Fault Line Legal?

[IVC]

32 minutes ago, RJH said:

People will be arbing because they touched the pecan, then we have to reshoot everyone who shot with the pecan leaning the fault line

Ahh, the "pecan loophole." I completely agree...

 

I am actually quite interested in what the NROI would say about this setup. 

[racerba]

3 minutes ago, RJH said:

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......

but since the fault line is PART of the shooting area - there is no reference to the outside top of the fault line...especially when the "ground" is higher than the fault line...  

Edited November 20, 2019 by racerba

[RJH]

23 minutes ago, racerba said:

but since the fault line is PART of the shooting area - there is no reference to the outside top of the fault line...especially when the "ground" is higher than the fault line...  

2.2.1.2 A 'shooting area' is defined as a surface inside shooting boxes, fault lines, walls, or any other barrier. Shooting boxes and fault lines must be fixed to the surface and may not be less than the minimum height required by rule 2.2.1.1. Shooting boxes and fault lines are considered to be part of the shooting area. Objects outside the shooting area, regardless of whether they contact the shooting box, fault lines, walls, or any other barrier, are not part of the shooting area,

 

 

Dirt is an object, the box is tall enough and provides both physical and visual references.  It may not be the greatest physical reference in the world, but there is definitely a physical reference.  They probably would have been better off to cover the whole top of the fault line in dirt

Edited November 20, 2019 by RJH

[RJH]

Yeah, I may have changed my mind on this. This is why I try to stay out of rules discussions anymore haha

 

Have a good one

[HCH]

The fault line is part of the shooting area. That would include all edges of the fault line. The dirt is on top of the fault line, which is part of the shooting area, and therefore inside the shooting area. 

 

 

A graphic representation of the situation. 

[IVC]

1 hour ago, HCH said:

The fault line is part of the shooting area. That would include all edges of the fault line.

Yes on "part of the shooting area" and no on "all edges of the fault line."

 

Even a non-controversial fault line will be touching the outside of the shooting area and will have at least one full side that is not accessible for shooting (the bottom) and another one that cannot be used for support without faulting (the outside side). 

 

For fun, rotate your picture 90 degrees counterclockwise and your "top dirt" becomes "side dirt." Can't touch either without incurring procedurals.

[Thomas H]

On 11/20/2019 at 10:00 AM, IVC said:

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"...

 

 

 

The part in bold is (one of) your issues.  It isn't high above the surface, because the surface out of the shooting area is higher than the fault line.  It doesn't specify that the physical reference must be on all sides, because the fault line is the delineation between inside the shooting area, and outside the shooting area--as such, the physical reference must be between "inside the shooting area" and "outside the shooting area".  And the situation at hand doesn't have a physical reference for that.

 

The number of people commenting on the inside of the fault line don't seem to understand that the inside doesn't mean anything.  After all, I've been on 2"x10" boards that were both the fault line AND the shooting areas.  They had no inside.  And yet they were completely legal, because how big the fault line is compared to the shooting area isn't important.   The only part that is important is the fault line compared to outside the fault line.    That's where you need the physical reference, after all.

 

RJH wrote:  "The top inner edge would be your physical reference,  no rule stating how wide the fault line must be."

 

Physical reference for what?  Both sides of that spot (the "top inner edge") are inside the shooting area.  As such, it isn't a physical reference for anything.

 

"The question is not "where the shooting area ends," the question is whether you are touching the outside of the shooting area while shooting. "
 

Hint:  You can't know whether or not your are touching outside the shooting area unless you know where the shooting area ends.  And that's why a physical reference must exist.

 

 

 

[Thomas H]

23 hours ago, RJH said:

2.2.1.2 A 'shooting area' is defined as a surface inside shooting boxes, fault lines, walls, or any other barrier. Shooting boxes and fault lines must be fixed to the surface and may not be less than the minimum height required by rule 2.2.1.1. Shooting boxes and fault lines are considered to be part of the shooting area. Objects outside the shooting area, regardless of whether they contact the shooting box, fault lines, walls, or any other barrier, are not part of the shooting area,

 

I wonder how many people are ignoring that part in bold?  Fixed to the surface (in other words, sitting on the surface) and then have a minimum height above that surface (that they are fixed to).  After all, you can't have a minimum height above a surface if the surface that is above the fault line.

 

Given the the OP's situation had a surface that literally was over (and on top of) the fault lines, that is in violation of this rule.

 

 

[IVC]

40 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

...and then have a minimum height above that surface...

The sentence references rule 2.2.1.1, which in turn specifies the size of the material used, not height above the surface. If we are talking about the rules, we have to be precise about what the rules actually say. 

[IVC]

48 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

Hint:  You can't know whether or not your are touching outside the shooting area unless you know where the shooting area ends.  And that's why a physical reference must exist.

Procedurals in 10.2.1 are for touching the ground outside shooting area. If you're touching the ground that is not part of the shooting area, you get hit with 10.2.1. The only way to say that 10.2.1 does not apply is to claim that the ground you're touching is part of the shooting area.

 

So, it doesn't matter where the shooting area ends - you can determine it, it's just not relevant for 10.2.1 since you are not determining where you would get a procedural, but whether you touched the outside while shooting. 

[pjb45]

On 11/15/2019 at 8:01 PM, WaJim said:

.

 

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.

There is no trip hazard.  There is a moving platform upon which the shooter steps onto to see targets.

In close to 14 years or so of shooting Area and National matches, I have never seen a fault line design so a shooter could not step on it without acquiring a penalty.

In the spirit and literal interpretation of the rule infers the fault line must be above the surface so as to allow the shooter a physical touchable reference point.

In fact, in the RO and CRO classes, it was mentioned that fault lines provide the shooter the ability to gauge they are still in the shooting area without having to look down.  

The dirt was explicitly arrange so the shooter could not step on that part of the fault line without incurring a penalty.

Furthermore, notice the other legs of the fault line, there is no dirt piled up.  So the other legs of the fault line comply with the literal and spirit of the rule(s).

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by pjb45

[Thomas H]

On 11/21/2019 at 11:06 AM, IVC said:

The sentence references rule 2.2.1.1, which in turn specifies the size of the material used, not height above the surface. If we are talking about the rules, we have to be precise about what the rules actually say. 

 

It says placed on the surface.  It then says the fault line must be a certain height.

 

You are attempting to claim that something that has a height, and that is lying on a surface, won't be that height above the surface.  That doesn't work for you.

 

 

On 11/21/2019 at 11:28 AM, IVC said:

Procedurals in 10.2.1 are for touching the ground outside shooting area. If you're touching the ground that is not part of the shooting area, you get hit with 10.2.1. The only way to say that 10.2.1 does not apply is to claim that the ground you're touching is part of the shooting area.

 

So, it doesn't matter where the shooting area ends - you can determine it, it's just not relevant for 10.2.1 since you are not determining where you would get a procedural, but whether you touched the outside while shooting. 

 

What you just said either makes no sense or isn't relevant, or makes no sense and ALSO isn't relevant.

 

The rule requirements a physical representation.  Of what?  The fault line that is the delineation of the difference between the inside of the shooting area, and the outside of the shooting area.  What you just attempting to argue (whatever it was) doesn't change any of that. 

 

If there is not a physical representation of the different between the fault line and the area outside the fault line, then it isn't legal.  Given that the surface outside the OP's situation not only is equal in height to the fault line, but actually in places covers the fault line, there is no physical representation, must less the height requirement needed.

 

 

[IVC]

There are several positions in this thread on whether this is legal and there are good arguments on all sides. No point in rehashing what's already been said. 

 

I would like to see what the NROI has to say about it. That's the only correct way to settle it. It's also the only way to know what is/isn't legal going forward.