Morphire
-
Posts
243 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Morphire
-
-
http://www.USPSA.org...l.php?indx=2700
Listed on uspsa.
Any particular reason you posted this to the GA State thread that I'm missing? It's a nice pistol I'm sure but that video isn't from our match. I'm guessing possibly it was supposed to go in the Classified Ads section instead??
-
2011 GA State Championship Matchbook is now online. Direct link is here.
-
I am having trouble opening up the match entry form. I did a right click save as and it says that file is damaged ..........
What browser are you using? It's working fine for me in Safari, Firefox and Chrome - all latest releases. I've double checked the file itself on the server as well and it's fine too. Not sure what's causing the issue for you. Will it display onscreen if you just click the link? It's supposed to open in its own window. You will need Acrobat Reader to view the PDF file so you might want to head over to adobe.com and dl the latest version too.
-
I shot for the longest time using the factory rubber grip on the right side of my Shadow and the thin AL grip on the left side to get a better fit for my hand. I have since just gone with the thick AL grips on both sides and am very happy with them. I got mine straight from Adam Tyc but now you can get them from Angus at CZCustom.com
-
We make that call everyday when a 180 violation occurs... (when you can shoot at and not)
Didn't say "when"
I said "where"
Okay, I give up.
I can't seem to get my point across. (seems like I have gored the sacred cow of the RO's)
Lee
180 calls are always about "where" and have nothing at all to do with when. Where were you when you engaged the target? Was it past the 180 or not? Even that is a somewhat subjective call. In a split second an RO has to make the call as to whether or not they saw a 180 break. If they did and they are confident that they saw it then they make the call. Will 100% of all RO's make that same call at that same moment given that same view and experience? No. Some will see it clearer and others will see it differently. We have an arbitration rule specifically to allow a competitor to appeal a call (albeit in the case of a DQ it's not possible to reverse the decision). The rule can be as black and white in the rulebook as you like but humans have to administer it in the real world so there will always be room for judgement calls that have to be made. We all rely in well trained and experienced RO's to make those calls.
-
At this point I'm trying to convince people that allowing RO's to decide where a shot can be taken from (not including safety reasons) is not good policy.
That is the prerogative of the shooter.
In this particular case there was nothing in the WSB about targets required to be engaged at any particular location.
The WSB stated: "Engage targets as they become visible from within the shooting area"
The target was visible when it was engaged.
(and, I might add, the shot was in no way unsafe. I was on the squad when it happened)
Sorry guys, but I'm firmly in the "if it's not in the WSB or the rulebook, you can't assess a penalty" camp on this one.
Respectfully,
Lee
I don't see anyone arguing on stopping the shooter from attempting the shot. The RO won't do that unless there is an unsafe or unsportsmanlike action. We are arguing the results of the attempt.
If you are firmly in that camp then explain to me where it says that I have to shoot at a target to score on it. It speaks of a shot and it speaks of bullets passing through the target to score but never actually says I have to shoot the target to score - as silly as that sounds. The rulebook isn't a complete document. It must be administered by ROs and CROs and RMs. We rely on the NROI to train those Officers to know the rules but to also exercise good judgement in making their call. There is a hierarchy of judges on that call so that a competitor can appeal a ruling from RO to CRO and on to RM. The RM's ruling is final but even then, you can put up your money and Arb the call if you still disagree. I believe the rulebook is very favorable of the shooter's rights in these multiple levels of appeal and multiple individuals in judgement. I understand your position, I just don't' agree with it.
-
Does "geographical place" include the vertical axis? If the stage designer forgets to put "walls go up to the sky", then the target may not be "available" under the wall, but it may be available over the wall. As stated before there is no requirement that the shooter by able to see the target when they are shooting at it.
The stage designer can either build the wall to a height making it unaccessible to even the tallest of shooters, state in the WSB that walls extend to infinity above the height constructed, or leave them as they are and let someone figure out how good or bad the tactic is of attempting to engage the target over the wall. If the shooter sticks their gun over the wall and attempts to shoot at the target then I have no issue with saying there is no FTE if I can determine that they have shot at the face of the target and not at the back of it. The rule book starts with course design and construction before it ever gets to really talking about the competitor and how to govern shooting and scoring the match. Those rules are for the course designer as well as the RO and the competitor. We all have to work within the confines of the rules.
As an RO, I might be inclined to issue a Stop command if I lose sight of the pistol and believe the rounds heading down range are traveling in an unsafe manner. Should I feel that such a situation existed, I would recommend to my RM that he investigate a Forbidden action by changing the WSB to state that all walls extended upwards to infinity. A loophole in the design of the stage (if shooting over the wall was unintended) was found and it led to a possibly unsafe action. I can find reason under the FA rules to recommend that to my RM.
-
I agree with your assertion. If there is 100% possibility that a target can not be engaged from a location, and the shooter attempts to engage that target from that location, then I'm 100% positive that they have failed to engage it from that location. Seems 100% clear to me.
Nope, sorry.
Just because you are 100% sure doesn't mean that the next RO will agree with you.
I could say that ANY shot into hard cover is a FTE/FTSA, no matter how close to the edge.
We CANNOT allow judgement calls of where a shooter can and cannot shoot at a target.
I keep asking, and nobody has answered my question: how far out of location is too far?
Until that is answered with a fixed dimension in the rule book, we cannot allow RO's to make that judgement call.
Lee
I'm sorry but that's just unrealistic. The ROs are asked to make judgement calls constantly. Was that finger out of the trigger guard or wasn't it? Was that muzzle past 180 or at 179.5? As an RO you can ask yourself the simple question. Could the shooter have been able to reasonably make the shot on that target from where he attempted to engage it? If so then no FTE, If not then FTE. We already have a system for arbitration for the shooter that doesn't agree with the call. Arb the call if you disagree with it but the RO can make a judgement call. They do it all the time. The rule book would be a billion pages long if it had to cover, exactly, every possible scenario and situation that could ever happen in this sport.
-
The rule book doesn't say you have to actually shoot at a target to score on it either, yet we score targets with holes in them all the time. Common sense has to play a part in interpreting the rules doesn't it? You have to look at all the rules of the rule book and take them into consideration. This circumstance isn't only about 9.5.7. The entire rule book is being used in the process of a competitor making an attempt at a stage. Things such as location make sense in that viewpoint. Each specific rule doesn't have to cover every possible outcome where it might be used when the rest of the rulebook leads the RO to make a good common sense judgement call. We not only expect our RO's to have common sense, we demand it of them to ensure the fair application of the rules in a consistent manner.
To answer your scenario, the RO uses their training and common sense and makes a judgement call as to when the target goes from unavailable to available for a particular course of fire. He does have the advantage of evidence (holes in the wall) to show just how far away from an available location the target attempt was made too. FTEs fall accordingly as well as investigations into a DQ for ND or movement with the finger in the trigger guard. It's really no different than many other subjective calls we ask the ROs to make all the time.
I would also, though, apply that in order to assess a penalty, the same subjectivity rules apply as does that in which we need to issue the DQ. It must be a 100% POSITIVE assertion that the offense has been committed.
Keep in mind, in this situation, we are asserting that the "failure to shoot at" a target happened because I had no expectation my rounds would arrive at the target. We are not talking about solid walls. We are talking about see through walls, either snow fence or the mandated from the ground to height as constructed - so the evidence of holes in the wall - MAY be there, or may not. In either case, what is the assertion under the rule - that the shooter didn't "shoot at the face of a scoring target", correct?
What is required to "shoot at a target" in the rule book? We need a shot, which is defined as the bullet fully passing through the gun. Ok, we have that. The target needs to be visible, according to 1.1.5. We have that, I can see the target.
I hear what everyone is saying, but I assert that for obvious reasons, you can't change the visibility of the wall by rule, it's either see through, or it's not. The rules say "as and when visible", as spanky shows, not as and when available.
I'm still extremely concerned about the application of this - though I understand what is said.
Think about the stage that Drawandduck posted. A few posts back. Imagine the wall as snow fence and the missed target is a Popper. What happens if I take that shot knowing full well by rule that said piece of steel being hit and falling through a piece of hardcover is a reshoot. Stage construction aside, is this an FA (why, it's legit stage construction) and how to you prove 10.6.1... "Hey, I just looked and didn't register the wall - can I get my reshoot for REF?"
Just somethings I'm thinking about --
I agree with your assertion. If there is 100% possibility that a target can not be engaged from a location, and the shooter attempts to engage that target from that location, then I'm 100% positive that they have failed to engage it from that location. Seems 100% clear to me.
We do have a shot I agree. I disagree with your assessment of 1.1.5 as there is that pesky last sentence stating "However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances." Not only must the target be visible but the target must have been made available by the course designer. 1.1.5 makes allowance for the course designer to play a part in making a target visible yet still unavailable from particular shooting locations through the use of conditions, barriers or other physical limitations. Make sure you bring the whole rule into place and not just pieces and parts of it.
The popper question is already handled in the rules as a REF due to steel being shot through hardcover. There is a very specific rule dealing with that specific scenario. (4.6.1) If the "offense" is a blatant one in the eyes of the RO then it may be grounds for a 10.6 DQ but that is again a subjective RO call. Course designers and ROs deal with that sort of thing within the rules all the time.
-
USPSA makes the definition for "Location" to mean "a geographical place in a course of fire" be it a box or a port in a wall or whatever. We often use it to determine if we have broken the more than 8 shots from one location stricture within the rules when designing a CoF. (1.2.1)
The ruling is simple. Is the target available from the shooting location or not? If it is, then no FTE. The competitor clearly had an opportunity to hit the target and successfully made that attempt if they indexed on the target and "shot" at it's face. If, from that shooting location, the target was unavailable to be engaged then it is unavailable and therefore will incur an FTE if that is the only place the shooter shoots at it's face. You draw the line at a well trained RO to know enough of what a shooting location is. We ask it of them in other scenarios within the rules so why not here as well?
Kevin,
I totally get what you are saying, the problem is the rule book make no mention of the target being available from a given location in regards to the FTE/FTSA to support your call.
the way it is currently the written shooter either shot at the target or they didn't.
going back to my scenario, how close to shooting around a wall do I have to be to avoid the FTE? if my rounds are within 2 inches of the corner, 4inches, 6inches, I shoot a foot into the wall, or 6ft into the wall, at what point do I get the FTE?
So maybe it's not about where the rounds impact? How about where my feet were when the shots were broken (IDPA does it with cover calls and we all know how much that is discussed as being subjective). Does one foot have to be exposed to the target or both? I can lean pretty far so...
Maybe you can only shoot at targets that you can actually see without any walls between the shooter's head and the target, but wait then I guess Taran Butler can no longer do the point a gun under a port to shoot because there was a wall between his head and the target so now he gets an FTE? (ok crappy sentence structure but you get the idea).
So what is the long term answer? I don't know, but I do know for the short term (current rule book)if a shooter shoots at a target they do not get a FTE/FTSA. By the way this notion was supported by the majority of the current RMIs.
The rule book doesn't say you have to actually shoot at a target to score on it either, yet we score targets with holes in them all the time. Common sense has to play a part in interpreting the rules doesn't it? You have to look at all the rules of the rule book and take them into consideration. This circumstance isn't only about 9.5.7. The entire rule book is being used in the process of a competitor making an attempt at a stage. Things such as location make sense in that viewpoint. Each specific rule doesn't have to cover every possible outcome where it might be used when the rest of the rulebook leads the RO to make a good common sense judgement call. We not only expect our RO's to have common sense, we demand it of them to ensure the fair application of the rules in a consistent manner.
To answer your scenario, the RO uses their training and common sense and makes a judgement call as to when the target goes from unavailable to available for a particular course of fire. He does have the advantage of evidence (holes in the wall) to show just how far away from an available location the target attempt was made too. FTEs fall accordingly as well as investigations into a DQ for ND or movement with the finger in the trigger guard. It's really no different than many other subjective calls we ask the ROs to make all the time.
-
Look at it this way: three targets around a corner the first two targets the shooter engages no problem, but the shooter doesn't quite get out around the corner far enough and puts two rounds through the wall trying to hit the last inside target.
FTE? his bullets had no chance to hit the target(wall in the way)? maybe he could see the target from where he was(shooting error) [snip]is this really any different than the original scenario?
I'd like to expand on this thought.
Multiple posters have said that a swinger chased into hardcover/no shoot is okay, but somewhere between that situation and shooting under/ through the wall is not okay.
For the "yes FTE" guys, how far away from having a clear shot at the target is okay?
6 inches? 1 foot? 20 feet?
Where do you draw the line?
You can't have it both ways. Both situations are either FTE/FTSA or they are not.
Lee
USPSA makes the definition for "Location" to mean "a geographical place in a course of fire" be it a box or a port in a wall or whatever. We often use it to determine if we have broken the more than 8 shots from one location stricture within the rules when designing a CoF. (1.2.1)
The ruling is simple. Is the target available from the shooting location or not? If it is, then no FTE. The competitor clearly had an opportunity to hit the target and successfully made that attempt if they indexed on the target and "shot" at it's face. If, from that shooting location, the target was unavailable to be engaged then it is unavailable and therefore will incur an FTE if that is the only place the shooter shoots at it's face. You draw the line at a well trained RO to know enough of what a shooting location is. We ask it of them in other scenarios within the rules so why not here as well?
-
Look at it this way: three targets around a corner the first two targets the shooter engages no problem, but the shooter doesn't quite get out around the corner far enough and puts two rounds through the wall trying to hit the last inside target.
FTE? his bullets had no chance to hit the target(wall in the way)? maybe he could see the target from where he was(shooting error) maybe he couldn't (foot placement error) Who makes the call? RO is watching the gun clip board guy is on other side not really in a position to see both feet, gun, and target.
is this really any different than the original scenario?
Yes it's very different. The "location" of the shooter allowed for the possibility of the hits. "Location" is not a new concept to the rules and is even in the Glossary (A3) The scenario you describe is like the swinger with hardcover. The original scenario involves the attempt to engage the target(s) from a location where the target(s) was completely unavailable. The RO should be allowed enough variance to make a common sense subjectivity call in this. We ask them to do it all the time with 180 calls and the like.
-
I hate to keep asking the same questions over an over. Maybe someone will answer this time.
For the No-FTE guys, please tell us how you would rule in the following scearios:
Wall is snow fence, but goes to the ground. Shooter can see the target, but knows he is shooting through a wall.
Wall is plywood, and goes to the ground. Shooter can't see the target, but bullet will penetrate.
Wall is steel, and goes to the ground. Shooter can't see the target, and the bullet has no chance of reaching the target.
No FTE. In all situations the shooter was "shooting at" the target. There was just a wall in the way.
By that same logic then a shooter that is shooting at the berm is shooting at the next bay over. There was just a berm in the way. That would likely result in a DQ (10.6.2) for unsporstman-like conduct by trying to interfere with the next bay over's shooters and RO. "There was just a wall in the way" is sort of denying that common sense has a notion in our sport doesn't it? Any maybe that's the point us in the FTE camp are missing - that notion that common sense has no bearing if the rules state otherwise? But really the rules don't state otherwise in this instance, do they? The rules just don't specifically disallow it except in the case of 9.9.3. The Production rules went through a cleansing to get rid of the notion that what is not specifically disallowed is allowed. It sort of feels like the same scenario is happening to 9.5.7 in denying the FTE.
-
You are reading something that isn't there. There is no requirement to shoot at the face only from where it is possible to get scoring hits. It just doesn't say that anywhere in the rule book and that is the problem. Read the PE rule again and tell me where it says the target must me shot at from a location where it is possible to get scoring hits:
I completly understand your logic the problem is it is not supported by current written rules. That is the reason the RMIs reasoned what they reasoned.
I really feel this is one of those things we all believe that the shooter did something they shouldn't and should have gotten the PE for FTSA but it just isn't supported by the current wording of the rule book.
I suppose this is how we end up with new rules.
Dan and Spanky,
Not picking on you guys specifically but you both posted recently that the rules do not support an FTE in this case. So both of you are saying that the rules state, even though they say that you specifically have to shoot at a part of a target to avoid a FTSA 9.5.7 penalty, that you can shoot at a wall specifically and avoid the procedural if the target is behind it? I'm confused by how you see the rules stating that you can shoot at the face of a wall and it being the same as shooting at the face of a target. If the wall extended to the ground, or even further extended to the ground and was made of steel, would the FTSA be supported by the rules in your opinion(s)? I know that's been asked many times but I swear I haven't seen an answer from the no FTE camp as of yet.
9.5.7 gets specific, and I'm of the opinion that this specificity supports the FTE in this case no matter what sort of hardcover (rules or real) is in the way. Shooting at the target, but not at the face, still gives you an FTE by 9.5.7. That would mean that the face of the target must be available from the position where you shot it in my opinion and it appears to be supported by the rules.
-
If he was shooting at the targets, then he can not be given a penalty for not shooting at the targets.
At what point do you call it shooting at a prop or a wall and not shooting at a target then? Is the RO not allowed to use common sense?
Technically, never, though depending on the situation, parts of 10.4 could apply.....
Honestly -- has anyone seen a competitor deliberately shoot at a solid wall in order to not receive a FTSA penalty? I haven't seen it in a decade. Everyone I've handed out or seen handed out involved a shooter going "Oh, crap" or something equally colorful when we scored the stage -- the shooter typically had no idea he'd skipped a target.....
I for one have never and would have never done it because I thought it was against the rules. Should it be ruled otherwise, then things might possibly change.
-
I don't need any tone about not doing my part for club matches. I do my part and then some and therefore feel like I have room to say the level one rule could go.
Where the level 1 rule really shines is at indoor matches where they really don't have walls due to storage constraints.
-
Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permit- ted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an "as and when visible" basis. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to com- pel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.
Targets that are visible may be shot. Does not say that targets that are not visible may not be shot.
Nothing about "availability".
Targets need not be "available" to be shot. The shot may not score, but it is a shot at a target.
Hense my desire to have the powers that be look into whether or not the word "available" is better suited to the rule than visible since there are situations where visibility causes hangups in the execution of a legal stage design.
-
Wow. Makes me nervous about the upcoming Indiana Sectional. Something this simple can be seen from so many perspectives. I think one big step here is the importance of stage design and setup. The lesson I am taking away is that if you have an intent you had better make it clear through the use of props.
What about this? No walls going to the ground to infinity or from the top of the prop to the ground for any level of match. How about if you can see them you can engage them. This means a little more work for Lazy Larry setting up stages at club matches but it does simply things with all levels of matches and sticks nicely to the freestyle theme of USPSA that is so near and dear to many of us.
Actually that doesn't solve the issue at hand. The walls and other props, in the believe on one side of the argument, have no impact on the competitor shooting at a target so the competitor could still just shoot up all your walls and props and relieve himself of any FTEs. Stage design doesn't fix this problem if indeed the rules are to be interpreted that you can shoot through a prop to circumvent an FTE.
-
If he was shooting at the targets, then he can not be given a penalty for not shooting at the targets.
At what point do you call it shooting at a prop or a wall and not shooting at a target then? Is the RO not allowed to use common sense?
-
Troy is saying you can "shoot at" a target even if you can't (or aren't supposed to be able to) see it. FTE is defined as failure to shoot at.
Consider the other case: if a wall are as tall as built (unless otherwise specified in a WSB) and a shooter sticks his strong hand over a wall and "shoots at" a target on the other side of the wall. If it's a solid wall he can't even see the target. Will you give the shooter an FTSA penalty if he completely misses that target? I don't think there is a requirement that one has to see the target to shoot at it.
Actually I believe 1.1.5 states that.
The problem for me as an RO isn't that you can't see the target though. A very tall shooter could see over the wall and engage the target with visibility that a very short competitor might not. If that's the intent of the stage then you get to argue inequity of the challenge presented and would likely get a FA stating all walls go upwards to infinity as well.
But
In the scenario you mentioned, the bullets passed from pistol to target without encountering a hardcover obstacle and thusly the target was accessible and therefore no FTE. Visibility has nothing to do with it. That's the point I've been trying to make. The fact that the target was visible or not shouldn't have anything to do with it's ability to be engaged and prevent an FTE. It's all about whether it was accessible from the position where it was engaged either through being unavailable from hardcover or from a rules designation. If it's not available then you can't have shot at the face of the target, only the objects that were in front of it which by definition are impenetrable.
It's not a point of visibility but of availability. The problem with this whole enchilada seems to me to be 1.1.5 where it states "Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an 'as and when visible' basis". This is the only requirement for dealing with visibility that I've been able to find in my searching and it specifically refers to shooting a target and not hitting a target. The "as and when visible" could/should be changed to "as and when available" and you have a rule that more closely reflects the rest of the rule book. Visibility shouldn't be a requirement for when a target is able to be shot at when the rules allow for transparent and even non-existent hardcover. If you make 1.1.5 about availability then everything seems to fall into place for me at least. No rules conflict and it comes down to availability and not visibility so all the hardcover is treated equally and universally.
-
Troy is saying you can "shoot at" a target even if you can't (or aren't supposed to be able to) see it. FTE is defined as failure to shoot at.
If that is truly the case then as long as, at some point in time during the course of fire, I shot in the general direction of a target that an RO says I didn't engage, even if there is all manner of hard cover or other impenetrable objects between myself and the said missed target, I should not get an FTE. I'm sorry but that way leads to madness and the ability to arb yourself out of about every FTE you get from that point forward. If that is truly how the rule should be interpreted, then there should be a serious look at a rewording of that rule IMO.
Thanks for clarifying, Spanky.
-
Interesting. So I guess what I have to say bores you? I'll be sure to keep my opinions to myself next time. Hell I'm sorry I took the time to actually read every post of this thread and craft my opinions carefully and succinctly so that you could then just blow them off. I love that you actually took the time to make an offensive post to ensure I knew you were bored by my interest and viewpoints.
I don't think he is blowing you off or being offensive. He is most likely, like the rest of us, tired of reading/talking about it. While you did make valid points literally everything you said has been said before by several people. So while I whole heartedly disagree with mactigers thoughts on the FTE I do strongly agree with his sentiment on the thread.
So I will second his
Fair enough I respect both of your rights to send me a yawn but I swear I've read every post in this thread and I've yet to see Troy respond to two salient points. Forgive me if I'm missed them but if the target is shot at from a position where it is completely unavailable (and not the swinger scenario he keeps mentioning) due to be behind hard cover (real or rules hard cover) then Troy seems to be saying that is has been engaged. I'd like to see the rule that supports that under all hardcover scenarios since he has stated clearly that all walls are created the same be they rules or real walls. I'd also like to see the rule that says a FA can be awarded that basically repeats a rule that is already in place or that one can be awarded due to a "scoring nightmare". I just don't see it so maybe I'm not looking in the right place in the rules. If I were at a match where that target was scored 2 mikes and no FTE, or if a FA was written that duplicated 2.2.3.3. I would ask that the RO show me the rule(s) that supported their decision. I just don't see it in rulebook the way that Troy is saying it is so i'm asking for the rule and specifically the part of the rule that justifies those two possible actions.
If you feel that the horse is beaten to death on this then you are well within your rights to unsubscribe from the thread and let those of us that don't feel the same continue on. Seems a fair answer to your yawn, no?
-
Interesting. So I guess what I have to say bores you? I'll be sure to keep my opinions to myself next time. Hell I'm sorry I took the time to actually read every post of this thread and craft my opinions carefully and succinctly so that you could then just blow them off. I love that you actually took the time to make an offensive post to ensure I knew you were bored by my interest and viewpoints.
-
Last post.
One: this is, fundamentally, a course design issue. I know what the rule says about all walls going down to the ground, but to put a target that is visible beneath a wall and expect people to ignore it is naive at best, retarded at worst. Why? The rules are clear. Why should we expect people to follow them in one instance and not another? In a Level 1 match, a swinger can be fully visible and the shooter still be instructed to not shoot it by the WSB per 9.9.4. I don't see this as a course design issue. The rules often make allowances for the building efforts needed and the materials required at a Level 1 match and this is one such occurrence. Hence the FA, if you leave the target there. There are a lot of other fixes, I suppose, but an FA is a viable option here. If you are reading that rule to say otherwise, you are excluding crucial parts of it. What crucial parts are you referring to please? You seem to be making the FA rule do what's expressly forbidden for it to do. This isn't a safety issue or a course loophole since we all agree that the score would be two mikes one way or another so 2.3.1.1.a. doesn't come into play. Further 2.3.1.1.b. makes it specific that "a course designer wishing to compel or limit competitor movement must do so using target placement, vision barriers and/or physical barriers"and not use a FA. If 2.2.3.3 is brought into play as it was here, then the strictures for target placement AND vision barriers seems to have been met. I still don't see a justification for a FA.
Why? mostly because, as the past 19 pages or so have shown, it's going to be a scoring nightmare, one most easily fixed by declaring an FA or hiding the target. The FA will state, "you can't see the target"; hiding it will make it so. Be sure: do both.
You seem to be saying the best method of dealing with this issue is to issue a FA that does the exact same thing that 2.2.3.3 already does. How does that really change anything? And it really doesn't seem to be a scoring nightmare to me. Maybe I'm naive? The target was unavailable entirely from the position from which it was shot so the resultant FTE. We ask that ROs make subjective calls all the time and ask them to only make the call if the RO was positive the rule infraction was true. Since the wall exists either in the rules or in real life, and the target was thusly not available to be shot at (only the wall or rules wall was available to be shot at), and since walls are by definition impenetrable, then the RO can make the call for an FTE.Second: A shot is a shot. Holes in the target make no difference, because you could just miss. Consider a swinger: shoot twice, miss twice. Any holes? NO. FTE/FTSA penalty? NO. Why? because you fired at least one shot at it. Didn't matter when you fired, if it was visible at the time or not, you still fired at least one shot. That meets the definition of "engage" or "shoot at". Shoot at a target through a port--hit the port edge or wall with both rounds, full bullet diameter. Did you shoot at it? Yes. Did you hit it? No, since the wall is hardcover. You can take the hits away per rule, but you can't take the shots away--no rule to support that. The difference in the scenario with the swinger is that it IS available at the point of engagement at least some of the time. A target fully hidden behind a wall or a rules wall is not. You can shoot at the wall but you cannot shoot at the target behind it. You still haven't satisfied not ruling an FTE under 9.5.7 because the competitor never fired at the face of the target. He fired at the wall that stood in front of the target. And from the shooting position he used to attempt to engage the target, the target was fully and entirely unavailable. We haven't take the shots away. They were just never shot at the face of the target. They were shot at the wall in front of it, and could only have hit the wall in front of it from that shooting position since the target was fully unavailable from that position.
Same thing here. He shot at a target, and yes, he probably did it because he could see said target because said wall did not actually exist, it was deemed to exist, but in real life, we tend to shoot at targets we can see, and don't shoot at targets we can't see, no matter what the rule says about the wall. See item ONE.
Third: shooting through an opaque wall at a target could certainly be done, but keep in mind that there are possibly other, more severe consequences for doing so. Also consider that if a competitor can't actually see a target, most of the time they won't shoot at it. It's not that common an occurrence, despite all the "what if" scenarios presented here. In this case, though, it was stated that this was a deliberate act. If so, then you must act accordingly. But using your definition, any competitor that shot at a target behind any obstruction couldn't receive an FTE. And further more you justify that act in doing so. Imagine, as one poster did and Nik has repeatedly asked for someone to comment on, that the last target of a stage was behind a wall with a door in it. The door needed to be opened to shoot at the target as it wasn't visible from anywhere else on the CoF. By your definition, a competitor could simply fire a round through the door and take his 2 mikes and no FTE along with the justification that he wasn't intentionally shooting a prop but was in fact engaging a target. If the door was a distance away I can easily see a scenario where this would be an advantage in taking the 2 mikes if you know that's all the recourse you'd get. If you instead consider that the target was completely unavailable from the shooting position (meaning it is impossible to shoot at the face of the target) you score the two mikes, the resultant FTE and call into question a 10.6 for willfully shooting a prop.
Deal with the situation as it exists; break it down into it's component parts and see if the rule(s) is satisfied for each part. Try not to read into the rule what you want it to say, but see what it actually does say. By that same definition I dont' see how you can justify a FA supported by the rules. I don't see anywhere in 2.3.1.1 where a FA is justified due to a "scoring nightmare" on what is a perfectly legal stage design. Should the target be hidden? Yes. It leads to "better" course presentation. But is the target an illegal one or one that isn't covered by the rules completely and clearly? No. That's all I've been trying to get you to do, but many of you focus on one rule and ignore the rest. There are at least 3 or 4 different sections involved in this particular case, and yes, the DQ is a possibility. You can't discount that because we assume the competitor wasn't moving, or don't know how far away the target was. You must consider every aspect.
I am most definitely not advocating treating any wall differently, whether it's a rules wall or not. I am advocating thinking about and ruling on each situation on a case by case basis. Walls are deemed to be impenetrable and to extend to the ground. No argument from me there. Most (all?) people understand that and go with it. Set up a course where a target is visible like this one and you are inviting trouble. We invite trouble all the time and consider them to be shooting challenges. Targets at 175 degrees are a fact of matches. Do we now consider a FA if a shooter breaks the 180 going for one? The same argument could be made that putting a target at such a sharp angle is inviting someone to shoot at it past 180 but the target is still legal in the rules and provides a particular challenge within the rules. Many of us consider such challenges to be a fun part of the game and a learning experience for those that haven't read and understood the rules. So, when something like this happens, you have to make a ruling. Yes. He shot at a wall (even a rules wall) and could have ONLY shot at a wall from that position. 2 Mike, 1 FTE and a recommendation by the RO to read the rules or better yes sign up for an NROI Level I course. My main point here was that he did fire shots at a target. Nothing in the rule book can take that away. If the wall have been ground to height as constructed and made of wood would he still have fired shots at a target? If it had been made of steel would he still have shot at a target? At what point do you no longer consider him firing shots at a target? Consider that if the walls had been of steel he could have shot every round on his person and never successfully hit the target. Does futility of an action have any bearing in this? I believe it should as a note of common sense when applying the rules. You have to decide where to go from there, but you have to do it by the rules. That's how I always try to operate when I work a match--most problems are simple, some, like this one, require some extra effort.
Carry on. Have a good weekend. Go shoot somewhere.
Troy
2011 GA State Championship Match
in Match Announcements - Pistol Only - USPSA, IPSC & Misc.
Posted
UGH! I swear I'm not nuts. The link that was included in my email update from the BEnos website about my subscription to the thread listed a youtube video. I'll attach it verbatim to prove my sanity (or lack there of). =]