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

muser

Classified
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by muser

  1. Since props are hardcover, did the shooter get a score for his hit on the target that first went through the pan? I see a problem with the rules. 10.3.2.2 says it is not unsafe gun handling if you have a discharge during movement while you are engaging targets. 8.5.1 requires that the shooter have a sight picture during movement. I surmise that if the shooter didn't have a sight picture while moving and engaging targets, he is guilty of unsafe gun handling. I see shooters "point shoot" all of the time, especially on long courses that require a lot of running past close targets. Should we be DQing them? If this kind of "point shooting" is allowed, is the shooter in the scenario described in this thread required to have a sight picture to avoid an unsafe gun handling charge?
  2. Does the white side of a target have scoring perfs on it? I question whether it is legal to be able to assess 2 procedurals for failing to comply with the mandatory reload on this stage. Generally, assessing multiple procedurals for a failure to comply with a mandatory reload applies to a stage that has a very specific, single, point in the stage where the reload is required. This stage allows the shooter to reload at any time after the first 2 shots and before the last 2 shots. I believe that not performing the reload during this wide window of opportunity should only incur a single procedure. Having a mandatory reload on this stage is legal. It is covered by a ruling made by Amidon. NROI Ruling
  3. In principal I think your rule revision is good, but does it also include a moving target, such as drop turner, and how do we score a target that has been hit from the side? The "red book" 9.9.3 dealt with some of these issues (rather poorly though), but the new proposed rules don't. Personally, I think it is easier for the ROs and the shooters deal with this issue by controling course construction (Section 2) rather than scoring policy (Section 9).
  4. Rule suggestion.... 2.1.8.5 Paper targets, either static or moving, must not be presented at an angle whereby they can be engaged through both the front and the back surfaces during a stage.
  5. Muser, it is not in the rulebook, it is in the written stage briefing that identifies that target (single target as a whole) as a scoring or penalty target. That being the case, should I be able to stipulate in my stage procedures that all white surfaces on the targets are considered no shoots, and will be penalized as such?
  6. 9.1.5 does say that a less than full diameter strike on a scoring target or penalty target can continue on to strike another target and incur either a score or a penalty. It would be absurd to think that a hit on a scoring target as described above would also result in a penalty for "striking" the opposing no-shoot side of the same target. I think it is just as absurd to think it could happen with a full diameter hit. The same logic should apply if the bullet goes from the no-shoot side to the scoring side. You are forgetting that there is a third "side" to the targets. It is the edge, which is neither the scoring or the penalty side, but by way of a little hocus pocus the shooter's bullets always seem to hit the scoring side, by way of support from 9.9.3.; the bullet enters the non-scoring border, discects the target, and by virtue of the target's movements, causes the bullet to exit either through the no-shoot or the A zone. With the magic bullet performing to perfection, I think the shooter should get more than 5 points for this wizardry.
  7. I agree with your penalty call on the stage you presented, based on the rule book, as it is written today. But, is it poor stage design because the stage designer didn't use barriers instead of fault lines so that the shooter can consentrate on shooting the targets, rather than wondering where his feet are?
  8. It is not reasonable for the rule book to say that barriers are preferable, but that charge and fault lines are permitted, then claim that it is poor stage design when the charge and fault lines are used. It is not reasonable for the rule book to say that the RO has discretion in giving either 1 procedural penalty or 1 procedural penalty per shot fired, then claim that it is poor stage procedures for the stage designer not to have specified how many penalties will be assessed for crossing a charge or a fault line.
  9. It sounds like the course design was OK. If fault lines are the problem, why not ban them from the game? I see it as a problem with administering the rules, as they are written. Why not clarify the rule by saying that all shots fired while faulting a line will incur a procedural penalty per shot fired? That way there is no discretion on the RO's part in administering the rules fairly to everyone.
  10. Exactly! That is why 10.1.4.1 gives the RO discretion in the matter.
  11. If that was the case, why does 10.1.4.1 allow for the issuing of a single procedural penalty for crossing a charge or fault line while firing shots?
  12. I'm wondering if any others noticed the important change that is being proposed in the new rule book. It will have a significant effect on match scoring. Shooters will no longer be able to "make up" misses in a string during a subsequent string. The new rule proposes that scores and penalties be recorded (and I assume taped) after the completion of each string, rather than the completion of the COF, which is the current rule (6.1.2, US6.1.2). This doesn't bode well for those scoring 50 yard standards with multiple strings. Bring your walking shoes. You will be making several trips to the targets to score them, while at the same time, severly slowing down the flow of the squads through these types of stages. Will the shooter remain "hot" during the scoring of each string, as is commonly done now.....with the RO down range scoring targets? Doesn't the shooter have the right to accompany the RO while they are scoring targets? The shooter is going to have to unload, show clear, and holster between each string, slowing down the match even more.
  13. Very good. I'm sure both camps struggled over 10.4.3. Can you quote 10.6.1 and 5.1.6? They seem to be new or renumbered rules too.
  14. Beautiful! Was that so hard? - A Reasonable Man -
  15. What is with this attitude of some of the forum moderators???? No need to be spittin' hairballs at everyone when their opinions are different than your own. The discussions have been civil and informative. Let them continue.
  16. Does the term "during the competition" in 6.2.6 mean the same thing/time frame as "the start of the COF" in 8.3.1? It would seem that 6.2.6 leaves open the possibility of being in violation of the equipment rules at any time during the match/competition, not just after the the LAMR command.
  17. The rule book is pretty clear in stating that the COF begins with the LAMR command (8.3.1). The problem is that 8.3.4 also states that the start signal begins the COF. "Begin" and "start" mean the same thing to me. So which is it guys, 8.3.1 or 8.3.4?????? The answer to this question would help in solving the problem presented in this thread. The pending new rules address this problem and change the wording in 8.3.4 making the LAMR command the only start to a COF, but with the rules as written today, I think anyone arbitrating a call to be bumped to Open Division for having 11 rounds in the mag at the LAMR command would have a strong case for a reversal, IMHO.
  18. After the the LAMR the lights go out and it is total darkness. How do you know if someone is creeping or possibly drawing too early to gain an advantage? From a safety standpoint, these types of stages are a disaster waiting to happen. The RO can't see the finger in the trigger guard, the muzzle breaking the 90 degrees, a gun being dropped, the shooter tripping and possibly falling, malfunctions being cleared, etc. These things happen in broad daylight, they will certainly happen in complete darkness. The flashlight is not the savior in everyone of these situations. I guess a stage sponsor demonstrating the utility of its product was more important than safety concerns.
  19. I take it that you were only bumped into Open Division, not DQed. Being moved to Open Division would be the correct, and only, call to make. Even that call for what you did is pretty cheezy.
  20. Vince, I think you made a pretty good explaination, but I don't think I'm the only one who reads a different meaning into the term "at any time" in 10.3.4. You state that 10.3.4 is quite clear in its meaning and doesn't require any interpretation. If that was the case, the rule would not have added "loaded or not" to add further clarification. I never saw the "at any time" text to also mean "holstered or not", which is another "condition" of the gun, much like "loaded or not". A moment in "time" during the COF and a "condition" of the gun while in the possession of the shooter during the COF have different meanings to me. That is the reason for my original answer to this thread. I still think the rule could use clarification on this issue.
  21. The classic target has no ass. It doesn't represent a humaniod. No need for Jethro to be politically correct with his stage design in this instance.
×
×
  • Create New...