Skydiver Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I'd lay money that the guys who originally said you can't engage moving targets before they start or after they stop knew we would remove solid walls and replace them with partials, see through, and snow fence, they would have added that you can't engage targets behind the transparent/invisible part of a wall. I guess I'm stupid for thinking that if they wanted you to engage moving targets when they were in action that that would translate to engaging targets when they are visible AND the shots could hit the target by rule. I guess I read to much into that specific language. Actually, you can engage moving targets before they are activated if they are visible prior to activation (except when prevented in Level I by 2.1.8.5.1, 9.9.4). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 2. If you declare FA he gets an advantage due to his mistake, regardless of poor stage design. It's not just the competitor's mistake though, is it? He had help from the designer, builders, RO, CRO, and RM -- all of whom should have caught the hole in the stage design. To turn this around -- why should this competitor get screwed, and all of the other shooters in the division get an assist, due to the inability of the match staff to recognize that the low target was visible -- and therefore might be engaged "in good faith" by any competitor in the heat of the moment? would you say the same thing about a target that is intended to be shot from one location but can also be seen and potentially shot while breaking the 180? Yes. In fact, in the case of any DQ I issue, or hear about at a match, I try to determine "all of the factors" that led to the DQ. I want to avoid situations where the stage design/build or the officiating assists the competitor in committing a disqualifying offense. isnt the shooter responsible for knowing the rules, safety and otherwise? Sure. But so are the stage designers, builders, and other match staff. Here we had a stage design/build that contributed to a situation that resulted in a conflict between rules.... would you suggest that stage builders also need to hide targets that are behind screen walls, so that a shooter doesn't "get screwed" by shooting such a target through the screen wall? No. Screen walls provide a visual reference to the competitor that the target is behind a wall. There's a difference between that presentation and a target that "has nothing real" covering it. I have very rarely seen competitors firing at "real" walls, be they opaque or mesh; 98+% of those cases involved competitors misjudging an edge or a port.... one of our clubs routinely uses low targets that can be shot from under a wall instead of through a port as required. i never thought of this as a stage design problem....it's even specifically allowed. it fact, i believe they set it up intentionally so that the targets are close the the port (and thus can often be seen from under the wall), as they want the rounds going closer to straight down to avoid the possibility of having rounds skip out of the bay) I'd want to either hide those targets -- no-shoots, barrels, extending the wall -- or in the case of a Level 1 match either specify that targets may only be engaged through ports, or to specify that the only ports that exist are those drawn on and labeled on the diagram.... I'd always prefer the former..... If you make a target look like an "open target," it will sometimes get engaged, so if it's supposed to be behind a wall, don't do that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 The competitor is responsible for knowing the rules and following them. So are the folks putting on the match. We need both of them to be on the same page for this to work -- and I believe most of the time they are..... And we need a way to deal with problems discovered during the match. At that point it's already a bad situation, but the choices are either to fix it and attempt to save the stage, or to toss the stage.... Either course of action has the potential to affect the match outcome. Nobody involved in the match, from RM and MD down to the newest competitor wants these situations to occur, but sometimes despite best efforts, they do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Russ, I'd also point out rules 1.1.1. and 2.1.1 to address the 180 question you raised: 1.1.1 Safety – USPSA matches must be designed, constructed and conducted with due consideration to safety. That's the very first rule in the book. Chapter 2 Course Construction: 2.1.1 Physical Construction – Safety considerations in the design, physical construction, and stated requirements for any course of fire are the responsibility of the host organization subject to the approval of the Range Master. Reasonable effort must be made to prevent injury to competitors, officials and spectators during the match. Course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions wherever possible. Consideration must be given to the operation of any course of fire to provide suitable access for officials supervising the competitors. The part in bold is why we spent quite a bit of time on deciding exactly where to place targets and no-shoots on Stage 7 at MASC. We knew that without careful placement, competitors could be tempted into 180 breaks. Can you prevent/foresee absolutely everything? Probably not. At Central Jersey we got closer when we started requiring that at least two match directors walk every stage before the shooter's meeting. It helps us to take a step back, and if one of us overlooks something, the other person will usually catch it. On complicated stages, we sometimes have three or four experienced folks looking at it from the competitor's perspective.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Russ, I'd also point out rules 1.1.1. and 2.1.1 to address the 180 question you raised: 1.1.1 Safety – USPSA matches must be designed, constructed and conducted with due consideration to safety. That's the very first rule in the book. Chapter 2 Course Construction: 2.1.1 Physical Construction – Safety considerations in the design, physical construction, and stated requirements for any course of fire are the responsibility of the host organization subject to the approval of the Range Master. Reasonable effort must be made to prevent injury to competitors, officials and spectators during the match. Course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions wherever possible. Consideration must be given to the operation of any course of fire to provide suitable access for officials supervising the competitors. The part in bold is why we spent quite a bit of time on deciding exactly where to place targets and no-shoots on Stage 7 at MASC. We knew that without careful placement, competitors could be tempted into 180 breaks. Can you prevent/foresee absolutely everything? Probably not. At Central Jersey we got closer when we started requiring that at least two match directors walk every stage before the shooter's meeting. It helps us to take a step back, and if one of us overlooks something, the other person will usually catch it. On complicated stages, we sometimes have three or four experienced folks looking at it from the competitor's perspective.... Nik Add to your list for the 180 ... 2.1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Russ, I'd also point out rules 1.1.1. and 2.1.1 to address the 180 question you raised: 1.1.1 Safety – USPSA matches must be designed, constructed and conducted with due consideration to safety. That's the very first rule in the book. Chapter 2 Course Construction: 2.1.1 Physical Construction – Safety considerations in the design, physical construction, and stated requirements for any course of fire are the responsibility of the host organization subject to the approval of the Range Master. Reasonable effort must be made to prevent injury to competitors, officials and spectators during the match. Course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions wherever possible. Consideration must be given to the operation of any course of fire to provide suitable access for officials supervising the competitors. The part in bold is why we spent quite a bit of time on deciding exactly where to place targets and no-shoots on Stage 7 at MASC. We knew that without careful placement, competitors could be tempted into 180 breaks. Can you prevent/foresee absolutely everything? Probably not. At Central Jersey we got closer when we started requiring that at least two match directors walk every stage before the shooter's meeting. It helps us to take a step back, and if one of us overlooks something, the other person will usually catch it. On complicated stages, we sometimes have three or four experienced folks looking at it from the competitor's perspective.... Nik Add to your list for the 180 ... 2.1.4. Sure. I didn't want to limit the discussion/thinking to just the 180 though..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Sure. I didn't want to limit the discussion/thinking to just the 180 though..... Actually, 2.1.4 prohibits placing a target anywhere which, when engaged on an "as and when visible" basis will cause a competitor to breach safe angles of fire. Hence, it can come in to play on more than just the 180 ... Admitedly however, "safe angle of fire" does not appear to be at issue in the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Last post. One: this is, fundamentally, a course design issue. I know what the rule says about all walls going down to the ground, but to put a target that is visible beneath a wall and expect people to ignore it is naive at best, retarded at worst. Why? The rules are clear. Why should we expect people to follow them in one instance and not another? In a Level 1 match, a swinger can be fully visible and the shooter still be instructed to not shoot it by the WSB per 9.9.4. I don't see this as a course design issue. The rules often make allowances for the building efforts needed and the materials required at a Level 1 match and this is one such occurrence. Hence the FA, if you leave the target there. There are a lot of other fixes, I suppose, but an FA is a viable option here. If you are reading that rule to say otherwise, you are excluding crucial parts of it. What crucial parts are you referring to please? You seem to be making the FA rule do what's expressly forbidden for it to do. This isn't a safety issue or a course loophole since we all agree that the score would be two mikes one way or another so 2.3.1.1.a. doesn't come into play. Further 2.3.1.1.b. makes it specific that "a course designer wishing to compel or limit competitor movement must do so using target placement, vision barriers and/or physical barriers"and not use a FA. If 2.2.3.3 is brought into play as it was here, then the strictures for target placement AND vision barriers seems to have been met. I still don't see a justification for a FA. Why? mostly because, as the past 19 pages or so have shown, it's going to be a scoring nightmare, one most easily fixed by declaring an FA or hiding the target. The FA will state, "you can't see the target"; hiding it will make it so. Be sure: do both. You seem to be saying the best method of dealing with this issue is to issue a FA that does the exact same thing that 2.2.3.3 already does. How does that really change anything? And it really doesn't seem to be a scoring nightmare to me. Maybe I'm naive? The target was unavailable entirely from the position from which it was shot so the resultant FTE. We ask that ROs make subjective calls all the time and ask them to only make the call if the RO was positive the rule infraction was true. Since the wall exists either in the rules or in real life, and the target was thusly not available to be shot at (only the wall or rules wall was available to be shot at), and since walls are by definition impenetrable, then the RO can make the call for an FTE. Second: A shot is a shot. Holes in the target make no difference, because you could just miss. Consider a swinger: shoot twice, miss twice. Any holes? NO. FTE/FTSA penalty? NO. Why? because you fired at least one shot at it. Didn't matter when you fired, if it was visible at the time or not, you still fired at least one shot. That meets the definition of "engage" or "shoot at". Shoot at a target through a port--hit the port edge or wall with both rounds, full bullet diameter. Did you shoot at it? Yes. Did you hit it? No, since the wall is hardcover. You can take the hits away per rule, but you can't take the shots away--no rule to support that. The difference in the scenario with the swinger is that it IS available at the point of engagement at least some of the time. A target fully hidden behind a wall or a rules wall is not. You can shoot at the wall but you cannot shoot at the target behind it. You still haven't satisfied not ruling an FTE under 9.5.7 because the competitor never fired at the face of the target. He fired at the wall that stood in front of the target. And from the shooting position he used to attempt to engage the target, the target was fully and entirely unavailable. We haven't take the shots away. They were just never shot at the face of the target. They were shot at the wall in front of it, and could only have hit the wall in front of it from that shooting position since the target was fully unavailable from that position. Same thing here. He shot at a target, and yes, he probably did it because he could see said target because said wall did not actually exist, it was deemed to exist, but in real life, we tend to shoot at targets we can see, and don't shoot at targets we can't see, no matter what the rule says about the wall. See item ONE. Third: shooting through an opaque wall at a target could certainly be done, but keep in mind that there are possibly other, more severe consequences for doing so. Also consider that if a competitor can't actually see a target, most of the time they won't shoot at it. It's not that common an occurrence, despite all the "what if" scenarios presented here. In this case, though, it was stated that this was a deliberate act. If so, then you must act accordingly. But using your definition, any competitor that shot at a target behind any obstruction couldn't receive an FTE. And further more you justify that act in doing so. Imagine, as one poster did and Nik has repeatedly asked for someone to comment on, that the last target of a stage was behind a wall with a door in it. The door needed to be opened to shoot at the target as it wasn't visible from anywhere else on the CoF. By your definition, a competitor could simply fire a round through the door and take his 2 mikes and no FTE along with the justification that he wasn't intentionally shooting a prop but was in fact engaging a target. If the door was a distance away I can easily see a scenario where this would be an advantage in taking the 2 mikes if you know that's all the recourse you'd get. If you instead consider that the target was completely unavailable from the shooting position (meaning it is impossible to shoot at the face of the target) you score the two mikes, the resultant FTE and call into question a 10.6 for willfully shooting a prop. Deal with the situation as it exists; break it down into it's component parts and see if the rule(s) is satisfied for each part. Try not to read into the rule what you want it to say, but see what it actually does say. By that same definition I dont' see how you can justify a FA supported by the rules. I don't see anywhere in 2.3.1.1 where a FA is justified due to a "scoring nightmare" on what is a perfectly legal stage design. Should the target be hidden? Yes. It leads to "better" course presentation. But is the target an illegal one or one that isn't covered by the rules completely and clearly? No. That's all I've been trying to get you to do, but many of you focus on one rule and ignore the rest. There are at least 3 or 4 different sections involved in this particular case, and yes, the DQ is a possibility. You can't discount that because we assume the competitor wasn't moving, or don't know how far away the target was. You must consider every aspect. I am most definitely not advocating treating any wall differently, whether it's a rules wall or not. I am advocating thinking about and ruling on each situation on a case by case basis. Walls are deemed to be impenetrable and to extend to the ground. No argument from me there. Most (all?) people understand that and go with it. Set up a course where a target is visible like this one and you are inviting trouble. We invite trouble all the time and consider them to be shooting challenges. Targets at 175 degrees are a fact of matches. Do we now consider a FA if a shooter breaks the 180 going for one? The same argument could be made that putting a target at such a sharp angle is inviting someone to shoot at it past 180 but the target is still legal in the rules and provides a particular challenge within the rules. Many of us consider such challenges to be a fun part of the game and a learning experience for those that haven't read and understood the rules. So, when something like this happens, you have to make a ruling. Yes. He shot at a wall (even a rules wall) and could have ONLY shot at a wall from that position. 2 Mike, 1 FTE and a recommendation by the RO to read the rules or better yes sign up for an NROI Level I course. My main point here was that he did fire shots at a target. Nothing in the rule book can take that away. If the wall have been ground to height as constructed and made of wood would he still have fired shots at a target? If it had been made of steel would he still have shot at a target? At what point do you no longer consider him firing shots at a target? Consider that if the walls had been of steel he could have shot every round on his person and never successfully hit the target. Does futility of an action have any bearing in this? I believe it should as a note of common sense when applying the rules. You have to decide where to go from there, but you have to do it by the rules. That's how I always try to operate when I work a match--most problems are simple, some, like this one, require some extra effort. Carry on. Have a good weekend. Go shoot somewhere. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Interesting. So I guess what I have to say bores you? I'll be sure to keep my opinions to myself next time. Hell I'm sorry I took the time to actually read every post of this thread and craft my opinions carefully and succinctly so that you could then just blow them off. I love that you actually took the time to make an offensive post to ensure I knew you were bored by my interest and viewpoints. Edited July 23, 2011 by Morphire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammar Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I know this topic has been beat to death, but what if a competitor fires rounds into a wall toward a target behind the wall? Say I see the target sticks and know it's there and put shots into the wall at towards the target. Have I engaged the target or is this an FTE? Not trying to fan the flames but would really like to know. I believe if someone was to do this it would be a DQ for ND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driver8M3 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 The part in bold is why we spent quite a bit of time on deciding exactly where to place targets and no-shoots on Stage 7 at MASC. We knew that without careful placement, competitors could be tempted into 180 breaks. Can you prevent/foresee absolutely everything? Probably not. you are correct that we spent some time on those targets...but in the end they were visible from past the 180, and we left it to the competitors to avoid shooting those targets from that position. i doubt that if someone had a 180 violation on those targets you would have declared a FA and offered a reshoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Interesting. So I guess what I have to say bores you? I'll be sure to keep my opinions to myself next time. Hell I'm sorry I took the time to actually read every post of this thread and craft my opinions carefully and succinctly so that you could then just blow them off. I love that you actually took the time to make an offensive post to ensure I knew you were bored by my interest and viewpoints. I don't think he is blowing you off or being offensive. He is most likely, like the rest of us, tired of reading/talking about it. While you did make valid points literally everything you said has been said before by several people. So while I whole heartedly disagree with mactigers thoughts on the FTE I do strongly agree with his sentiment on the thread. So I will second his Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Interesting. So I guess what I have to say bores you? I'll be sure to keep my opinions to myself next time. Hell I'm sorry I took the time to actually read every post of this thread and craft my opinions carefully and succinctly so that you could then just blow them off. I love that you actually took the time to make an offensive post to ensure I knew you were bored by my interest and viewpoints. I don't think he is blowing you off or being offensive. He is most likely, like the rest of us, tired of reading/talking about it. While you did make valid points literally everything you said has been said before by several people. So while I whole heartedly disagree with mactigers thoughts on the FTE I do strongly agree with his sentiment on the thread. So I will second his Fair enough I respect both of your rights to send me a yawn but I swear I've read every post in this thread and I've yet to see Troy respond to two salient points. Forgive me if I'm missed them but if the target is shot at from a position where it is completely unavailable (and not the swinger scenario he keeps mentioning) due to be behind hard cover (real or rules hard cover) then Troy seems to be saying that is has been engaged. I'd like to see the rule that supports that under all hardcover scenarios since he has stated clearly that all walls are created the same be they rules or real walls. I'd also like to see the rule that says a FA can be awarded that basically repeats a rule that is already in place or that one can be awarded due to a "scoring nightmare". I just don't see it so maybe I'm not looking in the right place in the rules. If I were at a match where that target was scored 2 mikes and no FTE, or if a FA was written that duplicated 2.2.3.3. I would ask that the RO show me the rule(s) that supported their decision. I just don't see it in rulebook the way that Troy is saying it is so i'm asking for the rule and specifically the part of the rule that justifies those two possible actions. If you feel that the horse is beaten to death on this then you are well within your rights to unsubscribe from the thread and let those of us that don't feel the same continue on. Seems a fair answer to your yawn, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) Troy is saying you can "shoot at" a target even if you can't (or aren't supposed to be able to) see it. FTE is defined as failure to shoot at. Edited July 24, 2011 by spanky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Troy is saying you can "shoot at" a target even if you can't (or aren't supposed to be able to) see it. FTE is defined as failure to shoot at. If that is truly the case then as long as, at some point in time during the course of fire, I shot in the general direction of a target that an RO says I didn't engage, even if there is all manner of hard cover or other impenetrable objects between myself and the said missed target, I should not get an FTE. I'm sorry but that way leads to madness and the ability to arb yourself out of about every FTE you get from that point forward. If that is truly how the rule should be interpreted, then there should be a serious look at a rewording of that rule IMO. Thanks for clarifying, Spanky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Troy is saying you can "shoot at" a target even if you can't (or aren't supposed to be able to) see it. FTE is defined as failure to shoot at. Consider the other case: if a wall are as tall as built (unless otherwise specified in a WSB) and a shooter sticks his strong hand over a wall and "shoots at" a target on the other side of the wall. If it's a solid wall he can't even see the target. Will you give the shooter an FTSA penalty if he completely misses that target? I don't think there is a requirement that one has to see the target to shoot at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 The part in bold is why we spent quite a bit of time on deciding exactly where to place targets and no-shoots on Stage 7 at MASC. We knew that without careful placement, competitors could be tempted into 180 breaks. Can you prevent/foresee absolutely everything? Probably not. you are correct that we spent some time on those targets...but in the end they were visible from past the 180, and we left it to the competitors to avoid shooting those targets from that position. i doubt that if someone had a 180 violation on those targets you would have declared a FA and offered a reshoot. Those targets were widely available prior to reaching the 180, then disappeared behind no-shoots, and may have been available for tall shooters over the no-shoots and with some difficulty past the no-shoots..... Tough to have a stage with downrange movement and targets off to the side without it -- tough but doable..... I think we balanced the "cutting of the proverbial baby" nicely on that stage, had we left the targets wide open, without no-shoots, I would not have approved the stage. There's holding the competitor responsible for knowing the rules, and there's setting a 180 trap. You don't have to do the latter to ensure the former.... You want to have walls that are physically constructed to be 2 feet off the ground? I'm fine with that, as long as you tuck the targets behind the physical part of the wall. Once you want to put a low target behind such a wall though, I'll ask you to build it down, or add some other vision barrier, if I'm your RM..... (And really that's self interest: I don't want to have the fight at a match I CRO or RM, and I don't want to read about the problem here.... :P ....no matter how much fun this forum is....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Troy is saying you can "shoot at" a target even if you can't (or aren't supposed to be able to) see it. FTE is defined as failure to shoot at. Consider the other case: if a wall are as tall as built (unless otherwise specified in a WSB) and a shooter sticks his strong hand over a wall and "shoots at" a target on the other side of the wall. If it's a solid wall he can't even see the target. Will you give the shooter an FTSA penalty if he completely misses that target? I don't think there is a requirement that one has to see the target to shoot at it. FA, reshoot, no FTE, and build the wall taller in the future so no one else can get confused in the heat of the stage and do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztecdriver Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) Troy is saying you can "shoot at" a target even if you can't (or aren't supposed to be able to) see it. FTE is defined as failure to shoot at. Consider the other case: if a wall are as tall as built (unless otherwise specified in a WSB) and a shooter sticks his strong hand over a wall and "shoots at" a target on the other side of the wall. If it's a solid wall he can't even see the target. Will you give the shooter an FTSA penalty if he completely misses that target? I don't think there is a requirement that one has to see the target to shoot at it. Ah, but there is a requirement that they be visible... 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've been decidedly quiet in this after I was out on vacation, but after reading Troy's discussion on this, I'm coming around. The only thing that I have seen in the rules that allows a target to be "shot at" is visibility. There's nothing that I've seen that says walls acting as hardcover - how ever constructed - change the visibility of the targets, whether below them, or through them, in the case of snow fence. Just that they are hardcover - and as such impenetrable. The definition of a shot is: Shot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm. The target was visible - the bullet left the barrel. I shot at the target. What happens with that "hit" is now a function of whether it passes through hardcover or not. I hear the argument that all walls be treated the same - but they're not - nor can they be as it pertains to visibility. You can't change what the eye sees. Think about a stage with all snow covered fence walls with ports and remember how difficult it was to make sure you hit the mark before indexing on the targets that you could see regardless of where you were standing. Translate that to a stage with all solid walls. Did finding the targets get easier or harder. It makes a difference - all walls aren't the same. They're treated the same as it pertains to being hardcover - but you would be hardpressed to assign a shooter 4 FTEs for shooting through a snow fence covered wall because they lost their mind and thought they were shooting through a port? They could see the targets - they just missed. Edited July 24, 2011 by aztecdriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) The competitor is responsible for knowing the rules and following them. So are the folks putting on the match. We need both of them to be on the same page for this to work -- and I believe most of the time they are..... And we need a way to deal with problems discovered during the match. At that point it's already a bad situation, but the choices are either to fix it and attempt to save the stage, or to toss the stage.... Either course of action has the potential to affect the match outcome. Nobody involved in the match, from RM and MD down to the newest competitor wants these situations to occur, but sometimes despite best efforts, they do.... If you don't want to admit the "ruling" is problematic, OK. The rules say the walls are legal, the presentation is legal, the shooter made the shots. I'm accountable for my shots and MY WALK THROUGH. I don't blame match staff or stage designers for my mistakes. That probably is why I don't agree that if the presentation was legal, even if bad, I should get a reshoot, even if the FA can be used outside of safety and loopholes. Blowing a hole into into a stage is no loophole in my tiny brain. The ONLY solution I see to cure this type of issue, is to back to real walls if NROI says you can shoot at targets behind hard cover. Heck, there are targets at Area 1 that you could have forced a FA/reshoot using the rulings presented here, and they were dang fine stages. I hope everyone who uses a car in their stage says you can't shoot though the windows, because you can see the targets through them. Edited July 24, 2011 by Loves2Shoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Aztec, It doesn't say they must be visible from the position you fire the shots... Yea, BIG can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ac4wordplay Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 If that is truly the case then as long as, at some point in time during the course of fire, I shot in the general direction of a target that an RO says I didn't engage, even if there is all manner of hard cover or other impenetrable objects between myself and the said missed target, I should not get an FTE. I'm sorry but that way leads to madness and the ability to arb yourself out of about every FTE you get from that point forward. Morphire, How close is "in the general direction"? Is "in the general direction" even required? (Without defining it, I had thought that it was required.) If a competitor can satisfy the "shoot at"/"engagement" requirement by firing shots into a wall (from a position with absolutely *no possibility* of a *scoring* hit on target... is that substantially different from firing a shot from a position with absolutely *no possibility* of a *scoring* hit on target (say, a shot fired downrange although the target is uprange/behind you) and thus satisfying the "shoot at"/"engagement" requirement? My apologies to those who may be sick of this thread. I'm not trying to beat the horse or stir up trouble, just confused by this issue (different types of walls, scoring nightmares, FA, and FTSA/FTE) and its possible ramifications. Best, ac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 This is a game. It has rules. The rules state that walls (no matter what they are made of. Steel, wood, air whatever) are impenetrable. Bullets can't make holes in them (the walls). So, just like the holes that are not in the wall, there are no holes in the target behind the wall. The holes are not there. Scoring problem fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) I tried that logic, and was point out I am an idiot for that type of thinking. 500 posts and still clear as mud. Edited July 24, 2011 by Loves2Shoot 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