Going under walls

[Skydiver]

There was that long controversial thread about shooting under walls, but this is a slightly different topic.

Here are two situations. In common, they have a shooting area divided by a wall, but the construction is such that the wall doesn't physically reach all the way to the ground.

Reaching under the wall

A shooter fumbles a reload, and drops their magazine. The magazine bounces to the other side of the wall. The shooter reaches under the wall instead of running around to retrieve the magazine.

Going under the wall

The shooter finishes shooting on one side of the wall. Instead of running around the wall, they go under the wall to get to the other side.

To me, both are cases of range equipment failure, and so the shooter should re-shoot.

[Schutzenmeister]

This may seem odd, but ...

1 - The mag "shouldn't" have passed through the "imaginary" wall in the first place. Therefore, when the shooter reached through this "imaginary" wall to retreive something that, in theory, should not have passed through it, I'd have trouble dinging him for it. I certainly would have trouble citing a rule to support the ding!

2 - Here, I could cite a rule quite easily ... 10.6.1. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot see this in any other light. The shooter KNOWS (or should know) the wall goes to the ground by rule. Hence taking an intentional shortcut through the wall is cheating.

[kevin c]

Reaching under the wall.

I would not ding him or require a reshoot. If there is a gap between barricades, or an opening in the wall I could reach through to retrieve the lost equipment, I would not expect to be dinged. Similarly, if I dropped a mag outside a shooting area, beyond a faultline, I can step out, get it, and get back inside w/o penalty. So long as I am not short cutting to a new shooting position or shooting through an impenetrable barrier, I think it's good to go.

Going under the wall.

Methinks the shooter gets stopped, RM is called, and a forbidden action is declared with the competitor reshooting, That or he gets hammered per shot fired post going under the wall because of 2.2.3.3.

Edited March 24, 2012 by kevin c

[The Antichrome]

Reaching under the wall

A shooter fumbles a reload, and drops their magazine. The magazine bounces to the other side of the wall. The shooter reaches under the wall instead of running around to retrieve the magazine.

5.5.2 allows retrieval of mags as long as safety rules are not broken.

The only consideration here is safety, not whether a real or imaginary wall is there or not.

[The Antichrome]

Going under the wall

The shooter finishes shooting on one side of the wall. Instead of running around the wall, they go under the wall to get to the other side.

2.3.1.1.b allows this. "...a course designer wishing to compel or limit movement must do so using target placement, vision barriers, and/or physical barriers."

Unless they invoke:

2.3.1.1.c. and 2.3.1.1.d in accordance with 2.3.3 and 3.2.3

Wow, 5 different rules come into play here...but it's covered in the rulebook.

But, I think it all comes down to good stage design and good use of available props.

[Sarge]

WOW I love these kinds of discussions.

I agree that the mag being dropped is fine to retrieve since it would have actually bounced off the wall and landed at the shooters feet in reality. It certainly would not be on the other side of the wall.

Now as for rolling under the wall, that's a good one. Schutz says it is cheating which I have no problem with but how can you cheat by doing something you technically can't possibly do such as rolling through a wall? I agree it should not go unpunished but I'm not sure it is a DQ under 10.6.

Using the same logic it also can not be called a forbidden action since it is impossible in the first place.

All that being said I must admit if a shooter dove to the ground to go under a wall my first instinct would be to call "stop" due to the absurdity of it all.

[kevin c]

Seems to me that the wall is a barrier, and 2.2.3.3 says, unless otherwise specified, they are considered to go to the ground. So going under the wall is not supposed to be possible. Since the shooter did it, that should be a 3.2.6 violation requireing intervention of the RM, who can allow it or forbid it. In the latter case he reshoots.

I had argued for procedurals in my first post. On reading 10.1 in the rule book, now I'm not so sure, since going through a wall is implied by the rules, but isn't something necessarily laid out in your average WSB, so 3.2.6 seems the way to go.

Edited March 24, 2012 by kevin c

[ima45dv8]

Now as for rolling under the wall, that's a good one. Schutz says it is cheating which I have no problem with but how can you cheat by doing something you technically can't possibly do such as rolling through a wall? I agree it should not go unpunished but I'm not sure it is a DQ under 10.6.

Sarge, I think I get what you're saying, but just like the products we routinely consume that are produced in Hollywierd, there is the premise known as "suspension of belief". Certain rules in movies allow abnormal acts and prevent others that would be normal. It's the same with our rulebook.

That a competitor can physically fit under a wall doesn't make it permissible since it is specifically disallowed.

[Don Springer]

Not again!

[Sarge]

Not again!

I know, right?

[Sarge]

Now as for rolling under the wall, that's a good one. Schutz says it is cheating which I have no problem with but how can you cheat by doing something you technically can't possibly do such as rolling through a wall? I agree it should not go unpunished but I'm not sure it is a DQ under 10.6.

Sarge, I think I get what you're saying, but just like the products we routinely consume that are produced in Hollywierd, there is the premise known as "suspension of belief". Certain rules in movies allow abnormal acts and prevent others that would be normal. It's the same with our rulebook.

That a competitor can physically fit under a wall doesn't make it permissible since it is specifically disallowed.

Don't get me wrong Mark. I get what you are saying as well.

So, does your explanation hold up if a guy gets 10.6'd and arbs it?

[Nik Habicht]

Now as for rolling under the wall, that's a good one. Schutz says it is cheating which I have no problem with but how can you cheat by doing something you technically can't possibly do such as rolling through a wall? I agree it should not go unpunished but I'm not sure it is a DQ under 10.6.

Sarge, I think I get what you're saying, but just like the products we routinely consume that are produced in Hollywierd, there is the premise known as "suspension of belief". Certain rules in movies allow abnormal acts and prevent others that would be normal. It's the same with our rulebook.

That a competitor can physically fit under a wall doesn't make it permissible since it is specifically disallowed.

Don't get me wrong Mark. I get what you are saying as well.

So, does your explanation hold up if a guy gets 10.6'd and arbs it?

My first thought was that I'd stop the shooter and have 'em reshoot -- but that creates the possibility of a competitor forcing the reshoot based on a bad run, by rolling under a wall.....

Stage Design/building could solve it by building from the ground up -- but that realistically doesn't happen in wide swathes of the country. No need to mandate that....

So, seeing the challenges of 10.6, I'd probably stop the competitor and call the RM to change the WSB/declare a FA -- which probably has issues too. Got to brush up on that section of the rulebook again....

[ima45dv8]

Now as for rolling under the wall, that's a good one. Schutz says it is cheating which I have no problem with but how can you cheat by doing something you technically can't possibly do such as rolling through a wall? I agree it should not go unpunished but I'm not sure it is a DQ under 10.6.

Sarge, I think I get what you're saying, but just like the products we routinely consume that are produced in Hollywierd, there is the premise known as "suspension of belief". Certain rules in movies allow abnormal acts and prevent others that would be normal. It's the same with our rulebook.

That a competitor can physically fit under a wall doesn't make it permissible since it is specifically disallowed.

Don't get me wrong Mark. I get what you are saying as well.

So, does your explanation hold up if a guy gets 10.6'd and arbs it?

I don't know. I guess we'll have to wait for someone to pony up the Arb fee for a case like this and see what the committee decides.

[LPatterson]

Reaching under the wall

A shooter fumbles a reload, and drops their magazine. The magazine bounces to the other side of the wall. The shooter reaches under the wall instead of running around to retrieve the magazine.

5.5.2 allows retrieval of mags as long as safety rules are not broken.

The only consideration here is safety, not whether a real or imaginary wall is there or not.

I don't agree with safety as the only consideration. I agree with other posters that if the wall were solid to the ground the mag could not have bounced under it so the shooter should be able to retrieve it safely. I think the intent of 2.2.3.3 is to allow clubs that have fences/vision barriers constructed that do not touch the ground the ability to continue using them as walls. It is easy to say in the WSB that barriers go from the height constructed to infinity.

There is a tale of a WSB stating that all rounds must pass under a tractor. Shooter went under the tractor to the other side. No fault line on other side of tractor & before the days of a forbidden action. The WSB is the RM's friend.

[colt]

We use to use 4x8ft walls side ways about 2 or so foot off the ground. Now we use 4x6 walls and standing on the ground. I wrote in the WSB ground to infinity to make sure no one tried it. No one did it that I know off.

So if to the ground was wrote in the WSB and someone did shoot under the wall would it be like if he shoot the wall or barrel and get 2 mikes or what ever he shot? That takes the bad run out just to get a reshoot on range failure and 2.2.3.3 says they go to the ground?

Brent

Edited March 24, 2012 by colt

[GrumpyOne]

Going under the wall......

And over the fence.....

Edited March 24, 2012 by GrumpyOne