What Call Would You Make?

[LPatterson]

Since the competitor made the attempt to comply with the WSB and the equipment failed then a reshoot is required after fixing the cause of the failure. Stages should be inspected by more than one person because not everyone does everything the same way and 2 people playing 'what if I do it this way' always works better than one.

[omnia1911]

The more I think about this, the more I think it's range equipment failure.  From the green book:

4.6 Range Equipment Failure and Other Issues

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably

to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, but is not

limited to, the displacement of paper targets, the premature activation

of metal or moving targets, the malfunction of mechanically

or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props

such as openings, ports, and barriers.

4.6.2 A competitor who is unable to complete a course of fire due to

range equipment failure, or if a metal or moving target was not

reset prior to his attempt at a course of fire, must be required to

reshoot the course of fire after corrective actions have been

taken.

4.6.3 Chronic malfunction of equipment in a course of fire may result

in the removal of that stage from the match results (see Rule

2.3.4).

It's a freestyle sport ---- so if it's possible to move in any direction from the start position, then the swinger activator must allow for activation in any direction --- it can't be allowed to activate correctly for people who choose to stand in place and deal with the swingers first and to not activate for people who wish to go the left or right first......

Want someone to deal with the swingers first? Place them at the beginning of the physical movement area for the stage --- that way the time penalty for returning there from the end of the stage becomes too great....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see nothing in the rulebook that states the props must work in a manner that a competitor wishes them to. They only have to work as the stage designer wishes them to. If the props happen to work in a manner beyond what the stage designer wishes, then the shooter is free to take advantage of that. In this case it doesn't seem that the props worked in any way but how the stage designer intended, which was capable of activating the swingers.

1.1.5 (freestyle rule) says:

However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions or stances.

I would say that the limited way the rope had to be pulled to activate the swingers was a "condition that was created to compel the shooter into a shooting position".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No the limited way that the activator worked was designed to force a competitor to only "activate" targets in a specific direction --- and that's not what 1.1.5 is all about, if read in it's entirety:

1.1.5 Freestyle – IPSC matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and

to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire

must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position

or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions

may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be

constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions or

stances.

There's nothing preventing a shooter from activating the swingers, then shooting the left and right arrays and finishing on the swingers. The only requirement in the stage description was to activate the swingers before drawing, hence it has nothing to do with compelling a shooter into a shooting position or stance. Want to compel either one of those? Start building vision barriers so the swingers can only be shot from one place. Activating targets should activate equally for all shooters, regardless of their engagement plan for the stage........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The operative word is compel, not require. You want to be creative in pulling the rope, then you suffer the consequences if it doesn't work as you intended. The fact is that the swingers could be activated if the rope was pulled as the stage designer intended.

What if the swingers had been activated by opening a door (all stage description said was engage targets as visible, opening door actives swingers)? In order to activate the swingers you had to open the door a full 90 degrees. Do you think you should be able to claim REF if after opening the door only 45 degrees the targets didn't activate? Can you claim, "I opened the door. Shouldn't the door activate the targets equally for everyone?" Yea, if you open it correctly! "But, opening the door a full 90 degrees didn't fit into my engagement plan." Sorry, next shooter.

[omnia1911]

Since the competitor made the attempt to comply with the WSB and the equipment failed then a reshoot is required after fixing the cause of the failure.  Stages should be inspected by more than one person because not everyone does everything the same way and 2 people playing 'what if I do it this way' always works better than one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The equipment didn't fail. The competitors attempt failed.

[Nik Habicht]

The more I think about this, the more I think it's range equipment failure.  From the green book:

4.6 Range Equipment Failure and Other Issues

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably

to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, but is not

limited to, the displacement of paper targets, the premature activation

of metal or moving targets, the malfunction of mechanically

or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props

such as openings, ports, and barriers.

4.6.2 A competitor who is unable to complete a course of fire due to

range equipment failure, or if a metal or moving target was not

reset prior to his attempt at a course of fire, must be required to

reshoot the course of fire after corrective actions have been

taken.

4.6.3 Chronic malfunction of equipment in a course of fire may result

in the removal of that stage from the match results (see Rule

2.3.4).

It's a freestyle sport ---- so if it's possible to move in any direction from the start position, then the swinger activator must allow for activation in any direction --- it can't be allowed to activate correctly for people who choose to stand in place and deal with the swingers first and to not activate for people who wish to go the left or right first......

Want someone to deal with the swingers first? Place them at the beginning of the physical movement area for the stage --- that way the time penalty for returning there from the end of the stage becomes too great....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see nothing in the rulebook that states the props must work in a manner that a competitor wishes them to. They only have to work as the stage designer wishes them to. If the props happen to work in a manner beyond what the stage designer wishes, then the shooter is free to take advantage of that. In this case it doesn't seem that the props worked in any way but how the stage designer intended, which was capable of activating the swingers.

1.1.5 (freestyle rule) says:

However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions or stances.

I would say that the limited way the rope had to be pulled to activate the swingers was a "condition that was created to compel the shooter into a shooting position".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No the limited way that the activator worked was designed to force a competitor to only "activate" targets in a specific direction --- and that's not what 1.1.5 is all about, if read in it's entirety:

1.1.5 Freestyle – IPSC matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and

to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire

must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position

or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions

may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be

constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions or

stances.

There's nothing preventing a shooter from activating the swingers, then shooting the left and right arrays and finishing on the swingers. The only requirement in the stage description was to activate the swingers before drawing, hence it has nothing to do with compelling a shooter into a shooting position or stance. Want to compel either one of those? Start building vision barriers so the swingers can only be shot from one place. Activating targets should activate equally for all shooters, regardless of their engagement plan for the stage........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The operative word is compel, not require. You want to be creative in pulling the rope, then you suffer the consequences if it doesn't work as you intended. The fact is that the swingers could be activated if the rope was pulled as the stage designer intended.

What if the swingers had been activated by opening a door (all stage description said was engage targets as visible, opening door actives swingers)? In order to activate the swingers you had to open the door a full 90 degrees. Do you think you should be able to claim REF if after opening the door only 45 degrees the targets didn't activate? Can you claim, "I opened the door. Shouldn't the door activate the targets equally for everyone?" Yea, if you open it correctly! "But, opening the door a full 90 degrees didn't fit into my engagement plan." Sorry, next shooter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If a course designer elects to set an activating door in the manner you described, and further elects to not hide the targets to be activated, then you'll bet that I'll shoot the targets as soon as I can see them ---- activated or not. By the same token, if you're not going to put up walls, I may run around a doorway rather than through it, if it'll save me time ---- unless the stage description at a level one match requires me to go through the doorway.

I've designed plenty of stages with unintentional holes in them --- and have learned a lot from the shooters that gamed those stages. I still desing stages with intentional holes or options in them. This really comes down to good stage design --- and shooters and match directors should be demanding that at the top of their lungs! Trying to force all shooters to shoot a stage or a position the same way is antithetical to the freestyle concept that is at the core of this sport. It's also not necessary, because you're not going to greatly influence the order of finish among the competitors......

Stage designer's intention? There's no place for that in the written stage briefing or the rulebook. Unless that changes, it'll need to be addressed in rock solid design and construction.......

[warpspeed]

If the rope was in his hand and he pulled it, he attempted. REF

As far as poor stage desgin, WTF ? just becasue a swinger did not have hard cover or a NS ? PLEEEEEEASE - perhaps the intent was only to have a target in motion - no more no less. Quote me the rule that says all moving targets must have some sort of NS or hardcover. You can't. Why ? because it doesn't exist.

Just becasue the described stage doesn't meet your preconceived ideas of how stages are to be desgined does not make them bad.

[Nik Habicht]

If the rope was in his hand and he pulled it,  he attempted.  REF

As far as poor stage desgin, WTF ?  just becasue a swinger did not have hard cover or a NS ? PLEEEEEEASE - perhaps the intent was only to have a target in motion - no more no less.  Quote me the rule that says all moving targets must have some sort of NS or hardcover.  You can't. Why ? because it doesn't exist.

Just becasue the described stage doesn't meet your preconceived ideas of how stages are to be desgined does not make them bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I only meant to indicate it was poor stage design if the designer wanted the competitor to shoot the swingers moving. If the designer's fine with me potentially trading one procedural for the opportunity to shoot two swingers in static position, I'm happy to not have them appearing from behind some kind of cover. If the designer's not going to be fine with that though, he then needs to A: re-write the stage procedure in such a manner that an R.O. could assess procedurals for significant advantage or B: needs to re-think his stage design.

At the nationals in 04, there was a position where opening a door activated a drop turner flanked by two statics. Some shooters yanked the door open and shot the drop turner first, others opened it a little slower and managed to hit a static before the turner ---- choices, the hallmark of good stage design.

Disclaimer: I believe that if the stage procedure is more complicated than "engage all targets," we're potentially on the way to testing a whole bunch of things that have very little to do with shooting......

[GeorgeInNePa]

Was the RO clear during the walkthrough that the rope had to be pulled straight back? The shooters were all told that correct? If not, reshoot. ---4.6.1, 4.6.2

If there is no way the shooters could know that the rope had to go straight back, reshoot. ---4.6.1, 4.6.2

If they were told that the rope had to go straight back, not to the sides, and they tried to get tricky, TFB. They get a procedural for not activating the targets. ---10.1.1

Edited a bit after rereading the posts.

[short_round]

If you are looking for a rule, 9.9.3 is the most applicable when it comes to not activating a moving target. Of all the rules cited in context so far, 9.9.3 specifically addresses competitor failure to "activate the mechanism." It could be read on it's own that failure to activate the mechanism incurs failure to shoot at and miss penalties.

As for 9.9.3 saying "always"...this is a situation where the book isn't clear.  I don't see how it can be anything aproaching fair to read 9.9.3 in a strict (literal) manner.  If you think it should be read that way, then read 9.9.1 and tell me what you would do there (you would ALWAYS have to give mikes and fte's...even if shot in the regular execution of the stage).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is true and I think a proper argument towards refuting the wording in 9.9.3 and probably some other places.

and mostly this ...

9.9.3 is intended to address a target that is hidden, appears when activated, and then disappears completely. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

9.9.3 should not be read alone, but as an extension of 9.9.2 of 9.9.1.

Since this is the case, it would be good for stage designers to keep in mind that they really need to completely cover the movers before they are activated. If this cannot be done, due to lack of props or time to setup, "movers engaged before they are activated will incur 1 procedural per shot fired" in the stage description should cover it because the rules don't seem to.

I can't find the rule that says everything has to be activated before you shoot at it. 9.9.3 could penalize you like crazy for it, but it applies only to disappearing targets.

[chuckw]

The equipment didn't fail. The competitors attempt failed.

What a crock! It's not like the guy pushed a "pull" door, or pulled a "push" door. He pulled the rope, it didn't work, it's REF. If we start to have "this is how you pull the rope" instructions, what next???? "This is how you're supposed to run" instructions?

[Jim Norman]

An interesting comment earlier about going around a door.

As the rules are currently written, this and so many other things are legal. We want intelligent course designs that challenge shooting skills and we have a rulebook that allows a range lawyer to completely circumvent the design by refering to rule, 45.67.23.1.a.73

We set up a Freefire zone, the zone has the caveat that we can only shoot from within the zone, but ther eis norule about traveling outside the zone. Picture a large "T" shaped zone, you start and the base and have targets at both extreme ends. Some shooters stay in the "T" and follow the intent, others cut the corner. It is within the rules to do this, but should it be allowed?

This is no different than shooting at a moving target before it is activated.

Jim

[omnia1911]

The equipment didn't fail. The competitors attempt failed.

What a crock! It's not like the guy pushed a "pull" door, or pulled a "push" door. He pulled the rope, it didn't work, it's REF. If we start to have "this is how you pull the rope" instructions, what next???? "This is how you're supposed to run" instructions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The purpose of the walk through is to give each competitor time to examine the props, if any, and their associated mechanical devices that may activate moving targets, and to get an understanding of how to make them work within their designed specifications.

I happen to think it is absurd to think that props and mechanical devices in a stage are subject to the freestyle rule. In other words, work in every conceivable fashion a shooter may think up.

In this case, the rope had to be pulled a certain way to activate the swingers, much like pulling a door open, rather than pushing it open due to the design of the door hinges. In either case, you are opening the door (analogous to pulling the rope). One way works, another doesn't.

[omnia1911]

Was the RO clear during the walkthrough that the rope had to be pulled straight back? The shooters were all told that correct? If not, reshoot. ---4.6.1, 4.6.2

If there is no way the shooters could know that the rope had to go straight back, reshoot. ---4.6.1, 4.6.2

If they were told that the rope had to go straight back, not to the sides, and they tried to get tricky, TFB. They get a procedural for not activating the targets. ---10.1.1

Edited a bit after rereading the posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only requirements that the RO must provide a competitor is spelled out in 3.2. How mechanical devices in a stage work is not one of them, though some ROs may choose to do so. 3.2.4 gives the shooter the opportunity for discovery.

[Nik Habicht]

Was the RO clear during the walkthrough that the rope had to be pulled straight back? The shooters were all told that correct? If not, reshoot. ---4.6.1, 4.6.2

If there is no way the shooters could know that the rope had to go straight back, reshoot. ---4.6.1, 4.6.2

If they were told that the rope had to go straight back, not to the sides, and they tried to get tricky, TFB. They get a procedural for not activating the targets. ---10.1.1

Edited a bit after rereading the posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only requirements that the RO must provide a competitor is spelled out in 3.2. How mechanical devices in a stage work is not one of them, though some ROs may choose to do so. 3.2.4 gives the shooter the opportunity for discovery.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you'd ever been to a big match, you'd know that competitors are prohibited from activating props. Activation is generally demonstrated once for the entire squad, in whatever manner an R.O. sees fit. Competitors have no opportunity for discovery.

[Nik Habicht]

The equipment didn't fail. The competitors attempt failed.

What a crock! It's not like the guy pushed a "pull" door, or pulled a "push" door. He pulled the rope, it didn't work, it's REF. If we start to have "this is how you pull the rope" instructions, what next???? "This is how you're supposed to run" instructions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The purpose of the walk through is to give each competitor time to examine the props, if any, and their associated mechanical devices that may activate moving targets, and to get an understanding of how to make them work within their designed specifications.

I happen to think it is absurd to think that props and mechanical devices in a stage are subject to the freestyle rule. In other words, work in every conceivable fashion a shooter may think up.

In this case, the rope had to be pulled a certain way to activate the swingers, much like pulling a door open, rather than pushing it open due to the design of the door hinges. In either case, you are opening the door (analogous to pulling the rope). One way works, another doesn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bad analogy: The difference is that a pull open door will open the same way, irrespective of angle, as long as you turn the knob and pull on it; the rope in this case would apparently not activate irrespective of angle.....

[Flexmoney]

I am pretty certain that I don't want to win because my competition didn't know how an unfamilar activating device worked.

[mactiger]

Bottom line: if you want a competitor to do something that activates something else, and you give him lots of space to do it in, then it better work all over that space. If it doesn't, then it's REF, Reshoot, end of story. It's supposed to be a shooting contest, not a target activating contest.

Whether you consider that "freestyle" or not doesn't matter. It's a matter of consistency and allowing the competitor to solve the problem within the parameters you've constructed.

Troy

[omnia1911]

Bottom line:  if you want a competitor to do something that activates something else, and you give him lots of space to do it in, then it better work all over that space.  If it doesn't, then it's REF, Reshoot, end of story.  It's supposed to be a shooting contest, not a target activating contest. 

Whether you consider that "freestyle" or not doesn't matter.  It's a matter of consistency and allowing the competitor to solve the problem within the parameters you've constructed.

Troy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh really!

Are you willing to post that as an official NROI ruling that we can fall back on when we find a prop that doesn't work to our liking?

[omnia1911]

The equipment didn't fail. The competitors attempt failed.

What a crock! It's not like the guy pushed a "pull" door, or pulled a "push" door. He pulled the rope, it didn't work, it's REF. If we start to have "this is how you pull the rope" instructions, what next???? "This is how you're supposed to run" instructions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The purpose of the walk through is to give each competitor time to examine the props, if any, and their associated mechanical devices that may activate moving targets, and to get an understanding of how to make them work within their designed specifications.

I happen to think it is absurd to think that props and mechanical devices in a stage are subject to the freestyle rule. In other words, work in every conceivable fashion a shooter may think up.

In this case, the rope had to be pulled a certain way to activate the swingers, much like pulling a door open, rather than pushing it open due to the design of the door hinges. In either case, you are opening the door (analogous to pulling the rope). One way works, another doesn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bad analogy: The difference is that a pull open door will open the same way, irrespective of angle, as long as you turn the knob and pull on it; the rope in this case would apparently not activate irrespective of angle.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I pull the door knob to the side it isn't going to open the door. I have to pull it straight towards me, or perpendicular to the door frame.

[Sherwyn]

Bottom line:  if you want a competitor to do something that activates something else, and you give him lots of space to do it in, then it better work all over that space.  If it doesn't, then it's REF, Reshoot, end of story.  It's supposed to be a shooting contest, not a target activating contest. 

Whether you consider that "freestyle" or not doesn't matter.  It's a matter of consistency and allowing the competitor to solve the problem within the parameters you've constructed.

Troy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh really!

Are you willing to post that as an official NROI ruling that we can fall back on when we find a prop that doesn't work to our liking?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our rules already show this should be the case. Check Appendix C1 on popper calibration. Initial setup is done from the furthest position possible, but if a calibration is called for, it is done from where the attempt was made not where it could have been done. So if a 85 degree shot on a popper is available and it does not work, the calibration attempt must be from the same angle. Looks like a very similar situation to me.

Sherwyn

[omnia1911]

Bottom line:  if you want a competitor to do something that activates something else, and you give him lots of space to do it in, then it better work all over that space.  If it doesn't, then it's REF, Reshoot, end of story.  It's supposed to be a shooting contest, not a target activating contest. 

Whether you consider that "freestyle" or not doesn't matter.  It's a matter of consistency and allowing the competitor to solve the problem within the parameters you've constructed.

Troy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh really!

Are you willing to post that as an official NROI ruling that we can fall back on when we find a prop that doesn't work to our liking?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our rules already show this should be the case. Check Appendix C1 on popper calibration. Initial setup is done from the furthest position possible, but if a calibration is called for, it is done from where the attempt was made not where it could have been done. So if a 85 degree shot on a popper is available and it does not work, the calibration attempt must be from the same angle. Looks like a very similar situation to me.

Sherwyn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not quite. Ropes, levers, doors, etc. aren't required to be calibrated.

[chuckw]

Would somebody please disable omnia's quote button ......... this is like the movie Groundhog Day.

[Flexmoney]

Closed fo now.