Fault lines?

[Wheelgun1981]

Clearly defined at the shooters brief. Then,  when I finished a course of fire and looked down at my foot on top of the 2x4, it was clear that I had touched an “ object on the non cover side of the fault line” (from the rule book) and earned a procedural. 

[Rpope423]

15 hours ago, Wheelgun1981 said:

Y’all are making this way too difficult.  Both sides of the fault line were clearly defined AND they followed the rule book.  End of first hand, fact based observation. 

 

Did you shoot this match I’m talking about? 

 

In the rule book it says you can stand on a fault line as long your not touching anything on the non cover side. 

 

Its very out of the ordinary for this kind of stuff at a tier 2 sanctioned match.

[Racinready300ex]

I assume you contacted your AC?

[Wheelgun1981]

Yes, I shot the match you are referring to, and I only touched the non cover side once. Enjoyed the match very much. 

[Rpope423]

16 hours ago, Wheelgun1981 said:

Yes, I shot the match you are referring to, and I only touched the non cover side once. Enjoyed the match very much. 

Must be your home field. 

I only got called twice but it’s a BS call. definitely Won’t be back.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Rpope423

[jhgtyre]

Name calling will get the thread locked and, if necessary, result in further action towards the offending member(s).  Keep it within the guidelines when posting.

[Balakay]

On 7/20/2019 at 8:17 PM, Rpope423 said:

at last years sanction match everybody complained that  the fault lines was painted with gloss paint and they was slick ....

To be clear, instead of changing to a flat paint to accommodate the BOCs with equilibrium issues, the MD decided to establish a fault line strategy, that while possibly legal, is counter to what the rest of the shooting sports world has adopted as the norm. Sounds legit. 

[AR_James]

Bear with me, I am a newbie trying to learn and understand.  So, I went and read through the rules on fault lines.

 

The one which seemed most appropriate in this situation was 3.6.3 as mentioned by others in this thread:

3.6.3 C.  A shooter who engages a target while faulting the line (which is defined as the shooter touching the ground or other objects on the non-cover side of the fault line) shall be assessed a PE.

 

I can follow the logic that nothing in the rules prohibits using the inner edge of the board as a fault line.  But, how do you navigate around the words “other objects” referenced in the rule?   

     Other:  A thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.

     Object:  A material thing that can be seen and touched.

 

I can grasp how if paint or tape was used, the paint or the tape would be the “object” not the 2x4, but this does not seem to be the case in this situation.  The included quotes seem to ignore the word "other" in the rule.  

 

On 7/21/2019 at 4:42 PM, Joe4d said:

NOTHING in the rules says you cant make the inside edge of a 2X4 the fault line.
Touch top of 2X4 ? You are touching an object on the non cover side of the line.

 

On 7/23/2019 at 11:07 PM, Wheelgun1981 said:

Clearly defined at the shooters brief. Then,  when I finished a course of fire and looked down at my foot on top of the 2x4, it was clear that I had touched an “ object on the non cover side of the fault line” (from the rule book) and earned a procedural. 

 

So, the rule does not prohibit one from declaring the inner edge of the 2x4 as the fault line.  But, the 2x4 is still the object, yes?  And, the top of it is not a thing that is different or distinct from the 2x4 already mentioned.  It is just a different side of the same object, yes?  Can anyone with the opinion that this was within the meaning of the rules shed a little more light on how/why the top of the 2x4 would have been an "other object".  Thanks.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wheelgun1981]

15 hours ago, Rpope423 said:

Must be your home field. 

I only got called twice but it’s a BS call. definitely Won’t be back.

So I somehow need an ulterior motive to disagree?  We both stood on the fault line when shooting it right , and crossed it when we earned  procedurals.  Nothing in the rule book says it needs to be the way I like it, you like it, or are accustomed to, what everyone else does, ad nauseum. If one chooses  not to return to every match where things don’t go perfect... well at some point one would run out of ranges to go it!

Finally, y’all are still making this way too difficult!

[bdpaz]

2 hours ago, Wheelgun1981 said:

Finally, y’all are still making this way too difficult!

Some of us don’t see how the rules allow for a single side of an object to be declared a fault line. I don’t see that asking for a more explicit explanation than something like “trust me, it was covered in the briefing and was legal” is making it difficult. 

[Rpope423]

10 hours ago, Wheelgun1981 said:

So I somehow need an ulterior motive to disagree?  We both stood on the fault line when shooting it right , and crossed it when we earned  procedurals.  Nothing in the rule book says it needs to be the way I like it, you like it, or are accustomed to, what everyone else does, ad nauseum. If one chooses  not to return to every match where things don’t go perfect... well at some point one would run out of ranges to go it!

Finally, y’all are still making this way too difficult!

 Not making this difficult, just proving a point that his made up rule was not needed.

 

imagine if you was shooting against some really good people and that stupid rule costed you the match?

 

not my situation but, I would be very heated over a BS call that costed me a division win. 

[Dutchman195]

I've shot matches with both types of fault lines. I *think* it was the 2017 FL state had something along the lines of the wood is OUTSIDE the shooting area. it was said in the Shooters meeting and everyone was held to the same standard. With that with a big stick like a 2x4, it was as easy as a regular fault line, Go up and cram foot up against the stick, then you know your in position.

 

I will agree this doesn't follow 96% of all other matches I've ever been to, but the rules allow it. Makes no difference to me. 

Without knowing the specific rule I did just read over 6.3

 

The inside(of cover) edge of the 2x4 delineates the shooting area. Dont go on top of it. Seems fair. 

 

 

 

Is there a rule and can someone cite it, where it says the fault line must be lined up with the center point of the INSIDE most target in a position?

[Rpope423]

14 minutes ago, Dutchman195 said:

With that with a big stick like a 2x4, it was as easy as a regular fault line, Go up and cram foot up against the stick, then you know your in position.

Yeah but we all know when that buzzer goes off everything you told yourself is out the door lol

[Racinready300ex]

17 hours ago, AR_James said:

Bear with me, I am a newbie trying to learn and understand.  So, I went and read through the rules on fault lines.

 

The one which seemed most appropriate in this situation was 3.6.3 as mentioned by others in this thread:

3.6.3 C.  A shooter who engages a target while faulting the line (which is defined as the shooter touching the ground or other objects on the non-cover side of the fault line) shall be assessed a PE.

 

I can follow the logic that nothing in the rules prohibits using the inner edge of the board as a fault line.  But, how do you navigate around the words “other objects” referenced in the rule?   

     Other:  A thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.

     Object:  A material thing that can be seen and touched.

 

I can grasp how if paint or tape was used, the paint or the tape would be the “object” not the 2x4, but this does not seem to be the case in this situation.  The included quotes seem to ignore the word "other" in the rule.  

 

 

 

So, the rule does not prohibit one from declaring the inner edge of the 2x4 as the fault line.  But, the 2x4 is still the object, yes?  And, the top of it is not a thing that is different or distinct from the 2x4 already mentioned.  It is just a different side of the same object, yes?  Can anyone with the opinion that this was within the meaning of the rules shed a little more light on how/why the top of the 2x4 would have been an "other object".  Thanks.  

 

 

 

3.6.1 says fault lines mark the limit of cover.

 

So if you say the inside edge is the line of cover the fault line is still doing it's  job of showing you where cover is per the rules. If you use the inside face, the 2x4 itself would be a object that is outside of the line of cover. You've never been able to shoot with your foot past the line of cover in IDPA. That's never really changed, all they've done is mark the line on the ground so the shooter can see it. That's much better then the old imaginary lines for sure. Really the way he's doing it in probably more inline with the way IDPA was pre fault lines. If you can stand on it, you can put your foot out past the cover line, this way you cannot.

 

Personally I prefer to be able to stand on it. Had I shot the match I probably would of joked with my friends about how dumb it was, and how I didn't like it. But then I'd just go shoot the  and not get a PE for it because they told me how they were handling it. I wouldn't be surprised if the intent was to mess people up, but the people this would effect the most will likely be the lower level shooters who probably don't need any help messing up.

[rowdyb]

3 hours ago, Dutchman195 said:

s there a rule and can someone cite it, where it says the fault line must be lined up with the center point of the INSIDE most target in a position?

absolutely not.

 

[Wheelgun1981]

3 hours ago, Rpope423 said:

Yeah but we all know when that buzzer goes off everything you told yourself is out the door lol

 

3 hours ago, Rpope423 said:

Yeah but we all know when that buzzer goes off everything you told yourself is out the door lol

Agree, it’s like going to your belt for a reload when you just placed your ammo in a bag at P2. I too went thru the rule book to figure this one out and while not ordinary, didn’t find it against the book.

[Rpope423]

That’s just muscle memory. What squad was you on?

[AR_James]

11 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

3.6.1 says fault lines mark the limit of cover.

 

So if you say the inside edge is the line of cover the fault line is still doing it's  job of showing you where cover is per the rules. If you use the inside face, the 2x4 itself would be a object that is outside of the line of cover. You've never been able to shoot with your foot past the line of cover in IDPA. That's never really changed, all they've done is mark the line on the ground so the shooter can see it. That's much better then the old imaginary lines for sure. Really the way he's doing it in probably more inline with the way IDPA was pre fault lines. If you can stand on it, you can put your foot out past the cover line, this way you cannot.

 

Personally I prefer to be able to stand on it. Had I shot the match I probably would of joked with my friends about how dumb it was, and how I didn't like it. But then I'd just go shoot the  and not get a PE for it because they told me how they were handling it. I wouldn't be surprised if the intent was to mess people up, but the people this would effect the most will likely be the lower level shooters who probably don't need any help messing up.

 

Thank you.  Including the history on how imaginary lines use to be the case and you were never allowed to shoot with your foot past the line of cover adds some light to the topic.  With this being the case, to me, removing the word other from 3.6.3 C would help reduce the confusion.

 

  

[rudder]

I was one that protested last years fault line(s), and acute angle targets; leading to off balance shooters and danger of falls and accidental discharges.

The simplest solution was to paint the fault line wood with anti skid paint (just sand in paint), color of choice, but red preferable, or yellow. 

Instead, the match folks chose to alter the rules, in contravention of the  rules. 

I did contact HQ about this, and was referred to my AC and/or SC. 

The answer I got (I have the emails if anyone really doubts), was that the match director was notified that this was illegal, and that if protested, could result in all stages with the fault lines being thrown out. Thus, the directors were duly notified of the problem. No one formally arbitrated this. In my personal opinion, the briefing on the fault lines rules change, was in addition to the obvious, was to try and negate a arbitration. There were quite a few upset shooters. 

I also posted on the idpa forum about this situation. 

It should be noted, as of this time, not all my questions were answered, by either HQ or AC/SC. 

There were other issues as well, but I leave that to others. 

HQ did have a meeting on this; however, I have not been privy to the results, and don't expect to be informed. 

There were questions about this; and I directed these folks to the HQ designates, but was accused of "name dropping". Apparently a high crime and misdemeanor to some. 

My primary concern here is the "on the fly" rule changes, lack of enforcement by HQ, transparency of the rules, accountability, and fairness.

Then we have rules decisions, in the form of a several page document, that cannot be released to the general membership. I have seen it. The author considers it his personal domain, but contents delineate how certain rules are applied. I don't like cloaking of rules in any way. 

The fault line rules are clear. Some others are not. After 22 years, can we not get it right. 

[rudder]

There were about 176 paid shooters, a total of about 200. 

There were well over 300 procedurals, total. 

Of course, not all were foot faults. 

Look at the breakdown for clarity. 

[RRN1911]

So, I have the real totals for the 2019 NC Mountaineer Classic match. There were a total of 170 shooters who got 326 total procedurals during the match. There were a total of 20 fault lines that shooters had to move in to during the course of the match. With a little math that would give a total possible  fault line faults during the match of 3400. If all the procedurals given were for fault line violations that is only 9.588% of the possible times that a line was faulted. But we all know that procedurals were given for other issues. I got one for how I started stage 5. 

Looks to me like facts need to be facts.........

[rudder]

Your math is all fuzzy. You theoretical fault line violations of 3400 skews the math. First, 326 is 9.5% of 3400, but that 3400 dilutes the number. 

A better way to look at it is 326 is 191% of the shooters, or almost 2 per shooter. (1.917 x 170= 325.9). Of course there were some who got none, and some who got a lot more. 

The point is that the fault line rule did skew the match. It was also illegal per the rules. It is also fact that had ONE shooter arbitrated, all the fault line stages would be discarded, leaving the match to be determined by a very few stages. (Even the standards had a fault line).  This was clearly delineated in an email from IDPA leadership. 

If we are going to allow rule changes in any match (especially a tier 2 or higher), it must first be approved by HQ,  all shooters notified well in advance. Then all can decide for him or herself if they want to spend upwards of $125.00 in entry fees, travel, etc. However, HQ did finally relay that all matches will be run by the rule book. That is the final word I have received. 

 

Revisit you math. 

 

BR

[Rpope423]

Well this got spicy quick and I didn’t know about it. 

 

So is HQ or AC doing something about the way these matches have been ran past 2 years? 

[ddc]

Whether or not this apparently tribal interpretation of the fault line rules is actually legal or illegal...

 

If that is the way the match wants to do it in contrast to the way 99% of the rest of the USPSA/IDPA world does it (and there are quite a few crossover shooters for both) then that seems quite foolish to me.

[RRN1911]

I really don’t see how my math is fuzzy. I was clarifying the false figures that were tossed out. I came up with the same % you stated just out to three figures. How would you like to do this math? Surely in a way that would make you look better. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by RRN1911