2007 LIMITED NATIONALS - match underway

[ima45dv8]

My point will remain, however: this sort of stage introduces subjectivity, which invites judgment calls. I much prefer the objectivity of all the other stages. It either is, or it isn't. When someone has to make judgment calls, someone's going to walk away unhappy.

I couldn't agree more.

Granted, I'm not there and have to rely on the descriptions of folks on this forum as to how messed up a couple of stages are, but that's good enough for me. The people on this forum have proven to be a very good source of information.

[moverton]

I can't find the match results on the USPSA website. Could someone post a url. Thank You.

[eerw]

I can't find the match results on the USPSA website. Could someone post a url. Thank You.

http://www.uspsa.org/members/

go to

major match results on the left nav bar

then select USPSA Limited Production Revolver Nationals

[Tengu]

My point will remain, however: this sort of stage introduces subjectivity, which invites judgment calls. I much prefer the objectivity of all the other stages. It either is, or it isn't. When someone has to make judgment calls, someone's going to walk away unhappy.

I couldn't agree more.

Granted, I'm not there and have to rely on the descriptions of folks on this forum as to how messed up a couple of stages are, but that's good enough for me. The people on this forum have proven to be a very good source of information.

+1 Obviously, without being there, it's tough to comment on a stage, but it would be a shame if any match results hinged on a subjective judgement.

[Jim Norman]

Essentially the problem has to do with the "Significant Advantage Gained" application of penalties.

What is a significant advantage? is it the same for every shooter?

I would suggest that this be visited inthe next rules assuming that it is too late now.

Faulting or other infractions should ALWAYS be per shot, unless specified in the WSB.

Jim

[Resjudicata]

Maybe I'm just being dense but I don't see where the subjectivity is. The top of the can is either above the belt or not. There doesn't seem to be any subjectivity to it.

BTW, I shoot it tomorrow. But I have shot stage 9 with the same rule and was able to handle it.

Chris

[Flexmoney]

Perhaps we should take that discussion to it's own thread?

[jimbob_texas]

Maybe I'm just being dense but I don't see where the subjectivity is. The top of the can is either above the belt or not. There doesn't seem to be any subjectivity to it.

BTW, I shoot it tomorrow. But I have shot stage 9 with the same rule and was able to handle it.

Chris

I witnessed it first-hand today on the OTHER ammo-can/"luggage" stage (9). Someone on our squad shot with the top of the ammo can just below his belt as I observed it, but the RO saw it a different way. 4 procedurals.

Subjectivity is defined by things such as your perspective, and I mean that literally. Where I was sitting, it looked fine. The RO was in standing next to the shooter, and called what HE saw. Who was right? Several people had differing opinions, but the RO's call is the only one that matters. 4 procedurals.

Objectivity, on the other hand, is empirical and easily quantified. It is, or it isn't, regardless of your perspective.

Incidentally, I managed to shoot stage 9 just fine, but I'll tell you this: I didn't enjoy having to focus so much of my energy on keeping my strong arm so straight that I got a muscle cramp from it...

jr

Edited September 12, 2007 by jimbob_texas

[GeneralChang]

I zeroed stage 18 and was going to arbitrate the significant advantage issue and I was advised that Phil Strader had an arbitration pending. I spoke with Troy about it and he told me Phil's arb was denied and that other arbs were refused on the issue. He didn't share any other info. I'm still confused on how they decided that it was a significant advantage to hold the ammo can a few inches above your beltline.

I'm not happy about the results considering the substantial investment of time and money...

Edited September 12, 2007 by GeneralChang

[Loves2Shoot]

Sounds like stage 17 of the Open L10 nats (buzzer and light that you couldn't see or hear while shooting.) I made sure to follow the stage procedure on 9 and 18 but I had to "think" about what I was doing because I didn't want to make the same mistake at this Nats.

Taking extra time to make sure the can was where it should be was something to think about, but I won't try to argue that it was good or bad or an advantage or not.

[Godzilla]

So has anyone taken notice of that 6" slide atop TJ's gun other than TGO? Do I see a new trend in the coming limited season.

6" slides in Limited have been around for years. It's a trend alright. I blame the evil temptations of Benny Hill for this situation

Exept in this case, it is not Benny - Al Zitta of ZM Weapons crafted TJ's 6" slide....it is about a week old.....

I do know that Todd has a six inch Ultimatch (LU40CNM0 - Bull Barrel) from Schuemann in that new gun! Benny normally uses the LC40CNM0 or six inch bushing barrels in his guns.

Edited September 12, 2007 by browndog

[HoMiE]

So has anyone taken notice of that 6" slide atop TJ's gun other than TGO? Do I see a new trend in the coming limited season.

6" slides in Limited have been around for years. It's a trend alright. I blame the evil temptations of Benny Hill for this situation

Exept in this case, it is not Benny - Al Zitta of ZM Weapons crafted TJ's 6" slide....it is about a week old.....

I do know that Todd has a six inch Ultimatch (LU40CNM0 - Bull Barrel) from Schuemann in that new gun! Benny normally uses the LC40CNM0 or six inch bushing barrels in his guns.

Don't know if it's a Schuemann or not, but it has a bushing, not bull barrel.

[vrmn1]

Todays scores are up.

[sidnal]

I zeroed stage 18 and was going to arbitrate the significant advantage issue and I was advised that Phil Strader had an arbitration pending. I spoke with Troy about it and he told me Phil's arb was denied and that other arbs were refused on the issue. He didn't share any other info. I'm still confused on how they decided that it was a significant advantage to hold the ammo can a few inches above your beltline.

I'm not happy about the results considering the substantial investment of time and money...

Any stage that is subjet to so much criticism should be thrown out.

It's way too subjective if an RO needs to decide if a prop is held an inch too high.

They need to TOSS THE STAGE!!!

[JThompson]

I zeroed stage 18 and was going to arbitrate the significant advantage issue and I was advised that Phil Strader had an arbitration pending. I spoke with Troy about it and he told me Phil's arb was denied and that other arbs were refused on the issue. He didn't share any other info. I'm still confused on how they decided that it was a significant advantage to hold the ammo can a few inches above your beltline.

I'm not happy about the results considering the substantial investment of time and money...

Any stage that is subjet to so much criticism should be thrown out.

It's way too subjective if an RO needs to decide if a prop is held an inch too high.

They need to TOSS THE STAGE!!!

I'm just wondering who's watching the gun with all this attention on the ammo can. Is the guy on the clipboard watching the can and the RO watching the gun? Didn't se that 180, but made damn sure that ammo can didn't go above the waist.

Edited September 12, 2007 by JThompson

[Scott R]

What happened to the freestyle element that rule 1.1.5 requires? I understand that the WSB can dictate a particular start position, but it would appear to me that the requirement to hold your arm a certain way should not be allowed as it clearly goes against solving a challenge in a freestyle manner.

1.1.5 Freestyle – IPSC matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted

to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and

to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire

must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position

or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions

may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be

constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions or

stances.

[sidnal]

I zeroed stage 18 and was going to arbitrate the significant advantage issue and I was advised that Phil Strader had an arbitration pending. I spoke with Troy about it and he told me Phil's arb was denied and that other arbs were refused on the issue. He didn't share any other info. I'm still confused on how they decided that it was a significant advantage to hold the ammo can a few inches above your beltline.

I'm not happy about the results considering the substantial investment of time and money...

Any stage that is subjet to so much criticism should be thrown out.

It's way too subjective if an RO needs to decide if a prop is held an inch too high.

They need to TOSS THE STAGE!!!

I'm just wondering who's watching the gun with all this attention on the ammo can. Is the guy on the clipboard watching the can and the RO watching the gun? Didn't se that 180, but made damn sure that ammo can didn't go above the waist.

+1 on that!!!

[GeneralChang]

Ok, so does anyone know what Phil Strader argued on his arbitration?

[SmittyFL]

Why all the whining? The can is either above or below the belt; pretty straight forward. The stage is gay I agree but it is what it is. I would think it has more to do with how you performed on the stage rather than the instructions of the stage. You either followed the procedure or you didn't. Pretty simple. Should it affect a national championship? Probably not, but all you had to do was follow the procedure.

Edited September 12, 2007 by SmittyFL

[Flexmoney]

TT is either 1st or 2nd on 8 of the stages so far. TGO's best stage is a 3rd.

That is a bit of a flip-flop from a few Nationals ago.

10pts seperate them...with Tilley and Manny within 20pts of the lead.

Should be an exciting 3 stages !!!

[JThompson]

TT is either 1st or 2nd on 8 of the stages so far. TGO's best stage is a 3rd.

That is a bit of a flip-flop from a few Nationals ago.

10pts seperate them...with Tilley and Manny within 20pts of the lead.

Should be an exciting 3 stages !!!

Wish I was there to see it.

[Tengu]

Phil would be right there in the hunt right now if it wasn't for his 0 on Stage 18 (TGO 38 match points on that stage, Phil 0- only 44 points overall separate them after yesterday). I think that makes my earlier point that it would be a shame if the final match results were decided by a "subjective" call. And it certainly calls into question the safety of a stage if so much attention has to be focused on the positioning of a prop rather than the competitor's handling of his or her pistol. Who exactly is watching what, and are they doing it from the same position each time so angle and perspective don't influence apparent hand position? Have the same RO and scorekeeper run every shooter through that stage?

[Jack Suber]

Ok, so does anyone know what Phil Strader argued on his arbitration?

Apparently Phil was hit with 8 procedurals. He was arguing whether or not 8 procedurals (one for each shot fired with the ammo can at his belt) were warranted since no significant advantage was gained by having the ammo can at his belt and not 2 or 3 inches lower. He was arguing that it was not like he was stepping over a fault line to gain an advantage and therefore should only receive 1 procedural.

Someone mentioned throwing the stage out. I think that would result in throwing both of these stages out. We had a guy on our squad do the same thing on stage 9 and he got 4 procedurals. I know it happened to several others. So, throwing it out might affect two stages.

[Scott R]

Ok, so does anyone know what Phil Strader argued on his arbitration?

Apparently Phil was hit with 8 procedurals. He was arguing whether or not 8 procedurals (one for each shot fired with the ammo can at his belt) were warranted since no significant advantage was gained by having the ammo can at his belt and not 2 or 3 inches lower. He was arguing that it was not like he was stepping over a fault line to gain an advantage and therefore should only receive 1 procedural.

Someone mentioned throwing the stage out. I think that would result in throwing both of these stages out. We had a guy on our squad do the same thing on stage 9 and he got 4 procedurals. I know it happened to several others. So, throwing it out might affect two stages.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to arbitrate based on the fact that the stage does not present a challenge and then allow you to solve it in a freestyle manner as required by 1.1.5.

[Jack Suber]

Ok, so does anyone know what Phil Strader argued on his arbitration?

Apparently Phil was hit with 8 procedurals. He was arguing whether or not 8 procedurals (one for each shot fired with the ammo can at his belt) were warranted since no significant advantage was gained by having the ammo can at his belt and not 2 or 3 inches lower. He was arguing that it was not like he was stepping over a fault line to gain an advantage and therefore should only receive 1 procedural.

Someone mentioned throwing the stage out. I think that would result in throwing both of these stages out. We had a guy on our squad do the same thing on stage 9 and he got 4 procedurals. I know it happened to several others. So, throwing it out might affect two stages.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to arbitrate based on the fact that the stage does not present a challenge and then allow you to solve it in a freestyle manner as required by 1.1.5.

I am not sure exactly which rule he chose to use in his arbitration, but he was focusing on the number of procedurals. He agrees that he did not follow the course description. But he does not agree on a per shot penalty.