beltjones

Bro, actually read the rules sometime. 9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates the target movement. This includes no-shoot targets that must be activated when in front of scoring targets to expose them, penalties are based on number of shots required for the scoring target(s) behind the no-shoot. How does that apply to what I am saying? I didn't say anything about not activating the mover. This is the exact rule that covers max traps. It says they are scored the same way as other moving targets. Thus, max traps can be disappearing, but other types of disappearing targets are not included in the rule. I think that's the justification they are using for saying the steel in this stage isn't disappearing. I'm basing my judgement that they are disappearing on this thing called reality, which is to say, the stage description says they are disappearing, and the depiction shows hard cover that is placed in such a way as to completely conceal the targets at the end of its movement.

That is interesting reasoning, but it makes one wonder if you think that it's legal or not to simply have poppers stacked one behind the other (which is pretty common). If for some reason, you don't shoot the first one, the ones behind it will never be available, but no one has a problem with that. I don't see any real difference between activating a maxtrap vs activating a swinging hard-cover and also shooting down poppers in the way. Either way you have to do stuff to make the targets available, and they are only available for a limited time. I think the max-trap analogy is a good one, and shows that the actual scoring target doesn't have to be 'moving' in order to be scored as a disappearing target. Again, I'm waiting curiously to find out on monday what the real story is, but I'll bet 5 of Nik's deutschmarks that the lurking poppers will be scored as disappearing targets (NPM), and I also suspect they will be arranged so that a decent shooter can actually hit them quickly, or else no one will bother shooting them after activiation. It's amazing that the actual rule has been posted many times throughout this thread and very few people have taken the time to read it. There isn't some "interpretation" in the rule that is used for max traps that could also apply to stage 22. There is strict, specific verbiage that addresses max traps and makes them allowable as disappearing targets.

Bro, actually read the rules sometime. 9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates the target movement. This includes no-shoot targets that must be activated when in front of scoring targets to expose them, penalties are based on number of shots required for the scoring target(s) behind the no-shoot.

Ugh. This is another reason why I would never arb anything in a million years. I suppose "All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:" could be slightly more clear, but I have a feeling there will always be a person who says, "it's just a guideline! I can do whatever I want if I ignore the word 'shall' and the word 'all.'" That same person, if the rule said, "principle," they would say, "it's just a principle! It's not a provision!" And if the rule said, "provision," they would say, "it's just a provision! It's not a stipulation!" And if the rule said, "stipulation," they would say, "it's just a stipulation! It's not a condition!" And if the rule said, "condition," they would say, "it's just a condition! It's not a requirement!" And if the rule said, "requirement," they would say, "it's just a requirement! It's not a mandate!"

"All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:" "shall follow" = a requirement "guidelines" = suggestion (not a requirement, something to give consideration) Someone could counter argue that if HQ wanted it to be applied as you assert, then HQ would have written it "All poppers shall follow the requirements below". That's pretty clear. Or, they could have used "... rules below". That's pretty clear too. But HQ didn't write it that way - they chose to write it differently. The current rulebook text uses the word "guidelines" and therefor means that 'regarding using poppers, you're required to consider the suggestions below'. Therefor, it's only a suggestion that "a minimum...", and the stage isn't illegal for the reason you assert. Yeah, no. Guidelines doesn't necessarily mean suggestions. From Websters: "a rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done" You're playing the semantics game if you think the word "guidelines" means you can do whatever you want within the context of the rule.

Honestly I don't think you answered the question. The only way to answer the question is to admit that there isn't a rule that covers it (like Motosapiens said), and then apply other rules that are written for different situations. Posting bizarre course construction instructions for MDs isn't going in the right direction.

You posted rules from section 1 (course design) and section 2 (course construction and modification). Section 9 deals with scoring. You didn't post anything from section 9.

None of your rules apply to this thread though. You have just posted guidelines for designing stages, not for executing or scoring them.

What on earth do you constitute as "arguing?" I'm asking a question about the rules in a rules sub-forum. But I did like how you posted this caustic response while at the same time saying you're not going to argue about it on the internet. That's A+ trolling. wow, take things personal much? lol. Are you my ex-wife? She thought I was caustic too. I didn't mean to be caustic with my choice of words. I think your questions about this stage are interesting and I've been wondering the same thing. I think ultimately tho it's going to depend on how the stage is set up and how the rules are interpeted. We already have some fairly smart people that can't really agree whether a stationary target that is not visible at rest is scored as a disappearing target. Enough both of you. This is the kind of stuff -- posting at each other, rather than debating the merits of the question that will get threads locked. Go re-read the forum rules..... That was the end of it several hours ago.

Dude, no offense, but you haven't exactly been compelling with your quotations of the rules. Demanding that others show you something in the rule book at this point is pretty ironic.

Right, and the steel hardcover would be at rest, obstructing the targets. Good luck calibrating those.

Again that's part of the instructions for MDs, not for shooters. "must be permitted," not "are required." What else ya got? Want to post something else incorrectly and out of context? Do you need me to post the whole rule? 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.

Ok, but what happens if/ when there is a legitimate call for calibration?

That would make it interesting.

2.1.8.5 Appearing scoring targets must be designed and constructed to be obscured to the competitor (during the course of fire) prior to activation. This is a rule for stage designers. It doesn't say anything about what competitors are required to do.

This is USPSA. I don't know how it works in IPSC, but the target doesn't have to disappear before the end of the timed stage in order to be a disappearing target.

This is why I will never pay for an arbitration. Nothing you have written has been relevant. The rule you cited is about the requirement for level 2 matches and above to conceal moving targets until they are activated. It has nothing to do with shooters being required to activate anything.

That would make sense for the first popper, but the stage description says all of them are disappearing. No the stage description says "PP1- PP5 will not be visible at rest" it doesn't say anything about disappearing targets, what will have happened is the targets will be visible as the HC swings across but when the HC stops the PP if left standing will not be visible. If the designer has done his work properly the HC will swing for a long time so that the competitor will have plenty of time or He will be standing there for a long time waiting to get the "disappearing "no miss, and his stage time will be very long Yeah, that's not how the sport works.

Well that's a good point. What else can "not be visible at rest" mean other than disappearing, though? Every time I've seen that phrase in a stage description it has meant the targets are disappearing.

Exactly. The stage description says they are disappearing, but they're not moving targets. The rule you posted about appearing targets doesn't say a single word about being required to activate them, but thanks for jumping in.

Uh, what?

That's exactly what I was thinking. But then I read the rules to make sure I wasn't missing something, and it occurred to me that moving hardcover that obscures a fixed target isn't exactly covered in the book.

What on earth do you constitute as "arguing?" I'm asking a question about the rules in a rules sub-forum. But I did like how you posted this caustic response while at the same time saying you're not going to argue about it on the internet. That's A+ trolling.

Yeah, I don't see how that applies at all.

How will that change anything? They are still disappearing targets that don't correspond to 9.9.3.