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

Target Placement Break 180

Recommended Posts

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. 


It should be quite obvious that I and others do not agree that the rules says what you think it says. Nobody is saying to disregard a rule - we’re saying that one reading is better than another, and that the practical effects of how the rule is read help inform which reading is better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

 


It should be quite obvious that I and others do not agree that the rules says what you think it says. Nobody is saying to disregard a rule - we’re saying that one reading is better than another, and that the practical effects of how the rule is read help inform which reading is better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Im talking about 2.1.1 in this case, which I think is a stronger rule than 2.1.2 as far as targets being able to be shot beyond the 180 go. 

"2.1.1 Physical Construction – Safety considerations in the design, physical construction and stated requirements for any course of fire are the responsibility of the host organization subject to the approval of the Range Master. Reasonable effort must be made to prevent injury to competitors, officials and spectators during the match. Course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions wherever possible. Consideration must be given to the operation of any course of fire to provide suitable access for officials supervising the competitors."

Target placement falls under course design, no?
We have already agreed that it is possible to prevent shots breaching the 180.
A competitor shooting targets while breaching the 180 is always inadvertent I'd dare say, and by the rules an unsafe action.  Have'nt met a shooter yet that has done it on purpose knowing its a DQ'able offence. 

So between DNROI's public and private statements(some listed in this post) about 2.1.2 and the wording of 2.1.1(quoted above), Id say having targets availible beyond the 180 is a no go. FWIW- RMI George Jones alse echoed DNROI's and my thoughts on this rule when he was at one of my clubs matches last year.  All of this is pretty convincing to me. For those that disagree, do what you like, no skin off my teeth. Take care. 
 

Edited by Patrick Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Patrick Scott said:

Again, look at 2.1.1  "course design should prevent inadvertent unsafe actions where ever possible

 

That rule is wide open for overzealous interpretation. Should we only allow stage designs where a shooter is not tempted to step over a fault line (a tripping hazard)? Or should we use grown up judgement instead trying address every possible situation with a specific rule....

 

As mentioned before, breaking the 180 is not inherently unsafe, and it is easy to be unsafe without breaking the 180. I think these are two separate issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Patrick Scott said:

A competitor shooting targets while breaching the 180 is always inadvertent I'd dare say, and by the rules an unsafe action. 
 

 

breaking 180 and unsafe action are not necessarily the same thing.

but whatever. I encourage you to build your stages however you see fit. I know I'm going to continue to see targets available past the 180 at Area matches and Nationals, so I'm not going to sweat every little thing. We just build stages that don't tempt you to do dumb stuff. If the shooter is really determined, dumb stuff can still be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

That rule is wide open for overzealous interpretation. Should we only allow stage designs where a shooter is not tempted to step over a fault line (a tripping hazard)? Or should we use grown up judgement instead trying address every possible situation with a specific rule....

 

Doors have to go.  A percentage of shooters will absolutely sweep their weak hand while reaching for a door knob.  Or a pull rope to open a port.  It's "possible" to reduce or eliminate those unsafe actions by removing those challenges from the game.

 

Heck, what about uprange starts?  There's no doubt that some people draw the gun too fast (or turn too slow) and thus manifest an unintentional unsafe action.  We could reduce those unsafe actions by having all downrange facing starts.  We already did it for PCC, so it's clearly not essential to the sport.

 

You mention fault lines as a trip hazard.  You know what else is a trip hazard?  Running.  If we really want to maximize safety and guard against unintentional unsafe action, having all shooting done from a stationary position would dramatically reduce the risk of falls.  

 

I say again: This is just bonkers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, you're right. I actually fell down once while running even, causing an inadvertent unsafe action. We must prevent running through stage design..... for the childrunz....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

 

Doors have to go.  A percentage of shooters will absolutely sweep their weak hand while reaching for a door knob.  Or a pull rope to open a port.  It's "possible" to reduce or eliminate those unsafe actions by removing those challenges from the game.

 

Heck, what about uprange starts?  There's no doubt that some people draw the gun too fast (or turn too slow) and thus manifest an unintentional unsafe action.  We could reduce those unsafe actions by having all downrange facing starts.  We already did it for PCC, so it's clearly not essential to the sport.

 

You mention fault lines as a trip hazard.  You know what else is a trip hazard?  Running.  If we really want to maximize safety and guard against unintentional unsafe action, having all shooting done from a stationary position would dramatically reduce the risk of falls.  

 

I say again: This is just bonkers.  

Had a guy on my squad this weekend slip on a wet fault line and break 180. Might as well add no shooting in inclimate weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...