2007 Production/Revo/Limited Nats

[Catfish]

yep - I watched a couple of the big boys go through this stage as it's written, engaged the first two targets WHO, ran downrange, dumped the suitcase and finished.

However, if you do not hold the case with your wrist below your belt for the entire time you carry the suitcase (ammo can), there were some procedurals handed out (4) for engaging the first two targets with the strong hand's wrist above the belt.

They were wrangling what to do about it for a while and we had to move on to get ready and shoot this afternoon. Heard the shooters in question were given reshoots....

[Jake Di Vita]

I hear that ruling is also being arbitrated as we speak.

[XRe]

They are apparently being rather.... strict ... on Stage 18 and the definition of "normal luggage carry", as well.... I'm awaiting some details, but....

[Jake Di Vita]

If "normal luggage carry" is how they specified it in the stage briefing I don't know how that can be enforced.

[Flexmoney]

Arb won, I understand.

[Jake Di Vita]

Good news. I think it was righteously done.

[XRe]

Arb won, meaning what? What was the arbitration against??

By that, I mean - were the rulings on whether the ammo can was in a position to cause a procedural arbitrated, or the ruling that allowed one or more shooters to reshoot arbitrated? Or something else?

Edited September 10, 2007 by XRe

[ChuckS]

What was it that folks were doing to earn the proceedural?

[Steve Moneypenny]

Well I am the one who arbed the stage and I did get a reshoot on it not sure what else is going to happen but they first tried to make everyone RUN with their elbow locked at which point robbie letham and mike seeklander picked up like 3 or 4 procedurals and both reshot the stage later on i'm not sure why. i picked up 3 for having the brief case up off the table and kind of pulled into my fat at my belly ( brief case is really an ammo can. It was a crappy stage a lot of other crap happened and thanks to forum admin here ( flexmoney) i'm pretty sure he saved my ass on this one, i guess i need to memorize the rule book better.

so after 2nd stage vogel has a pretty good lead in production picking up approx 30 match points on dave on stage one. max did ok but had some deltas on the first stage but was very quick. stage was kind of a low round count with a big sprint.

It's a trip shooting on the super squad I'm very honored to be with such great shooters. I"ve met a few forum members there nice meeting y'all. Back to my beer i gotta shoot in the morning!

[XRe]

Steve - can you offer any details on the arb? What, exactly, did you arbitrate about the call? Just curious, at this point...

It would be entertaining to know how the other reshoots happened, as well.... (and might help quell any accusations of the super squad being treated differently than anyone else, too...)...

[JThompson]

I can't see how they could require you to keep the elbow locked unless specifically stated. If we are talking about normal carry of a case then fine... when you run or even walk fast with a bag/case you always bend the elbow and tuck it up to keep the momentum and swing to a minimum... so for me, that is the "normal" carry position if moving fast. IMHO it's a cluster of a stage design for that part alone. Everyone that got dinged for that should just have the procedurals dropped.

[Flexmoney]

I can't see how they could require you to keep the elbow locked unless specifically stated.

I believe that is the basis for the arb that was won by one shooter.

Instead of dropping the procedurals, they are giving a reshoot. If that is the case, they must have reworded the stage procedure...thus, requiring the reshoot.

[XRe]

I wonder how long it'll be before someone arbs stage 18, then?

[markm]

So everyone who got procedurals gets to re shoot?? Where do there hands have to be now? Seems that if your hands can now be any where, any one who wants a re shoot should get one. The people who followed the written course description were the ones who got dinged worse by following directions.

M2

[driver8M3]

they ended up modifying the stage briefing by demonstrating how to carry the can to avoid procedurals. if the top of the ammo can was higher than the top of your belt, you got a procedural for every shot fired while the ammo can was too high.

[Steve Moneypenny]

Well i know Lawman here didn't get a reshoot. and he got a procedural. I feel that both of those stages were very subjective and very unfair. That type of judgment call is made OTHER places, not in our sport. rules should be cut and dry.

My reshoot sucked i had some kind of goofy malfunction. i don't know what. all my ammo is factory.. i will write it off to a reshoot god's being spiteful.

The exact grounds were that it was not in the WRITTEN stage briefing and that it was UNCLEAR how they could call penalties

Robbie and Seeklander got theirs because they changed it from having to keep your arm locked all the time. I t wasn't the RO's fault on the stages they were just overboard as long as it was carried by the handle who really cares? but they were given what they were.

It was a good match and i shot it very poorly i only had a few good stages. Guess i'm going to have to practice a ton this winter. Good seeing you all. now just waiting until the world shoot qualifier

[mactiger]

Steve arbitrated Stage 9, asking for a reshoot and for clarification of the meaning of "normal luggage carry fashion". The arb committee upheld Steve's arbitration, the WSB was amended accordingly and approved by the arb committee chair, Chris Edwards, and we proceeded from there. The decision was that there should be a clear line for where you earned a penalty or not, and that was determined to be top of can below top of belt. Nobody got any reshoots from the arbitration other than Steve. Some people (from only one squad) did get reshoots because of an "ad lib" by the CRO in response to a question about running with the can. The gist was that the can had to be below the top of your belt while shooting only--you could run with it in any way you wanted. Because of the confusion and some people thinking they were forced to run with the can below the belt, they were given reshoots. Of course, on the reshoot, any penalties they earned in the original run were avoided.

Stage 18, with 9 lumped in, was arbitrated later in the match (number of penalties, advantage gained, inconsistencies, throw the stage out, etc.), with that arb being denied, and a second, almost simultaneous arb being refused because it matched the one they'd just denied.

Troy

Edited September 14, 2007 by mactiger

[mlmiller1]

I can't understand how the WSB could be misunderstood but I suppose it could happen. Personally I thought both stages with the cans were good stages. It was a definite distraction from what we normally have to deal with & I believe that makes it a positive challenge. It is at least as valid of a challenge as a cooper tunnel or really low ports. It was equally fair to all shape & sizes of shooters unlike some of the other challenges. Many of the stages had parameters that needed to be followed. Freestyle shooting was allowed, within the parameters of the stage descriptions. If there were no parameters, why have a WSB at all? Why not just say, "here is the shooting area, shoot the targets".

I can't understand what is different about having to carry something in a prescribed manner from saying you have to start with your back against the chair back or you have to activate the mover before shooting it or any of the other challenges presented in the stages.

The first squad that shot #9 had no problem understanding the WSB as described by the R.O. so I wonder why the second squad had so much trouble? It wasn't that hard. Besides, after one shooter got a bunch of procedurals, why did others in the same squad make the same mistake?

Our squad shot 18 first & we didn't have any problems understanding how you should carry the box to comply with the WSB. It would have been an advantage to carry the can all tucked up under your armpit so I believe the procedurals were earned & deserved. It is unfortunate, in my mind, that certain folks were allowed the option of reshoots. It changed the outcome dramatically. The only way I could see reshoots as a legitimate decision is if the R.O. made up answers to questions instead of referring to the WSB. Needing to define the limit of what is normal carry only occured when people took liberties with the original wording. That is where the real problem came into play. If people had just carried the box hanging down in "normal luggage carry fashion" & shot, then there wouldn't have been procedurals for the hard to define "belt line". Just carry the box like you should & shoot.

This is all just my opinion so obviously it can be ignored. Flame on!

MLM

[pjb45]

When our squad shot stage 9, various members asked for explanations. Almost all responses from the RO was a reiteration of the stage description. Which provided no further guidance. Yet when a shooter did receive a procedural, the RO asked him at the end if he understood why he got the procedural. The shooter replied no. The RO failed to provide an explanation as to why the procedural was given. The shooter accepted the procedural without agrument but left baffled.

On stage 18 the crew did a superior job of an explanation as to why and how a procedural was given. If the middle of the top of the can was above the belt a procedural was given, not either end of the can. For someone like me, using a normal luggage carry, my hand is at an angle, thus the back of the can was above the belt, the middle of the can was just below the belt and the front of the can was way below the belt--no procedural!.. Additionally I travel probably more than an anyone else in the match---almost every week. So I used a normal luggage carrying grip!

It was unfortunate that the stage crew on 9 were not as forthcoming as 18. But then again, I personally like the fact that there is variability in the crews.

Think about it---300 shooters firing about 350 rounds is over 100,000 rounds that the ROs must supervise. That is one heck of a job. 10 mistakes in 105,000 rounds over 4 days is an excellent quality indicator.

[davidball]

When our squad shot stage 9, various members asked for explanations. Almost all responses from the RO was a reiteration of the stage description.

We had the same experience. A member of our squad asked for confirmation that it was OK to carry the box above the belt while NOT shooting, without penalty. The RO re-read the section of the WSB that said "one procedural penalty would be assessed for each shot fired while holding the box above the belt." Now, technically, that answered the question. But how hard would it have been to simpley say "yes"? Why the caginess?

If an RO is not going to answer the question, why ask if there are any questions?

In contrast, all of our questions were answered in a forthright fashion on Stage 18.

[Nik Habicht]

Range lawyer would say: "Sorry, you haven't answered our question clearly. Please provide clarification in other words, or call the RM...."

[Brazos SC Shooter]

When our squad shot stage 9, various members asked for explanations. Almost all responses from the RO was a reiteration of the stage description.

We had the same experience. A member of our squad asked for confirmation that it was OK to carry the box above the belt while NOT shooting, without penalty. The RO re-read the section of the WSB that said "one procedural penalty would be assessed for each shot fired while holding the box above the belt." Now, technically, that answered the question. But how hard would it have been to simpley say "yes"? Why the caginess?

If an RO is not going to answer the question, why ask if there are any questions?

In contrast, all of our questions were answered in a forthright fashion on Stage 18.

This was our last stage to shoot. When we were read the course description it said "while engaging targets, one procedural penalty will be assesed for each shot fire while holding the top..."

It seemed pretty straigt forward IMO. You could hold the can in any manner as long as you weren't shooting at targets. I think the ambiguity came from the "normal luggage carry fashion" which was clarified by the top of the can must be below the belt when engaging targets. When my squad shot stage 18 it had already been clarified by Steve's Arb so we received those instructions from the beginning.

[XRe]

The gist was that the can had to be below the top of your belt while shooting only--you could run with it in any way you wanted. Because of the confusion and some people thinking they were forced to run with the can below the belt, they were given reshoots. Of course, on the reshoot, any penalties they earned in the original run were avoided.

If "some people" had already shot the stage (hence, getting a "re-shoot"), and had thought that they had to have the can full extended all the time, how did they get penalties??? If they did get penalties for following their understanding of the course of fire (ie, a more stringent procedure than the real one), they'd have gotten the exact same penalties that they would have gotten had they run the stage understanding that the can only had to be below the belt line while shooting.

Frankly, I have to wonder why "some people" were not required to file an arbitration? The rulebook requires that the CRO read the WSB verbatim (which he apparently did), and then answer questions - it does not say that the questions have to be answered verbatim to any sort of FAQ or anything like that. At this point, the onus is on the competitor to understand the COF. If they interpreted an RO's response to mean one thing, and there was leeway for another, that's generally been considered to be the shooter's problem. If they'd misunderstood, and it resulted in penalties, they'd have taken issue with it right away, and called the RM over to discuss before signing their score sheet. Now they have a situation where they've shot (and received penalties - that they would have received in either their or the CROs understanding of the COF), they've signed the score sheet agreeing to those penalties, then they found out that there was a loophole that they could try to exploit (for instance, perhaps someone else shot, and didn't get penalties for having the can above the belt while not shooting - or Steve's arb occurred), and they took it to an RM - who granted reshoots to them. This should have been arbitrated, instead - once the sheet is signed, its signed. Even if its determined they'd get a reshoot anyway, the arbitration committee (which is made up of shooters in the match) should have seen the case.

Who was the RM that made that decision?

I had been under the impression that "some people" were asked/allowed/forced to reshoot following Steve's arb, due to the change in the WSB. That would have been expected and understandable. Apparently, that was not the case.

Then I have to ask.... was TT one of the folks given that reshoot or not?

[XRe]

But how hard would it have been to simpley say "yes"? Why the caginess?

That's always bugged me, too... Its simply because people do asshat manuevers to them through asking questions... as apparently witnessed at this match....

[mactiger]

The gist was that the can had to be below the top of your belt while shooting only--you could run with it in any way you wanted. Because of the confusion and some people thinking they were forced to run with the can below the belt, they were given reshoots. Of course, on the reshoot, any penalties they earned in the original run were avoided.

If "some people" had already shot the stage (hence, getting a "re-shoot"), and had thought that they had to have the can full extended all the time, how did they get penalties??? If they did get penalties for following their understanding of the course of fire (ie, a more stringent procedure than the real one), they'd have gotten the exact same penalties that they would have gotten had they run the stage understanding that the can only had to be below the belt line while shooting.

Frankly, I have to wonder why "some people" were not required to file an arbitration? The rulebook requires that the CRO read the WSB verbatim (which he apparently did), and then answer questions - it does not say that the questions have to be answered verbatim to any sort of FAQ or anything like that. At this point, the onus is on the competitor to understand the COF. If they interpreted an RO's response to mean one thing, and there was leeway for another, that's generally been considered to be the shooter's problem. If they'd misunderstood, and it resulted in penalties, they'd have taken issue with it right away, and called the RM over to discuss before signing their score sheet. Now they have a situation where they've shot (and received penalties - that they would have received in either their or the CROs understanding of the COF), they've signed the score sheet agreeing to those penalties, then they found out that there was a loophole that they could try to exploit (for instance, perhaps someone else shot, and didn't get penalties for having the can above the belt while not shooting - or Steve's arb occurred), and they took it to an RM - who granted reshoots to them. This should have been arbitrated, instead - once the sheet is signed, its signed. Even if its determined they'd get a reshoot anyway, the arbitration committee (which is made up of shooters in the match) should have seen the case.

Who was the RM that made that decision?

I had been under the impression that "some people" were asked/allowed/forced to reshoot following Steve's arb, due to the change in the WSB. That would have been expected and understandable. Apparently, that was not the case.

Then I have to ask.... was TT one of the folks given that reshoot or not?

I'll explain this one more time, and then I'm done.

First: nobody got any reshoots from Steve Moneypenny's arbitration, except Steve. That's what he asked for and what he got, along with written clarification of where the can had to be to receive penalties while shooting. The position of the can was being demonstrated all along by the RO's on the stages, but the arb. comm. decided it should be spelled out in the WSB.

Second: 4 reshoots resulted from the CRO's answering a question incorrectly and penalizing competitors according to his mistaken belief that the can had to be held a certain way while running and not shooting. The RM was John Amidon. It was his decision to offer a reshoot to anybody who was told they had to, and did hold, the can with a locked arm (below the belt), while running. The CRO made an honest mistake; the RM corrected it, done deal. It was my understanding that only one competitor got a penalty for that and questioned it, to the RM. That's when the error was noted and the reshoot offered. It happened to be the Limited Super Squad, since they were the second squad of the day there, and obviously the first to ask the question and earn penalties for running with the can above their belt. Three more chose to avail themselves of the offered reshoot, since they conformed to the mistaken instruction to "hold the can below the belt while running".

Third: to summarize, neither stage 9 nor stage 18 required the competitor to hold the can in any specific fashion while they were moving, only while they were shooting. The mistake on stage 9 occurred on only one squad, and the RM fixed it by offering a reshoot to anybody who was either penalized or affected by receiving the wrong instructions. It was not arbitrated, nor was an arbitration called for in this case. 4 people took the reshoot. I can't say if the whole squad had shot yet or not, but I don't believe they did, so the rest of the squad weren't affected by the error. Some of the people who took the reshoot may have earned penalties while shooting with the box held too high on their first run; I assume that on the reshoot they didn't make the same mistake.

The procedural penalties for not having the can below the belt while shooting (the "bright, clear line" the arb committee wanted), were also later arbitrated, and that arbitration was denied in it's entirety.

I don't know who those people were, to be honest--I was working the other set of bays.

Answering questions by repeating the WSB may have been the most prudent thing to do, in this case. I can't speak for the CRO on that one.

Any time a course designer attempts to force a competitor into a situation with a prop, it can cause problems, as witnessed here. The idea was to force some weak-and strong-hand shooting in a more or less freestyle course (not a standards, in other words), so there had to be a point where the hand carrying the ammo can was restricted. "Normal luggage carry fashion" seems pretty clear to me, (and I don't want to hear that you normally carry your briefcase/backpack/suitcase held out in front of you with your arms extended while rushing through the airport ), but it obviously wasn't to some. It seems that any challenge other than running through and shooting at a bunch of wide-open targets is drawing complaints from the "it ain't freestyle" crowd. The rule book allows for restrictions to be built, which compel the competitor to do certain things--a fault line restricting your movement to a certain area is the simplest example of this. That's what was done here, plain and simple. If we'd made it a standards, just as many people would have bitched about it not being a "fun" stage. What the heck--you try new things, sometimes you have problems.

I hope this clears things up, but I gave up believing in Santa Claus a long time ago...

Troy

Edited September 16, 2007 by mactiger