Engaging Targets from under a wall – What is the proper call

[Schutzenmeister]

I'm just starting to get into USPSA but I'm starting to think I may need to bring a lawyer with me to shoot.

Wish you would ... We need more lawyers to shoot (at.)

[ima45dv8]

FOUR PAGES!! :roflol: :roflol:

That's enough, Dan.

You're not adding anything of value and this running commentary is approaching the realm of ridiculing the discussion.

Let's not go there.

Thanks...

[ima45dv8]

Like I said - it's a cheesy stretch to apply an additional procedural on a 30 pt mistake.

Wouldn't that be 40 points?

Edited July 12, 2011 by ima45dv8
I see Scott mentioned it in post #89

[GrumpyOne]

Like I said - it's a cheesy stretch to apply an additional procedural on a 30 pt mistake.

Wouldn't that be 40 points?

Mark, your comments on this topic are remarkably absent. What is your opinion, if I might be so bold as to ask?

[OpenDot]

We use 6 foot tall walls that have netting on them but the netting only covers the top four feet of the wall. This leaves a 2 foot gap at the bottom of the wall between the ground and the bottom of the netting. On a stage we shot recently a lay down target was used which was visible between walls where it was intended to be engaged, but it was also visible from under the wall in a different location within the shooting area which allowed the shooter to totally skip a whole shooting position by shooting under the wall. This target was visible under the wall without needing to crouch down to see it either. The shooter shot the stage by skipping the intended shooting position for engaging the lay down target between the walls and then engaged the target by shooting under the wall from a different location.

Rule 2.2.3.3 states “Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.” There was no mention within the WSB or during the shooters meeting that it was allowed to shoot under the walls. Knowing this, it was determined that a penalty should be assessed for engaging a target under the wall, but this lead to a heated discussion which nobody really had a solid answer for. Here are of the for and against arguments that were made while trying to figure out what the best plan of action would be. Should the shooter be given 2 Mikes and a Failure To Engage Procedural? Two Mikes? Or just a single Procedural penalty for shooting under the wall? The Shooter argued that the WSB stated in the “Stage Procedure” that it said “At start signal engage targets as they become visible from within shooting area”. His stance was that since the target under the wall was visible without needing to crouch down to see it then it was a viable target to engage from that position because it was “Visible” from within the shooting area. I was not the RO in this situation but I thought it would be reasonable to assess two Mikes and no FTE Procedural. To me, the argument for being able to shoot under the wall because it was visible did not fly because the rules clearly state that barriers go from ground to height constructed. What is the correct call in this situation?

I realize that this stage setup is a good learning experience to put up enough visual blockers so that targets can’t be easily seen and engaged from under a wall. Course construction or improvement of course construction isn’t the question here.

I would call it R.E.F. and he get's a reshoot. If you leave a 2 ft box open to shoot through and a visable target, what do you think is going to happen if it's inside the fault line?

2 ft Hole with a target visable?...can I save time by shooting the stage this way?....hummmm

Everybody can shoot a course multiple ways so if it was intended to NOT be shot though more netting, a no shoot target or barrel should have been put in the way.

IMHO...he get's a reshoot. No penalties.

But i'm an outcast and a noob... but that's what I would be screaming all the way to the CRO and RM.

2ft Hole with a visable target and nothing blocking it...what did you want me to do...pass it up?

IMHO...

[Don Springer]

We use 6 foot tall walls that have netting on them but the netting only covers the top four feet of the wall. This leaves a 2 foot gap at the bottom of the wall between the ground and the bottom of the netting.

Gap. Not hole. It wasn't a "port" that wasn't covered. It was a wall that did not have the bottom half constructed in order to save money and it's covered in the rules.

[ima45dv8]

Like I said - it's a cheesy stretch to apply an additional procedural on a 30 pt mistake.

Wouldn't that be 40 points?

Mark, your comments on this topic are remarkably absent. What is your opinion, if I might be so bold as to ask?

2 Mikes and an FTE.

If someone tries to smart-ass his way out of the additional penalty by pointing and loudly exclaiming, "But, but, but...I could SEE it", I'll suggest a thorough reading of that rulebook provided with their membership materials while I record the penalties on their scoresheet. If they haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with the game they're playing, by either joining USPSA and getting the rulebook mailed to them, or at least downloading it from USPSA.org, I can only help them learn through the example of proper and complete application of the rules. Whether they actually like those rules or not is irrelevant at that point

30 penalty points plus the 10 points they could have earned = 40 points is a huge shot in the shorts.

(I really hope everyone in my division tries something like this)

[OpenDot]

Even if that much room is exposed?

Is there a set limit of exposed shooting area when you visually see a target and still can't shoot at it?

[GrumpyOne]

OpenDot, even if the wall were only a 2' x 2' square, and was designated as a wall 10' tall (as long as the top of it reached 10') and 20' long, it is still impenetrable...(obvious this would never happen)

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the

written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and

other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”:

2.2.3.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such

barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be

considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.

[OpenDot]

OpenDot, even if the wall were only a 2' x 2' square, and was designated as a wall 10' tall (as long as the top of it reached 10') and 20' long, it is still impenetrable...(obvious this would never happen)

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the

written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and

other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”:

2.2.3.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such

barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be

considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.

Gotcha... but there has to be a measurement cutoff you would think.

2ft and a visable target... hard to pass up.

[Don Springer]

Then take the 40 point penalty.

[NickJ]

Good news, Charlie. Open Dot will be at the next workday, making sure all those walls go to the ground. Thanks in advance, Open Dot.

[mactiger]

For the moment, I'm not going to say what I'd call, but I do have a couple of questions. (believe me, I do have an opinion here).

First, if you are in the "2 mikes, one FTE" group, what rule would you use to support your FTE call?

Second, if you say no FTE, can you support that by rule?

Third, what other possible call could be made here which would eliminate all the argument?

This type of thing is inevitable, I suppose, given our insistence on freestyle, "shoot em as you see em" course design. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. But, I've seen some good points made here, and, quite frankly some that are, um, "out there".

Good discussion, though. I think the main point to take away from this would be "hide the targets better".

Troy

[Don Springer]

naw, I'm not adding to this.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Newbler

[mactiger]

naw, I'm not adding to this.

Too late. I read the other post.

You have a rule to support that?

[OpenDot]

I see your point guys, but you also have to see mine...

*INVISABLE WALL*

Pretend there is something there....

given our insistence on freestyle, "shoot em as you see em" course design. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. But, I've seen some good points made here, and, quite frankly some that are, um, "out there".

Good discussion, though. I think the main point to take away from this would be "hide the targets better".

Troy

And that is my whole point.... shoot it as you see it. If it was 12" hole yeah..no brainer.

But, 2 ft and a target... if it gives you an advantage because there is no set measurement on an invisable wall, speeds up your time by going prone to finish the course, saves time by not going to the last shooting position and save seconds instead of tenths... that is where I threw my flag up.

Doesn't mean I would have done it...but still.

All of this could have been avoided by stapling a no shoot sideways over the 2 ft hole....

My RO instructor said "If you don't want them shooting at it...cover it up"

[Don Springer]

Just the same ones that keeps getting brought up.

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the

written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and

other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”:

2.2.3.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such

barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be

considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.

I don't see how one can assume he can hit a target he can't see through a wall he can't penetrate. Like I said, I'm new to all this so if I'm wrong lemme know. I like black and white.

[Schutzenmeister]

Like I said - it's a cheesy stretch to apply an additional procedural on a 30 pt mistake.

Wouldn't that be 40 points?

Mark, your comments on this topic are remarkably absent. What is your opinion, if I might be so bold as to ask?

2 Mikes and an FTE.

If someone tries to smart-ass his way out of the additional penalty by pointing and loudly exclaiming, "But, but, but...I could SEE it", I'll suggest a thorough reading of that rulebook provided with their membership materials while I record the penalties on their scoresheet. If they haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with the game they're playing, by either joining USPSA and getting the rulebook mailed to them, or at least downloading it from USPSA.org, I can only help them learn through the example of proper and complete application of the rules. Whether they actually like those rules or not is irrelevant at that point

30 penalty points plus the 10 points they could have earned = 40 points is a huge shot in the shorts.

(I really hope everyone in my division tries something like this)

I think you need to add another tag line to you footer ...

"Tact is for weenies." Garfield

[ima45dv8]

I think you need to add another tag line to you footer ...

"Tact is for weenies." Garfield

Mike, with almost 110 posts in this fray, I got asked for an opinion after driving ~750 miles since yesterday morning. I apologize for not finding a more diplomatic way of expressing my viewpoint.

[Schutzenmeister]

I think you need to add another tag line to you footer ...

"Tact is for weenies." Garfield

Mike, with almost 110 posts in this fray, I got asked for an opinion after driving ~750 miles since yesterday morning. I apologize for not finding a more diplomatic way of expressing my viewpoint.

No Mark ... My apologies are in order. It was intended as a compliment!

[McGunner]

Call me naive, but I was thinking along the lines of 2 procedurals..10.2.2... its the closest rule that I came up with that follows my train of thought...I know it says about WSB compliance procedurals but couldn't shooting under the wall be considered failing to comply??

Edited by me

All I can say is WOW were the hell did I come up with that?? Sorry for my moment of insanity.......

Matt

....My head hurts.......

Edited July 14, 2011 by McGunner

[GrumpyOne]

For the moment, I'm not going to say what I'd call, but I do have a couple of questions. (believe me, I do have an opinion here).

First, if you are in the "2 mikes, one FTE" group, what rule would you use to support your FTE call?

9.5.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at the face of each scoring target in a

course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target for failure to shoot at the target, as well as appropriate penalties for misses (see Rule 10.2.7).

10.2.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one

round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable

number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2

apply

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the

written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during

non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural

penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple

shots contrary to the required position or stance). Do not apply

two different penalties for the same offense, (e.g. not firing the required

rounds in a Virginia Count stage; competitor gets a miss and no procedural).

Second, if you say no FTE, can you support that by rule? No

Third, what other possible call could be made here which would eliminate all the argument?

2.3.1.1a a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit

competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe

condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole

in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain

unfair competitive advantage.

Then....either 2.3.3.1 or 2.3.3.2

This type of thing is inevitable, I suppose, given our insistence on freestyle, "shoot em as you see em" course design. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. But, I've seen some good points made here, and, quite frankly some that are, um, "out there".

Good discussion, though. I think the main point to take away from this would be "hide the targets better".

Troy

[OpenDot]

Point taken

edit*

Also wanted to say thanks for the education lesson, that's what I like about this frum so much.

Edited July 13, 2011 by OpenDot

[Poppa Bear]

For the moment, I'm not going to say what I'd call, but I do have a couple of questions. (believe me, I do have an opinion here).

First, if you are in the "2 mikes, one FTE" group, what rule would you use to support your FTE call?

9.5.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at the face of each scoring target in a

course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target for failure to shoot at the target, as well as appropriate penalties for misses (see Rule 10.2.7).

10.2.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one

round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable

number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2

apply

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the

written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during

non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural

penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple

shots contrary to the required position or stance). Do not apply

two different penalties for the same offense, (e.g. not firing the required

rounds in a Virginia Count stage; competitor gets a miss and no procedural).

Second, if you say no FTE, can you support that by rule? No

Third, what other possible call could be made here which would eliminate all the argument?

2.3.1.1a a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit

competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe

condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole

in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain

unfair competitive advantage.

Then....either 2.3.3.1 or 2.3.3.2

This type of thing is inevitable, I suppose, given our insistence on freestyle, "shoot em as you see em" course design. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. But, I've seen some good points made here, and, quite frankly some that are, um, "out there".

Good discussion, though. I think the main point to take away from this would be "hide the targets better".

Troy

GrumpyOne covered 1 and 2. As to the 3rd Rule 2.3 Modification to Course Construction and its sub rules. Change the ability to view the target unobstructed preferably using 2.3.1 which is in advance of the stage being shot rather than 2.3.3 which is after the stage has started.

[Gary Stevens]

30 round stage, ends with one target in a shoot house with door closed. I shoot all targets outside then shoot the house twice. Did I engage the target?

Maybe I missed it, but this is a question that I would like to see answered by both sides.