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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About broadside72

  • Rank
    Sees Sights

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Central Valley, CA
  • Real Name

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Then in this case what is "within the fault lines" when there is no fault line at the wall to constrain said "within"? Had it said "within the shooting area" there would be no (or fewer) questions
  2. But the WSB says "from within the fault lines" and the definition of fault line is "A physical ground reference line in a course of fire which defines the limit(s) of the shooting area." It does NOT say "from within the shooting area" which would include the projection to the ground from the wall in addition to the fault lines. So by being within the forward projection of the fault lines, I am sill "within the fault lines"... Gamers gonna game
  3. well there is a rule that allows no rear fault line and the berms are a default fault lines since you can't go up them.
  4. But what rule(s) would you cite to request a change from as-built?
  5. Shoot the left targets from within the fault lines then run around to the front and from within the forward projection of the side fault lines shoot the rest from as far away as you want
  6. There seems to be one post that implies it is okay to go under and another that says otherwise. Then the rest is speculation or off topic. So what is the ruling here? The WSB declares the bottom is open so without a fault line and the wall does not go to the ground, what rule(s) would you use to penalize a shooter that simple shoots the left and runs around the front? Or what interpretation of what rule and why? The stage name is "Technicality"...
  7. I'll jump in on this one as I think gamers are not cheaters and cheaters are just that, cheaters. Gamers "game" the rules but work within then as the edges, trying to eek out every advantage but stay legal.
  8. I say not supposed to because of several things. An RO's response or how they ask the question could be seen as coaching. The shooter's response could purposely be incorrect to force contact with the RO but they "changed their mind at the last minute". There might not be a specific rule for it, but when Troy gave my RO class he said to not do it for reasons similar to above. The RO has a job to do. Maybe s\he should just stick to that. I've RO'd noobs and GM's and only once did I have contact with a shooter (incidental contact after the last shot). I've never asked a shooter, that wasn't in my new shooter class, the direction they were going.
  9. As an RO you aren't supposed to ask that and as a shooter you have no obligation to answer or follow through if you do answer.
  10. The problem with not being close as the RO during a retreat is if there is a malfunction or other reason the stage needs to be scored as shot its not possible if you aren't capturing the shots correctly
  11. This will eventually lead to dedicated squad RO's and hopefully they get comp'd or discounted match fees for the trouble. But some days I just want to shoot... It would be nice if there was a pool to draw from at each local club. Maybe I'll propose that where I shoot.
  12. It happens to me often but as a volunteer sport, would you rather squad with your buddies or have the matches go away because not enough people are willing to be more than just a shooter?
  13. I am not talking about 100% retreat, I am not a fan of those either, especially as an RO. My main question was about having to back out of areas 4-8 feet where the otherwise main flow is L<->R or downrange.
  14. I have been tempted to make some of my 20-26 round stages be Virginia just to irritate people
  15. My local range has class for new to USPSA and part of it includes retreating and going around a wall. You need to pass that class and not get a DQ your first match or you take it again
  • Create New...