Scott R
-
Posts
237 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Scott R
-
-
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."
-
Granted it is shotgun, but check out the 3rd stage in this set of ocurses. The off-limtis ropes are perfect for this type of course. There are several types of courses where the off-limtis areas are very suitable and not just poor course design.
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.
-
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."
-
Our range design forces us to shoot 4 stages on a shared line.
The debate between 2 CROs is the term “single location.”
I shoot Single Stack and say that a shooting location even if it is 10 feet long is a single location.
The other CRO says if you can see all the targets and move within the area to reload, it is not a single location.
Thoughts?
1.2.1.3 “Long Courses” in Level III or higher matches must not require
more than 32 rounds to complete. Course design and construction
must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single
location or view, nor allow a competitor to shoot all
thx
jon
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.
-
You are better off putting a barrel stack in the way if you want to encourage movement.
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.
-
A foot fault is all about position. This is something you can wrap your head around. It will be a penalty. It may be more than one penalty... Was the shooter closer? Did they have less of an obstructed shot? Easier position? More of the scoring surface available? These are things that you can make sense of.
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.
-
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!
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.
-
You are introducing an unknown variable (time). No wonder you can't decide if it is significant or not. Leave time out. It is about faulting. It is about the position.
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!
...
As I said earlier...
Faulting is positional.
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".
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.
-
Scott R> Did he gain an advantage by being able to start shooting before he was fully inside the shooting area? Yes. Would his faulting actions be considered a "Significant Advantage"? No.
Assessing a single procedural penalty does more than enough to negate any Hit Factor advantage that he may have gotten by firing two shots while entering the shooting position in a foot fault condition. In that light the assessment of 1 procedural is an appropriate level of penalty given the level of infraction performed.
The purpose of the Significant Advantage clause to rule 10.2.1 is to keep shooters from purposefully circumventing the stage design in a way that would invalidate the fairness of the stage. If we didn't have the Significant Advantage clause we would have shooters breaking down stages OUTSIDE of the shooting area on purpose then figuring out the Hit Factor math to include a single procedural to see if its really an advantage or not. Lets face it, not every club has the prop resources to completely game proof a stage against shooters using intentional faulting shooting positions. The Significant Advantage clause to this rule helps eliminate this from happening.
For the stage run in question, he did not gain a Hit Factor advantage large enough that would offset the already earned foot fault procedural penalty. The quarter second he gained by shooting while faulted was totally blown out of the water by getting a single procedural penalty. So why would you try to club him over the head with the rule book trying to justify a significant advantage and assess him 2 procedural penalties for each shot fired while foot faulted? Please enlighten me on what the point of doing this would be?
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.
-
Scott R> I am not using made up logic, I am using the observation of his actions in the video he posted. He started engaging the targets in question HALF a step out of what would have been the "Normal" shooting position. Half a step between his faulting shooting position and the "Normal" shooting position does NOT constitute a significant advantage. Look at this from an alternate vantage point. 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. Would you still consider this a "Significant Advantage". I would think that the answer would be a glaring "NO". Because its essentially the same general shooting position.
The point I am trying to make is that he still engaged the targets in question in the same general shooting position as every other shooter had to. He simply got to the shooting position from a different path, which is not illegal. You can get to any shooting position however you feel like. If one path to the shooting position ends up being faster than another then it is what it is. Just because a stage designer or RO didn't "Think" of that alternate path while setting up the stage does not justify penalizing a shooter with a significant advantage penalty.
Now it would have been different if he created a completely different shooting position that was not possible to perform while staying within the shooting area. For example, if the would have ran straight forward from the left side wall about 10 feet then stopped to engage the targets in question and others targets that would eliminate future shooting positions from his faulting shooting position, then kept running straight forward to reenter the shooting area. This would have been considered a significant advantage.
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.
-
His actions during that stage run are by no means representing a significant advantage. If you take his plan of navigating through the stage out of the picture the answer to this is pretty simple. The two targets he engaged while reentering the shooting area were engaged in a manner that was how much different than staying within the shooting area? The only difference is half a step at most between the "Intended" engagement location of those targets and his plan. Are you REALLY going to call half a step difference a significant advantage??? If so, that is insane. He still had to stop in the same general location to engage those targets no matter where he came from before getting there.
The only time I even think about assessing a significant advantage penalty is if a shooter is able to completely eliminate one or more shooting positions by engaging targets while foot faulting.
As I said before, if you put the shooting position in question verses fault into perspective against a "Normal" stage run its usually pretty easy to figure if its a significant advantage or not.
Just because a shooter figured out that its faster to exit the shooting area to run around a wall and reentering the shooting area at a different location has no bearing on assessing a significant advantage penalty.
In the case at hand, the shooter should have been assessed 1 procedural penalty for shooting while foot faulting.
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?
-
This presents another interesting question that I never thought about. If the timer catches the "squib" as the "last shot," the time is wrong and that can't be used as the end time.
What that means is that if the timer won't tell us the time for the last shot, then re-shoot.
And the only way to know if the timer did indeed count the squib as a "shot" is to know how many rounds were fired before the squib and see if the number is correct or is +1.
If the RO isn't sure how many shots were fired before the squib, then the only equitable thing to do is to issue a reshoot for the inability to determine score, as the time is just as important as the number of points on the stage.
Anyone disagree?
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".
-
The problem with this rule is that it is arbitrary. If someone steps one toe across a line leaning around a barricade that's not a significant advantage. If they put their whole foot outside they gain a better angle which is a significant advantage.
You (the shooter) intentionally cut across an open area in order to gain an advantage. Regardless of whether you did or not, your intent was to gain an advantage. But in the act of trying to gain an advantage you faulted. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to foot faults but not in this case. You tried to game the stage and made a mistake.
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.
-
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!
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.
-
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!
-
This is legal but a small dab of paint in the same (internal?) area is not?
-
Sarge wrote:
...As for you cheating by yelling stop I think there is a rule for that
...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.
-
I was visiting the in-laws this past weekend, and got to shoot at another USPSA match. This was the first time I had been to this club, and they have open squads.
On one of the stages I had what I thought was a squib load. It was the typical poof with a little smoke coming out of the breech. The shell didn't eject, and it didn't have enough force to come out of battery. I stopped myself. I looked back at the RO, and told him I thought I had a squib. I took the gun apart. We looked in the barrel, and it was clear. The RO said he didn't see the gun while I was shooting. The RO didn't stop me, so I didn't get a reshoot. When I stopped, and looked back the RO was standing about 10 feet directly behind me. I feel if he had actually seen the gun he would have stopped me. There's no way I was racking another round in there to continue the course. According to the rules (5.7.7.2) I would have been granted a reshoot since the gun was clear IF the RO had stopped me. Since he admitted he didn't see the gun should I have been able to reshoot? This caused me to zero the stage.
Two stages later I had to stop an Open shooter TWICE because of a squib. His barrel was not clear either time, but they let him reshoot the stage twice. Rule 5.7.7.1 says if the problem is confirmed the competitor will not be entitled to a reshoot.
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?
-
This is why I keep a pebble in my back pocket to drop through the chamber(ok not really but I've talked about it before). If you determined it was clear and he didn't stop you you could have kept going.
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'.
The open shooter should not have been given a reshoot like most would agree, but after the second squib in the same match his ammo should have been considered unsafe (If they were reloads or all from the same manufature).
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?
-
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.
-
2.1.8.5 Appearing scoring targets must be designed and constructed to
be obscured to the competitor (during the course of fire) prior to
activation.
2.1.8.5.1 Level I matches are encouraged but not required to
strictly comply with this requirement. The written stage
briefing may prohibit competitors from engaging certain
target(s) which may be visible prior to activation until
the operation of the activating mechanism has been ini-
tiated (see Rule 9.9.4).
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.
-
While there is no rule that says you can't engage before it is activated in a level 2 match, there is a rule that states it must be hidden prior to activation in a level2 match. Therefore it is an illegal stage.
Can you quote the rule(s) that makes this so?
-
Did have problems hitting birds from the high house.
Sounds like you were shooting Skeet instead of Trap?
-
So why a rule not allowing a holster to be tied down if a rule prevents movement of a holster on the belt. Seems logical that a holstered secured by a tie down would prevent such movement.
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.
. Every shooter has the 
...
Bad names for kids
in Humor
Posted · Edited by Scott R