foot faults & "significant advantage"

[98sr20ve]

I did not design the stage. I was just one of the many who show up at 6am to do the work. I have been following Lizard around (our prez) to learn more about stage design and other club issues. After we had set the thing up Lizard came over and made it even harder to hit the center targets by reaching around the wall/barrels. It was still possible but it was hard. I'm not a RO but it seems pretty logical to me that every shot with your foot outside the shooting area is a penalty. I am very interested in understanding why this would not be true. I just printed the 2008 USPSA Rule Book and I am taking my RO class in less then a month. So teach me if I am wrong.

[Nik Habicht]

Steve,

general thoughts --- not stage specific:

If you fault a line by having your toes touch the ground just over the fault line on fifty yard standards, is that really a significant advantage? You're maybe one foot closer -- on a 150 foot distance. I'd probably call that as a single procedural....

Fault a line where faulting makes it easier to hit some of the targets --- you're significantly closer, you don't need to lean as much, etc. --- now we're at one procedural per shot fired up to the maximum number of hits available....

In general terms, if you're creating a prone position or a kneeling one, you shouldn't disadvantage shooters because they're too tall or too rotund --- everyone should have a similar crack at being able to see the targets from within the freefire zone, without faulting. If someone does fault a line, it's not automatically a significant advantage. Even if there's a significant advantage, there may not be a significant advantage for every target that could be shot from that position, i.e. you have a target on each side of the stage near a wall, so that shooters need to contort themselves a little to be able to see/shoot the targets, and you have two totally visible targets in the center of the range 35 yards away. Faulting the line by a foot is clearly and advantage on the outside targets (the shooter can engage them from a more stable position) but there's clearly no significant advantage on the two far targets....

[98sr20ve]

Steve,

general thoughts --- not stage specific:

If you fault a line by having your toes touch the ground just over the fault line on fifty yard standards, is that really a significant advantage? You're maybe one foot closer -- on a 150 foot distance. I'd probably call that as a single procedural....

Fault a line where faulting makes it easier to hit some of the targets --- you're significantly closer, you don't need to lean as much, etc. --- now we're at one procedural per shot fired up to the maximum number of hits available....

In general terms, if you're creating a prone position or a kneeling one, you shouldn't disadvantage shooters because they're too tall or too rotund --- everyone should have a similar crack at being able to see the targets from within the freefire zone, without faulting. If someone does fault a line, it's not automatically a significant advantage. Even if there's a significant advantage, there may not be a significant advantage for every target that could be shot from that position, i.e. you have a target on each side of the stage near a wall, so that shooters need to contort themselves a little to be able to see/shoot the targets, and you have two totally visible targets in the center of the range 35 yards away. Faulting the line by a foot is clearly and advantage on the outside targets (the shooter can engage them from a more stable position) but there's clearly no significant advantage on the two far targets....

Arn't we become very subjective in that process?

Back to this stage. It would seem, just by the rules. Foot over line while taking the shot. 1 Procedural. Not saying the stage was fair to everyone involved. It's clearly not. People who are more limber have a advantage. But to a degree, thats true of a lot of stages to varying degrees. On this stage going prone to shoot the targets was one solution to the problem. Kneeling was another (I kneeled). Leaning around the wall another option. By kneeling really low I have no issues with fault lines but may be a little slower then going prone. Going prone I have to watch my feet and keep in the box. I really don't see how you can justify not giving a penalty for every shot fired when not in the box completely. To me, its a fault line, stay in it or get the penalty. Anything else becomes subjective. Maybe subjective is OK and I just don't know it but it sure seems odd to me.

[Nik Habicht]

Steve,

general thoughts --- not stage specific:

If you fault a line by having your toes touch the ground just over the fault line on fifty yard standards, is that really a significant advantage? You're maybe one foot closer -- on a 150 foot distance. I'd probably call that as a single procedural....

Fault a line where faulting makes it easier to hit some of the targets --- you're significantly closer, you don't need to lean as much, etc. --- now we're at one procedural per shot fired up to the maximum number of hits available....

In general terms, if you're creating a prone position or a kneeling one, you shouldn't disadvantage shooters because they're too tall or too rotund --- everyone should have a similar crack at being able to see the targets from within the freefire zone, without faulting. If someone does fault a line, it's not automatically a significant advantage. Even if there's a significant advantage, there may not be a significant advantage for every target that could be shot from that position, i.e. you have a target on each side of the stage near a wall, so that shooters need to contort themselves a little to be able to see/shoot the targets, and you have two totally visible targets in the center of the range 35 yards away. Faulting the line by a foot is clearly and advantage on the outside targets (the shooter can engage them from a more stable position) but there's clearly no significant advantage on the two far targets....

Arn't we become very subjective in that process?

Back to this stage. It would seem, just by the rules. Foot over line while taking the shot. 1 Procedural. Not saying the stage was fair to everyone involved. It's clearly not. People who are more limber have a advantage. But to a degree, thats true of a lot of stages to varying degrees. On this stage going prone to shoot the targets was one solution to the problem. Kneeling was another (I kneeled). Leaning around the wall another option. By kneeling really low I have no issues with fault lines but may be a little slower then going prone. Going prone I have to watch my feet and keep in the box. I really don't see how you can justify not giving a penalty for every shot fired when not in the box completely. To me, its a fault line, stay in it or get the penalty. Anything else becomes subjective. Maybe subjective is OK and I just don't know it but it sure seems odd to me.

Once upon a time I was right there with you --- then I went through the RO and CRO courses, shot more matches, ran matches, and gathered lots more experience, and had more conversations with the rules writers....

There's a reason that different penalties exist based on whether or not there was a significant advantage. Sometimes a foot fault matters a great deal --- in which case we penalize with one per; other times it really doesn't affect the shooting problem, in which case we penalize with a single procedural....

Keep in mind --- I didn't see the original stage, and I wasn't talking about it in that last post. Rather I was trying to provide some insight into how those decisions are made....

At bigger matches, you'll have a CRO and RM who'll make sure that penalties are called the same for every shooter who commits the same violation on a stage. That's where objectivity comes in....

[98sr20ve]

I am just trying to understand it. I am going to re-read the rule book over the next couple days and obviously pay attention the the sections talking about "significant advantage" etc. If it's open to interepetation then thats the way it is. To me, having run in the stage, I view it as a advantage having to NOT think about foot placement. How big a penalty that deserves I don't know. I procedural would more then make up for any small amount of time saved. No doubt about that. It's just that I may view it one way and the next squad might view it another way. If everyone is just up to their own devices to decide what it is then thats not fair either. Thats why I lean towards the letter of the law.

[MoNsTeR]

In actual fact, the shooter took the 4 shots against the hidden array first, then the 8 shots against the open array.

Another poster suggested that if the order had been opposite, the correct number of procedurals would have been 5. This makes sense in light of the rule that no penalty may be annulled by further competitor action. That is, he would have earned 1 (and only 1) by shooting at the open array while faulting, then 4 more on the hidden array. Even though that would be one "instance" of faulting, that first procedural cannot be cancelled out.

So given that faulting with no significant advantage, followed by faulting with significant advantage, results in separate penalties of 1-per plus 1, it seems odd that doing the opposite wouldn't total the same way. That's hardly a conclusive argument, in fact it may be totally irrelevant, but it certainly seems unfair.

[Flexmoney]

I did not design the stage. I was just one of the many who show up at 6am to do the work. I have been following Lizard around (our prez) to learn more about stage design and other club issues. After we had set the thing up Lizard came over and made it even harder to hit the center targets by reaching around the wall/barrels. It was still possible but it was hard. I'm not a RO but it seems pretty logical to me that every shot with your foot outside the shooting area is a penalty. I am very interested in understanding why this would not be true. I just printed the 2008 USPSA Rule Book and I am taking my RO class in less then a month. So teach me if I am wrong.

Just read the rule.

If you take a shot while faulting the shooting area, that is a penalty.

It is still just one penalty if you take multiple shots...

Unless, the shooter has gained a "significant advantage". You can do a search here on that those terms and read up.

But, that is why I suggested it be clarified in the written stage briefing...so there is less chance of subjectivity. (The WSB is an important part of stage design.)

[Flexmoney]

In actual fact, the shooter took the 4 shots against the hidden array first, then the 8 shots against the open array.

Another poster suggested that if the order had been opposite, the correct number of procedurals would have been 5. This makes sense in light of the rule that no penalty may be annulled by further competitor action. That is, he would have earned 1 (and only 1) by shooting at the open array while faulting, then 4 more on the hidden array. Even though that would be one "instance" of faulting, that first procedural cannot be cancelled out.

So given that faulting with no significant advantage, followed by faulting with significant advantage, results in separate penalties of 1-per plus 1, it seems odd that doing the opposite wouldn't total the same way. That's hardly a conclusive argument, in fact it may be totally irrelevant, but it certainly seems unfair.

I don't think the order makes a bit of difference. It is one instance of faulting.

[mhs]

In actual fact, the shooter took the 4 shots against the hidden array first, then the 8 shots against the open array.

Another poster suggested that if the order had been opposite, the correct number of procedurals would have been 5. This makes sense in light of the rule that no penalty may be annulled by further competitor action. That is, he would have earned 1 (and only 1) by shooting at the open array while faulting, then 4 more on the hidden array. Even though that would be one "instance" of faulting, that first procedural cannot be cancelled out.

So given that faulting with no significant advantage, followed by faulting with significant advantage, results in separate penalties of 1-per plus 1, it seems odd that doing the opposite wouldn't total the same way. That's hardly a conclusive argument, in fact it may be totally irrelevant, but it certainly seems unfair.

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 rule specifies "instead", so if you do the procedural per shot you don't give any others, regardless of order. It should be 4 procedurals either way.

[98sr20ve]

I did not design the stage. I was just one of the many who show up at 6am to do the work. I have been following Lizard around (our prez) to learn more about stage design and other club issues. After we had set the thing up Lizard came over and made it even harder to hit the center targets by reaching around the wall/barrels. It was still possible but it was hard. I'm not a RO but it seems pretty logical to me that every shot with your foot outside the shooting area is a penalty. I am very interested in understanding why this would not be true. I just printed the 2008 USPSA Rule Book and I am taking my RO class in less then a month. So teach me if I am wrong.

Just read the rule.

If you take a shot while faulting the shooting area, that is a penalty.

It is still just one penalty if you take multiple shots...

Unless, the shooter has gained a "significant advantage". You can do a search here on that those terms and read up.

But, that is why I suggested it be clarified in the written stage briefing...so there is less chance of subjectivity. (The WSB is an important part of stage design.)

Thanks, I am starting to understand this a little better.

Having shot the stage and not having great memory of the L/R targets it hard to say. There was clearly a advantage as you moved past the fault line. Some of them less so and it would have then been a judgement call. Either way, the guy was going to blow the entire stage because at min all the center targets would be penalties. Even some of the ones on the side of the wall could have been penalties.

Interesting conversation. I learned something new today.

[coldchar]

<!--quoteo(post=1134800:date=Jan 16 2010, 08:18 PM:name=MoNsTeR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MoNsTeR @ Jan 16 2010, 08:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1134800"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

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.)

Thanks, I have read that a hundred times trying to understand why it was in there.

[LPatterson]

To me the how and the where are two different things. If the faults were because he went prone and his toes were over a fault then I would give 1 procedural, I worked a prone stage at a Nationals and that became the ultimate decision. However I return to my argument that by changing arrays around an ending fault line creates two different occurances of faulting. For 1 occurance there was a significant advantage so the consensus is that no more faults are giving no matter how many other targets are engaged in other locations.

[98sr20ve]

To me the how and the where are two different things. If the faults were because he went prone and his toes were over a fault then I would give 1 procedural, I worked a prone stage at a Nationals and that became the ultimate decision. However I return to my argument that by changing arrays around an ending fault line creates two different occurances of faulting. For 1 occurance there was a significant advantage so the consensus is that no more faults are giving no matter how many other targets are engaged in other locations.

I don't understand what your saying in bold at all.

[LPatterson]

Reread post 17 where I contend that changing arrays is a separate occurrence so there should be 1 procedural for faulting the easy array and 4 procedurals for the other where there was a significant advantage.

[earplug]

I'm the shooter. I was happy with the call. I have a fuzed neck, mashed spine and numb toes. So I didn't feel the PVC pipe with my foot as I leaned across the drum and around the wall and fired with my strong hand only. I did get four A's!

[Carmoney]

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.

It's important to remember that additional penalties should not be assessed simply because the infraction committed "could have" created a significant competitive advantage. In order to assess a penalty per shot, instead of a single penalty for the infraction, it should be clear that the shooter did in fact actually gain a significant competitive advantage through the violation. Not just theoretically "could have."

[Flexmoney]

Reread post 17 where I contend that changing arrays is a separate occurrence so there should be 1 procedural for faulting the easy array and 4 procedurals for the other where there was a significant advantage.

I get what you are saying. But, it is not a separate occurrence. The shooter faulted one fault line. Heck, I'd even allow a bit of shifting around (I don't think our strict definition of "movement" would apply as a 2nd occurrence).

Given the extra penalty would be like getting pulled over for speeding... And, getting a ticket for doing 10mph over at mile marker 177, and then having the officer also write you up for doing 9mph over at mile marker 178. It's just one occurrence of speeding.

It is just one occurrence of faulting.

[Dan-O-Mite]

Reread post 17 where I contend that changing arrays is a separate occurrence so there should be 1 procedural for faulting the easy array and 4 procedurals for the other where there was a significant advantage.

This is my vote.

[wide45]

Reread post 17 where I contend that changing arrays is a separate occurrence so there should be 1 procedural for faulting the easy array and 4 procedurals for the other where there was a significant advantage.

This is my vote.

Did the written course description spell out separate arrays, with specific separate penalties? Or were there targets placed in various places, to be engaged free style from the shooting area?

[wide45]

It was "as they become visible"....

Looks like just targets. One occurrence of faulting for however many shots as were made. Makes no difference which targets were engaged, except that per shot for significant advantage.

[Dan-O-Mite]

Looks like just targets. One occurrence of faulting for however many shots as were made. Makes no difference which targets were engaged, except that per shot for significant advantage.

So you see it as one procedural each for the significant advantage targets, and no procedural for the remaining targets shot while faulting the line? Hope you are R.O.ing me when I have my next brain fart.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Dan-O-Mite

[Nik Habicht]

Looks like just targets. One occurrence of faulting for however many shots as were made. Makes no difference which targets were engaged, except that per shot for significant advantage.

So you see it as one procedural each for the significant advantage targets, and no procedural for the remaining targets shot while faulting the line? Hope you are R.O.ing me when I have my next brain fart.

If you fault in one place, it becomes an either/or situation, not both. On the other hand, if you fault in two different locations, then penalties start to stack up --- but it could still be just 2 procedurals for up to 16 shots fired, if there wasn't a significant advantage on any of them....

[Flexmoney]

Right. The penalty is for the act of faulting (with the stipulation of actually doing some shooting while faulting).

[Dan-O-Mite]

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with you. If there were no significant advantage targets, there would be only one procedural for the easy targets. Now with the addition of the significant targets, (and they distinguish and seperate themselves from the rest of the targets by definition), you must add to what is already counted.

I stand by my count of five proceduals, and depending on the Range Master I get that day, I say I have about a 50/50 chance of being supported.

This really seems to be a grey area. Perhaps this is something that needs clarification in the rule book. It's currently too open to interpretation.

[Jim Norman]

The proper application of penalties for faulting has been and will always be somewhat subjective. UNLESS and UNTIL the writers of the WSBs set specifics in their WSB. Example A tall shooter that faults a line may gain an insignificant advantage while faulting while a short shooter may gain a very significant advantage 'TO HIM' it may put the position of his muzzle and line of sight EXACTLY where the taller shooter's is even if the taller shooter didn't fault, where if the short shooter didn't fault, he would be stretching and leaning well out of a comfortable zone.

So, we assess the tall shooter one penalty and later in the day assess the short shooter 4. There are two real easy solutions, one which works ALL THE TIME and one which depends upon all of us to carefully word our WSB. First is an amended rule where faulting is simply a per shot fired penalty, PERIOD, end of discussion. The second solution is that when a situation as described above is designed into a stage, the designer writes into his WSB shots taken while faulting will incur a per shot penalty.

I am sure there are those that will say this encroaches on freestyle. I argue it does not, it requires all shooters to solve the problem on an equal footing. Keep your feet in the FFZ. I equate, for purposes of illustration, the FFZ fault lines to be the edge of an elevated platform, shooting with your foot or other body part off the platform means you have fallen and are no longer in the game. We are essentially stating that all shots fired from outside the FFZ, when a per shot penalty is applied, simply didn't happen and then adding insult to injury by taking away one shot that did count for each shot that didn't.

I have always disliked subjective judging. This is a scored event based on time and points. This is not Ice Dancing or Figure Skating where we give points for looking good or what we judge to be proper form. It is a scorable performance based upon finite results, You get so many A, B, C, D, NS and Misses in so much time, this is your score. The subjective application of a penalty for a Significant Advantage detracts from that.

My opinion. Most others vary.

Jim