foot faults & "significant advantage"

[MoNsTeR]

We had a stage at Sunday's match with a wall parallel to the backstop, with a target array to either side, and a third target array directly behind the wall. The position of the targets in the third array combined with the location of the fault lines made it very difficult to shoot around the wall, with the idea of the stage being to consider the trade-off of taking those shots while leaning or jumping, versus shooting under the wall (which is what most people did). One particular shooter decided to shoot while leaning, and ended up taking a total of 12 shots with his foot on the wrong side of a fault line. Where the question lies, is that only 4 of those 12 shots were taken at targets in the third array.

The relevant rule is obviously 10.2.1:

A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching

the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a

Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an

object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or

Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any

target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one

procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while

faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots

while faulting.

The ruling on the field was 5 procedurals, 1 per shot for the 4 shots taken at the hidden array since standing beyond the fault line conferred (or could confer) a significant advantage, plus 1 for the remaining 8 shots at the open array since no significant advantage was gained or could be gained, at least in our judgement. This seems to be consistent with the wording in 10.2.1, at least insofar as assessing the first 4 penalties, but it's not 100% clear to me that it was correct to assess that 5th penalty. It also seems at least somewhat arguable that the correct call was 12 penalties.

What do you think?

[TDean]

Sounds good to me. Once you get past 40pts in penalties, it pretty much doesn't matter.

I would say the 4 shots at the tough array (assuming 2 targets behind the wall) without having to lean mandates 4 procedurals, and I can see the 5th one for foot faulting the easier array as well.

He must have not realized he was faulting? I can't understand why a guy would shoot for 5 seconds and not attempt to correct his faulting foot.

Was the fault line per the rulebook? It needs to be 3/4" thick per 2.2.1.1

We had a stage at Sunday's match with a wall parallel to the backstop, with a target array to either side, and a third target array directly behind the wall. The position of the targets in the third array combined with the location of the fault lines made it very difficult to shoot around the wall, with the idea of the stage being to consider the trade-off of taking those shots while leaning or jumping, versus shooting under the wall (which is what most people did). One particular shooter decided to shoot while leaning, and ended up taking a total of 12 shots with his foot on the wrong side of a fault line. Where the question lies, is that only 4 of those 12 shots were taken at targets in the third array.

The relevant rule is obviously 10.2.1:

A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching

the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a

Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an

object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or

Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any

target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one

procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while

faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots

while faulting.

The ruling on the field was 5 procedurals, 1 per shot for the 4 shots taken at the hidden array since standing beyond the fault line conferred (or could confer) a significant advantage, plus 1 for the remaining 8 shots at the open array since no significant advantage was gained or could be gained, at least in our judgement. This seems to be consistent with the wording in 10.2.1, at least insofar as assessing the first 4 penalties, but it's not 100% clear to me that it was correct to assess that 5th penalty. It also seems at least somewhat arguable that the correct call was 12 penalties.

What do you think?

[Flexmoney]

Quick read... 1 or 4, not 5. The penalty is for faulting the line, which there was only "one occurrence" of.

It is a single penalty...unless a sig ad is gained, then it is one per shot for the targets that the sig ad was gained on.

From what was posted, sounds like 4.

[Gary Stevens]

Did the WSB say it was legal to shoot under the wall?

If not: 2.2.3.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such

barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be

considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.

Additionally you have to consider rule:

10.2.3 Where multiple penalties are assessed in the above cases, they must not

exceed the maximum number of scoring hits that can be attained by the

competitor. For example, a competitor who gains an advantage while

faulting a Fault Line where only four metal targets are visible will

receive one procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting, up to

a maximum of four procedural penalties, regardless of number of shots fired.

I would have assessed 4, if that was the number of shots required, since he did gain significant advantage on the 4 shots he took at the "hidden" array. Too add another is assessing multiple penalties for the same infraction.

[mactiger]

Did the WSB say it was legal to shoot under the wall?

If not: 2.2.3.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such

barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be

considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.

Additionally you have to consider rule:

10.2.3 Where multiple penalties are assessed in the above cases, they must not

exceed the maximum number of scoring hits that can be attained by the

competitor. For example, a competitor who gains an advantage while

faulting a Fault Line where only four metal targets are visible will

receive one procedural penalty for each shot fired while faulting, up to

a maximum of four procedural penalties, regardless of number of shots fired.

I would have assessed 4, if that was the number of shots required, since he did gain significant advantage on the 4 shots he took at the "hidden" array. Too add another is assessing multiple penalties for the same infraction.

What Gary said.

Troy

[NickJ]

It was "as they become visible". The port under the wall was good to use, as was grasping the top and hanging out to the sides.

[coldchar]

So how do we define significant? Would not significant be more than could be offset by one procedural? He still had to lean so the foot fault could not have been all that significant. It is not as if he stepped far enough out that having to lean, which was the challenge , was eliminated. I would have gone with one procedural.

[Gary Stevens]

It was "as they become visible". The port under the wall was good to use, as was grasping the top and hanging out to the sides.

Actually as they become visible won't cut it for shooting under the wall. Since by rule, the wall extends from the ground to the height it is constructed, it must be spelled out that shooting under the wall is permissible.

[Flyin40]

Now that is funny, the guy in question should of received 4 procedurals but everyone else should have received 12

Edited to add that I missed it was 3 arrays with 4 shots on each array. So everyone who shot the middle array under the wall should of received 4 penalties?

Flyin

Edited January 16, 2010 by Flyin40

[JThompson]

Now that is funny, the guy in question should of received 4 procedurals but everyone else should have received 12

Edited to add that I missed it was 3 arrays with 4 shots on each array. So everyone who shot the middle array under the wall should of received 4 penalties?

Flyin

Ya he won the stage! lol

[JThompson]

It was "as they become visible". The port under the wall was good to use, as was grasping the top and hanging out to the sides.

Not if the prop was outside the fault lines....

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching

the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a

Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an

object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or

Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any

target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one

procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while

faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots

while faulting.

Edited January 16, 2010 by JThompson

[NickJ]

It was "as they become visible". The port under the wall was good to use, as was grasping the top and hanging out to the sides.

Actually as they become visible won't cut it for shooting under the wall. Since by rule, the wall extends from the ground to the height it is constructed, it must be spelled out that shooting under the wall is permissible.

It was, that's why I posted what I did. There was also a carpet on the ground to facilitate going prone.

[MoNsTeR]

Shooting under the wall was explicitly permitted (a rug was even provided for the benefit of those who chose to go prone).

There were 3 targets/6 shots in the hidden array.

The fault lines were 1" PVC pipe.

The rule regarding gaining support from props "wholly beyond" or "not attached to" fault lines is a little vague, IMO. What do those phrases really mean? If a fault line prop runs right up to the leg of a wall, does that constitute "attached"? If it doesn't, what does? If a fault line prop terminates just short of the vertical plane of a wall, does that make the wall "wholly beyond" the line? Or is the case that only props which do not intersect a fault line can lie "wholly beyond" that line?

[Flyin40]

It was "as they become visible". The port under the wall was good to use, as was grasping the top and hanging out to the sides.

Actually as they become visible won't cut it for shooting under the wall. Since by rule, the wall extends from the ground to the height it is constructed, it must be spelled out that shooting under the wall is permissible.

It was, that's why I posted what I did. There was also a carpet on the ground to facilitate going prone.

Thats good you put down the carpet. Nothing like getting a empty brass case stuck in your elbow or knee when you go down.

Flyin

[Flexmoney]

The rule regarding gaining support from props "wholly beyond" or "not attached to" fault lines is a little vague, IMO. What do those phrases really mean?

It means that you can't stand on top of a target stand that is out past the fault line and try to claim that you weren't faulting because your foot wasn't on the ground. (Or, lean on a wall/prop that is past the fault line.)

[JThompson]

The rule regarding gaining support from props "wholly beyond" or "not attached to" fault lines is a little vague, IMO. What do those phrases really mean?

It means that you can't stand on top of a target stand that is out past the fault line and try to claim that you weren't faulting because your foot wasn't on the ground. (Or, lean on a wall/prop that is past the fault line.)

What Kyle said...

[LPatterson]

The chatter has gotten away from the original question of 1, 4 or 5. If he faulted first while shooting the wide open array that would be an automatic 1, if he then shot the hidden array I would give one per shot fired for the significant advantage which would be a total of 5. Even if the shooter started of the hiden array and was given 4 procedurals for the significant advantage, then switched to the easy array should this be considered a freebe. I'm going to be there ticking off faulted shots and would have started with 12 before letting the RM decide, that's why he gets paid the big bucks.

[Flexmoney]

It's 4.

The penalty for faulting is 1. It only increases if there is a sig. adv. gained. The amount of penalties would then depend on the number of shots that had an advantage.

It's not a +1 proposition. The rule doesn't read that way.

[Nik Habicht]

It's 4.

The penalty for faulting is 1. It only increases if there is a sig. adv. gained. The amount of penalties would then depend on the number of shots that had an advantage.

It's not a +1 proposition. The rule doesn't read that way.

Depends on the number of instances of "faulting" as well though, right? If a shooter stops someplace and doesn't move you're right; if however a shooter stops someplace, faults while engaging an array, there's at least one procedural....

If the shooter then moves and engages a different array while faulting and has a significant advantage on four hits, then that's another four --- and we add them up to get five....

[Flexmoney]

This sounds like one "instance" to me.

[Nik Habicht]

This sounds like one "instance" to me.

And you might be right.....

....though as always, it's difficult to make the call on the internet, without having seen what happened on the range.....

Lots of people have said 4 procedurals --- and that's likely the correct call, given what we know; but it's not the only correct possibility....

[Flexmoney]

It sounds clear that the shooter had one instance of faulting the line. That is how I read what was presented here, anyway.

[wide45]

One occurrence, during which the competitor gained a significant advantage for 4 shots.

4 procedurals.

[98sr20ve]

It was made clear in the walk through that shooting under the wall was permissible. It was also clear that the 1" PVC was a fault line. We had someone shoot under the wall while lying down. They even had carpet for you to do so. While lying down it's hard to know if your feet are inside or outside the fault line. The RO did not notice his feet were outside the fault line. After he shot and was scored we discussed it. To me it was a advantage to not have to be aware of how your feet rest on the ground. So I viewed it as an advantage. I was not a RO. He was scored. I didn't care. To me, having shot the stage. Every shot you take with your feet not in the defined area was an advantage. The stage was designed to be cramped. I helped set it up at 6am. We talked about it.

[Flexmoney]

It was made clear in the walk through that shooting under the wall was permissible. It was also clear that the 1" PVC was a fault line. We had someone shoot under the wall while lying down. They even had carpet for you to do so. While lying down it's hard to know if your feet are inside or outside the fault line. The RO did not notice his feet were outside the fault line. After he shot and was scored we discussed it. To me it was a advantage to not have to be aware of how your feet rest on the ground. So I viewed it as an advantage. I was not a RO. He was scored. I didn't care. To me, having shot the stage. Every shot you take with your feet not in the defined area was an advantage. The stage was designed to be cramped. I helped set it up at 6am. We talked about it.

If you set it up so that it was to be cramped, and meant for it to have a per shot penalty in the circumstances that you mentioned, just write that into the stage briefing. That way it is clear.