Stage setup

[Sup38]

Is it me or has anyone noticed that some stages are getting close to the 90% rule.

[mgardner]

What?

[Sup38]

getting close to breaking 90 degree

[mgardner]

What we try to avoid is providing opportunities to break the 180, coming close doesn't count. Besides, it's the competitors responsibility to learn to control the gun and not break the 180. Only go as fast as your training will allow and you'll be fine. If you walk the stages before a match and have a question about it you should ask one of the match officials and if they decide it's a safety problem it will be corrected.

[Nimitz]

what stages are you refering to? Other than classifiers I've never seen the same stage more than once ... ever. Are you suggesting that MDs across the country are getting together on a regular basis to do group stage design and then pass them out to everyone?

[Nimitz]

if you are starting to see '180 traps' appear at your local match you should be having a chat with your MD ...

[bikerburgess]

There are MDs that regularly set stages with targets that must be engaged close to the 180 and have many targets avaliable to be engaged well beyond the 180, I do my best to not be one of them. At one of my matches if you are pointing your gun at the scoring for of a target from inside the shooting area there is a 99.99% chance that you are not violating the 180 I don't think it costs anything other than a little setup time to make stages that are fun, interesting and don't tempt shooters to make mistakes they are pretty good at doing that on their own.

[Nimitz]

100% agree ... if you're going to be a MD you need to be willing to make that kind of effort. Our local matches have the reputation for being the most challenging anywhere in the state ... only the Fl Open comes close .... not the most difficult but the most challenging, whether you're an open GM or a C Production shooter. It takes a special kind of effort to pull that off month after month and you'll never see a 180 trap at our matches ....

Edited May 9, 2015 by Nimitz

[Sup38]

Glad someone understood what I was talking about

[CHA-LEE]

I think we need to clarify what a 180 "Trap" is. 180 Trap is the placement of a target so that it can ONLY be engaged beyond the 180. Any other variation of target placement that has a target that can be engaged safely while the shooter is up range, but also allows a shooter to move down range of the target and point back up at it beyond the 180, is NOT a 180 Trap. That is a very poor decision by the shooter.

Just because a shooter can move down range of a target but still see it does not make it a 180 Trap. If the shooter chooses to make the wrong decision and point their gun up range to engage a target they are down range from, that is a poor decision on their part.

This is a big kid game with big kid rules. Keep your gun pointed down range at all times or go home early. Setting up stages that eliminate the need of shooters to understand where the 180 is at all times actually hobbles the shooters because they expect the "Stage" to keep them safe. Verses the shooters owning the responsibility of knowing where the 180 is at all times and keeping their gun pointed down range accordingly regardless of the stage configuration or target placement.

We can't put a warning label, seat belt, helmet, or air bag on everything, and we shouldn't. Every stage provides an opportunity to make the wrong decision. Think long and hard about what you are doing so you don't make the wrong decisions.

[Chris iliff]

I agree with CHA-LEE.

This is definitely a game that should only be played by those that can safely handle a firearm. I have never seen a trap that IMHO was not simply a shooter induced screw up. I am not adverse to MD's or RO's pointing out targets close to the 180 before the start of the stage. I don't however make that my practice.

Now, I have been part of discussions on whether this target could be shot at this point. Does this position break the 180, type questions? I see no harm in that either.

I find this equivalent to complaining about easy or hard stages. Stages designed for GM/M shooters or stages designed for C shooters.

I guess I don't get it all that much.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Chris iliff

[motosapiens]

I agree with CHA-LEE.

Does that mean you disagree with the rulebook and the NROI's interpretation thereof?

[Chris iliff]

I agree with CHA-LEE.

Does that mean you disagree with the rulebook and the NROI's interpretation thereof?

Moto, if someone said 2+2=4 I am sure you would argue with them. It's kinda what you do,......isn't it?

Lol

[motosapiens]

I agree with CHA-LEE.

Does that mean you disagree with the rulebook and the NROI's interpretation thereof?

Moto, if someone said 2+2=4 I am sure you would argue with them. It's kinda what you do,......isn't it?

Lol

I argue with people that say 2+2 = 5.

The rulebook appears to discourage (if not prohibit) 180-tempting target placement, and the CRO seminars and stage design articles in front sight (by kevin imel) seem to support a view that is different from yours. Can you comment on that difference? what do you think rule 2.1.4 actually means?

I personally think the NROI interpretation is a little bit too nanny-state-ish for me, but it seems easy enough to comply with by simply angling targets differently and/or using barrels or other props to hide them.

Edited May 11, 2015 by motosapiens

[CHA-LEE]

Here is the rule....

2.1.4 - Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations other than immediately downrange, organizers and officials must protect or restrict surrounding areas to which competitors, officials or spectators have access. Each competitor must be allowed to solve the competitive problem in his own way and must not be hindered by being forced to act in any manner which might cause unsafe action. Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire.

Please point out what point of this goes against what I have already stated. A lot of people get wrapped around the axle on the "Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire." portion of the rule. They mistake this as targets should never be visible beyond the 180, which that is not what is being defined. The verbiage is stating that AS or WHEN the target is initially or only seen within the COF that it CAN'T be placed in a manner that breaches a safe angled of fire.

For the vast majority of stages which have targets that need to be engaged latterly as the shooter advanced down range the targets are usually visually able to be engaged well within the 180. If the shooters CHOOSES to run down range of a target then CHOOSES to point their gun up range to engage it, that is not a stage failure, that is a shooter failure. They were provided the opportunity to engage the target at a safe angle of fire. If they choose to not engage the target at a safe angle that is not a stage design fault.

[Chris iliff]

Again, I agree with CHA-LEE.

I also feel my status as a CRO is safe.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Chris iliff

[Codycoyote]

I would have to agree with CHA-LEE. We have all been to a match where the term "180 trap" has been used. Hell, I have used the term myself. But never have I seen a stage that FORCED me to break the 180 to complete the stage. Every stage or every match I have ever shot has provided a place to engage targets downrange of the 180. The other definition of "180 trap" is making a stage move from right to left along the 180 and forcing a reload. Again, The shooter has every ability to reload their gun with the muzzle down range, whether they exersize that ability, is their choice. I learned the hard way that reloading right to left can get you DQ'd if you are not careful. I did't blame the stage, I blamed myself. And punished my liver heavily that afternoon. lol

[motosapiens]

A lot of people get wrapped around the axle on the "Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire." portion of the rule. They mistake this as targets should never be visible beyond the 180, which that is not what is being defined. The verbiage is stating that AS or WHEN the target is initially or only seen within the COF that it CAN'T be placed in a manner that breaches a safe angled of fire.

For the vast majority of stages which have targets that need to be engaged latterly as the shooter advanced down range the targets are usually visually able to be engaged well within the 180. If the shooters CHOOSES to run down range of a target then CHOOSES to point their gun up range to engage it, that is not a stage failure, that is a shooter failure. They were provided the opportunity to engage the target at a safe angle of fire. If they choose to not engage the target at a safe angle that is not a stage design fault.

You make good points, and I personally prefer your bolded interpretation of the rule (that's how I would interpret it too), but it seems to me that NROI interprets it differently. Would you agree, based on Kevin Imel's recent articles on the topic?

Or are you arguing what the rule *should be*?

Edited May 12, 2015 by motosapiens

[pointerman1967]

Wouldn't a stage where a target can only be engaged beyond the 180 be an illegal stage and tossed out? I think the term "180 trap" is well defined as a "180 temptation". A target placed in such a way that a shooter would be presented with a target from a shooting position beyond the 180. Sometimes all it takes is turning the target a bit to eliminate the 180 trap or a strategic barrel placed. Cha-Lee is referring to an illegal stage as a 180 trap.

[Codycoyote]

Wouldn't a stage where a target can only be engaged beyond the 180 be an illegal stage and tossed out? I think the term "180 trap" is well defined as a "180 temptation". A target placed in such a way that a shooter would be presented with a target from a shooting position beyond the 180. Sometimes all it takes is turning the target a bit to eliminate the 180 trap or a strategic barrel placed. Cha-Lee is referring to an illegal stage as a 180 trap.

Temptation isn't a trap unless you allow it to trap you. CHA-LEE is pointing out that there can't be a target beyond the 180. so there is no "trap". There is a legal target that you either shoot from within the 180 or don't. You could absolutely place barrels to block any attempt to engage a target from beyond the 180. you could absolutely angle the target so that it's only visible from within the 180. I don't want to shoot stages that dictate how I have to shoot the stage or targets. We become an entirely different sport if you can only shoot this target from this spot, or that target from that spot. Might as well require concealment too. lol

[CHA-LEE]

A lot of people get wrapped around the axle on the "Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire." portion of the rule. They mistake this as targets should never be visible beyond the 180, which that is not what is being defined. The verbiage is stating that AS or WHEN the target is initially or only seen within the COF that it CAN'T be placed in a manner that breaches a safe angled of fire.

For the vast majority of stages which have targets that need to be engaged latterly as the shooter advanced down range the targets are usually visually able to be engaged well within the 180. If the shooters CHOOSES to run down range of a target then CHOOSES to point their gun up range to engage it, that is not a stage failure, that is a shooter failure. They were provided the opportunity to engage the target at a safe angle of fire. If they choose to not engage the target at a safe angle that is not a stage design fault.

You make good points, and I personally prefer your bolded interpretation of the rule (that's how I would interpret it too), but it seems to me that NROI interprets it differently. Would you agree, based on Kevin Imel's recent articles on the topic?

Or are you arguing what the rule *should be*?

I can't speak for Kevin or his Articles. If you want his interpretation of the rule I would suggest you ask him.

I can tell you this though, that as a MD for several Level 2 matches, when I send in stages to be approved there is usually at least one or two stages that the RM reviewing them doesn't like due to 180 risks but when I call them out and ask point blank "Is the stage legal or not?" they always come back with it being legal. They simply wanted to point out the 180 risk.

I understand their stance of wanting to mitigating 180 risks with target placement or visibility of targets as it does "Harden" the stage against shooters making unsafe target engagement decisions. As an MD I do my best to place targets in a way that minimizes the chance of them being engaged beyond the 180 from common stationary shooting positions within the stage. There is no need to push the limits of the 180 when placing targets at or beyond the 180 in common stationary shooting positions within the stage. But as I said before, when there are targets that can be seen beyond the 180 and its obvious that they are beyond the 180 from common shooting positions, its up to the competitor to make the correct CHOICE in not engaging the targets beyond the 180 even though they may be able to see them.

The same could be said for making a bad decision on where to reload within the stage that leads to a breaking of the 180. Two weeks ago at a local club match I had to DQ two shooters for breaking the 180 during a reload because they didn't account for the muzzle pointing direction during the reload as they stood facing a target array on a side berm. They were both oblivious of the 180 during these events and being stopped and DQ'ed was the only way for them to learn that lesson. If we 180 hardened these stages to eliminate the chance of them breaking the 180 do you think these guys would have learned that muzzle pointing during a relaod safety lesson? Nope. They were both bummed that they DQed but hopefully that is a good learning lesson for them to always be aware of their muzzle pointing direction at all times. This lesson cost them $20 in a club match fee. Do we really want to baby these guys and keep them from learning this lesson until they go to a Level 2 or 3 match out of state when they have invested hundreds of dollars in travel expenses and match fees? The training wheels need to come off at some point and the best place to do that is at the local club match level.

[motosapiens]

Good post Cha-lee. Thanks for the additional info. Sounds like maybe NROI's position is a little fuzzier than I thought, maybe more of a 'recommendation'.

[Blackhawk]

USPSA Area 4 had a stage a couple of years ago where the left and right sides had barricades and a fault line set that forced you to lean back and pull/push your gun around the barricade to engage targets. If you were not extremely careful, you could break the 180... that was as close to a 180 trap as I've seen... ;-)

[gng4life]

I think we need to clarify what a 180 "Trap" is. 180 Trap is the placement of a target so that it can ONLY be engaged beyond the 180...

So I'm still a little confused...so is this your definition of a "180 trap"? It doesn't sound like it when I read the rest of the post but wanting to know since this goes against plain logic and really, really bad stage design and setup.

[CHA-LEE]

I think we need to clarify what a 180 "Trap" is. 180 Trap is the placement of a target so that it can ONLY be engaged beyond the 180...

So I'm still a little confused...so is this your definition of a "180 trap"? It doesn't sound like it when I read the rest of the post but wanting to know since this goes against plain logic and really, really bad stage design and setup.

You are correct in my definition of a 180 Trap.

Beyond that there can be targets placed close to the 180 and the shooter CHOOSES to engage them beyond the 180. That is not a "Trap". That is a bad decision made by the shooter.