Unsportsman like conduct

[JimmyZip]

Gaming is great! I have designed stages and had them gamed to heck. This makes us better stage designers, and better gamers because we see what needs to be seen. We are bound by the rules and not intent. If your WSB isn't specific enough to hold people to your intent within the rules of the sport, well better luck next time. When others figure a way around a problem that you didn't think of, well, next time, try and find one yourself. We can't change the gaming of this sport because that is what this sport really is. You may not think it is that way, but that is the game. Stage designers compete with those that are trying to pick apart their stages to find the chink in the armor. I really find that the other side of the sport. Looking for that edge that you can't get from practice, but you can get from going to matches and seeing what other put before you.

[Flexmoney]

Interesting.

First off...a stage procedure is just that...a "stage procedure". If you don't do a stage procedure, you earn a procedural penalty. It is in no way USLC.

Second...we had the means (readily available) to tweak the stage, if needed.

Third...there was no hole in this stage.

[JakeMartens]

Third...there was no hole in this stage.

Damn it.....

Now I am even more pissed at myself for missing that!!!

[Singlestack]

Third...there was no hole in this stage.

[larry cazes]

I love stages like this This is what makes the sport fun for a lot of us.

Edited October 5, 2009 by larry cazes

[Steve Moneypenny]

Just look at this as the intelligence portion of a very thorough shooting examination.

[Ben Stoeger]

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.

I am imagining all the paper cuts I would get from actually Effing the WSB.

I get that this irritates some people when shooters eat penalties for an advantage... but the culture in USPSA is different than in other sports. We reward inventiveness.

[CHA-LEE]

This is an interesting topic. I know that at local matches every once in a while I have seen gaming “Holes” that allow you to shoot the COF in a way that would be a tremendous advantage due to a poorly written WSB. But to me that seems unsportsmanlike to take advantage of the situation at a local match were the club is stretched thin and doing their best to put on the match. If the club volunteers put in the effort to add a special feature to a stage, I feel the obligation to shoot it as it was intended and not so much on finding holes in the WSB. I guess it’s a respect thing on my part. That and does it really matter if you find a hole in the WSB and blow the stage hit factor bell curve out of the water at the local club match level? What are you proving by doing that other than pissing off the stage designer by negating their efforts on setting up the stage? If I see a hole in the WSB before the match I will bring it up to the MD to have a chance to correct before the match starts. This eliminates the chance of this a lot of times. Some clubs simply don’t have the equipment or man power to make every stage ultra game proof.

On the other side of the coin. If I go to a large match that has been planned out for months and find a hole in the WSB that is an advantage I am going to exploit it as much as I can. At the larger matches, holes in the WSB should have been targeted and fixed LONG before the match even starts. If it slips though and can be exploited then I will take advantage of the situation as the finishing order in the match usually has a direct relationship to prize allocation or stuff like that. When money or titles are on the line all is fare game in my mind.

[larry cazes]

This is an interesting topic. I know that at local matches every once in a while I have seen gaming “Holes” that allow you to shoot the COF in a way that would be a tremendous advantage due to a poorly written WSB. But to me that seems unsportsmanlike to take advantage of the situation at a local match were the club is stretched thin and doing their best to put on the match. If the club volunteers put in the effort to add a special feature to a stage, I feel the obligation to shoot it as it was intended and not so much on finding holes in the WSB. I guess it’s a respect thing on my part. That and does it really matter if you find a hole in the WSB and blow the stage hit factor bell curve out of the water at the local club match level? What are you proving by doing that other than pissing off the stage designer by negating their efforts on setting up the stage? If I see a hole in the WSB before the match I will bring it up to the MD to have a chance to correct before the match starts. This eliminates the chance of this a lot of times. Some clubs simply don’t have the equipment or man power to make every stage ultra game proof.

On the other side of the coin. If I go to a large match that has been planned out for months and find a hole in the WSB that is an advantage I am going to exploit it as much as I can. At the larger matches, holes in the WSB should have been targeted and fixed LONG before the match even starts. If it slips though and can be exploited then I will take advantage of the situation as the finishing order in the match usually has a direct relationship to prize allocation or stuff like that. When money or titles are on the line all is fare game in my mind.

I play the game the same way regardless of whether the match is a local or a major match. Your question concerning "proving something" by shooting a stage in the best way possible is interesting and disturbing at the same time. I shoot because I enjoy it and NOT because I have anything to prove. I avoid matches where I know this is gonna be an issue. I don't want to have to change my game plan to preserve the ego of the stage designers.

Edited October 5, 2009 by larry cazes

[Chuck Anderson]

If you're a stage designer that gets bent out of shape when some exploits a loophole in your stage you've got a pretty thin skin. USPSA is about freestyle. If you design stages where there is only one way to shoot them, the way you want them shot, maybe you'd be better off designing IDPA stages. The MD for this match, Flex, already posted there wasn't a hole. Sounds to me like they designed the stage to offer that option. I'm sure the possibility came up before the match. I know lots of stage designers that will often build in something that isn't the standard way of shooting the stage but might offer an advantage for the shooters skilled enough to find it. In fact I shot one the week before this match. I thought I found something new but the stage designer just grinned when I asked him if I could shoot from the sweet spot.

As far as not taking advantage of this stuff at local matches you're not doing anyone any favors. Not yourself who will not be used to looking for gaps or the stage designer who never improves because he doesn't know there is improvement to be made.

[Nik Habicht]

I've been known to design holes both ways --- to benefit knowledgeable competitors who find them, and sometimes to give lesser skilled shooters an option that will yield a benefit later in the stage if taken....

[Navysteve]

I will not lie I really love gaming, that is why I shoot in this sport.

Stages should have a Start position and a Beep.

Good Stages have a Start position a beep and 1,000 ways to shoot it.

From what I read in the WSB two procedural penalties, now was it worth it.......I was not there. darn.

[ranger]

This is an interesting thread. I will share with you that many shooters find the extreme "gamemanship" disturbing. Over the years, I have seen numerous shooters become disillusioned and leave the sport and several new shooters never truly start the sport because of the negative perception of the "gamesmanship".

On the other hand, I believe that course designers sometimes encourage the gamesmanship because of the way they design the stages.

My 2 cents.

[John Baier]

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!.

I don't know about that. My shooting still sucks after becoming a RM

[Jim Norman]

Good stages should have a start and then what allow you do do what ever you want to?

The designer dreams up a challenge, he and others put it together on the ground. They tell you that you have to engage the targets after the start signal. So far So good.

The challenge, while walking down a pier over a snake and gator infested swamp you are attacked by albino midget zombies. You have to get to shore and deposit the zombie killing solution in the coffin at the end of the pier and kill the last zombie with two shots to the head (AKA the upper A/B zone) .

As it stands the shooter could run out of and back into the FFZ (AKA the Pier). The Pier that has all sorts of barriers to your easy passage. With the rules as currently written we have two choices: One we put up rails and walls to keep you on the "Pier" or we allow the shooter to dodge around the barriers by stepping out of the FFZ and back in, Essentially this would have the shooter falling into the snake infested waters, but USPSA rules allow for this, we can't tell you you must remain in the FFZ, we can only make it so you have no choice.

I feel that is wrong. we should be able to require that you do certain things in certain ways. I.E, remain in the FZ, carry the "item" in a particular manner. We may not actually be able to require everyone to actually carry a 50 pound weight in one hand while shooting so we have to 'make believe' but then we wind up with someone carrying the bunny in their teeth. This is wrong. I am all in favor of freestyle, but we also need to be able to tell people that certain actions need to be taken during the COF, allowing someone to shoot a COF and then go back through a tunnel off the clock before ULSC is just wrong. 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.

I am not opposed to a stage that simply puts up a bunch of targets and you are told shoot em, but when a stage is designed with non-shooting challenges that are intended to complicate the actual shooting and we allow the shooter to ditch that challenge we have not done our selves a favor. We need to have some way to maintain the "intent" of the stage otherwise all we will soon have is a series of boxes and ports. And yes, I do know that "Intent" is not found in the rules. But when one reads plain English as if they were a congressman trying to explain their vote on an unpopular bill I think we have a problem. T. he stage should be won by the best shooter, not by the best DRL.

My opinion and I could probably state it better face to face with a real stage in front of us, but this will have to suffice.

Jim

[Strick]

I guess I either need to shoot more USPSA stuff........... I am a little unsure of how a shooter can decide which part of the WSB he/she can follow and which ones he/she can ignore because they know they will go faster than what the penalty will be. I am unclear about this becasue of this in 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).

Couldn't this easily be applied to this situation? If not then when would it ever be applied. I am certainly not opposed to the gaming aspect of practical shooting but where does it stop being gaming and start becoming just shoot what ever you want how ever you want.

[Flexmoney]

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.

[Strick]

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?

[Flexmoney]

If I recall correctly, the local club ran a somewhat similar stage at a monthly match earlier this year. My memory may be shaky on this, but I seem to remember suggesting they would need to use at least 2 cans. Ten points down (1 can) makes it easier to skip, but 20 down (2 cans) makes it quite a bit more interesting.

For this match, I had brought a third can as a "spare", if we needed it.

Kinda like the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. One can was too little, and 3 cans was too much. Two cans...was juuuust right.

If anybody wants to do the math... I'd think dividing the penalty points (20) by the time it likely saved you would give you a number that would equate to a break-even hit factor.

[Jim Norman]

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?

sadly no it does not incur a stiff penalty. The WSB should have said can A must be in had while engaging target array 1, then can B must be in shooter hand while engaging target array 2, then after placing can B on table 3, engage target array 3.

But that is not what it said and our rules don't allow for intent, even if everyone thinks that this is what it should have said, all we can go by is what the WSB actually says and then we can only apply the rules that are relevant.

In this case I feel a simple correction at the pre-match review could have made this clear and there would not have been a problem, we'd have had a one procedural per shot penalty to apply. As it stands, two procedurals is all that is allowed by the rules.

At the local level we sometimes all agree that we will do what we know the designer intended so as not to totally blow a stage, but we also make that a conscious decision and we try to educate the designer so that errors like this won't continue. Now that said, no WSB or description should totally eliminate all but one way to run a stage. even a tight WSB should allow for different solutions, it just shouldn't allow the shooters to totally disregard the intent of the designer. This takes a very carefully and well thought out WSB to accomplish.

Jim

[racerba]

... but where does it stop being gaming and start becoming just shoot what ever you want how ever you want.

It's always been "shoot however you want to". There are penalties associated with some of the ways - this being one of those penalty associated ways. Thr rules were being observed and followed.

[Flexmoney]

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, not the way the procedure was written.

And, none of this really happened in a vacuum. While it didn't come up on staff day, it did come up before the first squad shot on Saturday. All the staff officials were well aware of it and there was no "problem/intent" issue. Still, only a few chose to take the 20 points in procedural penalties.

[ima45dv8]

Still, only a few chose to take the 20 points in procedural penalties.

Was that completely necessary? I haven't seen the entire WSB, but was it possible for the competitor to shoot the stage, then holster, and then go back and move the cans prior to UASC? If they weren't required to actually shoot while holding a can, it would be the gamiest solution.

[Flexmoney]

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.

[ima45dv8]

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...