Forbidden Action

[JThompson]

I hate that forbidden actions have become a catch all for both bad stage design or when a guy finds a nice exploit through his knowledge of the rules or ingenuity. Now someone whines about it or the RO sees it and cry's foul because other shooters haven't found the hole. You know what? This isn't IDPA and the only place for a FA is a safety concern. Does anyone remember when they were talking about this rule? If I remember right they asked us about it, may even have done so here, and I think the general consensus was that it was a good thing for safety, but should not be used to limit freestyle. Then we had other verbiage added when the rule emerged.

Why should one guy be penalized or his freestyle attempt altered because some other bloke didn't see the same exploit? I'm not talking about shooting under a wall here as that is covered elsewhere. Stuff like leaning out a port or finding a sweet spot which allows you to eliminate a position by unorthodox means. Hell, a lot of us roll the dice on something that has a high risk, but if we pull it off we win the stage. I don't get no stinking reshoot when it blows up in my face and I crash and burn, so why when one pays off do I risk having it yanked away?

I think the reason why this was added because stages at big matches such as the nats were getting tossed out in arbs. To prevent this we get a FA where the shooter gets a reshoot and the stage is changed for whatever reason. I may be wrong, but that's my opinion...

I guess it's obvious where I stand on this issue, but I'd like to have your thoughts and your votes...

JT

Edited July 16, 2011 by JThompson

[Dan Hefta]

I agree with all that you said, we as MD's should design COF's that have no need for such actions. I have been running a club for three years now and have never had to use the FA. I do realize that three years is nothing compared to some of you guys!

[mactiger]

I agree with most of that, but in some cases, the FA is the solution. Given the "under the wall" scenario, that course was legal per the rules, and probably designed and set up correctly. The solution, IMO, to a person deliberately circumventing the actual course design and construction is the FA procedure, or a 10.6 DQ. Intent is hard to discern at times, so the first thing would be the FA.

Just my .02, but it's how I'd handle it, and have done so in the past.

Troy

[Joe4d]

Do FA's really need to be used for safety ? If a competitior commits an unsafe action isnt that already covered in the rule book? I guess the problem is for stuff that probably isnt safe but isnt actually unsafe enough to warrant a DQ.

But yeh FA's shouldnt be an excuse for bad stages, or a perfectly safe exploitation of stage design by someone smarter than the previous shooter. Pretty much only used for Safety or for RO use,

for instance, a shooter must negotiate a dooraway or tunnel but there is a walk around for the RO to safely maintain visual on the gun and shooter. This walk around is declared a forbidden action.

[JThompson]

Do FA's really need to be used for safety ? If a competitior commits an unsafe action isnt that already covered in the rule book? I guess the problem is for stuff that probably isnt safe but isnt actually unsafe enough to warrant a DQ.

But yeh FA's shouldnt be an excuse for bad stages, or a perfectly safe exploitation of stage design by someone smarter than the previous shooter. Pretty much only used for Safety or for RO use,

for instance, a shooter must negotiate a dooraway or tunnel but there is a walk around for the RO to safely maintain visual on the gun and shooter. This walk around is declared a forbidden action.

Yes mainly for RO traps or actions which are inherently dangerous. I saw a guy jump a prop once, while he made it okay, we were afraid others would not and did declare FA.

JT

Edited July 16, 2011 by JThompson

[JThompson]

I agree with most of that, but in some cases, the FA is the solution. Given the "under the wall" scenario, that course was legal per the rules, and probably designed and set up correctly. The solution, IMO, to a person deliberately circumventing the actual course design and construction is the FA procedure, or a 10.6 DQ. Intent is hard to discern at times, so the first thing would be the FA.

Just my .02, but it's how I'd handle it, and have done so in the past.

Troy

I would tend to agree with you here Troy, but you must remember that there are many others out there that use this on a regular basis to control shooter actions instead of fixing a bad design. When you put the words, "competitive advantage" and "unintended" in the rule you opened a can of worms. My fear is that most all shooters have to shoot the course the exact same way because of design and FA restrictions. This happens a lot in L1 and L2 matches where the use of the FA is widespread and overused.

JT

Edited July 16, 2011 by JThompson

[Corey]

The only FA i've ever run into is gaps in a wall used for the RO as stated above. In my opinion, that should really be the only need. If someone games a stage I design and comes up with something that I didnt think of, good for them.

[JThompson]

The only FA i've ever run into is gaps in a wall used for the RO as stated above. In my opinion, that should really be the only need. If someone games a stage I design and comes up with something that I didnt think of, good for them.

Right on my man...

It makes you think.... at what point does it become about the intentions of a stage design or rule maker and not about freestyle shooting or the ability for free thinking and finding some cool little hole nobody else saw? This is the passion I feel second only to the shooting. When someone finds a hole in one of my stages I smile and give them a nod. Then I put that in my notes for next time and make sure I check for it... It's kind of like the relation to security experts and hackers. It's the hackers job to find the hole and the security guy to plug it. What I don't want is a mandate not to be creative because even if you find something it's going to be closed. Anyone who has been forced into a reshoot on a good run knows what I mean... it sucks and the reshoot Gods are a fickle lot.

I'm somewhat of an anomaly in that I see things clearly from both sides on this issue. I design and run stages for major matches and I'm also a GM level shooter. I think next to Manny, there are few of us out there. This gives us a unique perspective of being the security guy and the hacker all at the same time. If someone hacks my stage design I say good for you, but you won't get that one again.

IMO it makes us better stage designers too because we know where most of the holes are. Lesser designers don't tend to see these holes and are more likely to want a FA to cover the holes. And by our book they have every right to overcome bad design by declaring an FA.

When they always have a fallback of an FA they aren't apt to learn as fast or worry about it as much if they can recover "their intent" simply by declaring an FA.

JT

Edited July 15, 2011 by JThompson

[Loves2Shoot]

I agree with most of that, but in some cases, the FA is the solution. Given the "under the wall" scenario, that course was legal per the rules, and probably designed and set up correctly. The solution, IMO, to a person deliberately circumventing the actual course design and construction is the FA procedure, or a 10.6 DQ. Intent is hard to discern at times, so the first thing would be the FA.

Just my .02, but it's how I'd handle it, and have done so in the past.

Troy

Troy,

Can you shoot under a wall unless it is specified that you can do so? Was their any advantage gained by shooting at the wall if you can not shot scoring hits?

If you say no to both of those, what allows you to make a FA?

[JThompson]

I agree with most of that, but in some cases, the FA is the solution. Given the "under the wall" scenario, that course was legal per the rules, and probably designed and set up correctly. The solution, IMO, to a person deliberately circumventing the actual course design and construction is the FA procedure, or a 10.6 DQ. Intent is hard to discern at times, so the first thing would be the FA.

Just my .02, but it's how I'd handle it, and have done so in the past.

Troy

Troy,

Can you shoot under a wall unless it is specified that you can do so? Was their any advantage gained by shooting at the wall if you can not shot scoring hits?

If you say no to both of those, what allows you to make a FA?

EDIT:

The key here would be "circumvent course requirement " ergo going to another position to shoot the target.

2.3.1.1 In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction,

Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions

order to maintain competitive equity.

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

competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe

condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loop-

hole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain

unfair competitive advantage.

I see what you mean though as the consideration already has a rule just not one that we are all agreed on.

I don't want to drag this thread back to debating the under wall deal though...

JT

Edited July 15, 2011 by JThompson

[Sarge]

I can only recall one FA in over two years of shooting. Around here they are not used to limit freestyle. The one I saw disallowed a shooter to go behind a wall since it risked the RO's safety or allowed the shooter to be out of sight of the RO for a long time. It was just something that got missed in the design and of course a GM found the shortcut.

[Loves2Shoot]

I don't think you even have to do the math, as you can skip any target you want by rule, it just comes down to scoring. If intentionally skipping a target, or shooting at one you know you can't score on is enough to justify a ruling, rule and reshoot, you just wrote a blank check to RM's.

[Loves2Shoot]

circumvent a course requirement

JT

Are you required by rule to shoot all the targets on a stage from positions where you can score a hit?

The wall thread was about scoring and someone brought FA into it. If you can "shoot at" or "engage" targets through impenetrable barriers intentionally, then walls changed from steel, wood and brick to bullet proof glasses. That is no small change.

[spanky]

I can only recall one FA in over two years of shooting. Around here they are not used to limit freestyle. The one I saw disallowed a shooter to go behind a wall since it risked the RO's safety or allowed the shooter to be out of sight of the RO for a long time. It was just something that got missed in the design and of course a GM found the shortcut.

I've seen two. One that you describe and one where shooting a tall target intended from position A made the possibility of shots going over teh berm from position B (low crouching position).

[Graham Smith]

We were actually talking about something similar today while setting up for a match. It seems that every time you look there is another rule. It's like the rules police have taken over the sport. On the other hand, people keep getting better and stages keep getting more complicated and it seems that no matter how many people review a stage, things get through.

And you know what? That's OK - up to a point - as long as it isn't a safety issue. In fact, we sometimes leave holes in a COF knowing that someone may take advantage of something but it's more trouble than it's worth trying to plug the hole and, besides these are usually things that carry a lot of risk because the hole is so small. And if one person finds it and others don't, that's part of the game too. For people to come around complaining because someone figured out a better way to game a stage than they did is just sour grapes if you ask me.

<off soapbox>

[GrumpyOne]

Forbidden Action, to me, sounds like if someone were to do it, someone might get hurt, or worse. My thought is, why would you make something an FA when it's already clearly laid out in the rules what is legal and what is not?

[Loves2Shoot]

I agree with most of that, but in some cases, the FA is the solution. Given the "under the wall" scenario, that course was legal per the rules, and probably designed and set up correctly. The solution, IMO, to a person deliberately circumventing the actual course design and construction is the FA procedure, or a 10.6 DQ. Intent is hard to discern at times, so the first thing would be the FA.

Just my .02, but it's how I'd handle it, and have done so in the past.

Troy

Troy,

Can you shoot under a wall unless it is specified that you can do so? Was their any advantage gained by shooting at the wall if you can not shot scoring hits?

If you say no to both of those, what allows you to make a FA?

EDIT:

The key here would be "circumvent course requirement " ergo going to another position to shoot the target.

2.3.1.1 In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction,

Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions

order to maintain competitive equity.

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

competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe

condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loop-

hole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain

unfair competitive advantage.

I see what you mean though as the consideration already has a rule just not one that we are all agreed on.

I don't want to drag this thread back to debating the under wall deal though...

JT

After getting "educated" in the rule changes if you try to blow in a hole where there is none in a stage where there is none 10.6 is there.

[mactiger]

I would not use the FA rule just because someone found a way to shoot a stage that maybe isn't the way the course designer wanted it to be shot. That's the essence of freestyle, and that rule is not there to prevent competitors from solving the problem, as long as they do it safely.

What I would, and have, used it for, is to prevent scoring problems, like the under the wall issue, or other things that could either lose a stage or cause serious delays, and for safety issues. I really don't see it as a blank ticket for RM's.

[Singlestack]

To me, using FA to prevent someone from shooting under a wall is like using FA to prevent someone from faulting a line. Neither is in the wsb but both are already in the rule book.

[Tim/GA]

Could have used this thread in my 2nd match as a MD! I had a stage idea that I really wanted to use but could not figure out a way for the RO to be able to safely be in control without leaving a place for the RO to move through. I ended up calling the outgoing MD to see what he thought because the way I read the rule a FA is put in DURING a match to take care of an issue and I was looking for something to use prior to the match. Ended up putting it in the WSB that the opening was for RO use only and it worked out fine. Fun stage, was glad to be able to use it but even more happy to have a way for the ROs to be in control and safe.

On the other hand, have had a few of my "carefully" worked out stages get pretty well thrashed by a shooter who sees a way to shoot it better. Good for them and a lesson learned for me! What I find interesting is when other shooters who have already shot the stage then get a little upset, I just told them to read the WSB. Lesson learned for them as well.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Tim/GA

[Loves2Shoot]

What I would, and have, used it for, is to prevent scoring problems, like the under the wall issue, or other things that could either lose a stage or cause serious delays, and for safety issues. I really don't see it as a blank ticket for RM's.

Troy,

What was the scoring issue on the under the wall stage since you can't shoot under a wall since all walls go to the ground per rule? I posted per rule in the other thread how it can be scored exactly as it was "educated" to me. He did not shoot under the wall, he shoot at the wall.

What I "think" you are saying now that you would make a rule that would say in essence in your FA, "You still can't shoot those targets from that position and expect the hits to score because there is a wall right there." You would just be repeating the rules already in place.

If I'm not getting it, please let me know because, it was starting to make sense.

[Poppa Bear]

My take on a FA that is not safety related is in the case of target that is not "available" from a certain position but by engaging the target from there they shave many seconds off their time. This skews the HF for the stage because even though they have a penalty, like shooting under the wall, it is more than overcome by the reduction in time. Absent a situation like that I think FA should be sfety related only.

[Loves2Shoot]

This skews the HF for the stage because even though they have a penalty, like shooting under the wall, it is more than overcome by the reduction in time. Absent a situation like that I think FA should be sfety related only.

Poppa Bear, since you can't skew the hit factor by shooting through (by rule you can't shoot under them unless it is specifically allowed) a wall, since you could just run by them anyway without firing shots, and be even faster. If you can, it is a super bad design and the good shooters will all run by it.

[mactiger]

I'm done here.

[Nik Habicht]

What I would, and have, used it for, is to prevent scoring problems, like the under the wall issue, or other things that could either lose a stage or cause serious delays, and for safety issues. I really don't see it as a blank ticket for RM's.

Troy,

What was the scoring issue on the under the wall stage since you can't shoot under a wall since all walls go to the ground per rule? I posted per rule in the other thread how it can be scored exactly as it was "educated" to me. He did not shoot under the wall, he shoot at the wall.

What I "think" you are saying now that you would make a rule that would say in essence in your FA, "You still can't shoot those targets from that position and expect the hits to score because there is a wall right there." You would just be repeating the rules already in place.

If I'm not getting it, please let me know because, it was starting to make sense.

Scott,

part of the problem with doing nothing -- and potentially having other competitors do the same thing -- is that at some point someone's going to file an arbitration to have the stage tossed, because the low target violates 1.1.5. That's on top of the ongoing discussion of the scoring issue that will occur for those competitors -- RO scores it two mikes, appeal to CRO, who upholds it, appeal to RM -- at which point the target gets pulled. That stage backs up quickly....

So the FA -- and that section could possibly be used to actually hide the target from view, by throwing up another wall panel that extends to the ground -- would essentially eliminate the logjam.....

Think of it as an in-match fix for a design/set-up issue that wasn't addressed prior to the first shot....