10.4.2 A shot which strikes the ground...

[wide45]

More pertinent to fault lines, I've never encountered one, including forward limit lines for the safe shooting of steel, that were considered violated by any part of the body hovering over or beyond such. It's only if there is contact beyond the line when the shot breaks that a violation has occurred, no? Wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't that also apply the the OP's example of the foot on the fault line? Seems to me that the closest point of contact to the bullet impact is the near edge of the fault line.

In this case the fault line is in no way relevant to the violation. There is no reason to use it for any measurement to determine the distance.

[Singlestack]

Thats my position as well Kevin.

[Singlestack]

More pertinent to fault lines, I've never encountered one, including forward limit lines for the safe shooting of steel, that were considered violated by any part of the body hovering over or beyond such. It's only if there is contact beyond the line when the shot breaks that a violation has occurred, no? Wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't that also apply the the OP's example of the foot on the fault line? Seems to me that the closest point of contact to the bullet impact is the near edge of the fault line.

In this case the fault line is in no way relevant to the violation. There is no reason to use it for any measurement to determine the distance.

It is if the shooters foot is on it.

[Nik Habicht]

More pertinent to fault lines, I've never encountered one, including forward limit lines for the safe shooting of steel, that were considered violated by any part of the body hovering over or beyond such. It's only if there is contact beyond the line when the shot breaks that a violation has occurred, no? Wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't that also apply the the OP's example of the foot on the fault line? Seems to me that the closest point of contact to the bullet impact is the near edge of the fault line.

In this case the fault line is in no way relevant to the violation. There is no reason to use it for any measurement to determine the distance.

It is if the shooters foot is on it.

Not if a portion of the shooter's foot is overhanging the faultline. It's simple geometry -- the closest point on the shooter's body to the point of bullet impact on the ground, will always be the portion in contact with or closest to the ground.

Arms hanging over don't matter -- they'll virtually always be farther away than the feet, if the shooter is standing.

[spanky]

And here I thought I'd make this silly ole thread with a cut & dry answer.

[kevin c]

Well, I was trying to generalize from violating fault lines (your foot can be over but isn't in violation if not touched down). I guess that's a bit too general. And now I'm remembering language in the rules (at least in an older version which I confess was the last I read cover to cover) that, in the case of nearest safe approach to steel, there was a recommendation that the line to be faulted be some distance behind the defined safe minimum distance, so a shot made just over the fault line would still be safe. Sort of implies an absolute inviolable minimum safe distance.

I can see that where you can argue that a foot on and over a fault line is as close to POI as the toe (if you happen to be looking at the foot when the shot breaks). How about the gun hand and gun? Nearly always, unless firing from a retention position, the gun and firing hand are going to be nearest parts of the shooter to the bullet impact. I'd worry, though, about just how subjective that would be, since you can't freeze frame the shooter's hand and measure to POI (gotta ULASC).

[Nik Habicht]

I can see that where you can argue that a foot on and over a fault line is as close to POI as the toe (if you happen to be looking at the foot when the shot breaks). How about the gun hand and gun? Nearly always, unless firing from a retention position, the gun and firing hand are going to be nearest parts of the shooter to the bullet impact. I'd worry, though, about just how subjective that would be, since you can't freeze frame the shooter's hand and measure to POI (gotta ULASC).

Remember the Pythagorean Theorem? There's virtually no way that the hands would be closer to the impact point than the foot, due to the difference in elevation.....

Draw the triangle....

[kevin c]

But my triangle is not a right triangle, Nik, with the hands directly over the feet, the right angle at my feet, and the hypotenuse being the distance from my hands to the POI. To do what I think you're describing, I'd have to lean my shoulders way back of my hips, or have the gun pulled into my chest.

My triangle has an acute, not a right, angle, at the vertex at the toes, and likely an obtuse angle at the vertex at the hands, because I'm leaning forward, thrusting the gun out in front of me. I just dropped an object from my hands while in my normal shooting stance, and it landed 20" forward of my front foot. I'm only 5-8, with short arms. A six footer's drop would be a lot closer to the POI still.

I submit that your hands can, and likely will be, closer to the POI than the feet, under most typical shooting circumstances.

[Nik Habicht]

But my triangle is not a right triangle, Nik, with the hands directly over the feet, the right angle at my feet, and the hypotenuse being the distance from my hands to the POI. To do what I think you're describing, I'd have to lean my shoulders way back of my hips, or have the gun pulled into my chest.

My triangle has an acute, not a right, angle, at the vertex at the toes, and likely an obtuse angle at the vertex at the hands, because I'm leaning forward, thrusting the gun out in front of me. I just dropped an object from my hands while in my normal shooting stance, and it landed 20" forward of my front foot. I'm only 5-8, with short arms. A six footer's drop would be a lot closer to the POI still.

I submit that your hands can, and likely will be, closer to the POI than the feet, under most typical shooting circumstances.

The math doesn't support it. You are looking at a straight, or nearly straight, if fault line is involved, line from impact to foot, right? Now, my hands are ~ 20 inches forward of my torso -- and in my worst stance my left foot is maybe 8 inches forward of my torso. So you draw a right triangle from impact point to the hands, down to the ground and back to the impact point, and I'll submit that due to the change in height -- 4.5 feet at minimum for a standing shooter? -- the distance to the foot will virtually always be shorter.

[JAFO]

But my triangle is not a right triangle, Nik, with the hands directly over the feet, the right angle at my feet, and the hypotenuse being the distance from my hands to the POI. To do what I think you're describing, I'd have to lean my shoulders way back of my hips, or have the gun pulled into my chest.

My triangle has an acute, not a right, angle, at the vertex at the toes, and likely an obtuse angle at the vertex at the hands, because I'm leaning forward, thrusting the gun out in front of me. I just dropped an object from my hands while in my normal shooting stance, and it landed 20" forward of my front foot. I'm only 5-8, with short arms. A six footer's drop would be a lot closer to the POI still.

I submit that your hands can, and likely will be, closer to the POI than the feet, under most typical shooting circumstances.

The math doesn't support it. You are looking at a straight, or nearly straight, if fault line is involved, line from impact to foot, right? Now, my hands are ~ 20 inches forward of my torso -- and in my worst stance my left foot is maybe 8 inches forward of my torso. So you draw a right triangle from impact point to the hands, down to the ground and back to the impact point, and I'll submit that due to the change in height -- 4.5 feet at minimum for a standing shooter? -- the distance to the foot will virtually always be shorter.

Respectfully, I think the math does support it. Let's say kevin's hands are, as he said, 20" forward of his body. Let's also estimate that his hands in the firing position are ~12" lower than his overall height of 5'8", or ~4'8" off the ground. If he's standing with his feet 10' from a hypothetical POI on the ground, and you drop a vertical line from his outstretched hands to the ground, it would contact the ground 8'4" (100") from the POI, and would be 4'8" (56") long. Making a right triangle with that:

A^2 + B^2 = C^2

100"^2 + 56"^2 = C^2

C = 114.6" from his hands to the POI

So roughly 6" less than the 120" from his feet to the POI, unless my math is wrong. However, you're very unlikely to have been in a fully outstretched firing stance if you hit the ground 10' in front of you, right? More than likely the trigger was pulled before you got to full extention and you have the problem others have mentioned of approximating the hand position after Stop, ULSC. Marking the position of the feet would seem more reproducible.

As far as the fault line goes for the OP, I still maintain that I'd use the toes. The fault line shouldn't really matter. If this happened well inside a large shooting box, you'll have to estimate where the feet were with no convenient visible reference, anyway. Why handle it differently because there's a fault line there?

[mgood]

If your hands are (hypothetically) 60 inches above and 20 inches foreward of your toes, and you shoot the ground 10 feet (120 inches) from your toes, then your hands were a few inches less than ten feet from the impact.

I don't know how likely this is, or if there's any real reason not to just measure from the closest part of the closest foot.

Edited December 14, 2010 by mgood

[murkish]

Lovin' this thread with the geometry and the theorems and the proofs and the drawings...just outstanding!

Well done, Spanky!

Jack

edited to correct spelling

Edited December 14, 2010 by murkish

[spanky]

I do what I can.

[mactiger]

Well, if I'm the RM, we're gonna measure from your feet or foot, whichever is closest to the bullet impact, and forget all that triggeronomy.

Troy

[spanky]

Zing.

Edited December 15, 2010 by spanky

[mgood]

Well, if I'm the RM, we're gonna measure from your feet or foot, whichever is closest to the bullet impact, and forget all that triggeronomy.

I'm not even an RO, though I have played one a couple times when the real RO was the shooter, but this seems like the way to go. Measure to the feet. If it's close enough that the difference between the distance to the hand and the distance to the feet even matters, then it's going to cause a lot of debate about where the hand really was. If the foot closest to the impact was just outside ten feet, and the hand might have been an inch or two inside ten feet, I'd be inclined to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. (Unless you're shooting from some real awkward position where the hand is obviously way closer than the feet. Then I think that would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.)

[Skydiver]

Hmmm, interesting.

Let's say there is a box, and a target 30 feet downrange. The WSB simply states: "Start Position: Standing in box. Handgun loaded and ready. Procedure: At start signal, engage target as visible. Comstock: 2 rounds. 1 metric target." (Note that the WSB fails to state that the target must be engaged from within the box only.)

The shooter runs towards the target. 8 feet away from the target, he jumps up into the air (just in case some RO says that he's faulting outside the box and the "intent" was for shots to be fired within the box even though the WSB didn't say so) and fires two shots and misses the target, but leaves an obvious holes in the ground where the bullet hit near the target.

Is he DQ'd under 10.4.2 or is it just a pair of misses? (10.4.2 allows for engaging paper targets less than 10 feet) If a DQ for 10.4.2, where do you measure from since his feet were not in contact with the ground? Or don't even bother measuring because it was obviously less than 10 feet.

Now, if the target were a steel plate (and the WSB updated to say 1 round, 1 steel target). The shooter gets to within 8 feet away, jumps up into the air and fires a shot and misses but leaves a bullet hole in the ground near the target? DQ for a 10.5.17, or is it just a miss? If a DQ for 10.5.17, again where do you measure since his feet were not in contact with the ground? Or don't even bother measuring because it was obviously less than 23 feet?

Now even worse, if the course was 3 rounds: 1 metric, 1 steel target with the plate and paper target near each other. If the shooter fires one shot at the steel from within the box, misses, and then runs to within 8 feet away, jumps up, and fires two shots, misses, but leaves 2 bullet holes in the ground between the steel plate and the paper target. 10.5.17, 10.4.2, or 3 misses?

Edited December 15, 2010 by Skydiver

[JAFO]

Wow. Hypotheticals are fun and all, but...

OK, in Case 1, they are misses because the shooter was engaging a paper target.

In Case 2, it's an illegal stage if there's no fault line or barricade to indicate the safe line for the shooter. If the shooting box is the safe line (and the Stage instructions state shots must be from within the box), it's a DQ for 10.5.17. Since the shooter's entire body is well within 23 feet, it doesn't matter where you measure from. Since 10.5.17 specifically states you measure from the closest point in contact with the ground, there may be an issue if the shooter jumped when he/she fired, but I would be tempted to call that unsafe gunhandling since there's no reason for the shooter to be jumping and shooting mid-air.

In Case 3, they're misses, same as Case 1.

Edited December 15, 2010 by JAFO

[Corey]

time would be a lot faster just drawing and shooting 2 from a distance of 30 feet than trying to run up and ninja jump the target and shoot in the air.

[Singlestack]

If the wsb didn't say you had to shoot from the box, why in the hell would you be jumping?

[Skydiver]

If the wsb didn't say you had to shoot from the box, why in the hell would you be jumping?

Watched too many John Woo movies the night before perhaps.

[kevin c]

Hopping into the air isn't the defining issue in terms of nearest approach to the targets, unless he was Superman and never touched down after leaving the box. I'd use the jump off point if I had to, but don't think the measurement is critical in these cases.

Case #1: If no safety rules have been violated, two misses, and a lot of ribbing for the Kermit act.

Case #2: DQ for firing at the steel target from less than minimum safe distance (I don't think 10.5.17 specifies hitting the steel as necessary for the violation).

Case #3: If, by admission or action (such as obviously transitioning off the paper after the 1st two shots) it is apparent that the shooter was addressing the steel target, DQ as in case #2.

At least that's how I'd call them.

QUOTE

Well, if I'm the RM, we're gonna measure from your feet or foot, whichever is closest to the bullet impact, and forget all that triggeronomy.

Troy

END QUOTE

Just so long as you use both eyes, Troy (you still wearing that eye patch? (Aaaaaarrrrrgh...)

Edited December 15, 2010 by kevin c

[Skydiver]

Wow. Hypotheticals are fun and all, but...

OK, in Case 1, they are misses because the shooter was engaging a paper target.

In Case 2, it's an illegal stage if there's no fault line or barricade to indicate the safe line for the shooter. If the shooting box is the safe line (and the Stage instructions state shots must be from within the box), it's a DQ for 10.5.17. Since the shooter's entire body is well within 23 feet, it doesn't matter where you measure from. Since 10.5.17 specifically states you measure from the closest point in contact with the ground, there may be an issue if the shooter jumped when he/she fired, but I would be tempted to call that unsafe gunhandling since there's no reason for the shooter to be jumping and shooting mid-air.

In Case 3, they're misses, same as Case 1.

So in the original post, it wasn't mentioned if the shooter was engaging a paper target or not. So if the shooter was engaging a target, but the shot hit 9'10" from his toe is it a DQ or a miss? Or does it depend if the shooter pulled the trigger too soon coming up to the target vs the shooter flinching so badly that the gun is brought down too far and the trigger is pulled late?

Edited December 15, 2010 by Skydiver

[JAFO]

So in the original post, it wasn't mentioned if the shooter was engaging a paper target or not. So if the shooter was engaging a target, but the shot hit 9'10" from his toe is it a DQ or a miss? Or does it depend if the shooter pulled the trigger too soon coming up to the target vs the shooter flinching so badly that the gun is brought down too far and the trigger is pulled late?

In your situation, you said the target was 30' away from the shooter, but he ran to within 8'. The rule gives an exemption if there is a target within 10' of the shooter (by definition it would have to be paper, not steel). Sorry, I should have said "engaging a paper target within 10'".

In the OP's case, he said the target was ~13' away but the shot was very near 10'.

Edited December 15, 2010 by JAFO

[Skydiver]

So in the original post, it wasn't mentioned if the shooter was engaging a paper target or not. So if the shooter was engaging a target, but the shot hit 9'10" from his toe is it a DQ or a miss? Or does it depend if the shooter pulled the trigger too soon coming up to the target vs the shooter flinching so badly that the gun is brought down too far and the trigger is pulled late?

In your situation, you said the target was 30' away from the shooter, but he ran to within 8'. The rule gives an exemption if there is a target within 10' of the shooter (by definition it would have to be paper, not steel). Sorry, I should have said "engaging a paper target within 10'".

In the OP's case, he said the target was ~13' away but the shot was very near 10'.

Good point! I got bogged down in the minutia, and forgot about post #19 that explained where the target was in relation to the shooter.