Fault Line Legal?

[Sarge]

17 minutes ago, mchapman said:

Would it make any difference if the WSB said engage all targets from within the shooting area? Asking for a friend. LOL

No

[WaJim]

7 hours ago, DKorn said:

 

 

Regardless, it’s completely avoidable with proper stage management. In between squads, the RO crew should be checking the stage for any issues, including stuff like this, and fixing anything they find. If it’s a local match with traveling ROs, the ROs should check the stage before the squad shoots it. This kind of issue should never come up because it’s easy enough to prevent. 

.

 

Only speculation but...

 

The way things are built, using only the picture provided, I would say the dirt is there in berm form so as to prevent a trip hazard when transitioning from the wiggly bridge to or from the shooting area.

 

................If so then there are other ways to accomplish this.

[Brooke]

How in hell can this well known rule generate so much discussion? No matter what, if you touch the ground beyond the fault line its a procedural or a per shot procedual if gaining an advantage by doing so. Could this situation have been better built...apparently so. That does not allow the shooter to violate the rule. Y'all seem to think the shooter can always blame someone else for their problems. Tain't so McGee. The freaking shooter, and only the shooter,  is responsible for obeying the rules or paying the price. He had ample opportunity to observe this potential problem and adjust to it.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Brooke

[Schutzenmeister]

3 hours ago, Brooke said:

...  Y'all seem to think the shooter can always blame someone else for their problems. Tain't so McGee. The freaking shooter, and only the shooter,  is responsible for obeying the rules or paying the price. ... 

 

Brooke

 

Read the opening paragraph to Chapter 2 ... Your statement could not possibly be more wrong.  Match organizers (includes ROs, etc.)  are OBLIGATED to do (or refrain from doing) certain things.  Among these are the proper maintenance of fault lines.  The shooter has a RIGHT to expect this.

 

If maintenance of the fault lines is so badly neglected that the shooter cannot see and/or feel the outer edge of the fault lines when he steps on them, they violate the rules.  FULL STOP.

[Brooke]

19 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

Brooke

 

Read the opening paragraph to Chapter 2 ... Your statement could not possibly be more wrong.  Match organizers (includes ROs, etc.)  are OBLIGATED to do (or refrain from doing) certain things.  Among these are the proper maintenance of fault lines.  The shooter has a RIGHT to expect this.

 

If maintenance of the fault lines is so badly neglected that the shooter cannot see and/or feel the outer edge of the fault lines when he steps on them, they violate the rules.  FULL STOP.

 

Congratulations on joining the shooters whine society. Nobody says you have to step on the fault line. You have opportunity to walk and plan stages. If you violate a rule its your fault and no one elses.

[Schutzenmeister]

Brooke ... I'm not speaking as a shooter at all in this.  I'm speaking as a Range Master.  Read the rules.  They apply to more than just the shooter.

 

When a shooter errs, procedurally or in safety, he receives a penalty or a DQ, as appropriate.  When match officials design an illegal stage, place targets in prohibited positions, or simply do not maintain the stage properly during the match there are consequences.

 

An appeal or arbitration can result in removal of penalties, redesign of a stage and reshoots, removal of a stage, or possibly removal of sanction for the match.  Who's going to be whining then?

 

Our sport has rules.  Some apply to shooters.  Some apply to match organizers.  All contribute to safety and competitive equity.  Shooters have a RIGHT to expect match organizers follow the rules because it affects the fairness of the match.

 

You really need to reexamin your position on this ... 

[teros135]

Nicely said.  Thanks for the perspective on this.

[jcc7x7]

12 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Brooke ... I'm not speaking as a shooter at all in this.  I'm speaking as a Range Master.  Read the rules.  They apply to more than just the shooter.

 

When a shooter errs, procedurally or in safety, he receives a penalty or a DQ, as appropriate.  When match officials design an illegal stage, place targets in prohibited positions, or simply do not maintain the stage properly during the match there are consequences.

 

An appeal or arbitration can result in removal of penalties, redesign of a stage and reshoots, removal of a stage, or possibly removal of sanction for the match.  Who's going to be whining then?

 

Our sport has rules.  Some apply to shooters.  Some apply to match organizers.  All contribute to safety and competitive equity.  Shooters have a RIGHT to expect match organizers follow the rules because it affects the fairness of the match.

 

You really need to reexamin your position on this ... 

I agree with the above!

Why start with a problem!  We all know there will be enough of those without starting with one on purpose!

Last time I'm looking at this thread, it should of ended on the first 1/4 page.

[PatJones]

2.2.1.1 .... For hard ground surfaces clear of debris...

The stage was certainly not clear of debris. As the RO I would have cleaned this up before running shooters. If I was on an arbitration committee, I would vote to overturn a foot fault.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[nasty618]

On 11/14/2019 at 5:55 PM, pjb45 said:

MD said touching the dirt was a penalty per shot fired.  He said the depth requirement was met on the inside of the fault line

 

Even if he was correct on the fault line set up and the foot fault was legal... why per shot? Where was the significant advantage gained? I just dont see that being possible from the attached pic... 

[Thomas H]

On 11/14/2019 at 4:55 PM, pjb45 said:

At a match quite a while ago, the MD said touching the dirt was a penalty per shot fired.  He said the depth requirement was met on the inside of the fault line.

 

 

It interests me that the MD said that.  As Flatland Shooter said, right off the bat:
".2.1.1 Shooting Boxes and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material, must be fixed firmly in place, and provide both physical and visual references to competitors. For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75-inch material is the minimum allowable size. On other range surfaces, such as covered with turf, sand, gravel, wood chips or similar, thicker material which rises at least 1.5 inches above the surface is recommended."

It doesn't say "oh, the minimum allowable size is only for one side, you can ignore the other" or anything like that.  The shooting area runs to the outside of the fault line.  You can clearly see in the picture that the fault line is actually BELOW the ground outside the shooting area in parts, and equal with the ground (at best) for most of it.  It does NOT provide a physical reference to competitors.  All the other made-up justifications regarding the inside are irrelevant to the rule. 

 

There is no physical reference (since the dirt on the outside actually is on top of the fault line), and this is not a "hard ground surface clear of debris" so 0.75 inches isn't enough.  This obviously fits into the "1.5 inches above the surface" recommended part.  However, since it says "recommended" people will argue the RM doesn't have to follow it.  Which means at that bare minimum, this should provide a physical reference and be above 0.75 inches.

 

It is none of those things. It isn't a legal fault line.  Not only would this win in arb against a "per shot" penalty, it would win against ANY penalty, and be grounds for a reshoot, since it isn't a legal fault line.  Even better, since probably quite a few people shot this stage and couldn't all be given reshoots, this stage would most likely have to be thrown out.

 

And it would have been easy to simply set it up correctly in the first place.

 

 

[Schutzenmeister]

1 hour ago, Thomas H said:

[…]

It is none of those things. It isn't a legal fault line.  Not only would this win in arb against a "per shot" penalty, it would win against ANY penalty, and be grounds for a reshoot, since it isn't a legal fault line.  Even better, since probably quite a few people shot this stage and couldn't all be given reshoots, this stage would most likely have to be thrown out.

[…]

 

Bingo!

 

 

Also note … Current rules (2019) DEFINE "significant advantage" ...

 

Quote

 

Any position assumed while faulting that provides:

• A greater view of a target or target array, i.e., seeing all of the array versus only one or two targets, or more of a target behind an obscuring no-shoot or wall

• A closer (more than 3 feet) shot at a target, especially if the target is partially obscured with a no-shoot or hard cover

• Less physical positioning, i.e., lean, around or over a wall or barrier

• A more stable position, such as stepping off of a moving platform or narrow beam onto the ground, provided that the object in question has been marked as a shooting area

• Having both feet outside of a shooting area and firing shots (10.2.1.2)

• Stability by bracing on a wall or barrier outside of the fault lines

Note: These are some examples and are not intended to illustrate all possible cases of significant advantage

 

 

 

[IVC]

13 hours ago, Thomas H said:

All the other made-up justifications regarding the inside are irrelevant to the rule. 

Well, you have to read the rule for what it says, not what you wish it said: 

• For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75-inch material is the minimum allowable size.

The requirement is on the type of material, not any clearance. In addition, as constructed, it is both: (1) fixed firmly in place, and (2) provides both physical and visual references to competitors. Strict reading of the rule doesn't invalidate the fault line on that stage. If you still think it's not legal, what part of the rule is NOT satisfied? 

[Nathanb]

But based on that you could bury a 2x4 as a fault line and leave only the top exposed. Since that would meet the characteristics you described. 

[broadside72]

Well, you have to read the rule for what it says, not what you wish it said: 

• For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75-inch material is the minimum allowable size.

The requirement is on the type of material, not any clearance. In addition, as constructed, it is both: (1) fixed firmly in place, and (2) provides both physical and visual references to competitors. Strict reading of the rule doesn't invalidate the fault line on that stage. If you still think it's not legal, what part of the rule is NOT satisfied? 

If you can't see or feel the outer edge then you do not know where the shooting area ends since the shooting area includes the fault lines and shooting boxes. For all I know that's a 2x12 laying there and I have 8 or more inches before I'm out of the shooting area

[MemphisMechanic]

On 11/19/2019 at 7:49 AM, nasty618 said:

 

Even if he was correct on the fault line set up and the foot fault was legal... why per shot? Where was the significant advantage gained? I just dont see that being possible from the attached pic... 

Because he’s a dick, and he wanted your foot completely inside the the box.

 

We all know the rules don’t support his viewpoint, but this type of “shoot it the way I tell you to shoot it” guy is out there. And he isn’t *that* rare.

 

I’m surprised you haven’t run into him before.

[nasty618]

12 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

I’m surprised you haven’t run into him before.

 

i may have met that fuddy boc type a few times at various places  I guess i was trying to see the rational reason in this particular call... like maybe another sign of his lack of knowledge. Which in itself is a very fixable thing... but not with the attitude like that - you cant change his mind even if  you open the book on the relevant rule and show it to him.

Edited November 20, 2019 by nasty618

[jhgtyre]

Name calling is going to get this thread closed.

[IVC]

1 hour ago, broadside72 said:

If you can't see or feel the outer edge then you do not know where the shooting area ends since the shooting area includes the fault lines and shooting boxes. For all I know that's a 2x12 laying there and I have 8 or more inches before I'm out of the shooting area

True, but I would split the debate into two parts: (1) Is it legal per the actual rule, and (2) should it be legal in the next revision of the rules (or, alternatively, should there be an NROI ruling to clarify fault lines). 

 

I would argue that it's "yes" on both parts. At least I would argue that it is objectively a "yes" on part (1) about satisfying the rules as written, even if we disagree on whether it should remain legal. As a side issue, the creative use of old rules defining a shooting area is what lead to some significant changes in the current rules, so supports no longer count. 

[Thomas H]

9 hours ago, IVC said:

Well, you have to read the rule for what it says, not what you wish it said: 

• For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75-inch material is the minimum allowable size.

The requirement is on the type of material, not any clearance. In addition, as constructed, it is both: (1) fixed firmly in place, and (2) provides both physical and visual references to competitors. Strict reading of the rule doesn't invalidate the fault line on that stage. If you still think it's not legal, what part of the rule is NOT satisfied? 

 

It isn't a physical reference.  After all, there is dirt on top of the fault line, and there is no difference in height between the outside of the fault line and the ground outside the fault line. As such, standing on the fault line (which is legal as it is within the shooting area), there is no physical reference enabling you to tell if you are touching the ground outside the shooting area.

 

I'll note that quoting only one part of the rule while ignoring the rest means that you are attempting to ignore the meaning.

"For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75-inch material is the minimum allowable size. On other range surfaces, such as covered with turf, sand, gravel, wood chips or similar, thicker material which rises at least 1.5 inches above the surface is recommended"

Note the part in bold.  Even IF you decide to ignore the "recommended" and ALSO still attempt to claim the 0.75-inch material for some reason doesn't actually mean "0.75 inches above the surface" (which, I'll note, is ridiculous because burying it in the ground would meet your requirements and yet make no sense, as someone else pointed out), the fact remains that the physical reference requires a difference between the fault line and the surface.

 

And this case has no height difference causing a physical reference to shooting area as opposed to the non-shooting area. Even better, given that dirt covers the fault line, not only is their no height difference, there is no effective material difference.

 

11 minutes ago, IVC said:

(1) Is it legal per the actual rule, and (2) should it be legal in the next revision of the rules (or, alternatively, should there be an NROI ruling to clarify fault lines). 

 

1)  No.

2) Also no.  Truthfully, the only change to the rules should be to remove "recommended" from the rule and instead use "required."

 

It isn't legal, and as I said, this would not only lose in arb, but the stage would most likely be thrown out if a number of people had shot the stage.

 

 

 

[racerba]

course design problem...
if the course designer/MD does not want you to touch the dirt outside the fault line, he/she should have moved the fault line back...problem solved...now, who cares if they touch the dirt outside the fault line that is piled higher than the fault line itself.  

I believe it's illegal because since the fault line is PART of the shooting area, you cannot identify where the fault line ends, and there is dirt ON the fault line itself.  So it does not "provide both physical and visual references" per the rule 

[RJH]

Damn pecan just made my fault line illegal.  If the outside of the fault line matters, this is where you eventually end up. People will be arbing because they touched the pecan, then we have to reshoot everyone who shot with the pecan leaning the fault line

[IVC]

34 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

Even IF you decide to ignore the "recommended" and ALSO still attempt to claim the 0.75-inch material for some reason doesn't actually mean "0.75 inches above the surface" (which, I'll note, is ridiculous because burying it in the ground would meet your requirements and yet make no sense, as someone else pointed out), the fact remains that the physical reference requires a difference between the fault line and the surface.

The rules uses the exact phrase "above the surface" in the second sentence, so if they wanted it to apply to the first sentence as well, they would've written it that way. The material is required, the height above the surface is recommended. That's what the plain reading of the rules says. 

 

As for "buried line," it wouldn't pass the "physical and visual reference" - it must be physical too. The fault line in this thread does provide "physical and visual reference." I can see it in the photo and I can touch it and jam my foot against it for physical reference. It's high above the surface and quite capable of causing you to roll your ankle. The rule doesn't specify that "physical reference" must be on all sides, just that the fault line must provide it. 

 

Standing on the fault line *while not touching the outside of the shooting area" is a legal shooting position. It's still legal in this case, you just have to stand delicately if you want to push that angle. The question is not "where the shooting area ends," the question is whether you are touching the outside of the shooting area while shooting. 

 

Has anyone contacted the NROI for guidance? I would like to hear not so much about whether this particular setup is legal/not legal, but whether this setup is considered to be in the "spirit of the rules"...

 

 

[racerba]

5 minutes ago, IVC said:

Standing on the fault line *while not touching the outside of the shooting area" is a legal shooting position. It's still legal in this case, you just have to stand delicately if you want to push that angle. The question is not "where the shooting area ends," the question is whether you are touching the outside of the shooting area while shooting. 

 

 

but you cannot physically reference where the fault line ends...
per the rule: it must "provide both physical and visual references" 

[RJH]

10 minutes ago, racerba said:

but you cannot physically reference where the fault line ends...
per the rule: it must "provide both physical and visual references" 

The top inner edge would be your physical reference,  no rule stating how wide the fault line must be.  Freestyle, good for competitors and match directors alike......