Rule 5.1.8

[Nik Habicht]

11 hours ago, twodownzero said:

No, they can't, because words do not have "intent."  You don't seem to ever get it.  Words have "meaning."  They don't have "intent."  Only individuals have "intent."  Our rules are not created by an individual, or we could just ask him what he meant.

The only authority for interpreting the rules is their words and definitions found in the rulebook for what the words mean.  There is absolutely no legitimacy nor objectivity to attributing some undrafted "intent" to the rules.  If there was, the rules would have to be accompanied by some sort of notes explaining what the drafters "really meant."  Absent that, we have only what they gave us, which are the words they used.

So, Tim -- if we only have the meaning of the words, why bother with an RO course that provides instruction in interpreting the meaning?  For that matter, why do candidates for RM need to sit through an oral exam, conducted by the RMI group, prior to being certified?

Reading that there are some rules violations that are a threat to competitive equity -- typically addressed by procedurals -- and that there are other rules infractions that are a potential threat to the safety of people -- typically addressed by disqualification -- am I wrong to infer that those are two points for consideration, when I'm being asked to rule on a question that is not specifically addressed?  

 

[twodownzero]

Just now, Nik Habicht said:

am I wrong to infer that those are two points for consideration, when I'm being asked to rule on a question that is not specifically addressed? 

The purpose of a rule is not relevant to a determination of whether it was violated, no.

The points for consideration are whatever the relevant factors are (from the language of the rules themselves).

The 180 rule is clearly a safety rule.  If a person points their gun at 181 degrees, does it matter if they didn't endanger anyone?  No.  Going beyond 90* to the left and right is a violation, and the result is a disqualification.  Whether the DQ actually succeeded in punishing an actual safety infraction is irrelevant, even though we all know why the 180 rule exists.

It is not your role to interpret some unwritten purpose from the rules.  It is your role to apply the rules as written.  That means it is your duty as an RO/CRO/RM to DQ that shooter, regardless of what you might think about the fairness of that decision.

[Nik Habicht]

2 hours ago, twodownzero said:

The purpose of a rule is not relevant to a determination of whether it was violated, no.

The points for consideration are whatever the relevant factors are (from the language of the rules themselves).

The 180 rule is clearly a safety rule.  If a person points their gun at 181 degrees, does it matter if they didn't endanger anyone?  No.  Going beyond 90* to the left and right is a violation, and the result is a disqualification.  Whether the DQ actually succeeded in punishing an actual safety infraction is irrelevant, even though we all know why the 180 rule exists.

It is not your role to interpret some unwritten purpose from the rules.  It is your role to apply the rules as written.  That means it is your duty as an RO/CRO/RM to DQ that shooter, regardless of what you might think about the fairness of that decision.

Cute, but not what I asked.  Officiating is occasionally a little more complicated that upholding a rule that addresses a particular situation....

[Poppa Bear]

It is better if we address all issues up front but it still remains that we as RO's need to interpret the rules based at least somewhat on intent.  

How many stages had had a forbidden action added to the WSB because a competitor interpreted it to allow them to shoot it their way?

How many competitors have complained because the RO attached significant advantage to a foot fault?   And, because the issue was not addressed in the WSB people argue the intent of the rule?  

Many issues are on a curve.  At one end we have very illegal and no question as to the ruling.  At the other we have very legal and no question about the ruling.  In between the two we have the transition from very illegal to very legal, and we need to judge the intent of the rules to determine which side the issue falls on.  No words can address every issue even if we made the rule book thousands of pages long.   

[High Lord Gomer]

13 hours ago, Poppa Bear said:

How many stages had had a forbidden action added to the WSB because a competitor interpreted it to allow them to shoot it their way?

Forbidden actions are only (supposed to be) used to address safety issues, NEVER because someone found a hole in your stage design/construction that you didn't foresee.

Several times I've been called 2 or 3 squads into a match and asked, "Can I shoot this from here?"  My answer is almost always, "I didn't intend for that to be visible from here but it is and it is a safe angle of fire so, yes, I wish I had seen that."

Editted to add:

Almost all of my WSBs contain, among other things:

1.When 4 or more barrels are stacked together they are considered a wall and shots cannot be made between them

2.Walls extend upward infinitely and shots cannot be taken over them

3.Adjacent walls separated by less than 12” are deemed to be touching and shots cannot be made between them

Edited September 5, 2016 by High Lord Gomer

[Poppa Bear]

9 hours ago, High Lord Gomer said:

Forbidden actions are only (supposed to be) used to address safety issues, NEVER because someone found a hole in your stage design/construction that you didn't foresee.

Several times I've been called 2 or 3 squads into a match and asked, "Can I shoot this from here?"  My answer is almost always, "I didn't intend for that to be visible from here but it is and it is a safe angle of fire so, yes, I wish I had seen that."

Editted to add:

Almost all of my WSBs contain, among other things:

1.When 4 or more barrels are stacked together they are considered a wall and shots cannot be made between them

2.Walls extend upward infinitely and shots cannot be taken over them

3.Adjacent walls separated by less than 12” are deemed to be touching and shots cannot be made between them

I agree that it should be safety only.   That said, we have people that will interpret that going around the side wall is not dangerous. Just because the RO cannot safely follow them is our problem.

 

We can only address those issues we think about or notice,  it is almost impossible to address what the fertile mind of a gamer can sometimes  come up with.