1 or multiple procedurals

[38supPat]

Shot a stage last weekend, and while the stage was Ok, I had some concerns about the applications of penalties.

Start position was standing in a box. Directly in front, about 5m away was a port, through the port you could see two targets and a popper, not visible was a swinger. To the left of the port was a door, through the door, running around to the left of some barrels then back to the right to get around a screen there was 3 targets and three poppers, the right most popper activated the swinger in the previous port.

You basically had the option of shooting the first port, running around to the second location, activating the swingers and shooting the targets there, then running back to shoot the swinger in the first port. Or you could run all the way to the second location, shoot everything there, then run to the other port and finish.

The question comes in here; A fault line was laid on the ground reaching from the door back up range past the start box, the idea being that you had to go through the door to get to the second location no matter what. the fault line was to prevent shooters from just running straight to the second position. I asked if it was only one procedural for crossing the fault line and was told it was 1 per shot fired, is this the correct call?

Since it was only a level 1 match I didn't make to big of a thing about it, especialy once one of the RO's and MD started saying it would be a DQ for crossing as it was either cheating the stage or not following the directions of an official, and the fact that I argued the penalty at all was a DQable offense (I was polite at all times)

[JThompson]

What did the WSB say?

[38supPat]

In short: Engage targets as they become visible, faulting lines will incur penalties. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was essentially that simple, thats why I asked for clarification.

[hf219]

I see your from Canada, not a slam, just curious if you were using IPSC or USPSA rules. Not sure there would be much of a difference, although an off limits area could come into play with a DQ. Even if thats what the case is, it doesnt sound like an off limits area would fit into the definition of how one could be used with your explanation of the stage. This of course is based on what limited info youve given. H!

[38supPat]

IPSC rules, no defined off limits area in the WSB. IPSC does not have off limits rules.

[hf219]

Unless the WSB indicated something more. In USPSA Rule: 10.2.1 / 10.2.2/ 10.2.3 for the proceduals and for the off limits area if that were indicated and or used in the WSB look at 2.3.1 and 2.3.1.1 defines how its to be used. Hope this helps, H!

[hf219]

IPSC RULES! Ill shut up now, as I have no idea what that type of book even looks like or whats in it! Im sure the proceduals rule numbers may apply and or carry over to their book. Hope this helped you, H!

[38supPat]

For the record, the MD apologized to me after for starting off on the wrong foot with me, and I explained I just wanted clarifications made on the penalties. No poroblems with the characters involved, just looking to see what the penalty should be.

[Flexmoney]

From IPSC rule book:

2.2.1 Fault Lines - Competitor movement should preferably be restricted through the use of physical barriers, however, the use of Fault Lines is permitted as follows:

2.2.1.1. To prevent unsafe and/or unrealistic charging at, or retreat from, targets;

2.2.1.2. To simulate the use of physical barriers and/or cover;

2.2.1.3. To define the boundaries of a general shooting area or part thereof.

2.2.1.4 Fault Lines should be constructed of wood or other suitable materials, they must rise at least 2

centimeters above ground level, they must be a minimum of 1 meter in length, and they should be

of a length sufficient to cover the areas most likely to be used by competitors. In any case, Fault

Lines are deemed to extend to infinity. Fault lines must be fixed firmly in place to ensure they

remain consistent throughout the match.

So, we have established that is is legal in IPSC to use a fault line to simulate a barrier (some obstacle that you could not easily surmount).

That sounds like the usage in the cof as it is related here?

Given that... then specifying a per shot procedural for negating the prop would certainly seem rather appropriate.

[Flexmoney]

Oh...the DQ talk was BS. Sad to see it.

[38supPat]

10.2 Procedural Penalties – Specific Examples

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground beyond a Fault Line will

receive 1 procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if the competitor has gained a significant

advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed 1 procedural penalty for

each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any

shots while faulting a line.

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. 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).

This is where my confusion comes in, by reading 10.2.1, since in this instance you cannot fire shots on or near the line, you have to be way, way past it before you even begin to shoot, so there is no significant advantage on the targets by faulting the line, only the time saved by the direct run, which according to 10.2.2 incurs one procedural. The second part of 10.2.2 seems to refer to not meeting a stage requirement such as not going prone, not firing weak hand when told to do so etc.

Does this sound right?

[38supPat]

Oh...the DQ talk was BS. Sad to see it.

Oh, I know thats why I let it drop at the time instead of aggravating someone who was clearly upset by the initial question.

[ima45dv8]

....only the time saved by the direct run....

Was that a significant advantage? If so, I'd call it one per shot fired.

[hf219]

From IPSC rule book:

You actually have one of those things! No wonder your so educated, your multitasking rule book skills speak volumes to your adept ability at applying just the right amount of curiosity! H!

[38supPat]

Here ya go hf219:

http://www.ipsc.org/pdf/RulesHandgun.pdf

Read and enjoy

[Jeff686]

....only the time saved by the direct run....

Was that a significant advantage? If so, I'd call it one per shot fired.

I disagree with this comment.

First, define significant advantage. To whom, what kind of shooter, how fit are they, what's their typical HF? My point is there is no real way to define a significant advantage for running around the door instead of through it. It's subjective. A slow shooting person who can run fast may have a different advantage than a fast shooting slow running fat guy.

Second, you can't just arbitrarily say it is per shot. The 'per shot' penalty is for when you are shooting, not moving. 'Per shot' if you feet are out-of-bounds. 'Per shot' if you are not week-hand-only. 'Per shot' if you don't shoot the steel from box 'A'. You can't give out 'per shot' penalties for moving somewhere you weren't supposed to. What are you going to do, take one shot, then run back around the other way through the correct path to avoid the other penalties?

Area 1 last year had a similar situation. They had a door to breach. You could breach, or run around and incur a penalty. Many shooters of smaller stature decided to run around. However, the difference there was that the stage description specifically called out the penalty for run-around. Hence, no confusion.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Jeff686

[38supPat]

That was my take on the rule too, what was the penalty at Area 1?

[Flexmoney]

From IPSC rule book:

You actually have one of those things!

Nah....I just made it up....figured you didn't have an IPSC book and Pat wasn't about to look it up. :roflol:

[Flexmoney]

Pat,

10.2.1 wouldn't apply. You wouldn't be shooting while faulting a "fault line".

In this case, your fault line really isn't a "fault line" some much as it is a prop representing a barrier.

10.2.2 would be the applicable rule. And, this would seem to be a clear case of a per shot penalty on the targets that were within the array/area that you would have short-cutted to.

If you'd like...we (USPSA) had a multi-page go'round on this during our last rule book update. We ended up with the "forbidden action" rules. That can be read about on the USPSA Forum.

Here is the link to one thread...26 pages worth. http://www.uspsa.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=440

[ima45dv8]

....only the time saved by the direct run....

Was that a significant advantage? If so, I'd call it one per shot fired.

I disagree with this comment.

First, define significant advantage. To whom, what kind of shooter, how fit are they, what's their typical HF? My point is there is no real way to define a significant advantage for running around the door instead of through it. It's subjective. A slow shooting person who can run fast may have a different advantage than a fast shooting slow running fat guy.

Second, you can't just arbitrarily say it is per shot. The 'per shot' penalty is for when you are shooting, not moving. 'Per shot' if you feet are out-of-bounds. 'Per shot' if you are not week-hand-only. 'Per shot' if you don't shoot the steel from box 'A'. You can't give out 'per shot' penalties for moving somewhere you weren't supposed to. What are you going to do, take one shot, then run back around the other way through the correct path to avoid the other penalties?

Area 1 last year had a similar situation. They had a door to breach. You could breach, or run around and incur a penalty. Many shooters of smaller stature decided to run around. However, the difference there was that the stage description specifically called out the penalty for run-around. Hence, no confusion.

I was going to call up 10.2.2 as the applicable rule, but Flex beat me to it.

Can I define significant advantage? Not really. It has to be decided on a case by case basis, in the judgement of the RO. I've done it and it wasn't arbitrary. I wasn't present for the incident Pat described so I don't know if it was in this case, or not. That's why I asked Pat. He was there.

[Jeff686]

....only the time saved by the direct run....

Was that a significant advantage? If so, I'd call it one per shot fired.

I disagree with this comment.

First, define significant advantage. To whom, what kind of shooter, how fit are they, what's their typical HF? My point is there is no real way to define a significant advantage for running around the door instead of through it. It's subjective. A slow shooting person who can run fast may have a different advantage than a fast shooting slow running fat guy.

Second, you can't just arbitrarily say it is per shot. The 'per shot' penalty is for when you are shooting, not moving. 'Per shot' if you feet are out-of-bounds. 'Per shot' if you are not week-hand-only. 'Per shot' if you don't shoot the steel from box 'A'. You can't give out 'per shot' penalties for moving somewhere you weren't supposed to. What are you going to do, take one shot, then run back around the other way through the correct path to avoid the other penalties?

Area 1 last year had a similar situation. They had a door to breach. You could breach, or run around and incur a penalty. Many shooters of smaller stature decided to run around. However, the difference there was that the stage description specifically called out the penalty for run-around. Hence, no confusion.

I was going to call up 10.2.2 as the applicable rule, but Flex beat me to it.

Can I define significant advantage? Not really. It has to be decided on a case by case basis, in the judgement of the RO. I've done it and it wasn't arbitrary. I wasn't present for the incident Pat described so I don't know if it was in this case, or not. That's why I asked Pat. He was there.

Well, that's kind what I'm getting at. Where does it say that the RO may determine if a penalty is 'per shot' or 'once' based on their assessment of the probable advantage.

RO has to do the best they can applying the rules and interpret the stage description. I don't think making assessments of the probable advantages in order to prorate a penalty falls in their responsibility. Just don't see it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything. If I could add a tone to my comments it would be conversational...

[Flexmoney]

That is the very nature of the written rule, it would seem.

In reality, I seldom see the "significant" part applied. If there is any advantage...seems we jump right to the advantage being seen as significant.

[ima45dv8]

I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything. If I could add a tone to my comments it would be conversational...

That's how I took it.

[38supPat]

Obviously the is and advantage, but my take on the rules is that in order to get a per shot penalty, there has to be a direct advantage on the targets. If I fault a line and get closer to the targets, if I fault a line beside a barricade so that I can now lean out and see the targets clearly, if I lean out and get a clearer field of fire past or around no shoots etc.

In this case I equate it to a stage we shot, at AWARE if I remember right, where (for ease of visualization) there was a quasi figure 8 shaped shaped set of fault lines and at the center where the two cicles connect was a bridge (the areas were more triangular, but I wanted you to get the idea. You started in the smaller end holding a pitch fork in a bale of hay. shot a coule of targets, then moved into the other shooting area to shoot the rest. In the WSB there was no written requirement to cross the bridge, though it was obviously intended that you would as the rest was supposed to be water. Our whole squad just ran past the bridge to the other area to shoot, as there was no direct requirement to use the bridge, and long before the out of bounds rules came in. There were no penalties at all as we did not fault a line while shooting, all shots were from inside either free fire zone. In this case (stage listed above) the fault line in question was the only one on the whole range. There weren't any others placed on any stages or any other part of that stage.

My point to all this really though is, if you set up a stage, use physical barriers to stop movement, not penalty lines that cause this kind of arguement. The MD in question claimed he put it there because he was out of walls. No problem, walls are not the only kind of physical barrier. a coulple of target stands with caution tape, a barrel and some rope tied to the door frame, a little white picket fence. Anything higher than 2' off the ground will discourage impractical movement.

[hf219]

You know Pat, and by no means should this be taken the wrong way, especially because I dont know what your volunteer aspect is. This is why everyone should be involved with helping build stages at your local club match. Its an extra set of eyes to see loopholes or other issues with a designers stage. I see this happen at our club occasionally, shooters talk poorly about a stages design or that something else could have been done to make it better. Well thats why this is a VOLUNTEER SPORT! I helped out for quite some time building other peoples stages at local clubs. I learned alot, especially about the designers, their perspective of how a stage should be shot and how it should be built in their eyes. Well it certainly opens ones eyes to see that some people who build stages dont know the rules as well as they think they do. I decided to get involved, I took an RO course, finally with very little insistence started designing and building my own stages. Im no world class stage builder by far, although my critics are tough and talented. You learn alot about the rules and decision making when it comes to a stage design on paper and when built on the ground. I know that by doing this its certainly helped me see more and appreciate help even more. H!