Mesh walls - fingers through the mesh for support

[Jollymon32]

On our monthly L1 USPSA match our walls are made out of mesh, big enough for you to put your fingers through.

 

This particular stage had two shooting areas, one in front of the other and the shooter starts in the back area.

 

All targets except one could be engaged from the back area.  The one remaining target was visible through an hard lean on one of the walls, and to prevent using the edge of the wall for support, a piece of coroplast was attached so that it stuck out 6 inches past the wall edge.  (enclosed is a picture of the wall, with a shooter running around it to go to the forward shooting area.)

The wall’s base leg is the fault line, as shown in picture.

 

An entrepreneurial (gamer) shooter stuck his fingers through the front of the wall and thus gained enough support to shoot the one remaining target and avoided running uprange.

 

Legal or not?

 

I think not, as per section 2.2.3.4 which states "All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane..."  Indeed this rule then goes on to state that this solid plane is Hard Cover (un-penetrable) - so if the solid plane is un-penetrable for bullets, how can it be penetrable for fingers?

 

Thoughts?

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Jollymon32

[RJH]

I am not looking it up, but assuming that the wall was in or part of the fault line, i lean toward legal.  Impenetrable part just means you cant shoot through them, I doesn't make them magically made out of a different material.  If a match director doesn't want people gripping them, don't make them grippy

[PatJones]

Pictures of the wall at chest height will not answer your question, we need to see the fault lines. Where was the fault line located in relation to the base of the wall?

 

10.2.1 reads: "Only wall edges that are in

direct contact with or inside the shooting area may be used for support while

firing shots." This is why the fault lines are the important part of the equation.

 

You use the term "Gamer" in a derogatory manner? Is this not a game?

 

--

Pat Jones, Gamer

Firestone CO

USPSA #A79592

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jollymon32]

13 minutes ago, PatJones said:

Pictures of the wall at chest height will not answer your question, we need to see the fault lines. Where was the fault line located in relation to the base of the wall?

 

10.2.1 reads: "Only wall edges that are in

direct contact with or inside the shooting area may be used for support while

firing shots." This is why the fault lines are the important part of the equation.

 

You use the term "Gamer" in a derogatory manner? Is this not a game?

 

--

Pat Jones, Gamer

Firestone CO

USPSA #A79592

 

 

 

 

 

 

Added that the wall’s base leg is the fault line.  Exactly how do you surmise my manner in using the word “gamer“?

[pjb45]

The wall in this case can be used for support. PAt got it right. 

[funsized]

...and to prevent using the edge of the wall for support, a piece of coroplast was attached so that it stuck out 6 inches past the wall edge.
 

But all of the wall, including the coroplast, can be used for support. See this recent NROI blog post: https://nroi.org/rules-insights/contact-and-support/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jollymon32]

2 hours ago, funsized said:

But all of the wall, including the coroplast, can be used for support. See this recent NROI blog post: https://nroi.org/rules-insights/contact-and-support/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No argument of using the coroplast for support - however, not sure how that well that would support anything as it bends so easily - that is why it was placed there - use it if you want but you may 'fall out' of the shooting area when it bends.

 

The issue continues to be whether the walls are impenetrable or not.  Section 2.2.3.4 describing barriers such as walls clearly state "All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane..." And if indeed it is a solid plane, how are you hooking your fingers through it?  

 

I am hoping NROI jumps in and provides guidance stating that the solid plane referred to in section 2.2.3.4 is solid and impenetrable for bullets but not for fingers.  

[Diver123]

The same way if you drop a mag and it lands on the other side of wall and you need it you bend down reach forward past the plane of the wall and pick it up. I believe this rules is to keep people from shooting under walls or shooting between any gaps in the material used to construct the wall. 

[PatJones]

The same way if you drop a mag and it lands on the other side of wall and you need it you bend down reach forward past the plane of the wall and pick it up. I believe this rules is to keep people from shooting under walls or shooting between any gaps in the material used to construct the wall. 

This.

Stop looking for rules that aren't there.

--
Pat Jones
Firestone CO
USPSA #A79592

[broadside72]

19 hours ago, Jollymon32 said:

No argument of using the coroplast for support - however, not sure how that well that would support anything as it bends so easily - that is why it was placed there - use it if you want but you may 'fall out' of the shooting area when it bends.

 

The issue continues to be whether the walls are impenetrable or not.  Section 2.2.3.4 describing barriers such as walls clearly state "All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane..." And if indeed it is a solid plane, how are you hooking your fingers through it?  

 

I am hoping NROI jumps in and provides guidance stating that the solid plane referred to in section 2.2.3.4 is solid and impenetrable for bullets but not for fingers.  

 

I can't find the response, but I had actually emailed about this exact issue a few months ago. The response was essentially that walls are solid planes, so no you can't put your fingers through or reach under/over to touch the marks. Just like you can't crawl under a wall to save time, you can't reach through.

Edited August 13, 2020 by broadside72

[Jollymon32]

19 hours ago, PatJones said:

This.

Stop looking for rules that aren't there.

--
Pat Jones
Firestone CO
USPSA #A79592
 

You mean 2.2.3.4?

 

You may have been to busy surmising my use of the term “gamer” to realize that I quoted  the rule that is apparently being violated.  

[Jollymon32]

51 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

 

I can't find the response, but I had actually emailed about this exact issue a few months ago. The response was essentially that walls are solid planes, so no you can't put your fingers through or reach under/over to touch the marks. Just like you can't crawl under a wall to save time, you can't reach through.

Was this from DNROI?

 

it would be great if you could find that email.

 

Otherwise I’ll shoot an email over as while the some of the answers have been insightful (like if a mag falls under the wall) they are not based on specific references from the rule book. 

[wgj3]

What about grabbing the top or side of a wall.

I guess the question is where the "plane" starts, but I would've assumed that usimg the wall material for support would be legal as well. Make wall of something else if this is a persistent issue...?

[broadside72]

27 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

Was this from DNROI?

 

it would be great if you could find that email.

 

Otherwise I’ll shoot an email over as while the some of the answers have been insightful (like if a mag falls under the wall) they are not based on specific references from the rule book. 

 

From Troy himself, and I am unable to locate the email.

As the reaching for a mag that has fallen from one side to the other I can see allowing one to grab from the side it fell from as long as you stay on the side you started. The imaginary plane can't stop the mag, so I can't see it stopping you from retrieving it from where it fell. But that is my opinion.  

Edited August 13, 2020 by broadside72

[Ming the Merciless]

39 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

 

From Troy himself, and I am unable to locate the email.

As the reaching for a mag that has fallen from one side to the other I can see allowing one to grab from the side it fell from as long as you stay on the side you started. The imaginary plane can't stop the mag, so I can't see it stopping you from retrieving it from where it fell. But that is my opinion.  

 

Well, if the 'imaginary' plane can't stop the magazine, it doesn't stop my hand from passing through to grab the magazine, it can't stop my fingers either because they are attached to the hand that just grabbed the magazine.  It is just an imaginary plane that can magically stop bullets from passing through it.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Ming the Merciless

[Jollymon32]

1 hour ago, wgj3 said:

What about grabbing the top or side of a wall.

I guess the question is where the "plane" starts, but I would've assumed that usimg the wall material for support would be legal as well. Make wall of something else if this is a persistent issue...?

There is no question on whether the side can be used for support, it can.  However, I would say that grabbing the top or bottom of a wall that is 5'9" or taller is subject to procedural(s) under 2.2.3.3.

[driver8M3]

22 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

There is no question on whether the side can be used for support, it can.  However, I would say that grabbing the top or bottom of a wall that is 5'9" or taller is subject to procedural(s) under 2.2.3.3.

 

Exactly what procedural penalties are you going to apply for grabbing the top of the wall? What will you enter into PractiScore? 2.2.3.3 does not describe penalties for grabbing a wall that's part of the shooting area. Neither does 2.2.3.4. And neither does anything in Chapter 10.

 

If you're designing or building stages and don't want shooters to be able to grab a wall, put the entire wall outside of the shooting area.

[Jollymon32]

8 minutes ago, driver8M3 said:

 

Exactly what procedural penalties are you going to apply for grabbing the top of the wall? What will you enter into PractiScore? 2.2.3.3 does not describe penalties for grabbing a wall that's part of the shooting area. Neither does 2.2.3.4. And neither does anything in Chapter 10.

 

If you're designing or building stages and don't want shooters to be able to grab a wall, put the entire wall outside of the shooting area.

It’s consider faulting under 10.2.1.

if it provides considerable advantage 10.2.1.1

[driver8M3]

1 minute ago, Jollymon32 said:

It’s consider faulting under 10.2.1.

if it provides considerable advantage 10.2.1.1

 

I think you need to go back and read 10.2.1...carefully.

[RadarTech]

Check this...

 

https://nroi.org/rules-insights/contact-and-support/

 

and note this section...

“And no, you can’t give a shooter a foot fault penalty for having their toes through an

imaginary wall.“ 
This is from NROI...

note in the rule and all comments in the article it never says FACE of the wall.. it says WALL.. 

If you think this should be a procedural, where does it start and where does it stop?

1 mm inside the face? Or a hair awaits from the face? 

Or does the wall consist of face and backside? What about if it was a port? 
mans you grab the port and lean?

 

I Called and spoke to Carl Schmidt earlier and afterward I Honestly believe that this falls into the category of “you gave the option, they will use it”. Kinda like you build it ... they will come.

 

 

with that said— one of the principles that I got taught in CRO class— if you don’t want someone to do something block it or design around it.. . if you didn’t think about it-learn from it..

after a “hole “ is found- it will be exploited..

 

I’ve actually seen this at a major..

2019 A8 competitor put his foot under the wall. Used it to lean out and shoot a target... 

the wall had a shooting area on both sides... 

 

if you want to make it a procedural.. take a fault line and put it 2 inches or more inside the wall.. and then if you see them it is not a possible grey area.. 

 

 

 

 

[Jollymon32]

Radartech thanks for the insight!

 

But correct me if I am wrong:

 

2.2.3.4 specifically specifies that walls are a solid pane and are defined as “hard cover”.  It specifically states to refer to 9.1.6.

 

9.1.6 states “...all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover.“
 

You have taught me to go to the glossary to understand the definition of a term in relation to the rule book.  In this case “impenetrable” is not there, so we go with the dictionary definition of impenetrable:”impossible to pass through or enter.”.

 

So, lacking a definition specifically geared towards the rule book, I.e. “Impenetrable only refers to Bullets...” then we need to evaluate the term as commonly understood and thus how can you put fingers through an impenetrable barrier?

And I may be reaching when I would impose procedurals for “...Support structures outside the shooting area such as, but not limited to wall feet, legs, braces, etc., may never be used for support...” (10.2.1) , but I believe it applies because if something is impenetrable then touching the outside by reaching through the inside would, I would argue,  put you outside the shooting area as it is impossible.
 

Again, a definition of the concept of impenetrable seems to be lacking in the rule book.

 

[driver8M3]

10.2.1 - If a competitor fires shots while touching the ground or any object completely outside the fault lines, they will be assessed one procedural penalty per occurrence. If any part of an object is inside the fault lines, then that entire object may be used for support without penalty. Support structures outside the shooting area such as, but not limited to wall feet, legs, braces, etc., may never be used for support, and any object completely outside the fault lines may not be used for support, even if it touches an object that is inside the fault lines. Course designers may designate certain parts of structures, such as raised platforms, as part of the shooting area, while excluding their support structure or steps, but must mark those areas with legal fault lines. Raised planks or timbers may be designated as shooting areas as long as they satisfy the requirements listed in 2.2.1.2.

 

[RadarTech]

27 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

Radartech thanks for the insight!

 

But correct me if I am wrong:

 

2.2.3.4 specifically specifies that walls are a solid pane and are defined as “hard cover”.  It specifically states to refer to 9.1.6.

 

9.1.6 states “...all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover.“
 

You have taught me to go to the glossary to understand the definition of a term in relation to the rule book.  In this case “impenetrable” is not there, so we go with the dictionary definition of impenetrable:”impossible to pass through or enter.”.

 

So, lacking a definition specifically geared towards the rule book, I.e. “Impenetrable only refers to Bullets...” then we need to evaluate the term as commonly understood and thus how can you put fingers through an impenetrable barrier?

And I may be reaching when I would impose procedurals for “...Support structures outside the shooting area such as, but not limited to wall feet, legs, braces, etc., may never be used for support...” (10.2.1) , but I believe it applies because if something is impenetrable then touching the outside by reaching through the inside would, I would argue,  put you outside the shooting area as it is impossible.
 

Again, a definition of the concept of impenetrable seems to be lacking in the rule book.

 

in some very rare situations- a definition or explanation of something is not in the appendix but rather in the rules themselves. 
in the case of impenetrable it is covered and explained carefully with examples in 9.1.5—  and how it applies.. not that it says nothing about walls being impenetrable to feet, hands arms, muzzles, gear, vision, birds, bees, odiferous odors of a tired range officer or competitor, or anything else... except bullets.. 

So restating the rule book covers impenetrable — and in this case it only mentions Bullets.

so flip back 1 page from your 9.1.6 reference. And look at 9.1.5.

 

I’ll call and pester you tomorrow.. 

 

 

another lesson that I got from Carl Schmidt, and I share here with you... several years ago He said that you need to read the entire rule.. and any references to the terms in that rule contained elsewhere in the rulebook.. PDF And Search is your friend! 

 

in this case — Impenetrable...

 

 

[Jollymon32]

8 hours ago, RadarTech said:

in some very rare situations- a definition or explanation of something is not in the appendix but rather in the rules themselves. 
in the case of impenetrable it is covered and explained carefully with examples in 9.1.5—  and how it applies.. not that it says nothing about walls being impenetrable to feet, hands arms, muzzles, gear, vision, birds, bees, odiferous odors of a tired range officer or competitor, or anything else... except bullets.. 

So restating the rule book covers impenetrable — and in this case it only mentions Bullets.

so flip back 1 page from your 9.1.6 reference. And look at 9.1.5.

 

I’ll call and pester you tomorrow.. 

 

 

another lesson that I got from Carl Schmidt, and I share here with you... several years ago He said that you need to read the entire rule.. and any references to the terms in that rule contained elsewhere in the rulebook.. PDF And Search is your friend! 

 

in this case — Impenetrable...

 

 

Great info Radartech.

 

So it seems obvious that "impenetrable" seems to apply only to scoring, and thus why it is defined in Chapter 9 - Scoring.

 

It also seems, based on the wall being the fault line (as pointed out by Drvier8M3 and the NROI Rules Insights) that BOTH sides of the wall can be used for support and thus the penalties based on procedurals for support do not apply.

 

That leaves a couple of things:

1) 2.2.3.4 that mentions that walls are a "Solid plane"

2) The solid plane represented by a mesh wall, has indeed been breached by fingers giving significant competitive advantage to those who did that

3) And lastly the supposed email (that cannot be produced) by DNROI stating that indeed, solid planes cannot be breached by fingers through the mesh wall

 

Now as for a penalty I will agree that there does not seem to be any procedural violations.

 

However, the wall is considered range equipment, the wall is considered a solid plane, and the solid plane has been breached.  I would argue that this represents REF and the RO should stop the user and issue a reshoot.

 

 

Thoughts?

 

[RadarTech]

22 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

Great info Radartech.

 

So it seems obvious that "impenetrable" seems to apply only to scoring, and thus why it is defined in Chapter 9 - Scoring.

 

It also seems, based on the wall being the fault line (as pointed out by Drvier8M3 and the NROI Rules Insights) that BOTH sides of the wall can be used for support and thus the penalties based on procedurals for support do not apply.

 

That leaves a couple of things:

1) 2.2.3.4 that mentions that walls are a "Solid plane"

2) The solid plane represented by a mesh wall, has indeed been breached by fingers giving significant competitive advantage to those who did that

3) And lastly the supposed email (that cannot be produced) by DNROI stating that indeed, solid planes cannot be breached by fingers through the mesh wall

 

Now as for a penalty I will agree that there does not seem to be any procedural violations.

 

However, the wall is considered range equipment, the wall is considered a solid plane, and the solid plane has been breached.  I would argue that this represents REF and the RO should stop the user and issue a reshoot.

 

 

Thoughts?

 

REF—

so if I am able to put my foot under a wall...

how did that fail and cause me to be unable to complete a course of fire.. because in order to issue the reshoot for REF— you have to have been able to say the competitor could not complete the course of fire— or they shot thru a wall and knocked a steel plate down.. 

did the wall fall over? 
 

In the same vein 9.1.5 covers bullets— you can’t call REF for a foot, finger, arm (see list above) going thru a wall unless the wall actually fell over IMHO. 
 

if the wall blocked vision... or controlled the path the shooter could traverse the course of fire and didn’t fall over... then it didn’t fail...