Mark R Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 ......If the target was not meant to be engaged from under the wall, it should have been stated in the WSB. If not, and the stage designer did not mean for the target to be engaged under the wall, the shooter gets a reshoot and the WSB is modified... But if he knew and was written in the WSB - 2M 1FTE I think this is exactly right on the mark. Needs a RO decision at the time of occurrence. However... Problem is you are penalizing an experienced shooter and allowing a new shooter to re-shoot...not competitive equality. Needs to be same across the board....again I say modify WSB with forbidden action and a re-shoot... Equal to all competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Ok, here is a very (and I mean very!) hypothetical situation.... You are at home, which is totally surrounded by a wall, 25' tall, 6' thick (everyone likes their privacy, right?), and is buried into the ground 5' (gotta have a good footer for this wall!), made of 4800PSI concrete re-inforced with rebar every 2" throughout the wall, completely impenentrable (except for maybe a TOW missile or something like that! ). You are working in your garden (mmmm tomatoes!), when your neighbor starts shooting. You can't see him, he can't see you (unless he's standing on top of the wall, but then you'd be able to see him, right?). You might get mad...you might get scared a bit....But since YOU, not a target, but YOU, are on the other side of an impenetrable wall, even if your neighbor is shooting the wall....Are YOU engaged? Are YOU the target? He knows that bullet isn't gonna get through the wall....You know the bullet isn't gonna get through the wall....He can't even see you (well, he does have some X-RAY glasses on, so let's say he can see you!), Are YOU engaged? Are YOU the target? Or is he merely firing into a wall? If you are not "engaged", then you have no re-course, other than to yell over the wall "Hey, stop that you moron! You're bugging me!"....If you are "engaged", then there are several options...fire back, call Johnny Law, etc... But doing either of the re-courses if you think you are "engaged", well, they might come back to bite you. Suppose Johnny Law decides "Well, this is an impenetrable wall, and him shooting it is not engaging you, you are in no danger, so you are under arrest for filing a false report." Or, you shoot back, wounding or worse to the moron, and the Judge says the same thing as Johnny Law in the first recourse....Well, say hello to your new cellmate! But since that wall is completely impenetrable (not just a little, not just somewhat, but completely impervious to normal bullets and the occasional Ray-Gun), you are safe behind it, right? So, in closing, I give you the definition(s) of impenetrable..... im·pen·e·tra·ble [im-pen-i-truh-buhl] adjective 1. not penetrable; that cannot be penetrated, pierced, entered, etc. 2. inaccessible to ideas, influences, etc. 3. incapable of being understood; inscrutable; unfathomable: an impenetrable mystery. This thread is becoming impenetrable, as in definition #3 above... And another definition.... World English Dictionary impenetrable adj 1. incapable of being pierced through or penetrated: an impenetrable forest 2. incapable of being understood; incomprehensible: impenetrable jargon 3. incapable of being seen through: impenetrable gloom 4. not susceptible to ideas, influence, etc: impenetrable ignorance 5. physics (of a body) incapable of occupying the same space as another body Pretty much, definitions #1 and #3 above sum it up..... The wall he shot was "incapable of being pierced through or penetrated" and was also "incapable of being seen through". Two Mikes, and an FTE..... Edited July 15, 2011 by GrumpyOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Perhaps the only way around shooting under the wall, where it might be a legitimate shot, would be for you to run up to the wall, drop to your knees, and dig a hole under the wall, stick your weapon through it, and fire....But even then, the wall goes to the ground, you have just moved the ground under the wall, but it's still there... Ah yes, oh dimuative giant ... But would not that run afoul of 4.5.1? (Gee ... If we can just keep this going a while longer, perhaps we can quote EVERY rule in the book! ) Hey, you made me look it up, and you are correct ....But then again, I said "might be a legitimate shot", didn't say it was a legitimate shot... Still learning form all this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Hey, you made me look it up, and you are correct ....But then again, I said "might be a legitimate shot", didn't say it was a legitimate shot... Still learning form all this..... And I posed it as a question ... Ain't this fun? Anyone want to make book on how much longer it takes to get to p. 15? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark R Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 ... The wall he shot was "incapable of being pierced through or penetrated" and was also "incapable of being seen through". Two Mikes, and an FTE..... Only problem is the perp DID shoot at the wall with a vision of the target behind it...and he was the first to do so. As Match directors we can't account for every way a shooter might circumvent the stage, but once we know, we can and should create a "forbidden action" and modify the WSB for the future shooters in the match. And since he was the first to do so, any previous shooters are good to go, but the current shooter needs to re-shoot the COF with the correct understanding of the wall rule (hard cover = impenetrable). I'd still like an NROI ruling on this and/or something to go on from here on out...it will happen again. I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 How many of the other rules already in the rule book do we need to add the WSB? Are you really saying if a shooter doesn't understand the rules the get a reshoot for no other reason than they don't know the rules? Can you quote that rule in the rule book that a shooter gets a reshoot because they don't understand how walls work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 How many of the other rules already in the rule book do we need to add the WSB? Are you really saying if a shooter doesn't understand the rules the get a reshoot for no other reason than they don't know the rules? Can you quote that rule in the rule book that a shooter gets a reshoot because they don't understand how walls work? Here, here! He understands now though! If the wall stops a bullet, it should stop your eyes as well..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 How many of the other rules already in the rule book do we need to add the WSB? Are you really saying if a shooter doesn't understand the rules the get a reshoot for no other reason than they don't know the rules? Can you quote that rule in the rule book that a shooter gets a reshoot because they don't understand how walls work? Even if the shooter understands how walls work -- the low target (from the opening post) was still visible to the shooter, right? Do you not see that the setup of that target conflicts with 1.1.5? And that in a conflict between two rules you've got to expect some competitors to pick one solution, while others will pick the wrong one? I don't want to play "gotcha" in that way when I setup a stage or match.... No need to add a rule citation to the WSB -- just put up more fence, a barrel(s), a noshoot or two, or elevate the target behind the wall, and the problem is solved for everyone..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark R Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 yes...solved if we can catch it and place a barrier of some type between the shooter and the target in the future...but in the original post, it wasn't caught. So what do we do in the future if it happens again??? It will...it's inevitable. What steps do we as MD's do to remedy the situation...how do we handle it since it clearly is not laid out in the rulebook? I'd like to know for future reference. How about you all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I don't think that you are reading the rule in context of the rest of the rules. The fact the rule writers decided how a wall works and stated that you do not have to make the walls solid, opaque, or go all the way to the ground makes the target "not visible" (even if you can see it) if it can ONLY been seen from under a wall or through it from that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driver8M3 Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Do you not see that the setup of that target conflicts with 1.1.5? And that in a conflict between two rules you've got to expect some competitors to pick one solution, while others will pick the wrong one? I don't want to play "gotcha" in that way when I setup a stage or match.... sometimes targets are set up such that they can be seen, and shot, while breaking the 180. doesn't that create a similar conflict with 1.1.5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark R Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) I think it's time for NROI to step up and give us a clue...or better yet...the answer. This has gone on long enough....ya think? edit to add: Or maybe they don't have the answer...and want us to hash it out... Edited July 15, 2011 by Mark R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 How many of the other rules already in the rule book do we need to add the WSB? Are you really saying if a shooter doesn't understand the rules the get a reshoot for no other reason than they don't know the rules? Can you quote that rule in the rule book that a shooter gets a reshoot because they don't understand how walls work? Even if the shooter understands how walls work -- the low target (from the opening post) was still visible to the shooter, right? Do you not see that the setup of that target conflicts with 1.1.5? And that in a conflict between two rules you've got to expect some competitors to pick one solution, while others will pick the wrong one? I don't want to play "gotcha" in that way when I setup a stage or match.... No need to add a rule citation to the WSB -- just put up more fence, a barrel(s), a noshoot or two, or elevate the target behind the wall, and the problem is solved for everyone..... And so is most every target on most every stage we shoot if we kneel down and look under the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 yes...solved if we can catch it and place a barrier of some type between the shooter and the target in the future...but in the original post, it wasn't caught. So what do we do in the future if it happens again??? It will...it's inevitable. What steps do we as MD's do to remedy the situation...how do we handle it since it clearly is not laid out in the rulebook? I'd like to know for future reference. How about you all? Do you care to address the rule for the reshoot you suggested? You will not stop people from dropping and shooting under walls unless you enforce the rules already in place. Did you watch the Area 7 video? Per all the calls the shooter deserves a reshoot, any competitor could drop to the ground at matches that don't have walls that are solid, opaque and go to the ground and start popping off rounds to force a re-shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 How many of the other rules already in the rule book do we need to add the WSB? Are you really saying if a shooter doesn't understand the rules the get a reshoot for no other reason than they don't know the rules? Can you quote that rule in the rule book that a shooter gets a reshoot because they don't understand how walls work? Even if the shooter understands how walls work -- the low target (from the opening post) was still visible to the shooter, right? Do you not see that the setup of that target conflicts with 1.1.5? And that in a conflict between two rules you've got to expect some competitors to pick one solution, while others will pick the wrong one? I don't want to play "gotcha" in that way when I setup a stage or match.... No need to add a rule citation to the WSB -- just put up more fence, a barrel(s), a noshoot or two, or elevate the target behind the wall, and the problem is solved for everyone..... And so is most every target on most every stage we shoot if we kneel down and look under the wall. What about if someone lays down, or shoots ala Taran and sticks his gun under a wall and point shoots it. The rules are simple and enforceable already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 how do we handle it since it clearly is not laid out in the rulebook? In your opinion. In my opinion, it IS clearly laid out in the rulebook. The onus is on competitors to know the rules and play the game within the rules. Yes, MDs and stage designers can help, but over thinking leads to one way to shoot a stage. If competitors don't read the rules/learn the rules/know the rules, we might as well throw cotton balls at concrete for all the enjoyment we'll get out of it. Individual responsibility has to count for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Do you not see that the setup of that target conflicts with 1.1.5? And that in a conflict between two rules you've got to expect some competitors to pick one solution, while others will pick the wrong one? I don't want to play "gotcha" in that way when I setup a stage or match.... sometimes targets are set up such that they can be seen, and shot, while breaking the 180. doesn't that create a similar conflict with 1.1.5? Yes ... By way of 2.1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Schutzenmeister, How much did you lay down on 15 pages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 How many of the other rules already in the rule book do we need to add the WSB? Are you really saying if a shooter doesn't understand the rules the get a reshoot for no other reason than they don't know the rules? Can you quote that rule in the rule book that a shooter gets a reshoot because they don't understand how walls work? Even if the shooter understands how walls work -- the low target (from the opening post) was still visible to the shooter, right? Do you not see that the setup of that target conflicts with 1.1.5? And that in a conflict between two rules you've got to expect some competitors to pick one solution, while others will pick the wrong one? I don't want to play "gotcha" in that way when I setup a stage or match.... No need to add a rule citation to the WSB -- just put up more fence, a barrel(s), a noshoot or two, or elevate the target behind the wall, and the problem is solved for everyone..... Nik, I see no conflict with 1.1.5.... 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. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances. Those conditions were created, by the rules (walls go to the ground)....The rules say that....Who wants to argue that the wall didn't go to the ground? We have a rule to back it up that it did...The WSB did not say it didn't.....All of it is shooter error.....Whether by not knowing the rules, or just by ignoring them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Schutzenmeister, How much did you lay down on 15 pages? No-No-No-No-No ... The wager wasn't WOULD it go to 15 pages. (I took that as a given.) It was how long would it take? In truth, I didn't expect it until tomorrow morning. I'm glad I didn't take any markers on it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Troy ... It's drifting off into nonsense. Time to end it. This poor horse has been flogged enough. (I just got a threatening e-mail from the ASPCA on the subject.) Is there some reason it can't be put to rest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 How many of the other rules already in the rule book do we need to add the WSB? Are you really saying if a shooter doesn't understand the rules the get a reshoot for no other reason than they don't know the rules? Can you quote that rule in the rule book that a shooter gets a reshoot because they don't understand how walls work? Even if the shooter understands how walls work -- the low target (from the opening post) was still visible to the shooter, right? Do you not see that the setup of that target conflicts with 1.1.5? And that in a conflict between two rules you've got to expect some competitors to pick one solution, while others will pick the wrong one? I don't want to play "gotcha" in that way when I setup a stage or match.... No need to add a rule citation to the WSB -- just put up more fence, a barrel(s), a noshoot or two, or elevate the target behind the wall, and the problem is solved for everyone..... And so is most every target on most every stage we shoot if we kneel down and look under the wall. What about if someone lays down, or shoots ala Taran and sticks his gun under a wall and point shoots it. The rules are simple and enforceable already. You and I are on the same page Scott. Perhaps I didn't make my self clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Ah, I see what you meant now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Cha-Lee, it's your thread....can you start a poll for it? Vote for the results? Just wondering...at least that way, we could eye what the runnin score is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Do you not see that the setup of that target conflicts with 1.1.5? And that in a conflict between two rules you've got to expect some competitors to pick one solution, while others will pick the wrong one? I don't want to play "gotcha" in that way when I setup a stage or match.... sometimes targets are set up such that they can be seen, and shot, while breaking the 180. doesn't that create a similar conflict with 1.1.5? It does. And because a DQ was overturned at a recent Nationals, we got a change in one of the other rules..... If a target can be seen/shot while breaking the 180, that's also bad stage design as far as I'm concerned. Help the competitor out -- you can often angle the target, to make it far less appealing, throw up a penalty target or half wall -- there are some easy options to solve most of these problems before they occur.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now