bret Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 It seems to me the definition of outside the shooting area is clearly defined. Interpreting it differently because of different situation seems wrong. If one foot is inside the shooting area and and one out is declared outside the shooting area in one situation, the same logic has to apply in all situations. This is a prime situation where the converse of the rule is not valid. the bolded part is not true. that is a misconception. one foot in and one foot out is NOT defined as outside the shooting area, it's simply defined as faulting (and a procedural). Where in the rule book is it defined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) It seems to me the definition of outside the shooting area is clearly defined. Interpreting it differently because of different situation seems wrong. If one foot is inside the shooting area and and one out is declared outside the shooting area in one situation, the same logic has to apply in all situations. This is a prime situation where the converse of the rule is not valid. the bolded part is not true. that is a misconception. one foot in and one foot out is NOT defined as outside the shooting area, it's simply defined as faulting (and a procedural). Where in the rule book is it defined? in the previously posted section about faulting, 10.2.1. It's written in plain english. "any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line," 1 foot in and 1 foot out fits that description perfectly. It's not being 'outside the shooting area', it's a procedural for each occurrence. Edited February 5, 2016 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 It seems to me the definition of outside the shooting area is clearly defined. Interpreting it differently because of different situation seems wrong. If one foot is inside the shooting area and and one out is declared outside the shooting area in one situation, the same logic has to apply in all situations. This is a prime situation where the converse of the rule is not valid. the bolded part is not true. that is a misconception. one foot in and one foot out is NOT defined as outside the shooting area, it's simply defined as faulting (and a procedural).Where in the rule book is it defined? in the previously posted section about faulting, 10.2.1. It's written in plain english."any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line," 1 foot in and 1 foot out fits that description perfectly. It's not being 'outside the shooting area', it's a procedural for each occurrence. No where in the rule book is there a definition of inside the shooting area. Closest I can see is faulting. Last match we had an outside the shooting area start, it said completely outside, had it said just outside, it would be up to interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It seems to me the definition of outside the shooting area is clearly defined. Interpreting it differently because of different situation seems wrong. If one foot is inside the shooting area and and one out is declared outside the shooting area in one situation, the same logic has to apply in all situations. This is a prime situation where the converse of the rule is not valid. the bolded part is not true. that is a misconception. one foot in and one foot out is NOT defined as outside the shooting area, it's simply defined as faulting (and a procedural).Where in the rule book is it defined? in the previously posted section about faulting, 10.2.1. It's written in plain english."any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line," 1 foot in and 1 foot out fits that description perfectly. It's not being 'outside the shooting area', it's a procedural for each occurrence. No where in the rule book is there a definition of inside the shooting area. Closest I can see is faulting. Last match we had an outside the shooting area start, it said completely outside, had it said just outside, it would be up to interpretation. the bolded part is incorrect. Every experienced RO is perfectly clear on what 'outside the shooting area' means, and you will not be allowed to start if you are not outside the shooting area. What need is there for a definition of inside the shooting area? up and down are also not defined. Neither are pants. We do just fine because we know what those things mean. English, and the faulting rules help to make it extra clear just what is required to be inside the shooting area. However it is a logical fallacy to presume that anything that is not inside the shooting area must be outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 It seems to me the definition of outside the shooting area is clearly defined. Interpreting it differently because of different situation seems wrong. If one foot is inside the shooting area and and one out is declared outside the shooting area in one situation, the same logic has to apply in all situations. This is a prime situation where the converse of the rule is not valid. the bolded part is not true. that is a misconception. one foot in and one foot out is NOT defined as outside the shooting area, it's simply defined as faulting (and a procedural).Where in the rule book is it defined? in the previously posted section about faulting, 10.2.1. It's written in plain english."any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line," 1 foot in and 1 foot out fits that description perfectly. It's not being 'outside the shooting area', it's a procedural for each occurrence. No where in the rule book is there a definition of inside the shooting area.Closest I can see is faulting. Last match we had an outside the shooting area start, it said completely outside, had it said just outside, it would be up to interpretation. the bolded part is incorrect. Every experienced RO is perfectly clear on what 'outside the shooting area' means, and you will not be allowed to start if you are not outside the shooting area.What need is there for a definition of inside the shooting area? up and down are also not defined. Neither are pants. We do just fine because we know what those things mean. English, and the faulting rules help to make it extra clear just what is required to be inside the shooting area. However it is a logical fallacy to presume that anything that is not inside the shooting area must be outside. It is logical that if you can get a procedural or many for not being wholly inside the shooting area, if you are not wholly inside the shooting area you are outside of the shooting area. If they want you completely inside then it needs to say that or a definition added saying what inside the shooting area is and what outside the shooting area is. They had to define what a dropped gun was, I had people say since the gun didn't hit the ground it wasn't dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) It is logical that if you can get a procedural or many for not being wholly inside the shooting area, if you are not wholly inside the shooting area you are outside of the shooting area. No, that is not logical. It's silly, in fact. You are asserting that only 2 states of being exist, either inside the shooting area or outside the shooting area. That is false, just like it would be for most other day-to-day situations. If you have 1 foot in your house and 1 out, are you in the house? no. out of the house? no... you are neither. if you take your shirt off, but your pants are still on, are you dressed? clearly not. Are you undressed? clearly not. You are neither. Edited February 5, 2016 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 It is logical that if you can get a procedural or many for not being wholly inside the shooting area, if you are not wholly inside the shooting area you are outside of the shooting area.No, that is not logical. It's silly, in fact. You are asserting that only 2 states of being exist, either inside the shooting area or outside the shooting area. That is false, just like it would be for most other day-to-day situations. I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) It is logical that if you can get a procedural or many for not being wholly inside the shooting area, if you are not wholly inside the shooting area you are outside of the shooting area.No, that is not logical. It's silly, in fact. You are asserting that only 2 states of being exist, either inside the shooting area or outside the shooting area. That is false, just like it would be for most other day-to-day situations. I disagree. I can see that. Can you show me the rule that supports your contention that there are only 2 states of being with respect to shooting areas, either inside, or outside, and nothing else? I just looked and couldn't find that rule. Edited February 5, 2016 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 It is logical that if you can get a procedural or many for not being wholly inside the shooting area, if you are not wholly inside the shooting area you are outside of the shooting area.No, that is not logical. It's silly, in fact. You are asserting that only 2 states of being exist, either inside the shooting area or outside the shooting area. That is false, just like it would be for most other day-to-day situations.I disagree. I can see that. It doesn't bother me if you are wrong. Try it at your next major match. A major match will have a more defined WSB. I am not wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I am not wrong. I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 I am not wrong.I disagree. You can disagree all you want, but you are still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I must admit you guys sure argue politely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Lord Gomer Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I must admit you guys sure argue politely! I disagree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) It is logical that if you can get a procedural or many for not being wholly inside the shooting area, if you are not wholly inside the shooting area you are outside of the shooting area.No, that is not logical. It's silly, in fact. You are asserting that only 2 states of being exist, either inside the shooting area or outside the shooting area. That is false, just like it would be for most other day-to-day situations.I disagree. I can see that. It doesn't bother me if you are wrong. Try it at your next major match.A major match will have a more defined WSB.I am not wrong. You're wrong! You're always wrong! Mom always liked me better, and she thinks you're wrong. Waaaaaah!Whew. Now I feel better. (Watching these arguments makes me regress.) Edited February 6, 2016 by teros135 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbo76 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 OP: Are you shooting at a level where a few tenths of a second separate you from taking the overall win? If not there is not much of a point to the discussion. My guess is the super squad will all start with both feet outside of the shooting area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) OP: Are you shooting at a level where a few tenths of a second separate you from taking the overall win? If not there is not much of a point to the discussion. My guess is the super squad will all start with both feet outside of the shooting area. so will everyone else unless the RO is inexperienced. As annoying as discussions like this are, I think it is still helpful in gaining a better understanding of the rules. I would rather have annoying discussions with people who are wrong on the internet than at the range. Believe it or not, this same argument has been brought up at our range by wrong people, but it is now completely squashed. Edited February 5, 2016 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 OP: Are you shooting at a level where a few tenths of a second separate you from taking the overall win? If not there is not much of a point to the discussion. My guess is the super squad will all start with both feet outside of the shooting area. No its the issue of being able to shoot the course following the rules,and WSB, if a guy can find a different way to shoot it, what is the issue? WSB that aren't clear and knowing what the rules say is what leads to thongs like this. If you want someone starting in a certain spot,,put it in the WSB. Last match was anywhere anyhow, allowed gaming but cut down on R.O. telling people they weren't standing exactly right. Give the make ready, let them shoot jnstead of worrying if one foot is pointed too far in one direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAFO Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 It is logical that if you can get a procedural or many for not being wholly inside the shooting area, if you are not wholly inside the shooting area you are outside of the shooting area. If you have a full glass of water and spill some, are you going to tell me that because it's not full, it's empty? You are still making the incorrect assumption that 10.2.1 defines being inside the shooting area vs being outside. It only defines penalties for crossing the fault line. When you are being asked to start outside the shooting area and you put one foot inside the area, you are crossing the fault line in the other direction. If you have a stage that allows you to start anywhere you want, facing any direction, with your hands anywhere, that's great. But you keep saying that "outside the shooting area" isn't a clear starting position description when it has been considered so for a long time at ranges all over the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 It seems to me the definition of outside the shooting area is clearly defined. Interpreting it differently because of different situation seems wrong. If one foot is inside the shooting area and and one out is declared outside the shooting area in one situation, the same logic has to apply in all situations. This is a prime situation where the converse of the rule is not valid. the bolded part is not true. that is a misconception. one foot in and one foot out is NOT defined as outside the shooting area, it's simply defined as faulting (and a procedural).Where in the rule book is it defined? in the previously posted section about faulting, 10.2.1. It's written in plain english."any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box or a Fault Line," 1 foot in and 1 foot out fits that description perfectly. It's not being 'outside the shooting area', it's a procedural for each occurrence. No where in the rule book is there a definition of inside the shooting area. Closest I can see is faulting. Last match we had an outside the shooting area start, it said completely outside, had it said just outside, it would be up to interpretation. It's never up to interpretation if the match staff did their job....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 It is logical that if you can get a procedural or many for not being wholly inside the shooting area, if you are not wholly inside the shooting area you are outside of the shooting area.No, that is not logical. It's silly, in fact. You are asserting that only 2 states of being exist, either inside the shooting area or outside the shooting area. That is false, just like it would be for most other day-to-day situations. I disagree. I understand that you want to disagree -- but you're going to wait a very long time to shoot the stage, if you disagree with the RO. It's pretty simple really -- RO just won't start your run..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Hey Bret -- serious suggestion -- why not chat with the RMI who taught your RO class, and ask him if your interpretation is correct....... Most likely he'll tell you that it's not -- but that the stage description in question could have been more cleanly drafted...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbo76 Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) OP: Are you shooting at a level where a few tenths of a second separate you from taking the overall win? If not there is not much of a point to the discussion. My guess is the super squad will all start with both feet outside of the shooting area. so will everyone else unless the RO is inexperienced.As annoying as discussions like this are, I think it is still helpful in gaining a better understanding of the rules. I would rather have annoying discussions with people who are wrong on the internet than at the range. Believe it or not, this same argument has been brought up at our range by wrong people, but it is now completely squashed. I see these types of issues from time to time at big matches and its never the super squad. (Yes there is sarcasm here). On my stage (I am a cro) it would be a mute point because i would not issue the are you ready command until both feet were outside the fault line. I would have precleared with the RM so no additional discussion would be required. Edited February 6, 2016 by sbo76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbo76 Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 OP: Are you shooting at a level where a few tenths of a second separate you from taking the overall win? If not there is not much of a point to the discussion. My guess is the super squad will all start with both feet outside of the shooting area. No its the issue of being able to shoot the course following the rules,and WSB, if a guy can find a different way to shoot it, what is the issue? WSB that aren't clear and knowing what the rules say is what leads to thongs like this. If you want someone starting in a certain spot,,put it in the WSB. Last match was anywhere anyhow, allowed gaming but cut down on R.O. telling people they weren't standing exactly right. Give the make ready, let them shoot jnstead of worrying if one foot is pointed too far in one direction. There is not issue. Outside the shooting area = outside. No faulting, not inside the shooting area, like the WSB says standing outside of the shooting area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbo76 Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Hey Bret -- serious suggestion -- why not chat with the RMI who taught your RO class, and ask him if your interpretation is correct....... Most likely he'll tell you that it's not -- but that the stage description in question could have been more cleanly drafted...... or submit question to the NROI on the USPSA website. Then you have a 100% definitive answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) Hey Bret -- serious suggestion -- why not chat with the RMI who taught your RO class, and ask him if your interpretation is correct....... Most likely he'll tell you that it's not -- but that the stage description in question could have been more cleanly drafted...... or submit question to the NROI on the USPSA website. Then you have a 100% definitive answer. Why?DNROI and his RMI's should be on EXACTLY the same page Edited February 6, 2016 by Sarge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now