Area 8 / RO Downrange?

[IVC]

17 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

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.

 

Why are you concerned with the distance between the RO and the target at all? What matters is the angle. 

 

The perpendicular distortion towards the edges of the image is a negligible effect compared to the distortion in the distance to the RO. If the RO is TWO feet in front of the shooter and TEN feet to the left, then it's quite far from the 180, getting close to 270. If he is TEN feet in front and TEN feet to the left, then it's exactly 45 degrees above 180, at 225. So, determine the distance of the shooter, divide your 10 feet by this distance and calculate the arctangent of the ratio to get the angle. That's what matters when it comes to safety.

 

Wide-angle lens significantly distorts distance and the perception of the angle at which the RO stands is guaranteed to be way off. 

[facedown]

1 hour ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

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

 

Lol, where's the "like" button?

[ejevans45]

Never thought that a shooting sport would educate me in the finer aspects of camera lenses and how edge distortion occurs during different moon phases.  

[nasty618]

6 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

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

Where exactly did you find an insult in my comment?

[nasty618]

4 hours ago, facedown said:

Lol, where's the "like" button?

I've been asking for that, but alas. 

 

 

 

[RobW]

19 hours ago, Superkaratemonkeyfighter said:

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

No mate, way off. The 180 line to those targets was actually inside the beam closest to the targets. There wasn't much room to shoot those targets from inside the shooting box at all. In addition, there was some kind of barricade the width of the stage behind the shooter so the scorekeeper and not-beeper wielding RO's were off to the sides.

[pjb45]

19 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

Not even close

If Malarky112's photo is representative of the COF, then Malarky112's photo shows the muzzle of a pistol and two people in front of the muzzle, not that muzzle is pointed at them but sighting down the pistol I can see easily see three people.  If the muzzle swung to the right a few degrees it would be aiming at least two of them.

That is a stupid stage.  AT no time should a RO or anyone be in front of a muzzle.

Seriously, When you are RO'ing a Shooter do you stand in front of them when they facing downrange.

I am not saying shooter was breaking the 90 degree rule.

[SGT_Schultz]

1 hour ago, pjb45 said:

If Malarky112's photo is representative of the COF, then Malarky112's photo shows the muzzle of a pistol and two people in front of the muzzle, not that muzzle is pointed at them but sighting down the pistol I can see easily see three people.  If the muzzle swung to the right a few degrees it would be aiming at least two of them.

That is a stupid stage.  AT no time should a RO or anyone be in front of a muzzle.

Seriously, When you are RO'ing a Shooter do you stand in front of them when they facing downrange.

I am not saying shooter was breaking the 90 degree rule.

 

The people who were actually there say otherwise.  I don't care what you or anyone else thinks happened from some video screen shot with its distortion/fisheye effect.

[Malarky112]

To be clear...my photo was last years Area 8.  I only posted it because I thought the same thing when I was watching thw 2019 Area 8 match before I even left for this years Area 8.  

[barry]

Welcome to area 8. Lots of great R.Os. growing # of dq. happy ones. I shot this match and every area 8 for last 25 + years. So common I dont even notice it anymore.

I have set up and run stages at many area and other major matches in the past but last time I tried to r.o. at a major I found I no longer fit in with the new professional r.os. so I just shoot.

[Jollymon32]

12 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

I don't care what you or anyone else thinks happened from some video screen shot with its distortion/fisheye effect.

I am pretty sure no one is losing any sleep about what you care about or not.

[SGT_Schultz]

5 hours ago, barry said:

 last time I tried to r.o. at a major I found I no longer fit in with the new professional r.os. so I just shoot.

 

Just curious about what you mean by that.

[barry]

Been shooting this game since 89 or 90. Started running matches at home club within 3 months of shooting my first match and had been match director ever since. Back then each club in area would design set up and run a stage at area championships. I've set up and run stages at many area 8 area 7, section and state championships. Then as a ro you shot with a regular squad while other club personal ran stage then switched next day.  Shooters used to actually get prizes for doing well. Then we went to full time r.os that work whole match. I'm a shooter first so I stopped working major matches. Now we have matches that bring in $80,000 and I've gotten a steel target paint sticker and was told it's a prize. Large amounts of match fee is spent on fancy shirts with STAFF written on it that will never be worn again.  R.o.ing seems to have become a sport of its own. Now I've seen 5 r.o.s racing down tange to be in best position to call a 180 or finger on trigger. That used to be to with timers job , other r.os watched foot faults. Have turned to shoot a target and had r.o.  diving out of way because best place to catch a finger in trigger was actually down range of me. An r.o. positioning himself in the position on this photo tells me all I need to know . And yes I understand the camera lens distorts it some ,its just  plain stupid. A few years ago I felt bad for not working at big matches so I volunteered to work a major match but cro dident like being they were wrong about somthing. Had range master have a talk with me. Like I said I just shoot anymore.

[BritinUSA]

Referring to @Barry; I noticed a change with RO's at 2017 and 2019 Nationals in Utah. In previous years (2009+) I had been allowed to put my remotely operated camera down-range. I usually covered the super-squads so if there was any distraction from the camera it affected all the likely winners. 

 

I don't recall ever being told that the camera was a distraction, and many competitors/sponsors welcomed the shots I was able to get. At Nationals in 2017/2019 some RO's refused to let me put the camera down-range. 

 

I don't know if there was a policy change at USPSA but I found it rather odd at the time… 

[nasty618]

On 8/29/2020 at 10:59 AM, Schutzenmeister said:

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

 

With due respect, to use the Darwin awards reference implies that one is doing something stupid and dangerous, likely to remove one's genes from the global pool.  

 

There's no evidence that the RO did anything remotely stupid or dangerous.  In fact, by all accounts and from personal experience, his actions were up to par, suggesting that he knew what he was doing as an RO.

 

Further, IIRC, there were four ROs one that stage. I'd guess at least one CRO.  What I'm trying to say is: there was enough combined expertise to assure anyone interested in this topic that all safety precautions were met and with a significant margin of error.

 

I was merely suggesting for all the righteous safety warriors to lay their pitchforks down and let grown ass men make their own decisions about personal safety.

 

Additionally, I feel that posting someone else's screenshot without any first hand knowledge and knowing status of video evidence in USPSA rulebook is... well... counterproductive. 

 

 

[muncie21]

I shot Area 8 and like a few others that actually shot the match mention, the RO wasn't as close to the 180 as the picture/video make it seem, at least not when my squad shot that stage.

 

For those that weren't there, a sketch from the match book is below.  While not 100% accurate it gives you and idea of where the shooter needed to stand in order to hit the targets on the left, while standing in the box on the right side. 

Edited August 31, 2020 by muncie21

[Schutzenmeister]

@nasty618

 

You need you reread my post and note your comment which I quoted.  The attitude going with your comment is reckless and irresponsible.  Hence my reference to Darwinism.

 

I personally know @BritinUSA.  He has an enormous amount of experience as both a shooter AND as a photographer.  I also have more than a little experience with cameras and lenses.  His forensic analysis was quite good.  He also refrained from making any serious condemnation ... He just analyzed the photo.

 

I wasn't at this match so I absolutely will not make any call based on this one image.  There were enough folks there in person to do that, if necessary.

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

if I remember correctly. 

Start position was red x’s and the targets could be shot from there.

Blue 180. 

The back corner the green dots 180 

if I remember right. Just my take on it 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Superkaratemonkeyfighter

[Bosshoss]

The same target presentation could have been done on this stage by moving targets down range several feet and moving the wall to make them available from the same part of the shooting area.

With as much room as that stage has no reason to make shots that close to 180 IMO.

While as a shooter I don't have any problem with those shots it does make it look questionable when we film it and the camera distorts the view and it makes it look worse than it is. I have seen several pictures or videos like this from matches I have shot and they are no where near being in harms way but it sure looks like it in a picture.

[IVC]

1 hour ago, Bosshoss said:

With as much room as that stage has no reason to make shots that close to 180 IMO.

From both the photo and the diagram, it looks like the target is properly covered and not offered at the angle beyond 180. In fact, the diagram seems to show it's at about 150-160, which is not close to 180. 

 

The post by muncie21 above shows the actual angles not distorted by the wide angle camera, which makes the distance to the RO appear much larger than the distance between the RO and the target, making the angle at which the RO is standing appear to be very close to the 180. 

[nasty618]

17 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

He has an enormous amount of experience as both a shooter AND as a photographer.  I also have more than a little experience with cameras and lenses.  His forensic analysis was quite good.  He also refrained from making any serious condemnation

Aside from this being argumentum ab auctoritate I have nothing to pick with either your opinion or his. I'm simply pointing out the obvious (to me at least) and the portion of my comment you refer to was "a general comment for all the opinions" expressed by the experts who were not there.

Edited August 31, 2020 by nasty618

[nasty618]

On 8/28/2020 at 6:22 PM, BritinUSA said:

 

 

On 8/29/2020 at 10:27 AM, BritinUSA said:

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

 

I didn't think that was what you said.  You said:

 

Quote

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

 

So I pointed out that Superview "automatically stretches out the sides of the video to fit into the 16:9 frame. The center of the frame is unchanged"

 

[SGT_Schultz]

10 hours ago, Superkaratemonkeyfighter said:

if I remember correctly. 

Start position was red x’s and the targets could be shot from there.

Blue 180. 

The back corner the green dots 180 

if I remember right. Just my take on it 

 

Iv'e stood in a similar position when being 2nd RO as the situation dictates.

 

That photo gives me zero concern.

[CHA-LEE]

I attended the Area 8 match and shot this stage. The vantage point of this screen shot represents the shooter crammed into the back most up range corner of the right shooting area. That stack of targets could only be seen if you were crammed into the furthest back position of the right shooting area. The RO is up range of the shooter, but not by much.

 

Is the RO in a "Legal" position up range of the shooter? Yes. Is the RO in what I would consider a "Safe" position when compared to the position of the shooter? No. There is no way I would be standing there regardless of being an RO or not.

[pjb45]

45 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

I attended the Area 8 match and shot this stage. The vantage point of this screen shot represents the shooter crammed into the back most up range corner of the right shooting area. That stack of targets could only be seen if you were crammed into the furthest back position of the right shooting area. The RO is up range of the shooter, but not by much.

 

Is the RO in a "Legal" position up range of the shooter? Yes. Is the RO in what I would consider a "Safe" position when compared to the position of the shooter? No. There is no way I would be standing there regardless of being an RO or not.

Once again, I am in total agreement with  your assessment.  I value your experience and your opinion.  

Legal yes

Safe, If I can see a RO when sighting down my pistol I would be concern.  If I was the CRO or MD I would not allow that positioning to happen. IMHO.