Fall and shooting from knees

[nasty618]

Quote

I’d have probably only given you 1 since your fall and the time it likely took to steady yourself and get the shots from your knees would have made a pretty good time add on

 

Quote

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

 

It is not OK to arbitrarily adjust the application of rules when you feel the match has no prizes or that the competitor is already "punished enough" by the error itself.  

 

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by nasty618

[driver8M3]

1 hour ago, jerryz said:

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.

Hmmm. Are you sure this is as clear as you think it is?

 

1. Each occurrence does not mean per shot

From the glossary:

Occurrence - For purposes of assessing penalties, e.g., foot faults, an occurrence is defined as shooting at an array of targets from a single location or view in a course of fire. If the competitor moves to another view or location and continues to fault, that constitutes a second occurrence.

 

2. "Completely outside" is in 10.2.1.2, which some in this thread are using to apply 6 procedurals. I maintain that if both of the shooter's knees are on the ground inside the shooting area, that shooter is not completely outside the shooting area and thus 10.2.1.2 does not apply to this scenario.

[Ssanders224]

11 minutes ago, driver8M3 said:

 

2. "Completely outside" is in 10.2.1.2, which some in this thread are using to apply 6 procedurals. I maintain that if both of the shooter's knees are on the ground inside the shooting area, that shooter is not completely outside the shooting area and thus 10.2.1.2 does not apply to this scenario.

 

The thing is, it's not really open for your interpretation. 10.2.1.2 defines it clearly for you. 

"A shooter who fires shots while completely outside (both feet out and touching the ground) a shooting area..."

[driver8M3]

22 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

The thing is, it's not really open for your interpretation. 10.2.1.2 defines it clearly for you. 

"A shooter who fires shots while completely outside (both feet out and touching the ground) a shooting area..."

It's actually funny that you ignore the words "completely outside" as if they were not even there or had no meaning and focus on a parenthetical extension.

[motosapiens]

4 minutes ago, driver8M3 said:

It's actually funny that you ignore the words "completely outside" as if they were not even there or had no meaning and focus on a parenthetical extension.

 

i agree with your common-sense reading of the rule. To me, it makes literal sense as well as being the obvious intent of the rules.

Edited September 9, 2019 by motosapiens

[Ssanders224]

9 minutes ago, driver8M3 said:

It's actually funny that you ignore the words "completely outside" as if they were not even there or had no meaning and focus on a parenthetical extension.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I just see that USPSA provided the parenthetical text to help define the statement. 

 

I will say this though, If you take the text from the change logs into consideration, it adds some other info. The change logs for 10.2.1.1 state:
"Both feet out, touching the ground, and firing shots is a per shot penalty until you have one foot back in and are no longer firing shots while faulting in own sub-rule"

 

[amokscience]

My immediate concern would have been if your shots were going over the berm as a result of your position. Most stages are not built with that expectation except on targets where a kneel or prone is forced

[Sdlrodeo]

8 hours ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I just see that USPSA provided the parenthetical text to help define the statement. 

 

I will say this though, If you take the text from the change logs into consideration, it adds some other info. The change logs for 10.2.1.1 state:
"Both feet out, touching the ground, and firing shots is a per shot penalty until you have one foot back in and are no longer firing shots while faulting in own sub-rule"

 

 

This is what I was thinking about since the whole person is not completely outside the shooting area. I thought it ended up saying if one foot is out, it is 1 procedural but both feet out is procedural per shot.  

And there is wording to the effect of “gained advantage”

 

Yes, I agree both feet are touching. But the competitor is not “completely out” because of the contact with the ground by knees. Without seeing the stage, there would seem to be no gained advantage due to the fall. 

[csailer]

On 9/9/2019 at 7:39 AM, 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?

Lol it was inside the shooting area.  I asked the CRO and said it was totally legal.  

[Lucreau]

1 hour ago, csailer said:

Lol it was inside the shooting area.  I asked the CRO and said it was totally legal.  

Although walls go completely to floor, and from what I’ve gathered in this thread, gaining significant advantage from it? 

[HoMiE]

1 minute ago, Lucreau said:

Although walls go completely to floor, and from what I’ve gathered in this thread, gaining significant advantage from it? 

If you don’t want a competitor to be able to use wall then build it go to the ground. 

[Lucreau]

3 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

If you don’t want a competitor to be able to use wall then build it go to the ground. 

Yeah, why have written rules

[HoMiE]

38 minutes ago, Lucreau said:

Yeah, why have written rules

That rules only applies for vision and shooting, not for using as support. 

[Lucreau]

17 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

That rules only applies for vision and shooting, not for using as support. 

Which raises the question I asked already. Does it give significant advantage. And if it’s written that the walls go to floor, how are you going to get your foot under a wall that is supposed to meet the floor. 

[Rnlinebacker]

Which raises the question I asked already. Does it give significant advantage. And if it’s written that the walls go to floor, how are you going to get your foot under a wall that is supposed to meet the floor. 

it's written that way so you don't shoot under them but it's still a support structure and it can be gamed(if touching a fault line). Even if it does give a significant advantage its up to you to figure it out and use. You're wasting brain cells on this 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

[Sarge]

30 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

That rules only applies for vision and shooting, not for using as support. 

Can you reference that rule please? I can’t seem to find it. Thanks!

[HoMiE]

9 hours ago, Sarge said:

Can you reference that rule please? I can’t seem to find it. Thanks!

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

[HoMiE]

9 hours ago, Lucreau said:

Which raises the question I asked already. Does it give significant advantage. And if it’s written that the walls go to floor, how are you going to get your foot under a wall that is supposed to meet the floor. 

Ground to infinity only applies to shoots. 

2.2.3.4 All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane and are considered hard cover unless designated as soft cover (see 9.1.6). Shots cannot be fired though the barrier except at designated shooting ports or other designated openings. Any hits that result from full diameter shots fired through a barrier except through a designated port or opening will not count for score and if a steel target is knocked down it will be considered REF and a reshoot will be ordered.

 

[Sarge]

8 hours ago, HoMiE said:

Ground to infinity only applies to shoots. 

 

 

I can read the rule you quoted all day but can’t find where the solid plane only pertains to shooting. 

  So, here’s the thing. I’m not trying to argue but I am saying the rule should actually say what you imply it is saying so everybody can be on the same page. I hav talked with some RM’s who say it was fine while other RM’s say they would not allow it. THAT is the problem.

[DKorn]

47 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I can read the rule you quoted all day but can’t find where the solid plane only pertains to shooting. 

  So, here’s the thing. I’m not trying to argue but I am saying the rule should actually say what you imply it is saying so everybody can be on the same page. I hav talked with some RM’s who say it was fine while other RM’s say they would not allow it. THAT is the problem.

 

Agree with this ^

 

Also, take “it only applies to shooting” to its extreme - am I allowed to duck under a wall as a shortcut on a stage? Does this mean any time the stage designer wants to break up a shooting area and force you to go around something that they need to go to the trouble of making it actually go all the way to the ground?

 

On the other hand, if they are solid for all purposes, at what point do we apply penalties (and what penalties would apply)? Am I allowed to have my foot sticking out slightly on the ground below a wall, or is that a foot fault for faulting an imaginary line? What if I drop a magazine and it bounces past a wall? Can I get it back? If not, is it Range Equipment Failure since the (imaginary) wall should’ve stopped my mag from passing through it?

[Sarge]

50 minutes ago, DKorn said:

 

Agree with this ^

 

Also, take “it only applies to shooting” to its extreme - am I allowed to duck under a wall as a shortcut on a stage? Does this mean any time the stage designer wants to break up a shooting area and force you to go around something that they need to go to the trouble of making it actually go all the way to the ground?

 

On the other hand, if they are solid for all purposes, at what point do we apply penalties (and what penalties would apply)? Am I allowed to have my foot sticking out slightly on the ground below a wall, or is that a foot fault for faulting an imaginary line? What if I drop a magazine and it bounces past a wall? Can I get it back? If not, is it Range Equipment Failure since the (imaginary) wall should’ve stopped my mag from passing through it?

For once I agree with you Danny! 

[DKorn]

1 minute ago, Sarge said:

For once I agree with you Danny! 

 

For what it’s worth, I agree with you more often than you would think. I just enjoy stirring the pot sometimes just to get people thinking about how they interpret the rules. 

[RadarTech]

Something to ponder...
If I put a single No shoot on target sticks with the body of the no shoot on its side at 5’10” and there is a 3 foot or more gap under the no shoot to the ground and someone shoots thru the target sticks and scores a good A hit — is it a hit or a miss?

[ChuckS]

2 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

Something to ponder...
If I put a single No shoot on target sticks with the body of the no shoot on its side at 5’10” and there is a 3 foot or more gap under the no shoot to the ground and someone shoots thru the target sticks and scores a good A hit — is it a hit or a miss?

Hit

[Sarge]

4 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

Hit

Hit. Per the rules target sticks don’t exist.

Too easy.