dennisw1mac

There is a great yt video from Robert Burke that breaks down all measurement differences. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It doesn't mean that. You are right; don't let these guys make you crazy. They live to drive DNROI nuts. The "on the grass" example is dumb. "On" and "in" are two completely different prepositions with clearly different meanings. I've been over all the rulings, and there's nothing there that contradicts the clear meaning of "in the box."

Show me the money! I mean ruling.

Actually this makes perfect sense to me. It is frequently referred to as, "if you're not IN, then you're OUT." And it further goes on to support my contention that "in the box" is a fully accepted condition with little to no variation in compliance. However, I don't see it being argued in reverse successfully.

We've really gotten into the weeds here. As it pertains to the specific question and situation described by OP, there is no butt-hurt, and there is no need for a better written stage briefing. Maybe not using a start box would have eliminated the incident altogether, but it shouldn't have mattered. The OP/RO clearly handled it correctly, no further discussion needed. The crux of the issue is whether or not you think that "in the box" can mean something other than what the reasonable population of shooters believes it to mean. And if you do think that it and "everything" is open to interpretation, then I believe YOU are a big part of this problem. If an instruction is clearly stated and understood by all reasonable shooters (even the clever ones), and then you allow yourself to be bullied into some bulls#!t way of redefining it, then YOU should not be an RO. Or worse yet, if you are the one selling your BS to the RO, then shame on you for being a wannabe cheater. You'd get more mileage out of improving your shooting skills and keeping your head in the game. I don't like this kind of behavior, much like I don't approve of sandbagging at trophy matches. It seems to me that our community needs to take every opportunity to discourage it.

I think we're just disagreeing on semantics. It's all gaming to me, and I too game. But what you said above indicates that sometimes you can remove yourself from assessing whether or not you are doing right or wrong (for lack of better terms). You are relying on the RO to call you out. Maybe that's fine at nationals, but anywhere else, I think the shooter has more responsibility to govern his own degree of ridiculousness for gaming. So, just curious, do you think that "Standing in the box..." allows for touching a foot outside the box?

Really? You can't discern shades of gray for gaming behavior? The most extreme of which might be called outright cheating by some. I was trying to stop short of that in this case.

It really doesn't matter, because the "rule" was stipulated on the WSB, "standing in box...". It's only the most unscrupulous gamer that would try to touch a foot outside the box and claim it should be allowed. I hope that person has a fit and loses their mental game and shoots a crap stage; they deserve it.

1. There's a lot of assumptions to be made about this line, which is why it's poorly worded. Another one is that the other foot (not in the box) is up in the air, and I'm sure definitely not touching anywhere outside the box. 2. For sure on the heels/toes/marks etc.

If you can shoot from a start box, is it not also a shooting box?

Just found this and wanted to chime in. "Standing in the box" should be all the specificity needed. Adding the word "fully" or "wholly" does nothing to improve the meaning or clarity. While the rules do not specifically describe start boxes, they do cover shooting boxes with 2.2.1.x and 10.2.1, and especially apply if shooting is allowed from the start box. The relevant part being, "while any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line," which indicates a fault. So, you may touch IT, but not the ground outside of it nor anything else outside of it. This should be clear to everyone. The other part of 10.2.1 being used to make an argument, "until the competitor establishes a presence in a new shooting area with at least one foot on the ground inside the shooting area," is only relevant after a fault has occurred. So it really doesn't apply in this case, but it is poorly worded. If the RM/MD was called during your discussion, he would have ruled it a violation as you did. The shooter's contact via text message after-the-fact did not describe the situation sufficiently.

Good to hear. I got help to do the bolt mod and the feed ramp, and mine also runs great now. Your pics were a big help, so thanks.

Wondering how your test of the QC10 bcg went, if you modified yours, and how it runs now. I too am having chronic feeding problems with NFA bcg, lower & upper. Thanks.

I appreciate the good ideas; I'm sure one will fix me up. Thanks.