Rules part 2

[Onepocket]

Before I ask my question I realize this is just a forum,  just curious on what you think the ruling is. Shooter shoulders the wall to push it out of the way about a foot so he can shoot targets from that location. Whats the ruling?

[Kraj]

Is the wall touching/ inside the fault line? 

[Onepocket]

The top was pushed over to see the hidden targets.

11 minutes ago, Kraj said:

Is the wall touching/ inside the fault line? 

Not sure of your question 

[ChuckS]

1 minute ago, Onepocket said:

The top was pushed over to see the hidden targets.

Not sure of your question 

Is the wall inside or wholly outside the shooting area?

[MemphisMechanic]

Sounds like approximately one penalty per shot, to me.

[Kraj]

2 minutes ago, Onepocket said:

The top was pushed over to see the hidden targets.

Not sure of your question 

If the wall was within the shooting area and the shooter touches it, on in this case pushes it, no problem. If they wall is outside of the shooting area and the shooter touches it its a procedural. Unless you have a rule saying it's not allowed. If you don't want the walls to move build the walls not to move. 

 

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

 

However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting, providing doing so does not violate (2.2.1.5 or 3.2.6) 

[Onepocket]

The wall is inside the shooter area, its on the far right hand side of the stage. The wall was pushed out of the way to shoot hidden targets so they didnt have to run backwards and shoot them from another position.

[Kraj]

13 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

Sounds like approximately one penalty per shot, to me.

Do you have a rule that supports that? 

[Schutzenmeister]

12 minutes ago, Onepocket said:

The wall is inside the shooter area, its on the far right hand side of the stage. The wall was pushed out of the way to shoot hidden targets so they didnt have to run backwards and shoot them from another position.

 

In that case, the shooter just drove a MAC truck through a poorly setup prop/stage ... No penalty.

[ChuckS]

6 minutes ago, Onepocket said:

The wall is inside the shooter area, its on the far right hand side of the stage. The wall was pushed out of the way to shoot hidden targets so they didnt have to run backwards and shoot them from another position.

Annoying perhaps,  but I can not find a rule that prohibits this. In fact the responsibility is on the stage builder:

 

2.2.3 Barriers – Must be constructed in the following manner:
2.2.3.1 They must be high enough and strong enough to serve the intended purpose.

 

This may be a great burden for a Level 1 match so perhaps the answer is to use fault lines and physical separation to prevent this sort of thing,.

[ktm300]

4.5.1 The competitor must not interfere with the range surface, natural foliage, constructions, props or other range equipment (including targets, target stands and target activators) at any time. Violations may incur one procedural penalty per occurrence at the discretion of the Range Officer.

Edited February 7, 2017 by ktm300

[ktm300]

6 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

Annoying perhaps,  but I can not find a rule that prohibits this. In fact the responsibility is on the stage builder:

 

2.2.3 Barriers – Must be constructed in the following manner:
2.2.3.1 They must be high enough and strong enough to serve the intended purpose.

 

This may be a great burden for a Level 1 match so perhaps the answer is to use fault lines and physical separation to prevent this sort of thing,.

 

So a shooter can purposely try to destroy the stage to save time?  I don't know of many club matches that could have a match if this was true.

Even a major would have issues if someone could just tear down a wall to save a shooting position.  I think 4.5.1 would come into play if someone is moving walls to get a better shot.

[motosapiens]

4 minutes ago, ktm300 said:

4.5.1 The competitor must not interfere with the range surface, natural foliage, constructions, props or other range equipment (including targets, target stands and target activators) at any time. Violations may incur one procedural penalty per occurrence at the discretion of the Range Officer.

 

I think this is the correct answer. My only question is was the wall flexible? i.e. did it spring back to it's original position? or was it physically moved to a new position, thus requiring repair?

[ktm300]

2 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

I think this is the correct answer. My only question is was the wall flexible? i.e. did it spring back to it's original position? or was it physically moved to a new position, thus requiring repair?

I think either way he is interfering with the construction of the stage.

Most of us have seen gaps in walls and shot though them to save a position.  If we move the wall out of the way, that is a different story.

 

[ChuckS]

4 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

I think this is the correct answer. My only question is was the wall flexible? i.e. did it spring back to it's original position? or was it physically moved to a new position, thus requiring repair?

I think 4.5.1 covers this (Thanks!) Since there is no definition for either interfere or rearrange in the glossary, the common definitions have no temporal constraint so even if the wall flexes back, the rule has been violated. But keep the RM on speed dial

[Onepocket]

4.5.1 is what it sounds like to me. Thanks for everyones input. I quess I can cancel my shoulder pad order from Amazon.

[ktm300]

27 minutes ago, Onepocket said:

4.5.1 is what it sounds like to me. Thanks for everyones input. I quess I can cancel my shoulder pad order from Amazon.

(;-))  Yep, I had that thought, I could just run into a wall, knock it over, and shoot everything from there.  Not a lot of help for the 10 round guys but..........

[Kraj]

If anything I see it as a reshoot, not a procedural. 

 

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the 
failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

 

2.2.3 Barriers – Must be constructed in the following manner:
2.2.3.1 They must be high enough and strong enough to serve the intended purpose. 

 

[ChuckS]

Like I said, Speed Dial

[ktm300]

3 minutes ago, Kraj said:

If anything I see it as a reshoot, not a procedural. 

 

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the 
failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

 

2.2.3 Barriers – Must be constructed in the following manner:
2.2.3.1 They must be high enough and strong enough to serve the intended purpose. 

 

IMHO in this case the barrier did not fail it interfered with by the competitor.

There is no reasonable way to construct barriers that can't be moved as they need  to be moved to set up and tear down the stage.

4.5.1 uses the word "must" on the interfering and "may" on the procedural. 

 

4.5.1 The competitor must not interfere with the range surface, natural foliage, constructions, props or other range equipment (including targets, target stands and target activators) at any time. Violations may incur one procedural penalty per occurrence at the discretion of the Range Officer.

[Onepocket]

At this particular match there were several ROs and CROs and they just let everyone do it. I quess on my walk throughs Im going to test the wall stability and drink more protein powder.

[Gary Stevens]

I don't think props should be required to be steel re enforced to keep shooter from deliberately pushing a wall out for the purpose of shooting a hidden target. 

 

Few have agreed with with anything I have said lately, but I would strongly consider a 10.6 call.

[konkapot]

Incomplete information given in the original post reminds me of garbage in/garbage out.

 

The CROs/ROs present decided that a penalty was not warranted.

[MikeBurgess]

I would need to see the layout to have any real opinion. 

 

did the competitor lean on a wall at a opening intended to be shot through at other targets thus allowing himself to engage targets that were not designed to be engaged from that point?

or did the competitor stop at a joint between two walls that were presenting a continuous barrier and move one to create an opening that did not exist in the first place? 

 

the first described act happens all the time to some degree and should be expected by stage stage designer and can easily be avoided.

the latter would be more of a issue for me, this I would call range equipment failure and with a couple zip ties I would tie the walls together so pushing on one doesn't open a gap. 

setting up stages for the last several years in a section where the shooters pretty much define the word Gamer, I have leaned that anywhere I think someone could maybe squeeze something through part of a stage the shooters will drive a train through it, sometimes even to their own detriment just because they could. 

 

 

 

[konkapot]

The visceral, profanity filled rage I heard from some shooters (not the poster) was more consistent with people who were in the "Why didn't I think of that?" camp.

 

@Mike it was your first scenario described in your post.