Watched my first DQ

[Shawn Knight]

I watched a 180 get broke during the rifle stage of a 3-Gun match. It was a 180 trap. Here is some video of my run(I didn't DQ).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7656220041288035177

The last target was where the shooter DQ'ed. He over ran it and instead of back tracking he turned sharply and shot.

What I want to know is, are you guys and gals OK with 180 traps? Testing a shooter's skill is one thing but intentionally trying to get them to break a rule and get them kicked out of a match seems like unsportsmanlike conduct.

What do you think?

[Sunuva]

The competitor must be responsible not to break the 180 if not we will all be shooting from one box.

[Shawn Knight]

The competitor must be responsible not to break the 180 if not we will all be shooting from one box.

Very true but a stage that intentionally comes very close to the 180 seems a little on the unsafe side.

[Viggen]

The other shooter, if he DQed on that was shooting/moving out of control, beyond what the stage demanded.

His fault. He owned 180 degrees of the range, not 181. If you have to come back because you are moving too fast, you come back.

You have to stay aware of where you are and what you are doing or not shoot action type matches.

[Viggen]

The competitor must be responsible not to break the 180 if not we will all be shooting from one box.

Very true but a stage that intentionally comes very close to the 180 seems a little on the unsafe side.

The target could very obviously be engaged safely with a fair amout of leeway, it wasn't like he had a 3" window or he would break the 180. He screwed up, got DQed. learned a lesson, and will be more obserevant and cautious next time.

[Shawn Knight]

Yes he was going way too fast as most people were on the stage. I went very slow at first(as you can see in the vid) and I was very deliberate in my shots. I also think the 180 trap comes into play to keep complacency away. It does that very well.

Edited June 24, 2007 by theknightoflight

[dcarter]

I'm with most of the responses on this one. I don't think anyone should set up a course that is intentionaly unsafe....however, if the stage is set up so that you have to pace yourself so you don't pass up a target then deal with it. A lot of courses have easy targets that must be engaged from left to right at the shooters pace so you don't break the 180. I see nothing wrong with these stages as it is just another skill to master.

[Shawn Knight]

Hmmm.... Lots of voting but not much talking!!!

Get to it!!!

[XD Niner]

You're right. The "hostage" target should have had the good sense to drop to its knees and get out of the way so the shooter could more easily access the "bad guy" target. How dare the hostage not move out of the way so that the competitor could race right by without having to slow down at all.

Seriously, the early part of the stage was obviously set up to keep the shooter from just blazing away as he/she ran by. That was the reason for the no shoots. Otherwise, the designer could have eliminated the no shoots. IMHO, this certainly didn't look like any kind of trap to me, just a good design to keep someone from blasting away as they sprinted full tilt down the side of the bay.

Edited June 24, 2007 by XD Niner

[Shawn Knight]

Well then I have another one. This one is in a myspace video format.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...eoID=2034775969

Starting position was in the box but the first 2 targets were behind the shooter when the stage started, forcing the shooter to back up and engage. Very silly and not very conducive to a fun match. Making it hard simply doesn't involve the 180 it involve all of the other cool stuff like swingers, 35-50 yard shots, droppers, bear traps and so on.

[dajarrel]

I don't think anyone ever sets up a stage with the intent of creating a 180 trap to see if they can get someone DQ'ed. If that were the case, you call for unsportsmanlike conduct would carry some weight.

However, on a well-designed stage that has a close target, I have never seen a case where the RO or other shooters during walkthrough would not point it out. On the stages I run, I look real close and if there is a problem I let everyone on the stage know there is a close spot. Then if you blow by the target and break the 180, it's your own fault.

Did the RO or other shooters mention that there was a close 180 on the course?

FWIW

dj

[Sunuva]

I looked at the video several times and I don’t see him back up? Just going right to left is the video starting a little late?

[foxtrotuniformlima]

I think that the way it is set up, where your only shot is basically a 180, is not good course design.

[G-ManBart]

I'm not overly worried about 180 traps, but I do look for them and make it a point to ask the RO where the 180 is during the walkthrough (unless it's totally not a factor) since sometimes the 180 isn't square to the shooting bay.

When it's practical to do so, I'm a big fan of adding fault lines to help people avoid breaking the 180. If you set them right there isn't any way to break the 180 if you're not faulting. Doing it that way also avoids debates after the fact (not that they do any good)....if they were over the line when they engaged a certain target, they broke the 180 and can't whine about whether it was the RO's perspective or not. I think it makes it easier on everyone as they seem to cut down on infractions and make them crystal clear when they do happen.

[Overkill]

DQ'ing on that forward run is easy to do, but that's no excuse. A DQ trap that's a trap because you cant physically engage a target from a location safely away from the 180, is one thing. A DQ trap that's a trap because you're prone to overrun a target if you loose control is a whole nuther deal.

That course could have easily been made less DQ'able if they had angled that forward assault portion towards the center of the range. If they'd introduced 10 or 15 feet of horizontal traverse into the run it would have been much better and wouldn't have messed up the rest of the COF any.

[Shawn Knight]

I looked at the video several times and I don’t see him back up? Just going right to left is the video starting a little late?

The video started late. If you look on the ground, there is a box. I had to start in that box and back out of it in order to engage the first set of targets. Then I walked back over the box. I was stepping deliberately to avoid tripping. It was the first time I shot with this group and at this range. I wanted to make a good first impression. I only got one talking to about coming close to a 180 and that was a different stage. I brought the gun too close to my face. Strange thing is the same person that counseled me on my almost 180 was the one that broke the 180 in the rifle stage not a week later.

Edited June 24, 2007 by theknightoflight

[Flexmoney]

I'm perfectly fine with start of the pistol stage. It seemed apparent that you had to back up to engage those targets.

That isn't really a 180 trap to me, just a different shooting challenge. Tipping hazard? Maybe. But, having just been right there in the box, the hazard is evident...not unlike going through a door with a sill.

Later in the pistol stage, there seemed to be more of a 180 trap/issue. More so than the known issue of the first two targets, anyway.

[SA Friday]

shooting while backing up is a skill just like shooting while moving forward. I find it easier than moving forward. It's fun, and have modified an old Dean Williams stage for multiple club matches that has this element in it: no DQ's, and very fast and fun stage. The 180 was discussed every time during the walk-throughs. The 180 iss simply an element of the sport. A good rule of thumb is to never force a shot that doesn't have at leat a 10 degree window off of the 180 and you are good.

Back_Way_Out_03_2005.doc

[Shawn Knight]

I'm perfectly fine with start of the pistol stage. It seemed apparent that you had to back up to engage those targets.

That isn't really a 180 trap to me, just a different shooting challenge. Tipping hazard? Maybe. But, having just been right there in the box, the hazard is evident...not unlike going through a door with a sill.

Later in the pistol stage, there seemed to be more of a 180 trap/issue. More so than the known issue of the first two targets, anyway.

Very true. I am not too upset by it at all. I think it is time I started to get used to seeing the rules be imposed more often. In comparison the matches I went to in AK were much easier and I think that had more to do with the constant influx of new shooters. Nobody wanted to push the limits because we might DQ someone everyday. Here I am seing that my skill level, while still a B, has become a very low B.

[Flatland Shooter]

At this year's Double Tap Challenge, stages with targets that were susceptable to shooters breaking the 180 had white painted lines on the ground indicating the maximum limit moving downrange the shooter could engage a bank of targets without penalty. Thanks to these lines, the shooters were well aware of the hazard and RO's could easily see if the shooter was or was not breaking the 180.

The result? No one on our squad or any other that I watched on these stages broke the 180.

This might be something for course designers and/or setup crews to consider including on the stage. If they can't, then maybe it is a 180 trap.

Bill

[Flexmoney]

I'm not a big fan of the painted 180 lines. They are OK as a tool, but not absolute. The rules state that the gun has to break the 180...and that is where the RO needs to be watching...and that is what the shooter needs to ultimately be aware of.

I fear that the lines might become the standard...when it's the muzzle that needs to emphasized.

------------------

Knight...you are going to be in a position to get out and travel to more matches now that you are moved. it's pretty cool to see how things are done around the country. (And, steal the good stuff to bring home to your local matches. ) If you watch much of the internationals (ISPC) stuff on video, you may notice that they do a lot more going backwards then we do...and unloaded gun starts...etc.

[tobydog]

I shot the same stage as in the first video, with the rifle. While the shots could be tight if you ran it too fast, if you paid attention to what you're doing, you were fine. I'm left handed, as were 2 other shooters, including the one who DQ'ed. The first shot it left hand slow, I shot it right hand at the start and shifted the rifle after the first 4 targets. The last left hand shooter went too fast and DQ'ed. I wasn't really happy about the stage design, being left handed, but I didn't feel it was dangerous. It was a large handicap to left hand shooters, but you get used to that in a right handed world. You have to know where you are at all times to the targets.

[Shawn Knight]

Very true. My main thing is getting used to the newer, harder, stage design. In AK we did not have the luxury of close to the 180 style stages. I guess it is all part of moving up in skill level.

[mlmiller1]

I guess I've gotten used to what I call sloppy stage design where so many of the shots are forced into the 170-180 lane but I don't like it. I understand fully that if you run by targets, there is a 180 danger but the ones where you are shooting so far right & left with no other option are dangerous. Most times the stages could be set to get the same challenge with less danger of breaking the 180 with only a little forethought. Sure, if the shooter breaks the 180 it is a DQ but worse than that, it is dangerous.

Shooting at a target near the 180 line means the bullet is traveling that line. With just a little imagination you can see where it wouldn't be hard for it to hit a rock or whatever in the berm & ricochet uprange. Easily, with lots of energy still left. It is dangerous & nobody should fool themselves into thinking it isn't.

Sadly, at many of the major matches, stages are set that way. It is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt, unfortunately. Hopefully it won't be too serious. Another thing, on many of the videos of these stages you see the guns break the 180. Maybe it is just barely, & most times, the r.o. is not where he can see it but it is clear on the videos. It is dangerous. I know it is a dangerous game & we have a great safety record but really, what would it hurt to shift the stages slightly to get a little more downrange angle? I'm only asking 5-10 degrees. That isn't going to soften the skill set or make it less challenging, or hurt anything & in the name of safety, I think it is worth it.

Obviously this is just an opinion & maybe I'm overly concerned with safety. For those that disagree, that is ok too, this is about opinions. MLM

[tobydog]

For what its worth, I am in charge of safety of the stages at our range. And, yes, I'm overly concerned at times. I have been over-ridden by our resident CRO at times. This stage was shootable without breaknig the 180. We try not to suppress the guys that are finally trying to design a stage, but I do go over them, and possible 180 traps are mentioned at the walk-through. However, on this stage, it was designed by one of the older shooters, guys who used to scale walls and jump over things in a course of fire. He figures our stuff is pretty tame compared to what they used to do! I did make him clear the visible rocks from the berm, however, from all 4 targets.