I'm missing something here . . .

[Whoops!]

I don't do area matches due to my work schedule, but I did in this case and have a rule question regarding it.

Here's a somewhat legit mockup of the stage.

http://www.uspsa3.org/uploads/Stage_12_What_s_Your_Angle.pdf

The stage starts at the bottom of the diagram, standing outside of the fault line with your toes touching it. You step in, draw from the holster and go to town.

I started at the lower left of the stage. Stepped inside the fault and shot the bottom left target against the barrel, then swung through the other targets while backing away from them toward the center, then shot the center two, then continued walking toward the right.

As I was walking toward the right side, the target against the barrel on the right was and still is completely visible under the hard cover wall and so I took the shots on that one underneath the hard cover and continued swinging to the right targets while moving downrange.

The RO's called it two misses and a procedural for shooting through hard cover, even though the stage brief mentioned nothing about not shooting under the wall or about the walls stretching to the ground and the target was completely visible while I was moving through the stage.

Are two misses and a procedural a legit call in this case?

I didn't post a bad time with a 15 second run, but obviously the two misses KILLED IT and my next stage because I didn't have time to prep while I was waiting for the range master to find some rule that actually made what I did a shot through hard cover.

Thanks for the help.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Whoops!

[sperman]

Here is the appropriate rule.

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.

I think 2 mikes and a procedural is the correct call. There are those who will argue that the procedural should not be applied (there is a LOOOONG thread on that from last year in the rules forum.)

[Jonathan Taliani]

Unless specifically stated otherwise, all walls are considered to go to the ground:

"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."

Additionally, unless otherwise stated, all walls are hard cover:

"9.1.6 Unless specifically described as soft cover (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the

written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and

other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable hard cover"

Finally, as to the procedural, if you couldn't engage a target from that position and didn't otherwise shoot at it:

"10.2.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one

round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable

number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2

apply."

Edited August 3, 2012 by Jonathan Taliani

[HoMiE]

These are the rules that apply...

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.

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the

written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and

other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”:

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not

count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.1.6.2 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

hit a plate or strike down a popper; this will be treated as range

equipment failure (see Section.4.6). The competitor will be

required to reshoot the course of fire, after it has been restored.

9.1.6.3 If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to

strike the scoring area of a paper target, the hit on that paper target

will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.1.6.4 If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to

strike down a scoring metal target, the fallen target will count for

score. If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues

on to strike down or hit a metal no-shoot, the fallen no-shoot

or hit thereon will count for penalty.

[sperman]

Here is the thread on shooting through/under walls. I have a feeling we are about to go through it all again.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=132118&hl=wall&st=0

[a matt]

2 miss and procedural. And thanks for moving the topic is this a b/s taget off the front page.

[Whoops!]

Then, how do port holes exist? Are all port holes specifically described in a stage briefing? I believe there is also a rule that states hard cover must partially hide a target. This target was completely exposed without crouching or going prone.

To me, it says the wall is "as constructed" This wall was constructed to have a big opening with a wide open target in it.

And, you're welcome Matt.

[HoMiE]

Then, how do port holes exist? Are all port holes specifically described in a stage briefing? I believe there is also a rule that states hard cover must partially hide a target. This target was completely exposed without crouching or going prone.

To me, it says the wall is "as constructed" This wall was constructed to have a big opening with a wide open target in it.

And, you're welcome Matt.

"as constructed" you have to read the few words before that that read... "from the ground to the height as constructed"

I think you might be confusing this rule...

4.1.4 Targets used in a course of fire may be partially or wholly hidden through the use of hard or soft cover:

But the cover would have to be stated that is was soft cover becasue of 9.1.6.

[Whoops!]

Then, again, how do port holes exist if that is the case?

[CHA-LEE]

A "Port" is an obvious hole in the wall that is designed for the intent as being used as a port. If a wall is constructed in a way that leaves a gap at the bottom (which most walls we use for matches have) it does not mean that the gap is a port. If the bottom of the wall gap is ever used as a "Port" it will be identified as one in the written stage briefing.

You are not going to justify shooting under a wall calling the gap between the bottom of the wall and the ground a "Port".

Is setting up a stage where you can see targets in the gap between the bottom of the wall and the ground poor stage design? Sure. But that does not mean you can legally engage targets through the wall gap unless it is explicitly delineated that you can do so in the written stage briefing.

Edited August 13, 2012 by CHA-LEE

[Whoops!]

Here's the thing, we can guess all we want on what a port is. It needs to be defined if a half wall about three feet off the ground is considered completely solid, whereas a 10 inch hole in an actually completely solid wall is to be shot through.

The wall in question was about three feet off the ground and the target was 100% presented through it without any crouching required and inside of the fault line. At least put a net up if that is going to be considered hardcover, or brief it in the briefing. This, of course, is instead of ruining a person's high entry fee, long drive, and ammo cost by saying, shoot through the open 10 inch area, don't shoot through the open 20 foot area (after the fact).

[CHA-LEE]

Here's the thing, we can guess all we want on what a port is. It needs to be defined if a half wall about three feet off the ground is considered completely solid, whereas a 10 inch hole in an actually completely solid wall is to be shot through.

The wall in question was about three feet off the ground and the target was 100% presented through it without any crouching required and inside of the fault line. At least put a net up if that is going to be considered hardcover, or brief it in the briefing. This, of course, is instead of ruining a person's high entry fee, long drive, and ammo cost by saying, shoot through the open 10 inch area, don't shoot through the open 20 foot area (after the fact).

You can belly ache about it all you want but that isn't going to make any difference in the fact that you don't want to accept ownership in knowing the rules yourself. Only you can take ownership in understanding the rules that we all use for USPSA matches. YOU knowing the rules will make you a better competitor. Match staff can't and will not spoon or force feed the rules to you before you CHOOSE to do something that is against the rules. If you are unsure about performing a specific action with regards to the rules you can always ask the Match Staff about it. Claiming ignorance of the rules after the action is performed does not "Undo" the infraction.

Sure it sucks that the stage was setup in a way that allowed a target(s) to be seen from under the wall. But rule 2.2.3.3 clearly stipulates that vision barriers are to be considered going from ground to the height constructed unless otherwise specified in the WSB. Chalk this up to an expensive lesson for NOT knowing the rules. Read the whole rule book and know the rules so you don't throw yourself under the bus at a future match.

[Whoops!]

Just because a rule is commonly interpreted in one way doesn't mean there is an actual rule about it. I know what the book says in this case. Once again, I say, define what a port is or it's just a good ole boy interpretation that alienates new people.

[twodownzero]

There was a requirement to shoot under a wall on a stage at the 2010 Area 5 match. Low port or illegal stage?

[HoMiE]

Just because a rule is commonly interpreted in one way doesn't mean there is an actual rule about it. I know what the book says in this case. Once again, I say, define what a port is or it's just a good ole boy interpretation that alienates new people.

Unless its defined as a port in WSB per rule 2.2.3.3 or when in doubt ask the CRO/RO for clarification. There is no good ole boy interpretation.

[HoMiE]

There was a requirement to shoot under a wall on a stage at the 2010 Area 5 match. Low port or illegal stage?

If the WSB said you could shoot under wall or if was defined as a port thats fine.

[Whoops!]

Don't take this as hostility either. I just say there really should be a clear definition so that people who do know the book don't misinterpret it so easily.

This stage started right after a 30 minute lunch which the RO's had at the range. Since it was thursday and I wasn't an RO and I didn't have 8 dollars in cash, I ended up going to the nearest place I could find, HY-Vee. Unfortunately, by the time I got back the stage walkthrough was done. I should have asked an RO about it, true, I probably would have if I had been there for the walkthrough.

That was also one of my main questions which went unanswered . . . Are all ports clearly defined in the stage briefing?

Also, I wouldn't call this a normal gap which one sees under a typical USPSA wall. As I said, without crouching, a full size target was 100% presented.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Whoops!

[Whoops!]

I should also add, the match is over and done with for me. I just view it as one more step to being the best . But, I'd hate to see someone else be extremely disappointed after such an investment. The rule needs to be clarified so that new people who actually do know the rules in this section aren't easily mislead.

[CHA-LEE]

Why would we need to define what a "Port" is or where they are located in the stage? How most vision barrier walls are constructed there is a gap on the bottom. That gap is obviously NOT a port. We could have a 3 inch thick rule book if we had to define every single thing like this. Or we could use the current rule book and some common sense.

How about you approach this from a different angle the next time you see it. Bring the visibility of the target through the gap under the wall to the attention of the match staff so they can proactively add additional vision barriers to fix it.

The reality is that once the buzzer goes off if people can see "Brown" they will usually shoot at it. The match staff can setup the stages in a way that eliminates the chance of shooters seeing targets from under walls or beyond the 180 to minimize the chance of shooters making the wrong decision. But in the end its the ultimate responsibility of the shooter to know and adhere to the rules.

[kevin c]

...by the time I got back the stage walkthrough was done. I should have asked an RO about it, true, I probably would have if I had been there for the walkthrough...

I can't tell you the number of times I basically screwed myself over by rushing, not getting the briefing, not being able to ask questions of the CRO, any of which would have told me what to expect, what I could do and what I couldn't w/o incurring a penalty.

If the target was that tempting, the way you describe the stage setup, you could have asked at the walk through if you could shoot it from under the wall w/o penalty. For those wanting to keep a unique approach to the stage to themselves by not asking, it's on them to know what the rules allow.

Ports are obvious. Gaps between walls are obvious (even small ones - if my shot will pass through, then I can take the shot). Gaps under walls are the specific exception, laid out in the rules, to the "shoot what you see, when you can" philosophy of the sport.

Live and learn.

[Whoops!]

It was not obvious and it was not specifically laid out in the rules.

You all seriously think it doesn't need to be defined that the gap in the right wall is a port and the gap in the left wall is not?

Or, to put it another way, how amateur a sport is this if we can cut out a hole on the right, but not put a net over the hole on the left in a 6 state championship match? Hell, I could have taped together pieces of paper and been done with it in minutes.

That was about the correct ratio when moving through the stage, there was more "gap" than wall and the target was almost right against it.

Let me put it yet another way. A bystander, who knows nothing about competitive shooting, looks at the picture above after being told the target on the left is covered by hardcover and the target on the right is not. The person will most likely laugh and say, "Wow, you all really don't make much sense do you?"

Edited August 15, 2012 by Whoops!

[HoMiE]

It was not obvious and it was not specifically laid out in the rules.

You all seriously think it doesn't need to be defined that the gap in the right wall is a port and the gap in the left wall is not?

Or, to put it another way, how amateur a sport is this if we can cut out a hole on the right, but not put a net over the hole on the left in a 6 state championship match? Hell, I could have taped together pieces of paper and been done with it in minutes.

That was about the correct ratio when moving through the stage, there was more "gap" than wall and the target was almost right against it.

Don't know how much more clear than rule 2.2.3.3 can be. Those are the rules. It looks like you have it figured out since the picture describes it correctly.

By your own admission you didn't do a proper walk-through cause of lunch, you didn't ask any questions and you found out the rules "the hard way" so to speak. Live and learn.

I don't know, it sounds as if you were expecting more since it more than just a local match. Even at Nationals its not that much more in terms of props, just a little more thought since you have more eyes to bullet proof a stage.

[Whoops!]

I don't know, it sounds as if you were expecting more since it more than just a local match. Even at Nationals its not that much more in terms of props, just a little more thought since you have more eyes to bullet proof a stage.

I didn't really want to get into this too much with this topic, but . . .

Absolutely, 100% true. I expect a higher fee and higher level of recognition to mean more advanced, professional stage craftsmanship; Especially if everyone, not just the competitors, is to take this sport seriously. There's already enough offputting factors for most people with just how we use firearms in these matches. All aspects should make sense and exude common sense and professionalism.

I got what you all are saying and what the RO's were saying before I even started this topic. Here's the thing, it doesn't make sense.

Since all ports don't have to be defined in a stage briefing, it is only sensible that they should be defined in the actual rule book, otherwise the match designers are just making stuff up. I've never seen a wall suspended from the sky, so they all naturally go from the ground to the height as constructed and some of them have holes in them. But, apparently only some of these holes can be shot through.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Whoops!

[IL-SIG]

I think this ship has sailed.

[racerba]

You all seriously think it doesn't need to be defined that the gap in the right wall is a port and the gap in the left wall is not?

Obviously - YES. You are the only one who doesn't think so. The "gap" on the right was intentional...no walls comes with a hole in it unless it was intentional. The gap on the left is clearly defined in the rule book as to not being a gap, so no - it's not a port. And in most cases and especially at a higher level matches, "ports" are clearly defined if it's meant to be shot in a situation like this.

Firstly, you have to ask yourself...does it make sense for the target to be so readily available with a wall 3 ft high not blocking anything (I seriously doubt that the gap was 3 ft. - however I was not there).

Secondly, you have to ask, why is nobody else doing it? If it could be shot from below the wall that is so high, why would anybody bother to even put the wall up in the first place? Common sense comes into play here also.

Chalk it up to live and learn and move on...the rules are clear and everybody else understands it.