driver8M3

bret asked a question. I answered it. It wasn't a comment about what he saw at nationals.

One example: Sometimes a shooter is fiddling with their gun because of a malfunction or something and they're close to the 180. A muzzle warning can be helpful.

No. 8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

It's also not very wise from a practical standpoint. The more a target is rotated away from squared up to the shooting position, the more problems it can create. If they want to make the target more difficult, it's better to have it squared up to the shooter with some hard cover added.

Was this a short, medium or long course?

That's the target I was talking about.

And this is the exact problem with postal matches. Take a look at these 2 videos and tell me if this stage was set up the same in both of them. It's the first stage in the one: In this one it starts at the 40 second mark:

It's a problem if either: 1. You must take them from a single location, or; 2. You can take them all from a single location Edited to add the I'm sure motosapiens knows that...he was describing a different situation where you might want to take 14 shots from a single spot (and the stage has more than 14 shots).

D4 22.4 Magwell Opening No OFM or aftermarket external magwells. Internal magwell dimensions may be increased. Aftermarket external flaring is prohibited. Markings inside the magwell are allowed

There is really no need for arguing. The rules include a process for adjudicating disagreements. If you disagree with an RO's call, ask the CRO. If you disagree with the CRO's call, ask the RM. If you disagree with the RM's call, in some situations, including this one, you can arbitrate it. All of these things can, and should, be done calmly.

It's actually funny that you ignore the words "completely outside" as if they were not even there or had no meaning and focus on a parenthetical extension.

Hmmm. Are you sure this is as clear as you think it is? 1. Each occurrence does not mean per shot From the glossary: Occurrence - For purposes of assessing penalties, e.g., foot faults, an occurrence is defined as shooting at an array of targets from a single location or view in a course of fire. If the competitor moves to another view or location and continues to fault, that constitutes a second occurrence. 2. "Completely outside" is in 10.2.1.2, which some in this thread are using to apply 6 procedurals. I maintain that if both of the shooter's knees are on the ground inside the shooting area, that shooter is not completely outside the shooting area and thus 10.2.1.2 does not apply to this scenario.

Nobody has to assume anything. 10.2.1.2 says "completely outside (both feet out and touching the ground) a shooting area..." Completely outside a shooting area means nothing is inside the shooting area. The situation here is covered by 10.2.1, the shooter is partially in and partially out. RadarTech is giving 6 procedurals based on 10.2.1.1 (significant advantage of improved stability). I'd still argue that the shooter's fault did not give a significant advantage over not faulting, but RadarTech is an RM...and I'm not.

It's not selectively editing. The rule is quoted in this thread. In addition to the parenthetical that you seem enamored with it says the shooter needs to be completely out of the shooting area. Are you going to convince a RM that he was completely out simply because his feet were out while the rest of his body was in? Good luck with that. I think the correct call is one procedural based on 10.2.1.

The rule also says completely out. With both knees on the ground inside the shooting area he is not completely out. He never left the shooting area so he doesn't need to reestablish presence in the shooting area.

You're going to say he was completely out of the shooting area even though both knees were on the ground inside the shooting area?

You should read the rule immediately below 6.2.4.

I agree completely with Jodi's post. It's impossible to prevent a competitor from seeing through a mesh or similar material wall. Would you want to give a reshoot every time someone looked through a mesh wall and saw a mike or a piece of steel that hadn't fallen and went back to make it up? As evidenced by this thread, it's hard enough to enforce actual cheating when SHOOTING through a wall...I don't see how it would be possible to prevent LOOKING through one.

She's one of the RM instructors...and assistant director of NROI.

I guess you can ignore it if you want. https://nroi.org/rules-insights/through-the-looking-wall/

I never bought into this argument, and a recent NROI post clarified it. You CAN look through mesh.

Purposefully?

Rules violations have severe consequences to encourage compliance and discourage cheating. Thus, the move to open or shooting for no score for seemingly minor violations...like a strip of grip tape on the slide of your production gun, or 11 rounds in a production magazine after the start signal, or an open big stick that barely doesn't fit the gauge, etc. Moving a SS major competitor to SS minor for having an extra round after the start signal, and then also letting him continue to load 10 for the rest of the match isn't much of a penalty (especially compared to the above examples). Depending on the stages of a match and a competitor's schedule, it could actually promote outright cheating. If the ROs notice that you "accidentally" had an extra round loaded, you just shoot for more alphas the rest of the way.

The safety part of 8.1.2.3 only applies if the hammer is cocked (because of the "or"). So, when 8.1.2.5 refers to the safety in 8.1.2.3, it is referring to the part of 8.1.2.3 that comes after "or."

8.1.2.3 has a very important "or" in there.