Rule 2.1.4 Target locations

[ATLDave]

14 hours ago, Sarge said:

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.

I have never seen that.  Or at least I've never noticed it.  

 

This is madness.  

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, ATLDave said:

 

 

This is madness.  

Concur!

[RJH]

2 hours ago, ATLDave said:

I have never seen that.  Or at least I've never noticed it.  

 

This is madness.  

Yep, kinda like the pic of the stage posted a couple post back, looks technically illegal,  but I feel it would 100percent on the shooter if he broke the 180. Some stages are designed poorly, some rules are designed poorly. A stage designer should design stages to make 180 issues smaller, however, i have seen many 180 dqs where the shooter was not even remotely aiming at a target,  and i think 2 where the shooter was aiming at a target.  Those two were bad stage design, but in both cases, the squad was told about the target and if shot at the downrange end of the shooting area you would be breaking the 180 (and you definitely were). I don't feel any stage i have shot should have been tossed because of target location, and i feel that 180s are always on the shooter. I also feel that since this is a game with dangerous  toys stage designers should take that into account and mitigate as many issues as possible before the first beep of the match. That said i am not for stages that are dumbed down,  and 100percent "safe", cause there is no such thing.  I guess it boils down to; shooters and stage designers need to pay attention and address truly problem issues, in both desigining and shooting the stage. 

[AWLAZS]

On 5/14/2019 at 12:37 PM, RJH said:

Yep, kinda like the pic of the stage posted a couple post back, looks technically illegal,  but I feel it would 100percent on the shooter if he broke the 180. Some stages are designed poorly, some rules are designed poorly. A stage designer should design stages to make 180 issues smaller, however, i have seen many 180 dqs where the shooter was not even remotely aiming at a target,  and i think 2 where the shooter was aiming at a target.  Those two were bad stage design, but in both cases, the squad was told about the target and if shot at the downrange end of the shooting area you would be breaking the 180 (and you definitely were). I don't feel any stage i have shot should have been tossed because of target location, and i feel that 180s are always on the shooter. I also feel that since this is a game with dangerous  toys stage designers should take that into account and mitigate as many issues as possible before the first beep of the match. That said i am not for stages that are dumbed down,  and 100percent "safe", cause there is no such thing.  I guess it boils down to; shooters and stage designers need to pay attention and address truly problem issues, in both desigining and shooting the stage. 

 I posted the picture above.  During the walkthrough I had to tell a guy he could not shoot at those targets from where he was planning on doing it. He was standing down range and shooting back up range. He was not shooting at the back of a target the front was easily seen.   People do strange stuff after the timer goes off.  I have seen muzzles when folks move right to left. I have seen some crazy stuff on retreat stages. 

 

Do we really want to set stuff up to encourage someone to shoot behind the 180?

[RJH]

1 hour ago, AWLAZS said:

 I posted the picture above.  During the walkthrough I had to tell a guy he could not shoot at those targets from where he was planning on doing it. He was standing down range and shooting back up range. He was not shooting at the back of a target the front was easily seen.   People do strange stuff after the timer goes off.  I have seen muzzles when folks move right to left. I have seen some crazy stuff on retreat stages. 

 

Do we really want to set stuff up to encourage someone to shoot behind the 180?

 

IDK, i am no rocket surgeon, but I have been shooting USPSA for 15 years or so and have never aimed/swung towards/shot at a target that I could see past the 180.  If i do it at the next match I shoot, the fault will be mine alone, I will not blame stage design.  I think this whole deal is much about little, and was originally (not necessarily in this thread)  started by some shooter somewhere that did not want to own their mistake

[PatJones]

A lot of discussion here about the shooters, and muzzle control being their responsibility. Yes it is, but this is the rules forum.

 

1.1.5 reads "Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis."

 

We -must- allow the shooter to shoot the target when visible.

 

2.1.4 goes further and reads "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."

 

We have a new rule book and a clarification from DNROI. Quit bitching and make it so.

 

 

 

 

[egd5]

OK, I said I was done, but I can't resist this. "to solve the challenge presented".  The challenge is to pull your head out of your butt and not shoot a target past the 180.

And this is a discussion about a rule. 2.1.4

[RJH]

1 hour ago, PatJones said:

A lot of discussion here about the shooters, and muzzle control being their responsibility. Yes it is, but this is the rules forum.

 

1.1.5 reads "Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis."

 

We -must- allow the shooter to shoot the target when visible.

 

2.1.4 goes further and reads "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."

 

We have a new rule book and a clarification from DNROI. Quit bitching and make it so.

 

 

 

 

 

I can't disagree with what you posted, but it makes me wonder; Why do stages keep getting approved for level 2 and and up matches that clearly show this rule being broken?

[Poppa Bear]

In my opinion if we take stage design to a point that all targets are not available past the 180 then we are adding a lot of unnecessary work to stage setup.  I have shot many a stage where the target starts to disappear as you approach the 180, but as you approach the 220 plus area it starts to become visible again because the prop blocking it does not extend all the way to the end of the stage.  It is one thing if it is only visible in the 160 to 200 range and it is easy for the shooter to run past it and break the 180, it is another if the stage design allows the target to be visible up to the 160 area, restricts the view until you are approaching the 200 area and it only then starts to become visible again.  A shooter that tries to engage a target at that point is very deserving of a 180 DQ.

 

So if Troy's opinion is that we MUST restrict target availability past the 180, but not require that it remain restricted once the shooter has advanced further down range, I do not have a problem with it.  If the ruling is to mean that once restricted it has to remain restricted then I would have a problem with it.

[RJH]

2 minutes ago, Poppa Bear said:

In my opinion if we take stage design to a point that all targets are not available past the 180 then we are adding a lot of unnecessary work to stage setup. 

 

 

 

It will also increase the "post up and shoot" type stages.  More open targets means more options for the shooter and more flow to the stage.  Also more options for the stage designer as well

[CrashDodson]

Ive been watching a lot of ipsc stages on youtube lately to get a feel for IPSC stage design and I noticed a lot of their "open" targets are placed in a "C" shaped box of walls to make the target disappear once past it.  I suppose a barrel would work just as well. 

 

 

 

 

[MikeBurgess]

2 hours ago, RJH said:

 

I can't disagree with what you posted, but it makes me wonder; Why do stages keep getting approved for level 2 and and up matches that clearly show this rule being broken?

Thats easy,

 

The biggest offender is people missing stuff during the heat of building and proofing stages.

 

The second biggest offender is there is disagreement about the meaning of the rule with in the RMI corps. 

 

 

[Thomas H]

16 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

Thats easy,

 

The biggest offender is people missing stuff during the heat of building and proofing stages.

 

The second biggest offender is there is disagreement about the meaning of the rule with in the RMI corps. 

 

 

 

....no, the stages are drawn like that when they are sent to DNROI for approval for majors.  And still get approved.   So when DNROI approves it, that can't be about what the RMI corps thinks, in my opinion, nor is it about what happens on the ground.

 

Personally, the way we do it is fairly simple:  We attempt to block sight lines of the targets once at the 180 line, for awhile such that someone has to look back considerably and obviously past the 180 to see it again.  As people have said---if you are going to completely block the view of every target everywhere past the 180 line, that will involve a huge amount of extra props, and I haven't seen anyone ever do that (from local to Level II to Area and National matches) in an entire match.

 

I'll note that I think "cause them to breach " and "allow them to breach" mean two different things. 

 

We don't have targets visible at 180, 185, or 195 degrees.  (Well, at least we try not to!) People won't take a half-step beyond the target and still see them, and thus shoot them without knowing they are beyond the 180 (because sometimes, on some stages, it IS hard to tell exactly where the 180 is).

 

The targets might be visible later in the stage, but if so it will be completely and obviously far beyond the 180.  If the shooter is stupid enough to turn all the way back and shoot at that point in time, it is blindingly obvious they broke the 180.  It won't be a judgement call on the part of the RO, everyone will flat-out know it.

 

So---our layout "will not cause them to breach" because anything visible past the 180 is FAR past the 180, and they won't think "oh, this is okay to shoot at." 

 

That's our thinking, at least, and that seems to be what I see in pretty much every major I've attended.

 

[Schutzenmeister]

16 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

 

The second biggest offender is there is disagreement about the meaning of the rule with in the RMI corps. 

 

 

To the best of my knowledge, there is no disagreement among the RMI Corps on this issue.  It has been a brewing issue for over 10 years.  No, I'm not an RMI … But I  have had personal knowledge of this topic and the discussions for some time now.

 

18 hours ago, RJH said:

 

I can't disagree with what you posted, but it makes me wonder; Why do stages keep getting approved for level 2 and and up matches that clearly show this rule being broken?

 

 

From the DNROI's comments in Front Sight:  "Past practice doesn't excuse poor course design and construction."  (Enough said?)  There has long been a perception, as clearly shown in this thread, that the onus is solely on the shooter.  However, there is an equal onus on the course designers and setup crews to NOT present targets that would invite such a violation.  Doing so makes the target presentation (and hence the stage) illegal.

 

19 hours ago, PatJones said:

 

We have a new rule book and a clarification from DNROI. Quit bitching and make it so.

 

 

Thank you, but forgive me for the following (please.)

 

News Flash:  The wording in 2.1.4 is not new.  Let me emphasize that:  NOT NEW.  I can trace it at least as far back as the 2001 Rule Book.  (If you doubt me, find a copy of it and look it up.  It was there then and has been there ever since.)  Also, I personally would not list this as a clarification (or as some seem to think, an interpretation.)  This is a straight forward case of the DNROI pointing out there is a rule on the books which is and has been ignored for far too long.  His message is simple … Comply!

 

(Note for Cha-Lee … Please don't feign ignorance of this rule.  You were informed of it at least as far back as 2012.  I know this to be true.  I'm the one who had the conversation with you!)

[RJH]

10 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

 

....no, the stages are drawn like that when they are sent to DNROI for approval for majors.  And still get approved.   So when DNROI approves it, that can't be about what the RMI corps thinks, in my opinion, nor is it about what happens on the ground.

 

Personally, the way we do it is fairly simple:  We attempt to block sight lines of the targets once at the 180 line, for awhile such that someone has to look back considerably and obviously past the 180 to see it again.  As people have said---if you are going to completely block the view of every target everywhere past the 180 line, that will involve a huge amount of extra props, and I haven't seen anyone ever do that (from local to Level II to Area and National matches) in an entire match.

 

I'll note that I think "cause them to breach " and "allow them to breach" mean two different things. 

 

We don't have targets visible at 180, 185, or 195 degrees.  (Well, at least we try not to!) People won't take a half-step beyond the target and still see them, and thus shoot them without knowing they are beyond the 180 (because sometimes, on some stages, it IS hard to tell exactly where the 180 is).

 

The targets might be visible later in the stage, but if so it will be completely and obviously far beyond the 180.  If the shooter is stupid enough to turn all the way back and shoot at that point in time, it is blindingly obvious they broke the 180.  It won't be a judgement call on the part of the RO, everyone will flat-out know it.

 

So---our layout "will not cause them to breach" because anything visible past the 180 is FAR past the 180, and they won't think "oh, this is okay to shoot at." 

 

That's our thinking, at least, and that seems to be what I see in pretty much every major I've attended.

 

 

I think this is pretty realistic way of thinking.  But i also think a line of open targets down a berm that you move past and shoot is not an issue either, but it does appear to be against the rules, so what do i know.

 

I wonder when some of the absolutist on this thread are going to start getting stages tossed at basically every major and club match they show up at.....

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

To the best of my knowledge, there is no disagreement among the RMI Corps on this issue.  It has been a brewing issue for over 10 years.  No, I'm not an RMI … But I  have had personal knowledge of this topic and the discussions for some time now.

 

 

From the DNROI's comments in Front Sight:  "Past practice doesn't excuse poor course design and construction."  (Enough said?)  There has long been a perception, as clearly shown in this thread, that the onus is solely on the shooter.  However, there is an equal onus on the course designers and setup crews to NOT present targets that would invite such a violation.  Doing so makes the target presentation (and hence the stage) illegal.

 

 

Thank you, but forgive me for the following (please.)

 

News Flash:  The wording in 2.1.4 is not new.  Let me emphasize that:  NOT NEW.  I can trace it at least as far back as the 2001 Rule Book.  (If you doubt me, find a copy of it and look it up.  It was there then and has been there ever since.)  Also, I personally would not list this as a clarification (or as some seem to think, an interpretation.)  This is a straight forward case of the DNROI pointing out there is a rule on the books which is and has been ignored for far too long.  His message is simple … Comply!

 

(Note for Cha-Lee … Please don't feign ignorance of this rule.  You were informed of it at least as far back as 2012.  I know this to be true.  I'm the one who had the conversation with you!)

 

So, are you going to get stages tossed at basically every major and club match you shoot. If not you may be part of the problem.....

 

I will continue to be part of the problem,  in case you were wondering 

[Schutzenmeister]

8 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

So, are you going to get stages tossed at basically every major and club match you shoot. If not you may be part of the problem.....

 

 

Yes.  And allow me to assure you … At ANY match where I'm the RM, this is not allowed to happen!  On any stage where I'm the CRO I bring it to the RM's attention and ensure it gets fixed before the first shot is fired.

 

The fixes are not hard.  As I recall, Kevin Imel (RMI) did an article in Front Sight a few years ago outlining this issue and how to resolve it during stage design and setup.

[MikeBurgess]

22 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

I think this is pretty realistic way of thinking.  But i also think a line of open targets down a berm that you move past and shoot is not an issue either, but it does appear to be against the rules, so what do i know.

 

I wonder when some of the absolutist on this thread are going to start getting stages tossed at basically every major and club match they show up at.....

turn the targets parallel to the back berm then you are totally in compliance

[RJH]

15 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

Yes.  And allow me to assure you … At ANY match where I'm the RM, this is not allowed to happen!  On any stage where I'm the CRO I bring it to the RM's attention and ensure it gets fixed before the first shot is fired.

 

The fixes are not hard.  As I recall, Kevin Imel (RMI) did an article in Front Sight a few years ago outlining this issue and how to resolve it during stage design and setup.

 

No, i am asking if you roll up to a match, that you are not involved,  are you going to get stages tossed? Maybe some shot the day before, so fixing before a shot is fired would not be possible 

[RJH]

15 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

turn the targets parallel to the back berm then you are totally in compliance

 

Unfortunately the backs are no shoots, which are legal targets,  so by strict adherence to the rules,  it would not be in compliance.  Cause sometimes I like to shoot a no shoot

[RJH]

15 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

turn the targets parallel to the back berm then you are totally in compliance

 

Unfortunately the backs are no shoots, which are legal targets,  so by strict adherence to the rules,  it would not be in compliance.  Cause sometimes I like to shoot a no shoot

[22 shooter]

51 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

 

We don't have targets visible at 180, 185, or 195 degrees.  (Well, at least we try not to!) People won't take a half-step beyond the target and still see them, and thus shoot them without knowing they are beyond the 180 (because sometimes, on some stages, it IS hard to tell exactly where the 180 is).

 

The targets might be visible later in the stage, but if so it will be completely and obviously far beyond the 180.  If the shooter is stupid enough to turn all the way back and shoot at that point in time, it is blindingly obvious they broke the 180.  It won't be a judgement call on the part of the RO, everyone will flat-out know it.

 

So---our layout "will not cause them to breach" because anything visible past the 180 is FAR past the 180, and they won't think "oh, this is okay to shoot at." 

 

That's our thinking, at least, and that seems to be what I see in pretty much every major I've attended.

 

This the way we do it at our monthly matches.

[Schutzenmeister]

4 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

No, i am asking if you roll up to a match, that you are not involved,  are you going to get stages tossed? Maybe some shot the day before, so fixing before a shot is fired would not be possible 

 

You have absolutely NO clue just how rare an event that would be for me!  (I can't remember the last time that happened to me …)

[MikeBurgess]

16 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

Unfortunately the backs are no shoots, which are legal targets,  so by strict adherence to the rules,  it would not be in compliance.  Cause sometimes I like to shoot a no shoot

That seems like a straight forward question for DNROI.

I would be willing to bet that the answer is a no shoot is not to be considered the same way as a shoot target when looking at sight lines. (with the exception of the back of a no shoot appearing as a shoot target from another location) I am too lazy to send him a email so I will just blissfully continue with my assumed interpretation.

 

 

[RJH]

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

That seems like a straight forward question for DNROI.

I would be willing to bet that the answer is a no shoot is not to be considered the same way as a shoot target when looking at sight lines. (with the exception of the back of a no shoot appearing as a shoot target from another location) I am too lazy to send him a email so I will just blissfully continue with my assumed interpretation.

 

 

 Fair enough