Forbidden Actions: "Extend Rearward To Infinity"

[sigh]

I've had the "Forbidden Actions" addendum to the 2008 USPSA rules for, what, an hour? AlreadyI find that I have a serious problem with one of the new rules.

2.2.1.4 Fault Lines extending rearward (uprange) (sic) should be a minimum of 3 feet in length, and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, are deemed to extend rearward to infinity.

This is, admittedly, one of my hot buttons when it comes to stage design.

Here's the short version:

A fault line must consist of a physical barrier which is discernible (either visually or by touch) by the competitor. However, if the fault line ends sufficiently far downrange of the location from which the competitor is engaging targets, the competitor has not the ability to definitively determine whether he is to one side or the other of the virtual ("deemed to extend rearward to infinity") fault line.

And in all fairness, the Range Officer can't definitively determine whether the shooter's location is within the bounds of a 'legal shooting area', either.

So when a competitor does engage targets from far up range of the stub of a rearward-pointing fault line, the Range Officer finds himself in a quandary. Not only can the RO not prove that the competitor was engaging targets from an 'illegal' location, there is no reason to expect that the competitor can tell if he was shooting from an 'illegal location.

If the RO forces (under what justification?) the competitor to reshoot the stage, the competitor is completely justified in engaging the same targets from the same spot. In the case of an unrecalcitrant competitor who knows the rules, this could go on all day with no change until the competitor is forced to request arbitration in protest of the Range Officers arbitrary and unjustifiable imposition of multiple reshoots.

There is no scenario providing a mutually satisfactory result for both the competitor and the Range Officer.

________________________

The Long Version:

I've talked about the concept of a "fault line which is deemed to extend rearward to infinity" ( in excruciating detail) four times.

Most recently, on March 25, 2007, I discussed the folly of 'fault lines extending to infinity' in the context of the lack of a 'rear fault line' ... video included to shot the advantage of providing a rear fault line, or not.

A couple of weeks earlier, on March 8, 2007, I hosted a Guest Commentator (Stan P.) who demonstrated stage design/construction priorities which would 'idiot-proof' stages which might have required a rear fault line. This was in reference to the special case of requiring the competitor to shoot around a vision barrier. But Stan's article also offered suggestions on how to construct a stage so that it would be obvious when the competitor would 'violate' the fault line. Basically, Stan's theme was that sometimes you CAN rely on a 3' stub of wood to define a legal shooting area, but more often you need a more complete delineation of the legal shooting area.

A bit earlier than that, on March 5, 2007, I offered another Geek-Length article (complete with a video demonstration) explaining that a competitor, especially when shooting an Open Pistol for increased accuracy on medium-targets, may gain a competitive advantage when a rear fault line is not constructed on the stage.

In fact, my protests about this 'fuzzy rule' go back as far as January 24, 2005, when I described a stage which relied on 'fault lines deemed to extend rearward to infinity' in the context that when the competitor is standing FAR behind the end of the 3' stub of a rearward-extending fault line, it is something between 'difficult' and 'impossible' for a Range Officer to definitively state that the competitor is within, or not within, the virtual boundaries of a fault line which may end 20 feet away from the geographic location of the competitor as he engages targets not available from a huge area closer to the targets.

________________________

Summary:

This is A Bad Rule. As long as match administrators (and stage construction teams) depend upon the "extends rearward to infinity" rule to justify the lazy way to build stage fault lines, that long will matches be delayed, and requests for arbitration be proliferated to the resulting frustration of all concerned.

I do understand the priorities for brevity in the rule book which results in this shorthand version of a reasonable rule. And I accept that in some situations it may be adequate and sufficient.

Unfortunately, the very existence of this rule is bound to cause delays in matches and dissatisfaction for competitors and Range Officers alike.

I've not been able to develop a rewarding of this rule which will be satisfactory in all situations. I suspect that an improvement on the rule is not possible.

Given that the rule is not subject to improvement, I suggest that it be deleted completely and match administrators allow themselves to be forced to clearly define all legal shooting positions.

Sure, it require more 'wood' to define a legal shooting area.

But it's more fair to both the competitors and the Range Officers.




.