Unsportsman like conduct

[Strick]

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.

I thought it was about shooting and being the best shooter on that given day. Being able to figure out how to shoot a stage to your strengths should be a goal and not discouraged but the actual shooting should be the primary focus. Morphing the game into a puzzel that needs to be solved the fastest kinda gets away from what the sport actaully is...........Practical Shooting

Just my opinion.

[Bill Nesbitt]

I've seen it where people wanted to turn IDPA into USPSA but this is the first time I've heard of someone wanting to turn USPSA into IDPA.

They are two completly different sports with completely diferent skills needed for each. Each has it's own rule book.

I shoot both and enjoy each for what it is.

[racerba]

I thought it was about shooting and being the best shooter on that given day. Being able to figure out how to shoot a stage to your strengths should be a goal and not discouraged but the actual shooting should be the primary focus. Morphing the game into a puzzel that needs to be solved the fastest kinda gets away from what the sport actaully is...........Practical Shooting

Just my opinion.

It's about "Practical Shooting" not just "shooting" alone. Solving the stage the fastest way is part of the practical part. If you take the can, you are sacrificing time. If you don't take the can, you are sacrificing points. Those are the two choices you have. Which is more practical to you? Now choose between the two and shoot. Hence "Practical Shooting"

Edited October 9, 2009 by racerba

[smokshwn]

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.

I thought it was about shooting and being the best shooter on that given day. Being able to figure out how to shoot a stage to your strengths should be a goal and not discouraged but the actual shooting should be the primary focus. Morphing the game into a puzzel that needs to be solved the fastest kinda gets away from what the sport actaully is...........Practical Shooting

Just my opinion.

There was no "puzzle", only choices with consequences. I can't think of a better form of practical than that.

[mactiger]

Oy.

Legal stage, properly penalized, nice choices available. What's not to like?

It's all part of the game.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

Every stage is a puzzle. (Ahhh....I just read how smokshwn said it..."choices with consequences." I like that.)

I am sure that some are puzzled on how I shot Stage 3 of the Ohio match 3 seconds faster than Vogel, and faster than the all the Limited and Open shooters in the match, except for Taran. I know I am puzzled at how Vogel shot Stage 2 as fast as he did. I am puzzled by the fact that I hit 3 No-shoots (along with the 3 Mikes)...on No-Shoots that I had added into the match during setup. lol

Now, some of those puzzles are easier to figure out than others.

USPSA is still about solving problems. That is one of it's special flavors. And those that like that, be sure to speak up...because it could easily go away. Believe me when I tell you this. There are those that write/enforce rules and suggest policy that are more concerned with making a match run easier than they are with figuring out how to let shooters have choices. (And, I will say no more on that here...as Brian's Forum isn't the place for an extended conversation on that topic...at least, not where I'd take the topic. )

[GentlemanJim]

I seem to remember a member here...saying that is was ok for a person to out shoot them...but they didnt like a person to out think them

Thats not a perfect quote...but it does go to the root of this question

Fact is we are not all drones that follow the herd

IMHO Thinking out of the box is one of the most interesting aspects of this sport

Jim

[larry cazes]

I agree on the value and desirability of this remaining THE thinking man's shooting sport. I enjoy and welcome this kind of challenge. Furthermore, were this aspect of the sport to go away, I would no longer shoot it. I already avoid clubs where the issue of thinking through a stage and GAMING is seen to be a negative. Looks like most folks here would agree.

[Chuck Anderson]

Gotta say, I'm really surprised there has been this much discussion on this topic. I must be missing something. It seems to me like everything was run just fine. The shooters shot it the way the stage designer intended, both with and without the can. Is there really that much resistance to free thinking? Are there really that many people that think every possible outcome needs to be put into the WSB? Engage T1-T12 as the become visible becomes, engage T1-T12 as they become visible, there is a sweet spot where shooters can engage T1-T6 from the position marked with an X on the diagram. T7 and T8 are best shot from this location Y and oh, by the way since T12 a disappearing target shooters with a HF over 6 would be better off skipping the target and dropping the points because it takes 1.4 seconds to appear after activation.

This is one of the most practical aspects I think there is in Practical Shooting. Allowing shooters to decide the best tactics to shoot the stage. And having the forethought to examine the stage and determine the best way to shoot it instead of blindly following the same way everyone else shot it like a bunch of sheep. This is realistic. When I'm getting shot at (and it's happened more than once) it's not the IPSC shooting skills that got me through it, it's the ability to think with the gun in hand instead of going into vapor lock. Same thing with evaluating a stage ahead of time. Looking for different angles and what the best way to get through something directly translates into defensive and practical shooting. I have yet to make an entry on a residence and shoot 16 people 2 times each. But I have used my brain and what I learn in IPSC to avoid having to do it.

[IL-SIG]

I've said it before and I will say it again...

The best and most fun stages (and this is a sport that most of us do for fun) are those that challenge the physical skills, the shooting skills and the mental skills of the competitor. If I wanted to be told what to do during a COF I would shoot IDPA. This is not a slam on IDPA - it's just a different sport than USPSA is.

[Charles Bond]

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.

Do not ever worry about me feeling singled out. I am not shy about expressing my thoughts and I would never encourage anyone to fail to disagree with me.

You are correct that this is a game. I think we would agree that it is a game about practical shooting. Where we part company is that if the game completely cancels out the practical aspect of our exercise, we just end up with a shooting game and we are only giving lip service to the practical aspects.

If the stage tells us to shoot through port A and all of us do not shoot through port A, the guy who shoots it another way really has not completed the exercise and the fact that our scoring system allows him to win the stage is because we failed to properly provide for what we intended and as such, the stage win becomes meaningless. Gun in the port, gun out of the port or fire thought the port from 10 feet away, is all fine allowing shooters to approach the stage in the manner that showcases their individual shooting strengths.

Once upon a time we would have shooters who would rather than shoot through a port go prone and take out all the targets if the wall around a shooting port did not go all the way to the ground. We did not like this and started inserting in stage descriptions that shooting walls extended from the edge of outer space to the center of the earth. I do not believe that doing this was an attempt to level the playing field. What it did was require the shooters to complete the exercise in a practical manner since in the real world, walls do not exist in the manner seen on shooting stages where we errect them in a manner which saves the match money.

[Flexmoney]

If the stage tells us to shoot through port A and all of us do not shoot through port A, the guy who shoots it another way really has not completed the exercise and the fact that our scoring system allows him to win the stage is because we failed to properly provide for what we intended and as such, the stage win becomes meaningless.

"Intended"...there is your disconnect, Charles.

Compel all you want. If you have intentions, get them built in. Then...let the shooters have at it.

If, as a stage designer, I fall short and my stage gets gamed...I hike up the big boy pants, make note, and do better next time.

BTW...what you have said [above] could easily be said about disappearing targets too.

[Nik Habicht]

If the stage tells us to shoot through port A and all of us do not shoot through port A, the guy who shoots it another way really has not completed the exercise and the fact that our scoring system allows him to win the stage is because we failed to properly provide for what we intended and as such, the stage win becomes meaningless. Gun in the port, gun out of the port or fire thought the port from 10 feet away, is all fine allowing shooters to approach the stage in the manner that showcases their individual shooting strengths.

Let's be really clear about this: The above --- stage description requiring shots through port A --- violates the freestyle principle of the sport as expressed in Rule 1.1.5. Do you really want to take the game back to the days of boxes on the ground, with specific shooting instructions?

From level 2 up, courses need to be built in a manner that allows the problem to be solved on an as visible basis......

The stages are built and the shooters have choices to make --- all of which have consequences. No such thing as a free lunch......

[vluc]

I seem to remember a member here...saying that is was ok for a person to out shoot them...but they didnt like a person to out think them

Thats not a perfect quote...but it does go to the root of this question

Fact is we are not all drones that follow the herd

IMHO Thinking out of the box is one of the most interesting aspects of this sport

Jim

From my 2006 post on Production equipment:

"I was outshot, outran, out-thought, outgamed, and so I try harder the next time."

That's what happened here. No more to see, move on, please!

[nwb01]

+1000 to the above post !!

I was on the the squad with Vogel, Stoeger and Anderson and the first shooter on this stage. I did move the cans as the WSB described, after I shot, the discussion came up about not with dealing the cans. My first thought when I heard Stoeger mention it was......why the F*** didn't I think of that !! But thats what makes to top GM's in the sport so great... Would I have shot it without moving the cans??.... Hell ya ! Was I pissed about watching most of my squad game the stage? ......Yes, not at them, at myself for not even thinking of it.

This is one of the biggest reasons I have stopped shooting the "other" practical shooting sport....FREEDOM to work within the rule book to solve a problem.

"Thats what happened here. No more to see, move on please ! "

Edited October 10, 2009 by nwb01

[Strick]

"Intended"...there is your disconnect, Charles.

Compel all you want. If you have intentions, get them built in. Then...let the shooters have at it.

If, as a stage designer, I fall short and my stage gets gamed...I hike up the big boy pants, make note, and do better next time.

BTW...what you have said [above] could easily be said about disappearing targets too.

Then why have any WSB's?

Edited October 10, 2009 by Strick

[Nik Habicht]

"Intended"...there is your disconnect, Charles.

Compel all you want. If you have intentions, get them built in. Then...let the shooters have at it.

If, as a stage designer, I fall short and my stage gets gamed...I hike up the big boy pants, make note, and do better next time.

BTW...what you have said [above] could easily be said about disappearing targets too.

Then why have any WSB's?

1. The rule book requires them.

2. you need a way to communicate the start position --- even if it's "Standing anywhere in free fire zone."

3. You need a place that lists the number of targets and the number of scored hits per paper --- not always 2.....

4. you need a way to communicate the gun condition at the start

Occasionally you may have other instructions you need to communicate --- such as a level 1 match exemption......

[herky]

If you are someone who needs or wants to have everything spelled out exactly how the COF will be shot, then there are other shooting sports for you. Being dictated takes all the fun out. As stated above, there are physical and mental aspects of "practical" and gaming is one of the mental. Freestyle is what makes this sport what it is, safe fun.

[Chuck Anderson]

"Intended"...there is your disconnect, Charles.

Compel all you want. If you have intentions, get them built in. Then...let the shooters have at it.

If, as a stage designer, I fall short and my stage gets gamed...I hike up the big boy pants, make note, and do better next time.

BTW...what you have said [above] could easily be said about disappearing targets too.

Then why have any WSB's?

Because it defined the appropriate procedural penalties that the shooters who didn't move the cans received. You seem like you don't realize the shooters were penalized in accordance with the rules and the WSB. That's why it's there. This was nothing more than a concious decision to eat some penalties for a faster time. No different than not engaging a disappearing target. The penalties in this case were pretty darn close to reality. There wasn't a huge gain to be made by not carrying the cans. Look at the rest of the stages. Vogel and Stoeger dominated the match anyway. If they'd have carried the cans, they still would have won the stage.

The WSB is there to specify procedures. The rule book explains what happens if you don't follow those procdures. My boss has a saying. You can do whatever you want. Just be willing to pay the consequences. The shooters in this case violated the WSB and paid the appropriate consequences for that violation. In this particular case, in Production, with really fast shooters, it worked out being worth paying the consequence.

[Flexmoney]

"Intended"...there is your disconnect, Charles.

Compel all you want. If you have intentions, get them built in. Then...let the shooters have at it.

If, as a stage designer, I fall short and my stage gets gamed...I hike up the big boy pants, make note, and do better next time.

BTW...what you have said [above] could easily be said about disappearing targets too.

Then why have any WSB's?

We wrote it up such that the shooter was compelled to carry Can 1 from A to B...or take a penalty for choosing not to. And, the shooter was compelled to take Can 2 from B to C...or take a penalty for choosing not to.

Like a disappearing target (which doesn't earn miss or failure to engage penalties), the shooter is free to choose their strategy.

[Jeff9mmM&P]

Travlin' can stage. One way to do it.

[Jim Norman]

There are two different thought streams at work here.

One, I think is that a stage should or could have within it certain actions that compel you to do things while shooting that you might not normally do. Such as carry a briefcase by the handle instead of dropping it and running. In this type of stage we are forcing or attempting to force the shooter to perhaps shoot weakhand only for a number of shots or to carry a cumbersome prop. This is a good thing and is fine.

The other stream of thought is where this stage exists. A stage has been designed that allows one to decide if he will do the requested (Not required) motion or take a significant, but not overwhelming penalty for not doing hte motion, in this case move two ammo cans, one from position A to Table B and a second from Table B to Table C, PRIOR to firing "THE LAST SHOT" this after much reading of the above arguments both ways is fine. do the match, leave the cans, take the penalties for not moving the cans. one procedural each for each failure to follow the WSB. I suppose that if a shooter had move Can A, but not Can B he would have only received one procedural?

For me both type of stage are fine. To compel the shooter to do something and really essentially force them into it, I like to make the object the key to being able to access additional targets. A weight that is inserted into a prop that opens a door exposing additional target that would otherwise be unavailable and incur penalties.

Defiantly not a DQ here. Not for gaming, if that is where we are headed, we need a new set of players! Now if the Staff was accessing penalties other than as required by the WSB and the rules....

Jim

[Strick]

The only point I am trying to make, since the thread began with how great it is to know the rulebook, is that under the rules by skipping or ignoring the WSB and you gain a significant advantage you earn more that just a penalty for that instance.

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).

If the same shooter shot the same stage twice, once following the WSB and once ignoring it to gain that advantage then in the second case he/she should receive the steeper penalty as written in the rulebook. The shooter that decides to skip moving the cans did so because they knew it was a significant advantage to them.

I am just trying to get my head around what parts of the WSB and rules need to be followed which don't in order to not stifle my right to game a stage.

And as an aside......Compel means "to force" so I am not sure how any shooter was compelled to do anything in this case.

[Nik Habicht]

The only point I am trying to make, since the thread began with how great it is to know the rulebook, is that under the rules by skipping or ignoring the WSB and you gain a significant advantage you earn more that just a penalty for that instance.

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).

If the same shooter shot the same stage twice, once following the WSB and once ignoring it to gain that advantage then in the second case he/she should receive the steeper penalty as written in the rulebook. The shooter that decides to skip moving the cans did so because they knew it was a significant advantage to them.

I am just trying to get my head around what parts of the WSB and rules need to be followed which don't in order to not stifle my right to game a stage.

And as an aside......Compel means "to force" so I am not sure how any shooter was compelled to do anything in this case.

Strick,

the shooter did receive the stricter "per shot fired" penalty. It's just that in this particular instance, it was only the "last" shot fired that could generate a penalty per can if they weren't where they were supposed to be....

If the stage description had read "prior to engaging last target" then the call would have been two procedurals per can, assuming an all paper stage. (This would be an example of a bad stage requirement on a stage that included both steel and paper --- because penalties could be assessed differently, based on which target competitors chose to engage last....)

Does that clarify the thinking? The only requirement was that the cans be moved prior to firing the last shot....

[Flexmoney]

Compel does not mean force, in our usage. A closer meaning would be to urge or coerce.

==============

Beyond that...you are hung up on "significant advantage". Frankly...it's is one of the few really subjective points in the USPSA rule book. So, it is understandable to be hung up on it.

But...in this stage, there is no real way to apply it without dictating a LOT more stuff (like target order and such). We sure didn't want any part of that.