Forbidden Action

[twodownzero]

I'm just glad to point out that Jim practices what he preaches. A few weeks ago, I found a way to game a stage after he shot it. Jim shot it faster than me, but he would have done it even faster if he'd found the loophole that I found. He was a good sport about it and as usual, I was glad that I wasn't shooting the same division as Jim.

[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.

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....

How does the low target violate 1.1.5

1.1.5 states they may engage as when visible,

9.1.6.1 states that any round that passes wholly through hard cover will not score,

9.1.6 states vision screens, barriers, props, walls and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”, so anyone intentionally shooting a wall that they think may have a target behind it whether you see or not, would have a penalty of a miss at the least, they may if the RO sees it as unsportsman like conduct, could DQ under 10.6

I'm not sure why Troy won't explain what he would change or what I'm off base about, maybe you will.

9.1.6.1 and 9.1.6 apply for EVERY stage already. 9.1.6 seems to be to have been created to deal with just such an action.

You could add a vision barrier and it wouldn't change how you could shoot the stage one bit because of the previous two rules, but it why would you give a reshoot and a FA? Their is no loophole, their is no competitive advantage for missing targets, and their is not a safety issue.

Is that not clear and supported by the appropriate rules?

[Nik Habicht]

Scott,

I guess I'm getting to the point where I need to say that I'm done as well. Let me try this one more way -- and this time do me a favor, and look at this from the perspective of the staff on this stage at a big match:

You seem incapable of understanding, that in a sport that defines freestyle as being able to engage targets on "as and when visible" basis, placing a low target behind a "physically high" wall that does not cover the target is bad stage design. That such a target presentation may play "gotcha" with some shooters due to the rules stipulation that walls go from the ground to their height as constructed. In this particular situation we were talking about a low "lie down" target -- not a five foot at the shoulders target that someone would need to kneel or go prone to be able to see.

I'll tell you point blank, that if I were to encounter such a target presentation, and engage the target without realizing the (un-built bottom portion of the) wall was in the way, and you scored that target as "2 mikes, 1 Failure to Shoot At" I'd run out the scoring appeals process. (Any error or unwillingness on the part of the stage staff to comply, equals a reshoot.) Multiply that by 20 savvy shooters per day, at a big match, and the RM will need to live on your stage. That's an untenable situation -- The RM will need to tend to other stages/situations at some point.

So there are two solutions: Modify the stage physically -- in which case per section 2.3 either the affected or every competitor needs to reshoot it; or avail yourself of the provisions of the forbidden action section of the rulebook, make the necessary changes to the WSB with RM approval, and reshoot either all competitors or the single competitor. Forbidden action allows you to not have to "hang more wood to cover the visible, yet according to the rules behind the wall" target" by simply inserting some language in the WSB, alerting all future competitors to that fact.

Since a change to the stage was made, either all competitors, or at least the competitor in question needs to reshoot the stage. That part of Section 2.3 Modifications to Course Construction hasn't changed since the 2004 rules.

2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any such action after the match begins he must either:

2.3.3.1 Allow the course of fire to continue with the modification affecting only those competitors who have not already completed the stage. If a competitor’s actions caused the change, that competitor must be required to reshoot the altered course of fire; or

2.3.3.2 If possible, require all competitors to complete the course of fire as revised with all previous attempts removed from the match scores.

From a match administration perspective, you want the calls to be quick and easy on the stages. When I RM a match, and walk through the stages with the staff before we start, we try to anticipate the problem areas, and define how we will handle them. We might come up with a plan on where to position ROs to watch for certain "potential safety issues," or we might decide that a foot fault in this location on this stage will be penalized once, where a footfault in a different position or stage might be penalized per shot fired. As part of that process, I flip through the rulebook, to make certain that what we're implementing is supported by the rules -- and sometimes to point out the ROs where they can find that language, in the event of a competitor during the walkthrough, or during discussion of a problem....

[JThompson]

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.

I understand and I consider you the best of the best when it comes to your ability as an RM and your knowledge and application of the rules. Furthermore, I know that the rules, as they are, are not what you would have. We all have thoughts about what could be changed or made more clear. The FA does help in this regard. If wishes were horses, I'd like to see the rules clarified in certain areas, so the FA was used less or not at all. At the very least I would like to see it's scope narrowed. I DO understand why you like it and most people don't know what it takes to get through a major with 400 gamers. I do empathize and understand your position as an RM trying to get through the day. Hopefully, with the best of the best designing and setting up, plus the RMs walk through, all the stages are perfect.

I think the rules are damned good, but I think when we find stuff like, under wall issue, we should have a an official ruling and an addendum. By doing so we have one less FA to apply the next time this crops up. We could keep a list of all the FA we issue and then review each one with the NROI. You could look at each case and see if simple rules adjustment would fix it. What would be great for the rest of us, especially L1-L2 level where there isn't a true RM, is for you certed RM/Is to post some cases you feel are relevant, with you thoughts, rules application and final ruling. We could take it like a bit of case law in that we might find a similar deal and having read it, we know what you or the other RMs did and why. Maybe post it like you guys do arbs. What happened, where it happened, what materials, if any were involved, what rules were in question, what the shooter action was, and then your solution. This could be a great resource and training aid for us. That is if you guys can find the time to do it.

Rather than all of us having to reinvent the wheel, we would have a great baseline of circumstances and solutions to draw from. I know that no two situations will be exactly the same, but I think you guys could provide some great info for us struggling to make a proper call.

JT

[JThompson]

Can we PLEASE refrain from dragging the under wall thread into this one?

While that is a part of the FA, I want to delve into the FA itself and not one case that has already been covered ad nauseum in the other thread.

JT

Edited July 16, 2011 by JThompson

[GrumpyOne]

Can we PLEASE refrain from dragging the under wall thread into this one?

While that is a part of the FA, I want to delve into the FA itself and not one case that has already been covered ad nauseum in the other thread.

JT

I can agree with that, especially since that thread is still being posted in.

[Jim Norman]

I have seen the FA used to keep people in a FFZ. the same could have been accomplished by stating that the competitor had to negotiate obstacle X PRIOR to the last shot being fired, or prior to engaging the last target. HOWEVER in this case there was ALSO as safety issue, people had been snagged on teh prop by going around and it was decided that this was a safety issue. It was a retrograde stage, start down range and finish up range. So was this a valid use of FA? Yes, I think so. It accomplished two things, it maintained the integrity of the stage by having the shooter perform some physical activity while shooting and it removed a safety issue.

Other times I am not so sure. I personally would have liked to be able to forbid leaving the FFZ, period. Not all the time and not on all stages, but sometimes forcing the shooter to negotiate a narrow twisting path and not cut the corners makes for an interesting stage. Yes this can be accomplished by walls and barriers, but that takes a lot more time to build and props to put away, simply NO, you cannot do that can make a match a lot more challenging and still be able to be built, shot and torn down in a day.

[JThompson]

I have seen the FA used to keep people in a FFZ. the same could have been accomplished by stating that the competitor had to negotiate obstacle X PRIOR to the last shot being fired, or prior to engaging the last target. HOWEVER in this case there was ALSO as safety issue, people had been snagged on teh prop by going around and it was decided that this was a safety issue. It was a retrograde stage, start down range and finish up range. So was this a valid use of FA? Yes, I think so. It accomplished two things, it maintained the integrity of the stage by having the shooter perform some physical activity while shooting and it removed a safety issue.

Other times I am not so sure. I personally would have liked to be able to forbid leaving the FFZ, period. Not all the time and not on all stages, but sometimes forcing the shooter to negotiate a narrow twisting path and not cut the corners makes for an interesting stage. Yes this can be accomplished by walls and barriers, but that takes a lot more time to build and props to put away, simply NO, you cannot do that can make a match a lot more challenging and still be able to be built, shot and torn down in a day.

To keep someone within the fault lines, simply get some crime scene tape and string it on sticks about four foot high. Doesn't take any time at all. Also, the FA can not be used to compel a shooter to remain within the fault lines.

b. The declaration of a Forbidden Action cannot be used as a

means of compelling or limiting competitor movement within a

course of fire (e.g., to prevent a shooter from “cutting the cor-

ner” on an L-shaped shooting area). Except as provided in

Rule 1.1.5.1, a course designer wishing to compel or limit

competitor movement must do so using target placement,

vision barriers and/or physical barriers.

[Loves2Shoot]

You seem incapable of understanding, that in a sport that defines freestyle as being able to engage targets on "as and when visible" basis, placing a low target behind a "physically high" wall that does not cover the target is bad stage design. That such a target presentation may play "gotcha" with some shooters due to the rules stipulation that walls go from the ground to their height as constructed. In this particular situation we were talking about a low "lie down" target -- not a five foot at the shoulders target that someone would need to kneel or go prone to be able to see.

We've been shooting walls you can see through for a long time as we have a windy range, we even had two national here with said walls, so I do understand the as when visible. I do know you can see through walls and under high ones.

I never said it was good stage design, only keep in mind what you are proposing as a call opens a lot of doors I don't think you want to open in "gamers" eyes.

What you say you would do if someone gave you an FTE for shooting at targets you couldn't hit because you didn't see the huge wall and know that it does go to the ground unless they says it does, I can't agree with because it would give you an advantage over your competitors for your mistake and the choices that you made in shooting the stage by getting a reshoot. I also agree that you are free to send it to arb.

The ONLY reason I've tried to figure this out is so hard is I want to know what the current state of the rules are. If you can make a FA because a shooter did something the stage didn't allow for and you can score it, then score it and move on. The ruling I was advised is the misses plus penalties and if they don't like it 6.10. Who likes that?

I won't waste your time if I'm not making valid points, but if you can engage (shoot at) a target that you can't score hits on, I think a few more people than myself might benefit from knowing that, as it seems a lot of folks would give a procedural for it.

If you can make a FA for an action that is not related to safety, loophole exploitation, or competitive advantage, then what are the limits? That is why I posted in this thread also.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[JThompson]

It's very telling... 90% of those responding don't want the rule.

JT

[bgary]

It's very telling... 90% of those responding don't want the rule.

Put me in the other 10%, then.

The genesis of the FA rule was a stage at an Area match several years back, comprising a low tunnel with targets on either side. A clever shooter figured out that he could go much faster by running outside the tunnel, shooting the targets along the way, and then ducking back into the tunnel at the end. Complied with the WSB, but created a situation in which the RO could not safely control the shooter.

The challenge that the FA represents, as you have noted, is that lazy course designers are tempted to use it to block loopholes in bad course design. They want to use it (for example) to compel the shooter to stay within a certain shooting area or to engage targets from specific locations. The rule specifically PROHIBITS the use of FAs for those kinds of things - you cannot use it to compel a shooter's movement, for example... you have to do it by either physically restricting the shooter's path, or by making sure there are targets that he/she can only shoot from the places you want him to go.

In the tunnel example, it could have been solved either way - either by declaring it an FA *during* the match, once the loophole had been invented, or by putting tape/rope/fencing/whatever across the bay from the sides of the tunnel to the sides of the berm, to physically restrict the shooter from going into those areas. Either way is a valid solution. The FA is - at is essence - a tool the RM can use to keep a flawed stage *in* a match once a loophole is found. It is NOT a tool the course-designer can use to compel shooter actions when designing a stage.

$.02

[JThompson]

It's very telling... 90% of those responding don't want the rule.

Put me in the other 10%, then.

The genesis of the FA rule was a stage at an Area match several years back, comprising a low tunnel with targets on either side. A clever shooter figured out that he could go much faster by running outside the tunnel, shooting the targets along the way, and then ducking back into the tunnel at the end. Complied with the WSB, but created a situation in which the RO could not safely control the shooter.

The challenge that the FA represents, as you have noted, is that lazy course designers are tempted to use it to block loopholes in bad course design. They want to use it (for example) to compel the shooter to stay within a certain shooting area or to engage targets from specific locations. The rule specifically PROHIBITS the use of FAs for those kinds of things - you cannot use it to compel a shooter's movement, for example... you have to do it by either physically restricting the shooter's path, or by making sure there are targets that he/she can only shoot from the places you want him to go.

In the tunnel example, it could have been solved either way - either by declaring it an FA *during* the match, once the loophole had been invented, or by putting tape/rope/fencing/whatever across the bay from the sides of the tunnel to the sides of the berm, to physically restrict the shooter from going into those areas. Either way is a valid solution. The FA is - at is essence - a tool the RM can use to keep a flawed stage *in* a match once a loophole is found. It is NOT a tool the course-designer can use to compel shooter actions when designing a stage.

$.02

Thanks for the reply Jake... I agree with you on most points. The tunnel deal is a good one, but you often have is even though the action was NOT unsafe, "competitive iniquity" and the FA is used anyway. I don't think it should be. I don't think any one of us wants to have a safety issue out there, we do what we have to to fix it. I do not feel the same way about a loop someone finds in a stage. That is the essence of freestyle to find a better way to shoot a stage and they DO get used that way. I don't want to cite examples here and put people on the spot, but suffice it to say I have seen this done at the highest level matches in the USPSA.

As much as I hate to lose a stage I think it's worth it if we keep the freestyle as I primary rule. The rules are good and they will get better if there are compelling reasons to make the changes. In fact this is where the FA came from imo. I like it's use for safety, but I would like to see the scope narrowed in that as long as it's not safety related, we let the boys play.

I understand that it's not "supposed" to be used to compel shooter movement, but not all matches are RMed by Troy or even an RM for that matter and this rule is used to control shooter action because people either don't have the props or are too lazy to prevent motion by other means. It's becoming the catch all for lax stage design and people unwilling to build stages properly. Also, where there is a big hole and others didn't see it and they are not going to let some guy drive a truck through their stage and kick there ass while doing so.

It reminds me of new gun control laws.... trust us, we won't abuse it...........

Thanks for your well thought out remarks...

JT

Edited July 18, 2011 by JThompson