Legal or Not?

[mhs]

That is not my argument. My position is there has to be 50 percent of the calibration zone available from somewhere on that stage. I don't think it is good stage design or bad. My position is that it is legal or it is not.

Gary

It is available, just not visible. By what seems to be your definition of available, the majority of competitors would be legally knocking down the poppers from a view from which they were not available.

[Gary Stevens]

My view as RM is different from my view as shooter. Despite the rule,as a shooter I can fill the air with bullets and hope one of them knocks down the popper. If it falls all is well.

However, as the RM I have a specified list of procedures that must be followed to calibrate a popper. The bullet must hit in specified locations or the shooter must reshoot. While the shooter in question might be very happy if I screw up his/her calibration, therefore forcing a reshoot rather than a miss, those who are in direct competition with him or her might not be so happy.

The rule was adopted so that it could be legally calibrated. It had noting to do with the way the shooter chose to shoot the course. It had everything to do with being able to legally complete the calibration process outlined in the rulebook.

Gary

[mhs]

My view as RM is different from my view as shooter. Despite the rule,as a shooter I can fill the air with bullets and hope one of them knocks down the popper. If it falls all is well.

However, as the RM I have a specified list of procedures that must be followed to calibrate a popper. The bullet must hit in specified locations or the shooter must reshoot. While the shooter in question might be very happy if I screw up his/her calibration, therefore forcing a reshoot rather than a miss, those who are in direct competition with him or her might not be so happy.

The rule was adopted so that it could be legally calibrated. It had noting to do with the way the shooter chose to shoot the course. It had everything to do with being able to legally complete the calibration process outlined in the rulebook.

Gary

That's fine, but as written the rule specifies "availability". If it means "visible" then NROI should get together and tell us that's what it means.

Until then, why not let the RM for each match use the rules as they are written and decide for himself what stage design he's comfortable with. That's his job.

[Gary Stevens]

There is a process. You can send DNROI@uspsa.org an e-mail and ask him.

It might be that there are a very small number who are confused.

[JThompson]

My view as RM is different from my view as shooter. Despite the rule,as a shooter I can fill the air with bullets and hope one of them knocks down the popper. If it falls all is well.

However, as the RM I have a specified list of procedures that must be followed to calibrate a popper. The bullet must hit in specified locations or the shooter must reshoot. While the shooter in question might be very happy if I screw up his/her calibration, therefore forcing a reshoot rather than a miss, those who are in direct competition with him or her might not be so happy.

The rule was adopted so that it could be legally calibrated. It had noting to do with the way the shooter chose to shoot the course. It had everything to do with being able to legally complete the calibration process outlined in the rulebook.

Gary

That's fine, but as written the rule specifies "availability". If it means "visible" then NROI should get together and tell us that's what it means.

Until then, why not let the RM for each match use the rules as they are written and decide for himself what stage design he's comfortable with. That's his job.

That's what they are doing right now and why it's good that we talk about it here, so it's consistent nationwide. What we strive to do is make the presentation the same no matter what club you shoot at. When we find these little inconsistencies we talk them out with our RM and then they talk among themselves and decide what should be changed if any. I love that we can speak directly to the people who are making the decisions. Most of the time, if there is a valid gripe they adjust a word or two here or there and make it more consistent.

As long as you can even see the outline of the calibration zone, you are good to go. If you can not see it, well then you have a calibration issue. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree and that's cool... it we all agreed, it would be a boring place around here and in general. I respect your thoughts on the matter whether I share them or not. I just pose questions to things that I feel could use clarification or change. I think this is one of those rules that needs a slight tweak. Esp in reference to a classifier where it should be as close to identical as possible.

Best,

JT

Edited August 14, 2010 by JThompson

[mhs]

That's what they are doing right now and why it's good that we talk about it here, so it's consistent nationwide. What we strive to do is make the presentation the same no matter what club you shoot at. When we find these little inconsistencies we talk them out with our RM and then they talk among themselves and decide what should be changed if any. I love that we can speak directly to the people who are making the decisions. Most of the time, if there is a valid gripe they adjust a word or two here or there and make it more consistent.

As long as you can even see the outline of the calibration zone, you are good to go. If you can not see it, well then you have a calibration issue. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree and that's cool... it we all agreed, it would be a boring place around here and in general. I respect your thoughts on the matter whether I share them or not. I just pose questions to things that I feel could use clarification or change. I think this is one of those rules that needs a slight tweak. Esp in reference to a classifier where it should be as close to identical as possible.

Best,

JT

Hi JT,

I meant that in reference to the original post. I agree that classifiers need to be as standardized as possible.

I think that the RM has the responsibility to allow only stages that he feels that he can manage well (including calibration). I think that it is certainly possible to design a stage with soft cover over the entire calibration area, that is still easy to make calibration shots on, and would like to leave that design option out there. The freestyle element of stage design, for those RMs willing to live with the consequences.

Mark

[Gary Stevens]

The RM has a responsibility to allow stages that are legal. No more, no less.

[mactiger]

While it's perfectly legal to put soft cover over a target, you have to be able to see the target to shoot at it. That's what "available" means for calibration, because we generally try to shoot at the lower part of the calibration circle. On a paper target, you can reference some parts of the target around or over the soft cover and guess at the scoring zones, and that's fine, because you don't have to hit a certain part of it to calibrate or test calibration on a challenge. The calibration test affects the competitor's score, and must be done equitably and consistently. Making the entire popper except for the bottom, invisible, takes away the opportunity to calibrate a popper properly. You have to be able to aim, not guess, which is why 4.3.1.5 reads the way it does.

Bottom line: the poppers shown in the original picture are not legally presented.

Sometimes, a little common sense is applicable, and arguing over the definition of "is" doesn't get anywhere.

Troy

[mhs]

While it's perfectly legal to put soft cover over a target, you have to be able to see the target to shoot at it. That's what "available" means for calibration, because we generally try to shoot at the lower part of the calibration circle. On a paper target, you can reference some parts of the target around or over the soft cover and guess at the scoring zones, and that's fine, because you don't have to hit a certain part of it to calibrate or test calibration on a challenge. The calibration test affects the competitor's score, and must be done equitably and consistently. Making the entire popper except for the bottom, invisible, takes away the opportunity to calibrate a popper properly. You have to be able to aim, not guess, which is why 4.3.1.5 reads the way it does.

Bottom line: the poppers shown in the original picture are not legally presented.

Sometimes, a little common sense is applicable, and arguing over the definition of "is" doesn't get anywhere.

Troy

What's your opinion on having soft cover that can be moved out of the way for calibration? Would a sheet of corplast slow down the bullet enough to make the calibration incorrect? How about a black garbage bag?

[Flexmoney]

So for the classifier CM99-60, if something opaque like black tarp is used as soft cover, it is an illegal stage, but if it was snow fence or camo netting then it's legal?

(The notes for the classifier didn't specify material to be used, only it's dimensions and how targets are to be presented.)

Right now it doesn't specify what type of material can be used. In my opinion, that needs to be written in. Without it you will not have consistency.

Yes, I think if you used something opaque, the stage would be illegal.

JT

It's been "something opaque" for years. I shot that classifier long before we started to see snow fence and such being used.

In fact, I think the whole point of it is that you can shoot thru it but can't see thru it.

[Flexmoney]

For calibration, if needed...I'd just stick a paster onto the softcover at my "aiming point", take my calibration shot, and then remove the paster.

[GrumpyOne]

For calibration, if needed...I'd just stick a paster onto the softcover at my "aiming point", take my calibration shot, and then remove the paster.

Now we know why you are the all knowing eye. So simple, yet no one thought of that.

[mactiger]

That's what they are doing right now and why it's good that we talk about it here, so it's consistent nationwide. What we strive to do is make the presentation the same no matter what club you shoot at. When we find these little inconsistencies we talk them out with our RM and then they talk among themselves and decide what should be changed if any. I love that we can speak directly to the people who are making the decisions. Most of the time, if there is a valid gripe they adjust a word or two here or there and make it more consistent.

As long as you can even see the outline of the calibration zone, you are good to go. If you can not see it, well then you have a calibration issue. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree and that's cool... it we all agreed, it would be a boring place around here and in general. I respect your thoughts on the matter whether I share them or not. I just pose questions to things that I feel could use clarification or change. I think this is one of those rules that needs a slight tweak. Esp in reference to a classifier where it should be as close to identical as possible.

Best,

JT

Hi JT,

I meant that in reference to the original post. I agree that classifiers need to be as standardized as possible.

I think that the RM has the responsibility to allow only stages that he feels that he can manage well (including calibration). I think that it is certainly possible to design a stage with soft cover over the entire calibration area, that is still easy to make calibration shots on, and would like to leave that design option out there. The freestyle element of stage design, for those RMs willing to live with the consequences.

Mark

The RM has the responsibility to make sure the stages are legal, and are run in accordance with the rules. The design option is there: translucent or transparent soft cover, or snow fence, or whatever else that serves as soft cover yet leaves the target visible. RM's that don't follow the rules are one of the reasons we see discussions on here, and why some matches just don't run well. We hear about a lot of them, believe me, and it makes me wonder about some "RM's" out there.

Troy

[mactiger]

For calibration, if needed...I'd just stick a paster onto the softcover at my "aiming point", take my calibration shot, and then remove the paster.

Now we know why you are the all knowing eye. So simple, yet no one thought of that.

Simple, yes. Legal, no. A spot of tape does not make the calibration zone "available" per 4.3.1.5.

Troy

[GrumpyOne]

For calibration, if needed...I'd just stick a paster onto the softcover at my "aiming point", take my calibration shot, and then remove the paster.

Now we know why you are the all knowing eye. So simple, yet no one thought of that.

Simple, yes. Legal, no. A spot of tape does not make the calibration zone "available" per 4.3.1.5.

Troy

You are missing the point. "Available" does not mean the same thing as "Visible". It states that 50% of the calibration zone must be available, not visible. Soft cover can be shot through, therefore the target is available.

1. That a minimum of 50% of the

calibration zone be available at

some point in the COF.

2. That the calibration will be done

from a point on the COF where the

calibration zone is available, closest

to where the contested shot was

fired.

[mactiger]

For calibration, if needed...I'd just stick a paster onto the softcover at my "aiming point", take my calibration shot, and then remove the paster.

Now we know why you are the all knowing eye. So simple, yet no one thought of that.

Simple, yes. Legal, no. A spot of tape does not make the calibration zone "available" per 4.3.1.5.

Troy

You are missing the point. "Available" does not mean the same thing as "Visible". It states that 50% of the calibration zone must be available, not visible. Soft cover can be shot through, therefore the target is available.

1. That a minimum of 50% of the

calibration zone be available at

some point in the COF.

2. That the calibration will be done

from a point on the COF where the

calibration zone is available, closest

to where the contested shot was

fired.

I don't think so, because you can't just consider one single rule when trying to answer this particular scenario. Also, there was a change in wording (and I don't know where it came from) between the March "updates" which used the word "visible" in 4.3.1.5 instead of "available" and the "2010 Rulebook", which for some strange reason uses "available". In the context of the entire rule book, a target must be visible to be shot at. Almost all the so-called "hard cover" we use is really not, it's simulated, and can actually be shot through. In some cases, you can see the base of a popper or a target stand under the hard cover. Would you consider a target "available" to be shot if it was set up that way?

Having said that:

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted

to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot

targets on an “as and when visible” basis. (I snipped the rest; bold is mine.)

4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft

cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which

strike a scoring target will score. Shots that have passed through

soft cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized. All scoring

zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly

intact. Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible

through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must

be visible from around or over the soft cover.

Note that this says nothing about "under", but for arguments sake, let's just ignore that.

In this scenario, you are the competitor, I'm the RM. I've allowed this particular thing to be set up: a solid sheet of coroplast covering a popper, with nothing but the bottom inch showing. You shoot 2-3 shots at where you think the popper is (remember, you can't see the top or the circle), hitting it audibly with one shot. You move on and finish the course. When the RO is scoring the stage, he calls a miss on that popper, because it's still standing. You look at it and note a hit on the edge of the circle. You ask for calibration. So, here I come, and since I can't see it, I either use the Flex method and go put a paster where I want to aim, or I have someone move the soft cover, (both methods making the target "available", right?). I shoot it dead center, bottom of the circle, and it falls like a window weight. Are you going to be happy with your miss? I think not, and neither would virtually any other shooter. I can hear the arguments: "I couldn't see it and you could". "I couldn't mark it and you could." Say it was leaning a little, although still in calibration. How would you know that, given that the only thing you could see was the bottom inch of the popper? Do you see why "available" must mean visible in this situation? And how the other rules I cited above apply here as well, which makes the original scenario an illegal setup?

That is the point, in my opinion.

Troy

[JThompson]

Troy,

A) Do you think any words need to be changed or added to what we have or do you think it's clear and concise the way it is?

B: Also, do you think in the classifier used here, we need to specify what material is used or at least that the material can not be opaque?

C) Do you have thoughts on the matter, but prefer not say?

JT

Edited August 14, 2010 by JThompson

[mhs]

Also, there was a change in wording (and I don't know where it came from) between the March "updates" which used the word "visible" in 4.3.1.5 instead of "available" and the "2010 Rulebook", which for some strange reason uses "available". Troy

Perhaps it used "visible" because it is correct, and easily understood by those who haven't had the benefit of writing the rules.

Edited August 15, 2010 by mhs

[Gary Stevens]

From the DNROI.

Gary,

4.1.4.2 states if using soft cover is being used, that a portion of the

target be visible from around or over the top of the soft cover, the

language of 4.3.1.5 of available somewhere else, has to do with the

calibration zone. Some stage designers were leaving only a small portion

of the popper available over the soft cover, thus not having the calibration

zone available in case of a challenge, so visible and available have a

different meaning between 4.1.4.2 and 4.3.1.5.

They can have a portion of the popper visible over the soft cover, but the

calibration zone must be available somewhere else in the cof for calibration

issues.

You can publish my answer if you prefer.

John

[mactiger]

Troy,

A) Do you think any words need to be changed or added to what we have or do you think it's clear and concise the way it is?

B: Also, do you think in the classifier used here, we need to specify what material is used or at least that the material can not be opaque?

C) Do you have thoughts on the matter, but prefer not say?

JT

Oh, I got plenty to say.

I think it should read visible, not available. And, it did at one point, when the BOD minutes were released, I believe, the ones with the March update. I didn't write that rule and didn't have anything to do with changing it. I've had those updates in a consolidated rulebook since they came out. But, I do think available means that you have to be able to see the calibration zone in order to shoot at it.

I don't think we need to spell out what material is used, because the rules tell you how to do it.

I think I've said what I had to say on the rest.

Troy

Edited August 15, 2010 by mactiger

[Flexmoney]

Weird.

Everybody seems to agree that "visible" and "available" mean different things.

[spanky]

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered

hard cover....

4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover....

These two lead me to believe that you can't legally use "soft cover" that you cannot see through.

Edited August 15, 2010 by spanky

[mhs]

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered

hard cover....

4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover....

These two lead me to believe that you can't legally use "soft cover" that you cannot see through.

If you read those rules in their entirety they clearly differentiate between hard and soft cover, and the last sentence of 4.1.4.2 doesn't make any sense if opaque soft cover can't be used.

[JThompson]

From the DNROI.

Gary,

4.1.4.2 states if using soft cover is being used, that a portion of the

target be visible from around or over the top of the soft cover, the

language of 4.3.1.5 of available somewhere else, has to do with the

calibration zone. Some stage designers were leaving only a small portion

of the popper available over the soft cover, thus not having the calibration

zone available in case of a challenge, so visible and available have a

different meaning between 4.1.4.2 and 4.3.1.5.

They can have a portion of the popper visible over the soft cover, but the

calibration zone must be available somewhere else in the cof for calibration

issues.

You can publish my answer if you prefer.

John

I read this a bunch of times and, for me, it doesn't clear up the issue....

How about changing this:

Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible

through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must

be visible from around or over the soft cover.

To this:

Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible

through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) calibration zone (see app B for paper targets) must

be visible from over/under, or around the soft cover at some point in the course of fire.

JT

Edited August 15, 2010 by JThompson

[Nik Habicht]

From the DNROI.

Gary,

4.1.4.2 states if using soft cover is being used, that a portion of the

target be visible from around or over the top of the soft cover, the

language of 4.3.1.5 of available somewhere else, has to do with the

calibration zone. Some stage designers were leaving only a small portion

of the popper available over the soft cover, thus not having the calibration

zone available in case of a challenge, so visible and available have a

different meaning between 4.1.4.2 and 4.3.1.5.

They can have a portion of the popper visible over the soft cover, but the

calibration zone must be available somewhere else in the cof for calibration

issues.

You can publish my answer if you prefer.

John

I read this a bunch of times and, for me, it doesn't clear up the issue....

How about changing this:

Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible

through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must

be visible from around or over the soft cover.

To this:

Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible

through the soft cover or a portion 50% of the affected target(s) calibration zone must

be visible from over/under, or around the soft cover at some point in the course of fire.

I think this makes it much more simple and easy to understand.

JT

Do paper targets have calibration zones?