Home
Rule Book
Membership
Contacts
Match Results
Links
ACTS Discussion Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» ACTS Discussion Forums » Combat Rifle Championship » Combat Rifle Championship » CRC 2017 rulebook interpretation/feedback

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: CRC 2017 rulebook interpretation/feedback
Scott
BoD
Shooter # 18

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Scott   Email Scott   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You shouldn't complain in a volunteer organization unless you're prepared to fix it, right? Well I've been CRC MD, RSO for more matches than I can count, and shooting ACTS since 2005. So fuck it I have the right.

I really don't like how the rulebook was interpreted this CRC.

The Destruction of Props penalty was abused (probably not intentionally). Here's how the Rules Committee originally crafted the rule:

https://postimg.org/image/cw7jd00s5/
https://postimg.org/image/9gff3g3jp/
https://postimg.org/image/xo007zrhx/
https://postimg.org/image/nll859cl1/
https://postimg.org/image/pjwhgzugl/
https://postimg.org/image/qr5tvgv79/
https://postimg.org/image/6nm7jf379/
https://postimg.org/image/jgabjcet1/
https://postimg.org/image/c49grjlyt/
https://postimg.org/image/ezmjyepyt/

That discussion is pretty reasonable. The consensus was:

quote:
Walls and barricades will get shot.

I think running doors off the hinges, shooting pistol steel with rifles, damaging activators and other "avoidable destruction" should carry a 60 second penalty. (Make it hurt, so they don't do it)

My understanding is shooters got dinged for shooting walls, barrels, and even muzzle blast hits to no-shoot targets. That's WAY-THE-FUCK over-the-line of what the rule was intended to prevent.

The rule was crafted to penalize shooters for damaging high-value props--not coroplast walls or shot-to-fuck barrels or other misc crap.

If you want to discourage a shooter from putting a round through a prop, there should be a no-shoot target on that prop. Every round that can negatively impact a shooter's score should be clearly defined on cardboard--that's why the IDPA targets have a 1/2" ring around the scoring perfs. The Prop Destruction penalty is not a hammer to be exercised on shooters when RSOs happen to observe a round going through a wall or barrel. It not only breaks with convention, it invites accusations of selective rule enforcement.

Besides Prop Destruction, I experienced some great variance of cover enforcement from one RSO crew to the next. I know this one is tough, actually harder than calling balls & strikes in baseball. So I won't belabor it...it's something to work on.

With that off my chest, EVERYONE who volunteered impressed me with their effort and patience. I appreciate the hard work.

Posts: 4424 | From: SE MI | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AKins
BoD
Shooter # 7083

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AKins   Email AKins   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I called it on a few people for destroying painted targets

That takes time to find targets, paint them in the exact spots, and set them back up in the exact locations.

It was avoidable.

I felt it was the right call to make, no?

--------------------
God, Guns, and Gold.

Posts: 136 | From: Prison City | Registered: Mar 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott
BoD
Shooter # 18

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Scott   Email Scott   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No I don't think it was the right call.

People don't shoot target stands deliberately, but they occasionally take rounds. It's part of doing ACTS business. The same rule should be applied to walls, barrels, or other stage props. And where lighting them up gives a shooter an advantage (or would cause harm to match flow), MDs should place no-shoot targets to penalize them for doing so. No-shoot targets are explicitly recognized in the rulebook for this purpose, and are pasted when shot so future shots can be accurately assessed.

The decision to levy Destruction of Props penalties on shit that's taken rounds for years is new and very unfriendly. We might as well start giving that penalty out for Destruction of Berms. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 4424 | From: SE MI | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LedgeGuy
BoD
Shooter # 366

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LedgeGuy   Email LedgeGuy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't see the destruction of actual props- and would concur on what is and is not destruction-if it was a round or two- not a mag dump on a barrel or wall.

However how is no shoot targets getting trashed by muzzle blast different from putting a hole in them from a bullet? The no shoot represents a person. If you put a hole in them, you get sued or go to jail. So if you put your barrel in their face and blow out an eardrum or cut them with gasses- wouldn't that get you in trouble? Plus we have to take extra time to repair the stage to be fair for all. My stage on the second day- I bet we had over a dozen people trash a no shoots get trashed. The rule book calls them "no shoot targets" and the penalty of contact shot addresses destruction of targets.

Posts: 280 | From: Grand Ledge, MI | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Arc
R/C
Shooter # 101

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Arc   Email Arc   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scott, I'm all for "original intent", but the devil is in the details. If you have a recommendation for how the rulebook could be revised to clarify the issue, then hammer out the language and we can take it up in the committee.


However, the rulebook specifically states "damage to door or wall" as avoidable damage, and the penalty seems to have been properly assessed.

[ 19. September 2017, 09:43: Message edited by: Arc ]

Posts: 239 | From: Portage, MI | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AKins
BoD
Shooter # 7083

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AKins   Email AKins   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with Matt. Lets get it cleaned up for clarity and rules committee consideration.

I still feel I made the right calls based on the written rules.

--------------------
God, Guns, and Gold.

Posts: 136 | From: Prison City | Registered: Mar 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott
BoD
Shooter # 18

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Scott   Email Scott   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LedgeGuy:
I didn't see the destruction of actual props- and would concur on what is and is not destruction-if it was a round or two- not a mag dump on a barrel or wall.

I got dinged 120 seconds for 2 shots into a wall I was cornering on the clay mine stage. They were completely good shots that passed through the wall and into hostile targets (because of sight offset). How is shooting a shot-to-fuck wall more harsh of a penalty than shooting a good-guy target? That's a big FU to the shooter.

quote:
Originally posted by LedgeGuy:
However how is no shoot targets getting trashed by muzzle blast different from putting a hole in them from a bullet? The no shoot represents a person. If you put a hole in them, you get sued or go to jail. So if you put your barrel in their face and blow out an eardrum or cut them with gasses- wouldn't that get you in trouble? Plus we have to take extra time to repair the stage to be fair for all. My stage on the second day- I bet we had over a dozen people trash a no shoots get trashed. The rule book calls them "no shoot targets" and the penalty of contact shot addresses destruction of targets.

Don't really disagree but practical realities of running a competition should require ABSOLUTE CONSISTENCY on condition of those no-shoot targets. On the stage "Almost the Same" on Sunday the no-shoot targets were in terrible condition (some had taken a lot of moisture overnight). It might take 5 shooter muzzle blasts to start damaging the no-shoot everyone used as cover (another legitimate gripe). So the 5th guy gets penalized but not the other guys?
Posts: 4424 | From: SE MI | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott
BoD
Shooter # 18

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Scott   Email Scott   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arc:
Scott, I'm all for "original intent", but the devil is in the details. If you have a recommendation for how the rulebook could be revised to clarify the issue, then hammer out the language and we can take it up in the committee.

Don't have any rulebook suggestions, I just suggest not manufacturing reasons to levy DOP penalties.

quote:
Originally posted by Arc:
However, the rulebook specifically states "damage to door or wall" as avoidable damage, and the penalty seems to have been properly assessed.

On this, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You left out the "normal wear and tear" part which is what happens when you set up a stage with a corner hiding a hostile target. Lacking a no-shoot target, that corner was turned from an unfortunate design decision into (with addition of the DOP penalty) a penalty IED never before levied in ACTS history. Not cool.

It's not something I'm gonna burn my ACTS membership card over, but something that causes people to not show up...definitely maybe I can see that.

Posts: 4424 | From: SE MI | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
globalsmack
BoD
Shooter # 7068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for globalsmack   Email globalsmack   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about this? Life Safety Rule #4, Know your Target, its foreground and its background.

How is an RSO supposed to know the intent of a rule made many years in the past?

Does leniency in the past make it wrong to make calls in the present in the future? Does a new RSO know how it was called 5 years ago?

What I am seeing is a group of RSOs calling the game close to the rule set and getting some backlash. Rules as written is supposed to be how CRC is played.

As it has been beaten over my head for the last year, the ACTS rulebook is supposed to be short and sweet to keep it simple. Language will always be a constant battle.

I honestly dont feel giving an RSO another discretionary call is the right direction. It the RSO gets to decide what props are ok to destroy.

Posts: 260 | From: Wayne | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Arc
R/C
Shooter # 101

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Arc   Email Arc   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott:
Don't have any rulebook suggestions, I just suggest not manufacturing reasons to levy DOP penalties.

Nobody was manufacturing reasons. You plopped two into the wall, and the RSO properly applied the rules as they were written, specifically for that case. Those rules were also properly applied for the sticks holding the clays that you shot, which were considered normal wear and tear, and no penalty was applied.

To Jeff's point, knowing the foreground is one of the four rules of firearms safety, and knowing your bore offset would be considered a key ACTS skillset. I came damn close to also shooting that wall, but the rulebook has you balance that risk against the rewards of taking the shot.

If you truly think the rulebook has the wiggle room to allow a penalty to be manufactured, and specifically if it could be designed to screw a shooter, it needs to be changed. You would be responsible for creating the new language. Otherwise it's just bitching.

Posts: 239 | From: Portage, MI | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott
BoD
Shooter # 18

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Scott   Email Scott   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, cool.

Since you guys are interpreting "normal wear and tear" of make-believe walls as 60 second penalties (per shot, unlimited) while make-believe innocent people are worth 30 seconds (per shot, max 2), I went ahead and created a promotional image for you. You can go ahead and use this in future social media campaigns.

 -

[Eek!]

Posts: 4424 | From: SE MI | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Arc
R/C
Shooter # 101

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Arc   Email Arc   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It can't be "okay" for someone to shoot the props. It wouldn't be okay with a VTAC, it wouldn't be okay with one of the cars, and it shouldn't be okay with the walls. Again, that case is specifically provided for in the rulebook.
Posts: 239 | From: Portage, MI | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | ACTS Home

© 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 American Confederation of Tactical Shooters All Rights Reserved.
No portion of this website may be reproduced without prior written permission

image linking to 100 Top Guns and Gear Sites

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3


Home
Rule Book
Membership
Contacts
Match Results
Links