bluenite

I like the concept of the second stage, it allows for a lot more targets in a long bay, without the risk of a 180. I too will borrow it for our next match, with a few changes. Change the angled targets behind the barrels to double targets. Put two targets on the outside of each of the forward walls for 32 rounds. And a rear box start “We have a lot of newer shooters”. Thanks Jeremy Leonard

It may or may not be true, but it could just be changing the label on a can of worms. Until there is a rule change, I intend to address this by stage design. I believe if there had been two or more targets at that position, this would not have come up. -40 points for 2 or -60 for 3 targets is not an advantage on any stage I have ever seen. So from now on I will not put just 1 target to be shot from an isolated position. Leonard

"engage targets as they become available from within the shooting area" This could cause problems with swingers and moveing targets with hard cover.

I was looking more at T5 and T6 being shot from box B, the angle could cost a lot of tape and some complaints on the scoring. But there are easy ways to fix it on the ground. Leonard

I also will save this for possible use here, but will put the barrel inside the shooting area as an obstacle and to cut down on foot faults and the RO’s need to watch for them. As it is 31 rounds, I not sure you can mandate that only T10 and T11 can be shot from box B. Leonard

D V C D V C D V C D V C

Unless the stage designer/setup is a GM, how does one design/setup a stage with GMs in mind? Just wondering. I think Spanky’s stage here demonstrates this, and the video helps to point it out, the shooter in the video did not need to go to the forward wall, where as a lesser shooter might. As far as safety, IMO an original stage design dose not need “need dose not mean can’t” go past the point of being safe for the best shooters, when a club uses a stage they should address the design and adapt it to match the shooting skills of the shooters they typically get. Although my memory of a few sentences that I remember reading almost 20 years ago is flawed it was what it was, below are the actual words from the book “and yes I know times have changed”. Club program manual 1993: course designer p.3: Elements of a good stage…At this point in the design process we have some ideas. Before we begin to turn them into stages, we’d better examine the elements which make up a good stage in order to blend them with our idea. SAFE… Safety is built in from start to finish. Challenging but fair… The shooting problems are at a level which challenges A class shooters. The design dose this while avoiding complex instructions needing a week to memorize. Efficient… It can be set up and run with the resources on hand. It doesn’t require ROs to have the wisdom of Solomon or Superman’s super vision to administer it fairly. It doesn’t require a cast of thousands, a budget of millions, or weeks to run everyone through. Leonard

I believe the shooter earned and deserves the extra penalty of the FTE. Being able to apply it serves us in many ways. Most of us believe it to be right. It makes trying this less appealing to all shooters. It makes scoring easer and faster and so wont slow down the stage. It makes it less likely that the RM will need to be involved. It makes it less likely that a FB will needed. It denies the shooter the chance for a reshoot. I think this discussion may have helped us all, but only if we see a change in the rules. I as an RO do not want to explain to the rest of a squad why I refuse to apply an FTE. Unfortunately I am bound as an RO to score by the rules as I know them. 16 + pages without the topic getting locked! Impressive!!

Yes what I wrote should have been more like this Edited to add: it was not confirmed by troy. But it got me to look at it from the other side, to see if I could find a rule to support no fte. Where I may have found a very tiny hole. I had thought that because our walls are deemed as hard cover, it meant you could not see through them, but I could not find a rule to support this. We use construction mesh fence “orange”, and you can see through it. I have never seen or heard of a shooter shooting through it. But on a 30 rd course only -20 points may work out. It could also be done in an attempt to get a reshoot. So I am asking myself if every WSB we use should list this as a forbidden action So there can be no conflict with 1.1.5. Post 19 is how I though at the start of this thread, now I am not as sure. The WSB and what the wall is made of could change the out come.

post 19 edited to add: that did not pass the Troy test. Leonard

One of the clubs I shoot/RO at has no wood, it is all snow mesh fence so I really want to know the proper call in case this ever happens.

There seems to be no disagreement that he shot at it, be it from behind hard cover. 9.5.7 says nothing about the bullet needing to get to the target.

Grasping at straws: No FTE Rule 9.1.6.1 shows engagement

If we all post 1 rule number till all of them have been posted, someone is bound to get it right. 2 mikes no fte Nay