Target Placement Break 180

[beechnutbob]

Was helping set up stages at local match and had a couple of targets that were available to shoot while advancing forward and if you went to far forward  and shot them you could break the 180.    Was told that there needed to be a wall or something to block them so they could not be seen past 180.   It was a rule.   I know it is good practice to make courses so breaking the 180 is not possible but I looked in the rule book and can’t find any rule stating targets must not be able to be seen if they are past 180.    If there is that rule what is the number.

[aandabooks]

I don't remember that being a rule.  It would make course construction way more difficult if every target had to be hidden past the 180.  Up to the shooter to know where they are in the course of fire and not break the 180.  If there is a rule that I have missed, I would also be interested to know more about it.

[ChuckS]

2.1.4?

[Nathanb]

2.1.4 does cover it but not by saying it explicitly.

[aandabooks]

8 minutes ago, Nathanb said:

2.1.4 does cover it but not by saying it explicitly.

 

I see that rule not going all the way to forbidding the construction of a course that has to make the targets unavailable past the 180.  I think it is referring to having a target placed so that a competitor can only shoot it while breaking the 180.

[Nathanb]

And now that you mention that I question my interpretation. 

[Hi-Power Jack]

1 hour ago, beechnutbob said:

 Was told that there needed to be a wall   to block them so they could not be seen past 180.   It was a rule.   

 

Can't be.

 

Some COF's START downrange and work back uprange - 

 

I

 

[ChuckS]

2 hours ago, aandabooks said:

 

I see that rule not going all the way to forbidding the construction of a course that has to make the targets unavailable past the 180.  I think it is referring to having a target placed so that a competitor can only shoot it while breaking the 180.

The last sentence from 2.1.4:  "Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire." 

 

I read this as "if you can see it, it better be safe to shoot it". We actually spent quite a bit of time on the range portion of the CRO class dealing with this issue while debugging stages.

 

The reason I am aware of this is from a level 2 match last year. We had one newer shooter get DQ'ed for 10.5.2 while executing the dumbest stage plan ever. The CRO called me over and showed me what happened and it was upheld. Later on, I went to the spot where he engaged a target that was about 20 degrees behind him to the left and sure enough the scoring face of the target could be seen.  I went back to the stage design section of the rules and found this gem. A knowledgeable competitor could of attempted to arb the DQ based on a illegal stage.

 

I also thought back to the many majors that I have been to and there has always been some sort of vision barrier, wall, no-shoot or something to keep a target from tempting an unsafe shot angle. And as  for retreat stages, of course you can DQ by letting you your muzzle get ahead of you. That is on the shooter. But you don't have to build retreat stages that allow for unsafe angles of fire.

[Sarge]

10 hours ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

 

Can't be.

 

Some COF's START downrange and work back uprange - 

 

I

 

I have seen seen some go so far as to put no shoots on the back of no shoots so shooters don’t see brown while moving uprange. That’s a bit of overkill but the rule “almost” makes it mandatory if taken literally. 

[MemphisMechanic]

12 hours ago, beechnutbob said:

Was told that there needed to be a wall or something to block them so they could not be seen past 180.  [b{It was a rule.[/b]

 

The rulebook does say this. Without actually saying it. It’s implicitly, not explicit.

 

9 hours ago, ChuckS said:

The last sentence from 2.1.4:  "Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire." 

 

I used to be very gung-ho on a “don’t dumb down the stages” mindset. Shooters ought to know where the 180 is at all times and have the common sense not to index their muzzle onto such a target before taking a few steps uprange.

 

That said. Who is most likely to get tripped up and sent home over this situation? A brand new shooter.

 

I’d hate to have a potential friend show up to shoot his first match, overrun a target, and be one of the new shooters who never returns after the shame of DQing on his first stage.

 

Grab a couple of barrels or drop a noshoot down in front of it. It only takes thirty seconds.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by MemphisMechanic

[ChuckS]

56 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I have seen seen some go so far as to put no shoots on the back of no shoots so shooters don’t see brown while moving uprange. That’s a bit of overkill but the rule “almost” makes it mandatory if taken literally. 

Yup, I have seen that. And our CRO RMI mentioned that also.

[DKorn]

9 hours ago, ChuckS said:

 

The reason I am aware of this is from a level 2 match last year. We had one newer shooter get DQ'ed for 10.5.2 while executing the dumbest stage plan ever. The CRO called me over and showed me what happened and it was upheld. Later on, I went to the spot where he engaged a target that was about 20 degrees behind him to the left and sure enough the scoring face of the target could be seen.  I went back to the stage design section of the rules and found this gem. A knowledgeable competitor could of attempted to arb the DQ based on a illegal stage.

 

A friend of mine was DQ’d last year because of a stage that had this kind of issue. We were chatting with an RMI who’s local to us and he said that unfortunately you probably wouldn’t get the DQ overturned (11.1.2 - “Challenges to the construction or layout of the course, safety, or shooting conditions may not be submitted after the competitor attempts the course of fire”), but as the RM he would require that the stage be fixed OR tossed. 

[ChuckS]

10 minutes ago, DKorn said:

 

A friend of mine was DQ’d last year because of a stage that had this kind of issue. We were chatting with an RMI who’s local to us and he said that unfortunately you probably wouldn’t get the DQ overturned (11.1.2 - “Challenges to the construction or layout of the course, safety, or shooting conditions may not be submitted after the competitor attempts the course of fire”), but as the RM he would require that the stage be fixed OR tossed. 

Yeah, I thought a possible outcome was a tossed stage.

[DKorn]

6 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

Yeah, I thought a possible outcome was a tossed stage.

 

Most likely outcome is that a few barrel stacks get added to block view of the targets that are past the 180. If the RM decides that this doesn’t change the competitive equity of the stage because the barrels don’t affect the views of any targets that are at safe angles, then the stage continues with the modifications. If it does change the stage in a way that affects competitive equity, then people are going to have to reshoot it. If it’s a bunch of people or a multi day match, it’s gonna get tossed. 

 

In the case I saw, nobody complained about the target being available from beyond the 180 (the shooter did later, but not that day), but if someone had, he was only the second shooter of the first day of the match, so we could’ve easily fixed the stage, reshot one shooter, and moved on.

 

 

I still see lots of matches that don’t adhere to 2.1.4 very well, even some level 2 matches. Take a look at the stage starting at 1:07 here (not my video, but I also shot and staffed this match):

 

[motosapiens]

11 hours ago, ChuckS said:

The last sentence from 2.1.4:  "Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire." 

 

I read this as "if you can see it, it better be safe to shoot it". We actually spent quite a bit of time on the range portion of the CRO class dealing with this issue while debugging stages.

 

that's how some people interpret it. I believe that is overzealous. My interpretation is that when the target first becomes available, it should be safe to shoot, but it is ok to have targets that you move past, which any reasonable person would shoot long before they moved past.

 

On a retreat type movement, or a more circular stage where one could go either direction, I generally do agree with making the targets unavailable from past the 180.

 

fwiw, I have worked and/or shot 5-6 different national championships, and every one of them has had targets that were visible from beyond the 180, but none of them had targets whose first view was past the 180. I would think if 2.1.4 really did say something that it doesn't, then maybe MD's and RM's at nationals would pay attention to it.

[Sarge]

2 hours ago, DKorn said:

 

Most likely outcome is that a few barrel stacks get added to block view of the targets that are past the 180. If the RM decides that this doesn’t change the competitive equity of the stage because the barrels don’t affect the views of any targets that are at safe angles

 

This ALL depends on the RM. I was ROing one of the Indiana sectionals. I looked at the stage a dozen times and saw no problems . First squad had a shooter start to index on a target that was uprange but he stopped himself in time. I called the RM OVER and asked about a barrel stack to block them and he said absolutely no way because it changed the COF. In fact it changed nothing but making the stage safer. I spent the whole weekend reminding squads that target Xx is uprange and taking guff for not fixing it.

[DKorn]

26 minutes ago, Sarge said:

This ALL depends on the RM. I was ROing one of the Indiana sectionals. I looked at the stage a dozen times and saw no problems . First squad had a shooter start to index on a target that was uprange but he stopped himself in time. I called the RM OVER and asked about a barrel stack to block them and he said absolutely no way because it changed the COF. In fact it changed nothing but making the stage safer. I spent the whole weekend reminding squads that target Xx is uprange and taking guff for not fixing it.

 

If it’s the first squad, why wouldn’t he let you fix it? That’s not a lot of shooters to have to reshoot even if he decides it affects the stage. Unless it was the first squad not counting staff day... then it could be a bit of a pain. 

[Sarge]

2 hours ago, DKorn said:

 

If it’s the first squad, why wouldn’t he let you fix it? That’s not a lot of shooters to have to reshoot even if he decides it affects the stage. Unless it was the first squad not counting staff day... then it could be a bit of a pain. 

No clue. But I don’t work those matches anymore.

[CHA-LEE]

Over the years in my USPSA Match attendance of 60+ club matches and 12+ majors each year, including the nationals, there are ALWAYS stages that have targets "Visible" beyond the 180. Several of those major matches with DNROI serving as the Range Master and Rule 2.1.4 is still violated.

 

Should proper stage design eliminate the chance of seeing targets just beyond the 180 in common stationary shooting positions? Absolutely. If a target is 5+ yards behind you, but still visible, and you choose to point back at it during the stage run then you obviously have much more significant safety problems than worrying about where the targets are placed.

 

This is a big kid game with big kid rules. If you CHOOSE to run past a target then point up range to engage it you fully deserve the DQ that will be issued. We can't put a seat belt, helmet, warning label or air bag on everything to keep stupid people from doing stupid stuff. Making stupid choices should have the appropriate level of penalty or the lesson will never be learned. 

[MikeBurgess]

This is one of the rules that the DNROI/RMI's do not all agree on, It all depends on who you are dealing with how it will be enforced. 

Also when setting up a match and trying to debug stages it is pretty easy to miss a target or two here or there, especially at a larger match with more stages. My experience has been that there are only a couple people per club that really have the ability to look at stages and see all the angles and views and find any mistakes and fix them. I am pretty sure many of the violations of 2.1.4 are by mistake not design. 

[beechnutbob]

Official word from Troy M

 

They need to be hidden from the point that a competitor would break the 180 to shoot at them.

 

 

So so if you can see them past the 180 they need to be blocked with something.  

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, beechnutbob said:

Official word from Troy M

 

They need to be hidden from the point that a competitor would break the 180 to shoot at them.

 

 

So so if you can see them past the 180 they need to be blocked with something.  

Just so we are clear nothing from Troy is “official” unless it has been voted on, ruled on and officially published.

  As has already been stated RM’s are not all in line with that train of thought and those are the guys we deal with on the ground

[beechnutbob]

Official word from Troy M

 

They need to be hidden from the point that a competitor would break the 180 to shoot at them.

 

 

So so if you can see them past the 180 they need to be blocked with something.  

[beechnutbob]

Maybe this will be resolved if there is ever a ruling in it.    For myself I will block targets if they can be seen past the 180 when setting up stages 

[DKorn]

Best practice (as stated by Troy, the stage design articles from a few years back, and in the RO class I was in) is to block targets past the 180. Some would say the rules require it, others would disagree. In my mind it’s a strong suggestion, and something I’ll do if I ever get into designing stages, but not something I’m going to whine about as a shooter if it isn’t done.