Area 8 / RO Downrange?

[SGT_Schultz]

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

Hold up a ruler that picture and measure the gap between the RO and the left edge of the target. Now measure the target using the ruler. Using those two measurements tell me how far apart you think they are..

 

its about 9-10 feet

 

I DON'T CARE

 

You seem to not understand that photographs can distort reality

 

The eyewitness accounts of those who were actually there have 1000% more credibility than some estimate scaled from a photograph.

[SGT_Schultz]

18 minutes ago, gng4life said:

And yet, another reason why photographic “evidence” is not used in making calls and/or arbitrations.

 

Exactly

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, gng4life said:

And yet, another reason why photographic “evidence” is not used in making calls and/or arbitrations.

Preach it!

[CharlieD]

1 hour ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

I DON'T CARE

 

You seem to not understand that photographs can distort reality

 

The eyewitness accounts of those who were actually there have 1000% more credibility than some estimate scaled from a photograph.

Neither myself nor @BritinUSAhave said the RO was within the 180 or down range, as far as match is concerned.  We simply feel that it’s too close for comfort for our personal taste.  We wouldn’t stand there, that is all.

[SGT_Schultz]

6 minutes ago, CharlieD said:

Neither myself nor @BritinUSAhave said the RO was within the 180 or down range, as far as match is concerned.  We simply feel that it’s too close for comfort for our personal taste.  We wouldn’t stand there, that is all.

 

And what those who were there are saying is that the photo makes him look a lot closer to the line of fire than what he actually was.

 

He is not where you think he is.

[BritinUSA]

1 hour ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

I DON'T CARE

 

You seem to not understand that photographs can distort reality

 

The eyewitness accounts of those who were actually there have 1000% more credibility than some estimate scaled from a photograph.

I understand how lenses can distort an image, and make distances appear differently.
I know this because I have taken 1000’s of photographs at USPSA/IPSC competitions.

Any distortion caused by the lens would also affect the width of the target, which is why I used the width of target in the image to set the scale.

 

[BritinUSA]

1 hour ago, gng4life said:

And yet, another reason why photographic “evidence” is not used in making calls and/or arbitrations.

That is true in USPSA, but it can be used in IPSC by the range crew, but not in arbitrations.

 

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

Shot that stage also. The shooting boxes were more of a diamond shape than a square. You could have started in that box by the RO about two feet from the corner by the targets on the rear fault line and you were still a foot or so back from the 180. So the RO was a well  behind the 180.

But Still not a great place to stand !

[pjb45]

Seems like the RO is in front of the gun muzzle, like between the muzzle and the berm, standing to the side of a target.

Anybody here stand/run in front of a gun muzzle on a COF ?

 

 

[Schutzenmeister]

3 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

That is true in USPSA, but it can be used in IPSC by the range crew, but not in arbitrations.

 

 

Mostly true ... But in my experience, and where I'm the RM, only the RM will do this.  It's not required by the rule, but it does ensure consistency in application.  It's not wise to let everyone apply different standards within a match.

 

However, IPSC 11.5 is worded such that video or audio evidence could be used and submitted to an arbitration committee.

[SGT_Schultz]

1 hour ago, pjb45 said:

Seems like the RO is in front of the gun muzzle, like between the muzzle and the berm, standing to the side of a target.

Anybody here stand/run in front of a gun muzzle on a COF ?

 

 

Not even close

[SGT_Schultz]

4 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

Any distortion caused by the lens would also affect the width of the target, which is why I used the width of target in the image to set the scale.

 

Optical aberrations are not linear.  Your scale is off.

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

I would say the 180 was between the closest beam to the RO left shoulder and his left shoulder from that shooters position. 

[BritinUSA]

14 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

Optical aberrations are not linear.  Your scale is off.

Optical aberrations become more visible toward the edges of the frame.
The first three vertical beams are all approx 4.5 feet apart on the scale.

The RO is uprange; In my opinion (and the opinion of a few others) he is standing too close to the targets for safety.

If anyone thinks this is okay then feel free to do it at your local club

[RJH]

10 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Where he is standing he is not down range. I shot this this stage. These hat camera's make things look worse then they are.

 

Unless I missed it you are the only person commenting that actually shot the stage, if you remember please show or tell where the 180 line ACTUALLY was .  Thanks

[ChuckS]

21 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

Unless I missed it you are the only person commenting that actually shot the stage, if you remember please show or tell where the 180 line ACTUALLY was .  Thanks

Search for "2020 uspsa area 8 championship " on youtube. There are many videos from the match...

[Malarky112]

I shot this stage in the same manner and didn’t notice the RO too close. Unfortunately my gopro was aiming at my chest for this stage so no video. 
right behind the fault lines was a barrier about 3-4 feet wide which kept you from standing in the 180 of the stage right next to it so it was a little tight for the RO’s. 
 

Funny before the match I was watching the 2019 Area 8 and snapped this pic, asked my buddies “would you stand there?”  
 

 

[RJH]

3 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

Search for "2020 uspsa area 8 championship " on youtube. There are many videos from the match...

 

 

We got a guy posting on this thread that shot it, and we have Briton's ruler that Racingready can tell us what number correlates to the 180, IDK that we can do better than that.  I figure this is the best place to find the rightest answer, but I will check youtube too

[RJH]

So i watched a couple of videos and it looks like that dude is basically at 181 degrees of the shooter especially if you were shooting those targets from the right hand box , no way in hell I am standing there, I have had too many guns pointed at me when I was well uprange of the 180

 

 

I guess what i am getting at is that when a shooter started in the right hand box and engaged the pictured targets from the right hand box they had to stand in the very uprange corner of the right hand box.  When standing at that corner the 180 looks to be about 9.5 on Briton's ruler

Edited August 29, 2020 by RJH

[BritinUSA]

There is no doubt in my mind that he is uprange of the shooter, he is way too close to the targets. I’ve seen this sort of thing too many times, sooner or later its going to end badly. For me this is just an academic exercise as I don’t shoot any more, but that doesn’t stop me from caring that someone is potentially in harms way.

[Joe4d]

17 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

(Leaving the “was the actually dangerous” part out of my comment’s focus.)
 

If you need to camp out at 181.001 this badly, you either need to loosen up on your crushing need to catch the slightest hint of a chance to DQ someone...

 

...or you need to reconsider the stage design.

As I’ve said many times: There’s a chasm of difference between strictly enforcing obvious and serious safety violations in the course of your duties, and believing that your job is to hunt down and punish the tiniest little infractions you can possibly find.

 

Camping on the 180 line is being a dick, pure and simple.

 

Don’t be a dick.

 

My thoughts exactly. 
Wasnt there and I know video distorts,,, unsafe or not, its a Dick move in either stage design or RO actions.
I do know as a shooter I have refused to assume start position with folks, RO's or not standing near the 180 like shown when there were sideway ish engagements. I mean, its never been a big deal,,  Have just asked RO," Can you have them step back?"  Dont recall there ever being a problem.
I am sure any RO thats been around awhile has had to shoo people back.

[Paul B]

If you are an RO or a competitor and you stand where you can see the round hole in the muzzle, you are in the wrong place - does not matter if it is legal by the rules. On the other hand I see people do stupid stuff every day.

[nasty618]

15 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

Any distortion caused by the lens would also affect the width of the target

 

That's not how GoPro Super View works. 

 

I was there, there were no issues with the RO positioning.

 

And a general comment for all the opinions. This reminds me of the BOC Range Safety Officer - he's the same guy no matter what club you go to.  He's been shooting for 30 years and is a lifetime NRA member. He supports reasonable gun control laws and knows that you don't need more than 7 rounds to kill a deer. He loves shooting trap and hit two perfect games in 2003.  He's usually disgusted with anyone who shoots more that one round per second.  He is eager to jump in to fix the self resolving problem of not having ear pro on and if you take your eye pro off to wipe it, he's there almost instantly to help fix the problem. He watches female shooters like a hawk, ready to give shooting advice: "slow down and get your hits!" or "just aim a little higher and to the right!".

 

Perhaps letting grown (albeit young) ass men make their own decisions about their safety and comfort levels is a better way to go.

[BritinUSA]

So your ‘go to’ argument is to insult people?
 

Regarding the Superview, it indicates that objects towards the edge are distorted/stretched, which is what i said.

If you compare the stretched image in that link you will see that the stretching would not affect the center of the image which is shown in squares, not rectangles. This lines up with approximately where the gun/target is in the image.

If the edges are stretched out as shown in the linked graphic then it means that the RO was even closer in reality.

[Schutzenmeister]

44 minutes ago, nasty618 said:

 

Perhaps letting grown (albeit young) ass men make their own decisions about their safety and comfort levels is a better way to go.

 

 

I would opine that ours is NOT the sport where Darwinism should be allowed full and free reign.