MattBurkett Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 (edited) So here is the situation that I would like clarified. I shot through the AREA 2 championship today. Stage two included a tunnel that opened up into a hallway with another tunnel on the right. Stage diagram is at http://www.riosaladodesertclassic.com/stag...6A2-Stage02.pdf Stage Procedure: At Signal engage all targets as the become visible. We asked the (I think) acting RM Gary Christensen about running from Box A and entering the second tunnel by T14. He agreed that it was not covered in the walk through and that it was legal. Our squad shot it that way, and I believe others did too. Score cards signed and dated by the RO and Shooters. I received a phone call after the match was over that it was a "range requirement" that I come back sometime this weekend and re-shoot the stage do to it being not allowed to run around the tunnel. The questions: Can the re-shoot be forced or is it even legal to do that once the score card is final? How can the match possibly track which shooters did it and force them to reshoot the stage? What rules apply to this situation in the rule book, if any? Thanks, Matt Burkett Edited November 10, 2006 by MattBurkett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 (edited) "Paging Dr. Kildare!!!" OK, so, first and foremost, some caveats. I'm nowhere in the chain of match decisions for the Area-2, so lets treat this as "theoretical". Also, I'm not an RM - perhaps Gary Stevens or George Jones or Troy McManus or Floyd Shoemaker or any of several other RMs who hang out here can provide better/more complete info. Having said that, here's *my* opinion: If a "problem" in a course of fire becomes apparent, the Range Master for the match can do something about it. The rules that apply can be found in section 2.3, which says (in part) 2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any [changes to the course of fire] after the match has begun, he must either: 2.3.3.1 Allow the course of fire to continue with the modification affecting only those competitors who have not already completed the stage... [more]; or 2.3.3.2 If possible, require all competitors to complete the course of fire as revised with all previous attempts removed from the match scores The decision between 2.3.3.1 and 2.3.3.2 basically boils down to "has anyone gone thru the hole in the stage, and, if so, did it create a competitive inequity?" If a problem is discovered, but it gets "caught" when the first shooter exploits it, and RM will generally go with 2.3.3.1 - fix the problem, require that one shooter to re-shoot the stage, and move on. If a whole bunch of people exploited a hole in a stage requirement, then it generally comes down to a question of whether the whole-bunch-of-shooters who did it can be reasonably expected to reshoot without clogging up match flow. If yes, 2.3.3.2 says the RM can order a squad (or groups of squads) to reshoot the stage. If that's not feasible, then the RM can decide (in 2.3.4) that there is no way to salvage the situation, and toss the stage. It sounds like the RM has gone with 2.3.3.2 - he's changed the course description to close an unforeseen loophole, and now he wants everyone that shot the stage before the change was made to re-shoot it. Simple in theory, hard in practice, especially if, as in your case, people have shot thru/completed the match and gone home. Note that 2.3.3.2 is sort of ambiguous. It doesn't say that "only the people who exploited the loophole" have to reshoot the stage. It says "everyone who shot the stage has to reshoot it according to the revised course description". But... if someone already shot the stage the way the "revised" course description requires (eg, they went thru the tunnels the "right" way), that can be really hard to sort out. At the end of the day, some people will probably be compelled to reshoot the stage even if they did it "right" the first time, in order to make sure everyone does it according to the revised course description. In answer to your specific questions: Can the re-shoot be forced or is it even legal to do that once the score card is final? Yes, and yes How can the match possibly track which shooters did it and force them to reshoot the stage? Ideally, they should be able to go to stats and pull all the completed scorecards for that stage, and track those people down. Hopefully the ROs are putting time-and-date on them... that helps a lot. The question you *didn't* ask is... what if you've already gone home, and either can't (or don't want to) reshoot the stage? 2.3.3.2 and 2.3.3.3 are pretty unequivocal. Any previous attempts are removed from the match scores, and a competitor who refuses to reshoot will get a zero for the stage. It *could* be argued, in a couple of circumstances, that the stage should be tossed. Two circumstances that come to mind are -- if whole groups of shooters will not be able to reshoot the stage. let's say for example that a whole block of squads was scheduled to shoot the match in one day. They came, they shot, they went home. The next day, the stage is changed, and.... everyone gets told they have to come back to the range and reshoot it. I'd argue that tossing the stage should be considered, but with respect to the fact that it is totally the RMs call. -- if whole groups of shooters need to reshoot the stage, and running them through would bog down the whole match schedule for everyone else. While no specific rule covers it, there is a place for a "match management" decision about what's best for the competition. At Area-1 a couple of years ago, we had a whole morning's worth of squads (6 squads, 60 shooters) go thru a stage before a loophole was found. We managed to run them all through after fixing the problem. If it had been a whole *day* worth of shooters (120 shooters), it probably would have been tougher, and the stage would probably have been tossed, under the premise that there was no way to "make it fair for everyone". Hope that helps? Bruce PS - your email was eery, I just got out of my truck after listening to one of your podcasts on the way home.... Edited November 10, 2006 by bgary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 There's a nice long thread over on the IPSC forum about "shortcuts". The PTBs there think there needs to be a new rule (yay, more rules) that the MD can declare parts of the ground outside of fault lines 'off limits' to shooters and give them a zero for doing something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBurkett Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 What is frustrating is that it was "approved" by the match staff prior to the shooting of the stage. FYI - I was not the one who came up with it nor was I the one who did it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 What is frustrating is that it was "approved" by the match staff prior to the shooting of the stage. FYI - I was not the one who came up with it nor was I the one who did it first. Yeah ---- I'm pretty sure that if I was CROing a stage at a major, and that question came up, I'd be checking with the RM --- 'cause it beats this alternative...... If I was the RM, I probably would have allowed it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 There's a nice long thread over on the IPSC forum about "shortcuts". The PTBs there think there needs to be a new rule (yay, more rules) that the MD can declare parts of the ground outside of fault lines 'off limits' to shooters and give them a zero for doing something like that. They seem to really like the idea of new rules "over there". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n2ipsc Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Aaaah, but let's take a different tack... 2.3.3.2 clearly states "if possible, require all competitors to complete the COF as revised..." If you allow shoot-throughs, however, it could be argued, and reasonably, I think, that it is likely not possible to mandate a reshoot(s) (shooter has left the area, or whatever). The 2nd bit of 2.3.3.1, however, muddies the water by adding that, "if the competitor's (note singular) actions caused the change," then they are required to reshoot the COF. The rub would be whether said "competitor" (singular) individually and solely "caused" the change - which is more than a little nebulous given that the squad ("we") asked the RM about the variance - which was granted. This should have triggered a series of follow-on actions on the part of the RM and CRO...but more on this in a minute... Where it falls apart for me is 2.3.2. As described, it does not sound as if "all competitors" were "notified of any such changes as soon as possible." Clearly, they were not, "as a minimum," notified by the official in charge of the COF during the squad briefing - not, at least, to the extent that it appears subsequent squads were NOT afforded the same information re. an alternate, and presumably faster, path into the hall out of box "A", and shot it "as intended" (makes me cringe to say that - a couple of well-placed fault lines or obstructions and - voila - no problem - oh, well)... Finally, as described ("after the match was over"), it sounds - and I emphasize sounds - as if the mandated reshoot came after the final results were posted...? In this event, 6.6.3 would apply, and one could not order reshoots - nor drop the stage. Given the information at hand, it sounds like mandated actions (notification, modifying the stage briefing, et al) on the part of the RM and stage CRO were not performed after a call, and you're back to the first codicil of 2.3.3.1 - allowing the COF to continue affecting only those competitors who had not already completed the stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 (edited) My take on this, not based on rules just common-sense. If the shooter has shot the match and completed the match and left the area then there is no reasonable way to force them to re-shoot. Zeroing their score is not acceptable either. In this situation the RM should pull the stage. The pre-match is part of the main match with regard to scores (as long as this is declared in advance). They have to toss the stage. it is the ONLY equitable solution. Edited November 10, 2006 by BritinUSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 They were taking odds on whether the stage would be tossed or not when I was there tonight. The thinking I heard was to have the 3 guys that shot it the way you did reshoot it or just toss the stage. Which do YOU think more sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 (edited) The thinking I heard was to have the 3 guys that shot it the way you did reshoot it or just toss the stage.Which do YOU think more sense? I can't add anymore than what has already been said (especially by Floyd) but I will add one final thought....why bother having a rulebook....if the rules we play this game by as defined in the rule book aren't followed. The RM has approved a course change after the match has begun (flip flopping on an earlier decision) which takes us to the subsection of 2.3.3 2.3.3.1 -- this sounds like the "competitive inequity" horse has left the barn a long time ago. Some shooters have shot the stage with an advantage different then the way that others will be allowed to shoot it. 2.3.3.2 Says ALL shooters complete the COF. ALL means ALL, regardless if they shot it what turns out to be right or not. Otherwise, some shooters get to shoot it twice...and others only get to shoot it once. If I had a crappy run on my first attempt...I'd be really happy to get a second chance. 2.3.3.3 Shoot throughs typically show up...shoot and then leave. So this can't apply. I think we're left with 2.3.4. We've got a competitive equity problem and it would seem to be impossible for ALL competitors to attempt the revised stage. Whether it makes "sense" or not..the rule book says Toss It. PS, I don't think 6.6.3 applies because the match results haven't been declared FINAL yet...there's still days to go before that happens. Edited November 10, 2006 by SteveZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSEMARTIN Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 What is frustrating is that it was "approved" by the match staff prior to the shooting of the stage. How could a RM possibly track down everyone that shot the stage the way Matt did? It isn't fair to force someone to reshoot the stage if the match staff o.k.'d the question and signed the score card after the stage was shot. This is absolutely ridiculous! The only fair solution I can conceive is to toss the stage, but that is pushing it. Why should Matt or any other competitor be punished for outsmarting the stage design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Punished how? Very few people shot the match, so finding the people wouldn't be hard, from what I heard it sound like everyone knew who ran around the tunnel. It is obvious, if you don't have to run through the tunnel that was designed to create a challenge, you are way better off. I just hate having stages tossed after driving 2 days to a match, that takes away 10% of the fun (one stage) so I am biased Pretty much everyone will shoot it the way Matt did if they allow it I would think. I would because I would be at a disadvantage if I didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Matt, Just 3 shooters shoot it that way? You shoot on staff day? (There was an "acting RM"?) I'm a gamey bastard, but staff day is for finding and fixing loopholes, not exploiting them. I'm not faulting you for shooting it as you did. Not at all. You gotta figure everyone gets to shoot it the same way (you don't want to miss an opportunity that later gets exploited). But, I'd always track down the RM and make him change the written stage briefing or the stage first. (sounds like you tried that) The alternative, from a Match Director's standpoint is to not allow competitors to shoot on staff day anymore, or not count the staffs scores in the match. (both of those options are big losers...and that is likely what will happen in the future if this blows up at the Area 2 match) If there are just a couple of you...then get your butt back over there and reshoot If they can't get everybody back, then they have to toss the stage. It's not your fault..so own the reshoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I have no idea how many people actually shot it that way, 3 was the number floating around from the folks I heard talking about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Sounds like they blew rule 2.2.4, as well, if they didn't designate entrances and exits for the tunnels, and provide "the parameters for shooting at any targets from within the tunnel..." Matt stated that his whole squad "shot it that way", which presumably means not the "intended" way that is forcing the reshoot issue. I don't know how many people that was, but I'd bet it's more than three. If they don't know how many, there isn't a choice: toss the stage. To me, there are only two logical choices that fall within the rules: require all the competitors that shot the stage before the change to reshoot, providing you can contact them all, or, remove the stage from the match due to competitive inequity. Those who are contacted and refuse to reshoot get a zero. If you can't get in touch with everybody, though, then the stage is lost. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Those who are contacted and refuse to reshoot get a zero And what about those who are contacted, would like to reshoot - but can't for some reason (most common being that they're now several states away...)?? Presumably, that results in a tossed stage, too, don't it? Sheesh... you'd think a match as established and seemingly well run as A2 would know better than to run a stage in that condition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 And what about those who are contacted, would like to reshoot - but can't for some reason (most common being that they're now several states away...)?? Presumably, that results in a tossed stage, too, don't it? Yes. If one person can't make it back for the reshoot, then it's a lost stage. No way around it, IMO. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caps Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 There's a nice long thread over on the IPSC forum about "shortcuts". The PTBs there think there needs to be a new rule (yay, more rules) that the MD can declare parts of the ground outside of fault lines 'off limits' to shooters and give them a zero for doing something like that. What's a PTB??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 There's a nice long thread over on the IPSC forum about "shortcuts". The PTBs there think there needs to be a new rule (yay, more rules) that the MD can declare parts of the ground outside of fault lines 'off limits' to shooters and give them a zero for doing something like that. What's a PTB??? Powers That Be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 What about leaving the stage description as it was when Matt shot it, and let everyone that figures it out shoot it the way Matt did? Seems to me that on nearly every stage in an area match, people find different ways to go about shooting them. Let it be. Maybe somone will come up with a way to skip every tunnel! So be it. That leaves only one guy upset, and that is the stage designer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidball Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 (edited) If there are just a couple of you...then get your butt back over there and reshoot If they can't get everybody back, then they have to toss the stage. +1 And I think this is roughly what Troy is saying, except he questions the "couple of you" aspect and who needs to re-shoot (just those who did it "wrong" v. everyone who shot before the stage was changed). And this is within the rules. IF you can get everyone back REASONABLY (2.3.3.2 If possible), re-shoot. If not, toss it. Neither solution is appetizing but as long as we have imperfect humans designing stages and running matches, this is how it goes. Edited November 10, 2006 by davidball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
open17 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 What about leaving the stage description as it was when Matt shot it, and let everyone that figures it out shoot it the way Matt did? Seems to me that on nearly every stage in an area match, people find different ways to go about shooting them. Let it be. Maybe somone will come up with a way to skip every tunnel! So be it. That leaves only one guy upset, and that is the stage designer. +1. I've been that guy more than once---the stage designer that watched a "perfect" stage get gamed be a bunch of shooters. It's freestyle baby--design it right and it won't happen. A 2x4 across the mouth of tunnels 2 and 3, or a wall/barrier to make the "shortcut" not worth the effort, lot's of ways to make the shooters go where you intended. Matt asked, was told OK, ran it by the book. If that PO'd the course designer or whoever, so be it. Live and learn, and do better next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 It's not a question of making the course designer mad, it's a question of whether or not the RM changed the course description/requirements/procedure after several people ran the stage one way, and prohibited that way for future competitors. If there were no changes made, it doesn't matter what the course designer intended--the stage was run in a certain way and that's that. But, if the RM changed the WSB to prohibit the way Matt and crew ran it, then it's a required reshoot for everyone who did it the proscribed way. The rules are very clear on this point. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
open17 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 It's not a question of making the course designer mad, it's a question of whether or not the RM changed the course description/requirements/procedure after several people ran the stage one way, and prohibited that way for future competitors. If there were no changes made, it doesn't matter what the course designer intended--the stage was run in a certain way and that's that. But, if the RM changed the WSB to prohibit the way Matt and crew ran it, then it's a required reshoot for everyone who did it the proscribed way.The rules are very clear on this point. Troy Absolutely correct as usual Troy. I was reading Matt's original post as saying that they shot everyone yesterday allowing the shooting solution he described. THEN the RM decided it wasn't correct. The time to change things was before several squads shot it. It's not a REF or safety issue, so if they want to salvage the stage it would make more sense to just let it be, and let shooters choose their own path. I'm assuming here that the stage description was properly read "ver batim" to all the squads equally yesterday. If not, then it's just a mess, and tossing the stage may be the least painful option. Is it even permitted for the RM to stipulate that "you can't run from here to there and shoot it that way"?? This is a level III match. Assuming no safety issues, it would seem to be a violation of 1.1.5. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBurkett Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 Flex - ust 3 shooters shoot it that way?You shoot on staff day? (There was an "acting RM"?) I'm a gamey bastard, but staff day is for finding and fixing loopholes, not exploiting them. I'm not faulting you for shooting it as you did. Not at all. You gotta figure everyone gets to shoot it the same way (you don't want to miss an opportunity that later gets exploited). But, I'd always track down the RM and make him change the written stage briefing or the stage first. (sounds like you tried that) We have no idea how many shooters shot it that way. It was staff and sponsored shooter day - all counting for score - the way it has been for probably over 10 years. I DID NOT FIND THE "LOOPHOLE". It was brought to our attention and we brought it up with Gary C. I actually don't think it is a loophole anyways. How can a stage have a loophole with a Procedure that says - At signal engage all targets as they become visible? I am not upset about this situation, I was interested in the legal aspect of it due to an incident that occurred about 13 years ago in NV at the Western States Champs (might have been the Area 2 combo). A shooter had a crappy run and protested the start position on a stage. He named me specifically in the arb. I get a phone call at the hotel after the match is over that I have to drive my unhappy ass back out to the range because some idiot wanted a reshoot and they didn't want to give it to him - since I was the only specifically named competitor they forced me to do one. I don't care if I have to reshoot or not. I just want to make sure that the legal situation is being followed and that I am not being singled out. :-) Thanks for the replies! Off to the range for the reshoot and to fire form 450 pieces of brass for the new rifle. Take care, Matt 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