Scoring question

[Flexmoney]

A couple of years ago, it was an A, but no more.

What has changed in the rule book?

It's part of the new level one course material.

How can we go off of that? In my section, we are talking about..what...maybe 15 junior freshmen RO's that took the class in the last year or so (some of which haven't sent in their tests yet). These aren't the people that are calling matches.

If there is a consensus among the instructors, then that needs to be in the book...or in an "official ruling". We need words on official paper. Until that day...

[Nik Habicht]

I strongly disagree with the interpretation you guys have here and will score it as a C unless we have a ruling from John. We covered the specific example, in depth in class, and I was told it's a C.

That is what the Range Master told me too... that that is how it was first taught to him. But, after conference with the rest of the staff, he came back and said it should be called the other way.

FWIW, the CRO on that stage back then...is now a RMI...and he may be teaching it how to was taught to him.

Look first to the rule book. The one that teaches us...is just one.

It's a C. I didn't vote for it, but that's the consensus amongst the instructors, including John, and it makes sense. If the perfs are aligned, then the A zone isn't available, and can't be scored. A couple of years ago, it was an A, but no more. It's part of the new level one course material.

Troy

Troy,

any chance you can get John to run that past the Board and get it released as an official interpretation? FWIW --- I think there's a basic flaw in differentiating how a shot may score, based on whether or not the no-shoot has its own target stand.....

That interpretation should also deal with the fact that the target behind the no-shoot simply doesn't exist --- unless you guys change your mind back to the previous ruling.....

[mactiger]

I thought he had, but I'll ask him.

Flex, the question isn't what the rule says--there isn't any dispute about that, but since the lines overlap, the line below isn't available (that's the interpretation, anyway), therefore it's scored as a C hit. As you can see, about half the camp would score an A, about half would score a C, given that the lines perfectly overlap. I know we had this discussion at Nationals, and at the time I'd have called it an A, but after several hours of debate, the general consensus amongst the instructors was to call it a C, as if the entire A zone had been removed.

Maybe George can jump in here with some insight and a reply as to the "interpretation" being passed before the board.

Troy

I strongly disagree with the interpretation you guys have here and will score it as a C unless we have a ruling from John. We covered the specific example, in depth in class, and I was told it's a C.

That is what the Range Master told me too... that that is how it was first taught to him. But, after conference with the rest of the staff, he came back and said it should be called the other way.

FWIW, the CRO on that stage back then...is now a RMI...and he may be teaching it how to was taught to him.

Look first to the rule book. The one that teaches us...is just one.

It's a C. I didn't vote for it, but that's the consensus amongst the instructors, including John, and it makes sense. If the perfs are aligned, then the A zone isn't available, and can't be scored. A couple of years ago, it was an A, but no more. It's part of the new level one course material.

Troy

Troy,

any chance you can get John to run that past the Board and get it released as an official interpretation? FWIW --- I think there's a basic flaw in differentiating how a shot may score, based on whether or not the no-shoot has its own target stand.....

That interpretation should also deal with the fact that the target behind the no-shoot simply doesn't exist --- unless you guys change your mind back to the previous ruling.....

[driver8M3]

troy: see if you can get a consensus on how to call the target in the attached picture. the perfs are lined up, but the shot managed to get behind the white target into the A zone of the brown target, which can be seen at an extreme angle.

[Fireant]

By the rules we have in place now it can not be called a c, it has to be an alpha. Even if Amadon says it's a Charlie, there is no rule backing that up. A couple of guys in a back room deciding that is how they want it scored reminds me of another game that we strive not to be like. Make a ruling based on the written rules, if it is not what the rule writers wanted, well tough. In the next rewrite it can be changed. That is why we have those processes in place.

[mactiger]

By the rules we have in place now it can not be called a c, it has to be an alpha. Even if Amadon says it's a Charlie, there is no rule backing that up. A couple of guys in a back room deciding that is how they want it scored reminds me of another game that we strive not to be like. Make a ruling based on the written rules, if it is not what the rule writers wanted, well tough. In the next rewrite it can be changed. That is why we have those processes in place.

Actually, by the rules in place now, it can be called a C. I've answered and so has George. I said I'd get in touch with John and I will.

It's a matter of interpretation, not how the rule reads, IMO. Sometimes rules need interpretation, and that's John's job. We (the instructor corps) merely needed to come to some agreement so that we teach the same thing. As you can see on this thread alone, not everyone agrees on how it is scored, but the rules do support the call of C if the perfs are aligned perfectly.

Here's George Jone's reply from earlier:

This scenario was recently discussed by the instructors.

In the scenario described, the hit on the left side of the NS head can only be scored a C. The A zone which is under the scoring area of the NS (which includes the NS perfs) is not available for the simple reason that (if the perfs are correctly aligned) as soon as the bullet touches the perf of the NS that part of the bullet cannot continue to strike the underlying A perf.

The same rule would apply for a hit down on the long side of the NS. It could not score the underlying D.

The final opinion of the instructors was that the portion of a scoring target which underlies a no-shoot (including the NS perfs) for all practical purposes simply does not exist.

Rule 9.5.2 applies to a scoring target (a single target) and it's individual scoring zones. It has nothing to do with an overlying NS.

Rule 9.5.3 does not support scoring the underlying A.

HTH

[Fireant]

By the rules we have in place now it can not be called a c, it has to be an alpha. Even if Amadon says it's a Charlie, there is no rule backing that up. A couple of guys in a back room deciding that is how they want it scored reminds me of another game that we strive not to be like. Make a ruling based on the written rules, if it is not what the rule writers wanted, well tough. In the next rewrite it can be changed. That is why we have those processes in place.

Actually, by the rules in place now, it can be called a C. I've answered and so has George. I said I'd get in touch with John and I will.

It's a matter of interpretation, not how the rule reads, IMO. Sometimes rules need interpretation, and that's John's job. We (the instructor corps) merely needed to come to some agreement so that we teach the same thing. As you can see on this thread alone, not everyone agrees on how it is scored, but the rules do support the call of C if the perfs are aligned perfectly.

Here's George Jone's reply from earlier:

This scenario was recently discussed by the instructors.

In the scenario described, the hit on the left side of the NS head can only be scored a C. The A zone which is under the scoring area of the NS (which includes the NS perfs) is not available for the simple reason that (if the perfs are correctly aligned) as soon as the bullet touches the perf of the NS that part of the bullet cannot continue to strike the underlying A perf.

The same rule would apply for a hit down on the long side of the NS. It could not score the underlying D.

The final opinion of the instructors was that the portion of a scoring target which underlies a no-shoot (including the NS perfs) for all practical purposes simply does not exist.

Rule 9.5.2 applies to a scoring target (a single target) and it's individual scoring zones. It has nothing to do with an overlying NS.

Rule 9.5.3 does not support scoring the underlying A.

HTH

I'm sorry, but I still have not seen a rule stating that the underlying targets scoring area dissapears(magically or otherwise). If it is not a full diameter hit the bullet does continue on and touch the perf that is still there.

In IMA's picture, by your ruling that a zone does not exsist. But I sure do see a hole there that did not go through a NS. The written rule leaves room for either call. If it is that gray, it should be rewritten not just interpreted one way over the other. Why should one view trump the other? Just because one person says so? I don't think so.

Why is a NS perf any different from a shoot targets perf? Are they not both refered to equally in the rules? The way I read it they are.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Fireant

[JThompson]

I have a ruling from John on this and will post it shortly... I'm pretty sure we will have an NROI ruling update too.

JT

[George Jones]

Maybe George can jump in here with some insight and a reply as to the "interpretation" being passed before the board.

I no longer have those connections.

I'm confident the process is in action.

On another matter - Rules interpretations have been common when the rules do not clearly address an issue or range situations cannot be consistently judged. Some of the most experienced and dedicated volunteers in this sport addressed this issue at length and came to a conclusion. For some to call that effort "back room" dealings is highly disappointing.

As with Troy, I do not always agree with the rules, but it is our job, all of us, to enforce them as they are. When interpretations are issued, they carry the same weight as the rest of the rulebook.

[Fireant]

I didn't know what else to call it when a small group gets together and decides how they will make the call ahead of time. But even if Amadon rules that it is a Charlie, I want it backed up by a clear rule. Not just an interpretation. The rules should not need an interpretation. Nowhere in the rule book do I see anything to back up a ruling that the azone or the perf is nonexistent. You might want it to be, but show me the rule number. I want it to be an Alpha and I can show where the rule will allow this and physically show that it is possible.

Patiently waiting for the ruling.

[racerba]

The final opinion of the instructors was that the portion of a scoring target which underlies a no-shoot (including the NS perfs) for all practical purposes simply does not exist.

But it DOES exist and can be shot at times without affecting the NS (as seen in Driver's pic).

I remember the discussion 4 years ago and the one primary reasoning that it counted for the higher score was that there was no difference if the target was 2 feet away or 0.0001 inch away. Seemed logical to me then and now. It would be interesting to hear what changed that reasoning. Since Troy ask George for the arguments and George no longer has access the the argument, we may never know.

[Flexmoney]

Bullbutter.

There was NO interpretation issued.

It is backroom.

Here we are looking at how to score a target...which I'd say is a pretty important job for an RO...and we are going off of the books?

If you go off the books, then the shooter is left dangling. There is no means to arbitrate the interpretation of the words...because there are no words.

Who is looking out for the shooter in this? Where is the shooter's recourse? Checks and balances?

[George Jones]

Since Troy ask George for the arguments and George no longer has access the the argument, we may never know.

I must have a problem expressing myself.

I did not say what you imply. I said I do not have any link to whatever may be presented to the BOD as all interpretations are. I am no longer on the Board.

I have already stated the rationale behind the instructor group's final concensus. The fact that some may disagree with that concensus does not change it's existence.

That "small group" is tasked with deliberating these issues and reaching a majority conclusion. The conclusion then is presented to the BOD as an interpretation. If the BOD does not object, it reaches official status.

There is a process. Bullbutters, extreme scenarios, and other similar hyperbole do not help.

[JimInFL]

Only being around since the beginning of the year, I hesitate to post on this, with the obvious talent pool already in action over it, but I just can't resist.

One thing I've learned moving from production to open, is that I do love a good game. But sometimes, it seems to me the intent is so crystal clear, that you just have to take it at face value.

If I see a NS attached to a regular target, head partially covering the A as described, it is obvious to me that the intent of the designer was to limit the A zone of that target. I do not believe that he/she thought "unless they get themselves into a position 2 degrees off the parallel of the target and shoot at the edge to get behind it". Or maybe it becomes more available, as the humid day goes on, and the edge of the NS curls up a bit.

I can also easily see the argument, "what if it's an inch in front of it ? how about 1/2 inch". You're right, it's out there and you can get behind it. Perfectly legit.

I guess what I'm saying is, if there is a final consensus here, I hope it's a combination of clarification AND allowing a designer to express his design without having to jump through hoops to prevent being 'gamed'.

JimInFL

[Fireant]

Jim,

The intent of the stage designer has nothing to do with it. The intent stuff is for another game. In this game we go by the written rules and the written stage briefing. That is why they are there. If you are shooting based on intent you may not be shooting USPSA. Like you I hope the ruling is clear and based on the rules we currently have.

[JimInFL]

Jim,

The intent of the stage designer has nothing to do with it. The intent stuff is for another game. In this game we go by the written rules and the written stage briefing. That is why they are there. If you are shooting based on intent you may not be shooting USPSA. Like you I hope the ruling is clear and based on the rules we currently have.

Fireant,

Agreed - this is a game of rules. We shouldn't have to stop and evaluate the designer's intent. That's (one of) the reason for the rules - right?

What worries me is that there isn't a way, without complication to express intent, via the rules. e.g. when we set up the above scenario, do we now have to partially black each A area behind the NS, to express our intent. What if the perfs are out of alignment because a shot to the stick caused a slight twist and the staples twisted, exposing 1/64" (at the perf) of the underlying A, on one side. Shooters after that point now have exposed A zone, and in theory, advantage ?

See what I'm thinking ? Agree completely about 'intent' is not part of the picture - as long as it can be expressed in some way, under the rules.

JimInFL

[Fireant]

That is exactly what you have to do to make the area dissapear. Otherwise it is still there and the entire point of this question. We can not just say to follow logic and poof the azone no longer is there. That is what some people are trying to say. If you want it gone follow the rule book and paint some hard cover on it. Otherwise pony up to the fact that it can and should be scored an alpha.

[Flexmoney]

That "small group" is tasked with deliberating these issues and reaching a majority conclusion. The conclusion then is presented to the BOD as an interpretation. If the BOD does not object, it reaches official status.

There is a process. Bullbutters, extreme scenarios, and other similar hyperbole do not help.

George, come on.

No "process" was ever brought up.

From the get-go...you preached in absolutes.

...this is what it says PERIOD.

...the target area doesn't exist.

...this is how we teach it.

...if you want to know the rules, take a class (again).

You contradict the process with your own words:

"If the BOD does not object, it reaches official status."

Yet, you are teaching it already...and calling matches based on it?

I can't think of a worse precedent for our sport than having RMI's that aren't teaching to read what the rule book says.

SITE THE RULE. <<< that is what needs to be handed down from NROI. That is what we need to be molding the minds of our new RO's with.

Examine your premise.

Mine is that we (match officials) are there for the shooter, not for the stage designer's intent. I continue to see an underlying current that flows through NROI, which is putting designer intent ahead of (freestyle) shooting.

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand

Teach the book. First. If the book is wrong, then live with it until the next book, or change if with an "official interpretation". Just don't teach around it.

[racerba]

If I see a NS attached to a regular target, head partially covering the A as described, it is obvious to me that the intent of the designer was to limit the A zone of that target.

OK - let's look at the intent. What is a NS, really? It is an obstacle that you have to shoot around. It makes a tougher shot for the shooter to hit the scoring target. The scoring target is still there, just hidden to the best ability of the course designer. Again, if it was 2 feet away, it serves the same purpose.

George,

Sorry if I misunderstood your expression of yourself. However, your rationale is not rational nor logical, saying that the perf also hides the perf, therefore the scoring zone does not exist. Yes, I disagree. Yes, I still play by the rules however it's interpreted. I have no other choice besides not playing, do I?

I'll have to agree with Flex here, because the ruling was one way 4 years ago and all of a sudden, the ruling is reversed?!?! There was no official NROI release of such decision one way or the other. An interpretation as controversial such as this should have been officially released to the general member of the organization, not just a few board member or just the instructors at the meeting.

Edited September 19, 2008 by racerba

[AZ38super]

Ok, I have been reading your banters back and forth and still dont get why you are so sure it has changed.

I have been playing this game for a few years and took my RO class with George back in May and I score the shot the same way from before I took the class to after I took the class.

See the quick image .

The shots along the perf are touching the perf line.

[Fireant]

Ok, I have been reading your banters back and forth and still dont get why you are so sure it has changed.

I have been playing this game for a few years and took my RO class with George back in May and I score the shot the same way from before I took the class to after I took the class.

See the quick image .

The shots along the perf are touching the perf line.

Nope, I'm sorry, but your 3 NS/C all touch the perf on the Azone behind it. Making them NS/A It is still there unless you have painted it with hard cover. It did not just dissappear. Remember the rule book says that only a full diameter hit in the SCORING zone is impenettrable and that partial hits can continue on to score or get penalties.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Fireant

[AZ38super]

The A zone under the NS (inside the perf line) does not exist any longer.

The perf line is only there to create a better defined edge of the target to make scoring edge hits easier.

You guys are trying to piece 2 different rules together.

[Fireant]

The A zone under the NS (inside the perf line) does not exist any longer.

The perf line is only there to create a better defined edge of the target to make scoring edge hits easier.

You guys are trying to piece 2 different rules together.

Oh, really. Well, please show me the rule that says the azone is no longer there. I think you are reading things into the rule that are not there. I can show a rule that spells out my reasoning for the alpha. Please show me yours, and the impenetrable target rule is only for a full diameter hit, so that can not be it.

[Fireant]

The perf line is only there to create a better defined edge of the target to make scoring edge hits easier.

You would think so wouldn't you. But many here want to say that edge can't be hit when it can be.

[kend]

The A zone under the NS (inside the perf line) does not exist any longer.

Dang, where's the smiley face with the popcorn?

What makes the A zone no longer exist? If you look at the picture of the two targets posted above with a gap between the shoot and no shoot, you could shoot that at an angle and have a scoring hit in the A zone that would normally be covered if it was shot at from directly in front. What makes the A zone no longer exist?