Ben Stoeger

[Bryan W]

Nice! 1000 rds in 2 days... Good to see you're back at work Ben!

[Matt P.]

I just wanted to add my $.02 here again, at the risk of being bashed.

Definition:

What is heat stroke?

Heat stroke is a form of hyperthermia (abnormally elevated body temperature) with accompanying physical and neurological symptoms. Unlike heat cramps and heat exhaustion, two less-severe forms of hyperthermia, heat stroke is a true medical emergency that can be fatal if not properly and promptly treated.

Maybe the better thing here (and this is not Ben's fault) to have done was for the match staff to call 911 and have a paramedic diagnois the shooter. I realize there was a doctor on the squad however, I just ask my self if that was enough if there was an accident and and we had to answer to a jury of 12 reasonable people.

If it was heat exhaustion, (not heat stroke) then the shooter should have been pulled from the match. From the symptoms of these disease's it is fairly apparent that a shooter should have never been allowed to shoot a firearm.

Again, I don't want to be bashed, I am stating my opinion and how we would operate this situation at our range.

[Shawn Knight]

Well I guess it was heat exhaustion.

[XRe]

Well I guess it was heat exhaustion.

Heat stroke and heat exhaustion are just two stops on the hyperthermia continuum. Its a difference of severity, and it doesn't take much to ratchet up to the next level. Its a serious concern, and should be treated as such.

Changing a diagnosis in hind sight to avoid criticism is a little disingenuous, eh? Seriously, if a shooter appears "'drunk'" because of a medical condition, is it such a great idea to let him shoot? (not harping on anyone, here - just pointing out the terms you used, and wanting you to consider this in the future....). Someone getting slammed by the heat should not necessarily be grounds for withdrawl from the match - but they need to recover before they're allowed to continue (for their safety, and the safety of everyone around them). "Drunk" is actually a pretty apt description of the side effects on judgment, coordination, etc. If an unfortunate incident were to occur while a shooter was under "medicial treatment" for a condition that caused them to appear to be "drunk", it would not be good for anyone involved - and its up to those not suffering from the condition (ie, folks thinking straight) to insure that that doesn't happen. I was getting at Matt's point in my post, too... Don't take it personally, Shawn, just keep it in mind for next time

Frankly, I think its pretty impressive that Ben managed to shoot well even suffering from the effects (A/C, ATV rides, or not). I've been in that situation (and have to guard against it now), and I know how well I function under it. I won't say it was courageous, inspiring, or smart to shoot in that condition, but its impressive that he was able to tough it out and produce results. Knowing how heat can affect my performance, I'm pretty confident that had he not gotten smacked around by the weather, and had instead been with the squad in a normal state of mind the whole time, the gap would've been wider between him and Jeff...

Ok, I'll stop polluting the thread, now...

[Shawn Knight]

I understand everyone's view but we still had a medical doctor on the scene and she was OK with him continuing to shoot the match. Ben's drunkenness was only for a small time period after he shot stage 4 and getting him cooled down helped him recover. I am not an expert on heat related problems but I do know when someone isn't feeling well and the heat is the cause. I have seen the effects of poor hydration and what heat can do to someone in the desert and I agree that it may not have been as severe as I thought.

Did it give him an advantage?? I don't know. I really don't care but I know his shooting dropped off a tiny bit after Stage 4 and he didn't have the best luck on Stage 6 when he suffered a mike(don't start Ben!).

Changing a diagnosis in hind sight to avoid criticism is a little disingenuous, eh?

I may be a B-class shooter but you don't need to get all vocabbed up on me Dave!!!

Edited August 6, 2008 by Shawn Knight

[Ben Stoeger]

Ok, I'll stop polluting the thread, now...

Thank you.

Lets get back to talking about shooting.

[Franklin D Wolverton]

Did it give him an advantage?? I don't know. I really don't care but I know his shooting dropped off a tiny bit after Stage 4 and he didn't have the best luck on Stage 6 when he suffered a mike(don't start Ben!).

Changing a diagnosis in hind sight to avoid criticism is a little disingenuous, eh?

I may be a B-class shooter but you don't need to get all vocabbed up on me Dave!!!

I was one of the RO's on stage 6, and I remember that Ben did quite well (I was impressed, and jealous), except for the mike (what can you do when 3 RO's AND the match director all agree that it's a mike...)

[Ben Stoeger]

Did it give him an advantage?? I don't know. I really don't care but I know his shooting dropped off a tiny bit after Stage 4 and he didn't have the best luck on Stage 6 when he suffered a mike(don't start Ben!).

Changing a diagnosis in hind sight to avoid criticism is a little disingenuous, eh?

I may be a B-class shooter but you don't need to get all vocabbed up on me Dave!!!

I was one of the RO's on stage 6, and I remember that Ben did quite well (I was impressed, and jealous), except for the mike (what can you do when 3 RO's AND the match director all agree that it's a mike...)

Exactly what I did. (have the RM look at it, then drop it)

That one stings... It was a spot of bad luck for me.

I had made a conscious decision to not mention this on this thread or on my website, but since you brought it up (not sure why) I feel I need to address it.

I did something that I have never done before, I had a target pulled for the RM to look at it. This was only the second time in my shooting career (match or in 10s of thousands of rounds of practice) that I had a double. This was not a perfect double, you could clearly see that the hole was misshapen. The match staff did not feel that it was misshapen enough to score two alphas.

The target in question was a partial target at about 10 feet. It was about 1/3rd covered by a no shoot. When I shot the stage, I called both my hits right in the alpha. I was confident enough with my shooting that I walked off the stage immediately after shooting to refill my magazines. I was informed there was a mike by one of my squad mates. I went and took a look, and within about 5 seconds I was able to determine that it was a double.

I did this by looking at the hole and comparing it to all the rest of my holes. Yes.. It was at a slight downward angle, but there was no doubt in my mind that two bullets went through that hole.

I asked for a second look from the stage staff. They did not agree. The RM didn’t agree either.

The argument from the range staff was that the other holes were not relevant. Instead, they used an overlay. Since the total diameter of the hole fit inside an overlay (remember, cardboard sucks back in a little after a bullet goes through), they determined that there was only one hit.

They did there job, and I am cool with it. What I really felt bad about was the stereotype we all hear about of top shooters (not sure I am one) trying to get away with shit. Those who know me know I am not one of those people. I wasn’t among people that know me though. My only concern after this was not wanting to come off like a dickhead.

Just so you all don’t think I am crazy, I have video of this.

HERE

The target in question is the lowest one in the array. You will see the gun come to it, stop, then lift in recoil. Then, from the same spot, it lifts again.

Now… in order to completely miss a target that close, you would see a flinch.. Or the muzzle in a different spot. You don’t.

I hit it(twice). Of that I am 100% sure.

The only thing I wanted was the right score. The Range Officers didn’t have video to go on, all they had was the targets. They acknowledged that the hole was “funny shaped”, but did not grant me the hit. It didn’t matter, it isn’t a big deal.

My only concern at this point is not seeming like an A-hole that is trying to argue his way out of a mike that he rightfully deserved.

[Jake Di Vita]

Funny shaped and 10 feet = benefit of the doubt to me.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the hole fits in the overlay - what matters is if there are two distinct arcs. Hence the reason two overlays should be used when overlaying any hole.

[BillGarlandJr]

I think anyone who shoots enough matches will eventually shoot a perfect double, or an almost perfect double. I've had a couple over the last nine years.....one was at an area match and when the targets were being scored the RO admitted to watching the target (which was about 3 yards away) instead of me and the gun, and seeing the second round pass through the hole made by the first bullet. I got two Alphas on that target. At a state championship match I had another perfect double. Just as Ben described, I was set up well on the target (again no more than 3 yards away)and I saw a textbook lifting of the sights for both shots. I called them both A's. When the targets were scored there was only one hole in the A zone (I guess I should mention the target was a zebra target and there were no hits in the black). Ultimately it came down to the RO only being able to score what he could see on the target, and since there was only one hole he scored it Alpha, Mike. When it comes down to it what we do is a sport, and as with any other sport where there are officials sometimes you are going to get the call, and sometimes you won't.

Reminds me of something I heard a GM tell a shooter who had a perfect double on a target a few years ago......"if you're that good you can spread them out a little"

BTW Ben, congrats on your victory at Area 3! Its cool to see someones hard work and dedication really pay off for them.

[Franklin D Wolverton]

Funny shaped and 10 feet = benefit of the doubt to me.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the hole fits in the overlay - what matters is if there are two distinct arcs. Hence the reason two overlays should be used when overlaying any hole.

Funny Shaped and 10 feet does not equal benefit of the doubt. The funny shape on this one in the match staff's opinion had to do with the fact that this target was shot through a port at a downward angle of about 30 degrees as opposed to the other targets which were within 5 degrees of straight on. There were NOT in our opinion two distinct arcs.

Believe me... we looked. We spent more time on this target then any other in the match. Ray Hirst was the CRO and Tom Drazy was the RM. They are not exactly noobs to the sport.

[Ben Stoeger]

Funny shaped and 10 feet = benefit of the doubt to me.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the hole fits in the overlay - what matters is if there are two distinct arcs. Hence the reason two overlays should be used when overlaying any hole.

Funny Shaped and 10 feet does not equal benefit of the doubt. The funny shape on this one in the match staff's opinion had to do with the fact that this target was shot through a port at a downward angle of about 30 degrees as opposed to the other targets which were within 5 degrees of straight on. There were NOT in our opinion two distinct arcs.

Believe me... we looked. We spent more time on this target then any other in the match. Ray Hirst was the CRO and Tom Drazy was the RM. They are not exactly noobs to the sport.

Franklin,

I hope you don’t feel like you need to defend yourself on here. You guys slaved away for days to make this match happen.

When this scoring issue came up, you were all courteous and professional.

You guys looked carefully at the target and made a reasonable call.

The only point I was trying to make is that I was not trying to put one over on you guys. (some shooters do this all the time)The hit was indeed there, as the video clearly demonstrates.

I don’t hold any ill will toward the match staff.

[XRe]

Simply put, Ben - the rules allow you to request the target to pulled and inspected. The only thing that could make you an ass in that situation is how you handle it. I've been in the situation you describe, had people harass me about it, and invited them to mind their own business. If you honestly think you have a hit, get it looked at. If you don't know for sure (didn't call the shot, or whatever), don't. Easy as that. You shouldn't have to feel defensive about requesting it, if it was the first situation. Unfortunately, there have been those folks who abused that right under the rules repeatedly. You don't have to pay for their mistakes.

This is one of those "rub of the green" things that we encounter - sometimes we get the benefit of the doubt on a call, sometimes we get screwed simply because of the physics of the bullet passing through the paper. It is what it is. Endeavor to be sure you have the correct score at all times (which includes not letting the RO give you more points than you deserve), and the breaks will tend to fall in your direction most of the time Sometimes not, but... that's the way the cookie crumbles and all that...

From an RO standpoint, Franklin, make your call and stand by it It is what it is, too - your job is to do the right thing for the shooter AND the rest of the shooters in the match. Make the best effort you can and you'll have done the best job possible. No reason you should have to feel defensive about it, either.

[Shawn Knight]

I hope I get to argue a double one day! Seriously I do!! You did very well in the match Ben!

[Franklin D Wolverton]

Funny shaped and 10 feet = benefit of the doubt to me.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the hole fits in the overlay - what matters is if there are two distinct arcs. Hence the reason two overlays should be used when overlaying any hole.

Funny Shaped and 10 feet does not equal benefit of the doubt. The funny shape on this one in the match staff's opinion had to do with the fact that this target was shot through a port at a downward angle of about 30 degrees as opposed to the other targets which were within 5 degrees of straight on. There were NOT in our opinion two distinct arcs.

Believe me... we looked. We spent more time on this target then any other in the match. Ray Hirst was the CRO and Tom Drazy was the RM. They are not exactly noobs to the sport.

Franklin,

I hope you don’t feel like you need to defend yourself on here. You guys slaved away for days to make this match happen.

When this scoring issue came up, you were all courteous and professional.

You guys looked carefully at the target and made a reasonable call.

The only point I was trying to make is that I was not trying to put one over on you guys. (some shooters do this all the time)The hit was indeed there, as the video clearly demonstrates.

I don’t hold any ill will toward the match staff.

Ben... I didn't feel the need to defend myself, or the call. Was just trying to explain what happened. I know you weren't trying to put on over on us. I even told the other guys on your squad not to paste that target until you had a chance to take a look at it, since you had all A's and C's on the other targets.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you on the video "definitively" showing the hit as "there". It doesn't show the target, it shows the pistol. Just because the pistol looks like it was pointed the same place from one angle doesn't mean it really was. Thats why when they do "instant replay" they have 4 if not more angles. One angle doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't account for 1) is the pistol REALLY pointed in the same spot, or does it just look that way from that one angle. 2) Was that load off from the others... not unheard of if you load your own on a progressive. 3) Trigger jerk 4) Blinking at the last second and remembering the last thing you "saw." 5) Palming 6) Any number of other causes.

I'm not trying to say you did any of those things, just that a video from one angle that doesn't show the target is not proof (granted it doesn't PROVE that you missed either)

I can't argue with you that you called the shot as an A. I have done that MANY times. We have all called a shot that was nowhere close to what we thought it should be.

The way it was explained to us is that the odds of a bullet going through the exact same spot twice are astronomical and you can't just give it to the shooter, based on the odds that any of a number of other things could have caused a miss.

In the end, you did exactly what you were supposed to do. (which is, for those who don't know)

1. Inspect the target and challenge to CRO if you disagree with RO.

2. If disagree with the CRO, challenge to RM.

3. RM makes final decision.

[Ben Stoeger]

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you on the video "definitively" showing the hit as "there". It doesn't show the target, it shows the pistol. Just because the pistol looks like it was pointed the same place from one angle doesn't mean it really was. Thats why when they do "instant replay" they have 4 if not more angles. One angle doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't account for 1) is the pistol REALLY pointed in the same spot, or does it just look that way from that one angle. 2) Was that load off from the others... not unheard of if you load your own on a progressive. 3) Trigger jerk 4) Blinking at the last second and remembering the last thing you "saw." 5) Palming 6) Any number of other causes.

That video has a great angle on the gun. You would certainly be able to see the gun pointed in a different spot. That is not apparent on the video.

Whether or not the target was shown is not relevant. With a target only 10 feet distant, if we both agree that one bullet hit the center of the A zone, then the other bullet must have at least hit the target. Since there was no other hole on the target, it stands to reason that both bullets hit the same spot (almost the same spot anyway).

What I saw from behind the gun isn’t really important now, as I can’t really prove what I saw.

Flinching, palming, etc., are all possible, but they are ruled out, as you can clearly see video of the gun and my forearms. There was clearly no flinch.

No, I don’t load my own. It was AA factory. It is a little bit of a stretch to suggest that one could have one bullet hit the A zone on a 10 foot shot, and the other load be so different that it misses.

You went based on the evidence that you had. I understand that, that is fine. At this point, most reasonable people after viewing the video would acknowledge that I did in fact hit the target 2 times.

If you don’t want to acknowledge that I hit the target 2 times because you feel like you would be admitting to a mistake, I don’t think that is the case. All you had was a target, not video. We both know video is not permissible in USPSA.

[Chills1994]

(de-cloaking/de-lurking for just a minute)

I've reviewed literally thousands of shooters' videos. A lot I have taken myself and only uploaded a small sampling under the Tackleberry Productions name and other first person videos under the Posercam Productions label.

I have also SO'ed and RO'ed nationals level events, where some shooters literally do depend on their match performance to make a living on.

Ben's shot looks legitimate to me.

At this point, it doesn't really matter. Ben signed off on that stage's scoresheet which is akin to signing a contract. It can't be undone, besides he still won.

(back into stealth mode)

Edited August 8, 2008 by Chills1994

[blownhemi]

When this perfect double thing came up I watched the video, both versions (slow mo and normal speed) and initially I wasn't going to say anything, but my immediate thought was lack of follow through on that particular shot. While the barrel does initially return to the same point of aim when the shot breaks you can see the muzzle is already headed to the next target.

I've got nothing against you Ben, I go to your website all the time (several times a week) to see what you're up to and I respect the dedication you put into your shooting, it's inspirational stuff.

Having said that I honestly think you might have had a miss there. Don't beat yourself up about it, stuff happens, even to the best. You still won the match and if you take responsibility for the miss and move on you'll be better for it. Going to matches thinking that you're going to be penalised for being too good will just do your head in. It's been called a miss, analyse why and move on.

[Ben Stoeger]

When this perfect double thing came up I watched the video, both versions (slow mo and normal speed) and initially I wasn't going to say anything, but my immediate thought was lack of follow through on that particular shot. While the barrel does initially return to the same point of aim when the shot breaks you can see the muzzle is already headed to the next target.

I've got nothing against you Ben, I go to your website all the time (several times a week) to see what you're up to and I respect the dedication you put into your shooting, it's inspirational stuff.

Having said that I honestly think you might have had a miss there. Don't beat yourself up about it, stuff happens, even to the best. You still won the match and if you take responsibility for the miss and move on you'll be better for it. Going to matches thinking that you're going to be penalised for being too good will just do your head in. It's been called a miss, analyse why and move on.

I think you are looking at the wrong target, or the audio is out of sync on your computer.

You probably don’t read my website very closely if you are going to preach to me about taking responsibility for misses. I miss frequently. I fire lots and lots of bad shots. I am responsible for all of them.

This is not one of those cases.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Ben Stoeger

[davecutts]

Let a dead dog lie.

Could you all get back to the good part of this thread which was about Ben's training and shooting?

[Shawn Knight]

Hey Ben,

Didn't you win??

[ong45]

Sucks that you can get hosed when you acheive the ultimate feat eh? Unfortunately an RO can only score visible hits, injecting subjective judgements into the process would make an alredy difficult job impossible...... imho there is no such thing as giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt, scoring is straightforward.

You're gonna get more bad breaks in the future, be glad it didn't happen with nationals on the line.

[Dan Hefta]

PERFECT...if anyone can... well, Ben can. Those targets where really close. It doesn't matter anymore, concrats on the WIN!!!

[Shawn Knight]

PERFECT...if anyone can... well, Ben can. Those targets where really close. It doesn't matter anymore, concrats on the WIN!!!

Yes more congrats for the win and lets let Ben get back to his diary!

[Ben Stoeger]

Ok.. back to training.

Looking over the nationals stages.. I see lots of movers, and some distance standards. I will have to work on all that stuff.

Looking over my shooting for the year, I feel like I am a bit lazy in my shooting at Major Matches. I just am not as aggressive as I need to be. I really need to change that.

My practice (henceforth) will be all about shooting every run as well as possible. I need to be aggressve as hell. In practice I usually shoot a 9 second stage in 9.5.. then 9.. then 8.5 as the day goes on. I need to start rocking them at 8.3 every single time if I want to do well at nationals. So, every single run on every single drill will be treated just like a stage at nationals.

In website notes:

I am working on an article about modulating your aggression level

I posted a "Stage breakdown" a few days ago

And I just posted an "interacting with ROs" article

Im gonna go practice now.