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

RadarTech

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RadarTech

  • Rank
    Sees Sights Lift
  • Birthday 11/09/1971

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Real Name
    Jim McBurnett

Recent Profile Visitors

657 profile views
  1. If the target is cut below the head area and a non-scoring border is added per 4.2.2.1 I would likely approve it... but this falls into the category of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
  2. Make ready is the beginning of the course of fire. 8.3.1 “Make Ready” – This command signifies the start of “the Course of Fire”. Under the direct supervision of the Range Officer the competitor must face downrange, or in a safe direction as specified by the Range Officer, fit eye and hearing protection, and prepare the firearm in accordance with the written stage briefing.
  3. Depends on target type.. 2.1.8.4 Scoring static IPSC cardboard targets must not be presented at an angle greater than approximately 45 degrees from the vertical. No- shoot static IPSC cardboard targets may be presented at any angle. For USPSA targets it is fine at any angle
  4. Contact support@practiscore.com I know they have recently added a new sport for archery , and I think others are on the horizon. If you don’t hear back quickly, let me know and I’ll get you a direct contact.
  5. If it is a vision barrier wouldn’t it be the same as a wall?
  6. Go re-read 2.2.3.3 again... Is it a vision barrier or other construct? And then 2.2.3.4..
  7. Something to ponder... If I put a single No shoot on target sticks with the body of the no shoot on its side at 5’10” and there is a 3 foot or more gap under the no shoot to the ground and someone shoots thru the target sticks and scores a good A hit — is it a hit or a miss?
  8. Note one thing I said was with the detail provided here... could he have used his feet to lift up and take pressure off the knees? Could it have been a worse angle to the target on his knees? Could it be a tall shooter and nothing he could have done kept his feet in? Something that is totally missing from this scenario and another reason I’d give 6.. Rule 2.2.1.4 2.2.1.4 The use of rear fault lines at prone shooting positions should be avoided or used with caution. If a rear fault line is used, it must be placed at least 8 feet from the forward fault line at the prone shooting position. This was added so that a prone shooter was not likely to put feet on the ground outside the fault lines and get procedurals... not many people are tall enough for 8 feet... Could you imagine being prone and keeping you knees bent to prevent procedurals? Yes there are things that would make me consider less than 6... but like using the target for the actual scoring(9.1.3), seeing the exact stage , shooters position and the target visibility is really what is required to make the best call here.. When you combine 2.2.1.4 with support, both feet outside the shooting area, a changed perspective to the target, and the reduced time of not getting back on your feet wholly inside the shooting area, it is a hard sell for me not to give 6.. But again.. it would be better to see it to make a good call. More than likely the CRO/RO made the right call. And we are all Monday morning quarterbacking.. With that good Monday morning!
  9. If we take feet out of it... 10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground or platform surface outside a shooting area, or while stepping on or gaining support from an object wholly beyond a shooting area, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence. Then significant advantage with the feet outside... Also consider... was there a better angle at the targets from the knee level? I saw a match where there were no shoots as vision barriers but if you dropped to your knees you could shoot under the no shoots and had easy shots... but then your risking feet outside unless you were wise about it. Or would it cause an issue with a round going over the berm? Of course 10.4.1 allows for it to be not a DQ... Just a few comments...
  10. No I wouldn’t... If I was called to this at a major to provide the RMs call.. I’d be hard pressed not to give 6 with the details provided here. You had both feet out.. and you gained stability from those feet touching.. Now, here is what you as the competitor could do, or a third party could do.. File an arb Under 10.1.3 Or 11.7.1 as a third party as the case may be.. This is the only instance scoring can be ARBd...
  11. Just remember significant advantage has a definition in the new rule book that includes the most common examples.
  12. It’s a teaching moment in rules, positional responsibility, and tact.
  13. I’ve been in this exact position more than once... Siding with the RO IS the way to go... UNLESS another RO is EQUALLY 100% of the opposite opinion... 2 cases— 1. He shot only 2 shots at that target.. says RO 1.. RO2 yes from the position you could see from.. he fired 2 make ups towards it from this location and I don’t think you could see that because of the wall. 2. DQ 180. RO 1- I saw the muzzle and it was beyond 180. RO2- I saw that and you were running, I suspect your perspective is skewed.. I am sure he didn’t brake 180 If it was all 100% black and white, it would be easy..
  14. If it is obvious and you can determine the score, this is a non-issue.... If it is obvious and you can’t determine the score... still a reshoot...
×
×
  • Create New...