Winger swinger legal?

[Collecting A's]

Should winger swingers be legal at a level III match?

If you've ever shot one you know they act different every time and can stay hidden one time and appear right away the next.

A .5 second difference or more is like getting dealt a NPM compared to the guy that "got lucky" with the thing.

How would a stage hold up if someone arbitrated against it?

Video of one for people that have not seen them yet:

[splitime]

Opinion from someone who doesn't know the rules or compete... I'd think it shouldn't be part of a real timed event due to randomness. Unless you can repeat the exact starting positions each time, that seems unfair.

Are the Texas stars considered ok? I'd think since they start in the same position each time they would be ok to run vs something that randomly might appear.

[motosapiens]

The only one I've seen (at area 1 earlier this year) seemed to work exactly the same every time. It may be important to have it set by the RO's each time to insure that it is set the same.

[MarkCO]

I would not use one, would not approve one. Not a consistent test of shooters skill. Not saying they are not legal, but the consistency is not there to me. Same with clamshells in the wind, which were also at some Area matches.

Edited August 28, 2013 by MarkCO

[kevin c]

Cool target, BUT:

If it is not consistent, it doesn't belong in any match other than a fun match where scores don't matter. If it is consistent, always presenting the same way and with the same timing, then fine.

[ChuckS]

The only one I've seen (at area 1 earlier this year) seemed to work exactly the same every time. It may be important to have it set by the RO's each time to insure that it is set the same.

I was there also. That target worked "the same" on the initial swing or swings and then probably went different. It was so slow that I had no issues getting it on the first exposure. There were plenty of targets to shoot while the target exposed it's self. That said, it is probably an arb or a tossed stage waiting to happen.

For the curious go to 4:01 of this

Later,

Chuck

[HI5-O]

We have one. Used it in our state match and it did not present a consistent path for every shooter if this winger is set up as designed.

I shot at Area 1 this year and the one there was not set like the one in posted in the OP.

The one at Area 1 only had the heavy weight set (bottom half) and part with the target (top half) was not set to activate. If I had a pic I could post it so you can see how it was meant to be set up.

[glandry51]

I would have a problem with any Range Equipment on Level II and higher matches that were not the same for every shooter. If it did not have the exact same path for every shooter, than how could you compare one shooter's time to another?

[CHA-LEE]

As long as a moving target has the whole upper A Zone or 25% of the lower A Zone visible at rest (When it has stopped moving), its a legal non-dissapearing shoot target.

I have seen these Winger targets in action at several matches. Even though their movement may seem eratic and random, its actually not. If you video tape these targets being activated several times you will see that the movement pattern is pretty much the same every time its activated. Just because it does not swing back and forth in the same steady fashion as a swinger shooters tend to think that the movement is random.

Polish / Irish Plate racks and Texas stars are a different story. Their movement or lack of movement is greatly affected by the speed and order the plates are engaged. If these devices are not reset exactly the same for every shooter which leads to a different presentation of the plates it is considered a range failure and can lead to a crap ton of reshoots or the stage being thrown out because its too inconsistent. This is why a lot of RM's and MD's avoid these devices like the plague for big matches. For local matches, they are cool and fun to shoot. But they can be a HUGE time wasting liability at a big match.

[motosapiens]

Polish / Irish Plate racks and Texas stars are a different story. Their movement or lack of movement is greatly affected by the speed and order the plates are engaged. If these devices are not reset exactly the same for every shooter which leads to a different presentation of the plates it is considered a range failure and can lead to a crap ton of reshoots or the stage being thrown out because its too inconsistent. This is why a lot of RM's and MD's avoid these devices like the plague for big matches. For local matches, they are cool and fun to shoot. But they can be a HUGE time wasting liability at a big match.

Interesting perspective. I have shot a few polish plate racks (we had 3 in our state match, 2 on the same stage), and they all seemed like they behaved the exact same way. Once you start shooting plates off them, they move around. Obviously, it will be different for every shooter because no one shoots the plates the exact same way with the exact same timing. Unless the plates aren't put in correctly and fall off by themselves, it's hard for me to imagine what could go wrong with one. It seems to me the presentation of the plates is entirely subject to the shooter's choices and skill.

[deacon12224]

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all

competitors.

I think you would have a hard time making the case that that target presented itself to all competitors the same.

Edited August 30, 2013 by deacon12224

[ctay]

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all

competitors.

I think you would have a hard time making the case that that target presented itself to all competitors the same.

Random is fair and equitable for all. I don't see anything about exactly the same - at least not in 4.6.1.

[Nik Habicht]

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all

competitors.

I think you would have a hard time making the case that that target presented itself to all competitors the same.

A Texas Star, assuming that it is reset identically will present an identical challenge to all competitors until the competitor takes action upon the star......

Really all it's going to do is spin, and slow down the longer the shooter waits.....

What happens after the shooter knocks down the first plate is under his control....

[Flexmoney]

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all

competitors.

I think you would have a hard time making the case that that target presented itself to all competitors the same.

Random is fair and equitable for all. I don't see anything about exactly the same - at least not in 4.6.1.

Huh? Random is equal? Heck, I wonder if employers should hand out pay checks randomly???

Random is...actually..random. Right?

Is this target random?

[ctay]

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all

competitors.

I think you would have a hard time making the case that that target presented itself to all competitors the same.

Random is fair and equitable for all. I don't see anything about exactly the same - at least not in 4.6.1.

Huh? Random is equal? Heck, I wonder if employers should hand out pay checks randomly???

Random is...actually..random. Right?

Is this target random?

Let me try a different way. Is a random shooting order fair and equitable? Not everyone gets a chance to shoot first or last. The shooting challenge is slightly different because the guy who shoots last has the benefit of the experience of watching everyone else shoot the stage first.

However, a random shooting order is fair because no one has a greater or lesser chance of going first or last - it's random, and not influenced by anyone's wishes. This target is similar - the presentation (if it is different) is random. Assuming the same setup each time, it has the same probability of pattern for each competitor. That is fair but not exactly the same.

Paychecks on the other hand correspond to a contract. Every employee negotiates a different rate and thus fair is giving the employee the check that corresponds to the rate negotiated. Not a great analog to target presentation.

[Collecting A's]

The target I've dealt with is random.

One shooter would activate it, shoot another target then go to it and it was right there.

The next guy would try the same and it would hide behind the barrels and take quite a while to come out(sometimes).

[Collecting A's]

ctay,

How is random fair when it adds time to your run compared to your competition?

[Poppa Bear]

I watched several videos of the Area 1 match just to get an idea of how random their swinger was. It looked quite consistent in terms of initial presentation. I do not know how wild it got after swinging for 10 to 15 seconds, but it looked very shootable for the first 3 to 5 seconds.

The most difficult presentation I ever shot was a set of 4 swingers all activated off a single stomp pad. All 4 swingers had different rates so you really had to time your sequence so that you could engage a target as it was appearing rather than waiting for it to appear. Most of us ended up waiting for at least one target to appear.

[ctay]

ctay,

How is random fair when it adds time to your run compared to your competition?

Did it have the same probability of presentation to all competitors?

We have other instances where environmental factors impact the presentation of a stage. As we don't control the weather, we do not adjust for differing weather conditions. While we may not like the fact that some people get to shoot in the sun and some in the rain we accept that the weather is random (not strictly speaking but for purposes of this discussion it is close enough) and fair. Wind may momentarily hold up a drop turner or blow dust around that makes the stage less comfortable. That is just the nature of life in an ever changing world but is not unfair or unequal.

As you can see, we accept that fairness or equality does not mean exactly the same.

Additionally I think you would have to think hard to come up with a situation where this target or its presentation would truly add time to a competitor. It may be moving in a different pattern but that in and of itself does not add time. How you deal with the movement is the determining factor. Thus, dealing with movement is the skill that these type of targets test.

[Flexmoney]

ctay,

How is random fair when it adds time to your run compared to your competition?

Did it have the same probability of presentation to all competitors?

No. Not if it random. Duh. (FIFY)

[ctay]

ctay,

How is random fair when it adds time to your run compared to your competition?

Did it have the same probability of presentation to all competitors?

No. Not if it random. Duh. (FIFY)

No, you broke it. Probability is exactly what we are talking about. Just as we all have the same probability of going first in a random start order, the same probability of presentation patterns is what makes it fair. We have the same probability of weather variations, therefore it is fair.

To put it another way, it would not be fair to say that competitor A MUST shoot in the rain and competitor B MUST NOT shoot in the rain. They do not have the same probability of shooting in the rain (100% vs 0%). It would be fair to say competitor A & B will shoot on friday and it may or may not rain. We don't determine the weather, we simply deal with the circumstances as they are which is a fair and equitable way to deal with random events.

This is not that complicated. This target tests ability to engage a moving target. Moving targets- by their nature and due to the laws of physics will never be exactly the same. That doesn't make them unfair.

[MarkCO]

Ctay, did you take a probability or statistics class ever? I have not seen so warped an argument since the presidential debates!

a

[ctay]

Ctay, did you take a probability or statistics class ever? I have not seen so warped an argument since the presidential debates!

a

MarkCO - you are going to have to explain that. Essentially what I am saying is that it need not have the exact same outcome to be fair and equitable. Of course that only applies to spherical targets in a vacuum...

[Flexmoney]

Essentially what I am saying is that it need not have the exact same outcome to be fair and equitable.

Yeah...I think we all get what you are saying.

Even if a certain percentage of shooters get "A" and a certain percentage of shooters get "B". That does NOT mean that "A" and "B" are equal.

You are talking about chance.

We don't have control over the weather. We do have control on putting out random targets or not.

[MarkCO]

There are elements of action shooting competition we accept as being unfair, nor equitable, such as weather and lighting. However that does not entitle one to say they are therefore fair and all other similar occurrences are therefore fair. Our acceptance does not grant those unfair situations "fair" status and in no way use them a the test for other circumstances.