Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

"Illegal Stage"


ctay

Recommended Posts

Situation - member of our club took an RO class and learned in that class that any stage where you can see "brown" from beyond the 180 is "illegal". I asked for the rule and was cited "freestyle".

I've never had anyone make this claim before and frankly it really doesn't make sense to me. That said, I'm not god and I don't know everything.

Any thoughts on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

Actually--it's true. It seems like there is greater diligence about following the rule at major matches. More setup time and time to "fine tune" the stages probably.

Not so much at club matches---usually there are ample opportunities to engage W-A-Y past the 180.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

Actually--it's true. It seems like there is greater diligence about following the rule at major matches. More setup time and time to "fine tune" the stages probably.

Not so much at club matches---usually there are ample opportunities to engage W-A-Y past the 180.

That is not the correct interpretation of the rule. All of the rules, including that one, are subject to the rules on safe gun handling. Nowhere in the quoted rule or the rule book itself does it require that shooters be able to engage all visible targets.

This should be obvious from the fact that if your rule was interpreted as you suggest, it would create absurd results. For example, walls are from the ground to the height as constructed, so shooting "under" a wall is impermissible. By the logic of your interpretation, we would have to allow a competitor to shoot under a wall, or even through a wall if it was made out of snow fence.

The rule you cited prevents stage design that instructs shooters as to HOW to complete a course of fire when the competing ways can be done safely and consistent with other rules. The freestyle rule is to encourage gaming of stages, NOT to require a particular stage design, but to prohibit dictating the manner of solving the shooting problem.

I am aware of no rule that requires all targets to able to be legally engaged from absolutely anywhere on the stage and I have seen much to the contrary at all levels of matches. I have seen range masters try to eliminate 180 traps where it may be ambiguous as to where the targets are with regard to the 180 line, but I have never seen anyone say that vision barriers must prevent shooters from shooting up range.

Also, your interpretation of the rule would virtually eliminate any stage where the shooting area advances forward, which obviously isn't case.

In short, that which is being discussed is not the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys read the last sentence of 2.1.4. :)

That doesn't resolve the issue either. It does not say that competitors must be able to engage targets from anywhere and everywhere where they are visible. "As and when visible" has a common meaning in our sport--as one advances in the course of fire, targets become available and should be able to be legally shot. It doesn't mean that if the competitor continues to advance that targets may not still be available after safe shooting angles are no longer available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.1.4 gets interpreted differently by EVERYBODY especially RM's. Some will not allow any targets to be visible beyond a 180 and others don't seem to care and fall back on the freestyle mantra. I have even had one RM require no shoots on the back of no shoots if it was a stage with all uprange movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.1.4 gets interpreted differently by EVERYBODY especially RM's. Some will not allow any targets to be visible beyond a 180 and others don't seem to care and fall back on the freestyle mantra. I have even had one RM require no shoots on the back of no shoots if it was a stage with all uprange movement.

2.1.4 is the correct answer to the question asked so he would have gotten 1/2 credit on the test.

If every stage that didn't follow 2.1.4 got tossed, well..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.1.4

Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations other than immediately downrange, organizers and officials must protect or restrict surrounding areas to which competitors, officials or spectators have access. Each competitor must be allowed to solve the competitive problem in his own way and must not be hindered by being forced to act in any manner which might cause unsafe action. Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire.

My take is targets can be available past the 180 as long as they are available well before the 180. You are not forcing the shooter to engage them past the 180 because of their availability well before the 180. If you make a target available starting at say 170 degrees then I would want some form of a barrier involved so that access to the target starts to disappear as they aproach the 180. In the latter case you are flirting with violating 2.1.4 without the barriers because you are getting into a range where you are starting to force the shooter to breach safe angles of fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is part of our job as range officials to try to keep the shooter out of trouble if possible.

Putting targets in positions that a shooter can break the 180 while engaging them is poor form.

I always say treat people like you would like to be treated and that extends to proper target placement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please understand, we are not talking just about "180 traps" but any stage where you could possibly see a shoot target from beyond the 180. Even if that target is easily identified as past 180 this interpretation would still rule a stage illegal if it were visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear lots of bitching about how that rule could not mean you have to make targets not visible beyond the 180 because it is so impractical to set stages that way and you would hand to dumb them down to accomplish it. What I find funny about that is unless I missed one it's been years since we had a non compliant stage at my club and nobody complains about the stages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, It was the CRO class. The instructor specifically mentioned this situation. He made a point of adding vision barriers to prevent this occurence. This was somewhat of a major discussion point.

Chris the point that i had not adequately eplained, when rules contradict each other is the point.

Edited by pjb45
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretending that there's no acceptable interpretation of this rule, lets parse it;

"Competitor must be permitted [...] to shoot targets in an "as and when visible" basis.

Normally, the and would mean that both elements are independently required - in other words, the rule could be further parsed as;

"Competitor MUST be permitted [...] to shoot targets in an [...] visible basis." I.e. The competitor must be able to shoot any targets that are presented.

The alternative is that "as and when visible" is terribly language written by non-lawyers meant to mean "as they become visible" which seems to be the accepted interpretation. The language should probably be update to reflect what is considered the intent, but hey, Nats, amirite?

Edited by peterthefish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Background

The class was a Chief Range Officer Class and not Range Officer. The focus of the class is different than a RO Class.

The instructor meantioned previous CRO classes did spend time on stage creation. I believe the instructor said unlike like previous classes, now CRO classes had a focus on ensuring stage(s) were compliant with the rulebook.

The second day effort was spent on creation of a stage selected from the training materials list of non-compliant stages. The selected stage was evaluated and then determined to be incorrect due to a variety of reasons. Then the class discussed what activites needed to occur to ensure it was compliant. The class modified the stage to be compliant or legal.

Issue

A non-compliant stage has 1 or more aspects that are in contradiction to 1 or more rules. It was determined that a stage that puts 2 or more rules in conflict with each other is an example of a non-compliant or in my words illegal.

An example was 'must be permitted...as and when visible,,,' might conflct with breaking the '180.'

Scenario:

1) As I proceed down range and when i turn towards and face the side of the berm I can see 5 targets [ rule of when visible]

2) If i fire at one of the targets I will break the "180" [a rule violation]

3) 2 or more rules are in conflct with each other

4) The stage should modified to correct the non-compliant aspects

I believe the rule book also mentions and in my opinion encourages the use of barriers etc to .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet I can name the RMI that taught this class. I have heard it before. My point in citing 2.1.4 was to show there is an alternative way to interpret the situation. If you read freestyle and I read this it would be quite easy to see the contradiction.

The good thing is, as a CRO/RO running a stage you can take the time to point out targets and shooting locations that are problematic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet I can name the RMI that taught this class. I have heard it before. My point in citing 2.1.4 was to show there is an alternative way to interpret the situation. If you read freestyle and I read this it would be quite easy to see the contradiction.

The good thing is, as a CRO/RO running a stage you can take the time to point out targets and shooting locations that are problematic

The better CRO approach would be to fix the stage so that the past 180 visible targets cease to be visible. Of course that fix might require that the staff erect a partial wall that takes view of the target away once you pass the 180......

Even an angled no-shoot is better than nothing -- as it at least provides a reference that the 180 is rapidly approaching.....

Typically either one of those, or changing the angle of the target by rotating its stand, make it fairly easy to avoid the issue....

This doesn't need to be hard -- we've been pulling it off at club matches during set-up for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet I can name the RMI that taught this class. I have heard it before. My point in citing 2.1.4 was to show there is an alternative way to interpret the situation. If you read freestyle and I read this it would be quite easy to see the contradiction.

The good thing is, as a CRO/RO running a stage you can take the time to point out targets and shooting locations that are problematic

The better CRO approach would be to fix the stage so that the past 180 visible targets cease to be visible. Of course that fix might require that the staff erect a partial wall that takes view of the target away once you pass the 180......

Even an angled no-shoot is better than nothing -- as it at least provides a reference that the 180 is rapidly approaching.....

Typically either one of those, or changing the angle of the target by rotating its stand, make it fairly easy to avoid the issue....

This doesn't need to be hard -- we've been pulling it off at club matches during set-up for years.

This is true if the RM lets you fix the issue. I worked a major this year that all it would have taken was a barrel in the right place to obscure a target at about 200 degrees. Was told no so I pointed it out during the stage briefing. That was the next best thing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the way you interpret the rules, I feel it's just lazy stage setup to place targets where they can be engaged beyond the 180.

I do design/build stages for our local matches at several clubs. It takes a little bit of advanced planning and some time spent debugging the stage after you build it, but if someone gets DQed on my stage and I could have prevented it through stage design I feel I've failed.

I've been told by others that this is a "big boy" sport, but I was a new shooter once and I've had to DQ someone who flew in from California on an understandable 180 violation. It isn't that much extra work, and I think we owe it to reach other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet I can name the RMI that taught this class. I have heard it before. My point in citing 2.1.4 was to show there is an alternative way to interpret the situation. If you read freestyle and I read this it would be quite easy to see the contradiction.

The good thing is, as a CRO/RO running a stage you can take the time to point out targets and shooting locations that are problematic

The better CRO approach would be to fix the stage so that the past 180 visible targets cease to be visible. Of course that fix might require that the staff erect a partial wall that takes view of the target away once you pass the 180......

Even an angled no-shoot is better than nothing -- as it at least provides a reference that the 180 is rapidly approaching.....

Typically either one of those, or changing the angle of the target by rotating its stand, make it fairly easy to avoid the issue....

This doesn't need to be hard -- we've been pulling it off at club matches during set-up for years.

This is true if the RM lets you fix the issue. I worked a major this year that all it would have taken was a barrel in the right place to obscure a target at about 200 degrees. Was told no so I pointed it out during the stage briefing. That was the next best thing

Kevin -- that sucks. Meaning -- that you weren't allowed to fix the stage......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...