Standing reload Question

[alma]

Thomas,

While I suppose that blame cannot go to the shooters, I see this as an ethical issue of sorts. Please believe that USPSA is right for me. I am a Production Master, an Area 1 production champion and I love the challenge of finding the most effective ways to shoot stages. However, I also have years under my belt as a CRO, match director and stage designer so I have some sympathy for the guys your designed and set up the stage 95% right but left out important details in the stage description.

You are right that it isn't really the shooters fault, it is bad stage design which was exploited by Ben and perhaps others. Significant oversights in design like this can really destroy a good match as later in the day when word gets around about how ____ shot the stage and everyone else has to make a decision about whether to follow suit or get left behind in the rankings. Additionally, this stage now becomes a huge safety risk because that prop was obviously not designed to take that kind of abuse. Just imagine what it would look like after 50 other shooters came behind and tried to shoot the stage in the same way. It is very likely that this prop would claps sending a competitor with a loaded gun crashing to the ground. It also could be unsafe because of how high over the berm the shooter now places him or her self.

While not illegal, assuming other shooting positions are available, being able to hose 26 shots from a single shooting position is also very poor stage design.

Ideally, someone could have pointed out the potential exploit during the walk-through or before and there are multiple ways that it could have been corrected.

Most appropriate would have been to have the Range Master declare standing on top of the barrel as an "forbidden action" meaning anyone who did this would be subject to 10.2.11. Also, the stage description could have specified that the walls extended all the way up. A level 1 match could also specify something like, "targets TX, TX and TX must be shot through barrel A."

Again, it looked like a cools stage and its too bad that one minor overlooked detail killed the intent. Perhaps its a great use case for future CROs on how not to leave loopholes.

Now, Ben did nothing illegal and its possible that someone else did it first necessitating all competitive following competitors to shoot the stage that way or get smoked; however, there is a question of match ethics if such a thing exists.

Before the stage started it would have been great for someone to step up and tell the RM about the possibility for unsafe action which would also lead to a significant stage advantage which would unbalance all other options.

[RammerJammer]

Thomas,

While I suppose that blame cannot go to the shooters, I see this as an ethical issue of sorts. Please believe that USPSA is right for me. I am a Production Master, an Area 1 production champion and I love the challenge of finding the most effective ways to shoot stages. However, I also have years under my belt as a CRO, match director and stage designer so I have some sympathy for the guys your designed and set up the stage 95% right but left out important details in the stage description.

You are right that it isn't really the shooters fault, it is bad stage design which was exploited by Ben and perhaps others. Significant oversights in design like this can really destroy a good match as later in the day when word gets around about how ____ shot the stage and everyone else has to make a decision about whether to follow suit or get left behind in the rankings. Additionally, this stage now becomes a huge safety risk because that prop was obviously not designed to take that kind of abuse. Just imagine what it would look like after 50 other shooters came behind and tried to shoot the stage in the same way. It is very likely that this prop would claps sending a competitor with a loaded gun crashing to the ground. It also could be unsafe because of how high over the berm the shooter now places him or her self.

While not illegal, assuming other shooting positions are available, being able to hose 26 shots from a single shooting position is also very poor stage design.

Ideally, someone could have pointed out the potential exploit during the walk-through or before and there are multiple ways that it could have been corrected.

Most appropriate would have been to have the Range Master declare standing on top of the barrel as an "forbidden action" meaning anyone who did this would be subject to 10.2.11. Also, the stage description could have specified that the walls extended all the way up. A level 1 match could also specify something like, "targets TX, TX and TX must be shot through barrel A."

Again, it looked like a cools stage and its too bad that one minor overlooked detail killed the intent. Perhaps its a great use case for future CROs on how not to leave loopholes.

Now, Ben did nothing illegal and its possible that someone else did it first necessitating all competitive following competitors to shoot the stage that way or get smoked; however, there is a question of match ethics if such a thing exists.

Before the stage started it would have been great for someone to step up and tell the RM about the possibility for unsafe action which would also lead to a significant stage advantage which would unbalance all other options.

Im with you, this crap is just like the forward pass in football or the dunk in basketball. It will ruin everything and destroy the sport.

[sperman]

Do you know how many times the word "intent" appears in the USPSA rulebook? Twice. Both times it is in the phrase "intent of the rules." There is no "intent of the stage design" in USPSA.

Sometimes shooters find loopholes. As a stage designer, I learn from it, suck it up and move on. But then again, I never design a stage with any "intent." I try to give the shooter options, and let them make decisions on their own. My only "intent" is to have a fun and challenging stage that can be shot in multiple ways.

[alma]

Point well taken. It's just a shame to see a good stage go to waste.

I don't know how this played out but if it were a major match then I suspect this stage would be ether be modified with reshoots required or it would be thrown out altogether. This is something that not every shooter could physically do it is a significant enough advantage that it would quickly be protested and addressed.

[sperman]

It was Ben screwing around in practice. It wasn't a match.

[alma]

Thanks for the clarification;that makes more sense now. I guess I just wanted to ensure that IDPA shooters don't see this example as something that typifies USPSA.

[sperman]

I agree. This isn't something that would normally happen in a USPSA match. It would typically be caught during setup, or as you say, the Forbidden Action rule would be applied, because the potential for danger is pretty high. Plus, at least for now, the FA rule can also be applied to close a loophole like this. I think that option will go away with the new rulebook.

[motosapiens]

Yep, if you don't like games with rules, it's best to move on from IDPA. Then you too can do stuff like this...

No offense to Ben intended at all...very creative.

That is pretty lame. Four words in the stage description would have rectified that but there are some times respecting intent at the club level is a needed social skill.

I don't have a problem with that at all. Since the table seems a bit rickety to me. For safety reasons, I would declare it a forbidden action and require Ben to re-shoot.

[Thomas H]

While I suppose that blame cannot go to the shooters, I see this as an ethical issue of sorts.

[snip]

However, I also have years under my belt as a CRO, match director and stage designer so I have some sympathy for the guys your designed and set up the stage 95% right but left out important details in the stage description.

You are right that it isn't really the shooters fault, [snip]

So---the shooter did what was completely legal within the rules. How is this an ethical issue, particularly since you said it wasn't the shooter's fault?

Sure, I've got sympathy for the stage designer---and yet, that doesn't mean anything with respect to what the shooter did, which is what you spoke out against in your initial post.

As USPSA shooters, our GOAL is to find the best way to get the highest hit factor on the stage. So what exactly was the shooter issue?

I do agree with various folks that from an RM point of view, if this were an actual USPSA match (which, as several people including myself as have mentioned, it wasn't), I'd also call this an unsafe situation and proclaim it a forbidden action and order a reshoot. That is separate from any commentary about the shooter's actions, and calling them "lame."

So I'm still not understanding the attitude behind:

That is pretty lame. Four words in the stage description would have rectified that but there are some times respecting intent at the club level is a needed social skill.

....since it wasn't lame, it was brilliant. (Ridiculous, but brilliant.) And "respecting intent" is up there with "FTDR" in USPSA.

Both of which are important in IDPA, because it is a different sport. But that wasn't IDPA.

So as a USPSA CRO, you expect shooters to follow the stage designer's intent?

(Hm. That's some serious thread drift, from standing reloads. Sorry, folks.)

[alma]

(speaking of thread drift) As general concepts ethical and legal are not the same thing. Just because something is legal to do doesn't mean its always the right thing to do. This applies in many areas of life which are may be otherwise moral gray areas.

Personal ethics with very from one individual to the next but in general acting on sound personal ethics would positively impact the experience of others or at a minimum should not have a negative impact.

For me personally, this falls into a similar category as the rare cut-throat pro shooter who at a major match tries to intimidate the RO into calling that Alpha-Mike as a perfect double. You can legally do stuff like this all day but it doesn't mean I can't think you are a scumbag for doing it.

[Thomas H]

(speaking of thread drift) As general concepts ethical and legal are not the same thing. Just because something is legal to do doesn't mean its always the right thing to do. This applies in many areas of life which are may be otherwise moral gray areas.

Personal ethics with very from one individual to the next but in general acting on sound personal ethics would positively impact the experience of others or at a minimum should not have a negative impact.

For me personally, this falls into a similar category as the rare cut-throat pro shooter who at a major match tries to intimidate the RO into calling that Alpha-Mike as a perfect double. You can legally do stuff like this all day but it doesn't mean I can't think you are a scumbag for doing it.

Huh. So, from your viewpoint, given your training as a USPSA match official, using intimidation to achieve an unfair (and un-earned) advantage is the same thing as following the rules of the sport and performing perfectly legal actions in a freestyle manner without any negative behavior toward others, from an ethical perspective.

From the point of someone who is a competitor, that is a good thing to know about a match official's perspective, on the off chance that I'm ever at a match where you are working. Note to self: freestyle is okay, as long as it doesn't short-circuit the stage designer's intent in Area 1, whatever that means in USPSA.

I am a Production Master, an Area 1 production champion and I love the challenge of finding the most effective ways to shoot stages. However, I also have years under my belt as a CRO, match director and stage designer so I have some sympathy for the guys your designed and set up the stage 95% right but left out important details in the stage description.

Oddly enough, I'm a Production Master, an Area 3 production champion, and I love the challenge of finding the most effective ways to shoot stages. (None of which actually makes any difference to this argument.) I'm also a CRO and have been for a number of years, working local, state, and area matches. And I design, build, and run a lot of stages for those, too.

And I pretty much completely disagree with your opinion (note that is just my opinion) regarding the ethics of the people in the video in question.

I find it difficult to call "ethical violation" against people who are literally exemplifying the freestyle nature of the sport by staying completely within the rules, and also find it difficult to do things like call them "lame". And in USPSA, unless discussing classifiers, I see no reason to ever use the phrase "the intent of the stage".

I especially don't see any comparison between those actions, and deliberate attempted intimidation of match officials to gain an unfair and un-earned advantage. I'll also note that unlike the freestyle video, intimidation of a match official IS something that we have rules against.

[alma]

It's pretty obvious that this isn't going anywhere worthwhile. You could have just said, "haters gonna hate" and been done with the whole conversation?

[alma]

Okay, I will now foolishly add one more thought. Others have agreed that because of the physical nature of the shortcut which would limit other shooters from being able to safely have it as an option, that this stage would likely be protested and thrown out of a match. If you are the shooter that is thinking about doing this but knows that it will likely result in having the stage thrown out of the match would you do it anyway? This assumes that no one else has already done it.

I am not saying it isn't your right to do it if you want to but I maintain every right to think that IMHO it isn't classy.

[motosapiens]

Okay, I will now foolishly add one more thought. Others have agreed that because of the physical nature of the shortcut which would limit other shooters from being able to safely have it as an option, that this stage would likely be protested and thrown out of a match. If you are the shooter that is thinking about doing this but knows that it will likely result in having the stage thrown out of the match would you do it anyway? This assumes that no one else has already done it.

I am not saying it isn't your right to do it if you want to but I maintain every right to think that IMHO it isn't classy.

wait, what? throwing it out seems crazy. I'm assuming we're talking about uspsa here, and they have a process explicitly designed for situations where a shooter does something unexpected that may be unsafe and advantageous. Declare it a forbidden action after the first shooter does, make that shooter reshoot, alter the stage briefing to include the forbidden action, and DQ anyone else who does it.

No need to throw anything out. You could also simply specify that all walls are considered to go up indefinitely, and it's simply not allowed to shoot over them. Tempest in a teapot imho.

[Thomas H]

Tempest in a teapot imho.

Yep.

[tiger49931]

This is by far the most frequently discussed "new rule" being discussed at every IDPA match (sanctioned and non-sanctioned) that I have attended since the new rules went into effect in October. Believe me . . . . . you are not the only one who cannot "wrap your mind around" the thought process behind this rule. Lots of opinions behind it, but I'm not aware of an "official" explanation, although it might be out there somewhere.

From what i got at the SO training in MI the rule is as he described it to me to wrap my head around. " You cannot reload except at a point of cover, and A point of cover is a point from which you can engage targets." A reload is started when you push the mag release or grab a magazine. So the instance he had was you engage five targets from one side of a wall and ran your gun empty but all targets have been engaged and you are still behind cover. You turn to run down the 10 ft long wall (gun empty) before you break cover on the opposing side to engage the last 3 targets you must reload. so as you get near the end of the wall you step and plant one foot.( forward most foot ) then step with your other foot while dropping the magazine ( keeping your original foot still planted and initiating the reload ) when that foot hits the ground and you are almost done with the reload you lift your planted foot but when it hits the ground you must be able to engage targets with no more foot movement. So this makes you think about if your going around the right side or left side of the wall which foot your going to plant so when you reset it after your reload you are right in position to engage the next set of targets.

if you leave a point of cover to engage targets on the move and you have no more cover to move to you cannot reload and when you run out of bullets you are finished.

Also once you take a area of cover you do not need to retreat back to reload. So you're going around a wall to engage 3 targets if you shoot 2 you do not need to go back to full cover of the first target to reload I.E once you take a space you don't give it up to the bad guy. some of the rules i like because it makes you think.

not sure this helps clear anything or creates more questions.

[sjz]

From what i got at the SO training in MI the rule is as he described it to me to wrap my head around. " You cannot reload except at a point of cover, and A point of cover is a point from which you can engage targets." A reload is started when you push the mag release or grab a magazine. So the instance he had was you engage five targets from one side of a wall and ran your gun empty but all targets have been engaged and you are still behind cover. You turn to run down the 10 ft long wall (gun empty) before you break cover on the opposing side to engage the last 3 targets you must reload. ...

You can not do this and I am surprised this was taught at an SO course.

When you run dry behind cover, in this case the left side of the wall, you can not move from this position of cover with a gun that is empty. So on the left side you can essentiually take 1 step while reloading with one of your feet not moving (the pivot foot.) Only when the reload is complete can you move the pivot foot.

********************

3.9. Under no circumstances may a shooter leave a “position of cover” with an empty weapon. A “position of cover” is defined as any fixed location in a stage from which the shooter is required to engage targets from cover. The boundary marking the “position of cover” is the line of cover defined by the last target to be engaged from that position.

3.9.1. If the shooter runs the firearm empty behind cover, the shooter may not advance in the stage, (move toward the next shooting position) until the weapon is deemed loaded.

[tiger49931]

very interesting ill call my trainer. The way he made it seem is that when you finish your reload you must be able to engage targets within the one step. Or maybe i took that wrong.

[Glock3422]

This is by far the most frequently discussed "new rule" being discussed at every IDPA match (sanctioned and non-sanctioned) that I have attended since the new rules went into effect in October. Believe me . . . . . you are not the only one who cannot "wrap your mind around" the thought process behind this rule. Lots of opinions behind it, but I'm not aware of an "official" explanation, although it might be out there somewhere.

From what i got at the SO training in MI the rule is as he described it to me to wrap my head around. " You cannot reload except at a point of cover, and A point of cover is a point from which you can engage targets." A reload is started when you push the mag release or grab a magazine. So the instance he had was you engage five targets from one side of a wall and ran your gun empty but all targets have been engaged and you are still behind cover. You turn to run down the 10 ft long wall (gun empty) before you break cover on the opposing side to engage the last 3 targets you must reload. so as you get near the end of the wall you step and plant one foot.( forward most foot ) then step with your other foot while dropping the magazine ( keeping your original foot still planted and initiating the reload ) when that foot hits the ground and you are almost done with the reload you lift your planted foot but when it hits the ground you must be able to engage targets with no more foot movement. So this makes you think about if your going around the right side or left side of the wall which foot your going to plant so when you reset it after your reload you are right in position to engage the next set of targets.

if you leave a point of cover to engage targets on the move and you have no more cover to move to you cannot reload and when you run out of bullets you are finished.

Also once you take a area of cover you do not need to retreat back to reload. So you're going around a wall to engage 3 targets if you shoot 2 you do not need to go back to full cover of the first target to reload I.E once you take a space you don't give it up to the bad guy. some of the rules i like because it makes you think.

not sure this helps clear anything or creates more questions.

A new tribe of SOs is formed.

There is a new SOI in my state that has never run a legal IDPA match. Never.

[Thomas H]

very interesting ill call my trainer. The way he made it seem is that when you finish your reload you must be able to engage targets within the one step. Or maybe i took that wrong.

I'm new to IDPA, so maybe I'm reading the rule incorrectly, but when it says:

3.9.1. If the shooter runs the firearm empty behind cover, the shooter may not advance in the stage, (move toward the next shooting position) until the weapon is deemed loaded.

...I assume it means that you can't advance in the stage until the gun is loaded. It doesn't matter if you have started the reload or not. The gun is empty. Therefore, rule 3.9.1 applies.

I'm having a hard time with making that mean anything other than exactly what it says.

I can't find any place in the rules where it says that when a reload is finished, you must be able to take a maximum of one step to engage the next target.

[John Z Sr]

Yep, if you don't like games with rules, it's best to move on from IDPA. Then you too can do stuff like this...

No offense to Ben intended at all...very creative.

I loved the video. Ben is an amazing shooter, he probably would have left everyone in the dust even if he had shot the stage the way it was intended.

NO question, but the video show what a lack of real rules looks like. That way of shooting the stage was technically perfectly legal.

I disagree with that assessment. The game has rules. The shooter followed those rules. Just because the game doesn't tell the shooter what to do every step of the way isn't the same thing as "a lack of real rules." Stage designers present a challenge. It is the shooters job to come up with the best way to solve the challenge.

Yup, what he said

[tiger49931]

My bad it was a reload with retention not an emergency reload. So he wasnt empty when he was advancing but did initiate a reload behind cover and out of step with the other side of the barricade. he could not re-engage targets with out "traveling " so he got the PE. It was my bad thought it was a emergency reload..

[Sidewinder6]

This is by far the most frequently discussed "new rule" being discussed at every IDPA match (sanctioned and non-sanctioned) that I have attended since the new rules went into effect in October. Believe me . . . . . you are not the only one who cannot "wrap your mind around" the thought process behind this rule. Lots of opinions behind it, but I'm not aware of an "official" explanation, although it might be out there somewhere.

From what i got at the SO training in MI the rule is as he described it to me to wrap my head around. " You cannot reload except at a point of cover, and A point of cover is a point from which you can engage targets."

if you leave a point of cover to engage targets on the move and you have no more cover to move to you cannot reload and when you run out of bullets you are finished.

What is the exact rule in the current rule book that supports this assertion? People are talking themselves in circles and these incredibly dumb rules are starting to overlap.

What is the rule that states the ONLY place there is cover is at a shooting position?

Cover extends to infinity. Where did they come up with this gem?

Edited February 2, 2014 by Sidewinder6

[RickB]

A lot of arguing that standing flat-footed is "unrealistic", by people who want to charge downrange with a down-loaded or unloaded gun, searching for threats that are assumed to be static while engaging the other threats? Who's being unrealistic? Why would anyone go looking for a threat? That's not defensively sound. When you are closing on that threat, which in "reality" would have moved as soon as the bullets started flying, you go with a gun that's empty or down to one round while you reload?

The big complaint used to be that you couldn't reload until reaching cover, because nobody would wait to reload? Well, who in their right mind would leave cover with insufficient rounds to deal with a known number of threats? That's even less realistic.

[Sidewinder6]

Realistic.

I was lost.

Thank you.