2007 Production/Revo/Limited Nats

[XRe]

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.

That part is definitely clear - and I think the arb committee made the right decision in regards to requiring alteration of 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.

Now that is something entirely different than what has been said before. This is the first I had heard that the CRO was improperly assessing penalties. I just went back and reread your previous post to be sure that I hadn't misunderstood. If the CRO is mistakenly assigning penalties when they shouldn't be, offering reshoots is the proper course of action, no doubt.

The way you had noted this previously suggested that the CRO was only assessing the correct penalties (ie, the reshoots were granted in response to the CRO's "ad lib" while answering a question) - that's a far different thing that mis-assessing penalties.

It happened to be the Limited Super Squad

Just to be clear, I specifically did not mention the squad nor the folks on it (except to wonder if TT had taken that reshoot or not, at the end...). I don't think it should matter who it was... and I didn't want to get into the "Super Squad gets special treatment" crap. It doesn't sound like that was the case here, to me.

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.

From your description above, if the CRO was assessing penalties for not having the can below the belt at all times, they could have received penalties at any time, and not just while shooting. Could they have only received them while shooting, and took the reshoot to game? Maybe. But, if the CRO was calling penalties willy-nilly, even the shooter may not have known when he was assessed them. I wouldn't even go there...

"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.

Well... have you ever had to run through the airport carrying a briefcase? How'd you carry it? I've done it several times, and each time, I ended up with my carry arm bent and the case tucked against my upper body. I can guarantee that I didn't run with my arm locked out straight down... The top of the case certainly wasn't below my belt. When I read "normal luggage carry fashion", I interpreted that to mean that I had to have the carrying hand around the handle of the case (ie, I couldn't pick the case up and carry it under my arm, or just carry it with two fingers in the handle while gripping the gun, or whatever). I'd have never gotten "arm must be locked" out of that description....

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 think you're kind of missing the point that the "it ain't freestyle" (as you put it) crowd has been making (and, I don't see the folks complaining about these stages as the folks complaining about rules changes and such that make things less freestyle, though there's some overlap).

The chief complaint I've seen here is around "significant advantage", and the fact that one could zero these stages for carrying the can 1/2" too high, but gain no actual advantage on the stage (ie, you're complying with the intent of the stage, which is to force you to shoot WHO or SHO without any support from the hand carrying the object). Some people (those who can't shoot WHO or SHO) may bitch about having to shoot with only one hand - too bad.

The Florida Open had a stage this past year where you were required to carry a "briefcase" in the weak hand while shooting - it worked out quite well (you also needed the case to activate a prop at the end of the stage). Penalties were stipulated per shot fired at certain targets without the case in the weak hand. The case was heavy enough that you could not use it to support the gun. They didn't run into the issues that were seen at the Nationals this year - of course, they didn't try to restrict what height the case could be carried at, either. There are other ways to skin the cat and achieve the same effect w/o getting into relatively arbitrary language and penalty application....

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

[mactiger]

Now that is something entirely different than what has been said before. This is the first I had heard that the CRO was improperly assessing penalties. I just went back and reread your previous post to be sure that I hadn't misunderstood. If the CRO is mistakenly assigning penalties when they shouldn't be, offering reshoots is the proper course of action, no doubt.

The way you had noted this previously suggested that the CRO was only assessing the correct penalties (ie, the reshoots were granted in response to the CRO's "ad lib" while answering a question) - that's a far different thing that mis-assessing penalties.

Here's what I said earlier:

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.

(Italics and highlights are mine.)

Which is, I think, pretty close to the same thing I just posted. The CRO did, in fact, mis-assess penalties due to his misunderstanding of the course requirements, but to be fair, I'll say again: it was an honest mistake, and easily corrected. And, Steve Moneypenny had already identified who got reshoots, so it's a moot point.

While I agree with your method of carrying something while running, there had to be a clear line somewhere--one person's method of "normal luggage carry" is not another's, obviously. We attempted to have uniformity and consistency by making a "bright, clear line" for when penalties were assessed. We had a similar situation at a nationals a few years back, where "lying on the bed" turned into "sort of leaning back on the headboard, but mostly sitting up on the bed" in response to a question, and a wrong answer from the CRO.

We thought about weighting the can, but at what point is it too heavy for a female shooter to deal with, versus my or your ability to carry it outstretched and use it to support my weak hand? With only one procedural instead of a per-shot penalty, the advantage of shooting with both hands outweighs the single procedural for many--there must be a clear line somewhere. That line was enforced very consistently throughout the match, and two arbitration committees did not see the problem with it.

Anyway, that's the end of my tale.

Troy

[mlmiller1]

Troy,

Thanks for trying to explain it. I understand what you are saying.

MLM

[JThompson]

Just a couple of more thoughts on this...

My first is that if the CRO had trouble understanding the written it should be obvious that it wasn't as clear as it could have been.

The second thought is where it was said, "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," This says to me that there was at least one other squad who shot this stage with the misinterpretation... was that squad offered reshoots, or was it, "you signed your sheet that's it" Did they even know that the CROs interp was wrong? Were there squads on previous days that had to shoot the COF with the flawed interp? If so... should the stage have been used?

My last thought is that a line of demarcation is a poor choice for accessing a penalty... Why not just say, "When engaging targets the case must be held in strong/weak hand and may not be used to steady strong/weak hand when shooting. If X hand or case is used to brace Y then a 1 shot per will be accessed." Simple and to the point... it gets the strong or weak hand to hold the prop and the case hand can not be used to brace or steady... that accomplishes the intent of the designer and doesn't have an arbitrary feel or infringe on a shooters stance other than to make him/her WHO or SHO.

I'd like to thank Troy for jumping into the shit storm to help us understand what/how things were done and dispel and rumors. We know what you do isn't easy buddy... and also that no matter what you say some people won't be happy. This is a case imho where a lot of BS could have been easily avoided with some minor changes in the written without compromising the intent of the course designer.

Thank for putting up with the Monday morning crew.

JT

Edited September 17, 2007 by JThompson

[mlmiller1]

The lim. super squad shot it as their second stage. No, the other squad wasn't offered reshoots. I don't know why other than maybe it was just too much trouble. ???????? I'm sure there was a better reason than that! There had to be.

MLM

Edited September 17, 2007 by mlmiller1

[driver8M3]

the limited SS (squad 8) started at 1pm.

Edited September 17, 2007 by driver8M3

[T_T]

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

I did not reshoot the stage.

It was my opinion that the staff and stage brief made it clear as to the intended procedure. Although I was not completely happy with my run, I didn’t feel comfortable accepting a reshoot.

Travis Tomasie

[JThompson]

the limited SS (squad 8) started at 1pm.

Troy said that one squad shot it before them that day... I guess my feeling is it either should have been corrected/changed before anyone shot it or everyone would have had the option, including the squad before, to shoot it over or throw it out. You can't change have one WSB for one squad and another WSB for the rest. Was squad 8 given the option for a reshoot as well?

Edited September 17, 2007 by JThompson

[driver8M3]

squad 8 started on stage 8...squad 9 started on stage 9, so they were the squad that shot it ahead of the SS.

Edited September 17, 2007 by driver8M3

[JThompson]

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

I did not reshoot the stage.

It was my opinion that the staff and stage brief made it clear as to the intended procedure. Although I was not completely happy with my run, I didn’t feel comfortable accepting a reshoot.

Travis Tomasie

Thanks for that Travis... it shows character.

[BSeevers]

Geeze I just shot it.

PS Not trying to cause trouble but that's how I approach every challenge. Just do it and get to shooting. Now if the RO was unclear or a stage is unsafe/illegal thats a different issue

Edited September 17, 2007 by BSeevers

[mactiger]

The problem only arose with squad 8, which was the second squad of the day. They asked the question and were given the wrong answer. AFAIK, the first squad was not penalized for running with the can held too high, hence no need for reshoots.

The rest I've already explained.

As for changing the WSB, the rules allow it--see 2.3.1 and 3.2.3. We added language for clarity after Mr. Moneypenny's arb, at the direction of the arbitration committee. All perfectly legal. The committee was satisfied that the stages had been run consistently after interviewing the CRO's for each stage, therefore the WSB was modified to provide more information to the competitors.

Bill Seevers said it all...

Troy

[JThompson]

The problem only arose with squad 8, which was the second squad of the day. They asked the question and were given the wrong answer. AFAIK, the first squad was not penalized for running with the can held too high, hence no need for reshoots.

The rest I've already explained.

As for changing the WSB, the rules allow it--see 2.3.1 and 3.2.3. We added language for clarity after Mr. Moneypenny's arb, at the direction of the arbitration committee. All perfectly legal. The committee was satisfied that the stages had been run consistently after interviewing the CRO's for each stage, therefore the WSB was modified to provide more information to the competitors.

Bill Seevers said it all...

Troy

It sounds to me as if it was handled well... The only remaining thought I have on this is whether the second squad, and all those after, had a advantage over the first squad who followed the CROs direction and carried the box below the waist while running. If they ran with elbow locked and all other squads weren't made to do the same, then this could be considered unfair, even if they received no penalties. My reasoning is that it's much harder to run with something with an elbow locked than it is to bend and tuck it.

Those are my final thoughts on this... Thanks for answering all the questions Troy, you've been patient and polite.

Best,

Jim

Edited September 17, 2007 by JThompson

[mactiger]

It sounds to me as if it was handled well... The only remaining thought I have on this is whether the second squad, and all those after, had a advantage over the first squad who followed the CROs direction and carried the box below the waist while running. If they ran with elbow locked and all other squads weren't made to do the same, then this could be considered unfair, even if they received no penalties. My reasoning is that it's much harder to run with something with an elbow locked than it is to bend and tuck it.

Those are my final thoughts on this... Thanks for answering all the questions Troy, you've been patient and polite.

Best,

Jim

You're welcome. I may not have been clear, though--the first squad, as far as I know, were not forced to carry the box in any particular fashion while running. I didn't see it, I just talked with the CRO and crew on the stage. It's my understanding that the problem only arose in answer to a question from a member of the second squad. I could be mistaken on that, but I know we didn't get any requests for reshoots or any reports of problems from the first squad.

Troy

[JThompson]

It sounds to me as if it was handled well... The only remaining thought I have on this is whether the second squad, and all those after, had a advantage over the first squad who followed the CROs direction and carried the box below the waist while running. If they ran with elbow locked and all other squads weren't made to do the same, then this could be considered unfair, even if they received no penalties. My reasoning is that it's much harder to run with something with an elbow locked than it is to bend and tuck it.

Those are my final thoughts on this... Thanks for answering all the questions Troy, you've been patient and polite.

Best,

Jim

You're welcome. I may not have been clear, though--the first squad, as far as I know, were not forced to carry the box in any particular fashion while running. I didn't see it, I just talked with the CRO and crew on the stage. It's my understanding that the problem only arose in answer to a question from a member of the second squad. I could be mistaken on that, but I know we didn't get any requests for reshoots or any reports of problems from the first squad.

Troy

If the first squad didn't have to carry it elbowed locked then there is nothing wrong I can see and it was handled correctly after the question was raised. That should put any lingering doubts to bed... Kudos to you for explaining it to us/me, if you had not... there could have been doubts about special treatment. It does NOT appear to me that this was the case. Everything looks to have been handled in the best possible way for all parties.

Thanks again Troy,

Jim

Edited September 17, 2007 by JThompson