180 Rule - Can the backstop reference change after start signal?

[TitoR]

The way I've pictured the 180 was as a plane emanating from my chest perpendicular to the backstop that moved with me as I made my way down the course of fire.

In this instance, the instructions given by the RO went against that, allowing me to fire shots almost 20 degrees "uprange" from the imaginary plane described before, even when there was a clear way to shoot the stage without "breaking" the 180. None of those shots were a safety concern due to the shape of the bay, but still did not seem right.

In another stage a competitor was sent home for a 180 violation for shot fired just barely uprange.

That type of inconsistencies makes shooters uncomfortable.

For me, I will continue to use the plane analogy described above to stay safe from DQs, unless the RO indicates otherwise to the whole squad.

Tito

[motosapiens]

The way I've pictured the 180 was as a plane emanating from my chest perpendicular to the backstop that moved with me as I made my way down the course of fire.

In this instance, the instructions given by the RO went against that, allowing me to fire shots almost 20 degrees "uprange" from the imaginary plane described before, even when there was a clear way to shoot the stage without "breaking" the 180. None of those shots were a safety concern due to the shape of the bay, but still did not seem right.

In another stage a competitor was sent home for a 180 violation for shot fired just barely uprange.

That type of inconsistencies makes shooters uncomfortable.

For me, I will continue to use the plane analogy described above to stay safe from DQs, unless the RO indicates otherwise to the whole squad.

Your description illustrates the problem with having a variable 180. If it's not extremely consistent and clear (such as in my example of separate bays connected off a central corridor), then it can lead to confusion. That makes shooters uncomfortable and is probably best avoided, even if it might be technically OK.

[alma]

And it should make the RO uncomfortable as well. Getting DQed is something that needs to be a objective call. Consistency your friend here. Having the 180 change introduces a lot of uncertainty and subjectivity as to when the shooter would be going beyond the 180.

[Parallax3D]

Arguments about "360 degree berms" or layouts that have multiple bays off of a central corridor not withstanding, (because those are EXTREMELY rare), most bays are going to be rectangular in shape, with a berm/backstop at the rear of the bay, and berms on the sides. While you can certainly rotate a stage layout to make it fit in a bay, I've never seen ANYONE suggest that in a rectangular bay that the 180 was NOT parallel to the rear berm/backstop, and that there is not only ONE 180 line per stage. To make it otherwise would allow for a situation where a shot could potentially not be contained within the bay by the berms. (That's also why we DQ if you pop one over the berm!) You CERTAINLY don't want a 180 that changes during the stage.

[motosapiens]

Arguments about "360 degree berms" or layouts that have multiple bays off of a central corridor not withstanding, (because those are EXTREMELY rare), most bays are going to be rectangular in shape, with a berm/backstop at the rear of the bay, and berms on the sides. While you can certainly rotate a stage layout to make it fit in a bay, I've never seen ANYONE suggest that in a rectangular bay that the 180 was NOT parallel to the rear berm/backstop, and that there is not only ONE 180 line per stage. To make it otherwise would allow for a situation where a shot could potentially not be contained within the bay by the berms. (That's also why we DQ if you pop one over the berm!) You CERTAINLY don't want a 180 that changes during the stage.

Yes, I agree with you 100% (as usual, btw). In my attempt to consider all possibilities I probably distracted the attention away from this particular situation. My bad.

[peterthefish]

Not to get too grammar crazy here, but the rule says "the backstop", not "a backstop". The word "the" is a definite article.

The definite article the is the most frequent word in English.

We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe the hearer/reader knows exactly what we are referring to; in this case because there is only one.

[motosapiens]

Not to get too grammar crazy here, but the rule says "the backstop", not "a backstop". The word "the" is a definite article.

The definite article the is the most frequent word in English.

We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe the hearer/reader knows exactly what we are referring to; in this case because there is only one.

at least usually. The rules also refer to 'the rangemaster' with the definite article, even tho some matches have 2 rangemasters. Heck, they even refer to 'the shooter', yet most matches have lots of shooters. Perhaps the definite article is only used to connote the *particular* backstop being used at that point in the stage, just like 'the shooter' only refers to the particular shooter currently shooting the stage.

Edited July 17, 2014 by motosapiens

[teros135]

In reading this discussion I keep asking myself where the rest of the squad is, and other spectators. Their safety is also foremost, and any change in where the "180" is would affect them. Don't think there could be a "360" (or "270", or whatever) pit because nobody else could watch in safety.

For me, I think of the 180 as the moveable plane mentioned by TitoR, only it goes through where I grip the gun. If the muzzle is pointing 90 degrees sideways to that, I'm right at the 180, and that's too close for comfort.

[Shadyscott999]

Can you show me the rule that supports your claim? The one I posted above does not appear to.

One of our local clubs has some pits that safely allow far more than 180 degrees, especially if you take into account the different positions (essentially multiple small bays connected by a central corridor).

However, I think in the above example, as described by the poster, it's hard to imagine being able to shoot the lower right targets legally from the end position. Unless I misunderstand, it appears you would be shooting them from behind. Being able to shoot the *same* targets from both sides doesn't seem like it could possibly be safe.

Please show the rule.

There have been stages where 180 was not parallel to the back berm due to space or whatever. Usually, there will be a line showing the 180. We have a club with a bay with berms on all 4 sides. Stages set up in this bay tend to have a floating 180 relative to the target arrays. This is communicated to the shooters during the WSB so they know where the 180 is. Yes, there have been major matches allowing this setup in this bay at this range.

10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop, allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the handgun is loaded or not (limited exceptions: 10.5.6).

You can only have ONE "backstop", which defines what is uprange and downrange. That is generally the back of the shooting area. It is IMPOSSIBLE under the rules to have a course that allows more than a 180 degree field of fire.

Negative. What is the backstop runs at and angle to the start position. Many ranges have bays that have floating 180's

[open17]

Interesting discussion. So how would the following course of fire fit in? Shot this one last weekend.

Field course. Literally. Winding path up a hillside, along a chopped path through the scrub and blackberries.

No defined berm but good natural backstops.

It had a series of fault lines , each parallel to a part of the winding path.

180 was defined in the WSB as being "90 degrees to the fault lines."--so the actual angle of the 180

changed depending on what part of the course the shooter was on.

[MarkCO]

Don't think there could be a "360" (or "270", or whatever) pit because nobody else could watch in safety.

Sure there can, and I have both ROd and shot in 360 berms as well as stages with not a single berm. More than just square ranges, and thankfully the rules committee made allowances for such.

[Nik Habicht]

Arguments about "360 degree berms" or layouts that have multiple bays off of a central corridor not withstanding, (because those are EXTREMELY rare), most bays are going to be rectangular in shape, with a berm/backstop at the rear of the bay, and berms on the sides. While you can certainly rotate a stage layout to make it fit in a bay, I've never seen ANYONE suggest that in a rectangular bay that the 180 was NOT parallel to the rear berm/backstop, and that there is not only ONE 180 line per stage. To make it otherwise would allow for a situation where a shot could potentially not be contained within the bay by the berms. (That's also why we DQ if you pop one over the berm!) You CERTAINLY don't want a 180 that changes during the stage.

Don't I remember a Nationals in Missoula where they had some large rectangular bays -- and they put two small stages in each bay with a diagonal 180 line extending from a point on the back berm to a point on the left and right berms, respectively? So essentially the stages were rotated into the two downrange most corners?

[sfinney]

Up range = the opposite direction of the rear, declared, backstop. And, what is defining the 180, for this course. (no matter what the bay looks like).

Down range = towards the rear, declared, backstop.

What's so hard about that? Do you need a definition to tell you which is the safe direction?

[motosapiens]

Interesting discussion. So how would the following course of fire fit in? Shot this one last weekend.

Field course. Literally. Winding path up a hillside, along a chopped path through the scrub and blackberries.

No defined berm but good natural backstops.

It had a series of fault lines , each parallel to a part of the winding path.

180 was defined in the WSB as being "90 degrees to the fault lines."--so the actual angle of the 180

changed depending on what part of the course the shooter was on.

that sounds pretty cool, and it is the sort of fairly rare stage I had in mind earlier. Placing clear fault lines at each position sounds like a pretty plausible way to remove any confusion if it was implemented right. Did anyone have any issues or problems with the stage?

[TitoR]

Up range = the opposite direction of the rear, declared, backstop. And, what is defining the 180, for this course. (no matter what the bay looks like).

Down range = towards the rear, declared, backstop.

What's so hard about that? Do you need a definition to tell you which is the safe direction?

I agree, but the issue here is not me knowing the safe direction, which we all are responsible for, but learning the rules and knowing whether the RO was justified to send you home.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[racerba]

Nowhere does it say you can only have one backstop. You made that up.

It doesn't SAY a lot of things, but clearley you can only have one backstop that defines what is "Uprange" and what is "Downrange." If you didn't, then you wouldn't have a 180 degree rule!! Think about it. If you suddenly declared the side berm to be the backstop, then "90 degrees to the median intercept" would mean that one direction would be facing the rear berm, and the other would be facing OUT OF THE BAY! Clearly that is not safe.

BTW - Are you an RO, Mark? I am.

You can only have one backstop - true, but at any given point. As in the example i posted, the back stop changes depending on the target array. And the 180 line is given to the competitors and the line is not parallel to the back stop. So the competitor engages t1-t5, the 180 line/backstop is one way. once he leaves to engage targets t6-t9, then the 180 line/backstop is another way... I'm just saying that there have been a few major matches where this situation occurred.

[JAFO]

You can only have one backstop - true, but at any given point. As in the example i posted, the back stop changes depending on the target array. And the 180 line is given to the competitors and the line is not parallel to the back stop. So the competitor engages t1-t5, the 180 line/backstop is one way. once he leaves to engage targets t6-t9, then the 180 line/backstop is another way... I'm just saying that there have been a few major matches where this situation occurred.

I would not have thought it would be legal to shift the 180 during a course of fire. That's just a nightmare for determining muzzle violations. Maybe not for target engagement, as that can be worked around with barrels, walls, etc, but certainly for reloads and other movement.

[pjb45]

There were/are field courses at Rio Salado - Desert Classic/Area 2 that do not have berms or backstops. There is no perpendicular to the back of the berm because there is no back to the berm. These courses are run in the natural terrain of the desert.

It has been my experience that when a field course is laid out in such a manner, the RO takes the time to explain the situation and what constitutes a violation of the 180 degree rule. But then again, most of my shooting has occurred in the West.

Obviously some shooters have experienced a wider variety of course layout than others. There is no reason to disparage this experience.

Good point Nik, I shot that match.

Additionally, at Nationals in LV one year, on stage 1 I believe, there was a difference in the WSB between the earlier match and the later match. The written stage briefing in the second match, basically said a target could not be taken from a certain, even though it was clearly visible. Tasha Erickson filed a protest that was upheld and the stage results were thrown out.

Edited July 19, 2014 by pjb45

[sperman]

There was a thread on this a few years ago. This was Troy's response back then.

...

You can define the "backstop" wherever you want it to be, but there can only be one, and we do have an idea of what "uprange" and "downrange" mean. A stage that allows a competitor to shoot through an arc, and defends that due to being circular in nature is not legal per our rules, in my opinion.

The 180 does not "move"--if it did, well, nobody would break it, would they? You can re-define it sometimes, to make it work in a bay where you might use the corners as the backstop, but it's still parallel to that backstop. It doesn't shift, and it must be clearly defined. I've seen this, and done this, many times. I have never seen or heard of shooting through a large (i.e. >180 degrees) arc and having it be legal in our sport. I know the police and military do it, but not us.

If it was done, well, it was done--my comments are not intended to critique something I wasn't there to see. The bottom line here is that the 180 in the OP does not shift, it can not shift, and it will not shift for that course of fire, no matter what the gamers try to say. This is a safety issue, not a solve the problem issue.

Troy

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126945

[Parallax3D]

There was a thread on this a few years ago. This was Troy's response back then.

...

You can define the "backstop" wherever you want it to be, but there can only be one, and we do have an idea of what "uprange" and "downrange" mean. A stage that allows a competitor to shoot through an arc, and defends that due to being circular in nature is not legal per our rules, in my opinion.

The 180 does not "move"--if it did, well, nobody would break it, would they? You can re-define it sometimes, to make it work in a bay where you might use the corners as the backstop, but it's still parallel to that backstop. It doesn't shift, and it must be clearly defined. I've seen this, and done this, many times. I have never seen or heard of shooting through a large (i.e. >180 degrees) arc and having it be legal in our sport. I know the police and military do it, but not us.

If it was done, well, it was done--my comments are not intended to critique something I wasn't there to see. The bottom line here is that the 180 in the OP does not shift, it can not shift, and it will not shift for that course of fire, no matter what the gamers try to say. This is a safety issue, not a solve the problem issue.

Troy

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126945

Thank you speman for finding that!

This is obviously the point I was trying to make, but Troy stated it more elloquently than I did.

[pjb45]

Sorry, I disagree:

10.5.2 Acknowledges there can exist no backstop; "in the case of no backstop........"

If there is no backstop than 180 cannot be computed.

Up range can be defined in the WSB.

A lot has happened in recent years. This wording adds more flexibility to stage design but does not obviate the safety requirement.

[Parallax3D]

Sorry, I disagree:

10.5.2 Acknowledges there can exist no backstop; "in the case of no backstop........"

If there is no backstop than 180 cannot be computed.

Up range can be defined in the WSB.

A lot has happened in recent years. This wording adds more flexibility to stage design but does not obviate the safety requirement.

Facing Uprange ................Face and feet pointing directly (90°) away from the backstop with shoulders parallel to the backstop.

Facing Down Range ........The exact opposite of facing uprange.

You have to have a defined uprange and downrange, whether a PHYSICAL backstop exists or not. In cases where no physical backstop exists, one direction would probably be designated as the "backstop" in the WSB, and the 180 is computed off of that. Something as simple as a fault line can be used to show the direction of the "backstop", so it most certainly CAN be computed.

[MarkCO]

Just FYI, the rule in the 2008 (July 2010 updates included) rulebook which would have been in place when Troy answered in 2011 also invalidates his response since is also uses the phrase "in the case of no backstop," The citation is below:

10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop, allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the handgun is loaded or

not (limited exceptions: 10.5.6).

It is clear that "up range" has to be defined, but it also clear that USPSA allows for the "case of no backstop".

[2MoreChains]

I'm curious, if the wording in rule 10.5.2 were changed from "no further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop..." to "no further than 90 degrees from the central axis of the course of fire..." would that clean things up?

Edited July 22, 2014 by 2MoreChains

[alma]

MarkCO, thanks for bringing up that problem with the definition of up range that we so fondly quote when trying to figure out what down range means. Obviously you can get DQed for less than pointing the gun directly away (90 degrees) from the backstop so NROI needs to revisit these definitions with a rulebook revision.