Jim Norman Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Vince, and others: 7.1.1 Range Officer (“RO”) – issues range commands, oversees competitor compliance with the written stage briefing and closely monitors safe competitor action. He also declares the time, scores and penalties achieved by each competitor and verifies that these are correctly recorded on the competitor’s score sheet As I have repeated asked, where does the authority to tell me how to place my gun on the table come from. Your answer 7.1.1 is shown above. It says compliance with the WSB, so where does it say you get to interpret the WSB? What part of On the Table don't you understand? If the gun is On the Table, it is on the table. Unless the WSB says specifically lying on side, unpropped, then any way I place the gun on the table is within the WSB. Examples: #1 Start Position: Gun on table, competitor standing behind table. #2 Start Position: Gun lying on table, competitor standing behind table with hands above respective shoulders. #3 Start Position: Gun lying on X on table, pointing straight down range, competitor standing erect behind table with hands above respective shoulders thumbs at ear level. In #1, I would say that anywhere on the table is OK and my hands could be hovering just over the gun, but not touching it, IF I wanted them there. My hand position was unspecified as was the exact positining of the gun. In #2, I would say the gun had to be on its side since it is generally accepted in language that when you lay something down it is in its most recumbent position. However, the gun could still be anywhere on the table top and as long as my hands were slightly above shoulder height, I could crouch and I would still meet the parameters of the WSB., No RO interpretation allowed here either. In #3 I would say that the RO has the right to assume that erect means ERECT and can tell a competitor not to crouch, and to put his hands up till the thumbs are at ear level and that his gun needs to be on its side on the X and that the muzzle needs to be rotated 5 more degrees to point exactly down range. You see I believe that free means exactly that, FREE. It may be strictly an American thing, but I like the idea of doing it my way. If there is a specific instruction that everyone is to follow and we are playing a game, (that is what this is after all) I will abide gracefully. If however there is latitude, I will take any competitive advantage, real or imagined that I see. No, I do not want another rule. In fact I still think we have far too many and most of the latest have no logic and no legal necessity behind them. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Vince seems to be saying that when he RMs a match or CROs a stage, that the start position portion of the course description is written in a crystal clear manner, that allows for (virtually) no deviation from shooter to shooter. Vince, do I have that right so far? Yes. However what I'm also stating is that if the written stage briefing is not as clear as it should be (never on my watch!), the RO has the right to require consistent start positions. In respect of the issue at hand, if the written stage briefing merely said "gun on table" without specifically defining the orientation, there's no way in the world I would allow the gun to be placed or propped upright. And if a "prima donna" wanted to argue, I would be entitled to invoke Rule 2.3.3.1, but thankfully I've never had to deal with such bloody-mindedness. Speaking of "bloody mindedness. The arrogance of some is unbelievable. "Never on my watch"? If you write it down I would comply, but if it is not in the WSB, you cannot add it. And 2.3.3.1 would not apply. An example would be targets behind a door that I can see without opening the door. I am not talking about activating a target here, meerly opening a door so that I can see that targets. If I see a different path through the COF than you envisioned, then I can step out of the FFZ, go around or accross a corner, re-enter the FFZ on the otherside of the door and shoot the targets. I agree that if the stage were built properly the likelihood of that happening most likely would not occur, but it could. and there is no rule to correct it. Yes, you could rebuild the stage I suppose, but then any change could likely affect how everyone else shot the stage and that would bring into effect 2.3.4 unless every competitor was able to reshoot the stage. It was not the shooter that caused the change by finding your loophole, it was your decision not to admit you had a loophole in your design that caused the change to be made. We are talking freestyle afterall. And a better point can be made that the rule you would invoke applies to action AFTER the start, not before, so how I placed my gun would not cause the rule to go into effect. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 I also think that you should temper your comments. As a Moderator you are showing signs of temper here. "Prima-Donna" and "Bloody-mindedness" in reference to fellow BEF contributors is hardly the sort of language I would expect. In some parts of the world “bloody” this or that is considered to be quite vulgar speech. Not the sort of thing one would say in gentle company as were old chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Vince, I do believe you are mistaken on this one. I'd appreciate it if you would give it a look from a different perspective. However...I am going to close this thread...at least for now. It is heading down the path of another pissing contest between the posters. We've had 6 pages of input. That should hold us for a while. LOCKED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts