Are Props And Walls Tools

[HI5-O]

Looking around for the correct answer and rule number.

Found the one that prohibits rods and tools, so, are the stage props and walls considered tools?

barry

[George]

I would say no, because they are there already and not brought by the shooter.

But I have nothing to support this (yet).

--

Regards,

[HI5-O]

G,

That makes sense to me.

I was thinking my definition of "tools" would be something that can perform some type of work or mechanical advantage so, maybe the props and walls would be "tools"

This is a test question

barry

[diehli]

From IPILL Global Village: http://ipsc.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=1620

For those that can't read it, here's a summary.

Hi Gang:

Recently, a shooter, while engaging two targets from a barricade, had a MONSTER jam on his third shot.  He tried and tried, but couldn't clear it with his hands.  He then used the barricade to assist him.

He immediately cleared the jam and successfully completed the COF without further incident or penalty.

A range officer asked if the competitor should have been given a ZERO for the stage under Rule 5.7.1. or a procedural under 4.5.1. for disturbing a stage prop (barricade).

I answered in the negative for the application of both rules.  What do you think? :idea:

Hi guys,

The short answer is, yes, you can use the barricade without penalty.

The longer answer is when considering our practical heritage, if you experience a jam in the street, it's unlikely that you'd be carrying a full toolkit in your back pocket.

Of course I realise some might say "What about my pocket knife?", but we had to draw a line in the sand somewhere, so you can only use your hands, what happens to be in your hands at the time (e.g. a magazine), and items which are part of your physical environment (e.g. a barricade).

Also, in the July/August 2005 issue of Front Sight on page 4, John Amidon concludes the same thing, i.e. that you can, in fact, use a prop to clear a jam.

[scooterj]

still need to fill in the rule # blank

what rule supports this?

[diehli]

still need to fill in the rule # blank

what rule supports this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

5.7.1

It says "tools", not "props".

[SteveZ]

Doing the RO recertification exam huh? I got the same question. No, and thats the number.

[Overkill]

I got that Q too on my exam... That has to be the hardest (by that I mean "not obvously stated in the rules") question I've ever seen on a RO test.

[SteveZ]

I got that Q too on my exam... That has to be the hardest (by that I mean "not obvously stated in the rules") question I've ever seen on a RO test.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I don't like are the questions which there are two answer to (based on exceptions). One of the questions on the exam went something like:

"Can a Long course that is not a standards or classifier, require a mandatory reload?" For level II and above, the answer would be NO based on 1.1.5 and 1.1.5.2 however for Level I matches (club matches) the answer would be YES based on 1.1.5 and 1.1.5.1 (which is the exception to "freestyle requirements" in 1.1.5). Hopefully whoever grades these things takes "exceptions" into consideration.

This entire issue with 1.1.5/.1/.2/.3 was discussed recently on the IPSC list. I know what the right answer is...but I don't know if THEY know what the right answer is.

Edited September 23, 2005 by Steven Zopfi

[Nik Habicht]

I got that Q too on my exam... That has to be the hardest (by that I mean "not obvously stated in the rules") question I've ever seen on a RO test.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I don't like are the questions which there are two answer to (based on exceptions). One of the questions on the exam went something like:

Hopefully whoever grades these things takes "exceptions" into consideration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They don't appear to ---- my only non 100% recertification came when I lost the semantics debate ---- and I'm pretty sure that if I'd been able to go back and forth with an instructor, I would have gotten my point across. IOW, don't overthink the questions, give 'em the obvious answers, not the obscure exemptions.....

[HI5-O]

Thanks, you guys da bes

At least that question made me read the rulebook several times

barry

[MikeFoley]

It appears that I missed that question, but got the rule number correct. If you don't read the opinion rulings on the web or in the magazine, this one was difficult. I suppose I was ignorant to think all of the answers would be in the rulebook.

[LPatterson]

They don't appear to ---- my only non 100% recertification came when I lost the semantics debate ---- and I'm pretty sure that if I'd been able to go back and forth with an instructor, I would have gotten my point across.  IOW, don't overthink the questions, give 'em the obvious answers, not the obscure exemptions.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was in the same class as the person that had the question in the Jul/Aug Front Sight & the instructor was firm in his opinion & I don't think you could change that. He was the one that suggested a letter be sent to John if the guy had further questions about it. If you really think you can change his opinion, contact Troy McManus.