mactiger

I'm done here.

Pointing a gun at something you are not willing to destroy does violate one of the basic tenets of gun safety. No question. But, when you dry fire at home, what do you aim at? You all have a backstop in the yard, right? No? Let's not get off track here. We are talking about a USPSA safety rule here, and one which has nothing to do with pointing a gun at someone. We have rules for that. Of course, you have to be willing to follow the rule, or it's not worth the paper it's printed on. That pretty much goes for all things in life, right? We are discussing trapping a dropped gun outside the COF, not holding one in your hand or even touching it with your hand, and surely not pointing it at someone. Basically we are discussing a modification to an existent rule that is solely USPSA's, and is relevant to the game we play. If you can stay on point, how is trapping any better or worse than letting it hit the ground, given the fact that the competitor doesn't put a hand on it, and that the gun is retrieved and subsequently cleared by a range official? We have numerous rules concerning cold ranges, loaded guns, gun handling, etc., all designed with gun safety in mind. The assumption outside the cof is that the gun is not loaded, yet we confirm that prior to allowing the person to continue. Trapping, IMO, is no more unsafe than actually dropping the gun in the first place, as long as it's retrieved by a range official and proves to be unloaded. We don't DQ for the dropped gun, outside the COF, why DQ for trapping it? Troy Troy

I would not use the FA rule just because someone found a way to shoot a stage that maybe isn't the way the course designer wanted it to be shot. That's the essence of freestyle, and that rule is not there to prevent competitors from solving the problem, as long as they do it safely. What I would, and have, used it for, is to prevent scoring problems, like the under the wall issue, or other things that could either lose a stage or cause serious delays, and for safety issues. I really don't see it as a blank ticket for RM's.

The concept is the same: the competitor fired shots, deliberately, at a target that he could not see. For those of you who insist that a target that cannot be seen cannot be "engaged", what's the difference? In the original problem, that target could be seen, yet was hidden behind a rules wall. In my example, the target, however momentarily, cannot actually be seen when the shots are fired. So-called "errant shots" or not, the shots were fired at a target hidden behind a wall. Make your call accordingly; I don't think that by rule (and that's been my point all along), you can have it both ways. Troy

How would you score this singular instance, taken by itself? Consider this: a swinger that goes behind hard cover and/or a no-shoot in it's motion, and while there, is completely covered. A competitor fires two shots at it while it's behind the wall, completely hidden (he chased it, shot it after activating it but before it started moving, whatever). Both bullets penetrate the wall to a full bullet diameter, and he doesn't shoot again. Both shots hit the target, but it's obvious that they went through (virtual) hard cover first. These are obviously scored as misses, but would you assess a FTSA penalty? If you would assess the FTSA, justify it by rule. If not, justify that by rule. For arguments sake, the two miss penalties are not in question. Am I saying it's OK to shoot through a wall, whether it's a real wall or a rules wall? No, I'm not, especially if you cannot see the target. And, for clarity, I don't believe that many, if any, shooters woul do this. But, I've seen the example I cited above on more than one occasion, and at all match levels. So, do you, the RO, call the penalty or not? Troy

I agree with most of that, but in some cases, the FA is the solution. Given the "under the wall" scenario, that course was legal per the rules, and probably designed and set up correctly. The solution, IMO, to a person deliberately circumventing the actual course design and construction is the FA procedure, or a 10.6 DQ. Intent is hard to discern at times, so the first thing would be the FA. Just my .02, but it's how I'd handle it, and have done so in the past. Troy

Most of what you guys speculate is possible now, with or without an FTE/FTSA penalty, especially if your aim is to confuse the scoring on a target to force a reshoot. That action could fall under 10.6, if the RO thinks you did it deliberately to force the reshoot. Please understand, this was a theoretical exercise for me, in that yes, in just about any case where this would happen, the FA rule would be the one to apply. I don't think I would score this as is, because of the can of worms scoring it would open. There is only one reshoot associated with an FA--that for the first person to cause the FA to be declared. Everyone else gets a zero if they do it. That's it for me folks. We could what if? this for another 15 pages or so, and I realize that you don't agree. That's fine. It's good to know that: 1) most of the time nobody will do this, and 2) most of the time, the competitors in this sport are stand up people and don't deliberately throw a wrench into the works. Have a good weekend. Troy

I'll make a little noise here. First, I'd like to state that at no time do we (the NROI Instructor Corps) make decisions in a secret room, or in a vacuum, or under a double dome of silence. And never with the intent of hiding things from the membership of USPSA. Those of you who know me should know better. We discuss issues with rules, rulings, (a lot of which we don't always agree with), and how we want to cover those items in class. We also attempt to get on the same page regarding what we teach in the seminars in general. Having said this, sometimes things fall through the cracks. We take notes, publish minutes, etc., but on occasion those decisions, some of which should be published as rulings or interpretations, fall through the cracks. After discussing the "trapping" issue with the instructor group, reviewing minutes,raw notes, and email discussions, it's obvious that this was one of those times. The general discussion was whether we wanted to DQ a competitor who, outside the course of fire, dislodged or dropped his gun and through a natural reaction, trapped the gun before it fell all the way to wherever it would have ended up. Not grabbed it with his hand, but perhaps caught it with his leg, part of the holster, forearm, foot--anything but his hand. Grabbing it with any part of the hand, we agreed, was still a DQ for unsupervised gun handling. Trapping it (which, in some odd instances could happen naturally), we decided was not grounds for a DQ, as long as the competitor notified the RO who then retrieved the gun. And, he didn't touch it with his hand. IMO, and my opinion only, this is the right way to handle this. As Range Officers, we do not want to get into the "gotcha" business, nor should we be looking for ways or reasons to DQ people. We all have problems from time to time, and there are penalties for those times. Why this wasn't made public, I cannot say, and I won't speculate. It wasn't intended to be taught in secret and disseminated by teaspoons; all I can say is that we are all busy and it simply didn't make the presses, until here, unfortunately. Bottom line: dropping your gun in a course of fire is still a DQ, no matter what. Dropped means falling/under the influence of gravity. Picking it up is another DQ citation (but I don't guess you can get DQ'd twice.) Dropping your gun outside a course of fire is not a DQ, as long as you don't handle it. (Touch it with your hand.) Trapping it somehow is acceptable, but an RO must still retrieve it. Again, this is simply a report. It is not an official ruling or interpretation, and I realize that it may mean nothing to many of you who feel that any means of keeping the gun from falling is "handling". I believe that at some point in the near future, there will be an official ruling on this.

OK. Sorry for the delay, but I'd like to note that I didn't sit here and urge you guys on. This thing kinda deteriorated a while back. Just the nature of this forum and the people who participate on it (and don't get me wrong, I (almost) always like it) is like herding cats. Also, my apologies for the length of this explanation. If you don't need to know how we got there, scroll down to the bottom. First, some information: My first inclination on this was that I'd declare a forbidden action, make the competitor reshoot, and then go from there. Simple fix, and probably the best fix for this situation. Even though I don't like the FA rule, it would eliminate a lot of argument/scoring discussion/dissension, right? But,I thought, "If I had to penalize this action, how would I do it?" Going by rule, and I've already cited them, the two misses were a no-brainer, but I couldn't find a rule to support the FTSA penalty. Why? Consider this: a swinger that goes behind hard cover and/or a no-shoot in it's motion, and while there, is completely covered. A competitor fires two shots at it while it's behind the wall, completely hidden (he chased it, shot it after activating it but before it started moving, whatever). Both bullets penetrate the wall to a full bullet diameter, and he doesn't shoot again. Both shots hit the target, but it's obvious that they went through hard cover first. These are obviously scored as misses, but would you assess a FTSA penalty? I'd be willing to bet that nobody here would. So, not wanting to just jump in and stir things up (because it would be only my opinion), I took this question to the Instructor group. As you might imagine, we argued it pretty strenuously, but the final consensus was that we could not, by rule, assess the FTE/FTSA. No matter how much you want to, the rules don't support it, simply because the competitor did fire shots at the face of the target. No matter how desirable it is to say, "well, the wall is impenetrable, so he must not have fired shots at it", he did indeed fire two shots at the target, just as in my example above. Here is a part of my email discussion with the instructors: 9.1.6 9.1.6.1 (Both deal with full bullet diameters through hard cover.) 9.5.7 10.2.7 (note here that neither one says anything about hard cover, visibility, etc. they merely mention shooting at a target) In this example, you cannot deny that the competitor shot at the target. That's a fact. What we are arguing is the penalty for shooting through invisible hardcover, i.e., deemed hardcover as noted in the following rule: 2.2.3.3 Penalizing two miss penalties can be justified, per rule, through 2.2.3.3 , 9.1.6, and 9.1.6.1, because the rules allow us to do so. The wall goes to the ground (whether it really does or not) and it's impenetrable hard cover (whether it really is or not). My position is that you cannot penalize the competitor for a failure to engage or failure to shoot at penalty, because he did, in fact, shoot at the target. No question, can't take the bullets back, and nowhere in either 9.5.7 or 10.2.7 is it stated that you must see a target to shoot at it. In my opinion, that's what 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1 are there for. I know some of you will vehemently disagree with this, and you should note that you aren't alone, nor is this an official ruling. It's a consensus decision arrived at through discussion amongst several experienced Range Master Instructors, including the Director of NROI. Bottom line score: 2 misses, no additional penalty for FTSA. Also note that none of us would have scored this anyway, and would have gone with the FA/reshoot option. Did I make page 16? Troy

post 19 edited to add: that did not pass the Troy test. Leonard Didn't he just ask for more examples of rules that apply or did he say you were wrong. I didn't say nuthin'. Seems like you quoted some rules. Troy

Correct, it doesn't, but it does say "at the face of the target". How can you shoot at the face of a target if it's behind hardcover? Since those shots, by the rules, stopped at the hardcover, how can you decide that he was shooting at the face of the target? Face meaning front. Could have been blind luck he hit it at all...... 9.5.7 was designed to deal with drop turners -- which could sometimes catch a round in the "back" of the target during an early or late engagement.... It was also designed to prevent/define shooting targets from the back, which can be done due to vagaries of target layout in some courses. Troy

OK. I'll answer both of Grumpy's questions here. First, from reading your post, my assumption was that the competitor missed while shooting at the target (attempting to hit it). If you are postulating a deliberate act of dumping two rounds into the berm, as far away from the target as possible, then yes it is an FTE. However, that's not germane to the current conversation. The competitor in question shot at the target below the wall, attempting to hit it. Following up on that, the two hits on the target don't count, because the wall is considered hard cover and therefore impenetrable to a full bullet diameter. Those will be scored as misses. It's not a "non score", it's a miss, unless the competitor hits them from some other position where he's not shooting through hard cover. I already specified the target was missed, and can be scored as such. Twisting the wording of the rules around doesn't serve our purpose here, either. "Will not count for penalty or score" means that they are misses. Troy

Nope -- the bullet holes exist. They are scored as misses per 9.1.6.1 -- a subsection Chapter 9: Scoring If the bullet holes didn't exist, the rule book wouldn't need to tell us they don't count..... And -- here's the fun part: Show me the full diameter hit in the prop, wall, barrier, vision screen, or other obstacle that lets you remove the hit..... :P Bad stage design, bad! :devil: Nil, they can't be scored as misses..... You pointed that out in 9.1.6.1....."will not count for score....." A miss is a score. They don't exist. The only way its a miss is if he doesn't put 2 more rounds on it from a legitimate position, before the end of his course of fire. By definition, a miss means there are no holes in the target, and since those bullets stopped at that impenetrable wall, there are no holes in the target. Uh, wait, what? Huh? Troy

Actually, in your example, no FTE, because he did fire rounds at that target. He shot at it, therefore he engaged it. He just missed by a mile. Troy

I don't see where I posted anything to give you that idea. The blue text is from the OP's original statement; I didn't write that. I respect your opinion, although I have yet to express mine here. I'm merely asking questions and trying to get you guys to think about it and actually read the rules. I think it's important that we don't make calls based on what we think the rule book says, or think it should say, or whether we think it's right or not. It's important to read the rule and apply it or them as written. I'm still seeing about a 50/50 split on this call. Some supported rather elegantly by rule, some just more or less: here it is, take it or leave it. Carry on. Troy

I thought that was pretty clear, but if it makes you happy....

There are a variety of ways to fix this stage, I'm sure. However, fixing it is not the question, nor are the miss penalties, because the rule book is clear on those. From the OP's original message: The shooter shot the stage by skipping the intended shooting position for engaging the lay down target between the walls and then engaged the target by shooting under the wall from a different location. For me, the only question here, in scoring this stage, is whether the competitor earns a procedural for FTE/FTS (whichever you prefer). Some of you claim that since he couldn't get hits on the target due to it's being covered by an invisible wall (which is the proper call and is supported by the rules, although it is not good course design--we all agree on that?), that he could not have "engaged" or "shot at" the target. Some of you say, well, there are two holes in the target, aren't there, so he clearly engaged it. Most of you aren't supporting the FTE penalty with a rule that clearly states the penalty one way or the other. And, all the far-fetched examples not withstanding, I can think of a couple of ways that a competitor could deliberately shoot at a target that's completely hidden by hardcover, get miss penalties and not earn an FTE. Without deliberately "cheating" and just putting shots through a wall in the general direction of a target. So, for those of you who say FTE, can you find a rule that supports your statement (and this is just a general summation) of "well, he couldn't see it, the hits don't count because of the hard cover, therefore he could not have engaged it" with a rule? And, for those of you who say, "yes, he did shoot at it, the hits don't count but he cannot be penalized for a FTE/FTS", can you support that with a rule? Consider this particular case only. There is a good learning experience here, and this has been an excellent discussion, even if it's several pages long. Carry on. Troy

How can a bullet pass through hard cover? Isn't the definition of hard cover that a bullet can not pass through it? I know some folks have a problem with us not using steel walls and all, but the rules were written so that we don't have to, and as someone said, we can pretend the walls are impenetrable even if you can see through them, or shoot under them. If the scenario was presented keeping this fact in mind, I think there wouldn't be such a debate. The guy drops in the shooting area and shoots two round into a steel plate that is in front of a target he can't see. According to the book, isn't that what he did, since the rulebook doesn't require we use steel walls and allows us to use simulated walls and specifies they extend to the ground? The misses aren't in question. In your example, would you assess the FTE penalty? Did he "shoot at" the target or not?

See 6.5.3. The match starts on the first day that competitors shoot for score. The person in question is DQ'd for UGH, specifically unsupervised gun handling, 10.5.1 I absolutely agree with that. Is there something that says when on that day the match starts? As mentioned before, I'm looking for that line that says from this point forward a competitors actions fall under the purview of the match. Is my, "it starts when they arrive" idea stinky cheese? There isn't a specific rule that I know of, but we always use the time the gate opens and match officials are on site. So, I don't think you are off with that idea, because a competitor would have to be on the property on match day. Show up at 0700, gates open, you are at the match. Show up at 0900, you are at the match. IMO, you have to satisfy both conditions to be considered "at the match". Troy

Nice rule citations, but, playing devils advocate, how do you support your "no" answer, if there are two holes in the target, and you observed the competitor fire the shots? Troy

See 6.5.3. The match starts on the first day that competitors shoot for score. The person in question is DQ'd for UGH, specifically unsupervised gun handling, 10.5.1 I'd say that you aren't at the match officially until you are on the actual property where the match is staged. For example, you would not be at Nationals until you pass the DSRPC gates, on match day as above. Troy

Too late. I read the other post. You have a rule to support that?

For the moment, I'm not going to say what I'd call, but I do have a couple of questions. (believe me, I do have an opinion here). First, if you are in the "2 mikes, one FTE" group, what rule would you use to support your FTE call? Second, if you say no FTE, can you support that by rule? Third, what other possible call could be made here which would eliminate all the argument? This type of thing is inevitable, I suppose, given our insistence on freestyle, "shoot em as you see em" course design. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. But, I've seen some good points made here, and, quite frankly some that are, um, "out there". Good discussion, though. I think the main point to take away from this would be "hide the targets better". Troy

Right.

While this makes sense, it's not supported by rule, nor is the game we play basketball. Troy