Jollymon32

The last sentence reads: "If the wall was really solid the magazine wouldn’t have gone through so of course the shooter can retrieve it. This won’t tear the fabric of the time/space continuum or anything." That makes sense. Accordingly then, the term "Solid" in 2.2.3.4 "All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane..." means that it is only "solid" if the barrier is indeed "really solid". Got it..... I think..... Makes you wonder if the word "solid" should be omitted from the rule.

For the record, you sent a copy via text of something DNROI answered you or answered in the RM forum. Nowhere in the text did it state to disseminate that information as his final decision; indeed, the text seemed like he was mulling it over - unless DNROI uses "seems to be" as a definitive. We also have allegations that someone has asked this question beforehand and gotten an opposite answer from DNROI. DNROI has not and may not answer the query I sent him directly. I am not going to surmise his answer from something that may be off the record. It may be that the question does not deem itself to be answered. Based on some of the responses thus far, it does seem like that is the case.

Unless of course the RO/CRO can go tit for tat with the range lawyer.

CRAP - another "anomaly"!!! 2.2.3.4 "Shots cannot be fired though the barrier except at designated shooting ports or other designated openings. Any hits that result from full diameter shots fired through a barrier except through a designated port or opening will not count for score...." Appendix A3 Shot: A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm. If you stick your gun completely through the "solid plane" and fire, then the the "shot" was not fired through the barrier, it was on the other side of the barrier. AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

You guys are 100% right - I may have been using the wrong term, maybe "inconsistency" is not the right term. What ever the term, I am referring to the "anomaly" in which: A solid plane (2.2.3.4) is solid for some things and not for others - for example, solid so that you can't stick a gun through it to shoot at targets from under a physical wall, but not solid enough to stop a foot, magazines, or in the case of this post, fingers. And these "anomalies" can be addressed by: 1) Rules Update: For example, maybe removing the word "solid" from 2.2.3.4. 2) DNROI Decree: For example refer to the NROI Rules Insight where they decreed that foot faults under the solid plane of a wall are not penalized 3) Match day arbitration: "What do you mean you don't have the form and I have to print one..."<--this in reference to a story I heard Let's not loose track of why this post as created - the "anomaly" created a significant advantage for a group of shooters (one of my teammates on that day reached out to me and told me that I left out of this post that one competitor even gripped his gun through the mesh - i don't recall seeing that, but this "anomaly" lends itself to this type of action). Lastly - based on some of the comments, I have come to realize that fingers through mesh is more of an L1 "anomaly" and that therefore not very important in the grand scheme of USPSA things. I apologize for having wasted you all's time.

That is exactly how I understand it as well. These inconsistencies have to either be resolved by a rules update, NROI decree, or match day arbitration. I do believe that NROI will state that grabbing through walls is fine, and until such time that they do we can argue the point till we are blue in the face as I believe that there are excellent arguments for either position. These discussions, I believe, is what provides the catalyst for the continuous positive evolution of the rule book. As these inconsistencies come to light, are discussed ad naseum, nuts cracked (LOL), etc. it drives the process along and it makes the sport better.

I think that mesh walls and walls that do not go down to the ground are problematic for just these reasons. I believe someone posted that the reason for the "solid plane" sentence was to prohibit someone from shooting under a wall. If I can pick up a mag from under the wall, why could I then not shoot at a target from under the wall? These are the inconsistencies that drive the discussion we have just seen.

I have balls of steel. I continue to believe that there are inconsistencies in the manual and these can only be resolved by removing them or by DNROI issuing the final word.

So, it is because I have not found DNROI clarifications that I posted this query. I did research before putting my nuts on the chopping block and coming with this here (LOL). I may have not mentioned it in the original post, but I was not the stage designer, the RO, or anything other than a participant in the match when I witnessed this. This entire post is to educate myself in what I perceived was an action that may not be allowed in the rules.

I don’t know about “superior“, but I believe that the points I have made have merit, are logically sound, and may point to an inconsistency in the rule book. Indeed, some posts showed how I was wrong on my answer on the application of procedural penalties and the applicability of the concept of “impenetrable” to the situation and these points have been dropped. sorry to see you go...

Thanks for the input. Not sure to what you are referring as convoluted and illogical leaps. I have provided clear and concise substantiation with references for the statements being made. And it is clarification from NROI that I am asking for.

Radartech "Coulda, woulda, shoulda"...Many things could have happened to avoid this. But they were not. And as officials attempting to provide an even plane for all competitors we need to address the issues as they occur, not resolve them by opining on how they could have been avoided. Now in respect to "reaching", your comment "....impenetrable is for bullets only.. and solid plane is the same as impenetrable" is in itself classic example of "reaching". According to that statement, anything that is similar to something else can therefore be substituted within the rule book. Yeah, no. I continue to maintain that a competitor that reaches through a mesh wall for support or to gain a competitive advantage violates 2.2.3.4 and the ability of the user to do this signifies that the range equipment has failed in its role according to 4.6.1 and thus the shooter needs to be stopped and issued a reshoot or conversely not started if they are starting with their fingers through a mesh wall. That would be my ruling as a CRO and as a match RM unless DNROI issues a statement otherwise. But, for all of you who disagree, the ruling is not final, you have the right to arbitrate it (if logically possible).

Good points. Let's understand that the competitor's ability to complete a COF is also dependent on the RO's allowing him to complete the COF. For example, if a competitor dislodges two plates in a texas star with a single shot, this does not prevent him in completing the COF, the RO prevents him from completing the COF when he calls the REF. The competitor would be on his merry way happy about getting a "twofer". 4.6.1 clearly stipulates that the failure of barriers is considered a REF "...and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers." I would stipulate that a barrier, that is considered a solid plane, that allows for a competitor to put his fingers through it to gain competitive advantage, has failed in 1) its role of being a solid plane barrier and 2) failed 4.6.1's opening statement "Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors." Now as for putting your foot through it, that is an excellent point and one that points to an inconsistency in the rules.

Great info Radartech. So it seems obvious that "impenetrable" seems to apply only to scoring, and thus why it is defined in Chapter 9 - Scoring. It also seems, based on the wall being the fault line (as pointed out by Drvier8M3 and the NROI Rules Insights) that BOTH sides of the wall can be used for support and thus the penalties based on procedurals for support do not apply. That leaves a couple of things: 1) 2.2.3.4 that mentions that walls are a "Solid plane" 2) The solid plane represented by a mesh wall, has indeed been breached by fingers giving significant competitive advantage to those who did that 3) And lastly the supposed email (that cannot be produced) by DNROI stating that indeed, solid planes cannot be breached by fingers through the mesh wall Now as for a penalty I will agree that there does not seem to be any procedural violations. However, the wall is considered range equipment, the wall is considered a solid plane, and the solid plane has been breached. I would argue that this represents REF and the RO should stop the user and issue a reshoot. Thoughts?

Radartech thanks for the insight! But correct me if I am wrong: 2.2.3.4 specifically specifies that walls are a solid pane and are defined as “hard cover”. It specifically states to refer to 9.1.6. 9.1.6 states “...all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover.“ You have taught me to go to the glossary to understand the definition of a term in relation to the rule book. In this case “impenetrable” is not there, so we go with the dictionary definition of impenetrable:”impossible to pass through or enter.”. So, lacking a definition specifically geared towards the rule book, I.e. “Impenetrable only refers to Bullets...” then we need to evaluate the term as commonly understood and thus how can you put fingers through an impenetrable barrier? And I may be reaching when I would impose procedurals for “...Support structures outside the shooting area such as, but not limited to wall feet, legs, braces, etc., may never be used for support...” (10.2.1) , but I believe it applies because if something is impenetrable then touching the outside by reaching through the inside would, I would argue, put you outside the shooting area as it is impossible. Again, a definition of the concept of impenetrable seems to be lacking in the rule book.

It’s consider faulting under 10.2.1. if it provides considerable advantage 10.2.1.1

There is no question on whether the side can be used for support, it can. However, I would say that grabbing the top or bottom of a wall that is 5'9" or taller is subject to procedural(s) under 2.2.3.3.

Was this from DNROI? it would be great if you could find that email. Otherwise I’ll shoot an email over as while the some of the answers have been insightful (like if a mag falls under the wall) they are not based on specific references from the rule book.

You mean 2.2.3.4? You may have been to busy surmising my use of the term “gamer” to realize that I quoted the rule that is apparently being violated.

No argument of using the coroplast for support - however, not sure how that well that would support anything as it bends so easily - that is why it was placed there - use it if you want but you may 'fall out' of the shooting area when it bends. The issue continues to be whether the walls are impenetrable or not. Section 2.2.3.4 describing barriers such as walls clearly state "All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane..." And if indeed it is a solid plane, how are you hooking your fingers through it? I am hoping NROI jumps in and provides guidance stating that the solid plane referred to in section 2.2.3.4 is solid and impenetrable for bullets but not for fingers.

Added that the wall’s base leg is the fault line. Exactly how do you surmise my manner in using the word “gamer“?

On our monthly L1 USPSA match our walls are made out of mesh, big enough for you to put your fingers through. This particular stage had two shooting areas, one in front of the other and the shooter starts in the back area. All targets except one could be engaged from the back area. The one remaining target was visible through an hard lean on one of the walls, and to prevent using the edge of the wall for support, a piece of coroplast was attached so that it stuck out 6 inches past the wall edge. (enclosed is a picture of the wall, with a shooter running around it to go to the forward shooting area.) The wall’s base leg is the fault line, as shown in picture. An entrepreneurial (gamer) shooter stuck his fingers through the front of the wall and thus gained enough support to shoot the one remaining target and avoided running uprange. Legal or not? I think not, as per section 2.2.3.4 which states "All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane..." Indeed this rule then goes on to state that this solid plane is Hard Cover (un-penetrable) - so if the solid plane is un-penetrable for bullets, how can it be penetrable for fingers? Thoughts?

Completely unscientific perspective; after shooting tens of thousands of Acme and Gallant, I have found that the coated bullets from Precision Bullets are more accurate. Significantly less number of ‘flyers’. YMMV

I DQ’ed a shooter at an Area match who swept my mid section with his gun as he ran full tilt from one side of the stage to the other, parallel to the rear berm. I was physically sick, nauseous, reliving that moment over and over and over for the entire match and even to this day, I cannot erase that image of the fully loaded gun pointed straight at my gut and the sick feeling that comes with the realization that he would of killed me if that gun had gone off. So yeah, chalk me in for the whole match DQ answer. I am sure that shooter will never do that again. And anyone that avoids being swept in the gut is better off for it as well.

Jay, completely from an un-scientific perspective, I have found that Precision bullets are more accurate than the other models I have loaded. I was getting a lot of flyers with Gallant 125s, round nose. I have found that Precision are much more accurate at distance. We shot the match together last week and I don’t know if you notice, I’m not very fast, but the shots were very accurate (except for that one piece of steel that kept dodging my bullets on stage 6). I attribute a lot of that to the Precision bullet.