A stage setup: ok or not?

[YVK]

Just for my education, a part of a stage from yesterday's match: a three paper target array, then about 100-120 degrees wide transition to a plate rack. A medium sized vision barrier perpendicular to the line of paper targets to block targets downrange but it didn't visually block the rack. Neither the papers nor the rack available to shoot from any other position. Plate rack was about 12-15 yards away and most people shuffled to get square to it but visually it was all 12 shots from one spot. In fact it was set as a shooting box. I normally don't pay attention to stuff like that because I shoot CO but yesterday I did SS so this setup guaranteed two standing reloads (the same array was set on the opposite side). I asked if this was legal and was told yes, effectively explained by the width of a transition and presence of a wall within that transition span. 

No heartburn on my side. This is a nice amicable local match, guys who build the stages do the best they can. I just thought that the explanation was strange.

[RJH]

Sounds legal to me 

[George Jones]

What was the size of the shooting box?

[YVK]

Here's a screen capture showing the setup, box included. I am facing papers while picking up a gun (unloaded start). Plate rack is down range to my right, approximately perpendicular to my shoulders, and is unobstructed visually. 

[motosapiens]

seems like a stupid stage, whether or not someone can lawyer up hard enough to pretend its legal.

[YVK]

It was what it was. We've about same 5-6 guys set the stages up and I am not one of them. I am grateful that they carry that load and I just get to come, pay, and shoot. It is a small range physically so they do the best to make stages technical enough. I asked the question just to understand the rules better, that's all.

[Sarge]

 Course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from

any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to shoot all

targets in the course of fire from any single location or view.

 

Location

A physical space within the boundaries of a course of fire. For the

purposes of this rule, a competitor will not be considered to have

changed location until both feet have moved to a new physical

position.

 

View

A range of sight or vision specific to an array of targets. In order to

constitute a new "view" under this rule, the range of sight of an

array of targets must be broken by a vision barrier of some sort,

such that a different array of targets is seen in the new view.

 

 

 

[broadside72]

21 hours ago, motosapiens said:

seems like a stupid stage, whether or not someone can lawyer up hard enough to pretend its legal.

 

agree it's a stupid stage but it is legal. the wall right in the middle there makes it a new view

[motosapiens]

3 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

 

agree it's a stupid stage but it is legal. the wall right in the middle there makes it a new view

not so sure of that. the rules say nor more than 8 shots from a single location OR view. It's not a 100% clear what a 'view' is, but it seems to me that there are more than 8 shots from that location. if you don't *have* to move both feet in order to engage all the targets, then it seems like a single location to me.

[George Jones]

View

A range of sight or vision specific to an array of targets. In order to

constitute a new "view" under this rule, the range of sight of an

array of targets must be broken by a vision barrier of some sort,

such that a different array of targets is seen in the new view.

[YVK]

13 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

It's not a 100% clear what a 'view' is

 

This exemplifies the problem. When someone with your experience is not sure what it is, how are regular dudes supposed to figure it out. The rules paragraph, now quoted twice by different members, did not help me understand this setup any better. That wall makes no difference on how those targets are seen. Whether the wall was there or not was irrelevant to engaging those two target arrays. It is just a wide transition. 

[motosapiens]

27 minutes ago, YVK said:

 

This exemplifies the problem. When someone with your experience is not sure what it is, how are regular dudes supposed to figure it out. The rules paragraph, now quoted twice by different members, did not help me understand this setup any better. That wall makes no difference on how those targets are seen. Whether the wall was there or not was irrelevant to engaging those two target arrays. It is just a wide transition. 

The argument that putting some sort of cosmetic vision barrier in makes a different view doesn't really make sense to me. By that reasoning, you could put 20 targets in a row, and just but a barrel in between every 4th target. If you can see all 20 targets at once, it seems pretty clearly that it's the same view. 

 

Reading the definition carefully, what I *think* a 'view' means is that interaction with the vision barrier makes different targets available. For instance, you could stand with both feet in one location behind a barricade, but a slight lean to each side of the barricade constitutes a different view. I think in the case of the OP, where it appears that all the targets can be seen at the same time without stepping or leaning, that it probably constitutes only a single view.

 

It would probably be pretty easy to make that stage more legal, simply by stretching out the shooting area a couple feet, or placing a barrel so you have to lean to each side of the box to see all the targets. That would still suck a little bit for low cap shooters, but I think it would suck less, and reloads with very small movements are definitely part of the game.

Edited October 3, 2022 by motosapiens

[broadside72]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

not so sure of that. the rules say nor more than 8 shots from a single location OR view. It's not a 100% clear what a 'view' is, but it seems to me that there are more than 8 shots from that location. if you don't *have* to move both feet in order to engage all the targets, then it seems like a single location to me.

 

It might not be the intent of the rule but words matter, though that statement has been proven wrong by a few RMs here and in the field. 

 

Technically the shooting box is large enough to move both feet, so not one location required. Honestly by the absolute letter of the rules, there is no such thing as a single location unless your feet are required to be on specific spots (e.g. one foot on each X) as a location changes when both feet have moved to a new physical position. Does not say how far you need to move, so moving your feet to rotate your entire body is movement and a new location. Location is a "physical space" but is that space limited to the volume the shooter takes up shoulder width and front to back but with or without arms extended, or the space of each individual foot, or the space enveloping both feet, or something else? It's not defined anywhere

 

Of course common sense and logic should prevail but some of us are range lawyers.

 

I hate the rule as it is written but it is what we've got right now. Yes it's a stupid stage and screws over low cap folks pretty harsh but its legal. The arrays are separated by a prop and you can move both feet, even if its only 3" and be in a new location per the definition of location.

 

Even if it had a longer or wider box, you can see both arrays from "multiple positions" per the rules but are they really "different" if its one step? 

I'd rather have location redefined by something like "A single location is a position within a shooting area from which the number of all legally presented targets visible at that position is not reduced if a competitor's feet have moved 3ft in any direction within the shooting area". This would also get rid of the "View" requirement and make that stage in the original post illegal.

[motosapiens]

19 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

 

Even if it had a longer or wider box, you can see both arrays from "multiple positions" per the rules but are they really "different" if its one step? 
 

yes, it is very different if you can't see all the targets from a single spot, and you have to take a step to see the rest of the targets (while now hiding 1 or more of the original targets.

 

words do matter. the definition of view pretty clearly says "such that a different array of targets is seen in the new view." simply putting a prop in the middle doesn't change it unless you put the prop in such a place that it actually blocks 1 or more of the targets.

 

as far as your interpretation of location, i think its a silly to pretend that shuffling both feet a minute amount is a different location, and it renders the term entirely meaningless. a more sensible interpretation would be that as long as you don't *have* to move both feet, you haven't changed locations. so you can take 1 big step and still be in the same location (like away from the start position during make ready). but it doesn't really matter... even if you pretend it's a different location, it's pretty clearly the same view, and the 'or' in the rules means you only need one of them.

 

I believe that the current rules (when read by people fluent in english, who read *all* the words) clearly makes the OP's stage as described illegal. The key to me is 'a different array of targets is seen'. if you shuffle your feet 6" (i.e. less than the distance where both feet are required to move) and you still see the exact same plate rack and paper targers and nothing else, then it's a single location/view.  OTOH, if you can only see 5 of the plates and all the paper from one side of the box, and you can see all but one of the paper targets and the entire plate rack from the other side of the box, now you have a different location/view and imho a legal stage despite the very meager length of movement.

[IL-SIG]

A few very minor modifications to this stage could have made it much more interesting and eliminate the location/view debate.