Interfering with swinger

[Cherryriver]

Couldn't find this one with the search engine, but it must have come up before.

At a club-level match, I'm the match director/rangemaster, and we have a big field course that has a wall downrange with a smallish port in the middle.

Right behind the port there's a swinging no-shoot the shooter activates with a stomper (beartrap). Behind it are some targets that the course briefing says must be shot through the port. Keep in mind the swinger's at-rest position blocks nearly all, but not all, of the port.

One of the shooters pokes his gun into the port and stops the swinger from swinging so he can blaze away unimpeded. He's actually using the gun (so I was told) to keep the swinger held off to the side.

I didn't see it happen, but I was called right away.

Just to add to the confusion, the no-shoot had been stapled with only four little staples and fell off during the incident.

The actual call that I made was a bit outside the rulebook lines but that's not germane to my question here.

My interpretation is that if I was going book-correct, I should have disqualified the shooter for unsportsmanlike conduct, based on his making a modification to the course of fire to gain an advantage.

Actually, that strikes me as being harsh, in the case where there's no unusual safety hazard. I would have preferred to call a procedural for the interference and then procedurals for each shot fired with the advantage gained.

Thoughts?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Cherryriver

[Ben Stoeger]

This seems to be a relevant portion of the rulebook:

4.5 Rearrangement of Range Equipment or Surface

4.5.1 The competitor must not interfere with the range surface, natural

foliage, constructions, props or other range equipment (including targets,

target stands and target activators) at anytime. Violations may

incur one procedural penalty per occurrence at the discretion of the

Range Officer.

USPSA Handgun Rules, January 2008 Edition • 17

4.5.1.1 Exception - a competitor is allowed to move stone, sand or other

loose material at the starting position for the purposes of achieving

level and stable footing.

4.5.2 The competitor may request that Match Officials take corrective

actions to ensure consistency in respect of the range surface, the presentation

of targets and/or any other matter. The Range Master will

have final authority concerning all such requests.

It seems to me that the competitor should not interfere with the swinger based on 4.5.1

[XRe]

Thoughts?

Don't ever set up a stage like that again For more than one reason... (like, scoring... if the shooter hits the swinging no-shoot, how do you know which hole in the scoring targets actually corresponds to it?) And, you've effectively made all the targets in the port disappearing targets.... Depending on the array, it could be advantageous to not even shoot at those targets and take NPMs on them, instead...

The Double Tap had a stage a few years back with swinging ports - there were very specific penalties called out in the WSB for interfering with the ports (procedural per shot fired after the interference). All targets were available when the ports were at rest, as well. They had the same scoring issue I mentioned above (there were no-shoots on the edges of the ports that swung with the ports.

(edit, cause I covered that bit in my next post in response to Ben )

Edited May 6, 2009 by XRe

[XRe]

It seems to me that the competitor should not interfere with the swinger based on 4.5.1

Agree - but the only penalty available, without stipulations in the WSB, is one procedural....

[JThompson]

Bad course design... Any time you have a NS that, if shot thru, can take down steel targets you have a problem. Moreover, you have scoring issues for which NS hit which target where. I know the idea seems cool, but in practice it doesn't fair as well.

I made a design much the same and a couple of more experienced guys came to have a "talk" with me about it. I saw their logic and changed the COF before we shot it.

If you must have they swinger as a obstruction then you can take a bit of wall and put it on both sides and move the swinger downrange a bit.

Edited May 6, 2009 by JThompson

[XRe]

If you can put the no-shoot down range, and are lucky enough to have a swinging steel no-shoot, though... Those are fun... (if a little tricky to set up)

[Cherryriver]

Ben- you nailed what I was looking for but couldn't seem to hit on.

XRe- I did point out the targets were still available even when the swinger came to rest; it was just much harder to shoot them.

But finally, JT, you're absolutely right. I should never have let the stage director (we have each stage each month done by basically one person, and I'm supposed to supervise) do it that way.

I personally ROed half of the shooters through this one, and three times, the no-shoot was hit. Even though I was close to the shooter, there was no way I could tell where the specific bullet went during this eight-shot minimum setup. If I'd called a miss on a popper, that would've been bad.

Maybe I spent too much time shooting IDPA over the winter, where they relish shoot-through problems. I noticed that I was almost caught on another shoot-through issue elsewhere in the same match, but one that was irrelevant.

So goes the learning process. That's what I posted here for.

Thanks for the replies.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Cherryriver

[XRe]

XRe- I did point out the targets were still available even when the swinger came to rest; it was just much harder to shoot them.

Actually, you said it "blocks most, but not all of the port" - I assumed that meant some targets were not visible...

If I'd called a miss on a popper, that would've been bad.

Especially because the rules wouldn't have supported that call That's a Range Equipment Failure (remember for scoring purposes, a target is impenetrable...) and you'd be granting a reshoot (after all, if he just "missed" the popper because he hit the no-shoot, how can he possibly make up the shot on the popper, which is now down?). No paper no-shoots in front of steel for that reason Scoring on other targets is just as bad, though - if I have a target a an A and a D at roughly the same position in the swinger arc as a hole in the swinging no-shoot, how do you accurately state which hole is the one that was blocked by the no-shoot? You can't....

Maybe I spent too much time shooting IDPA over the winter, where they relish shoot-through problems.

Yeah, you can't mix rules up between the games - things get really confusing, really quick...

[shooterbenedetto]

XRe- I did point out the targets were still available even when the swinger came to rest; it was just much harder to shoot them.

Actually, you said it "blocks most, but not all of the port" - I assumed that meant some targets were not visible...

If I'd called a miss on a popper, that would've been bad.

Especially because the rules wouldn't have supported that call That's a Range Equipment Failure (remember for scoring purposes, a target is impenetrable...) and you'd be granting a reshoot (after all, if he just "missed" the popper because he hit the no-shoot, how can he possibly make up the shot on the popper, which is now down?). No paper no-shoots in front of steel for that reason Scoring on other targets is just as bad, though - if I have a target a an A and a D at roughly the same position in the swinger arc as a hole in the swinging no-shoot, how do you accurately state which hole is the one that was blocked by the no-shoot? You can't....

Maybe I spent too much time shooting IDPA over the winter, where they relish shoot-through problems.

Yeah, you can't mix rules up between the games - things get really confusing, really quick...

I agree, that would be a bad stage design. Four years ago, I made stage designs that were very specific but yet shooters still tends to shoot it differently unless you have an RO assigned to the stage. I always had other shooters complain or argue that it was a bad stage design. Since then, I always made my stages simple description, but hard shots. My simple stage description is: "Shoot all targets within the shooting area" never had any problem since then.

Edited May 6, 2009 by shooterbenedetto

[Flexmoney]

9.1.5 Impenetrable – The scoring area of USPSA scoring targets and noshoots

is deemed to be impenetrable:

As mentioned, USPSA targets are impenetrable. (And sub rules 9.1.5.1 - 9.1.5.4 deal with what to do when bullets partially or wholly go through a target (or no-shoot) and continue on to hit other paper targets or steel.

Given that...

2.1.8 Target Placement – Care must be taken with the physical placement of

a paper target to prevent a “shoot through”.

That...in itself...is a stage design issue. It causes things like...

I personally ROed half of the shooters through this one, and three times, the no-shoot was hit. Even though I was close to the shooter, there was no way I could tell where the specific bullet went during this eight-shot minimum setup.

In any case where you cannot make an accurate determination on the shooter's score, you must order a reshoot...because you cannot just start awarding the hits you "think" the shooter got. You cannot just give them an Alpha, nor just give them a Mike.

(and, if that is what happened, the stage should be pulled from the match)

[Flexmoney]

Forgetting all that...and responding to the original question...

If I were called up as Range Master in a situation where the shooter was contacting the swinger while engaging targets through a window... (on purpose or not?)

I would re-write the stage procedure to not allow that (specifying the appropriate penalties for that action), and re-shoot that one shooter.

I'd be hard pressed to issue a penalty under 4.5.1 I can see where that could be made to apply, but I think it's somewhat obscure and wasn't meant to cover this situation... especially in a freestyle game. (good find, though)

[Jake Di Vita]

And, you've effectively made all the targets in the port disappearing targets

Not if there is more than 1 exposure. (unless that was changed recently? I'm not sure).

Either way, I concur with the others. Bad course design.

[Bergie]

Very poor course design

[JThompson]

And, you've effectively made all the targets in the port disappearing targets

Not if there is more than 1 exposure. (unless that was changed recently? I'm not sure).

Either way, I concur with the others. Bad course design.

Jake,

If you mean like a swinger that shows itself many times before it disappears... yes, it has been changed. I remember hearing about the rule where if it presented 3-4 times before it was covered that it was a non-disappearing target. Now, if the target is covered at rest, then it's a disappearing target no matter if it's presents once or 50 times.

9.9.1 Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest

scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designed

movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always

incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule

9.2.4.4).

9.9.2 Moving scoring targets, which do not comply with the above criteria

are considered disappearing targets and will not incur failure to shoot

at or miss penalties except where Rule 9.9.3 applies.

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss

penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates

the target movement.

9.2.4.4 Fixed Time courses of fire do not incur failure to shoot at or miss

penalties.

And even more succinct from A3

Disappearing target . . . . .A target which when activated and after completing its

movement is no longer available for engagement.

Edited May 6, 2009 by JThompson

[Cherryriver]

Just to mop up a few details so I don't sound like SUCH a ding-a-ling:

There was no doubt in anyone's mind the shooter deliberately held the swinging no-shoot out of the way, not even in the shooter's mind. That's from whence I tended towards an unsportsmanlike call. I declined that, though, since to my way of thinking a disqualification far exceeded the violation.

I will still say the course was deliberately altered by the competitor and as such falls under the no-mods rule. He did it to gain an advantage, and he touched a target doing so, in the process altering its placement on the course.

I am aware USPSA targets are impenetrable. On the one shot I was sure I saw go through the no-shoot, I believed that it was fired at a metric downrange. Which one, I couldn't have seen because of the port.

Another hole in the target came before I did any ROing, and a third actually cut the scoring border and so isn't relevant here.

In other words, the flaw was outside the rules but not overwhelming or fatal. Being a lightly-attended (34 shooters) club match, and with only two instances of possible scoring confusion out of 300 rounds fired through the port, I let it go unremarked.

As I learned from rangemasters far more highly rated than I, being right isn't always right when the line is fuzzy and close to the irrelevant zone. Two alphas or charlies aren't enough to make a big mess, which potentially included antagonizing the volunteers who put up the stage, among other things. Yes, I blew it by letting it get past me, but it wasn't earth-shaking enough to undo the biggest stage in the match and set things into a tizzy.

Finally, upon being notified of the issue, I modified the course description to inform the following shooters (the "holder" was among the first) to include that interfering with the swinger by touching it with either gun or body part would be a procedural, and everyone went away satisfied, including me.

Yes, I gave the "holder" a reshoot, based on the flimsiest of excuses that I could dig up- the no-shoot fell off the sticks. Yes, it's a ways outside of the lines, but it was just my match-directorness trying to help everyone have a fun time.

No trophies or prize money was lost or harmed in the making of this incident.

The biggest value, of course, is that it's unlikely to happen to either the stage directors involved, or me.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Cherryriver

[scirocco38s]

I am also a match director and I used to have different people responsible for designing and setting up stages. This ends up creating more problems than it solves. If the person setting the stage up has a warped sense of what a good stage is you end up with what you had. Nowhere on a course of fire should a shooter be able to touch a target with his hands or weapon while shooting the stage. Swinging no shoots(or Hard cover) are a bad idea unless they are steel and are repainted after each shooter.(that hits them). Also for safety anything with stell on it(and that includes swinger and drop turners) are at least 8 yds away.

It ends up taking more of your personal time and you have top do a little research but it will be better if you personally approve all the stges or design them all yourself. Once I did this many problems went away. If you havve a helper that wants to design a stage by all means let him and then the 2 of you sit down look at it and discuss the potential problems with it. If you do this life will be much better and you wont insult your help.

I design or find all of the stages for my match and then the day before, I have a core group of 4 to 7 people that come and help setup the match(depending on their work schedule). We start at 10 and are finished by 3 and if they want to practice alittle after that is ok with me as long as they dont use the bays the stages are set in.

[Cherryriver]

scirocco38, you're absolutely right.

I do indeed approve the stages ahead of time in our program. Missing this gadget may have been in part due to other factors not discussed here, but in the end, it's my fault that I let it happen.

There's the learning value and I won't get caught again.

Apart from that, the stage director program we're using is now in its second year and has been otherwise a big success. The level of interest it has generated has been gratifying. New people have come in and wanted to get more involved, and with the lowered level of responsibility (one-man-one-stage), it's much more accessible. It's an intermediate step much less crushing than going all the way to being a match director, and it's been a good thing for all of us.

Yes, the onus is on me to forsee these things, and in this case I failed, but overall, I'm happy with the total picture.

[JThompson]

We all miss stuff and this one won't get by you again... call it a good learning experience and move on.

[ima45dv8]

I say we cut his pay in half!

Oh wait.....never mind.

[Cherryriver]

Dang! There goes that other primer I was going to be able to afford!

[hueycrew]

We love our match director anyway. Nobody else would take the abuse!

[Ben Stoeger]

I'd be hard pressed to issue a penalty under 4.5.1 I can see where that could be made to apply, but I think it's somewhat obscure and wasn't meant to cover this situation... especially in a freestyle game. (good find, though)

What can I say, I am a good hunter.

[JThompson]

I'd be hard pressed to issue a penalty under 4.5.1 I can see where that could be made to apply, but I think it's somewhat obscure and wasn't meant to cover this situation... especially in a freestyle game. (good find, though)

What can I say, I am a good hunter.

Well you have to be shooting a Beretta.

[dqshooter]

I would like to throw my two cents in. If you stop or impede a range prop to gain a greater advantage it is penalty per shot fired. If it was an accident and the shooter hit the no shoot as it swung out and it came off it wouold be range prop failure and a reshoot would be granted. The question has to be asked, "does the action give advantage to the shooter", if the answer is yes it is penaties per shot fired. Lots of shooters (gamers) read into the rules instead of just reading the rules for what they are. The most important thing you can do is make a desision and stick to your desision. It does not matter if it is a GM or a D class shooter the rules are the rules they pertain to everyone. It would literally imposible to put everything you cannot do in a stage discription, sometimes shooters just need to use their head and the RO needs to direct them in the right direction. I agree that the stage design could be better, if you are going to have a swinging no shoot behind a port, only put one or two steel or one paper behind it. That way if you hear two hits and one is in the no shoot it is not your judgement call, it is right in front of you on the no shoot. If you have one paper, with two hits and one in the no shoot, give the shooter the high hit and the no-shoot/mike. Stage design can get really muddled up with two many no shoots thrown in. Keep them to a minimum and make the shots more difficult with target placement and steel.

Just my two Cents.

[Nik Habicht]

If you have one paper, with two hits and one in the no shoot, give the shooter the high hit and the no-shoot/mike.

That's not the proper way to score that scenario --- you either need to be able to line up the holes and know which round passed through the no-shoot, or it's a reshoot.....