[dirty whiteboy]

Look as though stage #1 was tossed for Lim, L-10 , Revo???

[Flyin40]

Was stage 1 thrown out or the update just messed up??


Flyin

[smokshwn]

Flyin40, on Sep 18 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

Was stage 1 thrown out or the update just messed up??


Flyin

It was arbitrated...with the result that the stage was tossed. I don't have details but hopefully someone can fill us in.

[Flyin40]

smokshwn, on Sep 18 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

Flyin40, on Sep 18 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

Was stage 1 thrown out or the update just messed up??


Flyin

It was arbitrated...with the result that the stage was tossed. I don't have details but hopefully someone can fill us in.

I don't even know any details either but can you say.................Popcorn


Flyin

[shred]

The Arb comm ruled the stage was not compliant with 2.1.4.

[A62335]

So what does that mean for shooters that DQ'ed on that stage?

[sci]

A62335, on Sep 18 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

So what does that mean for shooters that DQ'ed on that stage?

It means that if they did not file an arb within the hour of their DQ they are still out.

[smokshwn]

Just to stir the pot....Was it compliant with2.1.4 during the open match?

[HoMiE]

smokshwn, on Sep 18 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

Just to stir the pot....Was it compliant with2.1.4 during the open match?

Are the target locations the same or did they move stuff around?

[Singlestack]

Its hard to believe a stage at the Nats got thrown out for 2.1.4.

[Jadeslade]

Ricochets?

edited because I can't spell.

This post has been edited by Jadeslade: 18 September 2009 - 07:32 PM

[Chills1994]

A62335 wrote:

Quote

So what does that mean for shooters that DQ'ed on that stage?

Dude, good point!

You are on the ball tonight.

So... ... if you go to a big match and get DQ'ed, you should just fork over the $100 to arbitrate it, in the hopes that the whole stage might get tossed??

And if that is the case, then you are back in the match???

[Chills1994]

Oh, yeah, FWIW, I thought DQ's for safety infractions weren't open to arbitration??/

[cliffwalsh]

Chills1994, on Sep 18 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

A62335 wrote:

Quote

So what does that mean for shooters that DQ'ed on that stage?

Dude, good point!

You are on the ball tonight.

So... ... if you go to a big match and get DQ'ed, you should just fork over the $100 to arbitrate it, in the hopes that the whole stage might get tossed??

And if that is the case, then you are back in the match???

+1

[A62335]

cliffwalsh, on Sep 18 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

Chills1994, on Sep 18 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

A62335 wrote:

Quote

So what does that mean for shooters that DQ'ed on that stage?

Dude, good point!

You are on the ball tonight.

So... ... if you go to a big match and get DQ'ed, you should just fork over the $100 to arbitrate it, in the hopes that the whole stage might get tossed??

And if that is the case, then you are back in the match???

+1

Only reason I asked is that was the stage I started the match on, and one of my squadmates DQ'ed right off the bat. For those of you unfamiliar with the stage, there was an open target that could not be engaged after you had passed a orange cone, doing so would be a 180 violation. But, there was no clear 180 line, as the stage was not set up in a bay. I do have a video of that stage up on my youtube page, Day 1 of the nationals.

[Jadeslade]

Quote

Only reason I asked is that was the stage I started the match on, and one of my squadmates DQ'ed right off the bat. For those of you unfamiliar with the stage, there was an open target that could not be engaged after you had passed a orange cone, doing so would be a 180 violation. But, there was no clear 180 line, as the stage was not set up in a bay. I do have a video of that stage up on my youtube page, Day 1 of the nationals.

Nice vids. Really good. Nice shooting. Still hard to know about 2.1.4 or whatever.

[cliffwalsh]

try 2.5.2.6.7a

[TMC]

Chills1994, on Sep 18 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

A62335 wrote:

Quote

So what does that mean for shooters that DQ'ed on that stage?

Dude, good point!

You are on the ball tonight.

So... ... if you go to a big match and get DQ'ed, you should just fork over the $100 to arbitrate it, in the hopes that the whole stage might get tossed??

And if that is the case, then you are back in the match???

It only seems fair that other shooters who DQ'd on that stage for the same violation be reinstated and finish the match. If the arbitration committee rules the stage as the problem and not the shooter they need to apply the ruling fairly.

I know safety is paramount but if one shooter is allowed to break the 180 due to stage design and continue then any others should also be allowed.

(I hope Carl doesn't see this, I may get an earfull next time I see him)

[Chuck Anderson]

Figured this wouldn't take long to pop up. I was on the Arb committee so I see if I can fill in some gaps. First the shooter did not arb the safety violation. In fact she was very up front saying she knew she couldn't arb it because of the safety violation. It was filed because she believed it was an illegal stage under 2.1.4. I'm not gonna retype the rule because I need to get some sleep tonight. We spoke to the shooter, as well as the RO's and CRO on that stage. We also took a look at the stage. For shooters that were at the Open/Prod and not the Lim/L10 match, the stage was the same, but the CRO made a change to the 180 degree line. For the Open/Prod match it was set so that the only the first target on the left could not be engaged from anywhere within the shooting box. For this match they changed the arbitrary 180 degree line. Apparently they heard concerns that ricochets may be landing in other bays. The 180 was changed so that the first target on the right was now breaking the 180 once you rounded the first corner. This target was visible from everywhere in the stage and there was no reference to the 180 other than the cone that was place near the shooting area. This made it very difficult to tell once the shooter started moving within the stage. Admittedly, I've shot a lot of stages where targets could be shot after breaking the 180. However there is normally some indication to the shooter what that is. Whether it is a berm or a more linear stage.

After reviewing all the information as well as consulting the RM and DNROI for a couple clarifications about the rules (none of which changed the original opinion held by all the committee members) there was nothing to do other than declare the stage illegal. After that we spent most of our time trying to figure out various ways of not booting the stage from the match. Unfortunately with the match more than half over there was no way to change the stage and have everyone reshoot. A suggestion was proposed to just tell the RO's from that point on to not enforce the 180 degree rule in regards to that target. With half the competitors having shot that stage with the rule in place this didn't seem fair to them in any way.

As far as the competitor from the first day, he's still hosed. If he had arb'd it he would likely have been reinstated. Unfortunately Arb decisions aren't retroactive. We tried to figure out a way to get him back in but there's no way to within the rules.

[A62335]

Thanks for clearing that up Chuck.

[Flexmoney]

Folks, once again a reminder...

Brian's Forum is not a place to come to get on your soap-box.

It's a discussion forum, not a venue to air complaints.

- Forum Administrator

***Note: I went ahead and removed a few of the last posts in this thread. They were overly specific and judgemental of people involved...which, of course folks want to respond to. That is the exact back-and-forth that we don't want to see here.***

CLOSED