Fault Lines

[BDH]

This is primarily aimed at those of you that came through my stage at Area 6, but everyone is free to comment.

When we set up this stage a couple of very experienced competitors advised me to pull the front fault line back from the door because 'as soon as anyone opened the door, they could see targets and would immediately engage them' (likely faulting). I looked at moving the line, but decided to leave it as everyone was going to shoot the same stage, and everyone could deal with the same shooting problem. Also, I made sure that everyone knew that they had to step into the shooting area before firing.....

Well, I was really surprised at the number of foot faults (and we were VERY generous... unless two out of three RO's agreed, we did not give them). Since we awarded way more foot faults than I ever expected, did I screw up?? At the beginning of the match, I viewed this as 'just another shooting problem' but maybe I was wrong..... Then again, the design of the stage made it really easy to get in trouble on the 180 as well..... Also, two doors made it easy to sweep....

Where do we draw the line on protecting the competitor from him/herself???

[ErikW]

It's just another shooting problem. However, it isn't perfectly freestyle.

[Singlestack]

Its just another shooting problem. However, in this instance, it gave the shooter very little room to get in the door and shoot. I got 2 foot faults too. I knew better, but the targets were there and the timer was running....

We had almost the same setup last month at a 3-gun match. It was a shotgun stage and all the targets were clays and the first 2 were almost in the same place as they were at the A6 match. It was harder to get in and shoot them with a shotgun than it was with a pistol and we did not close the door.

[RKooi]

I think the stage was fine as set up. I made the decision to engage the single right target first. It made me get inside before shooting which helped solve the potential faulting problem but it definitely wasn't as comfortable as shooting the two on the left which appeared first (at least to a righty with the way the door opened.)

Negotiating the entrance just made you think a bit more.

[CRubio]

It really is the shooter's responsibility and I did not think it was all that difficult a problem. Those of us that are left handed tend to dislike door that open to the left so maybe we just are more conscious while managing the door.

I do not think it was poor stage design but if I could change anything it would be to place the targets on the opposite side of which ever way the door opens. (in this case placing targets on the right side)This would cause the shooter to have to enter the area and turn to the right before being able to acquire and shoot the targets thereby reducing the possibility for the foot faults.

My $0.02

[kevin c]

It's just another shooting problem. However, it isn't perfectly freestyle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't there, but I think that Erik's point is a good one. I started IPSC in the "shooting box" era, when it was more or less dictated where to shoot a target array. Staying behind or going in front of fault lines wasn't confusing because you expected to be told what was acceptable. But we now live in the freestyle, "shooting area" era. Shoot 'em as you see 'em is more the rule.

I'd bet that a disproportionate # of those faulting were fairly new to the game (and, in the heat of the moment, didn't remember your reminder on an unfamiliar requirement)?

Each year my club buys/builds new props, but we haven't gotten a new shooting box in years. Now they're mostly used for start positions.

Kevin C.

[Shooter Grrl]

I'd bet that a disproportionate # of those faulting were fairly new to the game (and, in the heat of the moment, didn't remember your reminder on an unfamiliar requirement)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'da lost that bet Kevin I watched Strader's crew shoot this thing and it was the experienced shooters that took the targets they could see right away. The newer shooters didn't have a problem at all.

[BDH]

I'd bet that a disproportionate # of those faulting were fairly new to the game (and, in the heat of the moment, didn't remember your reminder on an unfamiliar requirement)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, it was not the newer shooters that ended up with the foot faults. They all seemed to get the drill...... open door, step into house, engage targets. The people that seemed to catch the bulk of the FF's were generally right below the very top competitors (in other words, it seemed like the very top competitors, and the average shooters had few problems). The challenge was that as soon as you opened the door, there were two targets just daring you to take them. The people that got in trouble here generally got one foot inside, but broke their first shot a fraction of a second before their other foot came up off the ground outside. Just pushing a little too hard.....

I guess I am trying to find a balance around how much I should bombproof the stages I run. One other example were the targets on the right that were outside through the port. More than one person went up the center of the stage, got to the last room on the left, and realized that they did not engage one of the outside targets (it went in and out of view as you moved through the stage). At that point, they had to take a big step backwards to engage the target without breaking the 180. I thought about either sticking some hard cover or some no-shoots in the middle of the stage to take away the temptation, but came to the same conclusion as on the front fault line.... everyone is shooting the same stage, and the target in question is available to be safely engaged unless someone forgets about it and leaves it. Fortunately, everyone dealt with the problem (although, my pulse did shot up a couple of times ).

So I guess now I took my thread off topic as I started this about the fault line, but I guess my real question is just a general question around 'how much we should try to bombproof the stage to protect shooters from mental errors?' Obviously, we cannot protect from every possible scenario, so there has to be a balance and I guess I looking for input.......

[Shooter Grrl]

So I guess now I took my thread off topic as I started this about the fault line, but I guess my real question is just a general question around 'how much we should try to bombproof the stage to protect shooters from mental errors?' Obviously, we cannot protect from every possible scenario, so there has to be a balance and I guess I looking for input.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brian, I don't really think the designers need to bombproof a stage. Your kattitude "they're all shooting the same thing" works well for me I like stages that can screw you if you're not paying attention. The ones I really don't like are stages that screw you for being short, or fat, or tall, or old and creaky!

In other words, if it's a shooting test - lay it on me! If it's a physical test, stuff it

[mhearn]

BDH

I enjoyed the stage. No problems. I thought the two staggered out the window made for an interesting challenge.

With respect to should the faultline be there on the front door. I try to keep the things I consider simple:

Was the stage safer because of the threshold faultline?

Did it pose a scenerio that fits into the spirit of IPSC stage design (Rules 1.1.1 - 1.1.5)?

You could pitch these either way, but I'm leaning that it wasn't necessary and freestyle would have worked.

At the same time, I'm setting up two for Moss Branch Anniston this weekend. I'm always nervous about throwing stones when they could be thrown back.

Thanks for your hard work.

MHearn

[ima45dv8]

So I guess now I took my thread off topic as I started this about the fault line, but I guess my real question is just a general question around 'how much we should try to bombproof the stage to protect shooters from mental errors?' Obviously, we cannot protect from every possible scenario, so there has to be a balance and I guess I looking for input.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brian, I don't really think the designers need to bombproof a stage. Your kattitude "they're all shooting the same thing" works well for me I like stages that can screw you if you're not paying attention. The ones I really don't like are stages that screw you for being short, or fat, or tall, or old and creaky!

In other words, if it's a shooting test - lay it on me! If it's a physical test, stuff it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow. I couldn't agree more (have you been looking over my shoulder again?).

I think it's impossible to eliminate some degree of physicality from what we do. If we did, we'd just be doing stand-n-shoots all day. But some of the more extreme gimicky props/demands like swinging bridges and running 30 yards to the next shooting position (done that) don't really strike me as a shooting test.

One of my favorites Hates in having to go to a knee in the middle of a course. At the end, as the last shooting position, OK. We've got some local shooters whose knees require someone to help them get back up. If the "lifting team" is working off the clock after UASC to help them get back up that's fine. But having to go down and get back up to finish the course takes too much fun out of it for too many people.

Just my opinion,

...Mark

[shred]

I generally dislike stages with targets you can see but "you can't shoot it until you get past this line to here"-type stages. It turns a shooting challenge into a foot-placement challenge, and we're as yet, not the USPFPA.

"It's the same for everybody", while sometimes valid, quickly turns into a crutch for poor stage designs.

Now there are a lot of limitations on ranges and stages such that designers do that, especially at a local level when there's nobody helping haul walls around at 7:30, so it's not high on my list of peeves, but it's there.

For shooter-safing stages, if its easy to mess up and see a target just beyond the 180, it's probably worth discouraging already confused shooters in panic mode from engaging it. But, we can't protect from everything, so again, not high on my peeve list.

[reneet]

I had no problem with the design but can honestly say that my back foot was up when I fired the 1st shot. From what I've always understood, did not matter how far up... It was off the ground. I was assessed the procedural. I questioned it but apparently not vehemently enough. Another shooter in our squad who still had his foot planted for the shot talked his way out of the procedural.

[Nik Habicht]

I generally dislike stages with targets you can see but "you can't shoot it until you get past this line to here"-type stages.  It turns a shooting challenge into a foot-placement challenge, and we're as yet, not the USPFPA.

For shooter-safing stages, if its easy to mess up and see a target just beyond the 180, it's probably worth discouraging already confused shooters in panic mode from engaging it.  But, we can't protect from everything, so again, not high on my peeve list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DISCLAIMER: I didn't see the stage in question; I wasn't at A6; none of my comments are meant to discredit the effort and dedication that the stage designer, set-up crew, match director, RM, and others on the match staff put into the stage.

Shred sums it up pretty good here --- how is entering the space a shooting challenge in a freestyle sport? If you want to force someone into a particular place in the pit before they start to engage targets, then place the targets in such a manner that they can't be engaged until the shooter is there. If I can swing open a door, shoot two targets on the way in before crossing the fault line --- I'll want to ---- especially if it allows to avoid crossing the threshhold and backing out....

[Ron Ankeny]

BDH:

I wasn't there, but I have a similar situation with our state match. In our case, we had a stage where you start in Box A, then step into the shooting area and take them as you see them. The description read something along the lines of starting in Box A, blah, blah, engage targets as they appear from shooting area B only. We changed the course description to read, starting in Box A, blah, blah, engage targets as they appear from Box A and/or shooting area B. Box A is now inside of area B. We made the change to prevent the problem you describe.

I assume in your case, the shooter started at the door and had to open the door, step across the threshold and let it rip? In that case, I wouldn't complain about being required to step into the shooting area first, but I would have moved the fault line behind the competitor so they could let it rip as soon as they saw a target. My 2 cents worth.

[David Olhasso]

It would take more fingers than I have to count the number of times I have received foot faults at major matches on stages similar to this. Do I like stages that force me to be inside (or outside) an arbitrary line before engaging targets? -- heck no. I like stages that read: start here, engage targets as you see them.

One could argue that this stage can be broken down into two seperate parts. Part 1: run from the box to the door, open the door, step into the room. Part 2: shoot the targets. If the fault line limitation were removed, the non-shooting part of the stage is minimized, and the shooting part of the stage starts earlier.

Further, it is a heck of a lot easier to RO when the ROs don't have to look at an arbitrary line all day to determine whether a shooter did/didn't shoot while on the wrong side of it.

At the end of the day, the stage was legal: everyone had to do the same thing or be penalized -- whether they liked the stage or not.

And I stepped completely into the room, shot the target on the right, then the two on the left. I didn't want to temp fate and get another foot fault.

[SmittyFL]

I tend to agree with everybody on this one Brian. The stage was OK, the same for everybody, safe, and fun. Of course you know there is a "however" here.

It wasn't really necessary to have the fault line. I set up a lot of stages for local and other matches. So I know sometimes you don't think or realize some things until the shooting starts, maybe that was the case.

I started on the left targets and it was difficult, but not impossible, to hold the shot. When you're staring down the A zone through your sights, it's tough to make the trigger finger ho'dup. But that was the way the stage was laid out, no big deal. Just like steel fault lines, vision barriers, etc.

So I guess to sum it up, the stage was fine. But probably would have been better without the starting line as it didn't appear to really be necessary for safety or anything.

Thanks again for volunteering your time.

[BDH]

All, okay, all valid feedback that I can keep in mind for the next match. I basically came in Thu afternoon and set the targets (as opposed to building the stage). The fault line was already down, but challenged, pulled up, looked at, discussed, and I put it back down in the same place. My responsibility as CRO, so I am not trying to shift responsibility. Thank you all for helping me do my job better in the future!

Renee, wow, what can I say? I truly apologize if you were given a penalty that you did not deserve. Then again, we really did stick to the 'if two out of the three of us watching see the infraction, we are calling it' rule. IOW, if we were not 110% sure, we did not call it. I thought we were very generous on these calls (meaning that we err'd on the side of no fault, unless we were absolutely sure). I guess the good news is that I have NO FAULT LINES at A4 so it won't be an issue....

[Flexmoney]

"It's the same for everybody", while sometimes valid, quickly turns into a crutch for poor stage designs.

Yep. I don't like that line of thinking very much either.

Not sure it applies though...in this case.

...how is entering the space a shooting challenge in a freestyle sport?

Usually, I agree with Nik on this. We shoot a freestyle sport...and we test the shooting. But, if I were to refine my thinking a bit, I would have to say that we solve the shooting problem.

I really don't have a problem with the stage as desribed. It wouldn't bother me too much becasue that is an aspect of the shooting challenge that I tend to see locally. One of our local Match Directors (Anderson) would put the "enter shooting array, then engage targets.." into about every match. It was an aspect of his shooting that he was working on...so he designed it into the stages (and I gave him plenty of foot-faults until he got squared away )

Most that had an issues with this stage, likely don't encounter that type of test very often. (And, it is a shooting test...shooting as you move into a position.)

The question needs to be...is this aspect of the shooting problem what you (stage deigner) really want to test?

[Nik Habicht]

"It's the same for everybody", while sometimes valid, quickly turns into a crutch for poor stage designs.

Yep. I don't like that line of thinking very much either.

Not sure it applies though...in this case.

...how is entering the space a shooting challenge in a freestyle sport?

Usually, I agree with Nik on this. We shoot a freestyle sport...and we test the shooting. But, if I were to refine my thinking a bit, I would have to say that we solve the shooting problem.

I really don't have a problem with the stage as desribed. It wouldn't bother me too much becasue that is an aspect of the shooting challenge that I tend to see locally. One of our local Match Directors (Anderson) would put the "enter shooting array, then engage targets.." into about every match. It was an aspect of his shooting that he was working on...so he designed it into the stages (and I gave him plenty of foot-faults until he got squared away )

Most that had an issues with this stage, likely don't encounter that type of test very often. (And, it is a shooting test...shooting as you move into a position.)

The question needs to be...is this aspect of the shooting problem what you (stage deigner) really want to test?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Flex,

freestyle means getting away from shooting boxes, right? How then is this still a valid shooting challenge? This seems, to me, to be more of a test of who can hold their fire until their feet are in the right place --- in other words, it doesn't appear to be so much about testing shooting, as you move into a position, as it is about testing that you don't shoot, until you're in the position. See the difference?

In my own opinion, if we don't want the shooter to engage a target from a certain position, then we need to make sure that the target can't be seen from that position. If you can see it --- you should be able to shoot it.....

[Flexmoney]

See the difference?

Of course.

That doesn't mean it is not a shooting challenge. In fact, you identified a second shooting challenge that I didn't even bring up (but was mentioned in the thread).

Flex,

freestyle means getting away from shooting boxes, right?

Well...that is one way to look at it. Certainly not the only way.

[DogmaDog]

BDH,

It was a good stage, and I enjoyed it. I just wish I hadn't somehow missed the near right target in the second room.

I do have to question the purpose of that fault line, though--why was it there? For what reason was it important that the shooter not start shooting until entering the house?

If it didn't really serve any purpose, then it oughta be discarded. Still, it was a pretty small flaw in an otherwise really fun stage (I thought).

Thanks,

DogmaDog

[folsoml]

I guess I got lucky. I did not even pick up on the fact that you could not engage targets before entering the door.

[BDH]

I do have to question the purpose of that fault line, though--why was it there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DD, I don't have a great answer for you. I showed up and had to set targets, etc. It was there, it was pulled, it was put back down. Again, my responsibility (and frankly, just trying to learn.... which is why I started this thread!) Most did not have an issue, but I certainly can understand the other perspectives....

[dminor]

It was an illegal COF with a hugh shooter trap. I am surprised that once that was pointed out it wasn't fixed.