See through walls

[de03x7]

I was watching the videos from Nationals as they were posted on facebook and wishing I could have been there. I noticed that all/most, of the walls were made with see through fence. On a couple of the stages there was a low port to finish the stage and in some of the videos you can clearly see the shooter putting their gun through the port then lifting it up and sighting through the fence. Should the shooter have been given a penalty for the shots fired while sighting through the fence? The shot would not have been scored (9.1.6.1) if they shot a target through the fence so why not when they look through it to see the sights? The problem could have been solved by dropping the banners that were on the fence a little lower so the shooter would have had to get down to see through.

https://www.facebook.com/jake.martens.3#!/video.php?v=10152746389278024&set=vb.636458023&type=2&theater Here JJ aims and shoots through the port.

https://www.facebook.com/jake.martens.3#!/video.php?v=10152746344683024&set=vb.636458023&type=2&theater Here the shooter is clearly looking through the fence and you can see the gun lifted above the port.

I know it is too late to do anything about it for this match but I would like to hear everyone’s opinion on rather this should be legal or not. It could be that penalties were given also as the video stops when the shooting stops. I doubt that is the case though because this happened on a couple stages with the low ports and if they were calling it a penalty word would have got around and people would have stopped doing it.

Edited September 29, 2014 by de03x7

[JAFO]

I can't find a rule that would be quoted to support a penalty. I think that's a stage design thing. If they didn't want them sighting through the fence, they should have done as you said. Either lowered the banners or somehow created a vision barrier.

[MarkCO]

There is nothing in the rules that restricts where a competitor may "look". The restrictions are for where the muzzle is pointed and where the bullet goes (or goes through).

That is a stage design/match management issue. There was no safety issue and the course was the same for everyone, so while the use of see through walls possibly changed the "intent" of the course designer, no rules were broken.

We have switched to primarily see through walls. While I am not a fan of the metal mesh and caution tape around the ports at the walls from Nationals, I much prefer them to solid walls. There are times when a course designer wants to actually limit vision and they can do so with other types of vision barriers, or in those cases, solid walls.

[Sarge]

You know it may not be that simple. Walls have been discussed many times here and elsewhere. Common opinion seems to be that see through walls are intended to be the same as a solid wall. It has been expressed many times that you can't shoot through a mesh wall because you really can't "see " through it to know where the target is. If this is the case how can you "see " through it and shoot under it in the case of nationals?

I doubt we can find a rule on it because there isn't one for mesh walls that are deemed to be solid simply to make them lighter and safer for RO's

[CZinSC]

Here is a thought: Maybe the stage designer left it that way on purpose? Maybe his "intent" was to let people shoot with their arms through the port up to their elbows. Some of the videos i saw it looked far faster to go a knee from further back and shoot through the port normally.

Either way, if he didn't intend for the stage to be shot that way, it's his fault for not restricting the view. Nothing in the rules to penalize someone for shooting it that way.

It would not have been hard to attach something to the wall to restrict the vision so you couldn't do it.

[MarkCO]

Walls are defined as hard cover (unless otherwise stipulated), therefore a scoring round can not pass through it. So for terms of scoring shots, yes, impenetrable. There still is no rule that tells me where I can look. A no-shoot could have been stapled above the port if they really wanted to restrict the vision of the downrange targets, but they did not.

I put a round through a no shoot Saturday. I could not "see" the aiming point on the target behind it at the time the round left the barrel of my pistol, and I did not get the hit on the scoring target behind it because, by rule, the bullet can not pass through multiple props and or targets. Gots to go with the rules.

[Jim Norman]

OK, my take on Walls vs Fence or Screen.

A wall in your house is a solid thing you cannot look through. Having seen enough of a lot of you with your shooting clothes on, this makes me very happy.

OK, humor aside, I like solid walls as a stage designer and as a RO/CRO when running a shooter. I understand that from a spectator perspective as well as a range safety issue, screens and construction fence are 'better'.

With a WALL, i.e. a solid non-transparent thing, the shooter cannot have his sights aligned before he gets visibility on the target, the RO doesn't have to try to determine if a round passed through a hole in the netting, shoot through a wall and there is a hole in the wall. Cut a port in the wall where you want. Don't want the shooter to sight through the wall, a solid wall eliminates those issues. We use inexpensive stockade fence from Lowe's or Home Depot, generally the 6 x 8 sections last 3-5 years each before we replace them. And that was when we stored them outside.

I would not be opposed to a hybrid system, put solid walls around ports, put 2 feet of solid at he end of a wall to prevent lining up your sights before you had the target 'in view'. but I really don't like mesh or screen 'walls' as the only walls on a stage. Provided that one declares all wall go to the ground, if you want to raise your walls up 2 feet to allow for a leg check down range, I don't have a big issue with that either.

Just a few of my thoughts.

[Parallax3D]

It may not specifically be in the book, but it seems pretty clear to me that walls are hardcover. You can no more see through them than you can shoot through them. (Even if technically you CAN see through it, because it's snow-fencing.) If it were not snow fencing or some other see-through material, you would not be able to see the target to shoot at it unless you looked throught the port.

Personally, I think 10.2.2 would apply.

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occur-rence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage dur-ing non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance).

A port was provided, yet they did not look through the port, as intened. Instead they "looked through" a wall. (Must have x-ray vision.)

Edited September 29, 2014 by Parallax3D

[Jay870]

Commercial & retail construction frequently has glass "walls" that are transparent. They are functionally no more or less "impenetrable" than opaque walls made of 2x4's & drywall.

[MarkCO]

The rulebook is not based on fantasy and states nothing about what you can or can not see with your eyeballs. The shooters did comply with the stage briefing completely. IF you don't want people looking through mesh walls, then make them solid. This is "practical" shooting and allows the shooter to solve the problem, not deal with fantasy. If you want to restrict the feet, the vision, etc., with fantasy, then IDPA has a place for that. USPSA only allows the shooter to be restricted through use of props, vision barriers, walls etc. Notice that vision barriers and walls are two different things. Of course that range can make them one and the same, but then they won't be mesh.

[Sarge]

The rulebook is not based on fantasy and states nothing about what you can or can not see with your eyeballs. The shooters did comply with the stage briefing completely. IF you don't want people looking through mesh walls, then make them solid. This is "practical" shooting and allows the shooter to solve the problem, not deal with fantasy. If you want to restrict the feet, the vision, etc., with fantasy, then IDPA has a place for that. USPSA only allows the shooter to be restricted through use of props, vision barriers, walls etc. Notice that vision barriers and walls are two different things. Of course that range can make them one and the same, but then they won't be mesh.

But we went through all of this with an AD CALL through a mesh wall. If I recall the call was made that they could not have been aiming at a target since even mesh walls are considered solid. Pretty sure the AD stood.

[MarkCO]

Then DQ the first shooter.

It is a totally different scenario. A round went off when it could not be scored as a hit in the first "argument". In this case, the round did not pass through the wall, just the shooters vision, at an engagable target.

[JAFO]

OK, humor aside, I like solid walls as a stage designer and as a RO/CRO when running a shooter. I understand that from a spectator perspective as well as a range safety issue, screens and construction fence are 'better'.

Don't forget less wind resistance. Mesh walls stay up in a strong breeze far easier than solids. But if you go that way and still want the visual effect of a solid wall at the port, tack no-shoots all around it. That also discourages the errant shot through the edge of the port.

[JFlowers]

I like mesh walls. For a lot of practical reasons, lighter, easier to move, easier to see who might be downrange, etc. As a stage designer, I assume mesh walls and if I want a solid wall I will specify such. As a wall builder, I tend to make ports narrow but long top to bottom. Makes it easy on the short and the tall.

[Sarge]

Then DQ the first shooter.

It is a totally different scenario. A round went off when it could not be scored as a hit in the first "argument". In this case, the round did not pass through the wall, just the shooters vision, at an engagable target.

I think the argument was attempted that said the shooter could "see" the target therefore he could claim to be engaging the target. That's pretty similar to what is currently on the table.

[Jim Norman]

Commercial & retail construction frequently has glass "walls" that are transparent. They are functionally no more or less "impenetrable" than opaque walls made of 2x4's & drywall.

Those are called WINDOWS or on occasion, WINDOW WALLS. Yes you can see through them, but is a round passed through one you would know it!

As for our fencing, we don't have metal frames that can become very dangerous as they get shot up and we don't have wood frames that twist. The Stockade fence works and with a proper brace stands up to most winds we get.

[Jerome]

I guess we cannot look through these fence walls when running a stage and see targets behind them (unless we have X-ray vision). So, run the stages with these walls with eyes closed?

It may not specifically be in the book, but it seems pretty clear to me that walls are hardcover. You can no more see through them than you can shoot through them. (Even if technically you CAN see through it, because it's snow-fencing.) If it were not snow fencing or some other see-through material, you would not be able to see the target to shoot at it unless you looked throught the port.

Personally, I think 10.2.2 would apply.

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occur-rence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage dur-ing non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance).

A port was provided, yet they did not look through the port, as intened. Instead they "looked through" a wall. (Must have x-ray vision.)

[terrydoc]

Watching some of the video's on FB and you know what, it seems to be that damn stage 22 there were 5 pages of discussion about that is at issue

[terrydoc]

It may not specifically be in the book, but it seems pretty clear to me that walls are hardcover. You can no more see through them than you can shoot through them. (Even if technically you CAN see through it, because it's snow-fencing.) If it were not snow fencing or some other see-through material, you would not be able to see the target to shoot at it unless you looked throught the port.

Personally, I think 10.2.2 would apply.

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occur-rence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage dur-ing non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance).

A port was provided, yet they did not look through the port, as intened. Instead they "looked through" a wall. (Must have x-ray vision.)

I like your thinking BUT what did the written stage brief say? they all "fired "shots through the ports yes they may have not been looking but the shots were through the port. After all it is called free style and it's up to the shooter to solve the problem and I would say they did. As an IROA RO I have no problem with what I have seen in the video's.

[The Antichrome]

No where does it say the walls are brick/wood/steel/etc...maybe the 'wall' is glass/plexiglass/rice paper or something else transparent. If the wall is supposed to be a vision barrier, then it has to actually block vision. It cant just be 'declared' a vision barrier. Its easy enough to block vision if thats what the course designer wants to do.

This has been discussed at length before but I havent found the thread yet.

[Parallax3D]

USPSA only allows the shooter to be restricted through use of props, vision barriers, walls etc. Notice that vision barriers and walls are two different things. Of course that range can make them one and the same, but then they won't be mesh.

The rule book DOES mention snow-fencing, and nowhere does it say that a "wall" must be opaque.

But we went through all of this with an AD CALL through a mesh wall. If I recall the call was made that they could not have been aiming at a target since even mesh walls are considered solid. Pretty sure the AD stood.

Exactly my reasoning. If you can't see it, you can't shoot at it. If you are aiming through the "wall" and not the port, the you aren't aiming, because you're not supposed to be able to see through walls.

I guess we cannot look through these fence walls when running a stage and see targets behind them (unless we have X-ray vision). So, run the stages with these walls with eyes closed?

Sure you can see the target behind the wall, but you can't SHOOT at it until it is no longer behind the wall. Sticking your gun through a port and aiming THROUGH the snow-fence wall is really no different than sticking your gun through a port on a SOLID wall and shooting without aiming, (at least as far ar the rules are concerned.)

I like your thinking BUT what did the written stage brief say? they all "fired "shots through the ports yes they may have not been looking but the shots were through the port. After all it is called free style and it's up to the shooter to solve the problem and I would say they did. As an IROA RO I have no problem with what I have seen in the video's.

No idea what the WSB said. I wasn't there, but reportedly, (according the the OP), the shooters put their gun through the port, but then SIGHTED through the snow-fence. If that was intended to be a wall with a portal in it, then you can't sight your gun through the wall. Just think of what you could do if the wall were solid/opaque, and if you can't do it in that case, you SHOULDN'T be able to do it when the wall is made of a transparent/non-solid material, like nylon mesh or a snow-fence.

[terrydoc]

Yes some did you can see them in the video, IF it was intended to be a vision barrier then it should have been made so that you can't see through it, as I said it's free style and they have at this point IMHO not broken any rule, if someone comes up with the WSB that say's you can't look through the screen walls and sight then they have broken rules but until then play on.

No different to firing an unsighted shot through a port happens every match when the target is just below the port and close

[bikerburgess]

The problem people are having is trying to define intent. Stages have NO intent they are merely a shooting challenge for the shooter to solve as it is presented to them. I design many of my clubs stages and while I may have had a idea in mind when I drew and set the stage but the second the match starts that counts for exactly nothing from that moment on we are governed by the rule book not what I thought I wanted the shooter to do.

[terrydoc]

I concur a bit like people here in Australia talk about things being in the spirit of the match or giving the benefit of the doubt, unfortunately neither of those things are in the rule books

[terrydoc]

Parallax you seem to be inferring that the shooters by their action have broken a rule could you point out the specific rule they have broken please.

Edited September 30, 2014 by terrydoc