spanky Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 vluc took the thoughts right out of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Hefta Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 FOUR PAGES!! :roflol: :roflol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Personally, I like the notion of it being there - just to mess with the head. But then I like very low ports, stages you back up on and cross-bay activators. And you also recognize though that it's bad stage design as it violates 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. Better to hide the target in that situation, from those positions where you would not like to have it shot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Flex has stated before that part of our game is mental. Things like barrels, ports, no-shoots, hard cover targets, etc. are "distractions" that we have to be able to work around and through as shooters. I agree with him on that, and is why I quoted your comment above. While I see your point about it should not have been there, the shooter still has the responsibility to be aware of and know the rules. To me this would qualify as one of those "distractions". If we protect and remove every single possible thing (including the thread on 180 traps), we might as well just stand and punch paper at an indoor range. WSB should not have to say that walls go from ground to infinity, it is already stated in the rulebook. [grin and wink mode] Oh ye of little faith! [/grin and wink mode] I will agree with you that "distractions" are an integral part of our sport. However, one of the cardinal rules of the sport (be it under our version of the rules OR the international version) is the concept of freestyle. I don't believe anyone on this forum would argue that point too much. The preeminent concept of freestyle is contained in 1.1.5 and referred to in several other places in the book. The applicable sentence reads: "Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an "as and when visible" basis.” Or, in other terms, if the shooter can see the scoring surface of the target from within the allowable shooting area, he is allowed to shoot the target from that point, with a reasonable presumption that it is safe to do so or it would not be available to be shot from there. That premise is the reason for various limitations placed in the rules in order to ensure the sport is done safely. There are rules to prevent setting up a CoF where the shooter CAN shoot steel from less than a specified distance. We don't tend to argue about that too much. We also don't tend to set our targets up such that a legitimate shot on the target will tend to leave the confines of the shooting bay. (There's a rule that covers that, too.) Similarly, there is a provision in 2.1.4 that prohibits match organizers (a broad term) from placing targets such that they are visible to the shooter and yet, if shot at from that point, would result in a round going in an unsafe direction ... for example, past the 180. I posted a challenge in the thread to which you refer for anyone to show why my analysis of the OP's target presentation was in non-compliance was incorrect. To date, not one person has even attempted to shoot holes in the analysis. If you feel the analysis is incorrect, then please show me where and how it fails. This is an honest and respectful challenge. Can you show me WHY my analysis is incorrect, using the rules? Furthermore, to imply compliance with such a requirement reduces us to punching paper on an indoor range is far from accurate. All it requires us to do is pay attention to target placement and presentation and, where necessary, provide remedies such as vision barriers or reangle the target to remove the scoring surface from the line of sight once the shooter passes the 180. [Moderators - I recognize the thread drift and apologize. I would include a link to the other thread, but alas, I know not how!] With respect to the situation at hand in this thread, our rules state clearly the portion below the wall as constructed is deemed by rule to be part of the wall, impenetrable, and arguably, simulated opaque such that you cannot see the target in question. Were there an actual wall to the ground, even if it were snow fence, I suspect the shooter never would have taken the shots in question. I'm quite confident that if the wall were real and solid, the shots never would have been fired. The conundrum we face here is the dichotomy between what the rules deem as a solid, impenetrable, and arguably opaque barrier and the reality of the fact that the shooter had a clear line of sight to the target. These situations occur from time-to-time in all levels of matches from the World Shoot (Level V) down to the most common matches, our local club-level events (Level I.) I might add, I see them least at higher level matches and with increasing frequency at lower level matches ... Go figure! To say the designer, match organizers, set up crew, RM, CRO, RO could have and perhaps should have foreseen this possibility and alleviated it prior to the first shots being fired is axiomatic. But then ... It happens! Fortunately, this is a case of a scoring issue and not one related to safety. Hopefully, the good folks who put on this match will have figured out that - if they want to avoid such a scoring controversy in the future - they will ensure such a target is physically hidden so that the shooter is not tempted to engage it from such a location. And, for the record, I believe it is safe to say the terms "Failure to Shoot At" and "Failure to Engage" are synonymous. This is evidenced by the reference in the index, p.95, where the procedural penalty "Failure to Engage" is referenced and points to 10.2.7 where the penalty is therein described as "Failure to Shoot At." Either term refers to the same offense and should not be at the center of the issue here. For anyone to state "If you write FTE on a scoresheet your credibility as an RO will head down the tubes." is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the current rules and their etiology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Personally, I like the notion of it being there - just to mess with the head. But then I like very low ports, stages you back up on and cross-bay activators. And you also recognize though that it's bad stage design as it violates 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. Better to hide the target in that situation, from those positions where you would not like to have it shot.... If we are to consider walls hardcover (that can't be seen through) and are to consider walls (hardcover) extending to the walls then, theoretically, that target can't be seen. This would be the same (or at least equivalent, imo) to using showfence as hardcover. You can "see" the targets but still can't engage them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Personally, I like the notion of it being there - just to mess with the head. But then I like very low ports, stages you back up on and cross-bay activators. And you also recognize though that it's bad stage design as it violates 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. Better to hide the target in that situation, from those positions where you would not like to have it shot.... If we are to consider walls hardcover (that can't be seen through) and are to consider walls (hardcover) extending to the walls then, theoretically, that target can't be seen. This would be the same (or at least equivalent, imo) to using showfence as hardcover. You can "see" the targets but still can't engage them... Many matches use screen where you can see them all.... it matters not at all if you can "see" a target or not, what matters is if the applicable target is available from the position the round/s are fired. If it's not available.... only through HC then you can't "engage" err "shoot at" it. If you can't shoot at it then you have FTS/FTE so 2M FTS er E. It's not the same as a position where it was available, but scope offset or whatever caused you to put two through a wall, and thus, no FTS penalty. Remember, all props are HC unless otherwise specified in the WSB (Only target sticks are excluded) Also, all walls are from height to ground, so there is no shot available. It really isn't rocket science guys.... JT Edited July 12, 2011 by JThompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shooterbenedetto Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 My opinion, wall go from the rooter to the tooter..so 2 mikes, 1 FTE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Burwell Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 For some reason I thought this thread sounded like DejaVu again: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=111941&st=0&p=1270934&hl=snow%20fence&fromsearch=1entry1270934 Here is a slightly different take involving steel: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=68777&st=0&p=796277&hl=snow%20fence&fromsearch=1entry796277 Would knocking down steel make a difference? This is really a failure of course design rule 1.1.5 is taken from: The following general principles of course design list the criteria, responsibilities and restrictions governing course designers as the architects of the sport of USPSA shooting. So we as MDs and stage designers are responsible for setting stuff up like this. Vince, before I get you upset, I don't think it is asking to much for stage designers to look their stage over and cover up any targets that they don't want shot at from specific locations or live with the fact that shooters will "shoot them as they see them".As for shooting at target when the are "unavailable" I did a search of the rule book for the word "unavailable" and there is no mention of it in relation to targets only divisions or score sheets. I also search for "available", and it mentions activating targets, disapearing targets, but nothing about when a target is available. So is there ever such a thing as an unavailable target? I still see this the same as a swinging target that the shooter puts two rounds through a wall, he shot at it, it was "unavailable" at the time he shot at it or his rounds would not have hit the wall, but we al agree there is no FTE on that. This in my mind is the same, round went through a wall while shooter was shooting at the target. What if the shooter broke a couple shots early when coming into position around a corner, both shots hit the wall, still an FTE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yardbird Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Hefta Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I still see this the same as a swinging target that the shooter puts two rounds through a wall, he shot at it, it was "unavailable" at the time he shot at it or his rounds would not have hit the wall, but we al agree there is no FTE on that. This in my mind is the same, round went through a wall while shooter was shooting at the target. What if the shooter broke a couple shots early when coming into position around a corner, both shots hit the wall, still an FTE? That makes sence to me. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Personally, I like the notion of it being there - just to mess with the head. But then I like very low ports, stages you back up on and cross-bay activators. And you also recognize though that it's bad stage design as it violates 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. Better to hide the target in that situation, from those positions where you would not like to have it shot.... If we are to consider walls hardcover (that can't be seen through) and are to consider walls (hardcover) extending to the walls then, theoretically, that target can't be seen. This would be the same (or at least equivalent, imo) to using showfence as hardcover. You can "see" the targets but still can't engage them... Many matches use screen where you can see them all.... it matters not at all if you can "see" a target or not, what matters is if the applicable target is available from the position the round/s are fired. If it's not available.... only through HC then you can't "engage" err "shoot at" it. If you can't shoot at it then you have FTS/FTE so 2M FTS er E. It's not the same as a position where it was available, but scope offset or whatever caused you to put two through a wall, and thus, no FTS penalty. Remember, all props are HC unless otherwise specified in the WSB (Only target sticks are excluded) Also, all walls are from height to ground, so there is no shot available. It really isn't rocket science guys.... JT I was merely stating that you can't fault stage design simply because you can see a target that you aren't supposed to see because of imaginary hardcover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztecdriver Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Flex has stated before that part of our game is mental. Things like barrels, ports, no-shoots, hard cover targets, etc. are "distractions" that we have to be able to work around and through as shooters. I agree with him on that, and is why I quoted your comment above. While I see your point about it should not have been there, the shooter still has the responsibility to be aware of and know the rules. To me this would qualify as one of those "distractions". If we protect and remove every single possible thing (including the thread on 180 traps), we might as well just stand and punch paper at an indoor range. WSB should not have to say that walls go from ground to infinity, it is already stated in the rulebook. [grin and wink mode] Oh ye of little faith! [/grin and wink mode] I will agree with you that "distractions" are an integral part of our sport. However, one of the cardinal rules of the sport (be it under our version of the rules OR the international version) is the concept of freestyle. I don't believe anyone on this forum would argue that point too much. The preeminent concept of freestyle is contained in 1.1.5 and referred to in several other places in the book. The applicable sentence reads: "Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an "as and when visible" basis.” Or, in other terms, if the shooter can see the scoring surface of the target from within the allowable shooting area, he is allowed to shoot the target from that point, with a reasonable presumption that it is safe to do so or it would not be available to be shot from there. That premise is the reason for various limitations placed in the rules in order to ensure the sport is done safely. There are rules to prevent setting up a CoF where the shooter CAN shoot steel from less than a specified distance. We don't tend to argue about that too much. We also don't tend to set our targets up such that a legitimate shot on the target will tend to leave the confines of the shooting bay. (There's a rule that covers that, too.) Similarly, there is a provision in 2.1.4 that prohibits match organizers (a broad term) from placing targets such that they are visible to the shooter and yet, if shot at from that point, would result in a round going in an unsafe direction ... for example, past the 180. I posted a challenge in the thread to which you refer for anyone to show why my analysis of the OP's target presentation was in non-compliance was incorrect. To date, not one person has even attempted to shoot holes in the analysis. If you feel the analysis is incorrect, then please show me where and how it fails. This is an honest and respectful challenge. Can you show me WHY my analysis is incorrect, using the rules? Furthermore, to imply compliance with such a requirement reduces us to punching paper on an indoor range is far from accurate. All it requires us to do is pay attention to target placement and presentation and, where necessary, provide remedies such as vision barriers or reangle the target to remove the scoring surface from the line of sight once the shooter passes the 180. [Moderators - I recognize the thread drift and apologize. I would include a link to the other thread, but alas, I know not how!] With respect to the situation at hand in this thread, our rules state clearly the portion below the wall as constructed is deemed by rule to be part of the wall, impenetrable, and arguably, simulated opaque such that you cannot see the target in question. Were there an actual wall to the ground, even if it were snow fence, I suspect the shooter never would have taken the shots in question. I'm quite confident that if the wall were real and solid, the shots never would have been fired. The conundrum we face here is the dichotomy between what the rules deem as a solid, impenetrable, and arguably opaque barrier and the reality of the fact that the shooter had a clear line of sight to the target. These situations occur from time-to-time in all levels of matches from the World Shoot (Level V) down to the most common matches, our local club-level events (Level I.) I might add, I see them least at higher level matches and with increasing frequency at lower level matches ... Go figure! To say the designer, match organizers, set up crew, RM, CRO, RO could have and perhaps should have foreseen this possibility and alleviated it prior to the first shots being fired is axiomatic. But then ... It happens! Fortunately, this is a case of a scoring issue and not one related to safety. Hopefully, the good folks who put on this match will have figured out that - if they want to avoid such a scoring controversy in the future - they will ensure such a target is physically hidden so that the shooter is not tempted to engage it from such a location. And, for the record, I believe it is safe to say the terms "Failure to Shoot At" and "Failure to Engage" are synonymous. This is evidenced by the reference in the index, p.95, where the procedural penalty "Failure to Engage" is referenced and points to 10.2.7 where the penalty is therein described as "Failure to Shoot At." Either term refers to the same offense and should not be at the center of the issue here. For anyone to state "If you write FTE on a scoresheet your credibility as an RO will head down the tubes." is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the current rules and their etiology. Great post, and I might think about responding to the other thread when I'm not trying to get out the door for vacation. What I do want to address is the issue with this situation, 1.1.5 and the applicable portions of "as and when visible" - as well as how it relates to the challenge presented to shooters. There are many reasons we use walls that don't start on the ground and snow fence as hard cover materials, most of the time, it's so the RO can do his job safely and efficiently. One of the hardest courses to run safely are shoothouses, mainly because it involves a lot of attention to clearing the range prior to the next shooter. We can all agree that when walls and corridors are "see-through", the positioning an RO can take in order to maintain the COF is often easier. I also equate this to having walls that I can look under to see if there are feet behind it before I give make ready. This is one of the reasons we have this notion of walls being the ground to height as constructed. Maybe we should snow fence off the areas under the walls to provide the clue you can't shoot under it? But, because we have a rule that does designate the wall goes from the ground - THIS stage in and of itself isn't illegal because the target was visible there. Continuing into what vluc said - think about this - how many times have you seen a set of walls with multiple ports and shooting locations set up of frame and snow fence? Behind it you have a set of targets that are plainly visible from any location through the fence, but only cleanly visible in order to be shot through some set of ports? How many times have you gone to take up a shooting position, realized you weren't lined up with the port and had to shift on those locations? You can't use the target clearing the wall as a reference nearly as easy when you can see the target the whole time. This is the challenge I believe Vince is referring to, not so much setting up a target that plainly is available but because you don't know one rule will bite you. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that's how I read it. As for shooting at target when the are "unavailable" I did a search of the rule book for the word "unavailable" and there is no mention of it in relation to targets only divisions or score sheets. I also search for "available", and it mentions activating targets, disapearing targets, but nothing about when a target is available. So is there ever such a thing as an unavailable target?I still see this the same as a swinging target that the shooter puts two rounds through a wall, he shot at it, it was "unavailable" at the time he shot at it or his rounds would not have hit the wall, but we al agree there is no FTE on that. This in my mind is the same, round went through a wall while shooter was shooting at the target. What if the shooter broke a couple shots early when coming into position around a corner, both shots hit the wall, still an FTE? I agree with you in that I have not found those terms - as I have posted earlier - I have found that we are to shoot targets "as and when visible" in rule 1.1.5. Let me use the same scenario above with the corridors made completely of snow fence, and I take up a position where no port is available and fire at 4 targets through the fence. Now lets take away the snow fence and replace it with a solid plywood wall and I fire at those same 4 targets into and through the wall by memory. Other than the fact of feasibility - what is different about those two scenarios as it applies to the rules? Does the fact that I can see the targets through the snow fence change the fact I'm firing at a wall? Those shots were taken at a position where the target was not visible. When you have a swinging target and it become not visible behind a wall you missed a target that was visible and went behind the hardcover. You definitely shot at the target - just missed it. I believe the difference is the position of visibility. Honestly - I have seen where "breaking shots early hitting the wall" didn't result in an FTE - but a DQ. Didn't agree with that one either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Personally, I like the notion of it being there - just to mess with the head. But then I like very low ports, stages you back up on and cross-bay activators. And you also recognize though that it's bad stage design as it violates 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. Better to hide the target in that situation, from those positions where you would not like to have it shot.... If we are to consider walls hardcover (that can't be seen through) and are to consider walls (hardcover) extending to the walls then, theoretically, that target can't be seen. This would be the same (or at least equivalent, imo) to using showfence as hardcover. You can "see" the targets but still can't engage them... Let's look at the alternatives in stage design: Target is hidden behind a solid wall and can't be seen by the shooter -- I wouldn't expect anyone to attempt to engage the target. Target is hidden behind a snowfence wall that extends to the ground: Shooter can see the target, but also has a visual reminder from the snowfencing that it is covered by a wall at that point, and should not be shot. I wouldn;t expect most competitors to shoot that target. Now imagine a wall that rises from 2 feet to 6 feet -- doesn't matter if it's a horizontal 4x8 sheet of plywood or snow fence -- with a low target behind it. That target doesn't look terribly different from any other wide-open target; I'd expect some shooters to take shots at it. It's bad stage design, and if an arbitration were filed citing 1.1.5 it might get the stage tossed from the match. Is the shooter at fault in that situation for not knowing/following the rules? Sure. Did he have help from the match staff? Absolutely..... Situations like these are a reason why we try to have 2-3 experienced stage builders/match directors perform a final walkthrough of all the stages prior to the beginning of our local matches. Those extra eyeballs help us to identify potential safety and potential rules.scoring problems.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) I still see this the same as a swinging target that the shooter puts two rounds through a wall, he shot at it, it was "unavailable" at the time he shot at it or his rounds would not have hit the wall, but we al agree there is no FTE on that. This in my mind is the same, round went through a wall while shooter was shooting at the target. What if the shooter broke a couple shots early when coming into position around a corner, both shots hit the wall, still an FTE? I think there is a BIG difference between the scenario presented and your examples. In your examples the shooter made a shooting error on targets that could possibly have been shot from the position. Had the wall in the presented scenario actually gone from the ground to the moon and been hard cover, the shooter could not have ever seen the target from the position and could not possibly gotten hits on anything except hard cover. Had the shooter known the rules, he would have not taken the shot, and most likely they will not do so in the future. 40 ( 30 penalty and 10 lost from shooting the target)points dropped tends to make people remember simple rules like not shooting through snow fencing because they see the target or under and over walls. This is IPSC shooting 101, no shooting through fences, over or under walls unless it is designated a port or soft cover, and I was told that at my first match, literally. I guess I could ask what the call would be if someone punched a hole in hard cover and shot at a target through this hole at a target they couldn't see otherwise, because by shooting under the wall, this is what this shooter really did. Edited July 12, 2011 by Loves2Shoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Great post, and I might think about responding to the other thread when I'm not trying to get out the door for vacation. What I do want to address is the issue with this situation, 1.1.5 and the applicable portions of "as and when visible" - as well as how it relates to the challenge presented to shooters. [...] Honestly - I have seen where "breaking shots early hitting the wall" didn't result in an FTE - but a DQ. Didn't agree with that one either. Enjoy your vacation ... I hope it's a good one! For the sake of brevity (who, me?) I've clipped the bulk of your response. Anyone interested in referring to it can simply scroll up! Snow fences (and the like) are both a wonderful and terrible compromise to the situations you describe. On the one hand they allow the shooter to have "visibility" of a target when in fact it is not deemed to be visible, or, though not used in the rule book "available" to be shot unless it is designated as soft cover. At the same time, it allows the RO crew to more easily inspect the range prior to "MR" and ensure the range is safe to so command. It also allows spectators to have more view of what is going on down range and makes the sport more interesting from their point of view. The down side is that the argument occasionally comes up that "I can see the target, therefore I can shoot it." Therein lies one of the problems. However, at least with snow fence there is a somewhat clear and distinct visual record of where that impenetrable wall is. It does serve to put the shooter on notice that "here is a hardcover wall through which your bullest may not pass." Or, if they do, we will not score them. It can also serve a a barrier to remove temptation on targets that would otherwise be engaged from an unsafe angle, be it the 180 or some other reason. The problem in the instant case is that the wall physically ended above the area where the target was actually visible. By rule, the wall extends to the ground and therefore the target is deemed to be covered by it. Unfortunately, the shooter "saw target, shot same." In this case, there is only a scoring dilemma and no safety issue. In the case of a target slightly, or even moderately past the 180 you have a similar temptation by the shooter compounded by a true safety issue. (I will concede that if the target is WELL past the 180 some sembalance of intelligence needs to kick in or the shooter has no business on the range!) The problem with "180 traps" invaribly comes down to one of judgement ... The ROs assessment of where the 180 is on a wide open target to the side vs. the shooter. It also comes down to consistency ... RO 1 vs. RO 2 on the same CoF. There have been numerous threads on inconsistent officiating at major matches on this very issue and target presentation ... with the occasional stage being tossed shortly after a shooter or two has been tossed! Good course design, and SET UP, will take these factors into account. For the CoF that gave rise to this monster thread, I would think some sort of vision barrier impeding actual view of the target would probably have eliminated the entire situation. Is it an illegal CoF? Not in the least. Could design and set up have been better? Probably. In terms of your patch work of partial snow fences and sporadic ports? [My description of what I think you were describing ...] Again, it helps to set the stage and props up clearly enough that there are no questions as to what is a wall, what is a port, and what can I see and shoot vs not from a given position on the stage. One question I try to ask myself when reviewing a stage after set up and prior to the first shots (especially when I'm the RM for the match) is what targets can I see from each and every position on the CoF? Can I safely shoot them from that position? Do I (as the organizer) not want the shooter to engage the target from there? The list goes on. If the answer is no, I need to alter the target presentation and/or add vision barriers to accomplish the desired results. I prefer not to require a shooter to have a Masters' degree in trigonometry in order to discern when or when not to shoot a target. I much prefer to be able to tell the shooter that if he has a clear and unimpeded view of the target, he's free to engage it without fear of DQ due to where the target sits. Should the shooter know where the 180 is? You bet! But that should be the SAME 180 as RO 1 is using, RO 2 is using, etc. I hope that helps explain not only my position on the rule, but why I feel so strongly about it. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 This is IPSC shooting 101, no shooting through fences, over or under walls unless it is designated a port or soft cover, and I was told that at my first match, literally. Close but not quite, on the legality of shooting over walls.... 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. So, in most instances, if you can see over a wall you may engage the target. I sometimes build a low wall, especially for that purpose, and stage targets behind it at varying heights, so that as a shooter approaches, more and more of the targets is revealed. An initial viewpoint might be just one head, at the closest approach that target might be fully visible, another might be a partial and a third might only have the head available. Shooter's choice on running up and hosing or shooting them on the move in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Nic, When I started shooting, every stage description at our club (and I think section)had written in it something like "all walls extend from the ground to infinity" for any area that was not considered a shooting port or low wall. Edited July 12, 2011 by Loves2Shoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Hefta Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Nic, When I started shooting, every stage description at our club (and I think section)had written in it something like "all walls extend from the ground to infinity" for any area that was not considered a shooting port or low wall. That's what I put on all of my WSB... problem solved. Still doesn't answer the FTE issue though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) If you write FTE on a scoresheet your credibility as an RO will head down the tubes. IBTL Pure Nonsense! I have a scoresheet from an Area match with not one but TWO FTE's marked on it. Area matches generally have some pretty good RO's on staff. Edited July 12, 2011 by Kevin Sanders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 FOUR PAGES!! :roflol: :roflol: Yeah, it's like a train wreck I can't ignore it. Every day I log on and it is at the top of the page! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 For some reason I thought this thread sounded like DejaVu again: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=111941&st=0&p=1270934&hl=snow%20fence&fromsearch=1entry1270934 Here is a slightly different take involving steel: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=68777&st=0&p=796277&hl=snow%20fence&fromsearch=1entry796277 Would knocking down steel make a difference? This is really a failure of course design rule 1.1.5 is taken from: The following general principles of course design list the criteria, responsibilities and restrictions governing course designers as the architects of the sport of USPSA shooting. So we as MDs and stage designers are responsible for setting stuff up like this. Vince, before I get you upset, I don't think it is asking to much for stage designers to look their stage over and cover up any targets that they don't want shot at from specific locations or live with the fact that shooters will "shoot them as they see them".As for shooting at target when the are "unavailable" I did a search of the rule book for the word "unavailable" and there is no mention of it in relation to targets only divisions or score sheets. I also search for "available", and it mentions activating targets, disapearing targets, but nothing about when a target is available. So is there ever such a thing as an unavailable target? I still see this the same as a swinging target that the shooter puts two rounds through a wall, he shot at it, it was "unavailable" at the time he shot at it or his rounds would not have hit the wall, but we al agree there is no FTE on that. This in my mind is the same, round went through a wall while shooter was shooting at the target. What if the shooter broke a couple shots early when coming into position around a corner, both shots hit the wall, still an FTE? Not upset at all, love the flow of ideas and sharing of thought processes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Springer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 This thread is great. So am I reading it right? Are people really suggesting that every COF should come with a 30 page stage brief explaining the rules that are already clearly outlined in the rule book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 This thread is great. So am I reading it right? Are people really suggesting that every COF should come with a 30 page stage brief explaining the rules that are already clearly outlined in the rule book? Why, YES! But first you must submit it to George Jones for his seal of approval!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Springer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 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. No, no, it's much more to become a range lawyer yourself..... :P 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