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

[racerba]

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.

I agree...90 degree to the "backstop" can be computed...whatever stated line that may be.

[pjb45]

My point being that you can have a COF without a backstop. Up range should be defined in the WSB.

The adherence to a 180 in relationship to no backstop is a non-sequitur. Up range (then by definition down range) can be defined without a degree relationship.

Arroyo courses of fire are typically where I have seen 'up range' begin define relative to your position in the arroyo which preclude the ability to define it by 90/180 degrees to a backstop.

The definition is inconsistent with the rule because the definition is denotes a backstop when the rule says a backstop may not exist. Since no backstop exists the definition is not applicable as it is currently written in the rule book.

[MarkCO]

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?

It probably would, but it if that falls over into the 3Gun rules, it could prevent some perfectly safe, and fun stages that are set out in the natural terrain. Will course constructors then be required to actually place the "central axis" within the course of fire?

As Alma reiterated, the actual definitions have alternative applications w.r.t. muzzle angle and start position.

I have never DQ'd a shooter whose muzzle was 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, nor pointed almost at a defined safety angle marker, but when I have DQ'd shooters for muzzle angle, it was very clear that the safe direction to point the firearm was not being adhered to by the shooter. I was running Henning one time...after the stage run I told him I thought he had been at 181.5 degrees...he was gracious about it, but fact is, I am not able to stop the shooter, freeze frame him and get out the protractor.

[open17]

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?

Yup. 2007. IIRC the two stages had an overlapping "hot spot"----they had a RO watching so nobody got inside the field of fire of the other stage.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Troy lays it out pretty well, but I've competed in several major matches at (the late USPSA club) York, which has a 270 (really almost 360, but 270 degrees are safely shootable) degree pit, in which the full 270 degrees were used under the RM stewardship of one of Troy's RMI colleagues.....

In all cases the 180 there was perpendicular to fault line -- and as you turned the corner it shifted 90 degrees.

I've also RM'd at least one match there -- same set-up, no issues.....

So while I'm sure that Troy is certain, at least one of the other RMIs disagrees, or disagreed several years ago.....

[Nik Habicht]

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?

Sure, except that in that 270 degree pit I'd make it clear that if your facing in direction 1, "this" would be the central axis of the course of fire and that once you turned the corner "that" would be the central axis......

[2MoreChains]

OK, fair enough. I was suggesting using the central axis based on most stages one sees designed at pistol matches.

So it sounds like some of you are advocates of muzzle safe points (or whatever it is they call it in IDPA)? So in a 270 deg pit situation the muzzle safe points might be further up range than the 180? Would that require cones or some sort of marker to define what that point is so the rest of the squad doesn't accidentally step too far forward?

IIRC from my IDPA days, the muzzle safe points could be more restrictive than the 180 and I suppose that depends on the bay and what you have to work with.

[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?

It probably would, but it if that falls over into the 3Gun rules, it could prevent some perfectly safe, and fun stages that are set out in the natural terrain. Will course constructors then be required to actually place the "central axis" within the course of fire?

As Alma reiterated, the actual definitions have alternative applications w.r.t. muzzle angle and start position.

I have never DQ'd a shooter whose muzzle was 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, nor pointed almost at a defined safety angle marker, but when I have DQ'd shooters for muzzle angle, it was very clear that the safe direction to point the firearm was not being adhered to by the shooter. I was running Henning one time...after the stage run I told him I thought he had been at 181.5 degrees...he was gracious about it, but fact is, I am not able to stop the shooter, freeze frame him and get out the protractor.

I was thinking about that when I suggested it. I suppose a central axis line could be drawn on the stage diagram, but marking that out and making it clear to everyone on the ground would take some thought.

With regard to the natural terrain courses, I'm thinking of ones that I've shot in 3-gun as well as pistol and seems like it could be done unless the "gully run" that you're using really twists and turns back on itself, but even then it might still be able to work if you looked at the stage as a whole and not just certain segments of it.

I too have never DQ'd a shooter for a 181.5 because I don't know what 181.5 looks like (SkyNet has not installed the protractor app in my T1000 brain...). All of my 180 calls are probably like yours and its not until I was damn sure the shooter broke the 180 did I call it.

I do recall at the last Area 1 MG match (2011), we had a stage that used four different bays. Imagine a cluster of four bays that are shaped like a four fingered hand with a central pit area where the palm was. Each bay had arrays in it, but most of the delineated shooting area was in the palm. We had a rear fault line that the RM establishing as the reference point for the median intersect rather than using the backstop of each bay (which was a good call since they were all at different angles). In this case, the "central axis" for that stage was able to be established and IIRC it was fairly perpendicular to the rear fault line.

[Nik Habicht]

OK, fair enough. I was suggesting using the central axis based on most stages one sees designed at pistol matches.

So it sounds like some of you are advocates of muzzle safe points (or whatever it is they call it in IDPA)? So in a 270 deg pit situation the muzzle safe points might be further up range than the 180? Would that require cones or some sort of marker to define what that point is so the rest of the squad doesn't accidentally step too far forward?

IIRC from my IDPA days, the muzzle safe points could be more restrictive than the 180 and I suppose that depends on the bay and what you have to work with.

On the range I'm talking about there's a narrow 8-10 foot wide entrance to the almost 360 degree pit. And no, there's never more than 180 degrees available to the competitor at any one time -- it's just that as you move through the stage and change the direction you're moving in the 180 makes a 90 degree turn with the shooter....

It's easier to explain on site, than it is to write it up.....

[pjb45]

So, lets come back to the original question or Troy's assertion that there is only one backstop.

I say Up Range should be defined in the WSB if there is no backstop and it may have flexibility depending on the terrain.