Should this be 6 proceedurals or 1?

[lugnut]

Evidently Gaming has different meanings to different people. Those that didn't think of a solution think its bad, those that did think it is good. My definition of gaming isn't cheating. Cheating is cheating. Gaming is the challenge of solving the stage while thinking outside the box, knowing your strengths and weakness's and tailoring your solution to fit you strengths. I will admit I'm not very good at it but I am trying to improve that part of my GAME!

Well said! Not many people understand the difference. H!

True enough. In this case whether the shooter made a mistake or was gaming (willing to take a procedural to offset the quicker times) wasn't really the issue though. It's whether or not there should have been one procedural or six!

I've shot a few matches where it was advantageous to take an intentional procedure. But not knowing how many procedures it would be is the question.

[Flexmoney]

Let me give an example of a situation where only one procedural should be assessed. The stage requires you to shoot one-handed while holding a briefcase, with the handle of the briefcase below your beltline. But you inadvertently allow the handle of the briefcase to go a couple inches above your beltline and rattle off six shots.

Now, that clearly violated the instructions and requires a penalty, but obviously it should only be one procedural because no significant competitve advantage was gained.

This is all a purely hypothetical situation of course......

Not a slam, just funny, PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, let me guess you went to the 07' Nats in Tulsa, im sure it wasnt funny to you then or now. The part you wrote "This is all a purely hypothetical situation of course......" That was a WSB that wasnt certainly thought about for very long. Who wouldve known what contraversy that could have created. I hope you didnt get gigged on all the shots fired! H!

Who knew? We did.

We had a thread about that well before the match got put on the ground. Common thinking was that it would get properly addressed and be a non-issue come match day.

[JThompson]

[hf219]

Let me give an example of a situation where only one procedural should be assessed. The stage requires you to shoot one-handed while holding a briefcase, with the handle of the briefcase below your beltline. But you inadvertently allow the handle of the briefcase to go a couple inches above your beltline and rattle off six shots.

Now, that clearly violated the instructions and requires a penalty, but obviously it should only be one procedural because no significant competitve advantage was gained.

This is all a purely hypothetical situation of course......

Not a slam, just funny, PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, let me guess you went to the 07' Nats in Tulsa, im sure it wasnt funny to you then or now. The part you wrote "This is all a purely hypothetical situation of course......" That was a WSB that wasnt certainly thought about for very long. Who wouldve known what contraversy that could have created. I hope you didnt get gigged on all the shots fired! H!

Who knew? We did.

We had a thread about that well before the match got put on the ground. Common thinking was that it would get properly addressed and be a non-issue come match day.

Well then you could say we ASS U ME D that it would be properly addressed! Although I didnt get gigged on either one of those stages, I thought the application of significant advantage may have been overplayed to many compeititors sorrow. H!

Edited April 7, 2009 by hf219

[PistolPete]

Pete,

I am pretty sure neither you nor Dan were on the squad with the shooter who made the MISTAKE. If you watched you could see by his body language as he finished the stage that he had screwed up. He know it and was expecting whatever penalties he was given. He didn't do it to gain an advantage he just had a brain fart.

Well, then this changes a lot. I saw the shooter shoot this stage and I said to another shooter that he just made a HUGE mistake. That is how I saw it and that was all.

However, then I read this:

Pete, a mistake was not made by the shooter, it was his plan all along.

And, then I think differently. Either way it really doesn't matter at the end of the day. We all shoot for fun and we're all VERY competitively and if someone thinks of a better way to shoot a stage with or without a procedural then good for them. I thought of shooting the stage with skipping the last box but knew I would incur 6 penalties so I didn't do it that way.

Some of my choices in wording were not the best choices and no offense was meant and no disrespect either. As another shooter pointed out they wouldn't want to be called a cheater and I agree with him 100%. Esp. if it was a mistake in their game plan then I'm the one with his tail between his legs.

The intent of this topic was not to determine if someone was cheating, gaming, or anything of the sort but how the penalties should be given.

Thanks for all the advice given in this topic and for the people hosting and running the match as they ALWAYS put on a fun and challenging day of shooting!!!

Pete

[gmantwo]

1.1.5.1 Level I matches may use shooting boxes and specify where or when specific target arrays may be engaged, and may specify mandatory reloads in short and medium courses only (not in a long course).

Without a doubt, the stage should have had a blocking wall, barrels, something of that nature. I also agree that the shooter has the option of "engageing" the stage in whatever manner appears to him to be the most efficient, while however, following the "given" stage briefing. I too have just completed an RO class and there was lot of time spent on reading the stage briefing EXACTLY as written, and nothing more, so that there was no difference, shooter to shooter, squad to squad.

Here's my interpretation of 1.1.5.1, not as an RO, but as a voracious reader.

"Level I matches may use shooting boxes. Level I matches may specify where or when specific target arrays may be engaged. Level I matches may specify mandatory reloads in short and medium courses only (not in a long course) IF the rule had been written that way, there would not be such ambiguity in the ruling.

It is my opinion that the writers simply strung together 3 seperate sentences in the spirit of brevity. I don't see any one of them requiring the inclusion of any other of them. Nowhere does it say in the rule that "if you do this, you must also do this". My take anyway. Greg

Edited April 25, 2009 by gmantwo