No, this is not about a television game show. It concerns the application of penalties in a match. Although our sport is fundamentally a freestyle activity, and most stages allow the shooter to choose his/her shooting solution, some shooter actions are affected by stage procedures listed in the Written Stage Briefing.
Even a freestyle stage WSB can require a certain action such as what I call “carry the brick” (substitute your own distracting action here). Failing to “carry the brick” invites the application of one procedural penalty per occurrence. Should a significant advantage be gained during the violation, a per-shot penalty can be applied instead. Note that significant advantage is a subjective opinion and its use should be consistent across the match. RM involvement prior to deciding should be common practice to avoid inconsistent penalties in different squads with roving ROs at a local match.
The application of procedural penalties can become challenging in a Virginia Count or Fixed Time stage. As a long-time friend and RM once told me “Virginia Count makes my head hurt!”. Why? Simply because a VC stage (and a FT stage which is simply VC with a time limit) can have a number of “Do this” and “Don’t do that” in the WSB. Beyond the potential for faulting penalties, you have the possibility of firing too many shots, having too many hits on a target, failing to perform a mandatory reload, and perhaps the failure to do some specified evil act which the stage designer has mandated to interfere with your focus and usual shooting accuracy. That is a lot for the ROs to watch for. Counting shots and observing the shooter is critical for competent officiating by all involved ROs.
When those violations take place, it falls unto the ROs (yes, plural) to not only observe them but to also decide how many penalties are correct. It is quite easy to apply specified penalties when the violation is addressed in a specific rule. Using Rule 10.2.4 as an example, if the RO is paying attention and counting shots, it is a simple matter to come to the correct number. (Note that unlike the penalties for faulting under 10.2.1, this penalty has no limit. It can be a match buster.) Problems arise when the RO wants to also apply an additional procedural under Rule 10.2.2 for failing to comply with the required procedure (the mandatory reload). Doing so is an example of double jeopardy – applying multiple penalties for the same singular action or violation.
So how to avoid this little problem? Consider that 10.2.2 is a general rule, a catch-all. It applies to unspecified procedures. It essentially defines the difference between a single penalty for each occurrence and the application of per-shot penalties for significant advantage. Nothing more. The rules which follow 10.2.2 address specific requirements and violations. If a specific rule is involved in the violation, it is unnecessary and incorrect to also apply a penalty for a general rule such as failing to comply with a stage procedure.
Another simple example of double jeopardy is a violation of a procedure specified in the WSB. This falls directly and only under Rule 10.2.2 (and subs). The shooter was required to “carry the brick” and failed to do so. The RO decides that this was a significant advantage and applies per-shot penalties. The RO cannot also apply a general penalty for violation of 10.2.2.
So, when you are faced with such a situation, first consider the penalties and if double jeopardy might apply. If uncertain, request the advice of the Range Master so that the application of penalties is consistent across the match.
If you have questions about this post, please ask via the blog Contact Form or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.