Cooper Tunnel & Rule 2.3.1.1(b)

[kimel]

The best way to handle this in my mind would have been to declare the area that had been defined by fault lines as "Off Limits" (2.2.1.5) with the up to 20% penalty for those that were physically unable to do the tunnel and made proper application to the RM. Note the special provisions for delineating an "Off Limits" area. 2x4 fault lines aren't going to cut it.

The WSB must clearly specify that the area as defined is off limits and 2.3.1.1 then comes in to play.

For shooters that have made proper petition to the RM for the penalty in lieu of the tunnel I would just remove the top bars from the tunnel and they can transit the same passage as everyone else.

One very effective (and evil) way to compel folks through a tunnel is to put a shooting port with several targets that must be engaged through the port part way through the tunnel.

[cliffwalsh]

I have seen stages with this club where the stages were more than a tad slanted to younger,more athletic shooters, and that is not deniable. All you can do is your best and move on to the next stage, and then the next match.

I think I'm not regretting missing this one after all.

I'm curious what you would like to see as far as stage design?

[Joe4d]

Maybe a little less defensive attitude about your stage designs for starters. Just from the basic tone of this thread, It sounds like some one was starting a question about rule and penalty procedures, a fellow who evidently helps out. And what appears to be the stage builder being very defensive about his stage. Stages that are more about agility and flexibility and less about shooting we could probably do without. I'm not old but I'm not the most agile either. I dont consider low crawling through a tunnel fun and wouldn't be doing it. I also wouldnt be returning to a club that builds stages like that very often. It is also quite possible the written attitude is completly unintentional and in person things are totally different. Sometimes attitude translates wrong into text.

[Punkin Chunker]

Let's get back to Brian's original question.

I believe that rule 1.1.5.1 allows the stage designer to 'compel' the shooter's actions in a level I match.

1.1.5.1 Level I matches may use shooting boxes and specify where or

when specific target arrays may be engaged, and may specify

mandatory reloads in short and medium courses only (not in a

long course).

The procedurals, although severe, were clearly stated and written in the stage briefing.

Does the rulebook allow specifying a "per step" penalty?

I'm having trouble finding that reference.

This has been batted around before.

1.1.5.1 really doesn't say anything about Level 1 matches being able to require competitors to move within specific areas, just to shoot, or reload, at specific points.

In fact, 2.3.1.1.b specifically forbids using a Forbidden Action to compel movement.

As far as just using Off Limits Lines to put a portion of the range floor off limits, 2.3.1.1.c says crossing an OLL is a Forbidden Action. So putting in OLL to compel competitors to follow a path refers us back to 2.3.1.1.b.

If you have a safety issue, OLL is fine. But to force movement? Not by the rulebook.

And Forbidden Actions can be declared to prevent, "an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploitation of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage."

If you put it in the WSB, then it really isn't unintended -- you already know it's there and you're trying to make up for a poor stage design.

The best answer was to put a port in for the competitor to shoot an array while in the tunnel. Another might be to have the competitor pick up something in the tunnel (a magazine, a prop, etc.).

Then you have the fun of watching the gamers trying to calculate whether it's to their advantage to skip the tunnel and take the penalties but save the time, or take the tunnel and shoot the arrays.

If you plan to use fault lines, then 10.2.1 says procedural penalties are assessed for shots fired while faulting, not just for faulting.

If the point of the Cooper Tunnel in the stage design was for nothing more than to present a physical challenge, why not just set up a couple of uprights and a stick and have the shooters do the limbo on their way through the stage?

[PJONES5]

Let's get back to Brian's original question.

I believe that rule 1.1.5.1 allows the stage designer to 'compel' the shooter's actions in a level I match.

1.1.5.1 Level I matches may use shooting boxes and specify where or

when specific target arrays may be engaged, and may specify

mandatory reloads in short and medium courses only (not in a

long course).

The procedurals, although severe, were clearly stated and written in the stage briefing.

Does the rulebook allow specifying a "per step" penalty?

I'm having trouble finding that reference.

This has been batted around before.

1.1.5.1 really doesn't say anything about Level 1 matches being able to require competitors to move within specific areas, just to shoot, or reload, at specific points.

In fact, 2.3.1.1.b specifically forbids using a Forbidden Action to compel movement.

As far as just using Off Limits Lines to put a portion of the range floor off limits, 2.3.1.1.c says crossing an OLL is a Forbidden Action. So putting in OLL to compel competitors to follow a path refers us back to 2.3.1.1.b.

If you have a safety issue, OLL is fine. But to force movement? Not by the rulebook.

And Forbidden Actions can be declared to prevent, "an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploitation of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage."

If you put it in the WSB, then it really isn't unintended -- you already know it's there and you're trying to make up for a poor stage design.

The best answer was to put a port in for the competitor to shoot an array while in the tunnel. Another might be to have the competitor pick up something in the tunnel (a magazine, a prop, etc.).

Then you have the fun of watching the gamers trying to calculate whether it's to their advantage to skip the tunnel and take the penalties but save the time, or take the tunnel and shoot the arrays.

If you plan to use fault lines, then 10.2.1 says procedural penalties are assessed for shots fired while faulting, not just for faulting.

If the point of the Cooper Tunnel in the stage design was for nothing more than to present a physical challenge, why not just set up a couple of uprights and a stick and have the shooters do the limbo on their way through the stage?

WHAT HE SAID

Very good post.

pat

[Sandro]

Well, the point is when building a stage you can't make everyone happy, and it is not like we all have weeks to prepare the stage and course description for a local weekend match.

The argument about physical vs shooting always resurfaces… I think IPSC it is “practical shooting”, the Cooper tunnel doesn’t bother me, or weak hand shooting, or shooting on the move... The issue is, there is always someone willing to criticize.

The penalty was intended to prevent shooters from just walking around the walls. After we finished the stage and prior to starting the match another shooter made a suggestion to move the wall because it could create a RO trap, so I moved the wall to allow whoever was running the stage at the time to be safe. The tunnel was 42”high or at least 10” higher than the usual Cooper Tunnel I have seeing in other matches and even at international matches and US National as well.

I learned my lesson… keep it simple.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Sandro

[L9X25]

...I also heard complaints when I holstered my pistol (in proper ready condition) before entering the tunnel so I could crawl on both hands and knees. ...

Keep in mind that rule 10.5.2 still applies when your gun is holstered.

Given Wide45's comment, can we compel someone to do something that would be unsafe? In the old days (when we climbed walls and did other extremely physical things) a holstered gun was considered safe and 180 did not apply. The only fear was that the hot gun would fall out and that is what the holster tests were about.

Under the new rules and interpretations, can we still require folks to do things that they may not be able to do safely?

Edited February 5, 2008 by L9X25

[bigsaxdog]

i've been trying not to chime in, but i just can't help it.......the USPSA rulebook is really an excellent thing, with a tremendous amount of forethought involved! but goin' to a match, and thinking more about the rulebook than how to negotiate the shooting problems that are presented is just wrong. it ain't the way to beat SmittyFL, you dig? especially in a level 1 match. the guys arguing the rules the most usually aren't the worker"indians". the spirit of arguing rules in a local match where somebody has humped their a$$'$ to set the thing up is wrong. this is the stage, figure it out, shut your "pie hole" and shoot!!! if you have something positive to add, OK, but otherwise shut-up and shoot!! and don't give me any of that lack of physical talent/injuries crap, cause' i personally have seen the monster, and i ain't that scared, so.....i'm always amazed at the walk-thru's that instead of trying to understand what the concept of the stage is, some people are first trying to impose their own take on what's supposed to happen. that always brings it down a notch for me! this instance is exactly the reason that alot of 3-gunners don't want USPSA to get involved(i.e. ME), cause' you're gonna have a bunch of range lawyers involved, and that sux when you've been humping your a$$ to build a stage, and it always ends up with someone dumbing the thing down. if you want a sport with ultra regulation, go shoot Camp Perry. the essence of this stuff is that it's supposed to be wide open, and in any sport, if you wanna get good, you can't be scared, you just gotta go for it. players don't worry about rules.....all the guys arguing, i always notice they never show up to the Hernando "He-Man 3 Gun"....that i would love to see....i'd even let 'em shoot my M-1....yeah....

[brboyer]

...I also heard complaints when I holstered my pistol (in proper ready condition) before entering the tunnel so I could crawl on both hands and knees. ...

Keep in mind that rule 10.5.2 still applies when your gun is holstered.

Given Wide45's comment, can we compel someone to do something that would be unsafe? In the old days (when we climbed walls and did other extremely physical things) a holstered gun was considered safe and 180 did not apply. The only fear was that the hot gun would fall out and that is what the holster tests were about.

Under the new rules and interpretations, can we still require folks to do things that they may not be able to do safely?

Climbing walls? Now that gives me some ideas.

Climbing walls has to be easier than crawling through a tunnel! (For me at least)

As for 10.5.2, I don't see any exception for a holstered firearm. So my wall design must permit the shooter to climb it one-handed.....

[JThompson]

I love a good rules thread.

Edited February 6, 2008 by JThompson

[ChrisStock]

I'm curious what you would like to see as far as stage design?

You asked, so....

Let shooters solve the course, as having only one single possible way to shoot it could get old quick. When there are multiple approaches and possibilities to shoot a course safely it makes the game more fun for everyone, and not just a select few. Folks can adjust their approach to THEIR level of skill, and physical ability. Gamers will game regardless of COF layout, but most of us will run through it to the best of our abilities, and not feel like we're playing dirty for a local match stage win. Shooting on the move is a good skill, ability to shoot weak handed - good skill, distance shots -good skill, partials? - great. Got swingers? Bring 'em. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for challenges at matches, but I think the shooting should be the main focus, not the limbo dance. Then again, who am I and why should my thoughts mean anything?

I appreciate everyone who comes up with stage designs, and I have helped with setup and/or teardown {usually both}at every single match I have attended at WAC or at Ruskin, and it has seriously helped my understanding of USPSA shooting as well as simply being the right thing to do. I actually learn more about how to shoot a course by helping with setup than by sitting on my duff watching.

If you plan to use fault lines, then 10.2.1 says procedural penalties are assessed for shots fired while faulting, not just for faulting

That was my understanding and interpretation after hearing about the COF and then reading the blue book.

If the point of the Cooper Tunnel in the stage design was for nothing more than to present a physical challenge, why not just set up a couple of uprights and a stick and have the shooters do the limbo on their way through the stage?

I go to matches to have a good time, socialize, and improve my skills. No friction needed, no offense intended to anyone. Peace.

[baa]

Well, given it was a long field course, 1.1.5.1 does not apply.

Simply put, as I read the rules, you can only control shooter movement through stage design. I personally think the rules are pretty clear on stage design. And the Principle of Free Style is pretty clear in the rule book. the stage was not Free Style as we ended up having to shoot it in a specified manner to uphold the "intent" of the stage.

That said, I think the stage designers did the best they could given the time, materials, and "help" he was given when the "Stage Inspection and Dissection Committee" arrived a couple hours later and started forcing last minute changes. While the stage did not meet what I consider the spirit of Free Style, there was a reason that was the case. I am sure the stage builders, given more time, could have debugged the stage. That time didn't exist. In hind sight the Out of Bounds lines as well as ports could have made the stage work. I think we will certainly apply them very soon at the Ruskin match.

By the way, I enjoyed the stage greatly. What has not been mentioned is that the actual shooting challenges on the stage were well thought out and implemented.. Long range targets, partials, no-shoots, etc. Not only did we have to navigate the tunnel, we actually had to aim a bunch too. Good stuff. I liked it. And even if I didn't, I showed up late that match and don't have the right to criticize those that did get there early and setup a great match. Thanks guys. You did the best you could to attempt and salvage the situation right before we started shooting.

I also agree with Sandro (Did I just type that??) This is practical shooting. The challenges should be many and varied, to include going prone, kneeling, shooting weak handed, going through tunnels, moving from point to point with a sense of purpose, etc.

[JThompson]

Well, given it was a long field course, 1.1.5.1 does not apply.

Simply put, as I read the rules, you can only control shooter movement through stage design. I personally think the rules are pretty clear on stage design. And the Principle of Free Style is pretty clear in the rule book. the stage was not Free Style as we ended up having to shoot it in a specified manner to uphold the "intent" of the stage.

That said, I think the stage designers did the best they could given the time, materials, and "help" he was given when the "Stage Inspection and Dissection Committee" arrived a couple hours later and started forcing last minute changes. While the stage did not meet what I consider the spirit of Free Style, there was a reason that was the case. I am sure the stage builders, given more time, could have debugged the stage. That time didn't exist. In hind sight the Out of Bounds lines as well as ports could have made the stage work. I think we will certainly apply them very soon at the Ruskin match.

By the way, I enjoyed the stage greatly. What has not been mentioned is that the actual shooting challenges on the stage were well thought out and implemented.. Long range targets, partials, no-shoots, etc. Not only did we have to navigate the tunnel, we actually had to aim a bunch too. Good stuff. I liked it. And even if I didn't, I showed up late that match and don't have the right to criticize those that did get there early and setup a great match. Thanks guys. You did the best you could to attempt and salvage the situation right before we started shooting.

I also agree with Sandro (Did I just type that??) This is practical shooting. The challenges should be many and varied, to include going prone, kneeling, shooting weak handed, going through tunnels, moving from point to point with a sense of purpose, etc.

You were only able to short cut the stage because of a safety issue for the RO. They made the walk around so an RO could watch the shooter go through the tunnel.

2.3.1.1

In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction, a

Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions in

order to maintain competitive equity.

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit

competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe

condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole

in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain

unfair competitive advantage.

Part A fits this perfect as this was a safety issue for the RO. Safety must trump all other provisions in a rules section.

So you declare this a FA and DQ anyone who doesn't comply. There is no provision for declaring a per step penalty.

I think this section of the rules is muddy and conflicting to some degree.

Edited February 7, 2008 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

We had a stage at a local match this weekend that included a cooper tunnel that caused a bit of controversy. I did not intend to tick off the stage designer: If your reading this I'm sorry, that was not my intent, I was simply trying to understand if my interpertation of the rules is correct.

OK, so we had a shooting area (fault lines) delineated by 2x4's leading up to the tunnel and extending beyond. The cooper tunnel was flanked by walls on either side to prevent shooting at targets beyond the tunnel. The written stage briefing stated "one procedural penalty per step outside the shooting area" this was in an effort to prevent shooters from simply running around the tunnel. There was a space between the right side of the tunnel and the wall to allow the RO to go beyond the tunnel (this wall was moved after initial construction to provide that gap after a group of range Nazi's walked through). The stage briefing also indicated you "must' go through the tunnel - one procedural for each shot fired at targets beyond the tunnel without first traversing the tunnel.

My questions: Does 2.3.1.1( prohibit these procedural penalties? Can the course designer compel me, by way of procedurals, to follow any specific route in the COF?

"The declaration of a Forbidden Action cannot be used as a means of compelling or limiting competitor movement within a course of fire (e.g., to prevent a shooter from “cutting the corner” on an L-shaped shooting area). Except as provided in Rule 1.1.5.1, a course designer wishing to compel or limit competitor movement must do so using target placement, vision barriers and/or physical barriers."

BTW, we all ran the stage through the tunnel in the spirit of the design after learning of the circumstances surrounding it's modified construction.

(disclaimer: I haven't read the whole thead yet)

I believe you have two things going on here. One is the negative action, and one is the positive.

They are both trying to get the shooter to go through the tunnel.

I have always maintained that the written stage procedure can specify a...procedure.

While we want to strive for stages that simply read "...engage targets...", situations like this are why we have an area that covers the "procedures".

The tough part is writting the procedure properly. This will always be the case. It needs to be done.

In this case, I think I would have written in that the area beyond the tunel was "Area B", and the procedure then could have said that the shooter must go through the tunnel before entering Area B.

[Punkin Chunker]

Well, given it was a long field course, 1.1.5.1 does not apply.

Simply put, as I read the rules, you can only control shooter movement through stage design. I personally think the rules are pretty clear on stage design. And the Principle of Free Style is pretty clear in the rule book. the stage was not Free Style as we ended up having to shoot it in a specified manner to uphold the "intent" of the stage.

That said, I think the stage designers did the best they could given the time, materials, and "help" he was given when the "Stage Inspection and Dissection Committee" arrived a couple hours later and started forcing last minute changes. While the stage did not meet what I consider the spirit of Free Style, there was a reason that was the case. I am sure the stage builders, given more time, could have debugged the stage. That time didn't exist. In hind sight the Out of Bounds lines as well as ports could have made the stage work. I think we will certainly apply them very soon at the Ruskin match.

By the way, I enjoyed the stage greatly. What has not been mentioned is that the actual shooting challenges on the stage were well thought out and implemented.. Long range targets, partials, no-shoots, etc. Not only did we have to navigate the tunnel, we actually had to aim a bunch too. Good stuff. I liked it. And even if I didn't, I showed up late that match and don't have the right to criticize those that did get there early and setup a great match. Thanks guys. You did the best you could to attempt and salvage the situation right before we started shooting.

I also agree with Sandro (Did I just type that??) This is practical shooting. The challenges should be many and varied, to include going prone, kneeling, shooting weak handed, going through tunnels, moving from point to point with a sense of purpose, etc.

You were only able to short cut the stage because of a safety issue for the RO. They made the walk around so an RO could watch the shooter go through the tunnel.

2.3.1.1

In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction, a

Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions in

order to maintain competitive equity.

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit

competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe

condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole

in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain

unfair competitive advantage.

Part A fits this perfect as this was a safety issue for the RO. Safety must trump all other provisions in a rules section.

So you declare this a FA and DQ anyone who doesn't comply. There is no provision for declaring a per step penalty.

I think this section of the rules is muddy and conflicting to some degree.

I think that on the surface, this solution has an elegant simplicity since it includes the word, "safety."

And there are probably plenty of stage designers, clubs, etc. who will seize on it for that reason. However . . . .

Calling it a safety issue for the RO pries open an enormous loophole for every stage designer to drive through. You want an "L" shaped track on the course? Just plug down a couple of strings, then say the shooter has to stay between them because the RO will be following the shooter through the stage, and crossing the strings could result in an "unsafe condition" for the RO, and is therefore a Forbidden Action and a DQ infraction. Okay, that's a little on the extreme side, but it illustrates the extent to which this idea could go.

I think the Forbidden Action is an "after set-up" provision for Range Masters to employ when a problem is found after the stage is set up, but before shooting. If a Forbidden Action is declared after shooting starts, I would expect to see at least one reshoot for the shooter who exposed the problem.

Again, I'll go back to 2.3.1.1.b:

The declaration of a Forbidden Action cannot be used as a means of compelling or limiting competitor movement within a course of fire (e.g., to prevent a shooter from “cutting the corner” on an L-shaped shooting area). Except as provided in Rule 1.1.5.1, a course designer wishing to compel or limit competitor movement must do so using target placement, vision barriers and/or physical barriers (empahsis added).

As far as this solution for the tunnel goes, if the shooter goes through the gap between the barricade and the tunnel which was put there for the RO, how is that unsafe for the RO? If the RO is ahead of the shooter when they get to the gap, there's a problem somewhere.

If you design that loophole into the stage, then it's not "unintended."

Again, I suggest that there be a point to the tunnel beyond joining the, "My stage had a Cooper Tunnel," club. Put some shooting in there. Then you don't have to worry about how to force a shooter to go through it.

If you build it right, they will come.

[boz1911]

I have never shot a stage with a Cooper tunnel, and at 6-2 300lb I hope I never do!

[JThompson]

Well, given it was a long field course, 1.1.5.1 does not apply.

Simply put, as I read the rules, you can only control shooter movement through stage design. I personally think the rules are pretty clear on stage design. And the Principle of Free Style is pretty clear in the rule book. the stage was not Free Style as we ended up having to shoot it in a specified manner to uphold the "intent" of the stage.

That said, I think the stage designers did the best they could given the time, materials, and "help" he was given when the "Stage Inspection and Dissection Committee" arrived a couple hours later and started forcing last minute changes. While the stage did not meet what I consider the spirit of Free Style, there was a reason that was the case. I am sure the stage builders, given more time, could have debugged the stage. That time didn't exist. In hind sight the Out of Bounds lines as well as ports could have made the stage work. I think we will certainly apply them very soon at the Ruskin match.

By the way, I enjoyed the stage greatly. What has not been mentioned is that the actual shooting challenges on the stage were well thought out and implemented.. Long range targets, partials, no-shoots, etc. Not only did we have to navigate the tunnel, we actually had to aim a bunch too. Good stuff. I liked it. And even if I didn't, I showed up late that match and don't have the right to criticize those that did get there early and setup a great match. Thanks guys. You did the best you could to attempt and salvage the situation right before we started shooting.

I also agree with Sandro (Did I just type that??) This is practical shooting. The challenges should be many and varied, to include going prone, kneeling, shooting weak handed, going through tunnels, moving from point to point with a sense of purpose, etc.

You were only able to short cut the stage because of a safety issue for the RO. They made the walk around so an RO could watch the shooter go through the tunnel.

2.3.1.1

In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction, a

Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions in

order to maintain competitive equity.

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit

competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe

condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole

in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain

unfair competitive advantage.

Part A fits this perfect as this was a safety issue for the RO. Safety must trump all other provisions in a rules section.

So you declare this a FA and DQ anyone who doesn't comply. There is no provision for declaring a per step penalty.

I think this section of the rules is muddy and conflicting to some degree.

I think that on the surface, this solution has an elegant simplicity since it includes the word, "safety."

And there are probably plenty of stage designers, clubs, etc. who will seize on it for that reason. However . . . .

Calling it a safety issue for the RO pries open an enormous loophole for every stage designer to drive through. You want an "L" shaped track on the course? Just plug down a couple of strings, then say the shooter has to stay between them because the RO will be following the shooter through the stage, and crossing the strings could result in an "unsafe condition" for the RO, and is therefore a Forbidden Action and a DQ infraction. Okay, that's a little on the extreme side, but it illustrates the extent to which this idea could go.

I think the Forbidden Action is an "after set-up" provision for Range Masters to employ when a problem is found after the stage is set up, but before shooting. If a Forbidden Action is declared after shooting starts, I would expect to see at least one reshoot for the shooter who exposed the problem.

Again, I'll go back to 2.3.1.1.b:

The declaration of a Forbidden Action cannot be used as a means of compelling or limiting competitor movement within a course of fire (e.g., to prevent a shooter from “cutting the corner” on an L-shaped shooting area). Except as provided in Rule 1.1.5.1, a course designer wishing to compel or limit competitor movement must do so using target placement, vision barriers and/or physical barriers (empahsis added).

As far as this solution for the tunnel goes, if the shooter goes through the gap between the barricade and the tunnel which was put there for the RO, how is that unsafe for the RO? If the RO is ahead of the shooter when they get to the gap, there's a problem somewhere.

If you design that loophole into the stage, then it's not "unintended."

Again, I suggest that there be a point to the tunnel beyond joining the, "My stage had a Cooper Tunnel," club. Put some shooting in there. Then you don't have to worry about how to force a shooter to go through it.

If you build it right, they will come.

The thing is there was not a gap there in the first place... you have a circular argument here. Fixing the safety issue for the RO caused another path to be opened. That was closed by use of the FA rule. You CAN compell the shooter to stay within the intended COF. Anyone who has designed COFs at in indoor range knows how hard it is when you have just a backstop to shoot in. I'm not saying that is the case here, but there ARE safety issues and stage design is problematic as is originality.

We are talking about a last minute fix to keep an RO from crawling down a tunnel following a shooter. When you are talking level I there are probably a few guys doing the stages and 20 guys picking them apart at the last minute. They found a safety issue and this would fix it. If they had days to prep it and plenty of help, then there was probably a better solution, but IMHO this rule was put in for just such a case. It was last minute find and the RM can make this call. If someone gave me to much crap about it I would put it like this. We can do it this way or I will pull the stage.... any questions? No. Okay then, let's have some fun.

I am not an RM, nor do I have any credentials... I simply read the rules and ask questions.

Edited February 7, 2008 by JThompson

[brboyer]

BTW, the penalty for performing an FA is Zero for the stage, not DQ. 10.2.11

Also, while waiting on a formal interpretation on FA's and 2.3.1.1, I did receive an informal one from my RO instructor.

To paraphrase: "You cannot compel competitor movement within the CoF via penalties in the WSB, you must use stage design"

As an RO, I really only want to understand the rules better, not stir up controversy.

It appears from Charles' post, we can expect another cooper tunnel soon And he used another word I hate to hear "Prone". Charles, just make sure you include some type of handicap "grab bar" to help old fat guys like me stand back up.

Edited February 7, 2008 by brboyer

[JThompson]

BTW, the penalty for performing an FA is Zero for the stage, not DQ.

Also, while waiting on a formal interpretation on FA's and 2.3.1.1, I did receive an informal one from my RO instructor.

To paraphrase: "You cannot compel competitor movement within the CoF via penalties in the WSB, you must use stage design"

You are right on the zero for the stage... I misstated that. You can declare an area "Off Limits" though and it becomes an FO. There is some gray area here. I'd like to know what Perry thinks. I know you lurk Perry.

I was at at a match with Perry lately and he said Kyle is top of the heap as far as ROs go. I like and respect Perry... therefore I trust what Kyle says as well.

[Flexmoney]

Tell Perry I said hello and thank you. (and that I STILL have some Wisconsin mud on my gear)

On that note, and since I've now read the thread....

- Stage designers and work crews...

I know what it's like. I am probably at the range almost as long as anybody on match day. I am almost as dirty as anybody from hump'in props. I am almost as sweaty as anybody. I put in almost as much time as anybody before and after the match as well. And, I am often almost as stressed as anybody from trying to make a stage work.

I like to look at all of that as part of the "practical" part of shooting. Can I deal with all of that, then still flip the switch when it comes time to shoot?

Anyway...my stages, your stages, everybody's stages are going to get picked apart. I always want to defer to the rule book when it comes time to shoot. I've been know to find and exploit a loop-hole in my own stage design. I do so, because...once the stage is up...my competition will do so as well.

I hope to learn from it...and improve the next time. It's really not easy. Sometimes it is pretty rough. But, hey...we are all tough...and smart...and who doesn't like a challenge?

- A per step penalty is not supported by the rule book (nor is any arbitrary or predefined amount). We have had no precedent of that in the past, and the new rule book does not provide anything new along those lines.

- The Off-limits/forbidden action stuff that is new... I hope to never use it and have yet to figure out where I would need to. So far, it has caused more confusion that it has anything else. I'll have to read more before I comment more on it. (note: I had a strong bias against it getting added to the rule book.)

- Written Procedures and stage design...

This is the bread and butter. All things are solved through stage design and written procedures.

Yes, the procedure can tell a shooter how to do something. That is what it is there for...to stipulate a procedure. Not to be confused with freestyle and telling a shooter where and how to shoot.

[bigsaxdog]

excellent reply!!! succinctly(sp?) and academically sums the whole thing up..........cooler more distant heads should prevail...............i still think those guys are a bunch of dorks, though!!!!!......................

[PJONES5]

excellent reply!!! succinctly(sp?) and academically sums the whole thing up..........cooler more distant heads should prevail...............i still think those guys are a bunch of dorks, though!!!!!......................

\

What DORKS you talking about Oh must be the dorks trying to understand the rule book.

PAT

[AlamoShooter]

Brian ...You may want to rethink your use of the term Nazi Range Nazi. Not a nice term for an older guy, that may have had Fathers and brothers killed my Nazis. kind of sets the mood for a pour day.

[AlamoShooter]

Edited February 8, 2008 by AlamoShooter

[ChrisStock]

I have never shot a stage with a Cooper tunnel, and at 6-2 300lb I hope I never do!

6'3" 260 and I have absolutely no love for the d*** thing either