Unsportsman like conduct

[mda]

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.

Got it.

Thanks...

See. Kyle did learn from the shopping cart stage. Anyway the shooter that won the stage overall shot it like it was designed and pushed the shopping cart and shot the drop turner.

Like many have said, USPSA is Freestyle shoot it as you think is best for you.

Many GM's decided to carry the can so they all didn't think is was the best way. Jerry did and shot several targets on the move one handed and easly won the stage in revolver. Only one open shooter did not carry the can. Of the top 4 limited shooters 3 did and 1 didn't and was only 0.4 HF behind the stage winner. Now in production there was a advantage and this division had the most shooters that left the can behind ending up on top.

To me stages are boring if there is only one way to shoot it. Good stage design should provide more than one way to shoot it and still be competitive.

MDA

[larry cazes]

It makes a mockery of the word "Practical" if we set out a challenge and allow the shooter to cirumvent the challenge. The didn't 'Solve" the problem, they avoided it. You would not have that option in my example above, you would be neck deep in a swamp full of snakes and gators.

That is the point, though. Is it practical to suggest that we should engage in any situation without thinking things through and taking the most efficient course of action? Using your head IS practical. In the real world there is no stage description.

[Nik Habicht]

Yeah I understand that and I do agree that no where does it say that shooting while holding the can was required. But I am getting the impression that some just said screw the cans all together and just sipped moving them. Would that not incur a stiffer penalty?

No.....

20 points in penalties isn't insignificant. There's a calculation and some risk involved....

[SmittyFL]

1.1.5

That should be all that is needed to be said but obviously it ain't.

I think a lot of folks whining about intent this and unsportsmanlike that or gaming this just don't get it. How many of you have honestly read the rule book cover to cover?

It shouldn't be us against them, stage designers against shooters. You shouldn't be scouring the rule book in search of a penalty for some action you didn't want the shooter to do. That is ridiculous. It isn't personal; stage designer designs the stage, shooter figures the best course of action that will yield the highest hit factor.

Sure at the local level if you spot a gaping hole because of poor course layout that may be a different story. I've seen that also, either tell the md at the beginning or just tell everyone not to do it. But that is way different and we aren't talking about the local level. If that is all you shoot then you probably aren't getting it anyway.

How many really grasp how the hit factor works? Phil threw down an awesome run shooting it while moving the cans (as intended for some of you). What would Taran have had to do to beat him?

One would have had to go almost 4 seconds faster that Phil to yield a higher HF. I was the one that brought it up on our squad but I was the on deck shooter and didn't have time to figure it out or think it through. Taran was the fist one to try it and we still weren't sure at that point it was worth it. Taran was in contention for the match win, we thought he was leading at that point because Todd was on a different squad. So it was a huge gamble for Taran to try it without really knowing if it was worth it. It wasn't a sure deal.

A high B shooter would have had to go over 5 seconds faster; high C 6 and a half seconds faster. (than they otherwise would) to gain a marginally better HF. This included some long range steel.

That is what makes a cool stage. Trying to figure that and having legit ways to shoot. Not sheep like following what everybody else did because that is what someone 'intended'. Please, it isn't about you mister stage designer if your feelings are hurt that bad take up badminton or something. Just don't make two or three points of badminton a requirement of a USPSA stage.

Good stage, good match, good stuff.

Edited October 6, 2009 by SmittyFL

[nub]

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

[GTOSHootr]

Flex is right there was no hole, just multiple avenues to explore. A good freestyle stage.

Not taking the cans wasn’t just a choice that you took and automatically benefited from it. There was big risk involved and you had to step up and shred in order to reap the reward. Also, looking at the results in Limited, you aren’t purely seeing the consequences of not taking the cans vs taking them. There was also shooting or not shooting the bonus, as well as TJ picking up a procedural when the first can he carried fell off the table.

It wasn’t unsportsmanlike, it was a really interesting and gutsy way to approach the stage.

[Chuck Anderson]

So, just out of curiousity to the folks that think this is unsportsmanlike would you try to DQ a shooter who ran dry after firing only one round on the last paper target of a stage. He's not complying with the stage to shoot two on each so that he doesn't have to do another reload.

[Jadeslade]

1.1.5

That should be all that is needed to be said but obviously it ain't.

I think a lot of folks whining about intent this and unsportsmanlike that or gaming this just don't get it. How many of you have honestly read the rule book cover to cover?

It shouldn't be us against them, stage designers against shooters. You shouldn't be scouring the rule book in search of a penalty for some action you didn't want the shooter to do. That is ridiculous. It isn't personal; stage designer designs the stage, shooter figures the best course of action that will yield the highest hit factor.

Sure at the local level if you spot a gaping hole because of poor course layout that may be a different story. I've seen that also, either tell the md at the beginning or just tell everyone not to do it. But that is way different and we aren't talking about the local level. If that is all you shoot then you probably aren't getting it anyway.

How many really grasp how the hit factor works? Phil threw down an awesome run shooting it while moving the cans (as intended for some of you). What would Taran have had to do to beat him?

One would have had to go almost 4 seconds faster that Phil to yield a higher HF. I was the one that brought it up on our squad but I was the on deck shooter and didn't have time to figure it out or think it through. Taran was the fist one to try it and we still weren't sure at that point it was worth it. Taran was in contention for the match win, we thought he was leading at that point because Todd was on a different squad. So it was a huge gamble for Taran to try it without really knowing if it was worth it. It wasn't a sure deal.

A high B shooter would have had to go over 5 seconds faster; high C 6 and a half seconds faster. (than they otherwise would) to gain a marginally better HF. This included some long range steel.

That is what makes a cool stage. Trying to figure that and having legit ways to shoot. Not sheep like following what everybody else did because that is what someone 'intended'. Please, it isn't about you mister stage designer if your feelings are hurt that bad take up badminton or something. Just don't make two or three points of badminton a requirement of a USPSA stage.

Good stage, good match, good stuff.

Smitty sums this up real well. My squad discussed this with the RO's - it's not like it was a secret. In Production, if I was a way faster shooter, it might make sense, but I have a hard time leaving points on the table at all, so I shot some targets from long distance, which turned out good, took the cans and felt ok about it. You have to be able to figure hit factor, like Smitty said. That is hard to do if you are on deck or in the hole. Great stage.

[LPatterson]

So, just out of curiousity to the folks that think this is unsportsmanlike would you try to DQ a shooter who ran dry after firing only one round on the last paper target of a stage. He's not complying with the stage to shoot two on each so that he doesn't have to do another reload.

If they did it would just be another case of people not having read the entire rule book, i.e. 9.5.1 "Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, scoring paper targets must be shot with a minimum of one round each, with the best two hits to score."

Rule 1.1 General Principles lists Safety, Quality, Balance, Diversity, Freestyle, Difficulty, Challenge, Scenarios and Stage Props. This later section says... "Care must be exercised, however, to avoid unrealistic non-shooting requirements which detract frrom the shooting challenge and/or may expose competitors to potentially unsafe conditions."

Shooting a stage should be about shooting not screwing around moving a prop from point A to Point B or carrying a can below the level of the belt or receive a penaly per shot fired.

[Micah]

So, just out of curiousity to the folks that think this is unsportsmanlike would you try to DQ a shooter who ran dry after firing only one round on the last paper target of a stage. He's not complying with the stage to shoot two on each so that he doesn't have to do another reload.

If it was you, it would be an insta-dq

It was said before in this thread...but I asked the quartermaster (Flex) then the Range Master (Paul Hernandez) how the procedurals would shake out, then my squad discussed it as a worthwhile strategy.

And a HUGE +1 to learning the rulebook.

[Flyin40]

Taking the cans or not taking the cans were both options that were available. Like Smitty said the game is to find a way to get the best available hit factor. This stage is no different than having a drop tuner in a stage and skipping it because its gives you a better score and hf. The difference here is the shooter has to figure out if its worth leaving the cans or not. 20pts in the hole to start out is pretty significant. It was even discussed prior to Sat shooting.

I don't think the stage procedure needed any adjustment at all and made it one of the better freestyle stages.

Flyin

[benos]

The word "must," as in must pick up/move the cans, isn't different from, when you unload/show clear, "you must have 2 hits on each target." If you don't, in either case, you get the penalty.

be

[Charles Bond]

I am a tad late to this and I have scanned the thread but I have a take I have not seen discussed.

From my reading of the walk through, you MUST deposit that can on the last table and it MUST remain there before the last shot is fired. The way I see it, this can not be avoided and until this is done and that last shot is fired, the stage is not complete. Sort of like hitting a stop plate. If you do not do it time runs unitl it is maxed out.

The problem with my theory is that I do not see in the walk through a max time. Furthermore, what the cro on the stage states supersedes what is stated in the walk through. Of course that should not have to happen at this level of match.

As such, it comes back to the walk through. IMO, if the walk through stated a max time, those who did not comply with the requrements in the walk through would receive the max time and on the score sheet you would score the last target as two mikes and a failure to engage since it would be the same as shooting a swinger before you activated it.

John, George, Troy, Gary: Am I out of my mind??

[Chuck Anderson]

Uhh, that's a bit different. I didn't realize we had max time in USPSA. At least not in pistol matches.

[jasmap]

I am a tad late to this and I have scanned the thread but I have a take I have not seen discussed.

From my reading of the walk through, you MUST deposit that can on the last table and it MUST remain there before the last shot is fired. The way I see it, this can not be avoided and until this is done and that last shot is fired, the stage is not complete. Sort of like hitting a stop plate. If you do not do it time runs unitl it is maxed out.

The problem with my theory is that I do not see in the walk through a max time. Furthermore, what the cro on the stage states supersedes what is stated in the walk through. Of course that should not have to happen at this level of match.

As such, it comes back to the walk through. IMO, if the walk through stated a max time, those who did not comply with the requrements in the walk through would receive the max time and on the score sheet you would score the last target as two mikes and a failure to engage since it would be the same as shooting a swinger before you activated it.

John, George, Troy, Gary: Am I out of my mind??

Or just leave it as it is. 2 Procedurals.

I have not heard of a max time in USPSA handgun matches.

[Charles Bond]

Uhh, that's a bit different. I didn't realize we had max time in USPSA. At least not in pistol matches.

There is a problem with the idea of a max time that can not be avoided. Say I start the stage and shoot half of it when my gun breaks. It would be really unfair to stick me with all of the misses required under the current rules plus a max time. As said before, it is really about the walk through. Just give them a procedureal for every shot fired when the can is not where it is stated it must be in the walk though or just do not require it al all.

[Jadeslade]

I am a tad late to this and I have scanned the thread but I have a take I have not seen discussed.

From my reading of the walk through, you MUST deposit that can on the last table and it MUST remain there before the last shot is fired. The way I see it, this can not be avoided and until this is done and that last shot is fired, the stage is not complete. Sort of like hitting a stop plate. If you do not do it time runs unitl it is maxed out.

The problem with my theory is that I do not see in the walk through a max time. Furthermore, what the cro on the stage states supersedes what is stated in the walk through. Of course that should not have to happen at this level of match.

As such, it comes back to the walk through. IMO, if the walk through stated a max time, those who did not comply with the requrements in the walk through would receive the max time and on the score sheet you would score the last target as two mikes and a failure to engage since it would be the same as shooting a swinger before you activated it.

John, George, Troy, Gary: Am I out of my mind??

Rule?

[Nik Habicht]

John, George, Troy, Gary: Am I out of my mind??

I'm not them, nor am I qualified to render a medical opinion, but I'm pretty sure you're interpreting the rulebook incorrectly.....

[Nik Habicht]

Uhh, that's a bit different. I didn't realize we had max time in USPSA. At least not in pistol matches.

There is a problem with the idea of a max time that can not be avoided. Say I start the stage and shoot half of it when my gun breaks. It would be really unfair to stick me with all of the misses required under the current rules plus a max time. As said before, it is really about the walk through. Just give them a procedureal for every shot fired when the can is not where it is stated it must be in the walk though or just do not require it al all.

Or simply assess one procedural for not getting a can where it's supposed to go and call it a day. Stage designers get to design stages, and specify the requirements for shooting them per the rulebook. Shooters get to solve the specified problems by applying their skill and their knowledge of the rulebook....

It sounds like no one at the match had an issue, not the designer, not the MD, not the RM, not the stage staff. The MD even stated that there wasn;t a hole on the stage, but that there was an option. One way left you with two procedurals to start, the other way required something time consuming but avoided procedurals....

Options are good!

[Skizeks]

Gaming is one of the greatest learning tools for a stage designer!!

You either learn how to design stages to overthrow the gamer, or you go sit in the corner and lick your wounds (Ego)!

[Glockcomma]

Their is a lot of old school shooters that think you should do as your told. But procedurals are a tool that the stage designer can use to expand shooting options they make the COF more interesting and elevate the fun factor. In basketball often a player chooses to fowl another player in hope of getting the ball back before the clock runs out, your not supposed to fowl the player but if you don't you might as well head to the locker room, it's an option not without consequences. If you think about the origin of our sport the ability see an alternative game plan and implement it probably would be conducive to your longevity. And the fact that the MD was aware of this option in fact it was contrived and weighed out as to how severe to make the punishment should silence all the FTDRers.

[LChico]

Gaming is one of the greatest learning tools for a stage designer!!

You either learn how to design stages to overthrow the gamer, or you go sit in the corner and lick your wounds (Ego)!

Overthrow the gamer? How about stage designers who like to 'inspire' the gamers? Some of my favorite stage designers can put together stages that may be shot multple ways. (Larry Houck is great at this). The best, creative stage designers are delighted when someone discovers a solution that was never considered when the stage was planned.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

[Chuck Anderson]

Uhh, that's a bit different. I didn't realize we had max time in USPSA. At least not in pistol matches.

There is a problem with the idea of a max time that can not be avoided. Say I start the stage and shoot half of it when my gun breaks. It would be really unfair to stick me with all of the misses required under the current rules plus a max time. As said before, it is really about the walk through. Just give them a procedureal for every shot fired when the can is not where it is stated it must be in the walk though or just do not require it al all.

That's exactly what they did. Each can was supposed to be on the table before the last shot fired. One procedural for each can that was not in position for that last shot. I'm not sure where this max time stuff is coming from.

[Charles Bond]

John, George, Troy, Gary: Am I out of my mind??

I'm not them, nor am I qualified to render a medical opinion, but I'm pretty sure you're interpreting the rulebook incorrectly.....

BINGO! Nik the point is that if you are going to have stages especially at this level of a match, we should have a tight enough stage directive that there is no reward for "failure to do right." I am certainly no advocate of the failure to do right rule ever going into the USPSA rules but on the other hand we should not have stages where shooters who do shoot the stage as envisioned by the course designer are not actually disadvantaged. Obviously in this stage, and I was not there and did not see it so all I know is what has been posted here, two procedurals might have been enough to force the A-D shooters to do right but the "penalty" imposed on the speed with which the Ms and GMs could shoot the stage did not accomplish the same result. We can and should do better especially at our major matches.

Lastly, but for your "medical opinion" in this and many other threads, there would be much more confusion than presently exists on this and other issues.

[Lee King]

Gaming is one of the greatest learning tools for a stage designer!!

You either learn how to design stages to overthrow the gamer, or you go sit in the corner and lick your wounds (Ego)!

Overthrow the gamer? How about stage designers who like to 'inspire' the gamers? Some of my favorite stage designers can put together stages that may be shot multple ways. (Larry Houck is great at this). The best, creative stage designers are delighted when someone discovers a solution that was never considered when the stage was planned.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

I have actually gamed a stage I designed. We realized there was a shoot through into a tree at the last minute and had to rearrange the stage. It opened up some targets to be shot from a different spot than was designed. But you still had to apply stage math to it. Was it worth the time to take a long shot through a small opening to save from having to make the movement to get to the intended shooting area for those targets (closer wide open shots)?

Gaming a stage is still a personal choice. Everyone has the opportunity to do it. Some pull it off. Some crash and burn. This sport is supposed to be (at least I like to think) as much about using your noggin as your trigger finger.