Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Illegal Make Ready Stance?


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, shred said:

Sometimes IPSC's "Freestyle starts after the beep" philosophy makes sense...

 

What do you mean with Freestyle starts?
IPSC is pretty strict starting position and stance wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, twodownzero said:

 

One foot outside is still "completely outside" as far as the rules are concerned.

 

If you want both feet outside of the shooting area, you need to say that. 

Appears that completely outside is defined in the rules, at least to me.

 

10.2.1.2A shooter who fires shots while completely outside (both feet out and touching the ground)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bagellord said:

Then I had a squad start one foot in one out when I had "anywhere inside the shooting area" as the start position in order to game it.... Wasn't happy when I saw the videos after the match.

 

Yikes, since that ISN'T "inside the shooting area" at all.  If a foot is out, you are out.

 

I'm not surprised you weren't happy!

 

For other commentary:  "Outside" and "completely outside" are two separate things, and they are treated separately in the rulebook.  If you want people to start "completely outside" the shooting area, then you have to specify that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thomas H said:

 

Yikes, since that ISN'T "inside the shooting area" at all.  If a foot is out, you are out.

 

I'm not surprised you weren't happy!

 

For other commentary:  "Outside" and "completely outside" are two separate things, and they are treated separately in the rulebook.  If you want people to start "completely outside" the shooting area, then you have to specify that.

 

I said some words that I can't repeat on this forum, that's for sure. In hindsight I probably should have tossed the stage but I just corrected the parties involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fishbreath said:

(Freestyle) (starts after the beep), not (freestyle starts) (after the beep).

Correct.. Or perhaps: "Freestyle" begins after the start signal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, twodownzero said:

 

One foot outside is still "completely outside" as far as the rules are concerned.

 

No.  It is not.

 

This is what "completely outside" means (emphasis added):

Quote

10.2.1.2 A shooter who fires shots while completely outside (both feet out and touching the ground) after leaving a shooting area is deemed to have gained a significant advantage and will be given one penalty for each shot fired until presence is re-established in a shooting area. Having at least one foot in a shooting area and nothing touching outside the shooting area is required to re-establish presence in a shooting area.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:

 

No.  It is not.

 

This is what "completely outside" means (emphasis added):

 

 

The rule cited has nothing to do with the proposition discussed.  That rule deals with whether it's 1 per shot or 1 procedural when someone shoots outside of the shooting area.  Extrapolating that definition given for that purpose for the start position is improper.  That text doesn't address the issue discussed at all, because a shooter cannot begin the course of fire in the improper start position, so there are zero scenarios where that rule would ever govern what we're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

 

The rule cited has nothing to do with the proposition discussed.  That rule deals with whether it's 1 per shot or 1 procedural when someone shoots outside of the shooting area.  Extrapolating that definition given for that purpose for the start position is improper.  That text doesn't address the issue discussed at all, because a shooter cannot begin the course of fire in the improper start position, so there are zero scenarios where that rule would ever govern what we're talking about.

 

Well, since the whole "outside the shooting area" for a starting position is based on being outside the shooting area while shooting, I'm going to have to agree that "completely outside" the shooting area means both feet, hands, head, arms, legs, etc.,  Cannot be within the shooting area. Unless you are trying to say that completely means something other than it does. Here's the definition, note the words whole amount, and fully

 

Completely 

Adv

 

1 to the whole amount or extent; fully:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2022 at 7:08 PM, RangerTrace said:

They do.  And things become less and less, practical.

 

B class shooter, hasn't shot a match in 8 years, is a mod on enos, and posting nonsense. Par for the course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RJH said:

 

Well, since the whole "outside the shooting area" for a starting position is based on being outside the shooting area while shooting, I'm going to have to agree that "completely outside" the shooting area means both feet, hands, head, arms, legs, etc.,  Cannot be within the shooting area. Unless you are trying to say that completely means something other than it does. Here's the definition, note the words whole amount, and fully

 

Completely 

Adv

 

1 to the whole amount or extent; fully:

Sounds like Bill Clinton, had something to do with writing the USPSA rule book these days. "What is your definition of, IS?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, waktasz said:

 

B class shooter, hasn't shot a match in 8 years, is a mod on enos, and posting nonsense. Par for the course. 

:lol:  

I'm sure he didn't mean to offend your sensibilities. He was merely expressing his opinion.

 

But worry not! There's a GM-Only site available with only GM opinions. It's called the Doodie Project. Look em' up. Shouldn't be hard to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ima45dv8 said:

:lol:  

I'm sure he didn't mean to offend your sensibilities. He was merely expressing his opinion.

But worry not! There's a GM-Only site available with only GM opinions. It's called the Doodie Project. Look em' up. Shouldn't be hard to find.

I think the actual site is no more, so you'll have to go to Facebook haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, waktasz said:

 

B class shooter, hasn't shot a match in 8 years, is a mod on enos, and posting nonsense. Par for the course. 

 

Not sure what his class and match schedule has to do with his knowledge of the rules or value of his opinion.  Sure comes off as condescending and elitist.  I know lawyers who went to mediocre schools who are a lot smarter and better at what they do than some who went to Harvard and Yale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, waktasz said:

 

B class shooter, hasn't shot a match in 8 years, is a mod on enos, and posting nonsense. Par for the course. 

You do know if there was no B and C or  even D class shooters, there would be no USPSA.  there would be no money in it. Also, there are so many sand bagging Master class capable shooters, in B. class because they can win the money At big matches, in their true class. It is almost like pu$$y ass Men competing in women's sports. Makes it almost impossible for a true B class shooter to win. But, now does thread is drifting.

Edited by usmc1974
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, usmc1974 said:

You do know if there was no B and C or  even D class shooters, there would be no USPSA.  there would be no money in it. Also, there are so many sand bagging Master class capable shooters, in B. class because they can win the money At big matches, in their true class. It is almost like pu$$y ass Men competing in women's sports. Makes it almost impossible for a true B class shooter to win. But, now does thread is drifting.

hmm. i've never been to a match that pays money to B class. Sound incredibly stupid.

 

At any rate, I think waktasz comment was not meant as derision towards B class shooters, but more as an observation that B class shooters who haven't competed in 8 years may not be the best source of information for rules advice or shooting advice. I think that's a valid point, especially since the rules have changed quite a bit in the last 8 years.

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RJH said:

 

Well, since the whole "outside the shooting area" for a starting position is based on being outside the shooting area while shooting, I'm going to have to agree that "completely outside" the shooting area means both feet, hands, head, arms, legs, etc.,  Cannot be within the shooting area. Unless you are trying to say that completely means something other than it does. Here's the definition, note the words whole amount, and fully

 

Completely 

Adv

 

1 to the whole amount or extent; fully:

 

Except we have a definition for outside the shooting area that applies if only one foot is out.  So that precludes your dictionary definitions and all those other arguments because there is an answer in the rules already explicitly.  If you shoot outside the shooting area, whether it's one foot or one finger, you don't have a defense that you were only "partially" outside the shooting area.  You're either in or out.  So adding "completely" outside the shooting area changes nothing; one foot out is "completely" outside the shooting area for our purposes even if you don't like that.

 

If you want people to be your version of "completely" outside the shooting area, then write the WSB to require them to have "both feet outside the shooting area."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

 

Except we have a definition for outside the shooting area that applies if only one foot is out.  So that precludes your dictionary definitions and all those other arguments because there is an answer in the rules already explicitly.  If you shoot outside the shooting area, whether it's one foot or one finger, you don't have a defense that you were only "partially" outside the shooting area.  You're either in or out.  So adding "completely" outside the shooting area changes nothing; one foot out is "completely" outside the shooting area for our purposes even if you don't like that.

 

If you want people to be your version of "completely" outside the shooting area, then write the WSB to require them to have "both feet outside the shooting area."

 

not sure how many area or national matches you have worked, but your interpretation is not how the rule is enforced at those events.

 

for the purpose of faulting, one foot out is imho NOT completely outside, but it is faulting and incurs a penalty per shot fired.

 

for the purpose of start position, one foot is considered 'outside', but not 'completely outside'.

 

This NROI article explains why you are wrong >>> https://nroi.org/q-of-month-results/outside-vs-completely-outside/

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

hmm. i've never been to a match that pays money to B class. Sound incredibly stupid.

 

At any rate, I think waktasz comment was not meant as derision towards B class shooters, but more as an observation that B class shooters who haven't competed in 8 years may not be the best source of information for rules advice or shooting advice. I think that's a valid point, especially since the rules have changed quite a bit in the last 8 years.

You miss the point completely of what I'm saying. There are 10 times more BC&D shooters,  giving money to USPSA (Match fees and yearly dues, Buying guns and ammo from sponsors so they can Sponsor matches ect...)to USPSA to keep it running. What I'm saying is if it was no BCD shooters giving money to USPS that would be no USPSA. I got this at a large match from a much better master class shooter, than I will ever be. We was in a large crowd and everybody agreed with what he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, usmc1974 said:

You miss the point completely of what I'm saying. There are 10 times more BC&D shooters,  giving money to USPSA (Match fees and yearly dues, Buying guns and ammo from sponsors so they can Sponsor matches ect...)to USPSA to keep it running. What I'm saying is if it was no BCD shooters giving money to USPS that would be no USPSA. I got this at a large match from a much better master class shooter, than I will ever be. We was in a large crowd and everybody agreed with what he said.

i totally understood what you were saying, just observing that it is irrelevant to the conversation about unqualified people giving rules advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

i totally understood what you were saying, just observing that it is irrelevant to the conversation about unqualified people giving rules advice.

Yeah, right... Then what makes you so good that you can make the decision of what's qualified and unqualified

Edited by usmc1974
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, usmc1974 said:

Yeah, right... Then what makes you so good that you can make the decision of what's qualified and unqualified

I think most reasonable people would agree that people who post provably wrong rules info and people who don't participate actively in the sport are both unqualified to give rules advice. If you think differently, that doesn't bother me at all.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't post, but it does mean that readers can take their opinions with a few grains of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys might have a point that someone who hasn't shot in a while could be out of touch with the rules (though it's still possible to RO a lot and not shoot). But the person's class has zero to do with it. Last I checked the DNROI is B class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...