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

Target Placement Break 180


Recommended Posts

For local matches wanting to toe the line on blocking EVERY target from being visible beyond the 180, I hope that your prop sheds have enough props and you have enough young backs to haul everything needed to do that. Not to mention willing and able "Volunteers" to nail it all down.

 

Blocking all targets from being visible sounds simple until you realize that it triples or quadruples your prop usage and work effort to make it happen on match day. Good luck with that!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

For local matches wanting to toe the line on blocking EVERY target from being visible beyond the 180, I hope that your prop sheds have enough props and you have enough young backs to haul everything needed to do that. Not to mention willing and able "Volunteers" to nail it all down.

 

Blocking all targets from being visible sounds simple until you realize that it triples or quadruples your prop usage and work effort to make it happen on match day. Good luck with that!!!

 

Valid point. I’d definitely focus on it for targets that are close to the 180, stages where you’re advancing past targets as you engage them, and stages with rearward movement. Other than that it might be unreasonable to block all of them on some stages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DKorn said:

 

 I’d definitely focus on it for targets that are close to the 180, stages where you’re advancing past targets as you engage them, and stages with rearward movement. Other than that it might be unreasonable to block all of them on some stages. 

What else is there? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours 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.  

it may be helpful to remember that at many national and area matches where Troy was the RM, there were targets that you could shoot at while breaking the 180, so I wouldn't treat this is literally etched in stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
No interpretation needed, that’s exactly what the rule says.
 
Troy
 
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 12:47 PM 
-- You received this message via the online contact form. --

Rule 2.1.4 Target Location

My "Question" concerns the last sentence in Rule 2.1.4 Target Locations

  • The sentence is: "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."
  •  

My "Interpretation" of this sentence is that NO target can be placed in a position that would make that target visible, i.e. "can be shot," from anywhere inside the free fire zone that would make the "angle of fire" exceed 180 degrees. Further, the placement of this target would be in violation of Rule 1.2.4 even if there is another location, or even multiple locations, from where this target can be engage without  breaking the 180 degree rule.?

Is this the correct interpretation?

 

 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my take on it(FWIW). I read the rule like as it is. We need to prevent targets from being shot beyond the 180.  Its not that hard to do and it makes sense. It almost like the steel distance rules. We don't make it the shooters responsibility to make sure steel is shot from a safe distance, we have rules to prevent the shooter from DQin by getting too close to steel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 22 shooter said:

A couple of barrels will fix it, most of the time

 

yeah, that works when you have 1 stage to fix and two extra double barrels laying around that you can use. The "Just throw more props at it to fix it" solution fails when you literally don't have any more props to throw at it. Or don't have the man power to deploy all of the extra props.

 

As a match director, I went back to review the last 10 club matches I hosted to see how many additional props I would need per match to achieve this requirement. My club matches usually consist of 6 stages. On average I would have needed an additional 6 walls, 8 double barrels, 10 single barrels and 10 no shoot target stands. Obviously some matches needed more or less props to block everything. To put this into perspective that additional quantity of props basically equals another stage worth of props to simply maintain what we are currently doing. If we had the bandwidth and manpower to build another stage we would, but we don't. Fortunately we have enough props to setup at least 10 Large field courses, so that isn't the limitation. Manpower and Setup time are our limitations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Charlie whole heartily. We received an email from our section coordinator about this very subject about a week ago. Since my match was next one up on the calendar, I decided to do my best to follow the "180 guidelines" when creating my stage designs on paper. By the time it was all put on the ground and I had reviewed all the stages for "infractions" I ended up needing over a half dozen extra barrels, 2 extra walls and a butt-ton of No-shoots that did not serve as any type of shooting challenge. To make matters worse since I was busy trying to fix the "violations" on the stages, I missed the fact that two stages I originally designed to be fun move & shoot style stages became "plant and turret with your hi-cap", which I would normally catch on my stage review and fixed. Honestly, that is what pissed me off the most.

 

Where does the thought process end on this either? If I create a stage with a down range start where the shooter has to move up range, do I also need to block visible targets at the 210* angle, as well as the 181*? Where does the madness end?

Edited by DocMedic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole discussion makes me glad I stepped down as an MD at the end of 2018!  MD's don't need another, never-before-required thing to troubleshoot in their stages, much less something so labor-intensive and equipment-heavy to solve.  The DNROI may or may not be correct in his reading of the rule, but casually tossing off a major change in a Q&A article is not the way to announce a reading that is at odds with extensive precedent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2019 at 11:34 PM, 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.

 

 

So I've been in discussions about this and my mind hasn't changed.  "Safe angles of fire" does not mean within 180 degrees.  Why?  I'll try and explain.

 

First, "safe angles of fire" is EXPLICITLY defined in the rule book in 2.1.2.  It states:

 

"Safe Angles of Fire – Courses of fire must always be constructed to ensure safe angles of fire. Consideration must be given to safe target and frame construction and the angle of any possible ricochets. Where appropriate the physical dimensions and suitability of backstops and side berms must be determined as part of the construction process."

 

So safe angle of fire means what the rule book defines it to mean.  Basically that shots that can be fired at targets will travel safely into a suitable backstop.  It does NOT mean inside the 180 because it doesn't say that.  10.5.2 defines a 180 violation that will result in a DQ and it isn't relative to "safe angles of fire" just relative to "pointing uprange".

 

So, safe angles of fire doesn't mean inside 180, it just means there's a suitable, safe backstop.  Let's face it, 180 degrees is not a cut and dried real life "safety" line and I think sometimes we get too comfortable that it is.  We can ALL come up with examples where a 180 degree shot is fairly unsafe and maybe risky and we can also come up with an example where a 200 degree shot may be completely safe.  

 

I think drawing the safety AND DQ line so tight at 180 is a slippery slope.  If 180 is safe and 181 is dangerous, how are you not liable as match staff if you put ANY target near the 180?  You're asking competitors to operate at speed onto a target that is only slightly away from "unsafe".  IMO, safe angles of fire can be greater than 180, and if you put a target near the 180, the "safe angle of fire" better be about 225 degrees.  Breaking the 180, however, is still and will always be a DQ. 

 

My opinion is to keep the large margin of error between where you're stopped and where "safe angle of fire" actually exists.  I think the rules are written very clever in this regard and we're screwing it up with the mis-interpretation of 180 strictly meaning "safe angle of fire". 

 

 

Edited by theWacoKid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theWacoKid said:

First, "safe angles of fire" is EXPLICITLY defined in the rule book in 2.1.2.  It states:

 Are general regulations always considered explicit definitions? 2.1.2 is in the General Regulations section.  Explicit definitions are in A3, "safe angles of fire" does not appear there.   If you are going to consider 2.1.2 and explicit definition that does not mean targets need to be hidden past the 180, then I'll maybe counter you with rule 2.1.1 "course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions where ever possible"   Chance are when folks breach the 180 its done inadvertently. 

Edited by Patrick Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Patrick Scott said:

 Are general regulations always considered explicit definitions? 2.1.2 is in the General Regulations section.  Explicit definitions are in A3, "safe angles of fire" does not appear there.   If you are going to consider 2.1.2 and explicit definition that does not mean targets need to be hidden past the 180, then I'll maybe counter you with rule 2.1.1 "course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions where ever possible"   Chance are when folks breach the 180 its done inadvertently. 

 

breaching the 180 is not always unsafe, but it is always against the rules. I think wacokid has the right idea. It's lot more important to make sure that (for example) shooting up through a a low port doesn't cause rounds to go over the berm, than it is to make sure that no targets are ever visible once the shooter has moved downrange of them.

In real life national matches (where troy has been the RM), there are always some targets that can be seen once you are past the 180, and no one really seems to care. OTOH, people care very much if a target placement might cause round to leave the bay, and sometimes stages get modifications part way through a match (tires, hay-bales, etc...) to try to deal with unanticipated skipping of rounds off the bay floor and out of the bay.

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

breaching the 180 is not always unsafe, but it is always against the rules. I think wacokid has the right idea. It's lot more important to make sure that (for example) shooting up through a a low port doesn't cause rounds to go over the berm, than it is to make sure that no targets are ever visible once the shooter has moved downrange of them.

Under what rule section is one DQed for breaking the 180?
10.5- Unsafe gun handling, rule 10.5.2 USPSA is explicitly defining under its rules that breach the 180 is unsafe. 

Edited by Patrick Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Patrick Scott said:

Under what rule section is one DQed for breaking the 180?
10.5- Unsafe gun handling, rule 10.5.2 USPSA is explicitly defining under its rules that breach the 180 is unsafe. 

umm. that's not how we decide what is genuinely unsafe. that's how we decide what is against the rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, motosapiens said:

umm. that's not how we decide what is genuinely unsafe. that's how we decide what is against the rules. 

I thought we were talking about USPSA rules, not whats safe/unsafe on the streets or in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

unsafe gun handling per the rules is not the same as unsafe angles of fire per the rules.

Slight confusion here. I thought you were referencing my post about rule 2.1.1 because that is one you quoted.

 "course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions where ever possible".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theWacoKid said:

So, safe angles of fire doesn't mean inside 180, it just means there's a suitable, safe backstop. 

 

I think that's how the rules read, too.  It's possible to have targets visible from past 180 (most matches have this) that nevertheless have berm behind them.  It's unsafe gun handling to try to shoot them from that position, but it's not an "[un]safe angle of fire."

 

Conversely, it is possible (though illegal and dangerous) to build a stage with targets that present unsafe angles of fire without breaking the 180.  A bay with short side berms and a front fault line uprange of their end, with targets at the 175°, would present "unsafe angles of fire," without any 180° violation.  Same with a stage built with targets at the top of the berms.  

 

I ran an indoor match for several years.  The backstop was a backstop, but the side walls were just cinder blocks.  Complying with the "safe angle of fire" requirement meant no sticking targets against those side walls such that on-target shots would risk smashing though the cinder blocks and flying outside the range.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conjecture:

  • People who build a lot of stages/matches are more likely to think DNROI's new rule interpretation is a big deal.  People who just show up and shoot are less likely to think so.
  • People who shoot in areas where stages with lots of uprange/downrange movement are common are more likely to think this is a big deal, whereas people who mostly shoot matches where most of the targets are on the back berm and/or where most of the movement is horizontal will think this is NBD.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ATLDave said:

  It's unsafe gun handling to try to shoot them from that position, but it's not an "[un]safe angle of fire."

Again, look at 2.1.1  "course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions where ever possible
Shooting them from that position is (buy your post) an usafe action( the action of unsafely handling the gun) . 2.1.1 clearly to prevent that when possible. I have never seen a case where it is impossible to prevent a target from being shot from beyond the 180. you can shield them, move them, change course design. Its not impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody says it is impossible.  It is impracticable in many cases, though.  It requires a serious additional level of effort and material and/or abandoning lots of interesting stage dynamics.  CHA-LEE explained it well.

Edited by ATLDave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

Nobody says it is impossible. 

If its not impossible you are just choosing to ignore 2.1.1 because it can be impractical?  What other rules can we toss because they are impractical? Sometimes I find it impractical or I dont have the props to comply with the steel distance rules(2.1.3), but I still make sure its correct per the rule book. 

Edited by Patrick Scott
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...