• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About d_striker

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Beer, Guns, Freedom.

Recent Profile Visitors

724 profile views
  1. Honor and class have nothing to do with it. DNROI says that's how it is, so that's how I'm playing the game.
  2. I'd rate the big stick before the dot but that's just me.
  3. Minimal offset. Easier to switch between Limited and Open as index would be the same. But yeah, the dot is half the fun...
  4. Interpretations seem to happen pretty quick. For instance, anytime someone emails DNROI for an interpretation of an existing rule, he's pretty quick to respond. Are we talking about rulings or interpretations with regard to DNROI consulting NROI?
  5. Yeah, you're right about that.
  6. That's good to know. Thanks for sharing.
  7. Rather than one individual making an interpretation, wouldn't it make sense for all of the NROI Instructors to discuss as a panel and come to a consensus? It seems silly to have one person as the absolute arbiter...Especially on some matters that may not be so black and white. Or the fact that one DNROI's interpretation may contradict a previous DNROI's interpretation or future DNROI interpretations. This has nothing to do with any specific DNROI and is not meant to disparage anyone. Just questioning the structure and protocol.
  8. I have heard similar from other NROI instructors. This seems to be one of those rules where there is not unanimous agreement among NROI. I emailed Troy about this very thing a few months back. His response was that the rule means targets should not be able to be engaged beyond the 180. Whether you like it or not, DNROI's interpretation is final. I replied with specific stages at some of the L3 matches I had shot in 2016 that violated this rule, where he was the RM. He said that while they made every attempt to present targets so they could not be engaged beyond the 180, sometimes it was unavoidable. This was his response: I can't speak to A2; Area 3, yes, due to the nature of some of the stages. A6 and Production we tried to hide them from being immediately available on, or just past, the 180. Nothing prevents a competitor from "reaching back" so to speak and engaging one well past the 180. Since stages are set up to be shot freestyle (for the most part), and usually solving the problem is pretty dynamic, and the competitor may or may not always be aware of exactly where the 180 is, we try to keep people from shooting at a target that would cause them to break the 180 at a certain point. We can't cover them all up, however, and there is still a need for muzzle discipline on the competitor's part. However, every attempt should be made to not allow a target to be engaged directly on, or immediately (185-190 degrees or so), past the 180.
  9. I think you're right about people using "location" and "view" synonymously when they clearly each have their own definition. I'm certainly guilty of it. But says "location OR view." Perhaps this rule would be better if it read "location AND view."
  10. That is definitely illegal.
  11. As much as I agree with you, bad stage design often isn't illegal...
  12. The challenging part of this discussion hasn't been brought up yet. What qualifies as a different view? In the first array of 16, if you could see an array of 8 a few steps from a spot where you could see the other 8, I'm calling this stage legal. Not the best design, but legal.
  13. How do you run multiple shooters at the same time unless it's a Fixed or Par Time stage?
  14. As others have already said, you have to be 100% sure that the shooter broke 180 in order to DQ them. Even if you're 99.9% sure they broke it, you can't call it. It doesn't matter what the peanut gallery tells you...The responsibility is on the RO to make the call. Also, as Moto pointed out, finger in the trigger guard while clearing a malfunction is allowed if gun is still pointed at targets per 10.5.8.
  15. How do I get my hands on one?