Weak/strong hand only braced...

[kamikaze1a]

Saw a shooter bracing his shooting hand against a prop during weak hand only COF. The RO did not say anything nor penalize him. Wondering if that was legal but could not find anything in the rule book pertaining to that. 10.2.8.1, 2 & 3 references the other hand but not shooting hand. And 1.1.5.3 references "may specify unsupported" so not sure if the WSB has to say you may not brace shooting hand against prop.

Is this legal? If not, where is it stated?

[sperman]

10.2.8 If a course of fire stipulates shooting strong or weak hand only, a competitor will not be penalized for using the other hand (i.e. the other arm from the shoulder to the hand) to disengage an external safety, to reload or to correct a malfunction. However, the competitor will be issued one procedural penalty per shot fired while:

10.2.8.1 Touching the handgun with the other hand while firing shots;

10.2.8.2 Using the other hand to support the handgun, wrist or shooting arm while firing shots;

10.2.8.3 Using the other hand on a barricade or another prop to increase stability while firing shots.

[sperman]

Just re-read your post. So the shooting hand was against the barricade?

[gng4life]

Saw a shooter bracing his shooting hand against a prop during weak hand only COF. The RO did not say anything nor penalize him. Wondering if that was legal but could not find anything in the rule book pertaining to that. 10.2.8.1, 2 & 3 references the other hand but not shooting hand. And 1.1.5.3 references "may specify unsupported" so not sure if the WSB has to say you may not brace shooting hand against prop.

Is this legal? If not, where is it stated?

Please specify strong hand or weak hand and which one was holding the pistol.

Was the prop in or out of the shooting area? Rule 10.2.1 may apply, "...or who gains support or stability through contact with anobject which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or

Fault Line..."

[kamikaze1a]

Just re-read your post. So the shooting hand was against the barricade?

He was shooting weak hand through a port and he was resting his weak hand against the port...

[aztecdriver]

Just re-read your post. So the shooting hand was against the barricade?

He was shooting weak hand through a port and he was resting his weak hand against the port...

This is the same as if they were shooting freestyle through the port. It really matters whether the barricade with the port was attached to the shooting area or not. When weak hand or strong hand is specified, the other arm is deemed to not exist - thereby if the NON shooting hand does anything to support (ie, hold a barricade while leaning our around) a penalty for utilizing the non-existant arm is applied.

If the competitor is taking a rest strong hand or weak hand with the hand the gun is supposed to be in - the regular rules regarding whether the object is permitted to be a rest is applied.

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.

That wholly beyond part gets many people. If the fault lines go up to the wall with the port and the wall is attached to or is the fault line itself, the rest is fine. If the fault line ends and there is space between it and the wall with the port is outside of the shooting area - then 10.2.1 applies - then goes the significant advantage discussion.

[spanky]

- then 10.2.1 applies - then goes the significant advantage discussion.

Which is a whole new can of worms.

[kamikaze1a]

Just re-read your post. So the shooting hand was against the barricade?

He was shooting weak hand through a port and he was resting his weak hand against the port...

This is the same as if they were shooting freestyle through the port. It really matters whether the barricade with the port was attached to the shooting area or not. When weak hand or strong hand is specified, the other arm is deemed to not exist - thereby if the NON shooting hand does anything to support (ie, hold a barricade while leaning our around) a penalty for utilizing the non-existant arm is applied.

If the competitor is taking a rest strong hand or weak hand with the hand the gun is supposed to be in - the regular rules regarding whether the object is permitted to be a rest is applied.

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.

That wholly beyond part gets many people. If the fault lines go up to the wall with the port and the wall is attached to or is the fault line itself, the rest is fine. If the fault line ends and there is space between it and the wall with the port is outside of the shooting area - then 10.2.1 applies - then goes the significant advantage discussion.

I would say the fault line was the wall the port was in. We were allowed to shoot through the ports or extend gun/shooting hand through the port and shoot but I suppose climbing through the port and allowing your foot/feet to touch the ground beyond the wall would have been out of bounds.

So that means according to 10.2.1 since the port was part of the fault line, it was okay to rest your shooting hand on the port because it was not beyond the fault line but according to 10.2.8.3 holding the wall with the non-shooting hand is not okay?

[aztecdriver]

- then 10.2.1 applies - then goes the significant advantage discussion.

Which is a whole new can of worms.

LOL - yeah - which is exactly why I phrased it like that

I would say the fault line was the wall the port was in. We were allowed to shoot through the ports or extend gun/shooting hand through the port and shoot but I suppose climbing through the port and allowing your foot/feet to touch the ground beyond the wall would have been out of bounds.

So that means according to 10.2.1 since the port was part of the fault line, it was okay to rest your shooting hand on the port because it was not beyond the fault line but according to 10.2.8.3 holding the wall with the non-shooting hand is not okay?

That's correct.

[Flexmoney]

I learned something new today. Thanks!

[kamikaze1a]

Me too! You almost need to be an attorney to understand some of this stuff. I give a lot of credit to all of you that RO. You have to know, remember and understand all of these rules AND be able to make split second decisions... Bravo!

[West Texas Granny]

- then 10.2.1 applies - then goes the significant advantage discussion.

Which is a whole new can of worms.

Good idea. Open that can up as I need bait for this weekends fishing trip to the lake.

[West Texas Granny]

Let me ask a simple question. Sould it not be a requirement during a course walk through that the issue of supporting the firing hand/hands is allowed support by objects in that COF or not. Such a requirement would thin the rule book and prevent disagreements/procedurals.

[West Texas Granny]

Sorry double post

Edited May 12, 2011 by West Texas Granny

[elynch2007]

Me too! You almost need to be an attorney to understand some of this stuff. I give a lot of credit to all of you that RO. You have to know, remember and understand all of these rules AND be able to make split second decisions... Bravo!

You do not need a law degree, just the ability to see the the bends of the line in the gray areas. Thanks to ALL ROs and to each one here that makes us stop and think about our sport.

[gng4life]

Let me ask a simple question. Sould it not be a requirement during a course walk through that the issue of supporting the firing hand/hands is allowed support by objects in that COF or not. Such a requirement would thin the rule book and prevent disagreements/procedurals.

In a sense, I do agree with you but the COF is meant to show how to start, any particulars about the course, procedurals, and scoring. It's really not meant to run through the rule book for every possible scenario that a shooter could come across. It is up to the shooters to know the rules, ROs just enforce the rules.

I'm on the fence on this one but this happened to me when I was running a stage at Area 6 this year. Of course, remember the last line in the stage brief is, "Are there any questions?" so shooters are allowed to question anything they see about the course that may come up.

[JAFO]

I have on occassion specifically stated something in the RO Notes section of a WSB to address a potential problem area. For instance, I once had a target sitting such that you could see it coming around a wall but engaging it would just break the 180. I didn't want to move the target or wall for other reasons, so I just put it in the Notes section that engaging T# beyond the wall breaks the 180. I wanted to be sure that one squad didn't think it was within the 180 while another considered it breaking the 180. Notes like that help with consistency and also help new shooters, who might not be as muzzle conscious as they should be, to avoid a DQ. You could similarly point it out in the notes if you have a particular prop that is NOT part of the shooting area.

[gng4life]

I have on occassion specifically stated something in the RO Notes section of a WSB to address a potential problem area. For instance, I once had a target sitting such that you could see it coming around a wall but engaging it would just break the 180. I didn't want to move the target or wall for other reasons, so I just put it in the Notes section that engaging T# beyond the wall breaks the 180. I wanted to be sure that one squad didn't think it was within the 180 while another considered it breaking the 180. Notes like that help with consistency and also help new shooters, who might not be as muzzle conscious as they should be, to avoid a DQ. You could similarly point it out in the notes if you have a particular prop that is NOT part of the shooting area.

I see your point, it is a good idea. However, if it's that close, it's creating a "180 trap" and those should be avoided at all cost. Even experienced shooters, sometimes in the heat of running a COF, will inadvertently break the 180 if it presents itself. Actually, I saw an A shooter do this about three weeks ago. Not getting off topic but just saying that notes are good and to give the info is great especially when it's a tricky stage setup.

[Singlestack]

There is no such thing as a "180 trap".

[Thomas H]

I see your point, it is a good idea. However, if it's that close, it's creating a "180 trap" and those should be avoided at all cost. Even experienced shooters, sometimes in the heat of running a COF, will inadvertently break the 180 if it presents itself. Actually, I saw an A shooter do this about three weeks ago. Not getting off topic but just saying that notes are good and to give the info is great especially when it's a tricky stage setup.

No. A "180 trap" is a situation in which a shooter is forced to take a shot close to or on the 180 line---such that the viewpoint of the RO may very well decide it is past the 180 if the shooter merely turns their wrist slightly. (I must admit, I don't agree with Singlestack that there is no such thing as a 180 trap---I've seen a stage where the design was sufficiently bad that shooters had no choice but to engage targets right on the 180. The difference between a right-handed shooter and a left-handed shooter at that point gave bad results. I do think that many courses of fire receive complaints about being "traps" that are ridiculous, though---it isn't a trap if you aren't forced to engage on the 180 line. If you aren't forced, then you should be controlling your actions, shouldn't you?)

If an "A" shooter did this just because it was visible, then they need to work on their control. Pretty straightforward.

The situation JAFO related was merely that the target was visible from that point, not that the shooter had to engage it from that point. Just like any other spot in a course of fire---some targets are safe to engage, and some are not. His example of using the WSB notes to clarify the situation is a good idea, and makes things clear and consistent for all competitors.

Good idea!

[sperman]

Which brings us to 1.1.5. Is it a legal stage if the shooter can see a target that is beyond the 180?

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....

[JAFO]

Sure it is. It's possible to be closer to steel targets than the 26' (or 23' w/ barrier) required to engage it. Just because you can see something from a particular spot doesn't mean it's legal to engage it from that spot.

In this case, the target in question was engaged earlier in the course. It was set way off to the left of the course and I couldn't move it much due to potential shoot-throughs. As you came around the wall, which was perpendicular to the 180, the target was visible to the left. But since the wall was perpendicular to the 180 instead of parallel to it, the shooter had no clear visual reference to where the line was. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew ahead of time.

[ima45dv8]

2.1.4 Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations other than immediately downrange, organizers and officials must protect or restrict surrounding areas to which competitors, officials or spectators have access. Each competitor must be allowed to solve the competitive problem in his own way and must not be hindered by being forced to act in any manner which might cause unsafe action. Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire.

That last bit can be a sticky wicket. Some will say the stage "caused" them to engage a target at an unsafe angle while others will argue that the competitor is solely responsible for their muzzle (I lean heavily toward the second camp). I've shot many stages that had targets at ~179 degrees. I had to recognize it and plan for it during my walkthrough. If I had gotten out of step and allowed my muzzle to break the 180, that's all on me.

As long as an advisory like the one described was given to every squad in the same manner, I don't see a problem with it, and it might help someone realize a danger point before they hear "STOP!"

[LPatterson]

The OP made reference to 1.1.5.3 which is the only rule in the whole rule book which specifically discusses strong hand or weak hand unsupported. So if the COF was not a Standard Exercise or Classifier then a WSB may not specify unsupported single handed shooting except through the use of props (1.1.5.5). 10.2.8 covers procedural penalties where the COF specifies strong hand or weak hand only but does not include a penalty when the shooting hand/arm touches the prop.

[Nik Habicht]

The OP made reference to 1.1.5.3 which is the only rule in the whole rule book which specifically discusses strong hand or weak hand unsupported. So if the COF was not a Standard Exercise or Classifier then a WSB may not specify unsupported single handed shooting except through the use of props (1.1.5.5). 10.2.8 covers procedural penalties where the COF specifies strong hand or weak hand only but does not include a penalty when the shooting hand/arm touches the prop.

There's also 1.1.5.4:

1.1.5.4 Medium or Long courses of fire may stipulate the use of either strong or weak hand, provided that only one hand, either strong or weak, is specified for no more than the last six (6) shots required.