Shooter problem vs door problem

[glocklover]

      A competitor is attempting to open a door which activates a drop Turner. The competitor does not turn the knob all the way and pulls hard on the door activating the drop turner. There is only one presentation. By the time the competitor does get the door open, the target has disappeared.

      Is it a competitor problem because they failed to activate the door properly (not turning the knob all the way) or is it a range equipment problem because the door had a little give to it when pulled hard activating the drop turner?

     What would you do? Give the competitor a reshoot or score as is?

[George Jones]

Based on your description:  REF

It should not have activated without the door being open.

[Sarge]

REF

[Sdlrodeo]

17 minutes ago, George Jones said:

Based on your description:  REF

It should not have activated without the door being open.

 

Agree. REF and a reshoot. 

[DKorn]

If the WSB says something to the effect of “Opening the door activates the drop turner” and the drop turner activated while the door was not opened, that’s pretty clearly REF and a reshoot. 

[konkapot]

I had something similar happen with a stomp pad. Stepping on it did not detonate the mover...……..removing my foot DID. CRO was vehemently against a no-shoot. 

 

If "it" doesn't work like it's supposed to no doubt it's a re-shoot. 

[hurley326]

I’d like to know what the WSB said to be certain but I think it falls under REF as per 4.6.1. It’s possible the WSB could be written in a way that technically might not make it REF. If it said only “Door handle activates drop turner”. Because it’s not saying that opening the door activates it. Someone would be a jerk to be that harsh. I have seen in IDPA before where they knew there was issue with props and specifically said “You have to really pull on this to activate the target” during the briefing because they weren’t going to give you REF because you didn’t pull the activator hard enough to trigger it. Different sport but concept makes you think if it would apply if it was a different type of activator, would 4.6.1 still stand?

 

4.6.1 - “Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes the displacement of cardboard targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.”

[Sarge]

5 minutes ago, hurley326 said:

I’d like to know what the WSB said to be certain but I think it falls under REF as per 4.6.1. It’s possible the WSB could be written in a way that technically might not make it REF. If it said only “Door handle activates drop turner”. Because it’s not saying that opening the door activates it. Someone would be a jerk to be that harsh. I have seen in IDPA before where they knew there was issue with props and specifically said “You have to really pull on this to activate the target” during the briefing because they weren’t going to give you REF because you didn’t pull the activator hard enough to trigger it. Different sport but concept makes you think if it would apply if it was a different type of activator, would 4.6.1 still stand?

 

4.6.1 - “Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes the displacement of cardboard targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.”

I think pulling really hard on a rope etc is a lot different. In those cases the target eventually gets exposed if you yank it. In the OP SCENARIO the target never got exposed to the shooter at all. That can’t be anything but REF as I see it.

[hurley326]

6 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I think pulling really hard on a rope etc is a lot different. In those cases the target eventually gets exposed if you yank it. In the OP SCENARIO the target never got exposed to the shooter at all. That can’t be anything but REF as I see it.

I agree is why I bolded the applicable parts of the rule. Just playing Devil’s advocate at the same time, not necessarily to prove it right or wrong from the other side but at least to try and understand their rationale behind it. I’ve grown to hate props at my match because of all the REF. Going to spend the off season trying to perfect a few that I can get reliably to trigger 100% of time.

Edited October 22, 2019 by hurley326

[Sarge]

3 minutes ago, hurley326 said:

I agree is why I bolded the applicable parts of the rule. Just playing Devil’s advocate at the same time, not necessarily to prove it right or wrong from the other side but at least to try and understand their rationale behind it. I’ve grown to hate props at my match because of all the REF. Going to spend the off season trying to perfect a few that I can get reliably to trigger 100% of time.

Yep props are fun until they’re not. I use a few in level II but for level III I prefer the KISS principle.

[pjb45]

A similar situation happened on my squad at Nationals at PASA.  Except, the ROs said the door activates the mover, the door must be fully opened for activation to occur.  I suspect they wanted to give the shooter time to move into the door frame opening before the the mover activated.

 

Sure as sh^@t one individual did not fully open the door, the activator did not activate and he stood there wanting a reshoot.  ULSC was eventually issued, RC....

Then the RO fully opened the door and the mover moved.

 

The WSB was clearly written.  The oral briefing reiterated 'fully open' and yet some people did not grasp the consequences of not listening. NO REF.

 

This also happened recently at the AZ PCC state championship with a pressure plate and 'ammo can.'  The WSB and oral briefings emphasized the need for the can to activate the pressure plate. NO REF/NO RESHOOT.

[Joe4d]

just get rid of doors.
Opening a door isnt a shooting challenge.
Its also a  no reason sweeping DQ trap
They  frequently dont work or get pulled too hard.
I mean, really put up some vision barriers to go around get the same thing
 

[ima45dv8]

I don't mind doors and I think they have a valid place in our sport, provided the prop is constructed properly (meaning, it presents a fair and equitable challenge to each shooter). Just because some people have a problem negotiating that obstacle isn't a valid reason to eliminate them entirely. Doors, stomp pads, swinging bridges, etc. aren't a shooting challenge element any more than say, moving, or reloads on the clock. Neither of those involve firing shots but are accepted as reasonable challenges.

 

What they (doors, stomp pads, swinging bridges, etc.) do is serve as a distraction. Distractions cause a shooter to 'think on their feet', and being a dynamic activity, it adds some spice to the challenge. 

 

If we eliminate everything that isn't actually a shooting challenge (acquire, aim, press, fire)  what's left? 

Bullseye?

[OPENB]

14 hours ago, ima45dv8 said:

I don't mind doors and I think they have a valid place in our sport, provided the prop is constructed properly (meaning, it presents a fair and equitable challenge to each shooter). Just because some people have a problem negotiating that obstacle isn't a valid reason to eliminate them entirely. Doors, stomp pads, swinging bridges, etc. aren't a shooting challenge element any more than say, moving, or reloads on the clock. Neither of those involve firing shots but are accepted as reasonable challenges.

 

What they (doors, stomp pads, swinging bridges, etc.) do is serve as a distraction. Distractions cause a shooter to 'think on their feet', and being a dynamic activity, it adds some spice to the challenge. 

 

If we eliminate everything that isn't actually a shooting challenge (acquire, aim, press, fire)  what's left? 

Bullseye?

Unless said door swings from both sides, it isn't fair and equitable to all shooters. Just about every door prop I run into is hinged on the left, meaning a righty will be holding gun in right, swings door with left, no sweeping unless you're uncoordinated. Leftys exaggerate the muzzle to safely open the door. I'm not advocating getting rid of doors, and like most things, I've adapted to living in a righty world. Just pointing out that doors are not fair and equitable. I deal with it.

[ima45dv8]

Thanks.

I hadn't thought of that (I'm obviously right-handed).

[Sdlrodeo]

6 hours ago, OPENB said:

Unless said door swings from both sides, it isn't fair and equitable to all shooters. Just about every door prop I run into is hinged on the left, meaning a righty will be holding gun in right, swings door with left, no sweeping unless you're uncoordinated. Leftys exaggerate the muzzle to safely open the door. I'm not advocating getting rid of doors, and like most things, I've adapted to living in a righty world. Just pointing out that doors are not fair and equitable. I deal with it.

 

Ah, the plot thickens!!!

 

in all seriousness I hadn’t thought about it until I read the above. Good point. 

[RadarTech]

Unless said door swings from both sides, it isn't fair and equitable to all shooters. Just about every door prop I run into is hinged on the left, meaning a righty will be holding gun in right, swings door with left, no sweeping unless you're uncoordinated. Leftys exaggerate the muzzle to safely open the door. I'm not advocating getting rid of doors, and like most things, I've adapted to living in a righty world. Just pointing out that doors are not fair and equitable. I deal with it.

If you go that route then any stage that has a favorable operation left or right should be tossed..

I think as long as you make the overall stage fair to the competitors or of different paw strengths, all is good..

IE left open door.. make a right hard lean and left easy lean..
it all balances out..

[kmc]

On 10/21/2019 at 9:26 PM, hurley326 said:

I’d like to know what the WSB said to be certain but I think it falls under REF as per 4.6.1. It’s possible the WSB could be written in a way that technically might not make it REF. If it said only “Door handle activates drop turner”. Because it’s not saying that opening the door activates it. Someone would be a jerk to be that harsh. I have seen in IDPA before where they knew there was issue with props and specifically said “You have to really pull on this to activate the target” during the briefing because they weren’t going to give you REF because you didn’t pull the activator hard enough to trigger it. Different sport but concept makes you think if it would apply if it was a different type of activator, would 4.6.1 still stand?

 

4.6.1 - “Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes the displacement of cardboard targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.”

I don't know what specific match is being referenced but this is exactly what happened to two shooters on our squad at a state sectional this fall. The door was a "hair trigger" such that neglecting to turn the knob and just pulling (hard) on the knob, caused the whole door/wall to move and set off the activator. In this case a single show, non-disappearing drop turner but the alternate box to shoot it from was a long way in the wrong direction. Scored two Mikes/FTE. And here's what you asked for--the stage briefing read "Door 1 activates Drop turner 1, Door 2 activates drop turner 2, both are non-disappearing targets."  Should have been ruled a REF in my view.

Edited October 23, 2019 by kmc

[Thomas H]

18 hours ago, OPENB said:

Unless said door swings from both sides, it isn't fair and equitable to all shooters. Just about every door prop I run into is hinged on the left, meaning a righty will be holding gun in right, swings door with left, no sweeping unless you're uncoordinated. Leftys exaggerate the muzzle to safely open the door. I'm not advocating getting rid of doors, and like most things, I've adapted to living in a righty world. Just pointing out that doors are not fair and equitable. I deal with it.

 

I'm also a lefty---and don't particularly have a problem with doors and sweeping.  That being said, around here I've run into doors that open inward, doors that open outward, doors that are hinged on the left, and doors that are hinged on the right.  I don't think I've seen a particular preference for any specific "side" yet. 

 

I don't consider that non-equitable.