Rule 2.1.4 Target locations

[RJH]

1 hour ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

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 …)

 

No BSing, thanks for your work, a couple years of rm/setting  locals is all i could handle, it about burned me out completely.  I went back to just being a shooter and after dealing with all the extraneous  crap rm/mds deal with i try not to complain about stages etc. anymore. Probably why i fall where i do  on this topic.

[shred]

22 hours ago, RJH said:

 

Unfortunately the backs are no shoots, which are legal targets,

No, they are not.  Rule 9.5.8

 

[RJH]

26 minutes ago, shred said:

No, they are not.  Rule 9.5.8

 

 

 

Let me clarify; the backs have the exact appearance of legal scoring targets, and some may decide to shoot them.

 

The post you quoted was tongue   in cheek, basically trying to point out that people that are determined  to decide to aim at an uprange "target" will figure out a way to do it

 

Anyway we've about beat this topic to death

 

Have a good one

[Sarge]

10 hours ago, RJH said:

 

 

Let me clarify; the backs have the exact appearance of legal scoring targets, and some may decide to shoot them.

 

The post you quoted was tongue   in cheek, basically trying to point out that people that are determined  to decide to aim at an uprange "target" will figure out a way to do it

 

Anyway we've about beat this topic to death

 

Have a good one

Topics here live on forever no matter how beaten to death they get. 

[RadarTech]

I can say for sure that major match stage reviews as submitted to NROI are highly discussed for 2.1.4...

On one match I specifically said on paper I see a 180 issue on stage 2.. targets 3-6.
I will add extra barriers to fix when we put them on the ground.

And it was a major discussion point in the RM course.

Just my quarter worth..

[Sarge]

7 hours ago, RadarTech said:

I can say for sure that major match stage reviews as submitted to NROI are highly discussed for 2.1.4...

On one match I specifically said on paper I see a 180 issue on stage 2.. targets 3-6.
I will add extra barriers to fix when we put them on the ground.

And it was a major discussion point in the RM course.

Just my quarter worth..

And you are one RM out of how many? I have worked/shot matches where a target was clearly visible at about 185. Some demand it be blocked and some dont

[RadarTech]

And you are one RM out of how many? I have worked/shot matches where a target was clearly visible at about 185. Some demand it be blocked and some dont

IIRC at my last count 33 certified RMs but I think there are some that don’t RM Majors anymore.
Plus 10 RMIs.

While I can’t say I’ve always been so adamant about the visible beyond the 180... I am now...

And I have shot majors as a competitor where I wasn’t on staff and there was the same discussion points had here. RE it is on the competitor. I don’t agree with that.

[DKorn]

14 minutes ago, Sarge said:

And you are one RM out of how many? I have worked/shot matches where a target was clearly visible at about 185. Some demand it be blocked and some dont

 

Last level 2 I worked (I believe you were there as well) had at least two stage where you had multiple targets along the side of the bay as you advanced past them, with nothing to block them once you went past them. I can dig up my videos later if people want to see them. 

 

Not saying that makes it 100% legal per the rules, but it definitely shows that the rule has not been and is not being enforced the way DNROI seems to want it done. 

[Schutzenmeister]

8 hours ago, DKorn said:

 

Not saying that makes it 100% legal per the rules, but it definitely shows that the rule has not been and is not being enforced the way DNROI seems to want it done. 

 

 

Which is why I'm quite confident in stating that's why Troy posted this in Front Sight.