What Constitutes a new Shooting Position?

[JAFO]

I agree with Poppa Bear. If all of the shots can be taken from one spot, it is one position. Being ABLE to move a little and still see some targets does not make it two positions. The total number of "positions" on a stage should be determined by the fewest positions that ALL targets CAN be engaged. Not by the most positions you can find and still still see a target!

Mike

I'd disagree with this. If I setup six targets that are all visible from one location but three of them are also visible from another location, I have not REQUIRED all of the shots to be taken from one location. If I put that second location at the very end of the stage where that's all that is available from there, that's poor stage design, but it's still legal. It's better to stage it in such a way that the shooter moves naturally through both available positions.

Considering the start X's added to the diagram, I would consider it two positions. But on the original question, I do not consider taking one step to the left or right without any change in view due to obstructing props or no shoots to be another position. If there was a 3'x3' shooting box in front of a 6' wide port with all of the targets visible and nothing in the way, I would not consider stepping from the left side of the box to the right to be two positions.

[Poppa Bear]

Throw in one target not available from the first position and it works.

[beltjones]

Throw in one target not available from the first position and it works.

Also, re-arrange everything so it looks like stage 11 from Prod nats and it works as well.

Or, we could just discuss the stage at hand.

[Poppa Bear]

My post was a reply to JAFO's 6 target example.

[ac4wordplay]

This illustrates one problem - the rulebook doesn't provide sufficient language for these issues to be clearly understood and generally agreed upon. I've seen RMIs disagree with each other on location/view as applied to a specific stage (more than once!). If NROI's highest authorities can't agree...

There may still be time to get some rulebook clarifications in... before the 2013 rulebook goes to the printer and gets mailed to the membership!

To answer the OP's original question:

>1 position ("...location or view...") has been satisfied (IMHO).

[Mark R]

I never gave a dang about the legality of the stage. NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER

So PLEASE lose that argument.

The question - 1 position or 2?

So here is the other question - someone said that its 2 positions based on the 2nd stage drawing. You can shoot some from the x on the back left and some at the port. Remove the left target by itself and leave the 8 targets in the port - starting position is still on X's - is it still 2 positions?

Considering 1st drawing, what's the difference if I can see all the targets from the X's or if I go up to the port and see all the targets again. At either position, if I can see all the targets and engage them without moving a foot, it's considered 1 position. Like I, and Pappa Bear said earlier, 1 Position to answer the question.

If you induct the left target and standing at the left rear position AND can't see all the targets from that position, then 2 positions. BUT if you can see all the targets (1 left and those forward) and engage them from a single location without moving, then it's still 1 position. Move a step and you have 2 positions.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Mark R

[Nik Habicht]

OK EVERYONE - LETS READ FOR A SECOND!!!!

Is this 1 or 2 positions?

I don't care about the stage being illegal for ANY other reasons - I'm trying to determine if 1 step is considered a new shooting position and just drew that up quick as an example. I could easily throw another target somewhere else and make it wehre not all targets are through the port - so its 18 rounds vs 16 - thats not the argument - try to read the initial post and comment on the question "WHAT CONSTITUTES A NEW SHOOTING POSITION"

If the start position was in the back left corner, the distance to the port was significant enough, and the targets on the right were wide open, so that shooting them on the move into the position was a viable option I might let that slide at a level 1.....

Other than that -- nope, single position, better require one per target only....

So I'm a tad lost. You're saying that if the start position is the far corner and you can see 4 targets that this is indeed 2 positions. The rule book doesn't say more than 8 shots from one location / view is allowed in level 1 so it's either two positions or not.

I actually think it could go both ways. But what constitutes a new position is still the question.

And you'd be technically correct. So we then get into the realities of match set-up at the various levels -- for a level 2 match we're typically talking a full 8-12 hour day of set-up, including tweaking the stages so that they're legal, equitable, safe, and in full compliance with the rules. I've seen level 3 matches take the better part of a week for that process. Ideally I'd like all level 1 matches built to that same standard...

The reality is usally a little different though: The typical level 1 around here is set, shot and torn down in ~ 8-10 hours. We often run a short or medium stage next to our classifier in the same pit, to make the squad turnover consistent. If you built that design as a medium course, I'd have you tweak it in that manner to give folks some options, if we already had scoring for two shots per paper. If we could change scoring, I'd require one hit per target, and move on to the next challenge....

[Nik Habicht]

Let's look at this from the other side of the coin. Can any of those targets, behind the wall, be engaged from other positions where the rounds don't have to go through the port? If not, I'd submit that the subject set-up is one location/view.

Bad Logic: I set a long wall with a single port 15 feet downrange from the closest point in the FFZ. I then place targets behind the wall in such a manner that you can only see the right target from the far left side of the FFZ, vice versa for the left target, and the center target is only visible from in between. All rounds go through the same port, but from multiple positions.....

In Brandon's revised drawing, there's no requirement to shoot all targets from the window, and there are options -- engaging them from the start position, on the way to the port, etc.....

[Nik Habicht]

I never gave a dang about the legality of the stage. NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER

So PLEASE lose that argument.

The question - 1 position or 2?

So here is the other question - someone said that its 2 positions based on the 2nd stage drawing. You can shoot some from the x on the back left and some at the port. Remove the left target by itself and leave the 8 targets in the port - starting position is still on X's - is it still 2 positions?

That depends to some extent on how the stage is set, and what start position and procedure are required....

So the answer would be different if the shooter started at the port with hands on XXs......

One of the ways I evaluate this is to determine if a major caliber SS shooter would be forced to do a standing reload -- if so, that's an illegal position because it requires more than 8 rounds from a single position....

While legality matters a great deal, I don't strive to build or approve that merely meet that relatively low threshold....

[Nik Habicht]

It has to be at least two.

You have the START POSITION where you can see some targets. And then the port POSITION.

Even if true they are in the same location......which is what is mentioned in 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3, it never mentions position so that is meaningless.

Nope, sorry. The start position and window position, while both within the location defined by the fault lines, are two distinct locations with different views of the targets....

Once you take a step, you are no longer in the same location...

[ktm300]

I agree that if drawing 1 is the whole stage and the start was in front of the port there is no movement. Make the start somewhere else like where the xx are in picture 2 and now the stage is legal. Add a non threat or hard cover in the middle so you have to move from one side of the port to the other and again it's legal. I guess I am taking required to mean if there is no other option or it makes no sense to do anything else.

[Poppa Bear]

The stage is legal with a left rear start as long as they are one shot per, or T5-T8 are available before reaching the port. It would appear that T1-T? are only available once you reach the port. As long as SS is not required to perform a standing reload things are OK.

[beltjones]

The stage is legal with a left rear start as long as they are one shot per, or T5-T8 are available before reaching the port. It would appear that T1-T? are only available once you reach the port. As long as SS is not required to perform a standing reload things are OK.

Are you stating your preference or an actual interpretation of the rules?

[Poppa Bear]

Rules You cannot require more than 8 shots from any location or view.

[beltjones]

Rules You cannot require more than 8 shots from any location or view.

I'm not sure you get how the rules work. It would be exceedingly easy to design a stage that does not REQUIRE more than 8 shots from a location, but in which virtually every SS shooter would choose to do a standing reload. I can't require you to do a standing reload, but I can certainly present options that make you choose to do one.

[Poppa Bear]

Rules You cannot require more than 8 shots from any location or view.

I'm not sure you get how the rules work. It would be exceedingly easy to design a stage that does not REQUIRE more than 8 shots from a location, but in which virtually every SS shooter would choose to do a standing reload. I can't require you to do a standing reload, but I can certainly present options that make you choose to do one.

My choice to do a standing reload everything is good. Force me to do a standing reload and it is not legal for the exact reasons you stated in your post.

[Croomrider]

In the original picture, assuming start anywhere in the shooting area and two shots per target, it would be my interpretation that you are requiring a SS shooter to do a standing reload. I don't think it would be legal, because it's one position or view.

Mike

[Mark R]

Rules You cannot require more than 8 shots from any location or view.

You can shoot 10 or 20 shots from a single location, AS LONG AS you can see some of the targets from another location. You cannot force more than 8 from a single location...i.e. say that all must be shot from location A.

[Poppa Bear]

There are two important parts to 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3 You CANNOT require more than 8 shots from one view or location, and you CANNOT allow ALL targets to be taken from one view or location. Force me to take even one step to either side and it is legal as long as I do not need to take more than 8 shots

[ac4wordplay]

.... I guess I am taking required to mean if there is no other option or it makes no sense to do anything else.

"I guess I am taking required to mean if there is no other option or it makes no sense to do anything else." (emphasis mine)

Really?! How subjective is that? (Answer: it's very subjective.) What 'makes sense' to one person may 'make no sense' to another person. Each person evaluates a situation differently and with their own considerations. Evaluations can change over time or with additional information. Such subjectivity has no place in stage design requirement.

Respectfully,

ac

[professor]

A new shooting position== movement== taking more than one step in any direction,or changing body position..

Movement of the feet are not required for multiple positions. Shooting from behind a barricade with a 3' x 3' shooting box, with feet on the side fault lines. You get two shooting positions by leaning right, engaging targets, and then leaning left and engaging more targets. In that case, if you CAN ENGAGE all the targets on the stage by ONLY leaning right OR left, the stage would be illegal. And it would be illegal even if it is faster and easier to shoot the targets from right-lean/left-lean positions.

Position a wall or no-shoot so that you cannot engage all target from either side, and you're legal again, as 2 positions

are required. So "changing body position" does establish new shooting positions.

[juan]

A new shooting position== movement== taking more than one step in any direction,or changing body position..

Movement of the feet are not required for multiple positions. Shooting from behind a barricade with a 3' x 3' shooting box, with feet on the side fault lines. You get two shooting positions by leaning right, engaging targets, and then leaning left and engaging more targets. In that case, if you CAN ENGAGE all the targets on the stage by ONLY leaning right OR left, the stage would be illegal. And it would be illegal even if it is faster and easier to shoot the targets from right-lean/left-lean positions.

Position a wall or no-shoot so that you cannot engage all target from either side, and you're legal again, as 2 positions

are required. So "changing body position" does establish new shooting positions.

sure, same position different view,

[Sin-ster]

Because I talked with two people whose opinions should carry some weight about this, here's my take on it.

A position should be defined as a break in the hardcover, and nothing more.

IOW-- one port, one position.

Similarly, two ports very close together that don't require a step AND allow a view of the FULL target array, one position; a gap between barrels, one position.

Different APPROACHES to that position (i.e. standing on the left side of the box, 10 yards back vs. the right side vs. right in the port) are irrelevant. (Thus, if you can see 2 targets from 10 yards back of the port, and 8 from right inside the port, it's still a single position-- and in that case, illegal IF there's not another clearly distinguished position to break up the array.)

So in the case of DuBois' example stage-- one port, one position.

Language like that should CLEARLY solve any problems. The spirit of the rule is quite obvious-- we don't want to require Production and Single Stack shooters to do standing reloads as part of a stage design, nor do we want Open or Limited shooters standing in one spot to shoot an entire Medium or Long Course. (That latter part has its own specific rule, but this one applies as well.) Similarly, we don't want lazy stage design that has people shuffling around a single box, shooting through a single port, with no real "shooting challenge" added by the process.

ETA-- Troy's point about the barricade still holds with this theory. Either side of it is a break in the hardcover, and as he stipulates, there are other considerations to ensure it can't all be shot from one side. Boom.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Sin-ster

[ac4wordplay]

Because I talked with two people whose opinions should carry some weight about this, here's my take on it.

A position should be defined as a break in the hardcover, and nothing more.

IOW-- one port, one position.

Similarly, two ports very close together that don't require a step AND allow a view of the FULL target array, one position; a gap between barrels, one position.

Different APPROACHES to that position (i.e. standing on the left side of the box, 10 yards back vs. the right side vs. right in the port) are irrelevant. (Thus, if you can see 2 targets from 10 yards back of the port, and 8 from right inside the port, it's still a single position-- and in that case, illegal IF there's not another clearly distinguished position to break up the array.)

So in the case of DuBois' example stage-- one port, one position.

Language like that should CLEARLY solve any problems. The spirit of the rule is quite obvious-- we don't want to require Production and Single Stack shooters to do standing reloads as part of a stage design, nor do we want Open or Limited shooters standing in one spot to shoot an entire Medium or Long Course. (That latter part has its own specific rule, but this one applies as well.) Similarly, we don't want lazy stage design that has people shuffling around a single box, shooting through a single port, with no real "shooting challenge" added by the process.

ETA-- Troy's point about the barricade still holds with this theory. Either side of it is a break in the hardcover, and as he stipulates, there are other considerations to ensure it can't all be shot from one side. Boom.

And applied to the video in post #49... ?

[Sin-ster]

And applied to the video in post #49... ?

My vote/opinion?

No go.

But I just play here...

That's a cool looking stage-- I'm sure I'd have enjoyed it, if my jacknape buddy didn't decide to get married that weekend.

It'd still be cool, and I'm sure I'd have still enjoyed it, with No Shoots, barrels, etc. separating every 4 targets-- and if put on the ground properly, supported just as much hosing as Blake illustrates in that video.

ETA-- I'm assuming one could stand at the rear of the shooting area and engage everything clearly, despite that being a rotten stage plan because of the targets behind the low wall at the end. (If that's not the case... Shoot throughs???)

Edited May 24, 2013 by Sin-ster