Poppa Bear

We have had a multiple string COF (Fixed Time) that used different target arrays for each string. The number of targets increased with each string, so it was the best way to ensure the competitor shot the proper targets in each string. The targets were all paper, so no chance for REF, just the possibility of untaped targets. Do you remember the basic procedure used? Time, SH, WH, number of targets used? Sounds like an interesting challenge I can use locally.

Which uses 3 targets that are engaged from each position. I think if you were to go through all of the current classifiers you would find they are either same targets or same position if it is a multi-string stage.

There are two classifiers that come to mind right away. "Baseball Standards" and "Can You Count?" I saw another thread where you said you are a new RO. I'm sure your club appreciates the help. Keep up the good work and you will work that Level 3 match as a CRO someday. I really enjoy it about as much as the shooting. Both are shot from box A making it one position.

I will agree that they had good intentions when they wrote 9.5.9. But as we have seen, the designers intent is not what counts, it is how you can game the stage. Sometimes you never see the hole you have created until it is to late to change it.

How can this thread go as many pages as it has with so many people still arguing if either of the initial pics is a valid hit or not?

I think 9.5.9 needs to be rewritten to clarify proper procedure: 9.5.9 Hits upon scoring or no-shoot paper targets, must completely pass through the target to be considered a valid hit and count for score or penalty. 9.5.9 Hits upon scoring or no-shoot paper targets, must completely pass through the target leaving a full, or in the case of an edge hit, a partial diameter hole as viewed from a position as close to perpendicular to the face of the target as possible to be considered a valid hit and count for score or penalty. Thoughts??

No score, that's a miss. Depends: If there's evidence of torn pasters at every "hole location" maybe that's a miss. Most likely though, I'd decide that I couldn't score the target, and that would result in a reshoot due to range equipment failure. If there was a clean hole through the target, hit.... OK, That I can deal with. It is much like shooting and having multiple pasters fall off because they and the target got wet or the shooter got to close with their muzzle blast. You cannot fairly judge the hits so REF reshoot. Added: This is why I find this forum so important. There are many one in a million shots out there that we may never see, but we will experience something similar in concept. Arguing here over the best way to deal with that concept provides a consistency from RO to RO.

The concept I am having a tough time wrapping my head around is a variation of Troy's post. Both targets in this example have identical bullet paths. The only thing different is the target struck. 1. Consider a VIRGIN turning target struck as it turned away, with a visible CUT across most of the scoring zones, but no VISIBLE hole THROUGH THE BACK--- does it score or not? 2. Consider a WELL USED turning target struck as it turned away, with a visible CUT across most of the scoring zones, AND MULTIPLE VISIBLE holes THROUGH THE BACK (because it cut through multiple pasters)--- does it score or not? 9.5.9 says "must completely pass through" so both should be scored as misses because the bullet did not pass through the back of the target. Then you have the same concept when it comes to an edge hit. If the angle is so extreme that the bullet cuts the face but exits the target before it can cut the back do we score that as a miss also? I have always scored a visible hit as a hit. The hole/ cut left by the bullet as it hits the target is visual evidence of the bullets path. If that hit is very close to a perforation then my job is to determine which zone or zones get the score. We score the face of the target, we paste the face of the target. We do not score the back of the target, nor do we paste the back of the target. So why would we score the target as a miss if the bullet clearly "Completely passed through" the face of the target?

The reason for my response as, lengthy as it was, is because they are referred to as strings. Honestly I have never seen a COF that used different target arrays, and positions, for each string. I have seen many where they have set up two small COF's right next to each other and gone hot from one position to the next and then scored both when completed. If the COF was a valid multi-string course then yes REF requires the entire COF to be reshot. If the COF was actually incorrectly referred to as multi-string when it was actually multi COF, then only the affected COF should have been reshot. So the question is were all strings either Fixed Time or Virginia Count? If not then the COF was not valid under 1.2.2 and you were shooting separate COF's. DO you have the WSB for the "Stage" in question?

1.2.2 Special Courses of Fire: 1.2.2.1 “Standard Exercises” - Courses of fire consisting of two or more separately timed component strings. Scores, with any penalties deducted, are accumulated on completion of the course of fire to produce the final stage results. Standard Exercises must only be scored using Virginia Count or Fixed Time. The course of fire for each component string may require a specific shooting position, procedure and/or one or more mandatory reloads. Standard Exercises must not require more than 24 rounds to complete. Component strings must not require more than 6 rounds (12 rounds if a mandatory reload is specified). 6.1.1 String - A separately timed component of a Standard Exercise. Scores and penalties are recorded following completion of the course of fire, unless the course of fire specifies that they shall be recorded and the targets taped between strings. The time component of all strings will be totaled and the results achieved are then tallied to produce a final stage result. 5.7 Malfunctions – Competitor’s Equipment 5.7.4 In the event that a handgun malfunction cannot be corrected by the competitor within 2 minutes, he must point the handgun safely downrange and advise the Range Officer, who will terminate the course of fire (excluding any unattempted component strings in a Standard Exercise) in the normal manner. The course of fire (excluding any unattempted component strings in a Standard Exercise) will be scored as shot including all applicable misses and penalties. 5.7.6 Where the handgun has failed after the Start signal, the competitor must not be permitted to reshoot the course of fire or string. This includes the instance where a handgun is declared unserviceable or unsafe during a course of fire or string. However, any unattempted component strings in a Standard Exercise may still be attempted by the affected competitor after the handgun has been repaired, and prior to when match results are declared final by the Match Director. 4.6 Range Equipment Failure and Other Issues 4.6.2 A competitor who is unable to complete a course of fire due to range equipment failure, or if a metal or moving target was not reset prior to his attempt at a course of fire, must be required to reshoot the course of fire after corrective actions have been taken. An interesting question because USPSA rules differentiate Strings from Courses of Fire when it comes to equipment failure primarily stating that attempted strings cannot be reshot but strings that have not been attempted can. In my opinion the "string" with the REF is the only one that could be shot upon repair of the equipment. It would be like shooting a classifier and having a target fall over. Reset the target and restart the string. edited for giving a bad example

The rule does not say "face" of target...the rules says "target"...so the face AND the back IS the "target". And is says COMPLETELY THROUGH...breaking the face is NOT completely through. BTW - Flex already stated that there are no holes in the first target: And as we can see, there is not a hole in the second target either. Under that reasoning then it would not make any difference if there was a partial hole in either of Flex's targets because there is not way that the bullet would have been able to hit the paper that makes up the NS side of the target.

Since I was involved in writing this rule, let me provide the key words: must completely pass through Each word, taken individually or collectively is quite specific. Must... Completely... Pass through... So you need a hole in the target, even if it is only a partial hole on the edge. Further, you still need an arc or grease ring as evidence of a bullet. Which is part of the edge hit conundrum. Bullet breaks the face of the target at the edge of the target. Due to the angle of the hit it fails to touch the back of the target, but does blow the stick apart about 1/4" from the targets edge. So in my example of the grease starting in the A zone, cutting in the C zone and continuing the cut across the D zone but exiting the target before it can cut the back of the target would still be considered a miss, or a one in a million Alpha? My thought process is that the face is the target and any bullet that Completely Passes Through the face of the target is a hit. Any bullet that just bends the face even leaving a grease ring is not a hit.

Not in my book... 9.5.9 Hits upon scoring or no-shoot paper targets, must completely pass through the target to be considered a valid hit and count for score or penalty. But what is pass through? Is the target the entire piece of cardboard, or is it just the front portion of paper? If you used a target that was a piece of paper stapled to the sticks it would have passed through. The paper construction behind the face is just to stiffen the entire assembly therefor making it suitable to attach to what ever you are using to hold the target in a variety of conditions.

I would agree that it is an Alpha hit. But it also met the requirements of 9.5.9 visually. Had the shot just cut the paper without fully penetrating the target because it left paper on the back, I would have still given then the Alpha. In my book just penetrating the front paper of the target is penetration. You have a clear sign that the bullet was impacting with the front of the target and not coming at it from the rear. In Flex's examples if either had visually cut the paper they should have gotten the Delta, because neither left a visual sign of penetrating the paper I call both as Mikes.

OK lets throw a different wrinkle into it. The drop turner target has a grease mark starting in the A zone, but the bullet does not start to cut the paper until it is on the C/D perf line. It then continues to cut the paper but does not cut through the target until it reaches the perf between D/ non-scoring border. It has met the requirements of 9.5.9, but do you give them an A for the grease ring or a C because that is where the first visual signs of penetration started?

I vote for 2 mikes. Both bullets actually impacted outside of the target while leaving a grease ring on the target. Due to the size of the non-scoring perforation border, the fact that there is no perforation of the target by the bullet makes it a mike. This would be much like the shooter getting an edge hit that creases the target on a drop turner. Whether the crease is bowing the target towards the front or towards the back and leaves a grease mark all the way across the target it is still a miss if it did not pass through the target from front to back.

Both are good points. I am fairly new to the RO business but one thing that was pounded into my head was if you hesitate at all because you "Think" they might have committed the offense just let it go. If you know they committed a DQ-able offense then you should have yelled STOP right away. If it was a procedural offense then your response is "You did" not "I think" . If I screw up because I think they committed a rules violation like in Troy's example, OK educate me and possibly even the shooter. It will be many years, if at all, before I act as a CRO at a level III match, but I would hope to at least act as an RO at least a couple of times at that level just for the learning experience afforded at that level. As one person put it, "You will see every possible way there is to game the stage. Your job is to make sure they do not violate the rules in the process"

Waiting list link Actual page Supposed to start at 10:00 PM Eastern.

The chain is what it is because of the RM's position within the rules: 11.1.5 Retain Evidence – An appellant is required to inform the Range Master of his wish to present his appeal to the Arbitration Committee and may request that the officials retain any and all relevant documentary or other evidence pending the hearing. Photos, audio and/or video recordings will not be accepted as evidence. 11.1.6 Preparing the Appeal - The appellant is responsible for the preparation and delivery of the written submission, together with the appropriate fee. The submission must include relevant rule(s) to support the appeal. Both must be submitted to the Range Master within the specified period of time. As Nik said it becomes a rules issue. The chances are pretty slim that a DQ would be overturned unless it was based on the wrong rule. I myself would read and write the rule used to DQ the individual directly from the rule book just to make sure it was correct. ie A DQ based on 10.5.1 (Handling) when the offense was a 10.5.2 180 violation. If something like that made it through the RO, the CRO and the RM without being caught then it deserves to be overturned.

You are still compelling. The shooter can try to activate the swinger by any means they want. Disregarding the WSB will incur at least one procedural and possible several if you determine in advance that anyone who fails to activate in the prescribed manner has a significant advantage now as per 10.2.2.

Place a shield in front of the switch that requires the shooter to step on a plate or push with some other means to slide the shield out of the way. The shooter then reaches in and activates the mover. While that would be a elegant solution, see post #18. If that sort of construction is not an option, can I simply state that the activator cannot be activated by artificial means and must be activated by some part of the competitors body? Specifying that the competitor MUST activate the target with their Weak Hand, Knee, Foot, Thigh.... is permissible as long as you do not then force the shooter to remain in that position to engage the target. It might be the best place, but you are not forcing them to remain there to engage the target ie "Shooter must then engage the target from that location"

Place a shield in front of the switch that requires the shooter to step on a plate or push with some other means to slide the shield out of the way. The shooter then reaches in and activates the mover. You could also place the activator shield under tension such that they would need to hit the shield in order push it into the activator. Said force to be 10 to 15 pounds. Enough that a thrown object would not have the mass to complete the task.

I say no. I could throw a mag at it. I do not see anywhere in the rules that allows you to force me in the WSB to use a body part. 1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances. 1.1.5 deals with shooting the targets being FREESTYLE and moving the required props as FREESTYLE. So however you want to get the required part over to the activator is up to you. The part in red is what allows the use of the WSB to create the conditions that forces the shooter to activate the target as the designer desires. For Lee's stage you could have activated the target with your hand and then placed the case in the box to comply with the WSB. It seems easier to just put the case in the box and let it do the activation for you.

If the rules were black and white there would be no reason for an arbitration committee, or all the disagreements that take place here on the rules forum. This is also why at major matches you have the RO's, the CRO's, the Range Master, the Arbitration Committee. The RO makes a call to issue a procedural, a DQ or a change to the shooters equipment. The CRO backs him up or disagrees with his reasons. The RM can make a decision on top of that based on the RO's and CRO's decisions. If they all agree and the shooter still does not agree they can pay to arbitrate their ruling. After all of that then there might still be a disagreement on the proper call. At this point NROI releases their decision which may not be added into the rule book for several years but will be released as an official ruling that future acts will be based on. In 20 years our rule book will be the size of a small phone book as each gray area becomes smaller and smaller and we start to have rules like 1.2.3.4.5.6.7

Hopefully they were helpful in the right way. "Here is how I plan to shoot it" and then explain why. "When you come around the corner here look out for...." and then explain why. Hopefully some of the courses will also have the ability to be shot multiple ways within the same division. This way you learn the tips and tricks that allow you to shoot it quicker as well as tips that help keep you safe. Then later as you get to know them you can suggest your method of attacking the course and have them critique it, again as a means of learning what you may have overlooked when you put your plan together. Down the road a ways you might be one of the people teaching the new shooters when they show up for their first match. :cheers: