Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

tape blowing off, can the RO determine an accurate score


motosapiens

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Poppa Bear said:

I vote for a reshoot only because it is impossible to determine the total number of misses.  We have 3 on the hard cover and a bunch of tape blown off making impossible to determine if the shooter hit it twice and had a complete Mike or even hit it once taking off the tape and two shots completely missing the target.  We cannot make a definitive call so reshoot it is and it looks like the reshoot gods balanced things out.

 

That is a very sensible argument from the standpoint of technicality, but it's a little bizarre from the standpoint of sporting equity. Essentially you are saying "we know you f*cked this stage up, but we can't tell if it was 3 mikes or 4-5 mikes, so we're going to give you another chance." Probably all evens out tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

53 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

the funny thing is, the only other possibility is that the shooter got MORE than 3 mikes, some of which didn't even hit the paper at all. So he's essentially arguing, "my score might be even worse than this, and you can't tell for sure, and we all know I screwed the pooch on this stage, so I want a second chance that no one else will get, even tho we all know exactly what happened."

 

And I understand that is how the game is played by many folks.

Standards stages are an excellent display of character. Between your guy and the numerous people I have seen want doubles because their loads tumble, I hate RO'ing them.

 

I love shooting them though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ultimo-Hombre said:

For me the biggest question, in relation to the rules would be...

the testimony of an RO as to where he saw my shots land versus scoring only the target , independent of RO testimony. 

 

Didn't seem to be addressed well. 

 

good point, and I honestly don't even remember who was holding the timer at that point. Sometimes you can see the shots as they land (esp in hardcover) even from that distance, but I personally couldn't see the holes appear.

 

At closer distances like 10-12 yards and less, I have seen RO testimony prevail at area and national matches on multiple occasions. I think there are excellent arguments for both sides, but the best argument is to replace targets earlier and use longer chunks of tape. In the meantime, we shall have to rely on peer pressure and mockery to ensure competitive equity. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, assume the shooter screwed up. He owns the hardcover hits.  Giving the shooter 3 A's and 3  misses may be giving him 3 A's he did not deserve....  maybe he should have had 6 misses. How do you tell unless you can score the A zone properly, with all that missing tape and many holes? Unless you are throwing him a bone and giving him benefit of doubt.

 

Again, its up to the R.O.s judgment, his call. It could go either way.... up to what the R.O. can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mach1soldier said:

Standards stages are an excellent display of character. Between your guy and the numerous people I have seen want doubles because their loads tumble, I hate RO'ing them.

 

I love shooting them though.

I get what you are saying. Just so no one gets the wrong idea tho, I want to say that I would personally vouch for the character of this shooter in any situation. He's one of the best and most thorough and attentive RO's I have ever worked with, with a good understanding of the rules and a constant desire to increase that understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mach1soldier said:

Standards stages are an excellent display of character. Between your guy and the numerous people I have seen want doubles because their loads tumble, I hate RO'ing them.

 

I love shooting them though.

I understand your frustration with "doubles" seekers but shooting them is a bit much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly how many pasters did the RO see 'blow off' from 18 yds away to be able to determine exactly how many actual A hits there were from the shooter?   Were the pasters been blown off at the exact moment the shooter was putting holes in the target, thereby making it extremely difficult to discern the two?? There should be no argument about the number of hardcover hits if the RO saw him put 3 rds in hardcover however, but the A zone hits ...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nimitz said:

Exactly how many pasters did the RO see 'blow off' from 18 yds away to be able to determine exactly how many actual A hits there were from the shooter?   Were the pasters been blown off at the exact moment the shooter was putting holes in the target, thereby making it extremely difficult to discern the two?? There should be no argument about the number of hardcover hits if the RO saw him put 3 rds in hardcover however, but the A zone hits ...?

 

correct, there is no way other than math skills and the assumption that the subject actually hit somewhere on the target to get the number of A hits. 6 shots, 3 hardcover mikes, the reasonable presumption is 3 A's but unless you saw them hit (difficult for me to do at that distance) you can't be certain. So you have a situation where the shooter is arguing "i might have had 4 or 5 mikes, not just 3, you can't tell for sure, so I should get a re-shoot."  Which is a somewhat comical situation imho, but appears to be supported by the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree ... the rules don't allow you to take the partial score on the target you know is correct and then make some guesses about the other hits to score it.  It's all or nothing.  One of the interesting things about having a target with more than 2 hits required on it.  the more hits that are required the more chance there is for something to happen where you can't be sure about ALL the hits thereby requiring a reshoot.   The answer of course is to switch to Steel Challenge  ..... :)

 

One hit per target, no knock down.  Just hit it (anywhere, even the edge) and you're good to go;  no fuss no muss ....

 

Of course if you head over to the SC sub forum you'll see a raging debate right now about allowing edge hits ... but we won't mention that ....  "just ignore the little man behind the curtain ..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nimitz said:

Of course if you head over to the SC sub forum you'll see a raging debate right now about allowing edge hits ... but we won't mention that ....  "just ignore the little man behind the curtain ..."

 

Considering that the current rules count edge hits, I'm still not really sure why people are arguing about it as it is what we've been doing for at least the past four years.

 

SC rules:  6.3.2 If the bullet has left a clear mark on the edge or face of the plate, it will be scored as a hit. If there is no discernible mark, it will be scored as a miss. (See 6.4)

 

As to the OP, a re-shoot is pretty much all you can do.  It doesn't matter what the peanut gallery sees, it only matters what the RO(s) can determine.  If the primary or secondary RO saw three HC hits and three hits in the A-zone that ALSO knocked off pasters all occur, then you can determine the score.  If not, then you can't.  And even if everyone knows what really happened, if the RO didn't see it and can't determine the score, then it is a reshoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nimitz said:

agree ... the rules don't allow you to take the partial score on the target you know is correct and then make some guesses about the other hits to score it.  It's all or nothing. 

 

imho, there is often some guesswork, and people are ok with it. Close targets have tape blow off all the time, even at major matches, and just about no one complains about getting 2A (or even A/C). Yeah, it could have been 1 hit and one complete miss and some tape blowing off, but just about everyone seems to be ok with correctly identifying what actually happened, even in the absence of perfect  physical evidence on the target.

 

OTOH, throw a few mikes into the mix, and suddenly people start to care much more about their perception of the letter of the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to remember all those pasters coming off targets by the dozens in the wind (yes, we have wind here, too), but it's just not coming to me.  

 

I don't see tons of "guesswork"; we were taught if you can't see it, you don't call it.  

 

This conversation is sounding more and more like The Straw Man show the longer it goes on.

Edited by teros135
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it may seem comical a shooter is lobbying to argue he may have a lesser score than the R.O. is trying to score him, the relevant fact is, is it an ACCURATE score....  if I was unsure I made the 3 A's (especially as I threw a few into hard cover and wasn't calling my shots well?), I would feel bad about taking them if I may have actually had a lesser score. Unless the R.O. could call my actual shots.... then I'd take them!

 

So from one point of view, arguing for a reshoot may be the honorable thing to do, rather than the gamey thing. (of course, it could be both) ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Poppa Bear said:

I vote for a reshoot only because it is impossible to determine the total number of misses.  We have 3 on the hard cover and a bunch of tape blown off making impossible to determine if the shooter hit it twice and had a complete Mike or even hit it once taking off the tape and two shots completely missing the target.  We cannot make a definitive call so reshoot it is and it looks like the reshoot gods balanced things out.

I wasn't there -- Hypothetically speaking I could make an argument for 3alpha, 3 mike, and I could argue for a reshoot.  Realistically though, I would have asked for replacement targets as we got to the stage, to keep this from happening.

 

Barring that, if wearing the RM hat at that match, I'd most likely rule for a reshoot because the possibility of an off-target miss is kind of hard to rule out.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Nik Habicht said:

Realistically though, I would have asked for replacement targets as we got to the stage, to keep this from happening.

 

most important lesson from this. we really dropped the ball on that, but no one really went downrange to see how beat the target was until the first shooter started blowing tape off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he was the first shooter then you got an instant education on the target conditions.  If this happened 5 or 6 shooters out then you dropped the ball, unless you were the last squad.  I could justify replacing the target but as the last squad I would be inclined to say let's not waste a new target unless I knew we would have this issue with all of the squad blowing stickers off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, teros135 said:

How could you (or the RO, or anybody else) know which of the many holes in the target were made by the shooter? Really.  

compare the 3 holes in the hard cover to the ones in the A Zone, you should be able to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go and let butt hurt flow.

 

reshoot period.  You cannot accurately score the target. 3 M 3 A has been argued and it has been noted it could be something else.  It could even be six mikes. Nothing saying the paster did not fall off from impact in HC. But it's irrelevant. Even if you scored it 3 M 3 A, we forget the second shooter involved. The other shooter(s) involved. The one that is potentially beaten by an A that never was. 

 

We have to be impartial and equitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rhett45acp said:

Here we go and let butt hurt flow.

 

reshoot period.  You cannot accurately score the target. 3 M 3 A has been argued and it has been noted it could be something else.  It could even be six mikes. Nothing saying the paster did not fall off from impact in HC. But it's irrelevant. Even if you scored it 3 M 3 A, we forget the second shooter involved. The other shooter(s) involved. The one that is potentially beaten by an A that never was. 

 

We have to be impartial and equitable.

 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rhett45acp said:

Here we go and let butt hurt flow.

 

reshoot period.  You cannot accurately score the target. 3 M 3 A has been argued and it has been noted it could be something else.  It could even be six mikes. Nothing saying the paster did not fall off from impact in HC.

actually we have total agreement between all observers that no tape fell off from the hardcover hits. just sayin'. But your opinion doesn't hurt my feelings in the slightest. :cheers:

Consider the similar and more common situation, someone forgot to tape, 4 holes in the A-zone, all same caliber. Every RO I have seen calls that 2A, but you don't actually know whether the previous shooter shot 3 times, or whether the this shooter had an A/M and a piece of tape blow off. In fact, even if there are only 2 holes in the target, you can't be sure there wasn't 1 untaped hole and 1 new one and 1 complete miss. On pretty much EVERY target where the RO doesn't actually see the holes appear, you are just guessing with a fairly high probability.

 

Quote

We have to be impartial and equitable.

No, we have to apply the rules impartially. This is an instance where the rules support things that are clearly NOT equitable. Some people who have great runs will get hosed, and some people that have terrible runs will get an undeserved 2nd chance (thus hosing all their competitors). You can make the argument that the target can't be accurately scored, but everyone watching could accurately score the target. I still think a reshoot is the right decision by the rules, but it is certainly not equitable.

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, motosapiens said:

actually we have total agreement between all observers that no tape fell off from the hardcover hits. just sayin'. But your opinion doesn't hurt my feelings in the slightest. :cheers:

Consider the similar and more common situation, someone forgot to tape, 4 holes in the A-zone, all same caliber. Every RO I have seen calls that 2A, but you don't actually know whether the previous shooter shot 3 times, or whether the this shooter had an A/M and a piece of tape blow off. In fact, even if there are only 2 holes in the target, you can't be sure there wasn't 1 untaped hole and 1 new one and 1 complete miss. On pretty much EVERY target where the RO doesn't actually see the holes appear, you are just guessing with a fairly high probability.

 

No, we have to apply the rules impartially. This is an instance where the rules support things that are clearly NOT equitable. Some people who have great runs will get hosed, and some people that have terrible runs will get an undeserved 2nd chance (thus hosing all their competitors). You can make the argument that the target can't be accurately scored, but everyone watching could accurately score the target. I still think a reshoot is the right decision by the rules, but it is certainly not equitable.

if the target can be scored, the rules say score it and no reshoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...