Nationals Stage 22 - Do you have to activate the moving hardcover?

[MarkCO]

4 FTE 4m

Then I'm going to call for a calibration saying that I swore I hit all of them - and have the RM shoot it from the EXACT position that I shot it from (with the hard cover over it) - I bet money that he does NOT hit it down - RESHOOT

Yeah, that is the way to get the stage tossed if like 20 people do this. Not a bad approach at all. But if we are going to use the rule book as literal, and final...illegal stage and it should be changed before the match starts.

Edited September 16, 2014 by MarkCO

[TinCan]

Mark, Show me where the stage is illegal. Don't just say it is show me.

[beltjones]

Mark, Show me where the stage is illegal. Don't just say it is show me.

Dude, no offense, but you haven't exactly been compelling with your quotations of the rules. Demanding that others show you something in the rule book at this point is pretty ironic.

[Nik Habicht]

I think instead of arguing about it on the internet, I'm going to ask how they're scoring it at the stage, and plan accordingly.

I have never heard of a 'disappearing target' that is not a moving one, but I don't see any compelling reason the same rules couldn't be used.

What on earth do you constitute as "arguing?" I'm asking a question about the rules in a rules sub-forum.

But I did like how you posted this caustic response while at the same time saying you're not going to argue about it on the internet. That's A+ trolling.

wow, take things personal much? lol. Are you my ex-wife? She thought I was caustic too.

I didn't mean to be caustic with my choice of words. I think your questions about this stage are interesting and I've been wondering the same thing. I think ultimately tho it's going to depend on how the stage is set up and how the rules are interpeted. We already have some fairly smart people that can't really agree whether a stationary target that is not visible at rest is scored as a disappearing target.

Enough both of you. This is the kind of stuff -- posting at each other, rather than debating the merits of the question that will get threads locked.

Go re-read the forum rules.....

[TinCan]

Beltjones,

I have given a rule for everything I have said. What do you need me to elaborate on? I read stage 22 and I say it complies with the rules. So I need to be show where I am wrong. Saying its illegal does not teach me anything I am here to learn. It not a challenge.

a couple of posts ago you asked about a rule requiring activation I can not find one.

In the case of stage 22 its simple activate the stage or zero the stage.

In general it can be required in the WSB

Edited September 16, 2014 by TinCan

[beltjones]

I think instead of arguing about it on the internet, I'm going to ask how they're scoring it at the stage, and plan accordingly.

I have never heard of a 'disappearing target' that is not a moving one, but I don't see any compelling reason the same rules couldn't be used.

What on earth do you constitute as "arguing?" I'm asking a question about the rules in a rules sub-forum.

But I did like how you posted this caustic response while at the same time saying you're not going to argue about it on the internet. That's A+ trolling.

wow, take things personal much? lol. Are you my ex-wife? She thought I was caustic too.

I didn't mean to be caustic with my choice of words. I think your questions about this stage are interesting and I've been wondering the same thing. I think ultimately tho it's going to depend on how the stage is set up and how the rules are interpeted. We already have some fairly smart people that can't really agree whether a stationary target that is not visible at rest is scored as a disappearing target.

Enough both of you. This is the kind of stuff -- posting at each other, rather than debating the merits of the question that will get threads locked.

Go re-read the forum rules.....

That was the end of it several hours ago.

[beltjones]

Beltjones,

I have given a rule for everything I have said. What do you need me to elaborate on?

None of your rules apply to this thread though. You have just posted guidelines for designing stages, not for executing or scoring them.

[Nik Habicht]

Actually, I think someone intentionally found a little glitch and has exploited it in the stage design.

From the definition section of the 2014 Handgun Rulebook:

Disappearing target .......... A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement.

So by definition, those poppers at issue, while they will disappear from being able to be shot, are not considered to be disappearing targets by the rulebook. Since they are not paper targets, the 25% A-zone requirement is not applicable. But there is more...

If a lot of people call for calibration, it might get it tossed. How could the RM shoot poppers 2-4 if the window is closed? Just open the window? Then that is not as presented to the competitor.

However, I might argue that it is not a legal course of fire per this rule:

4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring poppers which fail to fall when hit are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which a Range Officer deems to have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1). All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:

1. That a minimum of 50% of the calibration zone be available at some point in the COF.

Unless the back 3 poppers have 50% visible from the edges of the shooting area, they would not meet this criteria, therefore they would not be legal.

4.3.1.5 item 2

2. That the calibration will be done from a point on the COF where the calibration zone is available, closest to where the contested shot was fired.

That lets the RM scoot over to see the entire calibration zone. So calibration won't really be a problem.....

[Nik Habicht]

4 FTE 4m

Then I'm going to call for a calibration saying that I swore I hit all of them - and have the RM shoot it from the EXACT position that I shot it from (with the hard cover over it) - I bet money that he does NOT hit it down - RESHOOT

You don't get to tell the RM where to shoot them from......

.....and without evidence of a hit on the popper -- no calibration shot will be fired, and no reshoot will be awarded......

....they'll simply be scored as misses, and possibly FTEs if you never got off a round at them....

[Nik Habicht]

I think instead of arguing about it on the internet, I'm going to ask how they're scoring it at the stage, and plan accordingly.

I have never heard of a 'disappearing target' that is not a moving one, but I don't see any compelling reason the same rules couldn't be used.

What on earth do you constitute as "arguing?" I'm asking a question about the rules in a rules sub-forum.

But I did like how you posted this caustic response while at the same time saying you're not going to argue about it on the internet. That's A+ trolling.

wow, take things personal much? lol. Are you my ex-wife? She thought I was caustic too.

I didn't mean to be caustic with my choice of words. I think your questions about this stage are interesting and I've been wondering the same thing. I think ultimately tho it's going to depend on how the stage is set up and how the rules are interpeted. We already have some fairly smart people that can't really agree whether a stationary target that is not visible at rest is scored as a disappearing target.

Enough both of you. This is the kind of stuff -- posting at each other, rather than debating the merits of the question that will get threads locked.

Go re-read the forum rules.....

That was the end of it several hours ago.

I'm glad. Really I am -- the last thing I want to do when I come home from work is to pull posts or break out the red font.....

[TinCan]

I was asked a single question on scoring and answered it.

what was the executing question? and I answered you first question

[ac4wordplay]

Actually, I think someone intentionally found a little glitch and has exploited it in the stage design.

From the definition section of the 2014 Handgun Rulebook:

Disappearing target .......... A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement.

So by definition, those poppers at issue, while they will disappear from being able to be shot, are not considered to be disappearing targets by the rulebook. Since they are not paper targets, the 25% A-zone requirement is not applicable. But there is more...

If a lot of people call for calibration, it might get it tossed. How could the RM shoot poppers 2-4 if the window is closed? Just open the window? Then that is not as presented to the competitor.

However, I might argue that it is not a legal course of fire per this rule:

4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring poppers which fail to fall when hit are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which a Range Officer deems to have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1). All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:

1. That a minimum of 50% of the calibration zone be available at some point in the COF.

Unless the back 3 poppers have 50% visible from the edges of the shooting area, they would not meet this criteria, therefore they would not be legal.

4.3.1.5 item 2

2. That the calibration will be done from a point on the COF where the calibration zone is available, closest to where the contested shot was fired.

That lets the RM scoot over to see the entire calibration zone. So calibration won't really be a problem.....

"That lets the RM scoot over to see the entire calibration zone. So calibration won't really be a problem....."

If the RM scoots over to see the entire calibration zone, and in doing so is outside the stage fault lines (must be outside in order to see the entire calibration zone) when firing the calibration shot, then are they satisfying "the calibration will be done from a point on the COF" (emphasis added)?

Edited September 16, 2014 by ac4wordplay

[beltjones]

I was asked a single question on scoring and answered it.

what was the executing question? and I answered you first question

You posted rules from section 1 (course design) and section 2 (course construction and modification).

Section 9 deals with scoring. You didn't post anything from section 9.

[TinCan]

answered the question did'n cite rule got it,

[beltjones]

answered the question did'n cite rule got it,

Honestly I don't think you answered the question. The only way to answer the question is to admit that there isn't a rule that covers it (like Motosapiens said), and then apply other rules that are written for different situations. Posting bizarre course construction instructions for MDs isn't going in the right direction.

[ac4wordplay]

Actually, I think someone intentionally found a little glitch and has exploited it in the stage design.

From the definition section of the 2014 Handgun Rulebook:

Disappearing target .......... A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement.

So by definition, those poppers at issue, while they will disappear from being able to be shot, are not considered to be disappearing targets by the rulebook. Since they are not paper targets, the 25% A-zone requirement is not applicable. But there is more...

If a lot of people call for calibration, it might get it tossed. How could the RM shoot poppers 2-4 if the window is closed? Just open the window? Then that is not as presented to the competitor.

However, I might argue that it is not a legal course of fire per this rule:

4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring poppers which fail to fall when hit are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which a Range Officer deems to have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1). All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:

1. That a minimum of 50% of the calibration zone be available at some point in the COF.

Unless the back 3 poppers have 50% visible from the edges of the shooting area, they would not meet this criteria, therefore they would not be legal.

"All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:"

"shall follow" = a requirement

"guidelines" = suggestion (not a requirement, something to give consideration)

Someone could counter argue that if HQ wanted it to be applied as you assert, then HQ would have written it "All poppers shall follow the requirements below". That's pretty clear. Or, they could have used "... rules below". That's pretty clear too. But HQ didn't write it that way - they chose to write it differently. The current rulebook text uses the word "guidelines" and therefor means that 'regarding using poppers, you're required to consider the suggestions below'. Therefor, it's only a suggestion that "a minimum...", and the stage isn't illegal for the reason you assert.

[beltjones]

Actually, I think someone intentionally found a little glitch and has exploited it in the stage design.

From the definition section of the 2014 Handgun Rulebook:

Disappearing target .......... A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement.

So by definition, those poppers at issue, while they will disappear from being able to be shot, are not considered to be disappearing targets by the rulebook. Since they are not paper targets, the 25% A-zone requirement is not applicable. But there is more...

If a lot of people call for calibration, it might get it tossed. How could the RM shoot poppers 2-4 if the window is closed? Just open the window? Then that is not as presented to the competitor.

However, I might argue that it is not a legal course of fire per this rule:

4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring poppers which fail to fall when hit are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which a Range Officer deems to have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1). All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:

1. That a minimum of 50% of the calibration zone be available at some point in the COF.

Unless the back 3 poppers have 50% visible from the edges of the shooting area, they would not meet this criteria, therefore they would not be legal.

"All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:"

"shall follow" = a requirement

"guidelines" = suggestion (not a requirement, something to give consideration)

Someone could counter argue that if HQ wanted it to be applied as you assert, then HQ would have written it "All poppers shall follow the requirements below". That's pretty clear. Or, they could have used "... rules below". That's pretty clear too. But HQ didn't write it that way - they chose to write it differently. The current rulebook text uses the word "guidelines" and therefor means that 'regarding using poppers, you're required to consider the suggestions below'. Therefor, it's only a suggestion that "a minimum...", and the stage isn't illegal for the reason you assert.

Yeah, no. Guidelines doesn't necessarily mean suggestions. From Websters:

"a rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done"

You're playing the semantics game if you think the word "guidelines" means you can do whatever you want within the context of the rule.

[HI5-O]

Maybe the hard cover has a way to be re-activated???

[OUshooter]

I looked through the book and can't find an justifiable reason that this is an illegal stage. The HC is moving not the targets. I went cover to cover, might have missed something but I think it is legal.

Poorly done IMHO, but legal none the less. Even if you wanted to arbitrate I'm not sure what one would site. Unless you could convince an Arb Comm that it wasn't "reasonable" per 1.1.8. It's not like you can hit PP1 then just sling 3 more rounds and call for calibration. Without a visible scoring hit the call for calibration is denied.

Who knows that HC maybe slower than molasses in dec.

[ac4wordplay]

Actually, I think someone intentionally found a little glitch and has exploited it in the stage design.

From the definition section of the 2014 Handgun Rulebook:

Disappearing target .......... A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement.

So by definition, those poppers at issue, while they will disappear from being able to be shot, are not considered to be disappearing targets by the rulebook. Since they are not paper targets, the 25% A-zone requirement is not applicable. But there is more...

If a lot of people call for calibration, it might get it tossed. How could the RM shoot poppers 2-4 if the window is closed? Just open the window? Then that is not as presented to the competitor.

However, I might argue that it is not a legal course of fire per this rule:

4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring poppers which fail to fall when hit are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which a Range Officer deems to have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1). All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:

1. That a minimum of 50% of the calibration zone be available at some point in the COF.

Unless the back 3 poppers have 50% visible from the edges of the shooting area, they would not meet this criteria, therefore they would not be legal.

"All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:"

"shall follow" = a requirement

"guidelines" = suggestion (not a requirement, something to give consideration)

Someone could counter argue that if HQ wanted it to be applied as you assert, then HQ would have written it "All poppers shall follow the requirements below". That's pretty clear. Or, they could have used "... rules below". That's pretty clear too. But HQ didn't write it that way - they chose to write it differently. The current rulebook text uses the word "guidelines" and therefor means that 'regarding using poppers, you're required to consider the suggestions below'. Therefor, it's only a suggestion that "a minimum...", and the stage isn't illegal for the reason you assert.

Yeah, no. Guidelines doesn't necessarily mean suggestions. From Websters:

"a rule or instruction that shows or tells how something should be done"

You're playing the semantics game if you think the word "guidelines" means you can do whatever you want within the context of the rule.

"rule" and "instruction" are not interchangeable

"should" =/= (is not equal to) "must" or "required"

8.5.1 "...must be accomplished with the fingers visibly outside the trigger guard and the safety should be engaged" (emphasis added) - HQ recognizes that "should" =/= "must".

I'm sympathetic to your position, but the argument you presented above isn't compelling.

I'm just exploring the concepts, not trying to make anyone mad.

Respectfully,

ac

[beltjones]

Ugh. This is another reason why I would never arb anything in a million years. I suppose "All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:" could be slightly more clear, but I have a feeling there will always be a person who says, "it's just a guideline! I can do whatever I want if I ignore the word 'shall' and the word 'all.'"

That same person, if the rule said, "principle," they would say, "it's just a principle! It's not a provision!" And if the rule said, "provision," they would say, "it's just a provision! It's not a stipulation!" And if the rule said, "stipulation," they would say, "it's just a stipulation! It's not a condition!" And if the rule said, "condition," they would say, "it's just a condition! It's not a requirement!" And if the rule said, "requirement," they would say, "it's just a requirement! It's not a mandate!"

[Strick]

Have any of the people that have been saying these aren't disappearing targets since they don't move ever shot a Max Trap? I have and I have shot more than a few that have the No-shoot cover the entire shoot target when at rest..............always, always, always was deemed as a disappearing target. Why is it now different?

[MarkCO]

Have any of the people that have been saying these aren't disappearing targets since they don't move ever shot a Max Trap? I have and I have shot more than a few that have the No-shoot cover the entire shoot target when at rest..............always, always, always was deemed as a disappearing target. Why is it now different?

If you read through the thread, you will see that the USPSA rulebook defines a disappearing target as having been moving, and these targets don't move.

[Strick]

Have any of the people that have been saying these aren't disappearing targets since they don't move ever shot a Max Trap? I have and I have shot more than a few that have the No-shoot cover the entire shoot target when at rest..............always, always, always was deemed as a disappearing target. Why is it now different?

If you read through the thread, you will see that the USPSA rulebook defines a disappearing target as having been moving, and these targets don't move.

So MD's and RO's have been getting it wrong all these years?

[MarkCO]

Have any of the people that have been saying these aren't disappearing targets since they don't move ever shot a Max Trap? I have and I have shot more than a few that have the No-shoot cover the entire shoot target when at rest..............always, always, always was deemed as a disappearing target. Why is it now different?

If you read through the thread, you will see that the USPSA rulebook defines a disappearing target as having been moving, and these targets don't move.

So MD's and RO's have been getting it wrong all these years?

No, you are being obtuse. Read post #24.

Edited September 16, 2014 by MarkCO