Illegal Make Ready Stance?

[ima45dv8]

3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

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.

I think you might be taking his comment a bit out of context.

 

It was a standalone comment, and I didn't read it as anything other than his opinion that USPSA is moving further from practicality. It just happened to be in conjunction with this rules discussion. It's also a widely held opinion that has been around for many years. In fact, I think Jeff Cooper was the first person I saw quoted on that belief.

[twodownzero]

52 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

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/

 

Did you read the article you linked to?  It says exactly what I've been saying this entire time:

 

First, it answers the question in the affirmative that one foot outside the shooting box is "outside the shooting area."  It goes on to suggest how it could be clarified to require the shooter to be what other posters are calling "completely" outside the shooting area:

 

"However, a carefully crafted WSB can prevent this situation and have the competitor truly outside the shooting area. If the WSB said “both feet completely outside the shooting area” or “completely outside the shooting area with toes on rear fault line” then the competitor would need to have both feet outside and the RO should not proceed with the range commands until the condition is met."

 

My position all along has been that if you want both feet outside the shooting area, then you need to say more than "completely outside" the shooting area.  One foot out is "completely outside" as far as the rules are concerned.  If you want people to be on the outside of the shooting box entirely, you need to be more specific than that.  "Completely outside" is not sufficiently specific to require both feet outside the shooting area, because the rules explicitly define one foot out as "out."

 

The title of the NROI question presented is poorly written, but the actual analysis of the article supports my position and not yours.  "Completely outside" is not specific enough.  If you want both feet outside the shooting area, you need to say so, or specify something specific enough that will so require.  At my local matches, the typical start position is "outside the shooting area, toes on X's."  And in that instance, if you wanted to have one foot inside the box with it turned sideways touching the X with the other one outside the box with your foot on the ground and your toe on the X, I'm not sure even that would be prohibited.  Point being, one foot out is still out, so you need to have an explicit instruction about "both feet" or like the example you cited states, by telling them they have to be outside with their toes on the fault line, there's no realistic way they can comply with both conditions while having a foot inside the box.

Edited May 12, 2022 by twodownzero

[RJH]

10 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

 

Did you read the article you linked to?  It says exactly what I've been saying this entire time:

 

First, it answers the question in the affirmative that one foot outside the shooting box is "outside the shooting area."  It goes on to suggest how it could be clarified to require the shooter to be what other posters are calling "completely" outside the shooting area:

 

"However, a carefully crafted WSB can prevent this situation and have the competitor truly outside the shooting area. If the WSB said “both feet completely outside the shooting area” or “completely outside the shooting area with toes on rear fault line” then the competitor would need to have both feet outside and the RO should not proceed with the range commands until the condition is met."

 

My position all along has been that if you want both feet outside the shooting area, then you need to say more than "completely outside" the shooting area.  One foot out is "completely outside" as far as the rules are concerned.  If you want people to be on the outside of the shooting box entirely, you need to be more specific than that.  "Completely outside" is not sufficiently specific to require both feet outside the shooting area, because the rules explicitly define one foot out as "out."

 

The title of the NROI question presented is poorly written, but the actual analysis of the article supports my position and not yours.  "Completely outside" is not specific enough.  If you want both feet outside the shooting area, you need to say so, or specify something specific enough that will so require.  At my local matches, the typical start position is "outside the shooting area, toes on X's."  And in that instance, if you wanted to have one foot inside the box with it turned sideways touching the X with the other one outside the box with your foot on the ground and your toe on the X, I'm not sure even that would be prohibited.  Point being, one foot out is still out, so you need to have an explicit instruction about "both feet" or like the example you cited states, by telling them they have to be outside with their toes on the fault line, there's no realistic way they can comply with both conditions while having a foot inside the box.

 

Just because it suggests a couple of ways of doing it doesn't mean that using the word completely doesn't care of it all together. Once again if you look at the rule book under the procedural thing already posted, if you are completely outside (and then it defines that as both feet outside the shooting area) then you incur a larger penalty. So in the rule book it defines completely outside as both feet outside the shooting area. 

[usmc1974]

3 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

 

Did you read the article you linked to?  It says exactly what I've been saying this entire time:

 

First, it answers the question in the affirmative that one foot outside the shooting box is "outside the shooting area."  It goes on to suggest how it could be clarified to require the shooter to be what other posters are calling "completely" outside the shooting area:

 

"However, a carefully crafted WSB can prevent this situation and have the competitor truly outside the shooting area. If the WSB said “both feet completely outside the shooting area” or “completely outside the shooting area with toes on rear fault line” then the competitor would need to have both feet outside and the RO should not proceed with the range commands until the condition is met."

 

My position all along has been that if you want both feet outside the shooting area, then you need to say more than "completely outside" the shooting area.  One foot out is "completely outside" as far as the rules are concerned.  If you want people to be on the outside of the shooting box entirely, you need to be more specific than that.  "Completely outside" is not sufficiently specific to require both feet outside the shooting area, because the rules explicitly define one foot out as "out."

 

The title of the NROI question presented is poorly written, but the actual analysis of the article supports my position and not yours.  "Completely outside" is not specific enough.  If you want both feet outside the shooting area, you need to say so, or specify something specific enough that will so require.  At my local matches, the typical start position is "outside the shooting area, toes on X's."  And in that instance, if you wanted to have one foot inside the box with it turned sideways touching the X with the other one outside the box with your foot on the ground and your toe on the X, I'm not sure even that would be prohibited.

I think you make good points,  now days when I design a stage,  I either put in the briefing both toes on the X's outside the shooting Area. Or heals on X's inside the shooting area, or ' both hands on X's and both feet on X's in the area.   I think it is a lot of fun and a challenge to take the gaming, away from the gamer.

     lol I will never be a master but maybe! just maybe! make it to A. So I have fun at shooting matches in other ways.

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, twodownzero said:

 

Did you read the article you linked to?  It says exactly what I've been saying this entire time:

 

First, it answers the question in the affirmative that one foot outside the shooting box is "outside the shooting area."  It goes on to suggest how it could be clarified to require the shooter to be what other posters are calling "completely" outside the shooting area:

 

"However, a carefully crafted WSB can prevent this situation and have the competitor truly outside the shooting area. If the WSB said “both feet completely outside the shooting area” or “completely outside the shooting area with toes on rear fault line” then the competitor would need to have both feet outside and the RO should not proceed with the range commands until the condition is met."

 

My position all along has been that if you want both feet outside the shooting area, then you need to say more than "completely outside" the shooting area. 

did you read it?  the bolded part appears to directly contradict your last quoted paragraph.  The 'toes on fault line' part is irrelevant, because it is possible and easy to have 1 foot out and 1 foot in, with toes on the rear fault line, but in that case, you are clearly not 'completely outside the shooting area'.

 

'completely outside the shooting area' means completely. both feet, all hands, butt, nose, etc....

 

At any rate, because it is obvious that many people don't know the rules, it is probably best to write even more than is required, so people that don't know the rules won't try to apply imaginary rules.

Edited May 12, 2022 by motosapiens

[Johnny_Chimpo]

7 hours 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.

 

A. There is no other definition of what being completely outside is besides 10.2.1.2

 

B. 10.2.1.2 is what NROI teaches as defining completely outside vs just outside for all contexts, not just procedurals for shooting while faulting the lines.

 

Maybe, instead of arguing with all the other ROs in this thread (including me), you should tell NROI how wrong they are.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Johnny_Chimpo

[twodownzero]

1 hour ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:

 

A. There is no other definition of what being completely outside is besides 10.2.1.2

 

B. 10.2.1.2 is what NROI teaches as defining completely outside vs just outside for all contexts, not just procedurals for shooting while faulting the lines.

 

Maybe, instead of arguing with all the other ROs in this thread (including me), you should tell NROI how wrong they are.

 

I am also an RO (and have been certified for 13 years) and I have no problem telling the NROI they are wrong where they are wrong.  If someone has a foot out, they are out, period, adding the word "completely" doesn't change a thing.  Out is out.  Out is completely out.  If you want both feet in the box, that needs to be specified.  If someone taught you otherwise, that person is wrong.

 

Even though the other poster is in denial, both examples cited above follow my recommendation--that if you want to specify both feet out, do so.  Say what you mean.

Edited May 12, 2022 by twodownzero

[MHicks]

In my area I am seeing more use of a yellow starting stick for start positions. If they want you to start outside of the shooting area they will place the start stick away from the shooting area with instructions, (toes, heals touching or straddling the start stick. This has largely replaced instructions for "start outside shooting area".

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, twodownzero said:

 If someone has a foot out, they are out, period, adding the word "completely" doesn't change a thing.  Out is out.  Out is completely out. 

it doesn't bother me if you believe this, as long as you don't work any major matches. 

 

But according to the rules, and the english language, you are wrong.

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, MHicks said:

In my area I am seeing more use of a yellow starting stick for start positions. If they want you to start outside of the shooting area they will place the start stick away from the shooting area with instructions, (toes, heals touching or straddling the start stick. This has largely replaced instructions for "start outside shooting area".

that's what I'm seeing at area matches and nationals as well. Saves some argument with confused and obstinate people, no doubt.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

1 hour ago, twodownzero said:

 

I am also an RO (and have been certified for 13 years) and I have no problem telling the NROI they are wrong where they are wrong.  If someone has a foot out, they are out, period, adding the word "completely" doesn't change a thing.  Out is out.  Out is completely out.  If you want both feet in the box, that needs to be specified.  If someone taught you otherwise, that person is wrong.

 

 

You're neither DNROI nor the RMI who trained me and dozens of ROs and CROs in A5.  The same guy, BTW, who has been RM for Area 5 and most of the section matches in A5.

 

Your opinion doesn't matter. 

 

[driver8M3]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

that's what I'm seeing at area matches and nationals as well. Saves some argument with confused and obstinate people, no doubt.

 

Start sticks also eliminate the age-old problem of fault lines having multiple sets of marks and some squads using the wrong ones.

[ima45dv8]

How about everybody gets back to discussing the rule(s) and not each other.

That can get threads locked.

[TaterHead]

Well, that’s no fun. I come here for the drama.

[Sarge]

12 hours ago, twodownzero said:

 

I am also an RO (and have been certified for 13 years) and I have no problem telling the NROI they are wrong where they are wrong.  If someone has a foot out, they are out, period, adding the word "completely" doesn't change a thing.  Out is out.  Out is completely out.  If you want both feet in the box, that needs to be specified.  If someone taught you otherwise, that person is wrong.

 

Even though the other poster is in denial, both examples cited above follow my recommendation--that if you want to specify both feet out, do so.  Say what you mean.

Lately I have read several instances of you not being up to date on current rules and practices.  Not being an ass, just something I noticed. It can be hard to keep up with even for those of us who strive to keep up. 

  Completely out is both feet out 

[Bagellord]

13 hours ago, driver8M3 said:

 

Start sticks also eliminate the age-old problem of fault lines having multiple sets of marks and some squads using the wrong ones.

 

We had our local metal shop cut some X's for us, that we can nail down where needed. Much easier than trying to use painted marks on fault lines. Typically I just say "such and such start position is feet on marks, blah blah blah"

 

Edit: corrected a typo, coffee hadn't kicked in

Edited May 13, 2022 by Bagellord

[Boomstick303]

15 hours ago, twodownzero said:

If someone has a foot out, they are out, period, adding the word "completely" doesn't change a thing.  Out is out.  Out is completely out.

 

l will just leave this here....

 

https://nroi.org/q-of-month-results/outside-vs-completely-outside/

 

Does not matter what you think when it has already been decided by the governing body that creates the rules and has gone out of their way to make everyone understand how to enforce the rules.

[George Jones]

The (communication) problem in this discussion is that some use the definition of faulting (10.2.1 and subs) and then apply it to a start position thread.  Those are two different scenarios.  However.....

10.2.1.1 deals with faulting, such as when any body part touches outside the shooting area (the classic "one foot in and one foot out" is OUT if firing a shot).  One penalty per occurrence unless significant advantage is applicable.

But, if you look at 10.2.1.2 and 10.2.1.3 you will see that (for a faulting situation) there is a different penalty level for someone who fires shots while "completely outside" prior to re-entering (10.2.1.2) or "completely outside" prior to entering in the first place (10.2.1.3).

So, IMO, those rules make a distinction between what is OUT and what is COMPLETELY OUT.

[ima45dv8]

Thank you for the clarity, George. 

 

 

Since this thread has brought out an abundance of emotional cross-talk, it's time to let this cool off.  If anyone has anything relevant to add, please PM a Moderator.