At what point is the stage design at fault?

[dossauce]

So I'm sure all of us here who take the time to help build stages for our local matches have at some point built a stage, looked at it, and then said "crap this could easily cause someone to DQ themselves (for whatever reason)." At a local match we do all we can to play to the lowest common denominator which is a new shooter. I never want anyone to go home early especially not a new shooter.

At a major match there is usually more freedom for the shooters to make such a mistake but more often then not I see many major matches avoiding this type of stage because none of us want to see a shooter DQ'd.

My question is this: If you as a MD/RM approve a stage at a major match, then after the first day 8 out of 100 competitors are DQ'd for the same reason including 3 more RO's during their match, would you as a MD take note to possibly admit the stage design is at fault? What action can you take at that point? Do you amend the stage, allow reshoots? Can a DQ'd shooter arbitrate this? I find the rules slightly confusing on this matter.

Personally I think it all could have been avoided before the match but what do you do/ can you do if faced with a stage like this.

[mach1soldier]

My opinion and only an opinion. If the stage is possible to be shot without getting a DQ, then at a major match, it is on the shooter to figure out how. I have seen GM's ask at a major match if they could shoot Target whatever from this point without being a DQ.

It sucks for sure.

Interested to see what Rules say about amending the stage or arbitration.

I can't see a RM overriding a DQ though for a 180 or over the berm. There is no one but the RO to provide evidence unless there is more then one RO and they aren't in agreement.

At a local match, I would try and avoid setting a target more then 175 degrees or so.

[toothandnail]

I've heard guys say a 15% DQ rate is acceptable, WAY to high IMO.

5% is closer to what I would accept as reasonable, this is for stage related DQ's.

An MD has no control over DQ's from dropped guns, over the berm, ND's, shooting a prop, etc. so when looking at a match DQ rate as a non Staff person it's hard to know what is what.

[Flatland Shooter]

For major matches, the approval level goes a lot higher than the MD/RM. For Level 2 & 3 matches the stages are submitted to the NROI for review. Anyone that has gone through this process knows that its not a "rubber stamp" approval.

In the review process, safety is a major consideration. Stages with potential DQ traps are not approved.

But once the approved stages go back to the MD/RM, its their responsibility that the berms are sufficient to shoot the stages and that the stages are built as close as possible to what was approved. A good CRO/RO will also evaluate their stage to see if there is any problems. Hopefully necessary changes can be made before the first shooter completes the stages.

But no one is perfect. Sometimes a problem slips through.

Any stage that has significant DQs should be quickly evaluated. If it turns out that it is unsafe, it needs to be corrected or dropped from the match. Per the rules, a stage that has been changed require all shooters that completed the stage prior to any changes to reshoot the stage for score. If the MD/RM decide that is not feasible, the stage needs to be dropped.

[MarkCO]

It really depends on "why" people were DQ'd. I have seen DQs over-ridden for stage issues and I have seen MDs doggedly cling to their ego.

I had 3 people out of 95 DQ on a stage, all of who tried to candy cane a slug bird array that was pretty risky. While I believe it was their error, and easily avoided, I now design mixed shell shotgun stages to make it hard for someone to put a slug on close steel.

I had to issue a large number of DQs at a major when shotshells popped out of match savers and into open ejection ports. That was un-nerving, but it was not a stage design issue.

I don't put targets on stages that have to be engaged at an angle that is close to the 180. I think 170 degrees is too close. As a stage designer, I set up the arrays and shoot them before I put them in a major to make sure they work. My job is to create a reasonable shooting challenge that all levels of competitors can safely complete. Other than that is ignoring the customer service aspect of the whole game we play.

Most DQs at majors are 180 breaks. In 3Gun, add in safety off at abandonment.

Then again I saw video from a major this past weekend that was a certain RO trap. Except the ROs just stayed up range and the competitor was therefore not watched, still a stage design fail.

I have been through NROI approval several times and while not a rubber stamp, not much value added either.

[dossauce]

I think all of this is great advice. In summary It all comes down to two things. 1. Plan ahead and correct the stage before anyone shoots it and 2. Setting aside your personal ego for the benefit of the shooters if there is something wrong. After all, they are the customer, the reason why the ro's, md's, rm's, stats, ect are even there right?

Barring any safety issue (180, finger, ad, ect) should a competitor be dq'd over a forbidden action that is apart of the original stage design from when it was drawn up? The specific example I didn't bring up before but I do now to get feedback from you all.

In short a FA was made to prevent a transition from one area to another while holding a hot firearm, but the FA line was a fault line of the shooting area. A target was put in the corner of a FA line and fault line forcing you close to the FA line, in which a simple misstep although not unsafe would result in a dq.

Do you all think it's okay to do that at a higher level match? Should the FA line simply not be apart of the shooting area?

[Sarge]

If you are building local stages to the "lowest common denominator"(the new shooter) you are doing a disservice to the more accomplished shooters who helped make the match successful.

[dossauce]

If you are building local stages to the "lowest common denominator"(the new shooter) you are doing a disservice to the more accomplished shooters who helped make the match successful.

How so? I dont think me doing a little extra work to safeguard a new shooter from doing something that could result in a DQ is at all a disservice to the seasoned shooter. It takes more time and effort on my part but it in no way affects the seasoned shooter.

[Flexmoney]

Not really answering the OP's question, but...

One can learn a lot by looking at the stats for the scores of a stage after a match.

- Lots of DQs, the customers (at whatever level) weren't all that prepared for the technical situation.

- Really high or really low hit factor can tell a lot.

- Lots of penalties....that can highlight some aspect of the design (not meaning it was good or bad)

- Even the time it takes to run shooters and reset the stage can tell you a lot.

[MarkCO]

If you are building local stages to the "lowest common denominator"(the new shooter) you are doing a disservice to the more accomplished shooters who helped make the match successful.

How so? I dont think me doing a little extra work to safeguard a new shooter from doing something that could result in a DQ is at all a disservice to the seasoned shooter. It takes more time and effort on my part but it in no way affects the seasoned shooter.

Exactly! Better shooters do everything...better. DQing shooters due to bad stage design is just stupid and I wish there was a way to show the rank and file shooters why bad stages (and matches) are bad, but that violates forum rules and sensitivities of too many people. There are some matches I will not attend due to lax safety issues, bad stage design etc., but there are so many people clammoring to get in to those matches, it really has no effect. I'd venture to say, in 3Gun, more than half of the shooters are relatively new and do not have the safety aspects down cold. But we let them into matches where they do not understand the risks, make them sign a useless waiver and soldier on. I pray it does not result in a death, serious injury or lawsuit, but the odds are that it will unless some MDs wake up.

Sorry for the soapbox. While this is a game, the implements of such wield deadly force.

[Sarge]

If you are building local stages to the "lowest common denominator"(the new shooter) you are doing a disservice to the more accomplished shooters who helped make the match successful.

How so? I dont think me doing a little extra work to safeguard a new shooter from doing something that could result in a DQ is at all a disservice to the seasoned shooter. It takes more time and effort on my part but it in no way affects the seasoned shooter.

Depends on how you meant it I guess. Simple stages with little rearward movement or targets nowhere near the 180 are boring. Better shooters want better stages. I never"cater" to new shooters when setting up a stage.

[motosapiens]

The specific example I didn't bring up before but I do now to get feedback from you all.

In short a FA was made to prevent a transition from one area to another while holding a hot firearm, but the FA line was a fault line of the shooting area. A target was put in the corner of a FA line and fault line forcing you close to the FA line, in which a simple misstep although not unsafe would result in a dq.

Do you all think it's okay to do that at a higher level match? Should the FA line simply not be apart of the shooting area?

I don't think it's ok to do that at ANY level match, but perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying. Why was the FA needed?

[dossauce]

If you are building local stages to the "lowest common denominator"(the new shooter) you are doing a disservice to the more accomplished shooters who helped make the match successful.

How so? I dont think me doing a little extra work to safeguard a new shooter from doing something that could result in a DQ is at all a disservice to the seasoned shooter. It takes more time and effort on my part but it in no way affects the seasoned shooter.

Depends on how you meant it I guess. Simple stages with little rearward movement or targets nowhere near the 180 are boring. Better shooters want better stages. I never"cater" to new shooters when setting up a stage.

I can see your point. That's not what I mean though. It's more so putting targets in positions that could be shot just past the 180 but weren't intended that way. Essentially why have it there if it is never legal to engage it at 185^o. Eliminate the sight line till essentially it cannot be engaged while breaking the 180. I know its very situational and I think we're on the same page.

The specific example I didn't bring up before but I do now to get feedback from you all.

In short a FA was made to prevent a transition from one area to another while holding a hot firearm, but the FA line was a fault line of the shooting area. A target was put in the corner of a FA line and fault line forcing you close to the FA line, in which a simple misstep although not unsafe would result in a dq.

Do you all think it's okay to do that at a higher level match? Should the FA line simply not be apart of the shooting area?

I don't think it's ok to do that at ANY level match, but perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying. Why was the FA needed?

It's hard to describe without showing a video but I don't want to bash any md/ match over this. I just simply don't agree. The FA was to prevent transitioning between two bays with pistol drawn. You had to re holster before crossing the line. I think there were two options. Move the FA line back, not apart of the shooting area or don't force a shooter into the position right next to it to engage a target while leaning (depending on height of the shooter hah).

[Graham Smith]

Should the FA line simply not be apart of the shooting area?

It's probably because my brain isn't ticking over right, but I'm not familiar with the term "FA line". I can tell what you mean but am having a bit of trouble understanding the purpose, particularly in context.

From what you describe, it would seem that this line should be outside of the shooting area, which would prevent anyone getting too close to it. But it also seems implied that at some point, the shooter could or would holster a loaded gun to cross that line???

[MarkCO]

FA = Forbidden Action. If you cross the line on the clock, you get DQ'd.

[motosapiens]

The FA was to prevent transitioning between two bays with pistol drawn. You had to re holster before crossing the line. I think there were two options. Move the FA line back, not apart of the shooting area or don't force a shooter into the position right next to it to engage a target while leaning (depending on height of the shooter hah).

IMHO, it's insane, and against the spirit of the rules to have the fault line be the limit for the forbidden action. Rule 2.1.3 illustrates the proper approach in regard to minimum distances to steel so that you don't dq for a foot fault. I would say a reasonable person would apply the same thinking to a forbidden action.

[Graham Smith]

The FA was to prevent transitioning between two bays with pistol drawn. You had to re holster before crossing the line.

And that's where my understanding of this starts to fails. I'm assuming that his has something to do with how the bays are setup at this range. And (for obvious reasons) I am assuming that there is not a stage requirement that a shooter holster a loaded gun and then move to another area then draw and start shooting again.

So, I would have to then assume that the stage design created a situation where a shooter might legitimately be right up next to a line that is perpendicular to the line of fire engaging one or more targets. And if they were to move to the other side of that line, might create a safety hazard.

If all this is true, then I would say that this was a poorly designed stage. A person could inadvertently step across the line after they were finished shooting and get DQ'd for it. If this was such a critical safety situation, then a physical barrier should have been used rather than a fault line.

As to what should be done after the shooting started... I would say that as soon as the problem was seen, the MD should have been advised and made a decision what to do before anyone else shot the stage.

[dossauce]

IMHO, it's insane, and against the spirit of the rules to have the fault line be the limit for the forbidden action. Rule 2.1.3 illustrates the proper approach in regard to minimum distances to steel so that you don't dq for a foot fault. I would say a reasonable person would apply the same thinking to a forbidden action.

I never thought about the distance to steel rule. You're exactly right. That rules isn't in place for md's or stage designers to try and get people dq'd. It's there to prevent people getting hurt and they clearly explain that by telling us the dq line should be set off the fault line to avoid a situation similar to the one I described. Although what I described had nothing to do with distance to a steel target.

[dossauce]

The FA was to prevent transitioning between two bays with pistol drawn. You had to re holster before crossing the line.

And that's where my understanding of this starts to fails. I'm assuming that his has something to do with how the bays are setup at this range. And (for obvious reasons) I am assuming that there is not a stage requirement that a shooter holster a loaded gun and then move to another area then draw and start shooting again.

Yes and correct

So, I would have to then assume that the stage design created a situation where a shooter might legitimately be right up next to a line that is perpendicular to the line of fire engaging one or more targets. And if they were to move to the other side of that line, might create a safety hazard.

Yes, but FA line was the rear fault line. Crossing it did not immediately cause any safety issues, there was still a berm 180^o. They gave themselves about 4 ft of space before the side berms began to taper off. That was my biggest complaint, if there's 4 ft of space why not just move the line back, but I was told the range said they had to put the FA line where it was. So my response was then why not move the stage into the bay more to create more space at the back. I simply did not like that the FA line was apart of the shooting area. In fact I hope a rule comes from it that it won't happen again.

If all this is true, then I would say that this was a poorly designed stage. A person could inadvertently step across the line after they were finished shooting and get DQ'd for it. If this was such a critical safety situation, then a physical barrier should have been used rather than a fault line.

As to what should be done after the shooting started... I would say that as soon as the problem was seen, the MD should have been advised and made a decision what to do before anyone else shot the stage.

[dossauce]

I appreciate the feedback. Honestly I'm fairly new but I'm wouldn't say I'm lacking experience at matches. I've only been at it for 2 years but during those years I've shot almost 2 matches a week. I started USPSA at my range and was md for 9 months, I ran a collegiate team and started a new team. I've become a certified ro, and in general have really committed myself to the sport and making it better. I just hate that because of my age I am not respected at a match when I disagree with a call, it's a shame for any sport and I hate to see it turn away younger shooter. Luckily I'm stubborn, the girlfriend probably wouldn't use the word lucky though haha.

I don't mean for this to harm anyone's reputation, all I was looking for was some sort of agreement that this isn't normal stage design. As I said I'm still fairly new and experience at the big major matches is still small compared to most. I wanted to pick y'all's brains if you've ever seen it before and if you did would you think it a properly designed stage.

Edited May 14, 2015 by dossauce

[Graham Smith]

As a former MD and stage designer, I can tell you without fear of debate, that problems do get overlooked in designs. Sometimes it's because a shooter does something unexpected but sometimes it's because there are some idiosyncrasies about a particular range or bay that result in things being done a particular way that's just taken for granted. This could easily be one or the other or both.

Wading in deeper, without a floatation device, I'll add that when there is something in a particular stage that could result in an unsafe situation, it should be up to the designer or MD to find a way to reduce the risk or include a clear and stern warning in the stage briefing. This would appear to be one of those cases.

Again, I have not seen the stage diagram so I cannot be sure, so let me say equally categorically, a design can create a safety problem that no one sees until someone does something unexpected.

[MarkCO]

While I agree Graham, I think a lot of times the issue is that the "anomaly" rears its head after many squads have shot and the MD/RM does not want to toss a stage, nor do they have time for all those squads to re-shoot. If the WSB is altered, then there can be an issue.

Since it was "required" to re-holster, we can assume one of two things. The match in question was not run under USPSA rules, or they disregarded the rules entirely. Since the vast majority of shooters default to the USPSA rulebook, it becomes difficult when a set of squishy rules are in play.

[Graham Smith]

While I agree Graham, I think a lot of times the issue is that the "anomaly" rears its head after many squads have shot and the MD/RM does not want to toss a stage, nor do they have time for all those squads to re-shoot. If the WSB is altered, then there can be an issue.

Actually, I was going to elaborate more on my comment with something right along that line that happened to a match where I was the MD. We were into the third squad (mine) when a shooter did something legal but unexpected that created an unsafe situation (complicated to explain but in essence the RO got uprange of the shooter).

The solution was simple enough, I just penned a note on the stage description to the RO to be aware this could happen.

[RevoWood123]

Hey guys, I was just reading through this post and I wanted to say I appreciate everybody who has commented. I am going to be the new MD for ICORE matches at our local club and I have been reading threads similar to this in hopes that I can retain it and put it to good use when designing stages myself.

With regards to the stage in question, I can offer no advice other than I have never seen or heard of anything like what the OP described. But I also wanted to add a issue that we came across during one of our USPSA matches. It wasn't until the morning of the match that we realized that in one of the bays as you started COF that you could see heads bobbing up and down from the next bay over. (Apparently the new berms were not made tall enough, which has since been corrected). The stages were looked over to see if they both needed to be thrown out due to safety reasons, but I believe only one ended up being an issue if memory serves me right.

What I learned from that experience was that sometimes you cannot see a potential safety hazard until the shooting starts. It also occurred to me that making adjustments as necessitated by those events, needs to be done, as well it needs to be done in a manner that it can hopefully affect the lowest number of shooters.

Needless to say, what I read here and have already learned, I am going to approach stage design with the mindset to look for these issues as well as have somebody else look over them to see if I didn't catch anything if possible. Thanks again guys.

[dossauce]

Hey Revo, glad to see you can learn from this. That would be quite terrifying to see people over a berm!
Good luck at your matches and I'm glad to see a MD who is being proactive rather then retroactive all of the time.