foot faults & "significant advantage"

[mhs]

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.

The rules specify that the procedural per shot is instead of the single procedural. This is unusual in that it seems to let you retroactively undo a penalty, albeit by getting a greater one.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Are you willing to let a stage designer stipulate that faulting anywhere does not incur a significant advantage?

[Nik Habicht]

The rules specify that the procedural per shot is instead of the single procedural. This is unusual in that it seems to let you retroactively undo a penalty, albeit by getting a greater one.

Not really --- rather the rules require you to determine, for each instance of faulting (i.e. for each place in the course of fire where a foot touched down outside the FFZ) whether there was a significant advantage at that location. Once you've made that determination, you know whether to apply one or multiple procedurals....

[Jim Norman]

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.

Are you willing to let a stage designer stipulate that faulting anywhere does not incur a significant advantage?

Yes. We give you a place from which to shoot, if you shoot from outside the place you get a procedural. It should be per shoot. ALWAYS.

Just like counting ALL the hits on a NS.

It is an advantage to take the additional shots while not correcting the fault. I don't have to reacquire sights and target, I don't break my cadence. I realize I faulted, but no significant advantage is accessed so why bother to correct?

And before you say that contradicts my call on Sunday Stage 5, remember that this is not the current rule and from a strict interpretation of the current rules, the shooter did not gain a significant advantage.

I feel the same way about this that I feel about allowing the WSB to declare the shooter must remain in the FFZ and that leaving the FFZ, IE touching down outside the fault line should end the COF.

And that in Multi-gun, we should be allowed to require a reload after the first shot and prior to engaging the last target.

Jim

[Singlestack]

I agree with Jim. All foot faults should be per shot.

[Carmoney]

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.

I understand the appeal of trying to make everything completely objective--I really do. But one thing I have learned in practicing law is that well-intended efforts to completely "objectify the situation" tend to create new problems, unintended harsh consequences, and fundamental injustice down the line.

Do we really want a situation where a toe touching down outside the shooting area (barely) can completely screw your match? Where carrying a briefcase with the handle an inch above the belt (instead of an inch below the belt) can drop you out of contention at Nationals?

Too harsh.

Or so it seems to me.

[Jim Norman]

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.

I understand the appeal of trying to make everything completely objective--I really do. But one thing I have learned in practicing law is that well-intended efforts to completely "objectify the situation" tend to create new problems, unintended harsh consequences, and fundamental injustice down the line.

Do we really want a situation where a toe touching down outside the shooting area (barely) can completely screw your match? Where carrying a briefcase with the handle an inch above the belt (instead of an inch below the belt) can drop you out of contention at Nationals?

Too harsh.

Or so it seems to me.

I will go along with the carrying the briefcase example being one where I would have some other way to determine the procedure and the penalty. I hear what you say about the per shot for your toe touching outside. The other side of this question is "Did you or did you not fault the line?"

If the fault lines are properly built in that they are high enough above the surface to be felt, then it is your responsibility to make sure you are really in the zone. It is an advantage gained if you have to worry about it and I didn't bother to. You run up, go 'Oh crap, got to move my foot before I shoot or I'll get dinged and I run up and being so much faster and more accurate, don't bother as I will win even with a 10 point penalty, however if I were to lose 60 points for faulting the three targets, I would also have to make sure I was not faulting, same as you and that just might level us up just a bit.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

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.

I think it is clear in the rule book. Give it a read again. It say "instead", not "in addition", right?

[Dan-O-Mite]

I think it is clear in the rule book. Give it a read again. It say "instead", not "in addition", right?

Rule 10.2.1 reads as;

A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground beyond a Fault Line will receive 1 procedural penalty for each occurance. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting.

The part that gets me is "1 procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting". Since there are "subject" targets, and "other" targets from the same location, it seems like two different instances to me.

I still think it could use some clarification, or else we wouldn't still be talking about it.

[wide45]

the competitor may instead be assessed 1 procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting.

may instead... period.

Very clear that no additional penalties are to be added for non subject target(s).

[Dan-O-Mite]

Not sure why some cannot, or maybe are just not willing to see that there is a grey area here. I simply suggest that a little better wording would clear things up for everyone, with (dare I say) no chance for misinterpretation.

Then again, some like grey areas as they are because it gives them room to wiggle out of the holes they dig for themselves.

I'm fine with no wiggle room, and prefer absolutes. Less wasting of my time.

Anyways, on to new things.

[mhs]

Not sure why some cannot, or maybe are just not willing to see that there is a grey area here. I simply suggest that a little better wording would clear things up for everyone, with (dare I say) no chance for misinterpretation.

Then again, some like grey areas as they are because it gives them room to wiggle out of the holes they dig for themselves.

I'm fine with no wiggle room, and prefer absolutes. Less wasting of my time.

Anyways, on to new things.

I'm fairly sure that no one enjoys finding and/or arguing about ambiguities in the rules more than I do, but even I can't find one here.

[LPatterson]

I'm a block headed Kraut but I am going to do something I rarely (almost never) do and that is to change my decision. After reading 10.2.1 several times and trying several thought processes (scenarios) I will concede to the 4 foot faults only. I still think there is something lacking in the rule but without a 3 page ruling trying to cover every situation, I'll leave it to the lawyers.

"It is impossible to make everything fool proof as fools are so ingenious."

[Carmoney]

I'll leave it to the lawyers.

There will eventually come a time when you're glad we're there!

[ima45dv8]

I'll leave it to the lawyers.

There will eventually come a time when you're glad we're there!

Last-called until most-needed.

Then you can be someone's new best friend.

[Carmoney]

I'll leave it to the lawyers.

There will eventually come a time when you're glad we're there!

Last-called until most-needed.

Then you can be someone's new best friend.

People tend to be awfully grateful after I dig them out from the holes they dig for themselves. Quite often, it's because they refused to face the reality of the gray-area world in which we live, choosing instead to see things as absolute.

[sperman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI6hIc7R2i8

[LPatterson]

I'll leave it to the lawyers.

There will eventually come a time when you're glad we're there!

Last-called until most-needed.

Then you can be someone's new best friend.

People tend to be awfully grateful after I dig them out from the holes they dig for themselves. Quite often, it's because they refused to face the reality of the gray-area world in which we live, choosing instead to see things as absolute.

Exactly my point Mike, I carry a business card for a lawyer right behind my permit. If I need one I will need the other.

We are shooting a free style sport with an absolute style rule book. Look at Production for an example, if it isn't an authorized mod then it is illegal. I realize it is impossible to write intent into a rule/law but perhaps our rule book should have had some lawyers sitting in on the rule making process. This is not baseball where the tie goes to the runner.