Location or View (again...)

[ChuckS]

16 minutes ago, PatJones said:

All you've done is create a shoot thru onto the 2 targets in question.

--
Pat Jones
Firestone CO
USPSA #A79592
 

Tough crowd this morning

[RJH]

Looking at it from a single stackers perspective, the first stage was A, completely legal and B, much more interesting than the revamp. Well I guess technically the first stage was completely legal regardless from what perspective you were looking at

[ChuckS]

9 minutes ago, RJH said:

Looking at it from a single stackers perspective, the first stage was A, completely legal and B, much more interesting than the revamp. Well I guess technically the first stage was completely legal regardless from what perspective you were looking at

I can say that I am 100% sure the last fix is legal. I can not say that about the original stage. (due to the definition of view and array).

[RJH]

8 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

I can say that I am 100% sure the last fix is legal. I can not say that about the original stage. (due to the definition of view and array).

In the original drawing, the stage breakdown like this: you have eight shots from D, six shots from C, 8 shots frfroA, and eight shots from B. You can do it other ways, but that's one way to do it without ever having to engage more than eight rounds at any location or View. So, easily and unquestionably legal

[RJH]

8 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

I can say that I am 100% sure the last fix is legal. I can not say that about the original stage. (due to the definition of view and array).

In the original drawing, the stage breakdown like this: you have eight shots from D, six shots from C, 8 shots frfroA, and eight shots from B. You can do it other ways, but that's one way to do it without ever having to engage more than eight rounds at any location or View. So, easily and unquestionably legal

[MikeBurgess]

I think what is getting lost in the discussion is that a view is location dependent, so in the original layout the view between the walls adjacent to location A  from location C is only T1 but from location A the view between those same two walls is the three targets to the left of A as well as T1, 2 and 3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeBurgess]

The solution to be legal does not need to be a good one, REQUIRED is not the same as any reasonable person would shoot 9+ from here. 

I have seen stages like the attached, several times, that to actually shoot 8 or less per location would mean shooting a target with only one round from each of 2 locations 

[Joe4d]

2 hours ago, ChuckS said:

Tough crowd this morning

This  is no different from a rules point than the OP, T1 and T3 can be engaged from either C&D or A & B.  Also looks like at least the uprange arrays, uprange targets, the right side would be visable from C,,  and the left  from D.

[ChuckS]

I went for a bike ride before the marine layer burnt off. It has been humid (not like back east, but much more than we are used to). Thought through some stuff.

The reason I am being real annoying about this is that I have learned, working as an CRO/RM, that when the little voice asks if something is legal, dig in! If you don't someone else might and solving crap like this on the clock is a real bummer.

 

To review, I was concerned about the targets in the back (original stage). T1 and T3 can be seen at both location A&C and B&D as well as two step increments along the side fault lines. But, by the appendix definition of view, the view of T1 and T3 is the same from any of those locations. But, the same definition deals with line of sight to arrays of targets.

 

While riding, I decided I needed to re-check the glossary definition of array. I would of done it right then and there but there was beach volleyball game going on so I waited until I got home.

 

From A3 "Array           A grouping of more than one target."

 

I was thinking T1 and T3 could each be an array of one but as you see, that won't fly. But, since there are no USPSA constraints on "grouping" I would claim that T1 and T3 are an array and do not require more than 8 rounds from any location or view. The rest of the target arrays require either 6 or 8 rounds. And that would be the argument that I would bring forward when someone arbs the stage to get it thrown out do to a crappy run .

 

Original stage is just fine and I can walk it through the rule book if I need to. Although, I may be tempted to use the alternative just to make RJH run more

[ChuckS]

30 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

This  is no different from a rules point than the OP, T1 and T3 can be engaged from either C&D or A & B.  Also looks like at least the uprange arrays, uprange targets, the right side would be visable from C,,  and the left  from D.

Actually it is different because you can also see T1 and T3 from the rear outside corners of the shooting area.

[IVC]

This got needlessly complicated. 

 

Here is the rule in question, with the emphasis on the sentence that is controlling. 

 

1.2.1.3 Long Courses – In Level III or higher matches must not require more than 32 rounds to complete. At any level match, course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to shoot all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view.

 

To claim violation of 1.2.1.3, and therefore declare the stage invalid, you have to establish that the negative of the statement is true somewhere on the course. We can use either mathematical or linguistic negation, depending on how we treat the "or" in the "location or view." I'll go with the following: "invalid course requires more than 8 scoring hits from a/one single location or view" (I didn't change "or" to "and," but feel free either way). 

 

So, pinpoint a location that requires more than 8 hits. Alternatively, pinpoint a view that requires more than 8 hits. If you succeed with either, the stage is invalid (then we can play with whether it's "location and view" or "location or view," but it won't matter in this case). I cannot find such a location. I cannot find such a view. Your turn...

[pjb45]

7 hours ago, waktasz said:

A view and a location are two different things. The rules refer to "location or view" not "location/view"

 

A distinction of no difference due to my parsimonious use of verbiage. 

[GrumpyOne]

Good stuff in this thread!

[pjb45]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

This got needlessly complicated. 

 

Here is the rule in question, with the emphasis on the sentence that is controlling. 

 

1.2.1.3 Long Courses – In Level III or higher matches must not require more than 32 rounds to complete. At any level match, course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to shoot all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view.

 

To claim violation of 1.2.1.3, and therefore declare the stage invalid, you have to establish that the negative of the statement is true somewhere on the course. We can use either mathematical or linguistic negation, depending on how we treat the "or" in the "location or view." I'll go with the following: "invalid course requires more than 8 scoring hits from a/one single location or view" (I didn't change "or" to "and," but feel free either way). 

 

So, pinpoint a location that requires more than 8 hits. Alternatively, pinpoint a view that requires more than 8 hits. If you succeed with either, the stage is invalid (then we can play with whether it's "location and view" or "location or view," but it won't matter in this case). I cannot find such a location. I cannot find such a view. Your turn...

Yeppers.

 

[Joe4d]

 

6 hours ago, ChuckS said:

Actually it is different because you can also see T1 and T3 from the rear outside corners of the shooting area.

Was considering that whole uprange box area C and D. 
But as we all know what looks like visible angles or not on paper may or may not be on the ground.

[IVC]

On 8/24/2020 at 9:20 AM, MikeBurgess said:

The solution to be legal does not need to be a good one, REQUIRED is not the same as any reasonable person would shoot 9+ from here. 

I have seen stages like the attached, several times, that to actually shoot 8 or less per location would mean shooting a target with only one round from each of 2 locations 

This now opens a can of worms, but I would consider that there at least 3 locations here, possibly more - by the back fault line both poppers are visible and the center target is not. The 2 obvious locations are at the either edge of the barrier where a hard lean exposes the central target, but moving down the center line seems to expose targets differently, which is sufficient to create (a) new location(s). 

 

Thoughts? 

 

EDIT: Replace "location" with "location or view" - any time both feet move it's a new location, so if we just consider "location" in its literal sense, no stage would ever be illegal since one can always move feet around a bit.

Edited August 25, 2020 by IVC

[IVC]

With all these issues, it looks like the rules should really define a new concept, "shooting position" and simply state that there can be "no more than 8 shots required from a single shooting position." Shooting position would be defined as a "set of continuous locations offering the same views" or "segment of shooting area offering the same views."

 

This way, the whole shooting area could be divided into shooting positions and it would be very clear how to deal with it - pick any spot inside the shooting area, move around to find the boundaries when new targets appear/disappear and you got your shooting position (which is now a small area and not a single spot). Can't require more than 8 from a single shooting position and all the confusion is gone. 

[MikeBurgess]

42 minutes ago, IVC said:

With all these issues, it looks like the rules should really define a new concept, "shooting position" and simply state that there can be "no more than 8 shots required from a single shooting position." Shooting position would be defined as a "set of continuous locations offering the same views" or "segment of shooting area offering the same views."

 

This way, the whole shooting area could be divided into shooting positions and it would be very clear how to deal with it - pick any spot inside the shooting area, move around to find the boundaries when new targets appear/disappear and you got your shooting position (which is now a small area and not a single spot). Can't require more than 8 from a single shooting position and all the confusion is gone. 

I have mixed feelings about this, I like the better definition but it also can create so many individual locations as you move around the shooting area thereby negating the no more than 8 rule, 

Really the problem is attempting to use rules to force good stage design is a loosing battle, the rules as is are good enough to make you think and beyond that there is very little the rule book can do to help make better stages.

[IVC]

18 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

...but it also can create so many individual locations as you move around the shooting area...

This is what we have at the moment with the current rules - as soon as you move both feet, it's a new location (Glossary definition), so we cannot use "location" alone in the 1.2.1 as it would be meaningless. There are infinite number of locations in any particular spot. That's why there is the clumsy add-on of "or view," since the view doesn't change with these minute feet movements until you actually change which targets you can see, which is precisely the concept of "shooting position" as any shooter would understand - if you are in about the same location and can see the same targets, it's the same "shooting position" even if you shuffle your feet and assume one of the infinite possible "locations." 

 

The construct of "location or view" is in the rules because location isn't specific enough and covers an infinite number of physical points. Anyways, just my 2c, I don't have any influence on the rule book...

[MikeBurgess]

4 minutes ago, IVC said:

This is what we have at the moment with the current rules - as soon as you move both feet, it's a new location (Glossary definition), so we cannot use "location" alone in the 1.2.1 as it would be meaningless. There are infinite number of locations in any particular spot. That's why there is the clumsy add-on of "or view," since the view doesn't change with these minute feet movements until you actually change which targets you can see, which is precisely the concept of "shooting position" as any shooter would understand - if you are in about the same location and can see the same targets, it's the same "shooting position" even if you shuffle your feet and assume one of the infinite possible "locations." 

 

The construct of "location or view" is in the rules because location isn't specific enough and covers an infinite number of physical points. Anyways, just my 2c, I don't have any influence on the rule book...

I guess what I am saying is I understand what you were trying to say but don't think it will fix what people mean. 

take the simple stage I posted above, most people would look at that as 2 positions, but by moving around the shooting area I can likely create 12 or more different positions that present different sets of available targets. So what people actually seem to want is a rule saying the 2 real positions can't require more than 8 but no good way of defining that in a way that's reasonable. 

 

 

[Nic_USPSA_C]

On 8/24/2020 at 4:46 PM, GrumpyOne said:

Good stuff in this thread!

Yes, I found this one relevant.

[IVC]

On 8/25/2020 at 11:33 AM, MikeBurgess said:

I guess what I am saying is I understand what you were trying to say but don't think it will fix what people mean. 

take the simple stage I posted above, most people would look at that as 2 positions, but by moving around the shooting area I can likely create 12 or more different positions that present different sets of available targets. So what people actually seem to want is a rule saying the 2 real positions can't require more than 8 but no good way of defining that in a way that's reasonable. 

 

 

This thread just got bumped so I noticed this response...

 

You have a very valid point - if you move along the back fault line, you can indeed change which targets are exposed so you can have many different "location or views." However, the question is whether this is relevant for the rule(s) 1.2.1 - to make a stage invalid, it really doesn't matter how many different "location or views" you have (even if it affects how we as shooters think about them), but whether there is a single "location or view" that requires more than 8 shots. 

 

I would still argue that if we had a definition of "shooting position" as a "location with the same views" it would be a very helpful concept to use in the rule book since "location" has the obvious shortcoming of having an infinite number of locations in the arbitrarily small area - as long as both feet move it's a new location, so jumping and swapping feet, or moving each foot an inch creates a new location.

 

But your post made me think about a more interesting question. Let's say that in the stage you posted, the central target is moved to the left so that it is not visible from the right side of the barrier (or that there are two targets in the center that are very close to each other, but are not visible from the opposing sides of the barrier). Would the stage now be illegal? The "position" on the left would now require more than eight shots, but by the literal reading of the rule book it would still be legal because parts of the array are offered from the back of the fault line and they present different "location or view." However, this is not how most people would look at it - they would consider the stage to have only two "location or views." How would you declare such a stage, valid or invalid? 

[MikeBurgess]

45 minutes ago, IVC said:

This thread just got bumped so I noticed this response...

 

You have a very valid point - if you move along the back fault line, you can indeed change which targets are exposed so you can have many different "location or views." However, the question is whether this is relevant for the rule(s) 1.2.1 - to make a stage invalid, it really doesn't matter how many different "location or views" you have (even if it affects how we as shooters think about them), but whether there is a single "location or view" that requires more than 8 shots. 

 

I would still argue that if we had a definition of "shooting position" as a "location with the same views" it would be a very helpful concept to use in the rule book since "location" has the obvious shortcoming of having an infinite number of locations in the arbitrarily small area - as long as both feet move it's a new location, so jumping and swapping feet, or moving each foot an inch creates a new location.

 

But your post made me think about a more interesting question. Let's say that in the stage you posted, the central target is moved to the left so that it is not visible from the right side of the barrier (or that there are two targets in the center that are very close to each other, but are not visible from the opposing sides of the barrier). Would the stage now be illegal? The "position" on the left would now require more than eight shots, but by the literal reading of the rule book it would still be legal because parts of the array are offered from the back of the fault line and they present different "location or view." However, this is not how most people would look at it - they would consider the stage to have only two "location or views." How would you declare such a stage, valid or invalid? 

that is the conundrum, rules are a pretty bad way to drive good stage design. 

 

What we want is for 8 round shooters to not be forced into standing reloads, yet it is easy to design stages that make standing reloads the logical choice. I don't see a good way to re-write the rules to fix this without going to extremes and putting MDs in the position of measuring out shooting areas to the inch to make sure a movement that could be made is far enough to count as a new position or target placement counts as new view etc.  I go with my gut, does this feel like I'm forcing something? do I need to find a rule and use it in a way that feels like a loophole to explain to someone how its legal?  basically doe's it pass the smell test.

 

 

[RJH]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

 

 

But your post made me think about a more interesting question. Let's say that in the stage you posted, the central target is moved to the left so that it is not visible from the right side of the barrier (or that there are two targets in the center that are very close to each other, but are not visible from the opposing sides of the barrier). Would the stage now be illegal? The "position" on the left would now require more than eight shots, but by the literal reading of the rule book it would still be legal because parts of the array are offered from the back of the fault line and they present different "location or view." However, this is not how most people would look at it - they would consider the stage to have only two "location or views." How would you declare such a stage, valid or invalid? 

 

 

The stage would still be legal.  Required does not equal optimum, and i say that as someone who shoots single stack.  Just because it is possible to shoot a stage from 2 locations with a higher cap gun, does not mean that there are not more ways to shoot it than that.  Once again while 2 locations on the stage you describe might be the optimum way to shoot it if division capacity allows, as long as it is not the way you have to shoot it, then it is legal

[RJH]

While I am SketchUp impaired, here's two quickly  drawn stages that show how the optimum way to shoot them would be the same, yet one is legal and one is not. Maybe it will help those who are having trouble understanding

Edited September 21, 2020 by RJH