Fall and shooting from knees

[Lucreau]

13 minutes ago, Matt1911 said:

 

For a local match, no way I'd call that. 

Theres no Ferrari for the winner, and that's just some B.S. to throw on someone after they fell and tried to recover. The fall is penalty enough. 

The RO just got back from RO’ing an area match lol

[Lucreau]

9 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Not enforcing rules locally is one of the biggest failures in the sport. When a shooter goes to a major he is in for a rude awakening if we let things slide locally

You’d be amazed at what I see at some local matches

[RadarTech]

You’d be amazed at what I see at some local matches

No I wouldn’t...

If I was called to this at a major to provide the RMs call..

I’d be hard pressed not to give 6 with the details provided here.
You had both feet out.. and you gained stability from those feet touching..

Now, here is what you as the competitor could do, or a third party could do..

File an arb Under 10.1.3
Or 11.7.1 as a third party as the case may be..
This is the only instance scoring can be ARBd...

[Lucreau]

26 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

No I wouldn’t...

If I was called to this at a major to provide the RMs call..

I’d be hard pressed not to give 6 with the details provided here.
You had both feet out.. and you gained stability from those feet touching..

Now, here is what you as the competitor could do, or a third party could do..

File an arb Under 10.1.3
Or 11.7.1 as a third party as the case may be..
This is the only instance scoring can be ARBd...
 

Not a bad way to see it either with the feet gaining stability

[motosapiens]

5 hours ago, Sarge said:

You don't have a choice if it's a sanctioned USPSA match. The rules say feet, not knees. Same with going Prone. If both feet are out it's gonna hurt.

 

so what if you are on your knees but your feet aren't touching anything? How does your zealously literal interpretation of the rules handle that problem? What if you are balancing on one hand and shooting with the other.

 

this seems like the place where a sensible person might call a single procedural, and a gestapo officer would say "i vass chust following ordersss'.

 

I tend to think that the 'both feet out' thing was intended to prevent a totally different kind of issue.

 

OTOH, it's not really rocket surgery to just shoot all the shots from within the fault lines, and have some awareness of where you are. It comes in handy.

Edited September 9, 2019 by motosapiens

[RadarTech]

If we take feet out of it...


10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground or platform surface outside a shooting area, or while stepping on or gaining support from an object wholly beyond a shooting area, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

Then significant advantage with the feet outside...

Also consider... was there a better angle at the targets from the knee level?
I saw a match where there were no shoots as vision barriers but if you dropped to your knees you could shoot under the no shoots and had easy shots... but then your risking feet outside unless you were wise about it.


Or would it cause an issue with a round going over the berm? Of course 10.4.1 allows for it to be not a DQ...

Just a few comments...

[pjb45]

At Nats one year, I had a foot slightly outside a fault. 6 procedures was the CRO call. Protested and called RM. RM says 1. The CRO went back and corrected a previous shooter who did the same thing. 

 

Great CRO. We were both very polite to each other. 

 

The rule book is more clear now, regardless of match level the rule is the rule. Pretty black and white in the original thread. 

Edited September 9, 2019 by pjb45

[Sarge]

8 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

so what if you are on your knees but your feet aren't touching anything? How does your zealously literal interpretation of the rules handle that problem? What if you are balancing on one hand and shooting with the other. INSIDE? NO PENALTY. OUTSIDE ONE PER UNTIL REESTABLISHED IN SHOOTING AREA.

 

this seems like the place where a sensible person might call a single procedural, and a gestapo officer would say "i vass chust following ordersss'. SO ENFORCING RULES MAKES ONE A NAZI?

 

I tend to think that the 'both feet out' thing was intended to prevent a totally different kind of issue. CHANGE THE RULE.

 

OTOH, it's not really rocket surgery to just shoot all the shots from within the fault lines, and have some awareness of where you are. It comes in handy. AGREED

 

[RJH]

Could it be that the rule addressing both feet out assumes that you're actually standing on your feet? In other words meaning that you would be wholly outside of the shooting area? Since the dude is on his knees and wasn't wholly outside of the shooting area, I could see only giving one procedural. I know that may not be 100% to the way the rules are written, but it could very well be one hundred percent to the way the rules were designed to be interpreted

[Sarge]

8 minutes ago, RJH said:

Could it be that the rule addressing both feet out assumes that you're actually standing on your feet? In other words meaning that you would be wholly outside of the shooting area? Since the dude is on his knees and wasn't wholly outside of the shooting area, I could see only giving one procedural. I know that may not be 100% to the way the rules are written, but it could very well be one hundred percent to the way the rules were designed to be interpreted

Then the rule should be rewritten so it doesn’t have to be “interpreted” by different RO’s.

[RJH]

Just now, Sarge said:

Then the rule should be rewritten so it doesn’t have to be “interpreted” by different RO’s.

While true,  we all know that the rule book cannot have a rule for every possible situation that comes up. Sometimes as ROs we all have to make judgment calls and rely on our "interpretation" of the rule book while staying with the intent of the rules. I am not saying in this situation that would be the correct call, just that it could be

[driver8M3]

11 minutes ago, RJH said:

Could it be that the rule addressing both feet out assumes that you're actually standing on your feet? In other words meaning that you would be wholly outside of the shooting area? Since the dude is on his knees and wasn't wholly outside of the shooting area, I could see only giving one procedural. I know that may not be 100% to the way the rules are written, but it could very well be one hundred percent to the way the rules were designed to be interpreted

 

Nobody has to assume anything. 10.2.1.2 says "completely outside (both feet out and touching the ground) a shooting area..."

 

Completely outside a shooting area means nothing is inside the shooting area.

 

The situation here is covered by 10.2.1, the shooter is partially in and partially out.

 

RadarTech is giving 6 procedurals based on 10.2.1.1 (significant advantage of improved stability). I'd still argue that the shooter's fault did not give a significant advantage over not faulting, but RadarTech is an RM...and I'm not.

[Lucreau]

15 minutes ago, driver8M3 said:

 

Nobody has to assume anything. 10.2.1.2 says "completely outside (both feet out and touching the ground) a shooting area..."

 

Completely outside a shooting area means nothing is inside the shooting area.

 

The situation here is covered by 10.2.1, the shooter is partially in and partially out.

 

RadarTech is giving 6 procedurals based on 10.2.1.1 (significant advantage of improved stability). I'd still argue that the shooter's fault did not give a significant advantage over not faulting, but RadarTech is an RM...and I'm not.

And this is what I was going with. Wasn’t completely out. And no significant advantage was taken 

[RJH]

24 minutes ago, driver8M3 said:

 

Nobody has to assume anything. 10.2.1.2 says "completely outside (both feet out and touching the ground) a shooting area..."

 

Completely outside a shooting area means nothing is inside the shooting area.

 

The situation here is covered by 10.2.1, the shooter is partially in and partially out.

 

RadarTech is giving 6 procedurals based on 10.2.1.1 (significant advantage of improved stability). I'd still argue that the shooter's fault did not give a significant advantage over not faulting, but RadarTech is an RM...and I'm not.

 

This interpretation sounds correct to me

[RadarTech]

 
Nobody has to assume anything. 10.2.1.2 says "completely outside (both feet out and touching the ground) a shooting area..."
 
Completely outside a shooting area means nothing is inside the shooting area.
 
The situation here is covered by 10.2.1, the shooter is partially in and partially out.
 
RadarTech is giving 6 procedurals based on 10.2.1.1 (significant advantage of improved stability). I'd still argue that the shooter's fault did not give a significant advantage over not faulting, but RadarTech is an RM...and I'm not.

Note one thing I said was with the detail provided here...

could he have used his feet to lift up and take pressure off the knees? Could it have been a worse angle to the target on his knees? Could it be a tall shooter and nothing he could have done kept his feet in?


Something that is totally missing from this scenario and another reason I’d give 6..
Rule 2.2.1.4

2.2.1.4 The use of rear fault lines at prone shooting positions should be avoided or used with caution. If a rear fault line is used, it must be placed at least 8 feet from the forward fault line at the prone shooting position.


This was added so that a prone shooter was not likely to put feet on the ground outside the fault lines and get procedurals... not many people are tall enough for 8 feet...

Could you imagine being prone and keeping you knees bent to prevent procedurals?

Yes there are things that would make me consider less than 6... but like using the target for the actual scoring(9.1.3), seeing the exact stage , shooters position and the target visibility is really what is required to make the best call here..

When you combine 2.2.1.4 with support, both feet outside the shooting area, a changed perspective to the target, and the reduced time of not getting back on your feet wholly inside the shooting area, it is a hard sell for me not to give 6.. But again.. it would be better to see it to make a good call.

More than likely the CRO/RO made the right call. And we are all Monday morning quarterbacking..

With that good Monday morning!

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, driver8M3 said:

 

Nobody has to assume anything. 10.2.1.2 says "completely outside (both feet out and touching the ground) a shooting area..."

 

Completely outside a shooting area means nothing is inside the shooting area.

 

The situation here is covered by 10.2.1, the shooter is partially in and partially out.

 

RadarTech is giving 6 procedurals based on 10.2.1.1 (significant advantage of improved stability). I'd still argue that the shooter's fault did not give a significant advantage over not faulting, but RadarTech is an RM...and I'm not.

So, say you have a wall that is inside the shooting area along front fault line. I stand outside with both feet and lean on wall. You think that’s inside shooting area? I say no.

  Say a shooter lays down on his side with one foot on ground and other foot on top. Are both feet not out?

[jerryz]

This is so clear, I'm not sure why the controversy.

 

The rule has an "OR" in it.  That means if any phrase is true, then, the rule applies.  If his feet (or his elbow or his butt or any part of his anatomy) were touching out of bounds, then, the first part of the rule:  "A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground or platform surface outside a shooting area,..." applies.  It does not say "completely out" it says "touching." This has nothing to do with  "gaining an advantage" (although it may be) or "re establishing back in bounds."  It is simply "any part of the body touching outside the shooting area."  It also does not matter where his knees are, or his head, or his nose.  His feet were touching out of bounds.  Guilty as charged.

 

The last phrase of the rule says

"...will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence"  

6 shots = 6 occurrences = 6 procedurals

 

Sarge is right.  Yes locals are more for fun than profit, but, that's where we train to do it correctly.

[Lucreau]

11 minutes ago, Sarge said:

So, say you have a wall that is inside the shooting area along front fault line. I stand outside with both feet and lean on wall. You think that’s inside shooting area? I say no.

  Say a shooter lays down on his side with one foot on ground and other foot on top. Are both feet not out?

Interesting you mention this. This is way left field and off topic now but i watched Christian sailer use his foot to hook under a wall to help him lean way out of a box at I think area 8. Should that have been called?

[jerryz]

It depends on if the wall was inside or outside the fault lines. 

[Sarge]

2 minutes ago, Lucreau said:

Interesting you mention this. This is way left field and off topic now but i watched Christian sailer use his foot to hook under a wall to help him lean way out of a box at I think area 8. Should that have been called?

Absolutely unless it was a low port or the WSB said something wonky like walls do not go all the way to the ground? But I can’t imagine the latter being the case. The RM’s I asked about that incident said not legal as walls go to the ground. We were on the lookout for that this weekend.

[Sarge]

2 minutes ago, jerryz said:

It depends on if the wall was inside or outside the fault lines. 

All walls go from ground to height constructed yadda yadda

[Chili]

9 minutes ago, Lucreau said:

Interesting you mention this. This is way left field and off topic now but i watched Christian sailer use his foot to hook under a wall to help him lean way out of a box at I think area 8. Should that have been called?

 

The wall was inside the shooting area so no penalty, if it was outside a procedural for each shot fired.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Chili

[Ssanders224]

1 hour ago, Chili said:

 

The wall was inside the shooting area so no penalty, if it was outside a procedural for each shot fired.

 

You COULD argue that the bottom "edge" of the wall doesn't exist per the rules. 

Since the wall is over 5'9", it is considered to go from the ground to infinity. You can't go under it, you can't shoot under it, you can't stick your arm under it to engage a target, so how can you stick your foot under it to brace yourself? 

 

I'm just playing devils advocate, as I don't really see this as an issue, but it does have some validity. 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Ssanders224

[Lucreau]

Yeah it wasn’t a low port, just a wall. Wonder how much that would’ve costed him

[motosapiens]

3 hours ago, Sarge said:

Then the rule should be rewritten so it doesn’t have to be “interpreted” by different RO’s.

and that's why we have an 8000 page rulebook written by range lawyers. we can't agree on common sense, and a few folks who like to give penalties ruin it for everyone, by trying to find loopholes to screw shooters over.