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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ATLDave

  • Rank
    Sees Sights Lift

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yep, radios or some other efficient method of getting hold of the MD... pretty useful to preserving competitive equity. If for some reason there's just no way to do that, I think that talking to the squad ahead of you about how they understood the WSB/start position/prop condition is pretty standard. And then making sure to tell the squad behind you. Because, as we all know, designer's intent isn't the issue... it's competitive equity. If all the squads do it the same way, then it's equitable. It may not be what the designer had in mind when they built the stage or wrote the WSB, but it's equitable. Get the MD, but if there's some reason that's not feasible, at least make sure you're not the squad that does it different and causes the stage to get tossed.
  2. Doors have to go. A percentage of shooters will absolutely sweep their weak hand while reaching for a door knob. Or a pull rope to open a port. It's "possible" to reduce or eliminate those unsafe actions by removing those challenges from the game. Heck, what about uprange starts? There's no doubt that some people draw the gun too fast (or turn too slow) and thus manifest an unintentional unsafe action. We could reduce those unsafe actions by having all downrange facing starts. We already did it for PCC, so it's clearly not essential to the sport. You mention fault lines as a trip hazard. You know what else is a trip hazard? Running. If we really want to maximize safety and guard against unintentional unsafe action, having all shooting done from a stationary position would dramatically reduce the risk of falls. I say again: This is just bonkers.
  3. It should be quite obvious that I and others do not agree that the rules says what you think it says. Nobody is saying to disregard a rule - we’re saying that one reading is better than another, and that the practical effects of how the rule is read help inform which reading is better. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. Nobody says it is impossible. It is impracticable in many cases, though. It requires a serious additional level of effort and material and/or abandoning lots of interesting stage dynamics. CHA-LEE explained it well.
  5. Conjecture: People who build a lot of stages/matches are more likely to think DNROI's new rule interpretation is a big deal. People who just show up and shoot are less likely to think so. People who shoot in areas where stages with lots of uprange/downrange movement are common are more likely to think this is a big deal, whereas people who mostly shoot matches where most of the targets are on the back berm and/or where most of the movement is horizontal will think this is NBD.
  6. I think that's how the rules read, too. It's possible to have targets visible from past 180 (most matches have this) that nevertheless have berm behind them. It's unsafe gun handling to try to shoot them from that position, but it's not an "[un]safe angle of fire." Conversely, it is possible (though illegal and dangerous) to build a stage with targets that present unsafe angles of fire without breaking the 180. A bay with short side berms and a front fault line uprange of their end, with targets at the 175°, would present "unsafe angles of fire," without any 180° violation. Same with a stage built with targets at the top of the berms. I ran an indoor match for several years. The backstop was a backstop, but the side walls were just cinder blocks. Complying with the "safe angle of fire" requirement meant no sticking targets against those side walls such that on-target shots would risk smashing though the cinder blocks and flying outside the range.
  7. Breaking the 180 is "unsafe gun handling" not "[un]safe angle of fire." Those are different concepts in the rules. That's how the rules are structured.
  8. This whole discussion makes me glad I stepped down as an MD at the end of 2018! MD's don't need another, never-before-required thing to troubleshoot in their stages, much less something so labor-intensive and equipment-heavy to solve. The DNROI may or may not be correct in his reading of the rule, but casually tossing off a major change in a Q&A article is not the way to announce a reading that is at odds with extensive precedent.
  9. I have never seen that. Or at least I've never noticed it. This is madness.
  10. At an area match a few years ago (2015 maybe?) - a huge match with something like 600 shooters - there was a stage where the shooting area ran along the left berm. Targets were against the right berm and back berm. Shooters began at the rear of the range and had to advance down that left berm line to get access to targets behind a wall near the rear berm... along the way, shooting at targets against the right berm. Now, there wasn't anywhere in the shooting area where a shot could be taken that would hit a target and leave the range/bay. But the whole stage was basically a 180 trap, with it being very easy for a shooter to slightly overrun a target and break the 180. I thought it was kind of a stupid design and it basically dared shooters to engage in per se "unsafe gun handling." But I don't think it posed any actual safety risk in terms of rounds going anywhere other than a backstop/berm. I shot the stage very timidly and poorly. I would have been happy to see the stage tossed as an illegal stage! But it's hardly the only one I've ever seen where there are absolutely targets visible past the 180 and the MD/CRO/RO regard it as being "on the shooter" to know where the 180 is and not break it.
  11. I read those sentences as expanding upon the concept. That's all within the concept of "angles of fire." That part of what "angles of fire" means. It's distinct from the "uprange" concept, which is relative to the shooter. I'm not suggesting that the DNROI's statement is unequivocally wrong (or right). I'm just saying it's a cavalier approach to something that is sufficiently ambiguous in the rules (no surprise that there's ambiguity in the rules... that's normal for rule documents) to warrant consideration and deliberation... especially when dropping a pronouncement that is at odds with a great deal of practice.
  12. I think it's funny (not ha-ha funnny) that DNROI's recent answer on this question didn't seem to consider that "safe angles of fire" is a defined term in the rules - just 2 ¶'s up from the 2.1.4 rule. "Safe Angles of Fire – Courses of fire must always be constructed to ensure safe angles of fire. Consideration must be given to safe target and frame construction and the angle of any possible ricochets. Where appropriate the physical dimensions and suitability of backstops and side berms must be determined as part of the construction process." This indicates that the term "safe angles of fire" addresses things like berms and ricochets. For instance, placing a target high on a berm such that rounds are leaving the range is not a "safe angle of fire." I think that is a distinct concept from the 180° rule, which is discussed in terms of "uprange." "Uprange" doesn't appear in the definition of "safe angles of fire," and "safe angles of fire" doesn't use the word or term "uprange." Now, a target that could be shot from within the shooting area that would put the bullet so far to the rear that it leaves the bay... that would be both "uprange" and a violation of the "unsafe angle of fire." Certainly, as evidenced by this thread and by the long history of sanctioned major matches with "DQ trap" targets that can be engaged well beyond the 180° line, this is at least something reasonable people can disagree about. DNROI acting as though this is a throwaway, slam-dunk issue is silly. If DNROI wants to issue a clarification or ruling on this matter, that's fine. Either answer is perhaps appropriate... but continuing to act as though significant departures from established practice/interpretation are NBD when the text is ambiguous at best is tiresome.
  • Create New...