Closing the "actions off the clock" loophole

[George Jones]

Well Range Master wouldn't allow that saying the target had to be obscured prior to activation.

It wasn't an appearing target (by your description). I see nothing wrong with your design.

It's unfortunate that misapplication of the rules causes consideration of more rules issues. Unfortunately, I see way too many rules applied based upon perception rather that what the rule really says.

[steel1212]

Ok so I've had a long day and I'm a little slow. George said that if you can shoot target and the activator is a pressure pad you don't get a penalty for not activating it right? If that is the case then why did Micah get one?

With that aside, and remember I'm the MD and have to proof a lot of stages that sometimes don't go the way I want them to, I say you set it up and if somebody pushes a cart to the end off the clock activating 2 drop turners or shooters a target that is partially visible from behind a barrel and not activating it then that is their choice. If I remember correctly I know of one guy that finished fairly high on the shopping cart stage by getting the 20 points on the DT and I personally thought I shot the foot pad stage pretty good for activating everything and reloading a bunch. Its a choice, if you want to take it, take it, if not then don't. If you want people to shoot what is activated, hide it so it can't be shot and isn't a disappearing target. Just my .02 and you get what you pay for :-)

[Flexmoney]

It's not a loophole....

It's a shooter option!

It is currently.

I'm not sure that is something to be proud about.

[SmittyFL]

Well Range Master wouldn't allow that saying the target had to be obscured prior to activation.

It wasn't an appearing target (by your description). I see nothing wrong with your design.

That was my point also but I guess because the word "activation" was in the rule and the target was activated He decided that the target in question was governed by this rule.

[George Jones]

It's not a loophole....

It's a shooter option!

It is currently.

I'm not sure that is something to be proud about.

What does pride have to do with this?

And whose pride is it?

[Micah]

One thing I'm getting from reading these posts (and a couple other threads) is that there was a target available to be shot without being activated. (Can someone confirm or deny that?)

Troy, below is the stage (and run) that sparked this discussion. It is the 4th stage in the video, and the target in question is the 3rd target that I engaged:

Of course the beautiful, sweet irony of it all is that I am so used to unloading and showing clear after the shooting is finished that I never activated the stomp plate, thus inuring 1 procedural per the wsb.

[mhs]

Of course the beautiful, sweet irony of it all is that I am so used to unloading and showing clear after the shooting is finished that I never activated the stomp plate, thus inuring 1 procedural per the wsb.

You're not the only one.

[mactiger]

One thing I'm getting from reading these posts (and a couple other threads) is that there was a target available to be shot without being activated. (Can someone confirm or deny that?) And, that some people shot it, then went and activated it by stepping on the activator, thereby not increasing their time for the stage. Legal actions on the part of the competitor per the current rules.

Correct. And, that is fine...per the current rules. I am suggesting the rules need changed, in this particular aspect. I pulled up a thread from half a decade ago on the same issue.

if this was a level II or higher match, that stage was not legal.

Huh? How so?

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 initiated

(see Rule 9.9.4).

Level one matches can be exempt, but it's never a good idea, IMO. Level II and above are bound by 2.1.8.5. Therefore, if the target was visible prior to activation, the stage wasn't legal (if this was a level II match).

Smitty, I understand your example, but you can hide the target horizontally and still have it wide open for shooting at once it's activated. The RM was correct in his call.

Troy

[George Jones]

Are you saying that the WSB specifically called for a procedural for not stepping on the plate?

And this was a Level II match?

[Flexmoney]

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.

Ah...there is the point of confusion. It wasn't an "appearing target"...as it wasn't hidden (perhaps that was the original intent, but it didn't make it to ground).

It was just a "moving target"...with the movement actuated by a stomp plate.

[JThompson]

Of course the beautiful, sweet irony of it all is that I am so used to unloading and showing clear after the shooting is finished that I never activated the stomp plate, thus inuring 1 procedural per the wsb.

You're not the only one.

Did they write that into the WSB?

[sperman]

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.

Ah...there is the point of confusion. It wasn't an "appearing target"...as it wasn't hidden (perhaps that was the original intent, but it didn't make it to ground).

It was just a "moving target"...with the movement actuated by a stomp plate.

Flex,

If you and George are reading the rule correctly, why is it in the rule book in the first place?

If I understand your (circular) logic correctly: a target is only appearing if it can't be seen prior to activiation, and any target that can be seen prior to activation is therefore not an appearing target.

It seems to me that 2.1.8.5 was written to avoid exactly the kind of confusion that we have going on here. If the target were obscured before activation, this thread wouldn't exist.

[twodownzero]

Of course the beautiful, sweet irony of it all is that I am so used to unloading and showing clear after the shooting is finished that I never activated the stomp plate, thus inuring 1 procedural per the wsb.

You're not the only one.

Did they write that into the WSB?

Yes. Something to the effect of, "All foot pads must be activated."

[Nik Habicht]

I am as much of a gamer as anybody, but I can't even begin to make any kind of serious argument that this is the type of gaming we want to "test".

I can. It allows someone to trade time for the ability to make a harder shot. If that's not freestyle -- finding the way to shoot the stage that results in the best possible score for you --- I don't know what is.....

Every shooter has the same opportunity at the stage. Every shooter needs to decide where the tradeoff falls. It's simply not a problem.....

Closing this loophole will hurt accurate C and D class competitors, as well as anyone who's not that fleet of foot, but can put a couple of good shots together. Closing this loophole doesn't do anything to help better shooters...

[mactiger]

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.

Ah...there is the point of confusion. It wasn't an "appearing target"...as it wasn't hidden (perhaps that was the original intent, but it didn't make it to ground).

It was just a "moving target"...with the movement actuated by a stomp plate.

You can't be serious. You've been arguing this "loophole" all along and now you're going to call it a "moving" target?

The rule book addresses them pretty interchangeably:

9.9 Scoring of Moving Targets

9.9.1 Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest

scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designed

movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always

incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule

9.2.4.4).

9.9.2 Moving scoring targets, which do not comply with the above criteria

are considered disappearing targets and will not incur failure to shoot

at or miss penalties except where Rule 9.9.3 applies.

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss

penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates

the target movement.

9.9.4 Level I matches only - If the written stage briefing prohibits the

engagement of certain targets prior to activation, the competitor will

incur one procedural penalty per shot fired at such targets prior to operating

the activating mechanism, up to the maximum number of available

hits (see Rule 2.1.8.5.1).

And, see 2.1.8.5, as previously stated.

We can say that we can't argue course designer's intent, but it's pretty clear to me that that target was intended to be hidden until activated. That didn't happen, which left a hole in your course big enough to drive a big ol' freestyle truck through, and now it's supposed to be a rules issue?

I give up.

Troy

[staudacher]

It's not a rules problem. It's a stage design WSB problem.

It is both.

The two need to mesh up. They don't.

And, frankly...once the stage is on the ground and running...it doesn't matter. It is then a rules problem, for sure.

It's FUBAR...has been for years...lets fix the damn thing.

Explain it to me --- why is it a problem if I choose to take harder shots, to potentially gain a time advantage? What's not freestyle about that? Why would you want to change it? Where's the problem?

The problem is that a couple people have decided the game should only be played the way they see fit.

[JThompson]

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.

Ah...there is the point of confusion. It wasn't an "appearing target"...as it wasn't hidden (perhaps that was the original intent, but it didn't make it to ground).

It was just a "moving target"...with the movement actuated by a stomp plate.

Flex,

If you and George are reading the rule correctly, why is it in the rule book in the first place?

If I understand your (circular) logic correctly: a target is only appearing if it can't be seen prior to activiation, and any target that can be seen prior to activation is therefore not an appearing target.

It seems to me that 2.1.8.5 was written to avoid exactly the kind of confusion that we have going on here. If the target were obscured before activation, this thread wouldn't exist.

What is "obscured?" Why "not visible" to me, obscured doesn't mean not visible, only hard to see as in: 4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft

cover. Now I'm not bringing this rule in for any reason other than to backup my claim that "obscure" is not the same as "not visible" even if that is the intent.

JT

Edited July 27, 2010 by JThompson

[twodownzero]

We can say that we can't argue course designer's intent, but it's pretty clear to me that that target was intended to be hidden until activated. That didn't happen, which left a hole in your course big enough to drive a big ol' freestyle truck through, and now it's supposed to be a rules issue?

1. It was never the intent to obscure the target before it was activated (to my knowledge).

2. The target was not obscured totally before it was activated.

3. The stage procedure required hitting all of the foot pads.

The proposed rule change would require (3) to be done "on the clock," I presume, removing a loophole that allows a competitor to increase his score during a time when he would be prohibited from firing a shot.

[George Jones]

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.

Ah...there is the point of confusion. It wasn't an "appearing target"...as it wasn't hidden (perhaps that was the original intent, but it didn't make it to ground).

It was just a "moving target"...with the movement actuated by a stomp plate.

Flex,

If you and George are reading the rule correctly, why is it in the rule book in the first place?

If I understand your (circular) logic correctly: a target is only appearing if it can't be seen prior to activiation, and any target that can be seen prior to activation is therefore not an appearing target.

It seems to me that 2.1.8.5 was written to avoid exactly the kind of confusion that we have going on here. If the target were obscured before activation, this thread wouldn't exist.

I can give you some insight.

Prior to the creation of 2.1.8.5, it was quite common to see "visible" hidden targets at Level I matches, usually due to build-up oversight or lack of adequate props. When we were working on that rulebook, I promoted some rules changes to help local matches (many of which are short on props and workers) build stages without the requirements for all those things they may not have.

So, in order to have 2.1.8.5.1 (which allows a Level I to say "you can't shoot it until it's activated" (because we didn't have enough walls), it was necessary to define exactly what would be exempted. Therefore 2.1.8.5 was written defining "appearing" targets - then Level I was exempted.

It's possible it could have been written more clearly and avoided the occasional confusion between "appearing", "disappearing", and "moving" targets.

In the context of this thread, the original target in question was partially visible, therefore it could be engaged without stepping on the pad (shooter option). Having a penalty in the WSB requiring stepping on the pads is (IMO) an improper requirement. Shooting the targets and scoring points should be all the incentive the shooter needs.

[ima45dv8]

"...it's pretty clear to me that that target was intended to be hidden until activated."

1. It was never the intent to obscure the target before it was activated (to my knowledge).

This is an important point and isn't resolved based solely on what was or wasn't "...to your knowledge". Unless you designed and built the stage and can comment definitively on the matter of whether the target was intended to be available before activation, we still don't know for certain.

No...wait. I think we do know.

Jim Thompsom stated in post #26 that it was meant to be obscured but the necessary props to do so weren't available because every available prop had been used. Sounds like it was meant to be an appearing target and should have been covered from view prior to activation.

================

*In the interest of full disclosure, I came up with the plan that gamed up Flex's stage at OH State a couple years ago. I talked to the RM about my intentions and he couldn't find a problem with it (although he wasn't too happy about that). I shot the stage except for two 'disappearing' drop-turners. I then holstered, walked back uprange, got the shopping cart and strolled downstage to activate the DT's. All off the clock. I then unloaded and showed clear for the RO. No points gained from the targets, but time invested in them and no penalties for failing to activate them, either.

Today, if I saw it before the match, I'd bring it to the match staff's attention and recommend a fix. If I discovered it later in the match, I'd exploit the Hell out of the opportunity!

[staudacher]

This is a hobby. Why do some wish to rule it to death???

IMO there is no loophole. It is up to the shooter to determine how he wants to shoot a stage. There should be minimal rules for safety and a minimal outline of the basics nothing more.

Part of the game is to take those rules and plan your strategy within those rules. The rules should not dictate a shooters strategy. If for example Micah wants to activate the target after he shoots it that should be entirely up to him. Everyone else also has the same option. Personally I activated it then shot it. Was I at a disadvantage to Micah or anyone else that shot it in a similar manner?? Maybe, maybe not. In this example Micah could have shot that stage wearing a blindfold with his right hand taped to his butt and he probably still would have beat me. The point is it doesn’t bother me one bit. I am there to have a good time. To me learning how to “game” a stage is part of the challenge. Take all that away because someone wants to dictate every action through rules, rules and more rules and you will kill this sport.

[JThompson]

We can say that we can't argue course designer's intent, but it's pretty clear to me that that target was intended to be hidden until activated. That didn't happen, which left a hole in your course big enough to drive a big ol' freestyle truck through, and now it's supposed to be a rules issue?

1. It was never the intent to obscure the target before it was activated (to my knowledge).

2. The target was not obscured totally before it was activated.

3. The stage procedure required hitting all of the foot pads.

The proposed rule change would require (3) to be done "on the clock," I presume, removing a loophole that allows a competitor to increase his score during a time when he would be prohibited from firing a shot.

I think the design was meant to be not visible until activated and that's how it would have been had the targets been fastened in the prop so they didn't get jarred over to the side. There was excess space in the target carrier and this left room for the paper to move. When that happened the target became shootable before activation. It wasn't so much of a course design problem as a prep issue, but the result was the same. A COF that was not what was intended.

[twodownzero]

We can say that we can't argue course designer's intent, but it's pretty clear to me that that target was intended to be hidden until activated. That didn't happen, which left a hole in your course big enough to drive a big ol' freestyle truck through, and now it's supposed to be a rules issue?

1. It was never the intent to obscure the target before it was activated (to my knowledge).

2. The target was not obscured totally before it was activated.

3. The stage procedure required hitting all of the foot pads.

The proposed rule change would require (3) to be done "on the clock," I presume, removing a loophole that allows a competitor to increase his score during a time when he would be prohibited from firing a shot.

I think the design was meant to be not visible until activated and that's how it would have been had the targets been fastened in the prop so they didn't get jarred over to the side. There was excess space in the target carrier and this left room for the paper to move. When that happened the target became shootable before activation. It wasn't so much of a course design problem as a prep issue, but the result was the same. A COF that was not what was intended.

That's not true, Jim.

The targets and barrels were staked down. The extra room on the tip outs was shimmed out to force the targets toward the barrel. No competitor got any additional view at the target, to my knowledge. We did our best to assure that the stage was shot the same for everybody.

Edited July 27, 2010 by twodownzero

[JThompson]

"...it's pretty clear to me that that target was intended to be hidden until activated."

1. It was never the intent to obscure the target before it was activated (to my knowledge).

This is an important point and isn't resolved based solely on what was or wasn't "...to your knowledge". Unless you designed and built the stage and can comment definitively on the matter of whether the target was intended to be available before activation, we still don't know for certain.

No...wait. I think we do know.

Jim Thompsom stated in post #26 that it was meant to be obscured but the necessary props to do so weren't available because every available prop had been used. Sounds like it was meant to be an appearing target and should have been covered from view prior to activation.

================

*In the interest of full disclosure, I came up with the plan that gamed up Flex's stage at OH State a couple years ago. I talked to the RM about my intentions and he couldn't find a problem with it (although he wasn't too happy about that). I shot the stage except for two 'disappearing' drop-turners. I then holstered, walked back uprange, got the shopping cart and strolled downstage to activate the DT's. All off the clock. I then unloaded and showed clear for the RO. No points gained from the targets, but time invested in them and no penalties for failing to activate them, either.

Today, if I saw it before the match, I'd bring it to the match staff's attention and recommend a fix. If I discovered it later in the match, I'd exploit the Hell out of the opportunity!

I didn't design or build most of the stage... The deal was there were two tip outs that had no way to reduce the travel.... they would tip all the way out and hit the ground. The RM wanted them to impact the berm, so me and some of the guys designed a way to make that happen. We then grabbed a target and put it on each tip-out one after the other and checked to see how it looked. We pushed the barrels around until there was virtually no shot there. You might be able to wing a d but it damn sure wasn't going to be faster than activating the target. Now, at some point between when we nailed everything down and midway through the staff shoot the RM and I arrived dropping off water or something and we both noticed that they where not as intended. The only thing I can think is that when the targets hit the blocks we made to stop the travel, it knocked the targets over some. Should this have happened? Well, no and I'm as responsible as anyone because I helped set it up and I didn't think about it at the time. I could have relayed the info to the ROs who were there and the RM. What we should have done was reinforce the sticks by crossing a pair in an X shape over the vertical sticks. This would have both kept them in place and prevented them from distorting the paper target. Shit happens, you get to the end of the day after a foot of rain and sweating all day and shit gets missed.

There will always be stuff like this that happens, what I try and do is keep is the same from that point on. In this case, aside from throwing the stage out, it was handled the best way possible. I'm sure some will not agree, but once you have to many to reshoot, you either throw it out or shoot the damn thing as is. Nobody arbed it so it's all moot now. In hind site, as much as I hate to have a NS target, in front we should have dropped one on each side and let the ROs sort out the shoot through.

I do not agree with a WSB that says you "have to activate" the foot pads and assigning a procedural to that offense.

Here's a bit that nobody including all the range lawyers (340) and 4 RMs missed at the A5. Stage 10 was illegal. Again there was a mad ass rush to get stuff done and we all missed it. I actually saw it and then forgot to fix it. There was a little popper off to the left that was half blocked by a piece of hard cover. That target was not legit in that it was about six inches behind the wall. The only place you could see that target was to shoot it under that wall. Since all walls go from the ground to infinite, there was no legal way to engage that target. I remembered that it was that way when watching the ROs shoot it and brought it to my RM and another RM whom I both admire and trust. We all kind of sat there wondering if someone would arb it. If I was on that arb committee I would have tossed it. The fact is the stage was not legal, but it was the same for everyone and nobody caught it. It should be noted that both the setup crew along with the RM were setting up the match untilk dark the night before, but the bottom line is that some of the best eyes in the business missed it. There will always be stuff like that getting missed. So do we throw out a good stage because of a flaw that is only a flaw to keep people from engaging targets from under walls when not intended to do so? As much as I like a good rules debate, sometimes we get to the point we are trying to determine how many pixies will fit on a pin......

JT

Edited July 27, 2010 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

"...it's pretty clear to me that that target was intended to be hidden until activated."

1. It was never the intent to obscure the target before it was activated (to my knowledge).

This is an important point and isn't resolved based solely on what was or wasn't "...to your knowledge". Unless you designed and built the stage and can comment definitively on the matter of whether the target was intended to be available before activation, we still don't know for certain.

No...wait. I think we do know.

Resolving "intent"...either way..isn't really relevant.

What we have, once the stage is on the ground and running, is the rules to work with.

This rule requires the target to be activated, but allows that to happen off the clock.