Gun Placed on "X"....

[Cd662]

Rick, if the gun is pointed anywhere in any direction including 179.9999 degrees, that qualifies as downrange.

[justaute]

And many people wonder why grammar and precision are important. I could not care less what the stage-designer's intent was. If the designer is unable to sufficiently communicate it, then I will make the broadest inference and shoot the stage the way I see fit.

[spanky]

And many people wonder why grammar and precision are important. I could not care less what the stage-designer's intent was. If the designer is unable to sufficiently communicate it, then I will make the broadest inference and shoot the stage the way I see fit.

Fa sho.

Edited April 29, 2014 by spanky

[spanky]

I must be missing something, I still dont get how a gun pointed at the table and straight down to the ground is considered pointed downrange....

I imagine it's not "straight down" but more at a 45 degree angle or so.

The definition of "downrange" is anywhere not uprange, for all intents and purposes.

WSB would have ideally stated "flat" and/or "directly down range." to alleviate the confusion.

[BillChunn]

The only one that counts is John Amidon. Let's see what he says....

BC

Mr. Amidon's return e-mail:

Bill,

If one out of 40 competitors was the only one with a gun like this, how fair to the other 39 do you think it is to allow it?

How many table starts have you seen where it wasn’t laid flat, or the stage briefing stated laying flat and not propped?

He should not have been allowed to do it in fairness to all other competitors, plus the safety side of it. His gun falling over could have been a bad incident that the club would have been held responsible.

If the gun only fell on the table, it is not a dropped gun, if he grabbed it and then it fell, it is possible that it could be considered a dropped gun.

John

(Emphasis mine...)

And that folks is how it would be handled..... My thanks to John for his quick reply. If you disagree, please take it up with Mr. Amidon.

Vice President/NROI Director

John Amidon

dnroi@uspsa.org

vp@uspsa.org

BC

Edited April 29, 2014 by BillChunn

[Sarge]

I knew that was coming. I originally only quoted two sentences of the entire section that addressed gaming classifiers. If others would have taken the time to read it they most likely would have come to the same conclusion.

Now, MD's print DNROI's response and put it in your match book for future reference

[B45C22]

His statement was that the competitor "shouldn't have been allowed to do it." The only way that it could be mandated that he COULDN'T do it would be it it was specifically addressed int he WSB. Shouldn't be allowed to do it is not the same as "the competitor can't do it". I would say that John's wording supports that. It that action was illegal, then he would have been more specific than "shouldn't".

I have never set my gun up that way and I really don't see where it would be that much faster, but based upon what I have read here and from John's response, as an RO, I wouldn't stop the shooter from doing it unless the WSB specifically stated "laying flat".

[Sarge]

His statement was that the competitor "shouldn't have been allowed to do it." The only way that it could be mandated that he COULDN'T do it would be it it was specifically addressed int he WSB. Shouldn't be allowed to do it is not the same as "the competitor can't do it". I would say that John's wording supports that. It that action was illegal, then he would have been more specific than "shouldn't".

I have never set my gun up that way and I really don't see where it would be that much faster, but based upon what I have read here and from John's response, as an RO, I wouldn't stop the shooter from doing it unless the WSB specifically stated "laying flat".

Let us know what DNROI says when you send him the same response

[frag316]

His statement was that the competitor "shouldn't have been allowed to do it." The only way that it could be mandated that he COULDN'T do it would be it it was specifically addressed int he WSB. Shouldn't be allowed to do it is not the same as "the competitor can't do it". I would say that John's wording supports that. It that action was illegal, then he would have been more specific than "shouldn't".

I have never set my gun up that way and I really don't see where it would be that much faster, but based upon what I have read here and from John's response, as an RO, I wouldn't stop the shooter from doing it unless the WSB specifically stated "laying flat".

Sorry, now you're reading John's e-mail like a WSB and trying to game that.

Basically, John meant that the RO should not start the competitor if they leave their gun on the table that way after the "Make Ready" command.

[sfchorn]

From the latest USPSA Classification Matches Book (online at http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-classifier-list.php):

Practical shooting is distinct from other shooting disciplines in that the responsibility for determining the best, safe solution to the problem presented by a course of fire is the competitor’s. In other words, practical shooting intends to test the ability to think in addition to testing the ability to shoot rapidly and accurately. That intent is formalized in the Practical Shooting Handbook, in which IPSC 1.1.5 says, “IPSC matches are freestyle.” It is, however, necessary to establish an exception in the case of the classification system. The classification system is able to determine a competitor’s accuracy and speed as those abilities are quantifiable. The system is not able to measure the ability to “game” a stage as those intangible skills are not quantifiable. If competitors are

allowed to outsmart the classification course designer the results are meaningless.

The primary responsibility for honoring this concept of fairness as it applies to the classification system lies with the competitor. The secondary responsibility is that of the match directors and range officers to ensure that the stages are run properly.

I would not start the competitor. I would take the above statement to the arb committee, if the competitor decided to take it that far.

[titandriver]

So if this was not a classifier stage and only one guy out of 40 started with his gun like that, would it still be unfair to the other 39 folks who didn't start like that?

[frag316]

Yes, because a "normal" stage doesn't have the statement about shooting it as intended like classifiers do. If the stage designer can't be bothered to write "flat" on the WSB, he's asking for it.

At the same time, if the competitor wants to risk dropping the gun . . . .

[JohnnyD]

So this is what was going on down at the classier...wasn't sure what exactly was going on.

I'm not by any means an RO but to me it sounds like he met the COF.

[B45C22]

It is simple enough, especially for a classifier, to say "flat". I stand by what I said earlier. You may chose to interpret his response your way, I'll interpret it mine.

Perhaps it would be better for me to say that if I were on the arb committee, I would rule in favor of the competitor. Maybe I would petition to have the wsb changed afterwards though.

There is a certain level of gaming that can't be removed even from a classifier. Look at 99-23. Is it gaming to start from surrender position in the string where you are facing up range? Theoretically, you can drop your hands during the portion of your turn before it would be legal to actually draw, thereby reducing the overall stage time. Isn't that gaming? Isn't that legal?

[motosapiens]

Yes, because a "normal" stage doesn't have the statement about shooting it as intended like classifiers do. If the stage designer can't be bothered to write "flat" on the WSB, he's asking for it.

At the same time, if the competitor wants to risk dropping the gun . . . .

the more i think about this, the more I think there is potentially a serious safety issue with allowing a gun to be propped up in any precarious manner. It's one thing if the competitor dq's himself, but it's entirely another if a proppep-up gun tips over after the competitor has moved away from it, and falls off the table, and cooks off a round. I think there are several pretty defensible reasons (not the least of which is mr Amidon's ruling) to require the competitor to lay the gun flat.

[justaute]

It's not that complicated. If it's a safety issue, acknowledge it, address it, and then move on. If not, it's a part of the game.

Using the 40-shooter example is not apposite to the issue, nor does it constitute a sufficient, reasonable premise for not allowing someone to do something different.

[ac4wordplay]

...

I think there are several pretty defensible reasons (not the least of which is mr Amidon's ruling) to require the competitor to lay the gun flat.

It may be worth noting that the e-mail Bill received/posted from Amidon is not a ruling at this point. It may become a ruling at a later point (to "fix" a WSB that may inaccurately/insufficiently communicate the classifier's "intent"?!) . At the moment it is an opinion (and although the opinion comes from the DNROI, it doesn't carry the weight of a rule).

Yes, don't game classifiers.

Yes, write better WSBs (even/especially for classifiers).

[BillChunn]

From the latest USPSA Classification Matches Book (online at http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-classifier-list.php):

Practical shooting is distinct from other shooting disciplines in that the responsibility for determining the best, safe solution to the problem presented by a course of fire is the competitor’s. In other words, practical shooting intends to test the ability to think in addition to testing the ability to shoot rapidly and accurately. That intent is formalized in the Practical Shooting Handbook, in which IPSC 1.1.5 says, “IPSC matches are freestyle.” It is, however, necessary to establish an exception in the case of the classification system. The classification system is able to determine a competitor’s accuracy and speed as those abilities are quantifiable. The system is not able to measure the ability to “game” a stage as those intangible skills are not quantifiable. If competitors are allowed to outsmart the classification course designer the results are meaningless.

The primary responsibility for honoring this concept of fairness as it applies to the classification system lies with the competitor. The secondary responsibility is that of the match directors and range officers to ensure that the stages are run properly.

I would not start the competitor. I would take the above statement to the arb committee, if the competitor decided to take it that far.

^^^ THIS

Mr. Amidon's reply is exceptionally clear. It's not allowed.

If you are going to prop your loaded gun in a manner that the Director of the National Range Officers Institute has noted as possibly being unsafe (classifier stage or otherwise) as the MD, my instructions to the RO's will be to not start the shooter. They are not in the correct starting position.

We have enough problems within the club politics just allowing us to "run with guns" let alone having several board members (who don't shoot pistol and don't want it in THEIR Archery / Rifle / Sporting Clays / Trap / Skeet club) see something like a precariously balanced loaded gun on a table with no one in control of it.

The USPSA discipline would be booted out at the next board meeting!! We haven't put 20+ years into this club to let anyone do something unsafe and possibly get someone hurt. We all use these weapons on a daily, weekly or monthly basis and grow accustomed to them. They become an integral part of our hobby. Unless you work at a hospital or are an EMT we rarely see what damage they can do to human beings. You can't whistle a bullet back. Ever.

To prevent this from happening, anytime there will be a start position where the gun, loaded or otherwise, where it will be placed on a surface, my WSB will state "flat on its side or on a protrusion attached to the gun".

Your mileage may vary.

BC

Edited April 29, 2014 by BillChunn

[justaute]

It also isn't a bad idea to include language such as "muzzle perpendicular to the back-berm", as an example. Also, better to write "its" in lieu of "it's". Otherwise, challenges from grammarians may surface.

[frag316]

It is simple enough, especially for a classifier, to say "flat". I stand by what I said earlier. You may chose to interpret his response your way, I'll interpret it mine.

Perhaps it would be better for me to say that if I were on the arb committee, I would rule in favor of the competitor. Maybe I would petition to have the wsb changed afterwards though.

There is a certain level of gaming that can't be removed even from a classifier. Look at 99-23. Is it gaming to start from surrender position in the string where you are facing up range? Theoretically, you can drop your hands during the portion of your turn before it would be legal to actually draw, thereby reducing the overall stage time. Isn't that gaming? Isn't that legal?

Seriously?

No, it's not gaming, because the WSB gives you the option of how to start. There's a difference between "gaming" and "strategy." What you're describing with 99-23 is "strategy."

If I had been the RO on this stage, I would not start the competitor.

Yes, because a "normal" stage doesn't have the statement about shooting it as intended like classifiers do. If the stage designer can't be bothered to write "flat" on the WSB, he's asking for it.

At the same time, if the competitor wants to risk dropping the gun . . . .

the more i think about this, the more I think there is potentially a serious safety issue with allowing a gun to be propped up in any precarious manner. It's one thing if the competitor dq's himself, but it's entirely another if a proppep-up gun tips over after the competitor has moved away from it, and falls off the table, and cooks off a round. I think there are several pretty defensible reasons (not the least of which is mr Amidon's ruling) to require the competitor to lay the gun flat.

I don't think it's really THAT much of a safety issue, because if the gun falls, the engaged safety would prevent the gun from going off, unless it were broken/malfunctioning. I just don't think it's a smart thing to do, and I think it violates the spirit of the classifier--which is what we're NOT supposed to do.

[B45C22]

It is simple enough, especially for a classifier, to say "flat". I stand by what I said earlier. You may chose to interpret his response your way, I'll interpret it mine.

Perhaps it would be better for me to say that if I were on the arb committee, I would rule in favor of the competitor. Maybe I would petition to have the wsb changed afterwards though.

There is a certain level of gaming that can't be removed even from a classifier. Look at 99-23. Is it gaming to start from surrender position in the string where you are facing up range? Theoretically, you can drop your hands during the portion of your turn before it would be legal to actually draw, thereby reducing the overall stage time. Isn't that gaming? Isn't that legal?

Seriously?

No, it's not gaming, because the WSB gives you the option of how to start. There's a difference between "gaming" and "strategy." What you're describing with 99-23 is "strategy."

If I had been the RO on this stage, I would not start the competitor.

I'm begging you to try and give me the differences between gaming and strategy. You could absolutely argue that propping the gun up is "strategy" as well. If the WSB only says that the gun is on the table with the trigger guard over the "X" then any possible position that the gun may be in AND satisfy those requirements is legal. (provided it is pointed in the direction as prescribed in the WSB) I am not going to argue whether it is a good or a bad thing to do strategy wise, but it is certainly legal. We have a procedure for making and following rules within our sport. You simply can't demand that a shooter comply with something that isn't in the WSB or the rule book, no more than you can DQ a shooter from doing "the flip" at the end of his run during ULSC.

I do agree with John that a competitor SHOULDN'T do it, but there are plenty of legal things that a shooter CAN do during a course of fire that he SHOULDN'T do. If it is a big enough deal that the USPSA or DNROI doesn't want the possibility of the WSB being interpreted in such a way that would allow for that option, then there is a policy and a way to get that into the rulebook. It is just not something that individual RO's or CRO's have the authority to do.

Was it fair to other shooters? Sure it was. They all were read the same rules and are allowed to do whatever they want as long as it is within the rules. Does it render a classifier useless if one shooter does it? - NO a propped gun vs picking up the gun will make approximately .20 difference in overall stage time. That isn't enough to matter in most instances. Are there other situations where the "don't game classifiers" request could make a difference, sure, just not here. Was it safe, probably not as safe as laying it flat, but if all safeties were operable it wasn't, in and of itself, technically unsafe.

[Shadow]

From the latest USPSA Classification Matches Book (online at http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-classifier-list.php):

Practical shooting is distinct from other shooting disciplines in that the responsibility for determining the best, safe solution to the problem presented by a course of fire is the competitor’s. In other words, practical shooting intends to test the ability to think in addition to testing the ability to shoot rapidly and accurately. That intent is formalized in the Practical Shooting Handbook, in which IPSC 1.1.5 says, “IPSC matches are freestyle.” It is, however, necessary to establish an exception in the case of the classification system. The classification system is able to determine a competitor’s accuracy and speed as those abilities are quantifiable. The system is not able to measure the ability to “game” a stage as those intangible skills are not quantifiable. If competitors are allowed to outsmart the classification course designer the results are meaningless.

The primary responsibility for honoring this concept of fairness as it applies to the classification system lies with the competitor. The secondary responsibility is that of the match directors and range officers to ensure that the stages are run properly.

I would not start the competitor. I would take the above statement to the arb committee, if the competitor decided to take it that far.

^^^ THIS

Mr. Amidon's reply is exceptionally clear. It's not allowed.

If you are going to prop your loaded gun in a manner that the Director of the National Range Officers Institute has noted as possibly being unsafe (classifier stage or otherwise) as the MD, my instructions to the RO's will be to not start the shooter. They are not in the correct starting position.

We have enough problems within the club politics just allowing us to "run with guns" let alone having several board members (who don't shoot pistol and don't want it in THEIR Archery / Rifle / Sporting Clays / Trap / Skeet club) see something like a precariously balanced loaded gun on a table with no one in control of it.

The USPSA discipline would be booted out at the next board meeting!! We haven't put 20+ years into this club to let anyone do something unsafe and possibly get someone hurt. We all use these weapons on a daily, weekly or monthly basis and grow accustomed to them. They become an integral part of our hobby. Unless you work at a hospital or are an EMT we rarely see what damage they can do to human beings. You can't whistle a bullet back. Ever.

To prevent this from happening, anytime there will be a start position where the gun, loaded or otherwise, where it will be placed on a surface, my

WSB will state "flat on its side or on a protrusion attached to the gun".

Your mileage may vary.

BC

William-

That's the whole point. If the stage designer wants the gun on its side, he needs to state it in the WSB.

[CZinSC]

The only one that counts is John Amidon. Let's see what he says....

BC

Mr. Amidon's return e-mail:

Bill,

If one out of 40 competitors was the only one with a gun like this, how fair to the other 39 do you think it is to allow it?

How many table starts have you seen where it wasn’t laid flat, or the stage briefing stated laying flat and not propped?

He should not have been allowed to do it in fairness to all other competitors, plus the safety side of it. His gun falling over could have been a bad incident that the club would have been held responsible.

If the gun only fell on the table, it is not a dropped gun, if he grabbed it and then it fell, it is possible that it could be considered a dropped gun.

John

Slight thread drift, but i'll ask anyway: On a regular Stage, NOT a classifier. WSB just says gun on table. Nothing more, nothing less. The Make Ready command is given, and the Competitor decides to stand his gun up. For argument sake, it's pointed downrange, the safety works, etc, etc. If the gun should fall over at ANY time whether the competitor caused it, (ie: he bumped the table ), or he didn't cause it ( wind blew it over ), is the competitor DQ'd?

If you say yes, then clearly you need to yell stop and proceed with DQ. However, based on John's response which i shaded in red, how do you figure it's a DQ? Based on what rule? he says it is not a dropped gun? Is it a DQ? Cite the rule and the rationale.

If you say no, not a DQ, is there any reason for RO to stop the shooter? I'd say no. As long as the gun is still on the table, it's satisfies the start position. IF the WSB stated a specific spot on the table, and by falling over it was no longer on that spot, then, yes, i would imagine a stop would be called and the competitor instructed to assume the correct start position.

So....is it a DQ if the gun falls over? For argument's sake let's say it stays on the table, and doesn't ended up pointing in an unsafe direction.

[fmj3]

The USPSA asks not to game classifiers so I don't.

[spanky]

Some of y'all seem to be under the impression that DRNOI's opinion can be used as a rule.