2007 LIMITED NATIONALS - match underway

[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.

The fix would have been to make the cans heavier.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Jack Suber

[JFD]

The other fix would be to just use a classifier if they're so hot to see WHO in action and can't figure out a solid way to force it otherwise.

Situations like this should not be happening at our Nationals. It's a shooting competition, not a prop carrying competition.

[Alan Meek]

hmmmm, me thinks the squirrel has returned

[GENE S]

I recall the squirrel at the nationals in Quincy...........

[Tengu]

The other fix would be to just use a classifier if they're so hot to see WHO in action and can't figure out a solid way to force it otherwise.

Situations like this should not be happening at our Nationals. It's a shooting competition, not a prop carrying competition.

Exactly. It's a shame to see stages like this turning up at the Nationals. Apparently the lesson of the squirrel has been forgotten...

[gmshtr]

Thanks for everyone's support and understanding.

All that I ask is to NOT criticize the RO's and Staff. They were very clear with their descriptions. Additionally, there were plenty of Staff on the stage to ensure safety of the muzzle AND the position of the "luggage." They did a great job, and I respect their decision/call on my mistake with the "luggage."

Although I emphatically disagree with the arbitration committee's decision, I respect it as well. I am looking forward to reading the decision and justification as to how holding the can 3-4 inches higher is a "significant advantage." (10.2.2) Especially considering that any and everyone who gained this apparent "significant advantage" was no faster or more accurate.

Since this is my facility (figuratively speaking, of course), I don't want to see the stage get thrown out, and it's not feasible to re-shoot 69 people (that's right, 69 out of 320 shooters who have shot it thus far). My solution to the problem was to go through each of the 69 competitor's scoresheets to assess who recieved more than 1 proc based on what was written on the score sheet, (The RO's were smart to write the description of the offense over the penalty box) and change the number of Procedurals to 1.

Shannon is right...we/I screwed up and didn't do what the RO said...and we/I deserve to be penalized. But if the RO's instructions explicitly conflict with the rules of the sport, then what's next?

These two stages (18 & 9) should've been evaluated before the match. Was the purpose of the stage to test one's skill of shooting their pistol with one hand, or their ability to hold a prop correctly? The 2nd general principal of IPSC/USPSA stage design is to "primarily test a competitor’s IPSC shooting skills, not their physical abilities." (1.1.2) The results speak for themselves.

Respectfully,

Phil Strader

[buddy_fuentes]

Thanks to Phil for "Manning Up". He has my respect for showing sportsmanship. The course may have flaws and the officials may have seen it differently than the competitors, but as long as it is the same call for everyone, its fair.

If the course of fire would be thrown out and you would have won that stage by following the procedures, would you be upset? I think so. I feel that a procedural for each shot is excessive, however, that can be rectified without dumping the stage.

Good luck Phil.

Buddy

[Alan Meek]

Phil,

I think most of the forum participants are asking questions so to better understand how those stages are run. USPSA has top notch RO's and Match Staff, just that on the forums we are in the dark and we want to visualize as much as possible what is going on.

Kick A$$ on the last stages.

Alan

[carinab]

Shannon, I'm not so certain it is whining. I stated my displeasure with the stage before I shot it and after getting dinged. No sour grapes here. But again, what is the purpose of the stage? To force you to shoot WHO or SHO. That's accomplished by carrying the can in a hand regardless of where it is; held at the chest, belly, or knees. Belt line is a moving target based on someone's size and gender. Again, women are allowed to wear their belts lower, up to two inches below their waist. So which beltline then? But even if the stage description read "arm extended," it's still a prop carry test versus a shooting challenge IMO.

[Tengu]

Phil,

Thanks for helping to clarify the situation. We all know how hard the ROs and staff work to make a match like this possible, and they have our respect and gratitude for it. It certainly seems like the issue on the two stages in question is one of stage design rather than any failing on the part of the match staff running them. I do hope that at the end of today everyone will feel that the final match results have been decided by superior shooting skills rather than a test of prop handling on one or two stages.

Best of luck.

Ben

[tightloop]

The other fix would be to just use a classifier if they're so hot to see WHO in action and can't figure out a solid way to force it otherwise.

Situations like this should not be happening at our Nationals. It's a shooting competition, not a prop carrying competition.

Gee, didn't we have a long thread about Monkey Toss crap in matches?....

[JThompson]

Thanks for everyone's support and understanding.

All that I ask is to NOT criticize the RO's and Staff. They were very clear with their descriptions. Additionally, there were plenty of Staff on the stage to ensure safety of the muzzle AND the position of the "luggage." They did a great job, and I respect their decision/call on my mistake with the "luggage."

Although I emphatically disagree with the arbitration committee's decision, I respect it as well. I am looking forward to reading the decision and justification as to how holding the can 3-4 inches higher is a "significant advantage." (10.2.2) Especially considering that any and everyone who gained this apparent "significant advantage" was no faster or more accurate.

Since this is my facility (figuratively speaking, of course), I don't want to see the stage get thrown out, and it's not feasible to re-shoot 69 people (that's right, 69 out of 320 shooters who have shot it thus far). My solution to the problem was to go through each of the 69 competitor's scoresheets to assess who recieved more than 1 proc based on what was written on the score sheet, (The RO's were smart to write the description of the offense over the penalty box) and change the number of Procedurals to 1.

Shannon is right...we/I screwed up and didn't do what the RO said...and we/I deserve to be penalized. But if the RO's instructions explicitly conflict with the rules of the sport, then what's next?

These two stages (18 & 9) should've been evaluated before the match. Was the purpose of the stage to test one's skill of shooting their pistol with one hand, or their ability to hold a prop correctly? The 2nd general principal of IPSC/USPSA stage design is to "primarily test a competitor’s IPSC shooting skills, not their physical abilities." (1.1.2) The results speak for themselves.

Respectfully,

Phil Strader

Phil,

I'm very glad to hear that safety wasn't compromised. I wasn't dogging the match staff. I was just concerned that the focus might have shifted a little to the lower half of the body... esp after so many people were getting dinged and then voicing concerns... this would tend to draw even more attention to the prop. Given that so many people were complaining it’s natural for the staff to be pulled into giving more attention to that prop. Okay, enough about safety… if you say it was safe then that’s good enough for me.

The second problem I have is that so much attention was given to one prop that it has effectively tainted the outcome of the match. Not only do I not see any advantage of having the can above the belt, but I think it’s damn silly to design something, “dog and pony” at the nationals. Be that as it may, there should be a sanity check involved here some where. I absolutely do not agree with the Arb decision on this and I think it was just hard headed not to admit a mistake. Furthermore, I think this could have been arbed on:

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.

The compelling thing here was to make the shots with one hand… why then is there a need for further restriction? It could simply have been stated that you must shoot with right/left hand and the prop hand can not be used to steady the gun. They could have stated elbow must be “locked” when shooting,(again, I feel that is too restrictive of 1.1.5) not what was it…? “natural carry position” This is the nationals…

The problem with this type of thing is where, exactly, does one incur the penalty? Face it, it's an arbitrary thing. We aren't machines and therefore, repeatability of a measurement by "eye" is not possible. Let's get the focus off the prop and on the shooter where it should be. Compell the shooter to shoot one hand if you must, but don't force her to stand on one leg and say the ABCs while doing it.

Admit that the stage had some flaws and give everyone that accrued an above the belt penalty 1 procedural and call it a day. In my opinion limiting that “shooting position” like that is illegal anyway. Don’t take the “free” out of freestyle!

Edited September 12, 2007 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

While 1.1.5 does stipulate FREESTYLE...which is the Holy Grail of our game (IMO)...

and, while US 1.1.5.1 mandates that Level II and III matches must adhere strictly to the FREESTYLE requirements of 1.1.5...

...carrying a prop is not a shooting position or stance. It is a stipulated procedure.

The question becomes, is it a procedure that is clear and written into the WSB.

3.1 General Regulations

The competitor is always responsible to safely fulfil the requirements of a course

of fire but can only reasonably be expected to do so after receiving the written

stage briefing, which must adequately explain the requirements to the competitors.

IMO..."as demonstrated by the RO" probably doesn't meet the written and adequate requirements of 3.1

along those lines...

10.1.1 Procedural penalties are imposed when a competitor fails to comply

with procedures specified in a written stage briefing. The

Range Officer imposing the procedural penalties must clearly

record the number of penalties, and the reason why they were

imposed, on the competitor’s score sheet.

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in

the written stage briefing will incur 1 procedural penalty for each

occurrence...

I can't see how this could be anything other than just one occurrence in all of these cases.

10.2.2 continued...However, if a competitor has gained a significant

advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be

assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single

penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required

position or stance).

Well...we should have established that this isn't firing multiple shots in an illegal position or stance...which would be a stage design violation of 1.1.5's Freestyle...(granted, that was just an e.g. line in the rule)

We get down to the nitty-gritty of significant advantage.

And, the word that I feel is being glossed over is "significant". I can't see calling multiple procedurals...unless that is clearly spelled out as the penalty to be applied for each shot in the WRITTEN stage briefing.

If that isn't in the WSB, then it's really questionable on it being an advantage...let alone significant.

[XRe]

If that isn't in the WSB, then it's really questionable on it being an advantage...let alone significant.

Playing devil's advocate.... (cause I agree with the silliness of these penalties), holding the weight with a bent arm allows you to stay in better balance, preventing the ammo can from acting as much as a counter balance. In terms of movement at the sights, that's an advantage. Taken to the extreme, one could anchor the can to the chest, or something (obviously violating the intended position, but...). The further you get from having your arm locked out, the less of an effect the can has, other than to keep you from using the hand carrying the can to shoot....

[markm]

Did Seeklander and TGO get reshoots?

[Flexmoney]

If that isn't in the WSB, then it's really questionable on it being an advantage...let alone significant.

Playing devil's advocate.... (cause I agree with the silliness of these penalties), holding the weight with a bent arm allows you to stay in better balance, preventing the ammo can from acting as much as a counter balance. In terms of movement at the sights, that's an advantage. Taken to the extreme, one could anchor the can to the chest, or something (obviously violating the intended position, but...). The further you get from having your arm locked out, the less of an effect the can has, other than to keep you from using the hand carrying the can to shoot....

Says you.

I could put you onto a guy on another forum...who probably does more one-handed work than any of us...that doesn't believe in anchoring to the chest while moving.

Right or wrong. The point is that we are debating advantage.

The onus should be on the RO to be able to clearly call significantt advantage, I think ?

[XRe]

Says you.

Actually... says Physics....

I could put you onto a guy on another forum...who probably does more one-handed work than any of us...that doesn't believe in anchoring to the chest while moving.

I could see avoiding it while moving - but once you throw strange weight in that offhand, the pendulum effect becomes more pronounced, and disrupts the ability of the off hand to act as a stabilizer (which would be the primary reason to not anchor while moving)....

Right or wrong. The point is that we are debating advantage.

Exactly. Like I said... I think the whole thing is rather silly - the can being just above vs. just below the belt is no advantage at all, either way you slice it. The can being locked out at extension vs. anchored in tight to the body... I could see that being a small advantage, but not anything that I'd call significant. Somehow totally contravening the carry method, allowing you to use both hands on the gun - that's significant.

The onus should be on the RO to be able to clearly call significantt advantage, I think ?

I'd go back a step further, even.... The course designer (or, in the case of Nationals, the people writing the WSB and tuning the stage) should be the one defining very clearly what will be considered significant advantage (and possibly why), such that the RO can do his/her job without having to make arbitrary decisions....

In this case... Kelly is still relatively new to these big matches, so maybe I'd cut him a small break... But the RMs on site should know better, I'd think... sorry, Troy

[Flexmoney]

Did Seeklander and TGO get reshoots?

My understanding (I'm not there) is that, on Stage 9, they were pumping their arm a bit as they moved. RO called them for not having a straight arm.

That was clarified, they reshoot.

Moneypenny then got dinged for 3. He arb'ed. I am not sure of the details of how that came out, but he won. I am thinking the staff likely went with "as demonstrated" in the WSB (after TGO and Seeker), as opposed to clearly writing a specific procedure into the WSB. (though he may have won on other grounds)

I would guess, after all that, that both Stages 9 & 18 were (then) written up to specify that the can had to remain below the belt level. ?

(I know who the CRO and RM was on Stage 9. Both are great. They are the guys I'd want trying to sort this out.)

^^^ All of that may be wrong. I'm sitting in Ohio typing on a keyboard.

[Bigbadaboom]

While 1.1.5 does stipulate FREESTYLE...which is the Holy Grail of our game (IMO)...

and, while US 1.1.5.1 mandates that Level II and III matches must adhere strictly to the FREESTYLE requirements of 1.1.5...

...carrying a prop is not a shooting position or stance. It is a stipulated procedure.

The question becomes, is it a procedure that is clear and written into the WSB.

....but telling someone 'HOW' to carry that prop is dictating a shooting stance.

I believe the stage is illegal.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Bigbadaboom

[Flexmoney]

Nah, it is a procedure. Just like saying "open the door with your strong hand".

Is it the right procedure? I don't think so. Not from my keyboard, anyway.

[Alan Meek]

Looks like a way to impose FTDR. (Did I just say that)

[XRe]

All right, somebody spill it! Who won??? (match should be over, at this point....)

[Bigbadaboom]

Nah, it is a procedure. Just like saying "open the door with your strong hand".

Is it the right procedure? I don't think so. Not from my keyboard, anyway.

I've replied here as you asked us to do earlier.

[JThompson]

While 1.1.5 does stipulate FREESTYLE...which is the Holy Grail of our game (IMO)...

and, while US 1.1.5.1 mandates that Level II and III matches must adhere strictly to the FREESTYLE requirements of 1.1.5...

...carrying a prop is not a shooting position or stance. It is a stipulated procedure.

The question becomes, is it a procedure that is clear and written into the WSB.

....but telling someone 'HOW' to carry that prop is dictating a shooting stance.

I believe the stage is illegal.

That was my point about shooting position. Whether right or wrong, and Flex knows a lot more about it than I, my thought was they can tell me to carry something, but telling me I have to have it held a certain way while I'm shooting infringes on freestyle. Their are other factors as in body type as well. Arm length etc... could be a factor here. I think we can all agree from all the BS surrounding this thing that it should have been done another way. Was there really a need to not go above the belt? If their intent was to not have someone draw it up to their chest or brace with it... that could have been easily written in without room for a subjective call. It was badly written to start and I believe the premise is flawed.

Edited September 12, 2007 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

Ugh. I just did the math. Without the penalties, Phil collects 36.6 points for the stage. Going into the last day, that would have put him a tight (7pt) second.

A zero for Blake too. He could have got 31pts. I am guessing Blake to come in...as is...at ~97%. Without the penalties on 18...98.8% (That is guessing TGO to get 325 of the remaining 350 points.)

-------------------------------

Yes...still bored waiting to see results...and playing keyboard.

-------------------------------