Rule 2.1.4 Target locations

[CrashDodson]

In the new USPSA magazine Troy says "The bottom line is that you must hide targets so that they aren't visible beyond the 180, otherwise the stage is not a legal stage."

 

So they are saying for a stage to be legal if you pass a target and look back it should not be visible?  Ive shot a lot of majors and this has never been the case.  There are always targets you can see past the 180.  Including at nationals. 

 

Am I just not processing what Troy is saying correctly?

 

 

[Sandbagger123]

don't make sense. i would say that if the target is available only past the 180 then yeah its not kosher.   So when i go to the match and they D/Q me for breaking the 180 i can arb that its not a legal stage?

[CHA-LEE]

My first three major matches of 2019 (Two Level 3 and One Level 2) ALL had stages with targets visible beyond the 180. ALL of these matches had extensively experienced Range Masters in attendance that allowed it to happen. If USPSA isn't going to adhere to their own "Ruling" on this for major matches then what is the point of having the rule? They need to either enforce this rule across the board, or accept the fact that its unenforceable and remove the rule. This seems like a classic case of "Do what I say, not as I do".

 

As an MD myself I am not going to double or triple my prop usage to enforce this rule for my club matches when it isn't even enforced at major matches. If USPSA wants to pull my clubs sanctioning for that, so be it. I will be happy to not pay USPSA any more fees and host outlaw matches instead.  

Edited May 9, 2019 by CHA-LEE

[shred]

I asked Ray about it during CRO class at Nationals a few years ago.

 

He said something to the effect of they do what they could to make targets that could only be shot from within the 180, but there are always limits on what you can do with what you have.

 

I don't really care if some target is visible if you swing over past 200' or so, but to have a target visible at 185' and an RO that's hot to call it is a recipe for problems.

 

Most of the time I see it at local matches its because nobody has thought about it and doesn't take that much effort to fix.  Some stages it's a lot more difficult.

 

[StealthyBlagga]

It is generally good stage construction practice to avoid "marginal" targets that are right on the 180, and still more so in the case of targets visible beyond the 180. However, that is different from making it a hard prohibition in the rules. This is an example where "should" makes more sense than "must". These kinds of absolutist "as and when visible" requirements are why I run my multigun matches under outlaw rules.

[PatJones]

I'm my CRO class we were taught that targets should disappear as you approach the 180.

I think it's impractical to block all the targets once you are well past them, but it's not that hard to block them from 180 to 200 or so. I make an effort in all my stages to have the targets disappear as you move down range of them. It's not really that hard in most cases, you often just need to spend a few minutes debugging the stage after you put it on the ground.

[driver8M3]

i think you can see at least one example in this video...of the 2018 open nationals. watch the stage that starts at 0:23 and pause it at 0:43 and look at the target between the barrels. i know angles are tough to discern in video, but it sure looks uprange to me.

 

 

[d_striker]

7 hours ago, shred said:

I asked Ray about it during CRO class at Nationals a few years ago.

 

He said something to the effect of they do what they could to make targets that could only be shot from within the 180, but there are always limits on what you can do with what you have.

 

I don't really care if some target is visible if you swing over past 200' or so, but to have a target visible at 185' and an RO that's hot to call it is a recipe for problems.

 

Most of the time I see it at local matches its because nobody has thought about it and doesn't take that much effort to fix.  Some stages it's a lot more difficult.

 

 

 

It really should come down to this. I don’t know why some people make this harder than it should be. 

 

Multiple targets that are placed out in the open along a side berm are going to be shot on the move while advancing downrange. Scenarios such as, “you can shoot this target here but not if your foot is beyond this point,” or “you can shoot this target through the left side of the port but if you’re on the right side, it’s a dq,” are ridiculous and are what this rule is intended to prevent. 

 

People should know better on targets that you have to break 200+ to engage. 

[Paul B]

Not sure if we really need to make all stages idiot proof. Remember the old saying if you make something idiot proof they will just invent a better idiot.

 

The shooter is responsible if they break the 180, not the RO or the stage designer.

[Gary Stevens]

14 hours ago, Sandbagger123 said:

don't make sense. i would say that if the target is available only past the 180 then yeah its not kosher.   So when i go to the match and they D/Q me for breaking the 180 i can arb that its not a legal stage?

 

Only if you protest it before you shoot.

[egd5]

1 hour ago, Paul B said:

Not sure if we really need to make all stages idiot proof. Remember the old saying if you make something idiot proof they will just invent a better idiot.

 

The shooter is responsible if they break the 180, not the RO or the stage designer.

AMEN   While we don't need to make 180 "traps", shooters should learn when they are close to 180 and know to watch for it.  If we train them "oh, if I can see it , it is legal" they'll soon forget to bother thinking about 180.

[CrashDodson]

Common sense for shooters isn't what i was questioning...its the statement from troy that targets MUST not be visible past 180.  As others have stated its not currently being enforced.  I'm not going to concern myself with it at my local matches, just keep the matches safe and fun. But we are expanding to 10 or 13 bays and plan to hold a level 2 in the future.  

Edited May 10, 2019 by CrashDodson

[22 shooter]

A couple of barrels stacked up can fix most of the problems

[HCH]

On 5/10/2019 at 6:50 AM, Paul B said:

Not sure if we really need to make all stages idiot proof. Remember the old saying if you make something idiot proof they will just invent a better idiot.

 

The shooter is responsible if they break the 180, not the RO or the stage designer.

 

Truth. 

 

Too many snowflakes in this sport nowadays. 

[HCH]

And is a target actually “available” if it is behind the 180? I’m pretty sure breaking the 180 is a DQ, whether you’re engaging a target or not. The 2.1.4 wording seems like a solution in search of a problem, IMO. 

[AWLAZS]

1 hour ago, HCH said:

And is a target actually “available” if it is behind the 180? I’m pretty sure breaking the 180 is a DQ, whether you’re engaging a target or not. The 2.1.4 wording seems like a solution in search of a problem, IMO. 

So you are ok if someone launches a round up range?  

[egd5]

AWLAZS, maybe you should re-read HCH's posts again. I think you totally missed his point.

[d_striker]

12 hours ago, HCH said:

And is a target actually “available” if it is behind the 180? I’m pretty sure breaking the 180 is a DQ, whether you’re engaging a target or not. The 2.1.4 wording seems like a solution in search of a problem, IMO. 

 

What if it's a target against the side berm that's available and safe from one spot but can be engaged beyond the 180 if you take a couple more steps downrange?

 

Or a target that can be engaged from right side of a 24" port but not the left side?

Edited May 12, 2019 by d_striker

[HCH]

13 hours ago, AWLAZS said:

So you are ok if someone launches a round up range?  

 

No. 

Target is uprange. The 180 would make that target unavailable. I’m trying to figure out how you interpreted my original comment in any way that would lead you to believe I am OK with any 180 infraction. 

Edited May 12, 2019 by HCH

[HCH]

2 hours ago, d_striker said:

 

What if it's a target against the side berm that's available and safe from one spot but can be engaged beyond the 180 if you take a couple more steps downrange?

 

Or a target that can be engaged from right side of a 24" port but not the left side?

 

The first one is on the shooter. 

 

The latter is bad stage design that can and should be avoided, but is still on the shooter. 

[HCH]

I don’t have sketch-up or any of that fancy stuff, so I’ll keep it simple. If anyone wants to say this is an illegal stage, I would be ready for a knock-down drag out. 

 

“Start position: Facing down range, toes on X’s.

Upon start signal, engage targets from within fault lines.”

 

Zero walls. Zero barrels. Zero no-shoots to obstruct vision. Zero crying because you broke 180 while engaging a target too soon. 

[DKorn]

16 minutes ago, HCH said:

I don’t have sketch-up or any of that fancy stuff, so I’ll keep it simple. If anyone wants to say this is an illegal stage, I would be ready for a knock-down drag out. 

 

“Start position: Facing down range, toes on X’s.

Upon start signal, engage targets from within fault lines.”

 

Zero walls. Zero barrels. Zero no-shoots to obstruct vision. Zero crying because you broke 180 while engaging a target too soon. 

 

According to comments by DNROI, past  Front Sight articles, and the RMI who taught my RO class, this stage violates rule 2.1.4 because targets are visible when they are beyond the 180. 

 

According to what’s been allowed at major matches in the past, this stage could be legal. 

[DKorn]

Take a look at the article starting on page 22 of this issue of  Front Sight

 

https://uspsa.org/magazine/display//2014-07

[shred]

Rotate the targets so they are parallel to the lines on the lined paper.  Get an RO that won't be bullied into 'it's a double' calls on oblong single hits.  Job done. 

 

[HCH]

Oh s#!t. I was just notified that the stage violates the Medium Course laws. Fixed it.