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

Scott R

Classifieds
  • Posts

    237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Scott R

  1. The proof In Austin Texas... Dr. Richard Chopp, M.D. is board certified by the American Board of Urology and joined The Urology Team in 1983.
  2. Where do the rules address the first shot for Production division other than the following? In APPENDIX D4 "Special conditions: — Handguns with external hammers must be fully decocked at the start signal."
  3. Maybe I am just missing it, but in that stage what do the "off-limits ropes" accomplish that fault lines would not? Besides maybe it is a little easier/quicker to lay out ropes than fault lines.
  4. I am guessing you are under I.P.S.C. rules. Here is a link to the I.P.S.C. rule book.... http://www.ipsc.org/pdf/RulesHandgun.pdf , which says this in the "APPENDIX D2: Standard Division" "8. Maximum magazine length Yes, see below" "14. A handgun in its ready condition (see Section 8.1), but unloaded and with an empty magazine inserted or empty cylinder closed, must fit wholly within the confines of a box which has internal dimensions of 225mm x 150mm x 45mm (tolerance of +1 mm, -0 mm). Note that all magazines must comply. 15. The handgun is placed inside the box with the barrel parallel to the longest side of the box. Rear adjustable sights may be slightly depressed, but all other features of the handgun, (e.g. collapsible and/or folding sights, slide rackers, thumb rests, grips etc.), must be fully extended or deployed. Additionally, telescoping magazines and/or magazines with spring-loaded bases or base pads are expressly prohibited."
  5. The rule book gives us this... "Location . . . . . . . . . . . . .A geographical place within a course of fire." I would argue that if you moved your feet to get there you are now in a different location. While you didn't fully describe the stage, keep in mind that if it is a "Long Course" and you can engage all of the targets in that stage from one position that the stage is not legal anyway.
  6. Or a fixed steel hard cover? Steel hard cover must be at least 23' from the location of shooting (Rule 2.1.3). That requirement makes it pretty difficult to induce movement on a plate rack. Not really, 23' is roughly 8 yards. Set the plate rack at 12-15 yards and there will be enough seperation to force movement.
  7. So while crossing from one part of a legal shooting area to another he could have fired all four shots on those 2 targets prior to being back in a legal shooting area, and as long as the answer is no to the 4 questions you posed he only gets 1 penalty? Or better yet had there been 4 targets and he fired 8 shots while crossing outside of the fault lines, as long as he is not closer, have less of an obstructed shot, easier position, or more of the scoring surface available....still one penalty? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that outcome being appropriate.
  8. LOL Back at ya brother. However, I did still have to brakes, change direction, and accelerate- that was happening whether it was 1/4 second later or not. Was the advantage significant? Did I really get over on the stage by those errant shots beign a little soon? "Was the advantage significant?"... and there is the delima, with the way the rules are currently written it is entirely too subjective. So a shooter fires one shot prior to being completely in, you fired two, the next guy three, and then four. At some point it becomes worth eating 10 points and probably "significant". That point is going to vary with more than just stage design as the shooters physical ability and shooting skills come into play as it affects hit factor. In my opinion it is not possible for the term "significant" to be applied consistently and therefore should be changed to a per shot penalty, maybe harsh in some instances but much easier to apply consistently. I understand my friend. But that's theoretical discussion. I'm asking specifically if 1' further away and a sub-second difference can be considered significant. I submit that if you can't just say yes in this situation, then it's not. Arguments about how it might be in other situationals are actually irrelevent. Sorry if my post included "theoretical discussion", but it was only to point out why I believe the term "significant" should not be in the rule book. To address this... "I'm asking specifically if 1' further away and a sub-second difference can be considered significant. I submit that if you can't just say yes in this situation, then it's not." I will say that in my opinion every shot fired while approaching (but not yet in) a legal shooting area should be individually penalized as each shot gained a significant advantage on that target due to not having to shoot it after being completely in, thus saving time. And in my opinion in the case of approaching a shooting area the amount of distance or time does not matter as it cannot be accurately measured or compared to whatever significant means.
  9. As I said earlier... Flex, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say "It is about faulting. It is about the position." as it applies to whether or not the actions in the scenario as described deserve a per shot penalty or not? "The folks that are trying to add in some other element are adding in the very thing they don't like...the arbitrariness of "significant"." I don't see myself as adding elements but as assessing all of the elements of the foot faults that took place and trying to determine if there was a significant advantage. Please note that my previous mention of the amount of time was to question a previous poster that if a quarter of second wasn't a significant advantage then how much would it take to be? In fact in the same post I went on to say this... " I can't help but go back to this sentence of the rule "However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting." and suggest that he did gain a significant advantage on the first target he shot as both shots were fired prior to him being in a legal shooting area." I'll try to give a couple of hypothetical examples that might explain what I meant by including time as a factor. A section of a stage has a gap between legal shooting areas. The direction of travel is directly down range and the gap is 15 feet. There is an array of 3 open targets straight down range another 10 yards further. Shooter A runs across the gap, enters the shooting area and fires all 6 shots with his left foot touching the ground just outside a fault line to his left. My thought process goes like this... Position advantage by faulting: none. Distance to target advantage by faulting: none. Time saved advantage: some due to not taking the time to be more deliberate with foot placement, but not a significant advantage. My ruling 1 procedural penalty for the occurance of faulting. Shooter B runs across the gap and begins firing as he crosses the gap. I count 4 shots prior to him being back in the shooting area. My thought process goes like this... Position advantage by faulting: none, the targets are still directly in front of him. Distance to target advantage by faulting: none, infact the targets are futher away from him. Time saved advantage: Yes, by shooting prior to entering the shooting area he saved time and in my opinion this is a significant advantage due to each shot saving more time, earning him a per shot penalty. In my opinion the difference is the time saved by Shooter A(by not being more deliberate with foot placement)is not relative to the number of shots while faulting while with Shooter B the time saved is relative to the number of shots fired while faulting.
  10. You say one penalty is enough because he only saved .25 sec, I say he saved much more than that (Had he waited until he was in the shooting area to start shooting he may have had to come to a complete stop to fire the 4 shots instead of continuing movement with only 2 shots to be completed). How much time saved?... Who knows? Nor should an RO have to do the HF math to determine if 1 penalty is enough. Had he fired the third shot while still out, then significant enough to get per shot?... I know, HF math again! I can't help but go back to this sentence of the rule "However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting." and suggest that he did gain a significant advantage on the first target he shot as both shots were fired prior to him being in a legal shooting area. We may never agree on this and thats cool, I am only explaining why I might call it the way I've indicated. This thread should also serve as an example of why the wording of the rule should be changed. I don't really care which way for it to be changed as long as it can be applied in a non subjective fashion.
  11. All I am suggesting of your logic is that if used there is no clear point that it becomes a significant advantage. I have no issue with the path that he took. In fact the OP has shot with me enough (and on stages that I have designed) that I am sure he would tell you himself that I don't care how you get from one part of the legal shooting area to another. "Lets say a shooter ran up to the shooting position the "Normal" way going between the walls, then took half a step to the left putting their left foot outside the shooting area then fired two shots before realizing the foot fault and moving their foot back into the shooting area." In this I agree with 1 penalty as he did not gain an advantage of position, distance or time. Understand when I say "distance" I mean of the shot not of the path traveled by the shooter. In the scenario presented by Steve I feel that every shot fired prior to being in the legal shooting area had the advantage of time and each shot should be penalized.
  12. So using your logic he could have got off all 4 shots prior to being in the shooting area and still get 1 procedural penalty as long as he still enters in the same place not eliminating a position?
  13. Scott R

    Squib?

    No. You've nailed it..... In order for the score to stand, the RO must be certain of an accurate time for the last shot fired.... Why does the RO have to prove the number of shots? The RO goes back one recorded time from the last. Squibs are loud enough to be heard by the timer. If the RO isn't looking at the timer when the last shot is fired -- or seeing the numbers flip in his peripheral vision -- he is guessing that the time displayed coincides with the last shot or squib..... That goes for any stage.... Glad we can finally agree on something! My new policy is going to be to issue reshoots for any squib unless I know exactly the number of shots fired before the "stop" command. It seems there's no way around it. That is an interesting way to handle it. So I am having trouble on a stage and have fired multiple make up shots while hosing my way through a stage and I reach the end, you announce a time, I ask if you are sure that was the last shot... Now what? I don't know how many shots I've fired, most likely no one does. Do I get a reshoot based on you not knowing exactly how many shots I have fired? I would suggest that a better way would be to match up the time stamps of the last few shots on the timer with what you remember of the last couple of targets engaged. I have done that when I thought a piece of brass hitting the timer caused an erroneous time stamp. In most cases it is easy enough to determine if there is something on the timer other than a "shot".
  14. What is arbitrary about your example of the barricade --Nothing, excellent example. By your second example, your applying the "I'm pissed cos I did not think of that" penalty . Every shooter has the intent to gain an advantage on every stage they shoot. All the actions of the shooter were legal and by the book until he foot faulted. Did his foot fault give that shooting position a significant advantage---No. You can't be lenient when it comes to scoring and your choosing when to be lenient on not? How is that fair? . You follow the rules. "Did his foot fault give that shooting position a significant advantage---No." I don't think the shooting position is what is in question here but the fact that the shots were fired before being in the shooting area. In fact after reading this again... 10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line, or who gains support or stability through contact with an object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or Fault Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting , the competitor may instead be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting. I would apply that as he did gain a significant advantage on that one target by shooting it prior to being in a legal shooting area, thus saving time. Had he been faulting the line in any other fashion that did not gain an advantage of position, distance or time then probably one penalty no matter how many shots.
  15. LOL Back at ya brother. However, I did still have to brakes, change direction, and accelerate- that was happening whether it was 1/4 second later or not. Was the advantage significant? Did I really get over on the stage by those errant shots beign a little soon? "Was the advantage significant?"... and there is the delima, with the way the rules are currently written it is entirely too subjective. So a shooter fires one shot prior to being completely in, you fired two, the next guy three, and then four. At some point it becomes worth eating 10 points and probably "significant". That point is going to vary with more than just stage design as the shooters physical ability and shooting skills come into play as it affects hit factor. In my opinion it is not possible for the term "significant" to be applied consistently and therefore should be changed to a per shot penalty, maybe harsh in some instances but much easier to apply consistently.
  16. While I was not there to see the stage or watch you shoot while faulting, I can see where it could be argued that not only did you save the time by shooting early but you also gained an advantage by having fewer shots to fire once completely in the shooting area thus not having to put on the brakes and then re-accellerate after completing the required shots. I probably would have given you 1 per.... Love you Steve!
  17. This is legal but a small dab of paint in the same (internal?) area is not?
  18. Scott R

    Squibs

    which one would that be? If as an RO I was convinced that is what was going on this is the rule I would cite.... 10.6.1 Competitors will be disqualified from a match for conduct which a Range Officer deems to be unsportsmanlike. Examples of unsportsmanlike conduct include, but are not limited to, cheating, dishonesty, failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official, or any behavior likely to bring the sport into disrepute. The Range Master must be notified as soon as possible.
  19. Ok, so now that I have gone back and read this...you were the RO why not score the stage as shot when you stopped him and confirmed the squib?
  20. Ha! I'll have to remember that. I asked if the timer was still running after I put it back together and he said 'no'. I was thinking the same thing. I handed the timer to another person before he shot the stage for the third time. You were running the timer (RO) ? Who gave hime the reshoot if you were the RO?
  21. Welded steel beads or anything other than a near perfect flat surface at 5 yards you will get splatter back to the shooter/SO, especially with hits near the bead.
  22. Couldn't it be argued that a moving target set where a portion of it is visible prior to activation is not in fact an "Appearing Target". Or let me ask it this way, what attributes must a target have for 2.1.8.5 to apply to it? Are you not allowed to set a swinger without anything hiding it in it's pre-activated position, or partially hiding it. Must a swinger always be an appearing target (obscured prior to activation)? Note: I am asking this as it pertains to level II and above.
  23. Can you quote the rule(s) that makes this so?
  24. Sounds like you were shooting Skeet instead of Trap?
  25. What rule are you talking about? The "tie-down" rig talked about in this rule... "5.2.7.1 A shoulder holster or “tie-down” rig (visible or otherwise), except as specified in Rule 5.2.8".....has nothing to do with a holster that is worn on the belt.
×
×
  • Create New...