Please comment... Pushing barrier to gain an advantage..

[mikeAZ]

 

At a recent USPSA weekly match, several shooters pushed the "snow" fence barricade aside to gain an advantage to shoot at other targets. The view of the other targets was blocked by double stacked plastic barrels, however by pushing to the left, the normally hidden targets were exposed. There was a fault line that did extend past the barrels but not to the "snow" fence barricade. The shooters who did push the barricade saved a great deal of time. Their were no posted "course of fire rules", but the target positions pretty well forced you to use various ports, open spots, etc. Most interesting was most shooter's shot the course the way it was intended??. Was this just a "gamer" move?. The match personal let it stand and said next time they would use 2 double stacked barrels instead of one double stacked barrel. (Which would block the shooter's view of other targets). Think of this like a "L" and the barrels at the point and the snow fence on your left. Legal? Gamer move?....

 

[ChuckS]

"Intent" is irrelevant. "Gamer Move" is irrelevant.

 

" The match personal let it stand and said next time they would use 2 double stacked barrels instead of one double stacked barrel."

 

Can you identify a rule that was violated?

 

ETA: Was that the "jumping" stage that has been posted on Facebook? If this is the stage, the guys at Rio know the rules and the local shooters know how to game them. Yup, construction boo-boo. Double stack at the end and/or put a target over on the left side of the bay that forces you up the box so the "jump and cut" wouldn't work.

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by ChuckS

[ktm300]

If the wall was in the shooting area, no problem, not in the shooting area procedural penalties per shot happen as it sounds like a significant advantage.  

 

I think the guys set it up so people will fly because of the cool pictures.

[ChuckS]

3 hours ago, ktm300 said:

If the wall was in the shooting area, no problem, not in the shooting area procedural penalties per shot happen as it sounds like a significant advantage.  

 

I think the guys set it up so people will fly because of the cool pictures.

I have only seen the videos and did not see it in person. There were two tricks on that stage. The first was the flying shots. The shooting area that they started in ended at that wall you see under the right leg of the shooter in the second pic. Those guys took a running leap out of the shooting area, past the flyby wall and engaged the rightmost target on the fly. That saved them the time that stopping at the port in the flyby wall to get that target. Shooting between the wall and the barrels eliminated having to use the port at the start position and stopping near the flyby wall to get the poppers.

 

The jump was a high risk move but it saved some time. I have not seen the scores so I have no idea what the hit factor was but I am guessing that if they were quick they could eat one penalty on that move and still break even. Shooting between the wall and barrel was a huge time saver.

[Thomas H]

13 hours ago, mike NM said:

 

At a recent USPSA weekly match, several shooters pushed the "snow" fence barricade aside to gain an advantage to shoot at other targets. The view of the other targets was blocked by double stacked plastic barrels, however by pushing to the left, the normally hidden targets were exposed.

 

So shooters deliberately altered the stage by moving props to gain an advantage?

 

 

[teros135]

21 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

 

So shooters deliberately altered the stage by moving props to gain an advantage?

 

 

 

...and the staff let them do it?

[JAFO]

Sounds like they just leaned into a flexible wall.  As long as they didn't dislodge the wall stand or physically move the wall legs, I think this would fall on the construction side for responsibility.

 

2.2.3 Barriers – Must be constructed in the following manner:

2.2.3.1 They must be high enough and strong enough to serve the intended purpose.

Edited September 12, 2017 by JAFO

[racerba]

5 hours ago, ChuckS said:

The jump was a high risk move but it saved some time. I have not seen the scores so I have no idea what the hit factor was but I am guessing that if they were quick they could eat one penalty on that move and still break even. Shooting between the wall and barrel was a huge time saver.

I believe the jump move have been disallowed.  I can't find the ruling though...

[racerba]

14 hours ago, mike NM said:

 

There was a fault line that did extend past the barrels but not to the "snow" fence barricade. 

 

The answer is right there...the snow fence is outside the fault line...touching it constitutes a procedural penalty per shot...

[JAFO]

13 minutes ago, racerba said:

The answer is right there...the snow fence is outside the fault line...touching it constitutes a procedural penalty per shot...

 

I took that to mean there was a fault line that ended where the fence was, allowing the fence to become the boundary.

[ChuckS]

22 minutes ago, racerba said:

The answer is right there...the snow fence is outside the fault line...touching it constitutes a procedural penalty per shot...

What rule covers "touching" ?

[racerba]

21 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

What rule covers "touching" ?

10.2.1

 

My fault, it says "contact" not touching...

[ChuckS]

1 hour ago, racerba said:

10.2.1

 

My fault, it says "contact" not touching...

This is the subject part of the rule

"... or who gains support or stability through contact with an object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box or Fault Line ..."

Contact is not the violation but gaining support or stability through contact is the violation. Contact without support is unlikely but possible.

1 hour ago, JAFO said:

 

I took that to mean there was a fault line that ended where the fence was, allowing the fence to become the boundary.

I re-watched the video and there was just wall on that side of the shooting area so it was not fully outside the shooting area.

Edited September 12, 2017 by ChuckS

[racerba]

So with the same pressure of pushing or leaning on the wall...if the wall was not there, would the shooter be still standing?  probably not...I would say they gained an advantage by gaining stability using the wall...

 

I didn't see any of the videos, but of there are no fault lines, then the wall IS the fault line and therefore, you can contact the wall without penalty...

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by racerba

[StealthyBlagga]

I was there. Only one guy on our squad shot the array of three Metric targets between the barrel and the wall, and I don't think he had to touch the wall to do it. I can see how pushing the wall got you a better angle on the line of poppers (so you don't have to wait for one to fall before engaging the one behind), but I am not sure it was as huge an advantage as folks are making it out to be... there were plenty of places to see the poppers and engage them on the move before getting to that position without really losing time (JMHO).

 

The leaping thing makes no sense to me, but maybe I need to watch the video. As an RO, I often see folks doing the weirdest stuff thinking it makes them faster. I suspect sometimes it is just the result of group-think that proves inconsequential.

 

Of course, I am an old man with bad knees, and I was shooting a PCC with a magazine protruding from the left side of the receiver, so I was not interested in leaping in the air or getting entangled with the snow-fence wall on that side  

Edited September 12, 2017 by StealthyBlagga

[echotango]

There were no penalties given. I did not shoot it that way. I shot that target from way back near the first target. Didn't stop at the first window or the window with the target in question. I will see if I can post a video. I got 3rd not jumping and had issues with 1 pc of steel. Not sure if would of been worth the risk. Shooter #2 and #6 shot it jumping out. Shooter #5 also did not jump.

Edited September 12, 2017 by echotango

[StealthyBlagga]

4 minutes ago, echotango said:

There were no penalties given. I did not shoot it that way. I shot that target from way back near the first target. Didn't stop at the first window or the window with the target in question. I will see if I can post a video. I got a 3rd not jumping and had issues with 1 pc of steel. Not sure if would of been worth the risk. Shooter #2 and #6 shot it jumping out. 

 

At last... my 15 minutes of fame 

[echotango]

.

Edited September 12, 2017 by echotango

[Thomas H]

5 hours ago, JAFO said:

Sounds like they just leaned into a flexible wall.  As long as they didn't dislodge the wall stand or physically move the wall legs, I think this would fall on the construction side for responsibility.

 

2.2.3 Barriers – Must be constructed in the following manner:

2.2.3.1 They must be high enough and strong enough to serve the intended purpose.

 

I get what you mean there---and yet to me it seems that there is an obvious different between someone touching a wall while shooting and having it move a little., and leaning against it to move it out of the way to give themselves an additional view from which to shoot.

 

I agree that finding a way to make the walls more stable is a good idea, but I submit that it is a straightforward thing to see and judge when someone leans hard enough on a wall to move it completely out of the way to gain a new view that didn't exist at all before.    (I note that for cases like this, our club really tries to find a way to stabilize the wall, too.)

 

I'm pretty sure that if Bob Krogh (first big guy that came to mind--note that I don't think he'd do anything of the sort) wants to make a wall be "flexible," he'd manage to do it with the vast majority of "stable" walls used on any given day throughout the U.S. in club matches to create new views of targets that were previously obscured.  Does that mean it would be okay to do so?

 

The intended purpose of a wall is to stop a view.  It isn't intended to support a competitor's weight.  Making a requirement that walls can be moved as much as we want when we are shooting as long as the wall isn't dislodged or has its legs moved seems....not correct.  (Particularly since 2.2.6 specifically discusses stage props that are expected to support a competitor in motion or while shooting---which means that other stage props aren't.  And if something isn't in view from a spot, you wouldn't expect the props to need to support anything from that area.)

 

Looking at it, again it seems to me that competitors were deliberately altering the stage by moving props to gain an advantage----however, this is based on the (short) verbal description from above.  Not having been there, I couldn't tell you what I would have said at the time.

 

I will tell you that locally, at least, it would be considered a potential 10.6 situation if a competitor pushed hard enough against a standing wall as to give himself a view that previously did not exist, to gain an advantage on a stage.  That's not taking a view and (maybe) making it a little better due to a wall that flexes, that's shoving aside a stage prop to create something that didn't exist before.  IMO, obviously. 

 

[MikeBurgess]

16 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

I get what you mean there---and yet to me it seems that there is an obvious different between someone touching a wall while shooting and having it move a little., and leaning against it to move it out of the way to give themselves an additional view from which to shoot.

 

I agree that finding a way to make the walls more stable is a good idea, but I submit that it is a straightforward thing to see and judge when someone leans hard enough on a wall to move it completely out of the way to gain a new view that didn't exist at all before.    (I note that for cases like this, our club really tries to find a way to stabilize the wall, too.)

 

I'm pretty sure that if Bob Krogh (first big guy that came to mind--note that I don't think he'd do anything of the sort) wants to make a wall be "flexible," he'd manage to do it with the vast majority of "stable" walls used on any given day throughout the U.S. in club matches to create new views of targets that were previously obscured.  Does that mean it would be okay to do so?

 

The intended purpose of a wall is to stop a view.  It isn't intended to support a competitor's weight.  Making a requirement that walls can be moved as much as we want when we are shooting as long as the wall isn't dislodged or has its legs moved seems....not correct.  (Particularly since 2.2.6 specifically discusses stage props that are expected to support a competitor in motion or while shooting---which means that other stage props aren't.  And if something isn't in view from a spot, you wouldn't expect the props to need to support anything from that area.)

 

Looking at it, again it seems to me that competitors were deliberately altering the stage by moving props to gain an advantage----however, this is based on the (short) verbal description from above.  Not having been there, I couldn't tell you what I would have said at the time.

 

I will tell you that locally, at least, it would be considered a potential 10.6 situation if a competitor pushed hard enough against a standing wall as to give himself a view that previously did not exist, to gain an advantage on a stage.  That's not taking a view and (maybe) making it a little better due to a wall that flexes, that's shoving aside a stage prop to create something that didn't exist before.  IMO, obviously. 

 

So at your club Freestyle and Range Equipment failures are DQs?

 

If you want to use a wall or other object to limit a shooters view and there is any concern that they will be able to flex it and get around the designers intent, just separate the wall or whatever from the fault lines, then any leaning to get a better view automatically comes with a per shot procedural, problem solved and completely within and supported by the rules. 

 

If I build a stage and somebody figures out a way to "Game it" good on them,  I'll take that lesson and apply it in the future. 

[Thomas H]

6 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

So at your club Freestyle and Range Equipment failures are DQs?

 

If you want to use a wall or other object to limit a shooters view and there is any concern that they will be able to flex it and get around the designers intent, just separate the wall or whatever from the fault lines, then any leaning to get a better view automatically comes with a per shot procedural, problem solved and completely within and supported by the rules. 

 

If I build a stage and somebody figures out a way to "Game it" good on them,  I'll take that lesson and apply it in the future. 

 

If you want to take that explanation above, ignore it, call that "REF," and call deliberately altering stage props "Freestyle," I can't stop you.

 

That being said, I'm thinking I'm perfectly comfortable with what I said.

 

Indeed, as I said above, if I'm using a wall to limit a shooter's view, we attempt to make it as solid and non-flexible as we can. (Preferably by linking it to other walls.)  However, as I clearly said, that wasn't the situation above being discussed.  There was NO view from that area, and competitors shoved the walls until there was one.  That's a completely different thing.

 

I don't have trouble with competitors gaming stages---I hope they do so.  Take any fair advantage that they can! 

 

If, however, their version of "gaming" includes doing things that are unsportmanlike (such as altering a stage prop to create a view that did not exist and wouldn't exist for anyone who didn't similarly alter the stage prop in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage), then it isn't "gaming."  Because gaming a stage means taking advantage of everything possible within the rules.

 

 

[Sarge]

1 minute ago, Thomas H said:

 

If you want to take that explanation above, ignore it, call that "REF," and call deliberately altering stage props "Freestyle," I can't stop you.

 

That being said, I'm thinking I'm perfectly comfortable with what I said.

 

Indeed, as I said above, if I'm using a wall to limit a shooter's view, we attempt to make it as solid and non-flexible as we can. (Preferably by linking it to other walls.)  However, as I clearly said, that wasn't the situation above being discussed.  There was NO view from that area, and competitors shoved the walls until there was one.  That's a completely different thing.

 

I don't have trouble with competitors gaming stages---I hope they do so.  Take any fair advantage that they can! 

 

If, however, their version of "gaming" includes doing things that are unsportmanlike (such as altering a stage prop to create a view that did not exist and wouldn't exist for anyone who didn't similarly alter the stage prop in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage), then it isn't "gaming."  Because gaming a stage means taking advantage of everything possible within the rules.

 

 

Not mention, what's the difference in moving a wall and knocking a barrel off a stack? As long as the bottom barrel doesn't move from its original location it's all good right? Not!

[Edge40]

7 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

So at your club Freestyle and Range Equipment failures are DQs?

 

If you want to use a wall or other object to limit a shooters view and there is any concern that they will be able to flex it and get around the designers intent, just separate the wall or whatever from the fault lines, then any leaning to get a better view automatically comes with a per shot procedural, problem solved and completely within and supported by the rules. 

 

If I build a stage and somebody figures out a way to "Game it" good on them,  I'll take that lesson and apply it in the future. 

This is it right here.

 

Probably one of the biggest sticklers in this sport for stage design has this as his "signature".....

"Shooting is freestyle. Stage design is not!"

If a shooter picks apart your stage and plays the game then good for them.  Its freestyle.  Learn from it.  They beat you at the game.    

[Thomas H]

24 minutes ago, Edge40 said:

This is it right here.

 

Probably one of the biggest sticklers in this sport for stage design has this as his "signature".....

"Shooting is freestyle. Stage design is not!"

If a shooter picks apart your stage and plays the game then good for them.  Its freestyle.  Learn from it.  They beat you at the game.    

 

Picks apart your stage?  So.....in your club, if stage props can be moved, then it is okay to move them?  Huh.

[Edge40]

Just now, Thomas H said:

 

Picks apart your stage?  So.....in your club, if stage props can be moved, then it is okay to move them?  Huh.

I'm just saying plan accordingly.  Its not like this is a common problem in the sport.  If its happens it happens, somebody beat the system.  Don't let your walls touch the fault lines and its problem solved.