Rule 2.1.4 Target locations

[AWLAZS]

12 hours ago, egd5 said:

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

I didn't miss his point. He said if you do it you get the DQ. So I thought he was alright if someone shot up range because they would get a DQ. I would rather set a stage up so that was less likely to happen. 

[AWLAZS]

On 5/9/2019 at 10:40 PM, driver8M3 said:

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.

 

 

You could shoot that from the end of the stage.

[HCH]

9 hours ago, AWLAZS said:

I didn't miss his point. He said if you do it you get the DQ. So I thought he was alright if someone shot up range because they would get a DQ. I would rather set a stage up so that was less likely to happen. 

 

I would assume people running around with loaded guns would take responsibility for where they pointed said loaded gun. 

[egd5]

Well then you just have a different way of interpreting his statement.

[AWLAZS]

23 minutes ago, egd5 said:

Well then you just have a different way of interpreting his statement.

What do you think he said? I am pretty sure he thinks its the shooter's responsibility to not break the safety rules. I think the rules say the stage designers need to design safe stages. I don't want to put a target out that would cause someone to shoot up range in the heat of the moment. I was just at a match where several targets were placed in a position that allowed a shooter to easily see them beyond the 180. They should have been blocked. During the walkthrough, I had to tell someone they could not shoot at them from where they were planning.  If I would not have noticed he would have been shooting up range until the ro stopped him.

1 hour ago, HCH said:

We have all seen someone do something stupid and get dqed. Why push it with sloppy set up?

 

 

57 minutes ago, HCH said:

 

I would assume people running around with loaded guns would take responsibility for where they pointed said loaded gun. 

Why set something up to test that. 

Edited May 13, 2019 by AWLAZS
Added content

[PatJones]

Why set something up to test that. 

Laziness.

[egd5]

As I said earlier, I don't think there should be 180 traps where targets are set very close to 180 and it becomes a subjective decision on whether the 180 was broken. But I do believe the shooter has the responsibility to learn and recognize when he is,  or will be, breaking 180 if he shoots from a certain spot, even if the target is visible.

I think our difference is that you say the course should not even present a target that could possibly be shot past 180 thereby putting the responsibility on the course designer, while I say the responsibility should be on the shooter to recognize that a target is past the 180 and he should not shoot at it.

I believe that if shooters are always told that if they can see it they can shoot it they will lose (or never get) the ability to watch for and not shoot past the 180. In effect, we would be "dumbing down" the training.

[HCH]

17 minutes ago, egd5 said:

As I said earlier, I don't think there should be 180 traps where targets are set very close to 180 and it becomes a subjective decision on whether the 180 was broken. But I do believe the shooter has the responsibility to learn and recognize when he is,  or will be, breaking 180 if he shoots from a certain spot, even if the target is visible.

I think our difference is that you say the course should not even present a target that could possibly be shot past 180 thereby putting the responsibility on the course designer, while I say the responsibility should be on the shooter to recognize that a target is past the 180 and he should not shoot at it.

I believe that if shooters are always told that if they can see it they can shoot it they will lose (or never get) the ability to watch for and not shoot past the 180. In effect, we would be "dumbing down" the training.

 

Yep

[ATLDave]

I think it's funny (not ha-ha funnny) that DNROI's recent answer on this question didn't seem to consider that "safe angles of fire" is a defined term in the rules - just 2 ¶'s up from the 2.1.4 rule.  

"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."

 

This indicates that the term "safe angles of fire" addresses things like berms and ricochets.  For instance, placing a target high on a berm such that rounds are leaving the range is not a "safe angle of fire."  

 

I think that is a distinct concept from the 180° rule, which is discussed in terms of "uprange."  "Uprange" doesn't appear in the definition of "safe angles of fire," and "safe angles of fire" doesn't use the word or term "uprange."  Now, a target that could be shot from within the shooting area that would put the bullet so far to the rear that it leaves the bay... that would be both "uprange" and a violation of the "unsafe angle of fire."  

 

Certainly, as evidenced by this thread and by the long history of sanctioned major matches with "DQ trap" targets that can be engaged well beyond the 180° line, this is at least something reasonable people can disagree about.  DNROI acting as though this is a throwaway, slam-dunk issue is silly.  If DNROI wants to issue a clarification or ruling on this matter, that's fine.  Either answer is perhaps appropriate... but continuing to act as though significant departures from established practice/interpretation are NBD when the text is ambiguous at best is tiresome.

[MikeBurgess]

58 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

 

"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."

 

 

funny the first sentence ends after only mentioning the angle of fire the second sentence talks about target frames and ricochets, and the third talks about berms.

So first targets must be at a safe angle. Then the next two sentences discuss other construction issues that could also cause an otherwise safe angle of fire to no longer be considered safe.

 

 

[ATLDave]

I read those sentences as expanding upon the concept.  That's all within the concept of "angles of fire."  That part of what "angles of fire" means.  It's distinct from the "uprange" concept, which is relative to the shooter.    

 

I'm not suggesting that the DNROI's statement is unequivocally wrong (or right).  I'm just saying it's a cavalier approach to something that is sufficiently ambiguous in the rules (no surprise that there's ambiguity in the rules... that's normal for rule documents) to warrant consideration and deliberation... especially when dropping a pronouncement that is at odds with a great deal of practice.  

Edited May 13, 2019 by ATLDave

[AWLAZS]

5 hours ago, egd5 said:

As I said earlier, I don't think there should be 180 traps where targets are set very close to 180 and it becomes a subjective decision on whether the 180 was broken. But I do believe the shooter has the responsibility to learn and recognize when he is,  or will be, breaking 180 if he shoots from a certain spot, even if the target is visible.

I think our difference is that you say the course should not even present a target that could possibly be shot past 180 thereby putting the responsibility on the course designer, while I say the responsibility should be on the shooter to recognize that a target is past the 180 and he should not shoot at it.

I believe that if shooters are always told that if they can see it they can shoot it they will lose (or never get) the ability to watch for and not shoot past the 180. In effect, we would be "dumbing down" the training.

Our difference is I want to set a safe course of fire up that minimizes the chances of a safety violation. I look for trip hazards sure its the shooters responsibility to not trip and fall. I try to help them out by keeping stuff out of the way. I cover up targets that could be seen past the 180. I don't want to have a shooter do something against the rules that could get someone hurt or cause a round to leave the range. 

[egd5]

No difference as for setting up a safe course. I guess our difference is the amount of hand holding we give to the shooter.  As the saying goes, YMMV

[ATLDave]

At an area match a few years ago (2015 maybe?) - a huge match with something like 600 shooters - there was a stage where the shooting area ran along the left berm.  Targets were against the right berm and back berm.  Shooters began at the rear of the range and had to advance down that left berm line to get access to targets behind a wall near the rear berm... along the way, shooting at targets against the right berm.

 

Now, there wasn't anywhere in the shooting area where a shot could be taken that would hit a target and leave the range/bay.  But the whole stage was basically a 180 trap, with it being very easy for a shooter to slightly overrun a target and break the 180.  I thought it was kind of a stupid design and it basically dared shooters to engage in per se "unsafe gun handling."  But I don't think it posed any actual safety risk in terms of rounds going anywhere other than a backstop/berm.  

 

I shot the stage very timidly and poorly.  I would have been happy to see the stage tossed as an illegal stage!  But it's hardly the only one I've ever seen where there are absolutely targets visible past the 180 and the MD/CRO/RO regard it as being "on the shooter" to know where the 180 is and not break it.  

[RJH]

What happens when I run past a no shoot and happen to look back up range and it has magically turned into a shoot target so i shoot it.  I know i am dqed, but can we go ahead and toss the stage for having a target available past the 180?

[ATLDave]

2 minutes ago, RJH said:

What happens when I run past a no shoot and happen to look back up range and it has magically turned into a shoot target so i shoot it.  I know i am dqed, but can we go ahead and toss the stage for having a target available past the 180?

[AWLAZS]

2 minutes ago, RJH said:

What happens when I run past a no shoot and happen to look back up range and it has magically turned into a shoot target so i shoot it.  I know i am dqed, but can we go ahead and toss the stage for having a target available past the 180?

Don't you cover those up?

[RJH]

1 minute ago, AWLAZS said:

Don't you cover those up?

What should i cover them up with?

[AWLAZS]

1 minute ago, RJH said:

What should i cover them up with?

A no shoot.

 

[RJH]

1 minute ago, AWLAZS said:

A no shoot.

 

A no shoot is still a target,  according to 2.whatever it shouldn't be available.  I might swing towards it because many times shoot targets are stacked behind no shoots

[egd5]

16 minutes ago, AWLAZS said:

A no shoot.

 

So you're saying on the back side of every no shoot that can be seen from behind it, if the shooter turns around to see it, there should be another no shoot fastened to it?  That makes no sense. I give up.

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, egd5 said:

So you're saying on the back side of every no shoot that can be seen from behind it, if the shooter turns around to see it, there should be another no shoot fastened to it?  That makes no sense. I give up.

You can give up if you want. I want to at times as well. BUT, I have seen this done on stages where shooters start downrange and all movement is back uprange.

[AWLAZS]

The targets on the left of the screen could be seen from the right side of the screen. The shooter is blocking a plate from our view. The targets on the right side of the screen are close to the 180.  The two targets on the left are easily seen with the plate and the other two targets.  I had to tell a  couple of guys you could not shoot at the left targets from the right side of the screen.  If you stood at the edge of the right wall they looked like one array. The MD was shown prior to the match. This stage had two places where targets beyond the 180 presented themselves to shooters and because of the way the stage was set up they looked like they were available to shoot.

Edited May 14, 2019 by AWLAZS

[RJH]

10 minutes ago, AWLAZS said:

 

Assuming they are looking at a side berm, this looks illegal according to 2.whatever

[AWLAZS]

Yes it is