Starting positions

[Skywalker]

I thought it was better to start a new thread on this, since the real discussion was being carried on in too many threads and was getting too fragmented.

If any moderator whishes to move here relevant posts from other threads, I'll be thankful.

[Skywalker]

I'm trying to sum up different visions of the problem.

Some forum members think that whenever the WSB gives the competitor the leeway to interpret the starting condition/position, he should be left the freedom to do so.

Others think that the RO has the power to enforce restrictions on the starting condition/position (as stated in the WSB) to ensure consistency.

IMHO, at present, the rulebook doesn't seem to support this latter view, according to rules 3.2.2, 8.2.2 and 8.3.1. (but I'll gladly accept corrections on this).

OTOH, I acknowledge that a lawyer would be needed if the WSB had to specify the exact initial conditions for the COF.

Personally, I'd like the rulebook to clearly state that the RO has the power to clarify with specific examples the starting position/condition of the COF upon finishing to read the WSB to each squad, failing which, everybody is entitled to interpret the starting position as long as he complies with the WSB.

This would leave to the stage designer the possibility of having the same start for everybody, or to allow creativity.

[Vince Pinto]

Personally, I'd like the rulebook to clearly state that the RO has the power to clarify with specific examples the starting position/condition of the COF upon finishing to read the WSB to each squad, failing which, everybody is entitled to interpret the starting position as long as he complies with the WSB.

Do you mean something like:

3.2.2 The Range Official in charge of a course of fire must read out the written stage briefing verbatim to each squad. However, where necessary for the sake of consistency, the Range Official may also clarify the acceptable parameters of the handgun ready condition and/or the start position, by physically demonstrating or verbally stating them, provided that identical parameters are applied equitably to all competitors.

This would obviate the need to write definitions for commonly used expressions such as "facing", "uprange", "downrange", "toes", "box", "intertwined", "surrender position", "standing upright", "hanging naturally" and "butt naked".

[Dead Buff]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't remove the "butt naked" WSB

I think this will make many happy and some sad, but will kill all doubt and discussion (if accepted by the rules comitee....)

[Skywalker]

Do you mean something like:

3.2.2 The Range Official in charge of a course of fire must read out the written stage briefing verbatim to each squad. However, where necessary for the sake of consistency, the Range Official may also clarify the acceptable parameters of the handgun ready condition and/or the start position, by physically demonstrating or verbally stating them, provided that identical parameters are applied equitably to all competitors.

Along that line of thoughts, exactly.

I don't mind complying with the rules, when they're crystal clear, but I'd hate to be forced to do something the rules do not say.

[Flexmoney]

I don't care for that at all. We don't need RO's deciding on the spot what will and won't be legal. Get it in the written stage briefing.

Either write the briefing well enough to be clear, or keep quite.

For the record, I think Jim AND Vince are both wrong/right. They've presented arguements to support their position(s).

- Gun on table. This is clear enough for most. We know what a gun is...and we know what a table is.

- Facing up range. Here, we may not be clear. We don't have a definition of "facing". Is it the body? Shoulders? Head? Feet? Here is an example that is unclear, and may require input from the RO. (This would never happen on any stage were I was the CRO. )

[dirtypool40]

We had a similiar "RO interpretation" problem at the 03 FL State. Gun starts flat on table, thumbs in belt. The guy reading the course says T1-T3 must be engaged from behind table. Not wanting to get procs. on my first stage I stand there flat footed and shoot T1-T3 then run over to the next array.

I had a terrible run.

As I am gathering my trash to move to the next stge, the next squad starts to shoot and sure enough they START behind the table and then shoot T1-T3 moving towards teh second array. I was pissed!!!

I give the RO my most polite WTF?!?!?! and he says something to the effect of "You could do that if you asked about it specifically..."

Yeah, that's what we need, secret password stages. Well needless to say this inexperienced goofballs uneven handling almost got the stage tossed.

A couple of stages later, another inexperienced RO didn't stop me on a squib.

To say the least I had kind of a rough match.

[Skywalker]

Dirtypool,

I'm sorry to hear your bad experience, but please note that here we're debating starting positions, not stage procedures.

After the beep, at a lev. III match, in a comstock stage, there is no way the stage briefing (or the RO) can dictate a shooting sequence.

As Vince already pointed out, after the beep you're on your own.

[schoonie]

Skywalker/Vince

I'm still not thrilled with the idea of allowing extra interpretations or restrictions by an RO after the stage has been documented. The RO can and certainly should answer questions and demonstrate acceptable positions.

I believe that the real issue here is to have a well written stage briefing. It seems that there are some key issues that each WSB needs to address such as every point of contact that shooter will have with the range at the start (feet, butt, hands, etc.) and the orientation of the head.

Being sure to address these will go a long way toward avoiding endless definitions of terms and word games.

[MoNsTeR]

"for the sake of consistency" implies that consistency is a virtue in itself. I firmly disagree with that. To employ a flagrant straw man, if consistency is a virtue, go shoot IDPA instead.

The only thing that needs to be consistent is the challenge faced by the shooter. Making everyone start in the same pose is not necessary to accomplish that, because the start pose is part of the solution not the challenge. It is only necessary to make clear what range of poses is allowable, and let the competitor choose based on their own judgment.

[dajarrel]

Skywalker,

As for your Subtopic: "Starting positions, dictated or interpretable?" It should not be a question but a statement. IF it is not dictated. then it is open to interpretation.

If you are not told in the stage description what to do, it then falls back to what makes this sport so special, Freestyle.

just my take on things.

dj

[Nik Habicht]

When I write a stage description, I tend to be either pretty specific (Seated on chair, back touching back of chair, feet flat on ground, hands touching nose) or really vague (Standing in free fire zone.) I guess when I want a vague, shooter determined start in the future it'll have to be pretty specific as well: Standing anywhere in Freefire zone, in any position the shooter wants to assume that doesn't violate "Can't touch the gun or mags" rule --- which I can't seem to find right now......

[Vince Pinto]

Facing up range.  Here, we may not be clear.  We don't have a definition of "facing".  Is it the body?  Shoulders?  Head?  Feet?  Here is an example that is unclear, and may require input from the RO.

Hang on a second. You're saying that the RO can sometimes define and clarify the words used in the WSB, but not always? And would you kindly answer my questions below:

Classifier 99-02: "Sitting behind table with knees under edge, fingers of hands interlaced in lap"

Would I satisfy the "interlaced" requirement by just having the first joint of my fingers interlaced?

Classifier 99-11: "Standing in Box A, back to targets, toes of both feet against rear of fault line of Box A"

Since it says toes of both feet, not toes of both shoes, am I required to be bare footed?

Classifier 99-21: "Gun must be on its side - not propped up by any artificial means."

Would an extended slide racker be considered "artificial means"?

Classifier 99-27: "Loaded gun is lying flat on X in center of table with muzzle downrange"

Since the WSB requires my gun be flat, must I remove my extended magazine release?

In each case above, and regardless of your answer, please quote the applicable rule.

Thank you.

[bgary]

3.2.2 The Range Official in charge of a course of fire must read out the written stage briefing verbatim to each squad. However, where necessary for the sake of consistency, the Range Official may also clarify the acceptable parameters of the handgun ready condition and/or the start position, by physically demonstrating or verbally stating them, provided that identical parameters are applied equitably to all competitors.

Noooooooooooo!!!! (include whiny tone in my voice)

1) Our sport is about *freestyle*. If the written stage briefing does not specify constraints or requirements for the start position, then it is one of the cornerstones of our sport to ALLOW creativity, within the bounds of what is written. Allowing an RO to arbitrarily "add" to the stage briefing is counter to one of the tenets of our sport. Consistency in *competitor* actions is not a goal - it in indicative of a boring connect-the-dots stage. The *best* stages are the ones that have multiple ways to solve them... lets not legislate that out.

2) One of the worst problems we have in our sport is ... uh... creative interpretation of the rules. What that language would do, is explicity say "hey, I know the written stage briefing doesn't include this language, so feel free to fill in the blanks according to what you feel is important." That would be a Really Bad Precedent. We should go by what is WRITTEN. Period. And if there is a problem with the WSB, there is already a mechanism for fixing it - calling the RM, and having him revise it, so that WHAT IS WRITTEN is again the binding reference. Consistency in *RO* actions is critical to competitive equity, and allowing ROs to arbitrarily and capriciously decide what the WSB "means" is directly counter to that goal.

Bruce

[Vince Pinto]

Bruce, old son,

The subject at hand is not a matter of "creative interpretation of the rules", nor is it one of people making up illegal "local rules". It's about whether or not an RO can clarify the acceptable parameters of what is stated in the written stage briefing - see my questions posed to Flexmoney above.

I'd also like to ask you the same question I asked Jim Norman, to wit:

Consider an El Presidente, where the WSB says "Facing Uprange". If I stand with my chest and shoulders parallel to the back berm (i.e. towards the targets), but I turn my head and look over my right shoulder so that my face is facing uprange, is that an acceptable Start Position to you? In other words, my interpretation of "facing" only requires my "face" to comply.

[bgary]

If you want to solve that problem, I think the appropriate place to do it is in the Glossary. In other words, the right place to define what "interlaced" or "facing uprange" means is in the place where we define such terms. A new rule giving the RO authority to "interpret" things is not only the wrong approach, it exacerbates the problem. If you want to add new definitions to the Glossary, great, but *please* do not expand the scope of the rules.

It is *not*, IMHO, appropriate for the RO to decide what those terms mean. The only appropriate actions for the RO to take are to hold people acocuntable to the written requirements (WSB and rulebook), and to call for the RM if clarifications to the WSB are necessary.

In no case should we leave it to the RO to "fill in the blanks". Not only is that not their job, it is directly contrary to a handful of rules which *I* feel are there for a reason.

Bruce

[bgary]

It also occurs to me that we are really having two separate discussions:

-- Can the RO enforce the requirements of the written stage briefing?

vs

-- Can the RO add to the requirements of the written stage briefing?

For the former, I would say yes. If a shooter assumes a position which, in the opinion of the RO cannot be satisfactorily described as "facing uprange" (for example), the RO should not start the shooter until the shooter is, in the opinion of the RO, "facing uprange". I *do* believe the RO has discretion, as long as it is applied consistently.

For the latter, my answer is an emphatic *no*. If the written stage briefing says "facing uprange", the RO does *not* have the authority to say that means "facing uprange, at the rear of the box, knees straight, feet parallel, and fingers straight."

Bruce

[Nik Habicht]

Consider an El Presidente, where the WSB says "Facing Uprange". If I stand with my chest and shoulders parallel to the back berm (i.e. towards the targets), but I turn my head and look over my right shoulder so that my face is facing uprange, is that an acceptable Start Position to you? In other words, my interpretation of "facing" only requires my "face" to comply.

Actually, according to both the National Classification Course Book, Third Edition, 1999; and the National Classification Course Book, Fourth Edition, 2004; the proper start position from the WSB for Course CM99-11 El Presidente is: Standing in Box A, back to targets, toes of both feet against rear of fault line of Box A, both wrists above respective shoulders. The National Classification Course Book, Fourth Edition, 2004, adds another sentence: Handgun is loaded and holstered as per ready condition in rule 8.1.1 and 8.1.2.

Doesn't leave much room for discussion --- unless you want to continue the silly discussion of whether "toes" requires unshod feet. I'll continue to maintain that it comes down to what's written in the WSB --- and if you, as an RO or CRO feel it's unclear, then you should consult with the RM to potentially modify that. Of course, if you're serving as the RM, I would expect that your WSBs would all be clearly and concisely worded......

In any event, I've learned from this discussion that if I design a stage, where I want the shooter to have options in the start position, then I need to word the requirements of the start position precisely to allow for that......

[blackdragon]

Here is one for you, Start position lying on cott firearm loaded and on the table upon start signal retrieve your firearm and engage targets as you see them. I load and make ready place my gun on the table, Proceed to lye face down on the cott. Boy all hell broke loose!

Ivan

[Vince Pinto]

--  Can the RO enforce the requirements of the written stage briefing?

vs

--  Can the RO add to the requirements of the written stage briefing?

For the former, I would say yes.  If a shooter assumes a position which, in the opinion of the RO cannot be satisfactorily described as "facing uprange" (for example), the RO should not start the shooter until the shooter is, in the opinion of the RO, "facing uprange".  I *do* believe the RO has discretion, as long as it is applied consistently.

For the latter, my answer is an emphatic *no*.  If the written stage briefing says "facing uprange", the RO does *not* have the authority to say that means "facing uprange, at the rear of the box, knees straight, feet parallel, and fingers straight." 

In that case, I think we're 95% on the same page. The only thing remaining where we continue to disagree (and which is the TFH which started all other releated TsFH), is in relation to "Gun On Table", where the orientation is not specifically stated.

Of course Nik has already guessed correctly that such a vague WSB would never be seen on my watch!

[Jim Norman]

Sorry, but NO! A very loud NO!

The RO may demonstrate an acceptable position, but may not restrict the competitor beyond the parameters of the WSB.

Example: Start standing in FFZ-A. THe question might be; Is it OK if I stand over here? An acceptable answer would be: You may stand anywhere you want to with in FFZ-A. An unacceptable answer would be: You must stand here where I am standing.

Example: Start standing with heels agains black mark, facing uprange. The RO may show you the marks and point up range. He can even stand there to show you where, but if you want to restrict the head position of the competitor, you may not. He is allowed to rotate his head as far as the 180 and still be facing somewhat uprange. Again, the WSB unless it is very specific is open to the shooter's ability to game.

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

The RO may demonstrate an acceptable position, but may not restrict the competitor beyond the parameters of the WSB.

OK, so how would you answer the following questions arising from actual written stage briefings?:

Classifier 99-11: "Standing in Box A, back to targets, toes of both feet against rear of fault line of Box A"

Since it says toes of both feet, not toes of both shoes, am I required to be bare footed?

Classifier 99-21: "Gun must be on its side - not propped up by any artificial means."

Would an extended slide racker be considered "artificial means"?

Classifier 99-27: "Loaded gun is lying flat on X in center of table with muzzle downrange"

Since the WSB requires my gun be flat, must I remove my extended magazine release?

When replying, please quote the supporting rule or authority.

[shred]

Not Jim, but the Toes/Shoes argument is specious at best:

First rule in the book. 1.1.1-- bare feet is unsafe on most ranges, especially if hot brass lands there. Plus 2.1.1-- No unsafe COF requirements. Also under 5.3.1. MD will probably call for shoes staying on, plus paragraph 6 on page 15 of the US rulebook asks competitors to wear appropriate shoes.

That should do it. (And I get to cite 1.1.1)

[mcoliver]

Oh man, such trouble with words you guys. Here's an idea.

Digital cameras are really cheap these days and they even come free with your phone. How about getting a snap shot of the start position with a real person and let that be the WSB-in-color?

[Tman33_99]

After hanging out seeing where this thread has been going, I have come to the conclusion that I believe most have the similar opinions, but each side has taken their stance to the extreme......I firmly believe that the RO must not enforce a start position that is more strict than the WSB requires. As long as that is enforced consistantly, then I believe there are no worries. If the WSB says "start facing uprange" and no other qualifiers, then the RO must ensure that all competitors start facing up range. For me that is the torso of the body and the head must be facing the uprange side of the 180. If a competitor wants to stand feet facing down range and bend completely over at the waist, I will start him since his face and torso are facing up range. If the designer wants it more restrictive than that.....put in writting in the WSB.