Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Standing Definition


nuidad

Recommended Posts

Although it wasn't addressed in the Rules Change Log, I'm sure most of you have noticed the new definition for "Standing" added to A3.   I'm wondering how we will interpret it uniformly.  What is meant by planted firmly, and fully erect?  Even the term "ground" may have conflicting interpretations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What,  is everybody three years old now? Do we need a preschool teacher at the shooters meeting to describe what "standing" and "the ground" means. However, if you Google "fully erect", you might can find some pics to help you with that one lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my heel is up and the ball of my foot is making good contact with the ground then it is firmly planted.  IMO if you can't be easily pushed over then you are firmly planted.

As for fully erect that could be subject to interpretation as the amount of natural bend of the hips/back varies from person to person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, but consider, This Sunday I will be shooting the new classifier, "No Need to Believe..." CM 18-05, which dictates the starting position, "Standing inside shooting area."  Does the new definition change the way I can start the classifier?  Can I stand on the fault lines?  Apparently, no hunching over or bending at the knees?  Can I have my right heel on the fault line and the other on the ground?  Obviously, no more standing on one foot☹️.

 

It seems, by the fact that it had to be defined, that "Standing" may be different in 2019 than it was in 2018 and could be an area of contention.

Edited by nuidad
Clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, nuidad said:

You're right, but consider, This Sunday I will be shooting the new classifier, "No Need to Believe..." CM 18-05, which dictates the starting position, "Standing inside shooting area."  Does the new definition change the way I can start the classifier?  Can I stand on the fault lines?  Apparently, no hunching over or bending at the knees?  Can I have my right heel on the fault line and the other on the ground?  Obviously, no more standing on one foot☹️.

 

It seems, by the fact that it had to be defined, that "Standing" may be different in 2019 than it was in 2018 and could be an area of contention.

 

But a fault line is defined as a "physical ground reference" so it is part of the "ground" IMO. It just happens to have minimum dimensions based on surface condition.

I think they had to add the definition of standing since they removed the default starting position nomenclature from 8.2.2 and updated the definition in the appendix as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2019 at 11:07 AM, broadside72 said:

 

But a fault line is defined as a "physical ground reference" so it is part of the "ground" IMO. It just happens to have minimum dimensions based on surface condition.

I think they had to add the definition of standing since they removed the default starting position nomenclature from 8.2.2 and updated the definition in the appendix as well. 

 

Sounds very logical.  That's the way I'm going to interpret it.  I also like the logic broadside72 used for "firmly planted".

 

I'm happy the default and facing downrange issues are gone.  If we want the competitor to have a lot of freedom in choosing his start position, we now have a simple description...Facing down range....no hand, arm, foot, shoulder or face requirements: competitor can be facing anyway he chooses (except uprange).  Simple to do, and simple to write into the WSB. 

 

For a little more specificity, we can use (or add)  "Standing".  But, still no hand, arm, shoulder... blah, blah.

 

If you want to make it a custom-start..write in the details regarding arms, hands, lips, etc.

 

I hope I'm interpreting all this correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems dumb to me to try to define 'standing'. how much knee bend is allowed in fully erect? are knees required to be locked? i can see certain control freaks being potentially being douchey about this.

 

Look at major sports.... do any of them define what standing means? if not, there is probably a good reason. We need to take the subjectivity out of this stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does lend itself to that potential.

 

Standing:  The competitor’s body is fully erect with both feet planted firmly on
the ground or other designated position.

 

I'm going to read it as to include some natural bend in the knees and at the waste.  I stand differently depending on what I'm doing.  If I'm on a surfboard, it looks very different than when I'm standing to putt or waiting in line at the bank.  I'm going to assume the writers of the definition were talking about standing while shooting at a USPSA match.  As for the feet, I'm going with broadside72's interpretation...."if you can't be easily pushed over then you are firmly planted."  sounds reasonable.

 

Edited by nuidad
Clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, nuidad said:

It does lend itself to that potential.

 

Standing:  The competitor’s body is fully erect with both feet planted firmly on
the ground or other designated position.

 

I'm going to read it as to include some natural bend in the knees and at the waste.  I stand differently depending on what I'm doing.  If I'm on a surfboard, it looks very different than when I'm standing to putt or waiting in line at the bank.  I'm going to assume the writers of the definition were talking about standing while shooting at a USPSA match.  As for the feet, I'm going with broadside72's interpretation...."if you can't be easily pushed over then you are firmly planted."  sounds reasonable.

 

 

I agree as far as fully erect goes- if you’re standing pretty much upright in a normal  shooting stance, I’m ok with some bend. 

 

Some examples of what I wouldn’t be ok with would be a significant lean to one side, to the point of being almost off balance, or crouching down for a low port. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
2 hours ago, shred said:

Or just use the diagram in Appendix E3 that already illustrates "hands and arms hanging naturally at sides".

 

 

I noticed it still says that but Troy has said the best way to put it is "wrists/hands below belt". That eliminates all the bickering over illegal crap the women and some men do with their hands practically touching the gun with wrists cocked etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2019 at 6:40 PM, Sarge said:

I noticed it still says that but Troy has said the best way to put it is "wrists/hands below belt". That eliminates all the bickering over illegal crap the women and some men do with their hands practically touching the gun with wrists cocked etc.

 

what it really eliminates is complaining by RO's who lose their minds over someone's hand position..... Having humans judge what 'naturally hanging at sides' means is stupid.

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, motosapiens said:

 

what it really eliminates is complaining by RO's who lose their minds over someone's hand position.....

You mean the RO's who were enforcing hands actually being "relaxed at sides"? I personally could care less where somebody has their hands as long as the rule says their hands can be wherever they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Sarge said:

You mean the RO's who were enforcing hands actually being "relaxed at sides"? I personally could care less where somebody has their hands as long as the rule says their hands can be wherever they want.

the problem is not that ROs are enforcing it, the problem is that they do not all enforce it the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

the problem is not that ROs are enforcing it, the problem is that they do not all enforce it the same.

 

the problem is what constitutes hands relaxed at sides is a judgement call, and it looks different to different people.

 

in general, simpler and more objective criteria are a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

in general, simpler and more objective criteria are a good thing.

 

And elimination of rules that are not needed. 

 

If a person wants to stand weird, we should just let them stand weird. If a person is actually sitting but insists that they self identify as standing then that is an easy call. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...