Watched my first DQ

[Shawn Knight]

I was asked by Stinger why I was going so slow at first and I simply told him, "I don't want to get DQ'd!". I have never done a lot of the stages designed at your level so I am going to be very cautious untill I get some trust from you guys and I can in turn trust you guys a little more.

[cmzneb]

Editing my own comments out.

Nevermind.

Edited June 27, 2007 by cmzneb

[JThompson]

Editing my own comments out.

Nevermind.

I read them Chris... a bit snarky there eh? I would like to see more of a safety factor on some targets I've seen. I also know wha you were going for there... you just didn't want them running by full tilt and blasting away. There are other ways to achieve the same thing... HC- Noshoot covering most of the target etc. There is so little room for error on some of the stuff I've seen that I feel the risk to others is not justified. Was that the case here? I don't think so, but it was close.

Best,

JT

Edited June 27, 2007 by JThompson

[Nik Habicht]

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.

I prefer stages that start with backing up to start the shooter with toes touching a faultline, and then have the flow of the stage make it unlikely that they'll need to cross that fault line again --- eliminates it as a potential trip hazard. Extreme care must be taken with the selection of the area through which the shooter and RO will back, to ensure that the ground is level and free of obstructions....

[kevin c]

At RRGC, we try to set the stage so that the target is not engageable (not visible) beyond the safe angle of fire, whatever that may be. We have too many new shooters to rely on the experience and good sense of long time shooters to avoid firing a shot in an unsafe direction.

We have a safety committee whose main responsibility is to review all stages before the first shot, to insure a consistent level of safe competition. They are a bit zealous, but serve a very important function that all acknowlege.

[RobMoore]

The only stage I can recall having a complaint about its setup with concern to the 180 was a stage that was pointed into the "corner" of the far right of the berm ( about 30 degrees off to the right), with movement required from center to left to right, but the Match Director stated that the 180 was to the berm, not the stage, so when moving back toward the right, breaking his designated 180 wasn't hard to do, and alot of people came close. The targets weren't situated "downrange" towards the berm, they were situated downrange of the "lane". The complaint was that it was hard to know where the 180 was, since the "lane" wasn't parrallel with the berm.

(I hope that was clear enough)

[ima45dv8]

As a rule we try to construct stages with no-shoots or vision barriers blocking a shot on (or dangerously close to) the 180 line to a target. It serves 2 purposes -- it helps eliminate ricochets back uprange (in case an errant dirt clod in the side berm is found to conceal a rock), and makes it a damn sight easier for the RO to know when someone has broken the 180 and earned themselves a bus ticket.

I've heard the argument that the shooter is responsible for minding the 180, and I agree, but don't we have a greater duty to protect the gallery from getting fragged by a potentially lethal and preventable round coming back uprange? I'm not saying a round couldn't be deflected back uprange by a rock in the back berm, but I don't see a need to flirt with catastrophic failures any more than necessary.

[mlmiller1]

ima45dv8, I'm with you. We have the responsibility to make it as safe as possible. I think we are falling down in this respect at many, not all, matches. I know it is a challenge to swing all the way left to all the way right but just a few degrees less swing is still a challenge & much safer as far as ricochets, etc. goes. Safety is everyone's responsibility. MLM

[RPMartin]

Howdy All,

When I took the CRO course three years ago, we were strongly encouraged to build courses that could not, did not, and would not, have 180(90) issues.

When we disigned courses for the class, we could not have shooters moving parralell to the 180(90) line, and no backing up shots. This was to keep the shooter from breaking the 180(90) and to provide the RO a safe place to be with the shooter on the course.

All of this is wonderfully safe and rather limiting to stage design. (Please do not send me copies of safe courses that have the issues mentioned here.)

Thge point of this post is that the NROI has been trying to deal with issue by traing the CROs to design courses that do not put the RO in jeopardy, and help the shooters to have safer more fun experience.

I strongly urge everyone who designs stages, or wants to design stages, to take the next available CRO class.

It was an eye opener for me........

RPM

[Neomet]

All I could think of in looking at the first part of that stage is that it would be a total bear to shoot left handed but at least it would be almost physically impossible for me to break the 180!

KOL, glad to see your guns found their way to you!

[Shawn Knight]

All I could think of in looking at the first part of that stage is that it would be a total bear to shoot left handed but at least it would be almost physically impossible for me to break the 180!

KOL, glad to see your guns found their way to you!

They did make it to me!

I just hope when I go to this weekend's match I don't get shunned for making this thread! This club has some great shooters and very interesting stage design. Almost 3 dimensional stages. I like it quite a bit.

[Thomas H]

...so I am going to be very cautious untill I get some trust from you guys and I can in turn trust you guys a little more.

Cautious at...? Shooting? What does trust have to do with shooting correctly? Either you do break the 180, or you don't. Trust has nothing to do with it.

Cautious at commenting? I'd say you can comment all you like---after all, if you are comfortable commenting to other people here, one would expect you should be equally comfortable commenting to the stage designers in a similar fashion.

I looked at those stages pretty carefully, and while there were some possible 180 problems for people who overran themselves (on the rifle stage), in no case were there 180 "traps"---it seems to me that a "trap" is something that is deliberately designed to catch someone and DQ them. Before the rifle stage, the designer (and the safety officer) specifically mentioned that people needed to be careful regarding the 180 line in the beginning section. This doesn't change the fact that it was entirely possible to shoot that section safely. In the pistol stage, it was possible to move forward and engage the initial targets on the left (and some people did). People who moved backwards chose to do so, as one of the available options--which rather negates the possibility of "trap."

In a similar fashion, the pistol stage (after moving forward) gave a multitude of choices for freestyle engagement--and indeed, in the video your choice of movement and target acquisition had you moving very close to the 180 line. On the other hand (I was at that match) many other people engaged each target quickly with no 180 problems at all. Again, given the many possible choices of move-and-engage, the stage had no "traps."

What it really comes down to is simply that when attempting a stage, shooters need to be aware of the 180 line---that is their responsibility. If they go beyond it, they are done. The shooter is the one with the gun--it isn't like it points itself.

What was the problem again?

T.

[Thomas H]

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.

Hmm. This is phrased interestingly. It rather assumes that 1) the stage included a 180 trap, and 2) that the stage designer was "intentionally trying to get them to break a rule and get them kicked out of a match".

I don't think either one of those assumptions was actually true for the stage you referenced. As such, your questions regarding this stage aren't really that valid. In that particular stage, it was fairly simple to shoot it effectively and safely. Matter of fact, almost everyone did. The person that didn't got DQed for doing something that would have gotten him DQed at any time (after all, we tend to frown on turning around and shooting behind us).

I will say, however, that if a stage is designed to attempt to weed out competitors, then yes, that would be unsportsmanlike, and not something anyone would want.

T.

[TerryBegley]

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

I'll add to Thomas H's messages that the stage didn't have a "trap" in it on purpose. A trap would indicate a willful design to catch shooters, and I can attest that there was not an intention to DQ our shooters. Nineteen of the twenty shooters did not DQ on that stage. At the walkthrough, both the stage designer and the safety officer made note of the 180 warning.

[Shawn Knight]

Yeah I know there were warnings. If you noticed on Sunday's match There was a point where you came very close on the stage I myself helped design.

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=...ideoid=11951699

I came very close to the 180 in that one.

Did we make warnings? Yes.

Did many shooters make comments? Yes.

Did everyone have a good day shooting? Yes.

Was the 180 trap intentional? God no! My second stage design ever and I get to put my foot into my mouth!

[Thomas H]

If you noticed on Sunday's match There was a point where you came very close on the stage I myself helped design.

Did we make warnings? Yes.

Did many shooters make comments? Yes.

Was the 180 trap intentional? God no! My second stage design ever and I get to put my foot into my mouth!

I wouldn't worry about it---nor would I call it a "180 trap" there, either. There were plenty of ways to shoot your stage without coming close to the 180. If people chose to do it that way, it was their choice. As such, it was their responsibility to watch out for the 180 line. It was good that you warned people to be careful about the 180 (part of your job as the stage designer), and it is normal for people to make comments---quite frankly, when people stop making comments is when you have to be worried.

The stage was just fine.

T.

[Shawn Knight]

Thanks Thomas!

[ffl]

Great comments. The 180 trap is a hugh safety issue. On one of the videos of the nationals in Montana, Julie looked like she turned arround from facing 90 degrees from down range and engaged targets directly behind her. I haven't seen the stage diagram but it looked close to me.

At a Major match that I shot there was a target behind a wall and you had to engage it through an opening at the end of the wall. There was a VERY FINE LINE BETWEEN SHOOTING THE TARGET AND GETTING A DQ. Luckly no one did but one of the guys in my group was so close that it could have gone either way. The target was within 6" of the back of the wall low to the ground.

I was very careful to not break 180. The same stage had a target you had to run arround and there was a barrel next to the target. Again very close to 180. Poor design. The targets could have been moved 12" further down range and not created the problem it was.

David

[desmo]

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?

Hmmm, what I think personally is that only a small portion of information is being put out. Prior to the match at the walk through it was put out multiple times to not go so fast that it would cause you to break the 180. By calling it a "180 trap" and "unsportsmanlike conduct" is misleading. Shooters were informed of the 180 risk. A (one) shooter went too fast and broke the 180, out of how many shooters? The information was put out, period. At some point the individual shooter needs be individually accountable for his actions, and the decisions he makes during the course of fire. I can honestly say that in 24 years of shooting in various arenas I have never, EVER seen a "trap" designed to make shooters to fail. I have seen situations which level the playing field by forcing faster shooters to mitigate risks. My question now would be; were you present at the walk through, and if so, were you paying attention?

[Shawn Knight]

Hmmm, what I think personally is that only a small portion of information is being put out. Prior to the match at the walk through it was put out multiple times to not go so fast that it would cause you to break the 180. By calling it a "180 trap" and "unsportsmanlike conduct" is misleading.

Yeah the comments were a little controversial, but I wanted a more national look on the issue, not just the club's reaction.

Shooters were informed of the 180 risk. A (one) shooter went too fast and broke the 180, out of how many shooters?

20

The information was put out, period. At some point the individual shooter needs be individually accountable for his actions, and the decisions he makes during the course of fire. I can honestly say that in 24 years of shooting in various arenas I have never, EVER seen a "trap" designed to make shooters to fail. I have seen situations which level the playing field by forcing faster shooters to mitigate risks. My question now would be; were you present at the walk through, and if so, were you paying attention?

Yes that is why I said in an earlier post that I was going slower on purpose and wanting to keep from breaking any rules.

Not good to get DQ'ed on your second match in a new club.

Granted it is also not good to get shunned by you club after your 3rd match either.

[desmo]

Not good to get DQ'ed on your second match in a new club.

Granted it is also not good to get shunned by you club after your 3rd match either.

Pretty sure neither happened

[mdstihl]

I hope to shoot my first IPSC match this month. If not this month, then next. If not next month, then sometime before I hit the ground dead. lol Anyway, my only concern is not embarrassing myself. I'm pretty sure I'll be the slowest guy there (maybe of all time lol) but I really, really don't want to DQ in any way.

[Shawn Knight]

Not good to get DQ'ed on your second match in a new club.

Granted it is also not good to get shunned by you club after your 3rd match either.

Pretty sure neither happened

Copy that!

I hope to shoot my first IPSC match this month. If not this month, then next. If not next month, then sometime before I hit the ground dead. lol Anyway, my only concern is not embarrassing myself. I'm pretty sure I'll be the slowest guy there (maybe of all time lol) but I really, really don't want to DQ in any way.

You know...

Everyone of us was the slowest guy at some point. Get out there and do it!!

[Thomas H]

Replying to someone else's comment, "theknightoflight" said:

Yeah the comments were a little controversial, but I wanted a more national look on the issue, not just the club's reaction.

Hmm. Let's look at your original post:

You said (emphasis mine.):

I watched a 180 get broke during the rifle stage of a 3-Gun match. It was a 180 trap.

Then in the same post said (emphasis mine.):

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.

The issue of "180 traps" is indeed something worth looking at, and discussing. Indeed, if the designer of a stage deliberately creates a situation in which a shooter is almost forced to do something potentially dangerous, then we have a serious problem.

However, your first post didn't exactly come out that way. You first post said that in your new club, the stage designer created a 180 trap that would cause shooters "to break a rule and get them kicked out of a match" which to you, seemed "like unsportsmanlike conduct." This is not merely controversial verbiage, this was a case where you effectively accused a stage designer in your new club of unsportsmanlike conduct. (Without, I'll note, actually discussing it with the stage designer at the time.)

You later said similar things about the designer of a pistol stage. A stage in which (as many people pointed out) there were a number of different ways to shoot the stage---if the shooter broke the 180, then it was their own responsibility, and had nothing to do with the stage design.

I submit that discussions of 180 traps, problems, and stage design are important, useful, and help in the creation of better, safer stages. At the same time, I suggest that in the future, being "controversial" to start discussion by accusing stage designers of unsportsmanlike conduct is perhaps not the best way to do so, particularly when the stages posted do not support your contention that they contained "180 traps."

And if they had actually contained 180 traps, wouldn't have it made more sense to also discuss this with the match director, safety officer, and stage designers at the time?

Thomas H.

[shred]

[not commenting about this stage, but 180 traps in general... ]

Warning people about 180 traps is not the same as eliminating them.

IMO, there's nothing that can be done with a 180 target that can't be done with a 170 target. People that screw up will screw up either, and those that don't are much better off. I've shot a lot of stages with 'ride the line' designs in them (many internationally, even one where they sat an RO on the 180 to check! ), but I still don't see the need.

Often targets on the 180 are thown in to "try" and "make" shooters slow down or do something different. This "trying" and "making" is what I call "B-class stage design" and a whole separate rant, but typically serves to highlight the stage designers' small-mindedness feelings in regards to different equipment or better/worse shooters (we've all been there, done that)