points you didn't get, no FTE's, no mikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted March 25, 2002 Share Posted March 25, 2002 Storm put his finger on it. If it disappears, then the loss of points should be penalty enough. Miss penalties and FTE are simply piling on. If a swinger makes fifteen passes, then there is plenty of time to engage it. But the rule is vague, as the same swinger making two passes also fits the rule, but may not allow sufficient time for lesser shooters to make up the hits. I'm not against movers, swingers and the rest. Heck, I think they're fun. I'm against piling penalties onto shooters who can't always keep up with the stage pace. We found out a long time ago that stationary indoor stages were very difficult to design. If we made it slow enough to let the new shooters get a fair (and safe) shot at it, the top shooters were shooting it one or two points down. (Out of 90-100 pts) If we made it tough enough for the top shooters to work at it, the new shooters were forced to try and keep up, and risked dangerous things. When we found new shooters leaving their safety off to "speed up" the draw (this in 1983-4) we put an end to high-speed indoor standards. Making a disappearing mover potentially earn misses AND FTE ratchets up the risk on shooters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 25, 2002 Share Posted March 25, 2002 Hi guys, My only concern with having no FTE penalties or misses on disappearing targets are the gamers who calculate that it's better to ignore such a target. I certainly sympathise with arguments in respect of novice shooters but, on the other hand, I woud hate to see targets become "optional". If you guys can think of a decent solution (and wording for a proposed rule), I'm all ears! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted March 25, 2002 Share Posted March 25, 2002 Poor course design is the usual reason people opt to game the stage & skip disappearing targets. I hate to see rules invented to solve problems that can easily be corrected by good stage design. I also don't think you can stop people from gaming stages. After all, this is a game. I'd have to dig out an old rulebook to see how it was worded before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dunlop Posted March 25, 2002 Share Posted March 25, 2002 Maybe match organisers need to concider and communicate when they feel gaming becomes unsportsmanlike behaviour, then range staff need to determine the honest mistake from the intentional omission. I suppose that would keep arbitration committees busy! I love stages with options and choices, but I think our preoccupation with 'Freestyle' definately has a downside P.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted March 26, 2002 Share Posted March 26, 2002 Brings to mind a funny story: There was a stage at the Open Nationals this year that had a disappearing target. Alot of lower class shooters skipped it thinking thats what the M's and GM's would do....unfortunatly the M's and GM's did the math and realized they needed those points and had to shoot it, so the A's and B's outgamed themselves Pat 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