Area 7 chrono procedure

[adweisbe]

This method contravenes the rules, but does seem to be the regular method in A7. (I have shot 2 or 3 A7 matches and this is how it was done each time)

That wasn't how they did it at Harvard when I shot the A7 match there (2008). Got busted down to minor. Chrono procedure was also followed correctly at A7 2007 in Vermont.

Edited August 11, 2009 by adweisbe

[Jim Norman]

With respect to the Chrono.

My concern was that a shooter that squeaks major in a range gun might not make it in his own gun and with the method as I understand it, he would not be asked to chrono his own gun, so he would benefit from significant extra points over having minored and a shooter that squeaks minor could win the match when he should have been shooting for fun.

We have a rule book, not a suggestion book. If as Nik points out we have to chrono for a Level 3, then let's man up and chrono. it would have been simple enough to step off to the side of one of the stages and have chrono right there. Shoot Stage X, ULSC, Step right up to Chrono. Let the last shooter in the rotation chrono first so that when he shoots the stage, the squad is done and can move, virtually no added time. Certainly not much more than three starts for three stages in one pit!.

Again however, I stress that we had fun, we enjoyed the match it was well run and we will return.

[wide45]

Previous versions of the rulebook did allow ammo to be chronoed thru range guns. In years past when it was done, it was legal. It is not legal now.

[Nik Habicht]

Previous versions of the rulebook did allow ammo to be chronoed thru range guns. In years past when it was done, it was legal. It is not legal now.

That must have been quite sometime ago.....

Use of the competitor's gun and ammo has been required since the red rulebook implemented in 2001....

[wide45]

Previous versions of the rulebook did allow ammo to be chronoed thru range guns. In years past when it was done, it was legal. It is not legal now.

That must have been quite sometime ago.....

Use of the competitor's gun and ammo has been required since the red rulebook implemented in 2001....

See US 5.6.4 from the 2001 red book.

[lugnut]

Did anyone get bumped to Minor? I think there might have been...

[Nik Habicht]

Previous versions of the rulebook did allow ammo to be chronoed thru range guns. In years past when it was done, it was legal. It is not legal now.

That must have been quite sometime ago.....

Use of the competitor's gun and ammo has been required since the red rulebook implemented in 2001....

See US 5.6.4 from the 2001 red book.

U.S. rules, right next to non-U.S. rules --- there's a blast from the past.....

I read up to 5.6.4 and stopped --- having totally gotten out of the mindset of looking for U.S. rule exemptions.....

[MFP4073]

This method contravenes the rules, but does seem to be the regular method in A7. (I have shot 2 or 3 A7 matches and this is how it was done each time)

That wasn't how they did it at Harvard when I shot the A7 match there (2008). Got busted down to minor. Chrono procedure was also followed correctly at A7 2007 in Vermont.

My rounds were also chrono'd using my own pistol at A-7 '08 and A-7 '07.

[Mistral404]

I know for a fact that my exact same ammo through my Kart, Nowlin, STI, and Schuemann barrels all have different velocities.

The Chrono was done on the same day with the ammo that was loaded as a group. Any "match chrono gun" is not going to be the representative of the velocities in any one of my guns.

[XRe]

From a strict constructionist view, I believe the rules were followed. Here is why:

You mean from a strict revisionist point of view, right?

1. Nothing in the rulebook prohibits the match director from using his/her criteria to determine what competitors to chrono. For example, if a chrono breaks half way through the match it does not mean that all competitors who previously chronoed at a power factor other than that they declared are moved back to their declared power factor.

5.6 is the section of the rules concerned. Nothing in 5.6 states that the MD/RM get to pick which competitors to chrono and which ones don't have to chrono. 5.6.1 states "every competitor", and 5.6.1.4 states the procedure to be used. The clauses in Appendix C2 that deal with equipment breakage do not allow the RM to pick who to chono - they allow the RM to make the assessment that the equipment is broken, and they state how to handle that situation. Nothing more.

To do anything else allows the MD/RM/chrono operator to show favoritism at the chrono station (I'm not saying this happened at A7 in any way, shape, or form - pointing out why the rule is how it is).

The rules do allow a competitors ammo to be questioned and chrono'ed multiple times - but those are in addition to the 1st pass mandated by using the chrono in the first place.

2. The Match Director used a screening sample of one round to choose which competitors ammo was subject to the chronograph test. Competitors who were chosen to be chronographed based on the screening sample of one round through a house gun were subject to the precise chrono procedure specified in the rulebook.

Show me where a "screening sample" or a "house gun" is allowed for in the rules? I see nothing that says anything other than "every competitor" and "Appendix C2".

I know you're the A7 AD, and you're defending your own match and its procedures, Rob, but the rules don't say that this sort of thing can be done. The short answer is, the A7 match didn't follow the stipulated chrono procedure this year, and could have been thrown out if someone had made an issue of it....

[mactiger]

Well said.

Troy

[Rob Boudrie]

Show me where a "screening sample" or a "house gun" is allowed for in the rules? I see nothing that says anything other than "every competitor" and "Appendix C2".

I know you're the A7 AD, and you're defending your own match and its procedures, Rob, but the rules don't say that this sort of thing can be done. The short answer is, the A7 match didn't follow the stipulated chrono procedure this year, and could have been thrown out if someone had made an issue of it....

This issue is not "is it explicitly allowed?", but "is it prohibited"?.

I asked John Amidon what would happen if the chrono broke half way through (would existing measurements be used), and the answer was the the chrono results of those who could be measured would stand. On the other hand, there is that "every competitor" statement in the rules - which could be used to present an argument that any chrono measurement not involving all competitors is not valid. Although John Amidon can issue official opinions, they become official policy when posted as an NROI interpretation.

So, the real question is "do the rules allow a MD to select a sample of competitors to be chronoed?". It is clear that even if a preliminary screening procedure was allowed, it would only be through symantic gymnastics and is clearly not what is intended by the rules.

But, no protests or arbitrations were filed. If one was filed, the Match Director would have been responsible for choosing the committee. I would have declined any request to serve on the committee, and suggest that he fill it with persons not involved in the production of the match.

I'm glad this was the only issue with the match, and will ask NROI to verify that the chrono procedure to be proposed by the match staff for the 2010 match is in full compliance with the rules.

[XRe]

This issue is not "is it explicitly allowed?", but "is it prohibited"?.

Its prohibited - quite simply because the rules state how it is to be done - not "here's one way to do it".

I asked John Amidon what would happen if the chrono broke half way through (would existing measurements be used), and the answer was the the chrono results of those who could be measured would stand. On the other hand, there is that "every competitor" statement in the rules - which could be used to present an argument that any chrono measurement not involving all competitors is not valid. Although John Amidon can issue official opinions, they become official policy when posted as an NROI interpretation.

Appendix C2 #20 quite clearly states that is the case. Appendix C2 contains some very specific exceptions to 5.6.1 that are allowed solely due to equipment malfunction or failure at the chronograph station itself. There is nothing in Appendix C2 that allows one to circumvent the administrative procedures due to "whim", only through several clearly stipulated situations.

John is allowed to make opinions - but his opinion is just that, until it is ratified by the BOD, and then released as an official interpretation.

So, the real question is "do the rules allow a MD to select a sample of competitors to be chronoed?".

Actually, its "do the rules allow a MD to select a sample of competitors to be chronoed at the exclusion of all other competitors?"...

It is clear that even if a preliminary screening procedure was allowed, it would only be through symantic gymnastics and is clearly not what is intended by the rules.

Correct. The only way for such a thing to occur would be the analog to blatant, shameless, range lawyering on the part of the match staff. I'd think it should be considered bad enough that one has to put up with that kind of stuff from the competitors

But, no protests or arbitrations were filed.

That doesn't make it "right" to have followed a different procedure???

[Flexmoney]

Well said.

Troy

I'll second that.

Well said, Dave.

[Rob Boudrie]

John is allowed to make opinions - but his opinion is just that, until it is ratified by the BOD, and then released as an official interpretation.

BOD ratification is not required - but the board is given a chance to anti-ratify.

The NROI interpretation system which John uses to make opinions posts them for board review for approximately one week. If the board does not object, the system automatically releases the interpretation as official NROI/USPSA policy. It's a process where the board is given a chance to void an interpretation before it is released. The release of official opinions occurs during the week (I think on a Tuesday, not certain) to minimize the possibility of an interpretation being released during match.

Good point on the chrono failure - I missed that in C2.

[mactiger]

John is allowed to make opinions - but his opinion is just that, until it is ratified by the BOD, and then released as an official interpretation.

BOD ratification is not required - but the board is given a chance to anti-ratify.

The NROI interpretation system which John uses to make opinions posts them for board review for approximately one week. If the board does not object, the system automatically releases the interpretation as official NROI/USPSA policy. It's a process where the board is given a chance to void an interpretation before it is released. The release of official opinions occurs during the week (I think on a Tuesday, not certain) to minimize the possibility of an interpretation being released during match.

Good point on the chrono failure - I missed that in C2.

This seems like semantic gymnastics to me, Rob. The process you describe is a ratification process. Lack of active "yea" votes from the BOD only makes it an implicit approval, rather than an explicit approval.

He did give you the correct information, though.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

John's opinion...just like the opinion of Troy, Gary, Dave, me, you...anybody...is just opinion.

It's not the rule book and it's not an "official interpretation" posted on the USPSA website.

I am pretty sure it's safe to say that every person that I listed has made mistaken calls. (yeah, I am in that list )

I have yet to meet an RO, CRO, RM, RM(I) that is in 100% agreement of everything.

I think that is why it's important that we have a good rule book to go to. (And, I do think we have a good one. It is mature...through years of experience...and, pretty complete. Of course, it will always need improvement from time to time.)

We have chrono procedures. I don't get the benefit of not using them at an Area match? Frankly, USPSA members expect the matches to be governed by the rule book.

[Gary Stevens]

John's opinion...just like the opinion of Troy, Gary, Dave, me, you...anybody...is just opinion.

It's not the rule book and it's not an "official interpretation" posted on the USPSA website.

I am pretty sure it's safe to say that every person that I listed has made mistaken calls. (yeah, I am in that list )

I have yet to meet an RO, CRO, RM, RM(I) that is in 100% agreement of everything.

I think that is why it's important that we have a good rule book to go to. (And, I do think we have a good one. It is mature...through years of experience...and, pretty complete. Of course, it will always need improvement from time to time.)

We have chrono procedures. I don't get the benefit of not using them at an Area match? Frankly, USPSA members expect the matches to be governed by the rule book.

YEP.

[XRe]

We have chrono procedures. I don't get the benefit of not using them at an Area match? Frankly, USPSA members expect the matches to be governed by the rule book.

Bingo...

[BlackBuzzard]

The benefit of no chrono stage?

I got home 30 minutes sooner ( 270 mile PM drive home).

And presumably, this might have been an 11 stage match (instead of 12) if the chrono was included.

I use a chronograph in developing loads, and my loads make declared PF plus marginally more.

Area 7 staff sampled my ammo and told me it was tested..........good enough for me.

If it streamlines the match, and it did, I'm all for it.

BB

[mactiger]

Area 7 staff sampled my ammo and told me it was tested..........good enough for me.

If it streamlines the match, and it did, I'm all for it.

BB

The point is: you either have chrono and do it right, or you don't and take declared power factor. At a level III match, it's required by the rules. I don't know what level Area 7 was sanctioned for, but if it was level III, then the chronograph was required, and there is no provision for randomly sampling some of the competitors or shooting their ammo through a test gun. Whether it streamlined the match or didn't is not relevant.

John's statement in this case was not an opinion, but rather a statement of an existing rule.

Troy

[jasmap]

Dave and Flex are both dead on with their statements. It is what it is (the rules) and in my eyes there is no real good answer as to why the proper chrono process didn't occur. I don't believe it was meant in harm but the rules are the rules. The chrono should have been done through the competitors' guns and every shooter should have been chrono'd.

[Chuck Anderson]

The benefit of no chrono stage?

I got home 30 minutes sooner ( 270 mile PM drive home).

And presumably, this might have been an 11 stage match (instead of 12) if the chrono was included.

I use a chronograph in developing loads, and my loads make declared PF plus marginally more.

Area 7 staff sampled my ammo and told me it was tested..........good enough for me.

If it streamlines the match, and it did, I'm all for it.

Just because it's faster, doesn't make it right. We could not bother to tape targets, and set the steel not to fall. If we assume each shooter gets all A's we could probably get 13 or even 14 stages in. If you want to put on an Area match, comply with the rules, to do otherwise is not fair to the competitors who paid good money to come.

[wide45]

Is it time to close this thread?

It does not look to be going anywhere of value.

[Nik Habicht]

Is it time to close this thread?

It does not look to be going anywhere of value.

Drift

I see nothing to suggest that closing it is appropriate. Rob's explained his (the match's) position --- others have posted their reaction to the situation, and made suggestions for improving the same. Multiple moderators are participating or have read the thread --- none of us are concerned about it.....

End of Drift