Unsportsman like conduct

[Singlestack]

The point you seem to be missing Charles is there is no such thing as "do right".

Freestyle beby!

[XRe]

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.

Charles, you've missed the whole point, as have many others in this thread. The stage was purposefully designed to present this choice to the shooter. The WSB said exactly what the course designer intended. In order to make the right decision, the shooter had to know the rule book, understand hit factor scoring, and understand their game enough to assess which route would work best for them. I don't see any problem with a course designer offering that choice.

Yes, stage designers and match directors for major matches should insure that the WSB is constructed such that their intent is clear. And the advice above in the thread that if the course description requires a whole lot more than "engage targets as they become available", they probably ought to rethink the stage - that's good stuff, too. But, this whole notion of "DQ someone because they chose to take penalties" is for the birds. It smacks of sour grapes and bruised egos (and always has).

[Flexmoney]

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."

The reward was for have a big set a balls and letting them hang out.

Anybody that is going to take a 20pt hit..right off the top...better have some confidence in their ability. Miss a reload (like I did on Stage 1) and you are sunk. Heck, a couple of the Limited guys also skipped the disappearing drop-turner...so, that is another 10pts off the top.

And, if Taran hadn't been there and been in full on after-burner mode...then taking the cans would have won in Limited. Taking the cans did win in Open. Taking the cans also won in Revolver (though, due to the time suck of standing reloads, leaving the cans in Revo(6) & Single-Stack(8) almost had to be the way to go?).

In Production...you really can't judge. Bob and Ben were shooting at a much higher level than anybody else in the match anyway. Had Bob or Ben taken the cans, they might have likely run it down-10 in 18.00 seconds (for a winning HF of 7.5) or in 19.00 seconds (for a HF of 7.1, or 96%).

[Strick]

Charles, you've missed the whole point, as have many others in this thread. The stage was purposefully designed to present this choice to the shooter. The WSB said exactly what the course designer intended. In order to make the right decision, the shooter had to know the rule book, understand hit factor scoring, and understand their game enough to assess which route would work best for them. I don't see any problem with a course designer offering that choice.

Yes, stage designers and match directors for major matches should insure that the WSB is constructed such that their intent is clear. And the advice above in the thread that if the course description requires a whole lot more than "engage targets as they become available", they probably ought to rethink the stage - that's good stuff, too. But, this whole notion of "DQ someone because they chose to take penalties" is for the birds. It smacks of sour grapes and bruised egos (and always has).

Again this is a question from pure curiosity and not meant as a comment on any of the rulings. I have nto really recieved an answer to my question yet though so I will ask again. As an aside I do a lot of stages for my local IDPA club and actually get a little chuckle when someone games them (which can be a little more tricky then in USPSA). It shows that the shooter is thinking.

If the shooter in any stage can take it upon themselves to ignore/skip/disregard the actual wsb just because the math is in their favor how does that equal "reading and knowing the rulebook". If we use what has been stated in this thread when do we apply this part of the rulebook....

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the

written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during

non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural

penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple

shots contrary to the required position or stance).

It would seem that reading and knowing the rulebook for some may put them at a disadvantage based on how they interpret what it actually says.

Again, this is not a comment, attack, and I am not saying shooters should be DQ'ed............just asking an honest question that is puzzling me.

[IC_Cyclone]

Slight drift...sorry

An enlightened man is at one with the law of causation.

It seems, in this example, one competitor may choose to accept -20 points, a quicker time, praise for being clever and scorn for gaming in pursuit of their highest HF potential

Obviously, another competitor may choose to avoid the procedurals, accept a slower time and perhaps hope to be seen as someone who "follows intent" all in pursuit of their personal HF potential.

One will score better than the other. That doesn't matter as long as each chose a path to their own best performance.

A third competitor receives -20 points for noshoot hits and takes extra seconds fumbling reloads even though they know an acceptable sight picture is required before breaking the shot and "trying harder" causes errors.

[Chuck Anderson]

The rule you quote is exactly the rule that was used. Reading the rule book and understanding it would cause you to realize that yes there was a significant advantage gained and yes a procedural per shot fired should be/was assessed. What you're missing is that the procedure stated they had to be in position prior to the last shot. Therefore the last shot is the only one fired when the competitor is faulting. One shot, two procedurals, one for each can not in compliance with the WSB.

Competitors make decisions on every course of fire whether or comply 100% with the WSB. If a WSB says engage all targets as they become visible and the competitor doesn't engage one, there is a penalty for that. Whether that is a deliberate decision, say to skip a disappearing target or an accidental one where the shooter blows by a target not realizing it was there, the procedural penalty is there, certainly not a DQ though. The shooter can always choose to disregard the WSB. In 99.99% of the cases it will not work out in their favor. In this case it did. Knowing, from reading the rule book and being completely familiar with it, allowed some competitors to realize that there was an alternative way to shoot the stage.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Chuck Anderson

[Flexmoney]

I have not really recieved an answer to my question yet though so I will ask again.

I didn't cover your question already...?

Not clear?

Using "significant advantage/per shot", one ought to spell that out in the WSB...along with the associated penalties.

Even if you did so, it would have been near impossible to apply here. (shooter had multiple target options).

Here, the procedure said to:

- Take Can #1 from Table A, carry it, and place it on Table B. Failing to do that procedure would equate to one instance of not following a procedure. Also...

- Take Can #2 from Table B, carry it, and place it on Table C. Failing to do that procedure would equate to one (more) instance of not following a procedure.

Nowhere did the procedure specify shooting while holding or carrying a can. The shooting and the carrying of the cans were not tied together.

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?

It sounds like you are really bothered by the fact that shooters were free to choose their own path to the highest hit factor?

While I didn't design the stage, I did have a hand or two in building it and crafting the WSB. If we had wanted a "per shot" penalty in that stage., we would have written it in there in some way. (It would have been a mess to write, but I am sure that...between me and 5 or 6 RM/TD's we had at the match...we would have manged it.)

We weren't trying to force competitor action, only compel it. (that is a big part of "freestyle", IMO)

If you were able to search back through and find all the relevant threads on this over the years, you would find that each instance of not following the WSB incurs one procedural penalty. No more, no less.

[mactiger]

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??

To answer your last question, yes.

Troy

[Strick]

Edited because I realize it doesn't matter.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Strick

[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.....

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.

Charles,

if you favor taking the thinking out of this game --- the calculating of how to get a better hit factor, including the consequence of taking a procedural or two --- then I might as well go shoot NRA Action Pistol fulltime. It's a great game, but every stage is stringently prescribed, and there's no opportunity to think outside the box.....

Thinking outside the box --- and having real choices with real hit factor consequences --- is what makes this game great. I see a direct correlation between these tasks and disappearing targets.....

It's also not that hard --- if one thinks like you --- to design a stage in such a way that every shooter will carry the can, and it doesn't have to get down to one procedural per shot fired after the point where "a reasonable competitor" (whatever that is) might have picked up the can.....

[rvb]

As usual, way more drama on the internet than on the range...

A good stage IMO that has had me sitting around at home w/ a stopwatch mentally re-running the stage wondering "what if..." and "what can I learn" ever since.

Even if the penalty was assessed per shot vs a single penalty, the WSB only specified what had to happen prior to the last shot, so I'd think that would be the only shot that could be penalized anyway.

I've seen bubblegum/memory/gimmick/foofoo/whatever stages... and this was not one. Lots of options... carry the cans or not? If so, between shooting or shoot on the move SHO? If not, advance for the drop turner? On top of all that there was the stupid no-shoot that jumped in front of my bullet.

No complaints from this competitor at the match.

-rvb

ps. As for when a pentalty merits a single penalty or per-shot, I simply ask the RO/CRO if I'm going to do something way "outside the WSB box." edit: The RO's on this stage made it clear up-front how the can penalties would be assessed, also pointing out the no-penalty mikes on the disappearing drop-turner.

-rvb

Edited October 8, 2009 by rvb

[BSeevers]

Funny

As a very competitive person when I heard it had been gamed I got really ticked off..................

at myself for missing it.

[Charles Bond]

Let us clarify:

I do not believe in a "do right"rule.

I do believe in freestyle.

I believe stage descriptions should be clear.

I believe that penalties should be properly applied.

I do not believe the way some shooters shot this stage was unsportsmanship like.

I would not DQ anyone who shot a stage safely.

I believe that if a course designer wants a stage approached in a certain way, they should write a tight stage description.

I believe that directives following words like "must" are not optional and that has nothing to do with freestyle.

[Flexmoney]

For the record, the word following "must"...was "carry".

We didn't want them throwing, kicking, skipping (etc.) the ammo cans. We couldn't really get there by saying "should carry".

We got what we wanted.

Still...interesting discussion.

[WDB]

Ok since I started this as a learning question I will say that Xre and Charles responces made it click for me,,,,sort of. So, now the only thing I have a question about is this, it's been said again and again that some shooter did what was advantagous to them. Now of course we shoot a stage in a way that we think is the most advantagous to our skill level and it is our choice as long as we stay within the rules, but as has been stated here by numerous people some shooters by passed the cans to gain an advantage, so why wouldn't 10.2.2 apply. Please don't tell me it wasn't in the wsb either, they never say that if you run past the fault line for a better shooting position you get a 1 per penalty either but, we all know you will. I never said I thought it should be a DQ offense, obviously it wasn't of they would have been, I was just waiting clarity as to why it wasn't. And now I think I have it, or most of it anyway, it's all about the WSB,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,right?

[Jadeslade]

No. Re-read the posts again. Pay attention to hit factor: points/time , pay attention to Chuck's posts about procedural: 2 cans= 2 procedurals and then read Smitty, Flex, and numerous others about strategy. It's all in here....it can take a while to get it, I have a degree in Quantum Particle Astrophysics with an Emphasis on Telepathy and this kind of stuff takes me a while to get. There is no failure to do right in IPSC. There is definitely a failure to do good-like hitting all alphas. Sleep on it - it will come.

[ChuckS]

Ok since I started this as a learning question I will say that Xre and Charles responces made it click for me,,,,sort of. So, now the only thing I have a question about is this, it's been said again and again that some shooter did what was advantagous to them. Now of course we shoot a stage in a way that we think is the most advantagous to our skill level and it is our choice as long as we stay within the rules, but as has been stated here by numerous people some shooters by passed the cans to gain an advantage, so why wouldn't 10.2.2 apply. Please don't tell me it wasn't in the wsb either, they never say that if you run past the fault line for a better shooting position you get a 1 per penalty either but, we all know you will. I never said I thought it should be a DQ offense, obviously it wasn't of they would have been, I was just waiting clarity as to why it wasn't. And now I think I have it, or most of it anyway, it's all about the WSB,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,right?

The Rule:

"10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the

written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occur-

rence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during

non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural

penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple

shots contrary to the required position or stance)."

It is up to the match officials. It is not mandatory.

[Nik Habicht]

some shooters by passed the cans to gain an advantage, so why wouldn't 10.2.2 apply. Please don't tell me it wasn't in the wsb either, they never say that if you run past the fault line for a better shooting position you get a 1 per penalty either but, we all know you will. I never said I thought it should be a DQ offense, obviously it wasn't of they would have been, I was just waiting clarity as to why it wasn't. And now I think I have it, or most of it anyway, it's all about the WSB,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,right?

10.2.2. applied on a per shot fired basis. The requirements were to move can A to a specific place and Can B to a different specific place PRIOR to firing the last shot. That means that shooters were free to shoot the all shots but the last, move the cans to their directed places, and then fire their last shot to stop the clock while avoiding penalties. Shooters also had the option to move the cans earlier, perhaps during breaks in the shooting, or to move them while shooting one handed.

Not moving the cans to their designated resting places would incur one procedural per shot fired after that point. Since the stage description required the cans to be moved prior to the "last" shot, if it didn't happen a per shot penalty was assessed for each can not moved, hence 2 procedurals....

Does that make sense?

[Charles Bond]

some shooters by passed the cans to gain an advantage, so why wouldn't 10.2.2 apply. Please don't tell me it wasn't in the wsb either, they never say that if you run past the fault line for a better shooting position you get a 1 per penalty either but, we all know you will. I never said I thought it should be a DQ offense, obviously it wasn't of they would have been, I was just waiting clarity as to why it wasn't. And now I think I have it, or most of it anyway, it's all about the WSB,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,right?

10.2.2. applied on a per shot fired basis. The requirements were to move can A to a specific place and Can B to a different specific place PRIOR to firing the last shot. That means that shooters were free to shoot the all shots but the last, move the cans to their directed places, and then fire their last shot to stop the clock while avoiding penalties. Shooters also had the option to move the cans earlier, perhaps during breaks in the shooting, or to move them while shooting one handed.

Not moving the cans to their designated resting places would incur one procedural per shot fired after that point. Since the stage description required the cans to be moved prior to the "last" shot, if it didn't happen a per shot penalty was assessed for each can not moved, hence 2 procedurals....

Does that make sense?

Woujld you have written the walk through as it appeared at the match?

[Nik Habicht]

some shooters by passed the cans to gain an advantage, so why wouldn't 10.2.2 apply. Please don't tell me it wasn't in the wsb either, they never say that if you run past the fault line for a better shooting position you get a 1 per penalty either but, we all know you will. I never said I thought it should be a DQ offense, obviously it wasn't of they would have been, I was just waiting clarity as to why it wasn't. And now I think I have it, or most of it anyway, it's all about the WSB,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,right?

10.2.2. applied on a per shot fired basis. The requirements were to move can A to a specific place and Can B to a different specific place PRIOR to firing the last shot. That means that shooters were free to shoot the all shots but the last, move the cans to their directed places, and then fire their last shot to stop the clock while avoiding penalties. Shooters also had the option to move the cans earlier, perhaps during breaks in the shooting, or to move them while shooting one handed.

Not moving the cans to their designated resting places would incur one procedural per shot fired after that point. Since the stage description required the cans to be moved prior to the "last" shot, if it didn't happen a per shot penalty was assessed for each can not moved, hence 2 procedurals....

Does that make sense?

Woujld you have written the walk through as it appeared at the match?

Yep --- if like Flex and the designers I wanted to give competitors that choice. If I wanted to do something different --- specifically if I wanted to either force you to shoot onehanded on the move, or to take a bunch of procedurals --- I would have designed the stage differently. Put a long distance between the point where you pick up the object, and where you put it down, reveal a bunch of targets as the shooter moves from A to B, make the object sufficiently bulky and rigid that it will have to tie up an arm, and you're there. That's a fine stage; but it's not the only fine stage.....

Ohio's sounds like a stage I would have enjoyed. I don't know how I would have shot it --- I would have to have walked it a few times to make that decision....

[davecutts]

wow only four pages

[Singlestack]

wow only four pages

[Flexmoney]

Woujld you have written the walk through as it appeared at the match?

How would you have written it up ?

[Charles Bond]

Woujld you have written the walk through as it appeared at the match?

How would you have written it up ?

It is sort of hard since I am not privy to what the course designer intended or the object of the exercise.

If the object of the exercise was to make the shooter tote the cans, the penalties should have been severe enough to require that regardless of the relative skill of the shooter. Results become less objective if all shooters do not have the same incentive to complete the same exercise.

This is not to say shooters should not be offered more than one way to solve the puzzle. But let's get real. What we all know as "gaming" is most usually the result of a less than tightly drawn stage walk through. The course description should reflect the intention of the course designer in accord with the USPSA rules. I can not Monday morning quarterback this and say it did not. What I can say is that the conduct I have read described in this thread was not unsportsmanlike.

[smokshwn]

If the object of the exercise was to make the shooter tote the cans, the penalties should have been severe enough to require that regardless of the relative skill of the shooter. Results become less objective if all shooters do not have the same incentive to complete the same exercise.

Charles, I am not singling you out but the above statement is illustrative of what I want to point out.

I don't understand this incessant desire to make everyone do the same thing the same way. That is the antithesis to what this "game" is about. It was developed to determine what was the most efficient way to put rounds on target, not be a neverending attempt at leveling an uneven field. If you are constantly trying to control creativity, then development and learning cease to exist.

I don't know the timeframe for the second quote in my sig line, but it had to be quite some years ago. It came from Jeff Cooper, so this discussion is obviously nothing new, but the same answer still applies.

Edited October 9, 2009 by smokshwn