Mesh walls - fingers through the mesh for support

[Jollymon32]

19 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

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... 

Good points.

 

Let's understand that the competitor's ability to complete a COF is also dependent on the RO's allowing him to complete the COF.  For example, if a competitor dislodges two plates in a texas star with a single shot, this does not prevent him in completing the COF, the RO prevents him from completing the COF when he calls the REF.  The competitor would be on his merry way happy about getting a "twofer".

 

4.6.1 clearly stipulates that the failure of barriers is considered a REF "...and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers."

 

I would stipulate that a barrier, that is considered a solid plane, that allows for a competitor to put his fingers through it to gain competitive advantage, has failed in 1) its role of being a solid plane barrier and 2) failed 4.6.1's opening statement "Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors."

 

Now as for putting your foot through it, that is an excellent point and one that points to an inconsistency in the rules.  

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Jollymon32

[RadarTech]

22 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

Good points.

 

Let's understand that the competitor's ability to complete a COF is also dependent on the RO's allowing him to complete the COF.  For example, if a competitor dislodges two plates in a texas star with a single shot, this does not prevent him in completing the COF, the RO prevents him from completing the COF when he calls the REF.  The competitor would be on his merry way happy about getting a "twofer".

 

4.6.1 clearly stipulates that the failure of barriers is considered a REF "...and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers."

 

I would stipulate that a barrier, that is considered a solid plane, that allows for a competitor to put his fingers through it to gain competitive advantage, has failed in 1) its role of being a solid plane barrier and 2) failed 4.6.1's opening statement "Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors."

 

Now as for putting your foot through it, that is an excellent point and one that points to an inconsistency in the rules.  

 

you are reaching ... 

In the rules we have already pointed out impenetrable is for bullets only.. and solid plane is the same as impenetrable. In this case you are trying to find a way to give a reshoot, add penalties or otherwise create a problem that  goes back to poor stage design.. 
If the fault line was simply 3 inches away from the wall- all this goes away... 

and a hole in the design is going to create a headache for the stage staff and the RM...

[broadside72]

5 hours ago, RadarTech said:

you are reaching ... 

In the rules we have already pointed out impenetrable is for bullets only.. and solid plane is the same as impenetrable. In this case you are trying to find a way to give a reshoot, add penalties or otherwise create a problem that  goes back to poor stage design.. 
If the fault line was simply 3 inches away from the wall- all this goes away... 

and a hole in the design is going to create a headache for the stage staff and the RM...

 

2.2.3.4. All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane and are considered hard cover unless designated as soft cover (see 9.1.6).

That independent sentence says walls are solid planes. Its does not say anything about bullets or fingers in the sentence that defines barriers as solid planes. Yes, the sentences after the definition cover treatment of shots through barriers but does that change the definition in the previous sentence?

[RadarTech]

19 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

 

2.2.3.4. All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane and are considered hard cover unless designated as soft cover (see 9.1.6).

That independent sentence says walls are solid planes. Its does not say anything about bullets or fingers in the sentence that defines barriers as solid planes. Yes, the sentences after the definition cover treatment of shots through barriers but does that change the definition in the previous sentence?

 

Ok-- So either way-- what are you going to do about it? Cant apply a procedural... Can't force a reshoot. That sentence by itself is not the complete rule and is a paragraph by English writing standards. So the following sentences would be supporting sentences. The first sentence as you pointed out would be the topic sentence. 

Google Best practices for paragraphs or maybe outline/organizing ideas. 

 

In the reading you pose, any rule that has additional parameters applied to it in the remaining portion of that rule or any other rule would be none-effective.

Let's discuss if that interpretation stands up... Let's look at another rule..

In your statement- the sentence mentioned above can't be changed by the followup sentences.  What about other rules?

 

 

Take 8.7.1 

A competitor is permitted to take a sight picture prior to the start signal.

If I stop reading there, then I should be able to take a sight picture ANYWHERE on the range I want at any time I want with no restrictions.

Can the followup sentence change the meaning of the first sentence?

BUT the followup sentence then says ---Such sight picture is only permitted no more than one step from the “Make Ready” location.

Continuing that thought- then that first sentence of 8.7.1 is still encumbered by the other rules in the rest of the rule book.. Say the ones that mention gun handling IE 10.5.1?

So in that case does your statement of the first sentence in that rule must stand alone? or what about other rules?

 

Can we pick and choose which rules in the other parts of the rule book also apply? if yes, then I want to take sight pictures on every target with my gun or gun replica because I am allowed to per that first sentence of 8.7.1  (8.7.2 prohibits this by the way) so do followup rules apply?

 

Sorry-- but I would say that the ENTIRE rule, and the other rules are a mesh of understanding on many levels..

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PatJones]

Just because a competitors actions seem a bit "off" to you, it does not make those actions a violation of the rules.

Please stop reaching to find something in the rulebook that's not there.

--
Pat Jones
Firestone CO
USPSA #A79592

[IVC]

3 hours ago, broadside72 said:

 

2.2.3.4. All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane and are considered hard cover unless designated as soft cover (see 9.1.6).

That independent sentence says walls are solid planes. Its does not say anything about bullets or fingers in the sentence that defines barriers as solid planes. Yes, the sentences after the definition cover treatment of shots through barriers but does that change the definition in the previous sentence?

The context is that it's hard cover so that you cannot shoot through the holes (mesh) then claim you didn't hit the hard cover because there is no bullet hole in the mesh. There is nothing in that particular rule that says you can or cannot touch the wall, use it as a support or stick your fingers through it. That's addressed in different rules. 

 

Remember, the rules changed to exclude certain barriers from counting as part of the shooting area because of the way some people used the support structures to shot behind the walls. As the rules currently stand, the wall is either inside the shooting area or not. If it's inside, the rules that govern how walls and structures can/cannot be used for support prevail. To prevent someone from touching the wall or using it for any type of support, just make sure that the wall is *outside* the shooting area and this discussion is moot. 

 

Personally, I really like to see shooters mess around and exploit "design bugs." Not because they will somehow win matches, they won't - it's still based on the overall skill, but because it gives me a toolbox of "bugs" to avoid when designing or evaluating a stage. Realistically, these types of little tricks are more of a useful knowledge than serious competitive advantage. 

[stick]

First off, That looks like William in the picture.  Was he gaming again?

 

Per the rules, the wall if it's inside the shooting area can be used for support.  Remember someone is always going to find a way to exploit the rules or find a loophole to exploit.

 

 

[Jollymon32]

On 8/14/2020 at 8:55 AM, RadarTech said:

you are reaching ... 

In the rules we have already pointed out impenetrable is for bullets only.. and solid plane is the same as impenetrable. In this case you are trying to find a way to give a reshoot, add penalties or otherwise create a problem that  goes back to poor stage design.. 
If the fault line was simply 3 inches away from the wall- all this goes away... 

and a hole in the design is going to create a headache for the stage staff and the RM...

 

Radartech

"Coulda, woulda, shoulda"...Many things could have happened to avoid this.  But they were not.  And as officials attempting to provide an even plane for all competitors we need to address the issues as they occur, not resolve them by opining on how they could have been avoided.

 

Now in respect to "reaching", your comment "....impenetrable is for bullets only.. and solid plane is the same as impenetrable" is in itself classic example of "reaching".  According to that statement, anything that is similar to something else can therefore be substituted within the rule book. Yeah, no.

 

I continue to maintain that a competitor that reaches through a mesh wall for support or to gain a competitive advantage violates 2.2.3.4 and the ability of the user to do this signifies that the range equipment has failed in its role according to 4.6.1 and thus the shooter needs to be stopped and issued a reshoot or conversely not started if they are starting with their fingers through a mesh wall.

 

That would be my ruling as a CRO and as a match RM unless DNROI issues a statement otherwise.  But, for all of you who disagree, the ruling is not final, you have the right to arbitrate it (if logically possible).

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Jollymon32

[PatJones]

You know there are impenetrable walls in nature that you could stick your fingers thru right?

--
Pat Jones
Firestone CO
USPSA #A79592

[SGT_Schultz]

On 8/14/2020 at 7:43 AM, 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?

 

 

My thought is that you need to apply the rules as written and clarified by NROI rather than continue making more convoluted and illogical leaps to try to justify your pre-chosen interpretation.

 

If you can't do that, perhaps think about letting your RO certification lapse.

Edited August 15, 2020 by SGT_Schultz

[Jollymon32]

39 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

My thought is that you need to apply the rules as written and clarified by NROI rather than continue making more convoluted and illogical leaps to try to justify your pre-chosen interpretation.

 

If you can't do that, perhaps think about letting your RO certification lapse.

 

Thanks for the input.  Not sure to what you are referring as convoluted and illogical leaps.  I have provided clear and concise substantiation with references for the statements being made.  And it is clarification from NROI that I am asking for.

 

 

 

 

[SGT_Schultz]

50 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

 

Thanks for the input.  Not sure to what you are referring as convoluted and illogical leaps.  I have provided clear and concise substantiation with references for the statements being made.  And it is clarification from NROI that I am asking for.

 

 

 

 

 

NROI has provided enough clarification, based on my research on this question.  You disagree and believe your logic and reasoning are superior enough to warrant your own interpretation as valid.

 

I'm done here......

Edited August 15, 2020 by SGT_Schultz

[Jollymon32]

6 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

NROI has provided enough clarification, based on my research on this question.  You disagree and believe your logic and reasoning are superior enough to warrant your own interpretation as valid.

 

I'm done here......

I don’t know about “superior“, but I believe that the points I have made have merit, are logically sound, and may point to an inconsistency in the rule book.
 

Indeed, some posts showed how I was wrong on my answer on the application of procedural penalties and the applicability of the concept of “impenetrable” to the situation and these points have been dropped.

 

sorry to see you go...

[MemphisMechanic]

16 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

I don’t know about “superior“, but I believe that the points I have made have merit, are logically sound, and may point to an inconsistency in the rule book.

The rulebook is a bit soft in this area. Everyone in this thread agrees with that to some extent or another.

 

The solution to this is to accept that there are some actions you’ll have a hard time preventing a shooter from doing unless you modify the physical layout before the match begins.

 

When you fail to spot these and adress them, the shooter isn’t dishonestly cheating. He’s simply being astute.

 

4 hours ago, Jollymon32 said:

As officials attempting to provide an even plane for all competitors we need to address the issues as they occur...

Your mindset on this differs from that of RO’s I enjoy shooting matches under the supervision of. This stage was completely and unequivocally fair. The entire time. Every single competitor had the ability and the option to do what he did. It isn’t his that fault that he knew the loopholes better than they did.

 

(I’d have done it too... as would most of us.)

 

Rather than dissect rules which already have DNROI clarifications you need to disregard in order to read them to your liking? Take your lumps as the stage designer, accept that he outsmarted you, and install a fault line behind the wall next time.

Oh and DNROI doesn’t read Enos all day. If you want him to address this you’ll need to email him a link.

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by MemphisMechanic

[IVC]

4 hours ago, Jollymon32 said:

I continue to maintain that a competitor that reaches through a mesh wall for support or to gain a competitive advantage violates 2.2.3.4 and the ability of the user to do this signifies that the range equipment has failed in its role according to 4.6.1 and thus the shooter needs to be stopped and issued a reshoot or conversely not started if they are starting with their fingers through a mesh wall.

4.6.1 is a failure of range equipment. The wall didn't fail. It was the same before and after the shooter. If he tore the mesh, then you could argue that it was REF. For rule 4.6.1 to apply, something must "fail." 

 

There is nothing that combines 2.2.3.4 and 4.6.1. They are separate rules and address separate issues. Let's pretend that rule 2.2.3.4 doesn't exist (or that it says what the rest of us are saying it says). Without rule 2.2.3.4, rule 4.6.1 is still valid on its own. It addresses a failure of equipment. The wall was the same before and after, it was in the same location before and after, it wasn't damaged or otherwise different for this competitor than it was for any other competitor. So, what failed for rule 4.6.1 to apply?

 

Similarly, rule 2.2.3.4 is its own rule. It addresses the hard cover aspect of mesh walls. You cannot shot through them even if there is room to shoot without hitting the structure (and there is plenty of room in mesh walls for that). That's what the rule is about. Sure it says the wall is a plane, but it doesn't say that one cannot stick fingers through solid plane. Does it? So the guy sticks fingers through something that is considered "solid plane for the purposes of hard cover." He did it. How does rule 2.2.3.4 apply to this if it doesn't address it at all (it addresses hard cover)?

Edited August 15, 2020 by IVC

[IVC]

On 8/9/2020 at 3:33 PM, Jollymon32 said:

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?

It is NOT "unpenetrable for bullets." Clearly bullets can go through it so it's penetrable. It's just that it is a hard cover so bullets that go through don't count for score or penalty.

 

It is similarly NOT "unpenetrable for fingers." Fingers can go through too. The fingers that go through the solid plane of the hard cover won't count for score or penalty downrange. But fingers don't count for score or penalty anyways. So rule 2.2.3.4 is happy with the fingers going through the plane and not counting... 

[Jollymon32]

3 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

Rather than dissect rules which already have DNROI clarifications you need to disregard in order to read them to your liking? Take your lumps as the stage designer, accept that he outsmarted you, and install a fault line behind the wall next time.

 

 

 

So, it is because I have not found DNROI clarifications that I posted this query.  I did research before putting my nuts on the chopping block and coming with this here (LOL).

 

I may have not mentioned it in the original post, but I was not the stage designer, the RO, or anything other than a participant in the match when I witnessed this.  This entire post is to educate myself in what I perceived was an action that may not be allowed in the rules.

[MemphisMechanic]

4 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

 I did research before putting my nuts on the chopping block and coming with this here (LOL).

[RadarTech]

11 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

 

So, it is because I have not found DNROI clarifications that I posted this query.  I did research before putting my nuts on the chopping block and coming with this here (LOL).

 

I may have not mentioned it in the original post, but I was not the stage designer, the RO, or anything other than a participant in the match when I witnessed this.  This entire post is to educate myself in what I perceived was an action that may not be allowed in the rules.

Do tell- are they sufficiently busted at this point? 

[Diver123]

jollymon32 what would you do if a mag was picked up that fell on the ground landing on the other side of the wall? Or a competitor dropped it while trying to reload and kicked it across the ground out the other side of a wall, then ran around the other side picked it up and kept shooting the coarse of fire?

[Jollymon32]

3 hours ago, RadarTech said:

Do tell- are they sufficiently busted at this point? 

 

I have balls of steel.  

 

I continue to believe that there are inconsistencies in the manual and these can only be resolved by removing them or by DNROI issuing the final word.  

[Jollymon32]

3 hours ago, Diver123 said:

jollymon32 what would you do if a mag was picked up that fell on the ground landing on the other side of the wall? Or a competitor dropped it while trying to reload and kicked it across the ground out the other side of a wall, then ran around the other side picked it up and kept shooting the coarse of fire?

 

I think that mesh walls and walls that do not go down to the ground are problematic for just these reasons.  I believe someone posted that the reason for the "solid plane" sentence was to prohibit someone from shooting under a wall.  If I can pick up a mag from under the wall, why could I then not shoot at a target from under the wall?  These are the inconsistencies that drive the discussion we have just seen.

[waktasz]

I think if you accidentally see a target through or under a mesh wall it should be a reshoot since you can't see through or under an impenetrable plane. 

[driver8M3]

15 minutes ago, waktasz said:

I think if you accidentally see a target through or under a mesh wall it should be a reshoot since you can't see through or under an impenetrable plane. 

 

How about if you look at a target through the mesh wall on purpose? 10.6.1?

[SGT_Schultz]

2 hours ago, Jollymon32 said:

I believe someone posted that the reason for the "solid plane" sentence was to prohibit someone from shooting under a wall.  If I can pick up a mag from under the wall, why could I then not shoot at a target from under the wall? 

 

Against my better judgement..............this is a game not real life.  You can't shoot under a wall that doesn't reach the ground because the rules say you can't.  You can reach under the same wall to grab a magazine because they rules don't say you can't, and NROI confirmed it.

 

It doesn't have to make sense to you, me, or anyone.  It is just what it is.