Area 8 / RO Downrange?

[BritinUSA]

Agreed, uprange but not safe.

[Bosshoss]

4 hours ago, IVC said:

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. 

I never said that the targets were available from past the 180. Just saying they could have been moved downrange several feet without hurting anything.

[herky]

Does anyone else find it disconcerting that the RO, in a legal position, is in full view from the shooter's standpoint.  In 25+ years of shooting USPSA, I cannot remember viewing a person in this position while shooting the COF.  Could definitely

mess with the shooter's mind.  IMHO 

[barry]

Yes r.o is well up range of target from his prospective. But at 45 feet from gun this only about 2" of muzzle movement. It's like walking into traffic in city without looking because your in the crosswalk and cars must stop by law. Yes your technically in the right but still dead if someone makes a mistake. If you feel putting yourself in this position to be able to dq a shooter for a 1 degree infraction then mabey r.oing isn't for you.

[barry]

These targets were only visable from this angle .1 step down range and they disappeared behind wall.520 shooters  of unknown skill 4rounds each  side of range (stage was mirror image) well over 4000 rounds fired with ro in this position. Putting yourself in this position is foolish. As a C.r.o or range master allowing it or worse yet telling someone to stand there is the definition of negligence. If you disagree look at it this way. Your on range practicing and someone else wants to shoot at his targets 20 feet to the right while your tapering targets I'll bet a heated discussion would be had. This is an important discussion that is long overdue.

[Racinready300ex]

I haven't read the 4 pages with this, but the guy in the video did a dumb plan and it probably wasn't super common. I saw one lefty SS shooter do that, that's it. He should of shot those from the other box like most people. This plan probably saved him like 2-3 steps and all he had to do was make that partial much harder by shooting across the stage at it. 

 

Is it possible the RO would of positioned himself differently if everyone was doing it this way?

[barry]

I am a m classshooter and  shot with several m class shooters and watched several gm shooters shoot it and all shot it the way this guy shot it. But that's beside the point.

[L3324temp]

I don’t know many ROs who would have ran a shooter with a person standing that close to the 180 at the edge of the bay. The 6’ back some mentioned is fine if you are closer to the shooter, but not sufficient at that distance and resulting angle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CHA-LEE]

The RO in question was a younger kid. I don't know his name but he served as the Timer RO when my squad shot that stage. When my squad was shooting that stage no other RO's were close to the sides like that. I don't know for sure since I didn't ask the stage staff directly, but it didn't seem like those guys were on a mission to catch shooters breaking the 180 by posting someone that close to the 180 looking for it. To me, this situation is really nothing more than a young kid not knowing how close he really was to the 180 and the rest of the stage staff not realizing that he was too close. For all we know the stage staff noticed this during or right after this shooters run and told the young RO to be well up range after that?

 

I don't think its useful to crucify someone based on a single stage run or single video frame of a run showing a less than optimal situation. We are all human and humans are really good at screwing things up. All we can do is learn from these lessons so we don't have to relearn them the hard way later. I know that if I seen that happen when my squad was on the stage, I would have talked to the RO directly and told him to be further back because of the obvious risk of the situation. 

[Malarky112]

On 8/31/2020 at 3:36 PM, IVC said:

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. 

Actually the diagram doesn't show much you can work with...since its from the match book and the stage itself was not an exact replica of that diagram.  
 

I shot the stage and while I am not saying the RO was unsafe, I agree that with the confinement of the area for the stage, they could've moved those targets downrange by a few feet and still had the same challenge with less safety concern. 

 

That's just my unofficial opinion and I have no experience building stages, so I'm not gonna complain about them

[davsco]

https://nroi.org/ro-best-practices/ro-position-and-the-180/

[TRPOperator]

I would not stand there as an RO because it doesn't look safe. I may have missed it if someone else mentioned it, but what got my eye was his clothing. He is wearing a white jersey with tan pants, stand with his legs together and some could see that as a target array just like the one they are shooting at, and we all know people do some strange things when the buzzer goes off. If someone broke the 180 and they yell STOP it would prob be after the first round fired, and if they thought it was a target array it would be bad for him. So like others said he seems to have a false sense of security that the 180 is protecting him. I would just find another place to observe from. 

[Nik Habicht]

On 9/1/2020 at 8:01 AM, barry said:

Yes r.o is well up range of target from his prospective. But at 45 feet from gun this only about 2" of muzzle movement. It's like walking into traffic in city without looking because your in the crosswalk and cars must stop by law. Yes your technically in the right but still dead if someone makes a mistake. If you feel putting yourself in this position to be able to dq a shooter for a 1 degree infraction then mabey r.oing isn't for you.

This.  While I haven't RO'd a match in about a decade, I've served as RM on a couple, and would not have allowed an RO to be placed at this position, if I had been serving in that position.  The standard for me isn't "Is it safe?" rather the standard is "Where's the safest place for an RO to be to monitor for a 180 violation?"

 

Then place the RO there - or if an RO trap exists on the stage as designed/built - work with the MD to have the situation rectified before the first shot is fired.  

[ParaLarry]

Wow what a set up.
In 25 years I won’t “make ready” if someone is in my peripheral vision.


Sent from my reloading bench using Tapatalk

[pskys2]

On 8/28/2020 at 1:49 PM, Racinready300ex said:

 

We should probably stop using side berms. 

Rationally using side berms isn't a problem.  But a match that has 180 traps is.  There always seems to be the unexpected 180 trap that shows up in large matches, with the shoot them as you see them rules it's hard to completely eliminate them.  But designing a COF that specifically has them is very bad designing.  

Sometimes it seems we let our creativity overrule our sense of safety.

[Racinready300ex]

2 hours ago, pskys2 said:

Rationally using side berms isn't a problem.  But a match that has 180 traps is.  There always seems to be the unexpected 180 trap that shows up in large matches, with the shoot them as you see them rules it's hard to completely eliminate them.  But designing a COF that specifically has them is very bad designing.  

Sometimes it seems we let our creativity overrule our sense of safety.

This stage was far from a 180 trap, in fact I don't think anyone in 500 shooters DQ'd here. Now stage 13....

[CHA-LEE]

On 9/7/2020 at 11:36 AM, Racinready300ex said:

This stage was far from a 180 trap, in fact I don't think anyone in 500 shooters DQ'd here. Now stage 13....

 

What about Stage 13? Was it a retreating stage? Yes. Was it possible for competitors to point their gun up range while retreating? Yes. Where ANY of the targets visible beyond the 180? No.

 

USPSA is a game where each shooter is responsible for performing safe actions at all times. If someone isn't paying attention to the potential safety issues within a stage and point their gun up range then they are rewarded accordingly with a DQ. We can't put a warning sign, seat belt, air bag or helmet on everything. The shooters who DQ because THEY perform unsafe actions are 100% responsible for those actions. If they don't want it to happen again, then the solution is 100% in their control. PAY ATTENTION to where your gun is pointed at all times. 

[Racinready300ex]

Just now, CHA-LEE said:

 

What about Stage 13? Was it a retreating stage? Yes. Was it possible for competitors to point their gun up range while retreating? Yes. Where ANY of the targets visible beyond the 180? No.

 

USPSA is a game where each shooter is responsible for performing safe actions at all times. If someone isn't paying attention to the potential safety issues within a stage and point their gun up range then they are rewarded accordingly with a DQ. We can't put a warning sign, seat belt, air bag or helmet on everything. The shooters who DQ because THEY perform unsafe actions are 100% responsible for those actions. If they don't want it to happen again, then the solution is 100% in their control. PAY ATTENTION to where your gun is pointed at all times. 

 

Honestly I thought 13 was fine but it got a lot of heat.

 

If I had a complaint it'd be that maybe that stage could of been put somewhere so when you broke the 180 you didn't flag the two squad back up that was standing there plus the parking lot. If you didn't know most were breaking it at the final position on the left that had you shooting multiple targets right on the 180. Several it sounds like where on the ULSC command while still facing the left.

 

But, everyone new it was there and they needed to be careful. By the time I got there on Saturday that's all anyone was talking about. I watched a lot of guys shoot that stage and didn't see anyone DQ.

[IVC]

1 hour ago, CHA-LEE said:

What about Stage 13? Was it a retreating stage? Yes. Was it possible for competitors to point their gun up range while retreating? Yes. Where ANY of the targets visible beyond the 180? No.

In the context of this thread, the question would be not whether the stage was legal (it's been vetted, so it would be highly unlikely illegal), but whether there were people close to the 180 who would be swept if a competitor broke the 180 - the RO in the OP was up-range from the shooter and beyond 180 on targets that were not a 180 trap, so it's all about the "comfort cushion" of a completely legal setup and RO-ing. 

 

If people got swept on 13 and nobody made fuss about it, then the RO in the OP is well in the clear because he didn't even get in the way... 

[CHA-LEE]

51 minutes ago, IVC said:

In the context of this thread, the question would be not whether the stage was legal (it's been vetted, so it would be highly unlikely illegal), but whether there were people close to the 180 who would be swept if a competitor broke the 180 - the RO in the OP was up-range from the shooter and beyond 180 on targets that were not a 180 trap, so it's all about the "comfort cushion" of a completely legal setup and RO-ing. 

 

If people got swept on 13 and nobody made fuss about it, then the RO in the OP is well in the clear because he didn't even get in the way... 

 

I totally understand where you are coming from and agree. My beef is with people calling certain stages "180 Traps" when they are in fact NOT. I simply wanted to remind people that if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. If competitors are not competent enough to keep their gun pointed in a safe direction without a nanny there to spoon feed the situation to them, then they are playing the wrong game.

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

 

If people got swept on 13 and nobody made fuss about it, then the RO in the OP is well in the clear because he didn't even get in the way... 

 

It's hard to imagine that no one got to look down a muzzle on 13.

 

Check on the 3:16 mark in the video this thread is about. Most shooters at this last position where fine, but several broke the 180 right there. Not a great combination IMO.

 

[ampleworks]

There are two ways to look at stage 13:

• The shooter should be responsible and skilled enough to not break the 180 without hand holding or they shouldn't play our game.
• The stages shouldn't have competitors engaging targets at 179.9 as a test of "skill".

 

 

Safety is not a skill.

 

We should be striving to create a safe match for everyone. The only requirement to shoot level 2+ is a USPSA membership, not a month of classes at Gunsite or a bunch of level 1 matches.

 

We should be doing everything to promote safety and that includes creating stages that do not use a 179 degree as a "skill".

Edited September 9, 2020 by ampleworks

[IVC]

21 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

My beef is with people calling certain stages "180 Traps" when they are in fact NOT.

I think it comes down to what people consider a "180 Trap."

 

Rule 2.1.4 is clear that targets cannot be offered at angles over 180 and these days, with so many shooters getting certified as range officials and with so many NROI resources available online, debugging a stage for violations of 2.1.4 is pretty routine and straightforward. 

 

So the unofficial term "180 Trap" has evolved to mean any part of the course where a 180 violations would naturally occur unless the shooter was not only keenly aware of the 180 plane, but had a plan on how to modify his usual course of action to avoid breaking it (e.g., reloading while holding hands all the way to the side, running with the gun in strange position, etc.). Any time there is talk in the squad about having to be extra careful at a certain location or stretch of the course, it's sort of a "180 Trap" - even though it's not a trap, it's still a place to be careful since the most natural execution of a shooting plan would likely cause the muzzle to break the 180. 

 

I would agree with you that these are not really "180 Traps" in the sense of 2.1.4, but the term "180 Trap" itself is not in the rule book and different people use it differently to describe certain parts of courses... 

[CHA-LEE]

3 hours ago, ampleworks said:

There are two ways to look at stage 13:

• The shooter should be responsible and skilled enough to not break the 180 without hand holding or they shouldn't play our game.
• The stages shouldn't have competitors engaging targets at 179.9 as a test of "skill".

 

 

Safety is not a skill.

 

We should be striving to create a safe match for everyone. The only requirement to shoot level 2+ is a USPSA membership, not a month of classes at Gunsite or a bunch of level 1 matches.

 

We should be doing everything to promote safety and that includes creating stages that do not use a 179 degree as a "skill".

 

I 100% disagree with your comment of "Safety is not a skill". Safety is ABSOLUTELY a skill and is also required to finish matches without being DQed for doing unsafe stuff. If being safe is too difficult of a skill to master then stop playing a game with dangerous weapons. 

[CHA-LEE]

2 hours ago, IVC said:

I think it comes down to what people consider a "180 Trap."

 

Rule 2.1.4 is clear that targets cannot be offered at angles over 180 and these days, with so many shooters getting certified as range officials and with so many NROI resources available online, debugging a stage for violations of 2.1.4 is pretty routine and straightforward. 

 

So the unofficial term "180 Trap" has evolved to mean any part of the course where a 180 violations would naturally occur unless the shooter was not only keenly aware of the 180 plane, but had a plan on how to modify his usual course of action to avoid breaking it (e.g., reloading while holding hands all the way to the side, running with the gun in strange position, etc.). Any time there is talk in the squad about having to be extra careful at a certain location or stretch of the course, it's sort of a "180 Trap" - even though it's not a trap, it's still a place to be careful since the most natural execution of a shooting plan would likely cause the muzzle to break the 180. 

 

I would agree with you that these are not really "180 Traps" in the sense of 2.1.4, but the term "180 Trap" itself is not in the rule book and different people use it differently to describe certain parts of courses... 

 

Your definition of "180 Trap" would apply to stages in almost every single match (Level 1, 2 & 3) I have attended since starting this game in 2008. Knowing where the 180 is vs your muzzle angle is a required skill that is tested all the time in matches. There are no "180 Traps" if the stages are setup in a legal manner. There are simply parts of stages where you are afforded the opportunity to make the wrong safety decisions. If you choose to generally ignore safety and not build muzzle pointing safeguards into your stage plan to avoid safety issues, then you fully deserve being DQed when it happens. This is called cause and effect. If people choose to be ignorant then they also get to reap the "benefits" of said ignorance.