Unsportsman like conduct

[WDB]

Apparently there was a stage that required you carry some cans during the stage and apparently a number of people didnt do it and resulted in a better finish. WSB as follows:

Shooter must carry cans from table to table. Can on table A must be carried to, placed on, and remain on table B. Then, can on table B, must be carried to, placed on, and remain on table C...before the last shot is fired. No throwing.

Notice the word "must" 3 times!!

My question is how is this not a violation of 10.6.1. failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official.

Or at least 10.2.2 1 per shot fired after you should have had the can

I can see honest mistake procedurals, but flat out saying "F" the WSB to get a faster time thus a higher hit factor? My opinion,,,, just ain't right. If that's the case why have WSB's that state more than "here are 10 targets, be safe, shootem' up".

[notasccrmom]

I believe that there was more to it than that, such as a detail in the WSB about how to apply procedurals to that specific stage. (Edit: I now see that there was in fact not such a detail. A better stage design and WSB would definitely avoid this issue.)

I don't see how this situation is any different then running past a slow drop turner to take the no penalty mike when you gain an advantage on the time. It's the shooter's choice to take the penalty or not.

Edited October 4, 2009 by notasccrmom

[BritinUSA]

I would think that the 'must carry' implies that the cans would be carried while shooting. Unless the shooter did all the stage then ran back and moved A to B and B to C then fired the last shot, if they did not do that then I think it would be a penalty per shot fired. It's not unsportsmanlike conduct though.

Perhaps someone can post the COMPLETE WSB?

Edited October 4, 2009 by BritinUSA

[WDB]

Travelin Can

RULES: Practical Shooting Handbook, Latest Edition COURSE DESIGNER: Conrad the Barbarian

START POSITION: Loaded and holstered per rulebook. Both hands touching can, which is on the Table A.

STAGE PROCEDURE

Upon start signal engage targets as they become visible

from within the fault lines.

Shooter must carry cans from table to table. Can on Table

A must be carried to, placed on, and remain on Table B.

Then, can on Table B, must be carried to, placed on, and

remain on Table C…before the last shot is fired. No

throwing.

Drop-turner is a disappearing target, activated by popper.

SCORING

SCORING: Comstock,29 rounds,145 points

TARGETS: 13 Metric, 2 steel plates, 1 popper

SCORED HITS: Best 2 per Metric, steel down = 1A

START-STOP: Audible - Last shot

PENALTIES: Procedural. -10

No-shoot hit. -10

Miss. -10

C

B

A

SETUP NOTES:

RO NOTES:

PP1

[smokshwn]

Not quite sure what your purpose is in trying to apply unsportsmanlike conduct???

At most it is a procedural/s for not following that level of direction in the WSB but not unsportsmanlike conduct.

[Aristotle]

Not quite sure what your purpose is in trying to apply unsportsmanlike conduct???

At most it is a procedural/s for not following that level of direction in the WSB but not unsportsmanlike conduct.

+1

[Joe4d]

Maybe MD's can use this experience to get the mickey mouse fiddle fart stages out of SHOOTING matches.

[Pat Miles]

The outcome would have been a done deal with a better written stage briefing outlining the amount of procedurals to be given if the cans were not carried from table to table. Without that you will have people who will use it to their advantage.

CYa,

Pat

[BritinUSA]

The outcome would have been a done deal with a better written stage briefing outlining the amount of procedurals to be given if the cans were not carried from table to table. Without that you will have people who will use it to their advantage.

+1

[jasmap]

The outcome would have been a done deal with a better written stage briefing outlining the amount of procedurals to be given if the cans were not carried from table to table. Without that you will have people who will use it to their advantage.

CYa,

Pat

+1 also. A better stage and WSB would solve this.

[Chris]

2 procedurals as written.

[George Jones]

Maybe MD's can use this experience to get the mickey mouse fiddle fart stages out of SHOOTING matches.

Yup!

Anytime a stage has "additional penalties" included in the WSB, a big red flag should go up.

By "additional penalties", I mean specifying penalties beyond what is already in the rulebook. If, for example, you need to say something like "Failure to do X and Y will incur one procedural penalty per shot fired", you are heading down that slippery slope.

IMO, if a stage has to go that far, it has zero fun factor..... and it should be about having fun.

And then there are the scoring issues. Any stage which requires the shooter to carry something is a particular challenge. We all know the intent (to force single-hand shooting), but intent is not enforceable. The trick is in wording it clearly and precisely enough that you do not have to specify "additional penalties" in order to enforce that intent.

[Matt P.]

Here is another good example that rewards those shooters who actually read the Rule book!

Knowing the rules of our sport "WILL" make you a better shooter!.

[ampleworks]

How was this stage any different than a couple years back with the grocery cart other than you had to make up 20 points with time?

[Chuck Anderson]

Couple things. First it would be hard to DQ us for unsportsmanlike conduct after we asked the RO, CRO and RM prior to doing it. Second, there was no single hand shooting required, or even seen by me, on the squad. It was shoot the first group of targets, pick up the can, run to another table, put the can down. Shoot some more, grab another can and run it to the last table, then shoot some more. I chose to leave the cans because it required a lot less running and I'm not exactly quick on my feet these days. My boss has a saying. You can do whatever you want, you just have to be willing to pay the consequences. In this case the consequence per the WSB, as well as the statements by the match staff was 2 Procedurals. It was up to the shooter to decide if it was worth it to take the cans or not. FWIW, that decision changes as the shooters speed goes up. If you shoot a 3 HF on the stage you had to make up almost 9 seconds by not carrying the can. A 6 HF you only had to make up 4.5 (ish). Part of the sport is making the decision as to how get the best score. Whether it's taking a make up shot on a target with a D or passing up a Disappearing target.

[Coach]

I shot the match and it was a good stage. You could shoot SHO or as Chuck described above you could shoot then move cans. The shooting was not very difficult on the stage, but deciding how to do it best was a bit of a challenge. I shot on Friday with staff and we missed the part about it only being two procedurals and simply "assumed" it would be a procedural per shot fired. I learned that we need to pay closer attention.

The cans were a nice challenge without being too carnavel in nature I thought.

Calling unsportsmanlike conduct for gaming it this way is not the right call to make.

[ima45dv8]

My question is how is this not a violation of 10.6.1. failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official.

I think it would be a stretch to say that reading the WSB equates to, "...the reasonable directions of a Match Official." As an example, if an RO asked a competitor to stay behind a certain identifiable point while filming his friend's run at a course of fire, that could easily be viewed as a failure to acknowledge and follow the reasonable request of a Match Official. If the shooter filming repeatedly refused to comply, a DQ issued by the RO could easily be supported under 10.6.1.

As an extreme counter-example, if we were to strictly equate the WSB as, "...the reasonable directions of a Match Official", what would happen if a shooter had a severe jam/failure on the last target and elected to not fire a second shot (something most of us have done at one time)? Would we then DQ the competitor because he didn't follow the WSB and "...engage each target with two rounds each"? After all, that's what the RO said to do while reading the WSB.

Of course not.

[ima45dv8]

How was this stage any different than a couple years back with the grocery cart other than you had to make up 20 points with time?

As a self-professed Gamer(!), I'm happy to tell you I discovered the hole in that particular course of fire. I asked the RM, "If I don't push the cart downrange and activate the disappearing targets until I'm finished shooting, would you support a penalty?" He studied the WSB and said, "No." So that's what we did.

*I told the MD (Flex) that he had just witnessed a severe failure of the Ohio Border Patrol for letting some Georgia-based DRL's invade their territory unimpeded. After seeing us drive a truck through the middle of his stage, he simply smiled and walked off without using too many 4-letter words.

That's part and parcel of stage design in a Freestyle setting. Sometimes, people just come up with a solution you didn't expect. No harm; no foul. You learn and move on.

Or, if your ego is fragile enough, you invoke some goofy-assed solution called a Forbidden Action and prohibit creativity in your clientele.

[SmittyFL]

If that's the case why have WSB's that state more than "here are 10 targets, be safe, shootem' up".

That exactly what the best stages have for a wsb.

The goal of our stages are to get the highest hit factor. Don't get upset with someone who comes up with a better plan. It isn't personal, folks are just trying to score the best within the rules.

There are no ftdr's in USPSA.

[WDB]

Well, I guss the consensus is that I have alot to learn about the "gaming" of of this "gentlemans" sport. I still think, and will continue to think, that if a stage brief says to do something, YOU DO IT, how to do it in the most effiecent time is where the strategy comes in.

[smokshwn]

Well, I guss the consensus is that I have alot to learn about the "gaming" of of this "gentlemans" sport. I still think, and will continue to think, that if a stage brief says to do something, YOU DO IT, how to do it in the most effiecent time is where the strategy comes in.

I don't remember anyone stating this was a "gentleman's" sport....just that it was a very pure form of experimentation to find the most efficient way to put rounds on target. That being said, I think it is unjustified to imply that people who shot the stage well within the rules as competitors are somehow not gentleman. Just food for thought.

Edited October 5, 2009 by smokshwn

[jasmap]

Well, I guss the consensus is that I have alot to learn about the "gaming" of of this "gentlemans" sport. I still think, and will continue to think, that if a stage brief says to do something, YOU DO IT, how to do it in the most effiecent time is where the strategy comes in.

There's nothing wrong with how you approach the stages. I also don't see anything wrong with the other ways. It's a sport, we have rules, and we live or die (so to speak) by these rules.

[kimel]

IMHO a stage with only one solution is boring. A stage with multiple solutions is much more fun. Finding a solution no one else thought of (including the designer), priceless.

[JThompson]

IMHO a stage with only one solution is boring. A stage with multiple solutions is much more fun. Finding a solution no one else thought of (including the designer), priceless.

Forbidden action... do not pass go do not...

I am in total agreement with Kimel. I don't care a wit what the "intention" is only that I remain within the rules.

JT

[larry cazes]

Or, if your ego is fragile enough, you invoke some goofy-assed solution called a Forbidden Action and prohibit creativity in your clientele.

Well said. No FTDR/Forbidden Action needed here. Never liked that concept. This is a thinking man's sport. Don't denigrate someone for coming up with a better solution to the problem than you did.

Edited October 5, 2009 by larry cazes