Fireant
-
Posts
1,984 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Fireant
-
-
And here I was thinking "if a shot touches a scoring line, it scores the highest scoring area touched and/or the penalty, as case may be" was a nice simple rule. No need for IF-THEN-ELSE statements or anything complicated with impenetrable non-existant overlapping whatevers.
+1,000,000 that's what I was thinking with the original question in the closed down thread. There is no need for an official ruling that way. Go figure
-
Nate, I agree there. I was going to edit my post to say the attitudes of some of our young folks. I'm afraid the really good ones are getting fewer and fewer
But I am looking for them everyday, and hoping to steer some in that direction. -
Wow, some people just want this to go on forever.
The perf is still as it has been, nothing has changed in the rule or interpretation.
It has zero width because it does not matter.
just touching the edge
1/4 the way in the perf
1/2 way in the perf
or all the way thru the perf mean the same thing so it is like it has zero width.
Flex, I was just trying to put it in words that some could understand as they seem to not grasp the concept so far.
Yes they are defined as two seperate targets in the rule book as it explains each target but when placed together they are treated as one flat surface and not two individual targets.
And I say again, show me the rule that supports this. Not the interpretation, but the written rule.
-
Can I reiterate the following:Rule 9.5.2 is clarified to apply only to individual (single) scoring target presentations and inapplicable to the covered area of the "under" target in the type of multiple target array described above.
So the interpretation means nothing.
I would like the ruling to be based on the written rules as they are. What part of the rule book is this based on? Please do not site the ruling, I want the where it came from based on the rules please.
OK if the perfs have no width how are they even there. To even exsist they must have some width. Where do they start? Outside or inside. I've seen some hits touch the outside part of the perf, but if the inside part is the beggining/ending then that would not be touching then right?
-
So, I have a student that withdrew last week and then returned today. In making conversation with him I asked what had happened at the new school. His response was that he did not have to explain himself to me like I was dirt on his shoe. Did I mention this was a 10 year old?
-
Hey, is that Lambert's old gun?
-
Now we have a ruling that sems to take away what was a hit (in some cases if the line is now impeneterable) just to avoid giving 1 or 2 points to a shooter that has already earned a 10 point penalty.
-
Hence my theory that upper perf can't be penetrated, and to help get your mind around it, has no width at all. If you accept that the perfs have no width, then the bullet can touch the adjoining scoring zone while not scoring the under zone because it is covered by a target that can not be penetrated.
No width? Come on now. I buy the no thickness, but come on now no width! Um, which edge of the perf do we use? Is it the inside for overlapping targets and the outside for all others? That would make as much sense as this ruling.........I know Mods please move this thread to the humor section. Maybe I can get mine back that way.
-
The unintended consequences may be that it is no longer enought to touch the scoring perf but that a scoring perf must be broken to score.
Unintended or not, it changes the way scoring has been done for years. Basically chaging the rule, not just refining it.
The perf does not need to be broken... I brought that point up in reference to another issue involving it being impenetrable. A touch on the line is scored as a C and not an A. You do not have to break the perf as it is now.
Just wanted to clear that... back to reading.
JT
What?? Touching the perf gets the higher score.
-
Cold Coke. Not a drinker anymore...
Doing that job will make you go one way or the other. The stories people that do this can tell. I worked my way through college repoing furniture for one company and cars for another, I was always in the same places so I killed two birds with one stone.
-
Troy/George -- Thanks for raising your heads up into the line of fire again and offering your comments.
I don't like the ruling, but it's now the law of the land and I'll just have to learn to live with it.
I don't look forward to having to explain this to someone who hasn't seen the ruling or followed the various discussions we've had here. I've printed several copies of the graphic borrowed from the RO course book to put in my range bag.
I've been following it and can not wrap my mind around it. So, we had a rule that was/is easy to follow(nothing dissapears magically, and the highest score counts), but because some people wanted it a different way we now have a ruling that will confuse several folks(because it adds things not in the rule book), but that will make things more consistent?
I think I woke up in bazaro world
-
The ruling is not retroactive, therefore anything scored previously is good to go. It's more of a clarification than a real change in the rules, IMO. The problem arises when "impenetrable" is not understood. If a target is deemed impenetrable, then whatever is beneath it, is, by definition, "not there", because it can't be struck by a bullet. Our rules deem paper targets impenetrable, end of story.
I think this is the last I'll have to say on this one.
Troy
Sorry, but not end of story. Let's put that same array on the 180 line and I blast a shot right where the perfs line up. I have just touched the A zone that some people want to say by definition is not there. My webster's does not list not there as a def. of impeneterable. But, you are correct in that some people want the def. to be something it is not.
-
I just wonder how a ruling that does not fit the written rule will make things more consistent.
-
And just where does it say in the written rule book that the underlying area is non-exsistent? Is that what the rule book writers wanted? Then they should have said so. Maybe they didn't care. Why read more into the rule than is actually there? Why are we trying to make the rule change based on the distance between targets? If this keeps up I might forget which game this actually is.
Like Troy, I've made my pertinent comments on the earlier threads and don't intend to repeat them. The rationale was clearly stated. The interpretation was necessary because those hits were being called differently. The ruling provides consistency, which was obviously lacking. Just like any other rule you may not like, you still apply it.
But I wonder.... Do you realize that the rulebook wiriters are the ones who reached this conclusion? USPSA has a process. All new rules and all rule amendments go through it. The instructors are involved, the BOD is involved. All of them have many years of experience at all levels of this sport. It doesn't happen "just because". Until another change goes through the process, this one is it.
Taking a Range Officer class is a good way to remember which game this is. [tongue firmly in cheek]
I used to agree with that last statement, but not so much any more.
-
Question
Target array is a no-shoot over a scoring target. The top of the NS head directly covers the bottom half of the lower A zone, with the lateral non-scoring lines of the NS *directly* over the A/C zone scoring lines of the scoring target. How is this scored?
Ruling
In accordance with Rule 9.1.5, targets and hard cover are impenetrable. Whenever two targets (scoring and/or no shoots) are in direct contact and overlap each other, the impenetrability also applies to any scoring line perforations of the "over" target. Further, the area of the "under" target which is directly covered by the "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent., Finally, for the purposes of this interpretationRule 9.5.2 is clarified to apply only to individual (single) scoring target presentations and inapplicable to the covered area of the "under" target in the type of multiple target array described above.
The problem with the red highlighted part is that 9.5.1 says they are impenetrable: 9.1.5 Impenetrable – The scoring area of USPSA scoring targets and noshoots
is deemed to be impenetrable:
9.1.5.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target,
and continues on to strike the scoring area of another paper
target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will not count for
score or penalty, as the case may be.
9.1.5.2 If a bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target,
and continues on to hit a plate or strike down a popper; this
will be treated as range equipment failure. The competitor will
be required to reshoot the course of fire, after it has been
restored
9.1.5.3 If a bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or
metal target, and continues on to strike the scoring area of another
paper target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will also
count for score or penalty, as the case may be.
The bullet continued on and even if the perf is considered impeneterable the sheared off part still touches the underlying perf for score as per 9.5.2 If the bullet diameter of a hit on a scoring target touches the scoring line
between two scoring areas, or the line between the non-scoring border
and a scoring area, or if it crosses multiple scoring areas, it will be
scored the higher value.
And just where does it say in the written rule book that the underlying area is non-exsistent? Is that what the rule book writers wanted? Then they should have said so. Maybe they didn't care. Why read more into the rule than is actually there? Why are we trying to make the rule change based on the distance between targets? If this keeps up I might forget which game this actually is.
-
I can not get my head around why he wants to change the way targets are scored just because they are touching.
That and not following the written rule book.
If you want it that way make a motion for a rewrite of the rulebook, not just pull the old I make the NROI decisions and so it is what I say it is card. -
Well, since I don't agree with the ruling and will let NROI know and send them MY reasons and hope for another ruling. This now means that there will offically not be any of that type of target array in my matches. But they could be 1 inch in front of the target. Easy fix for me just like making a MD put hard cover under the NS to make it dissappear as per the rule book as written not as interpreted by God I mean John.
-
1. The problem with running it up the chain of command is that the chain is learning the culture of going off what they have in their head, not reading the rule book.
You are still doing it right now. You say..."John said". I got news, John isn't always right. I can give an example from you IPSC match, if you like. I am just as guilty, as I went off what he told me...instead of looking it up . (I was RO)
Apply the rule book, as written.
+1 here, I was trying to find a more polite way of writing this same idea, but I ended up deleting it all until I saw this.
-
Very nice, it kind of looks like the open version of my 6 inch fat free.
-
It is not fair that a shooter who neglects to sanitize his bag gets hauled into the back room for a good talking to and perhaps arrest at the airport because he has lost rounds in his carry on bag either but it does make one more attentive I hear.
Man, just when the memory was fading I stumble on this. Funny.
-
Since you already have an M&P in 40, get the compact model in 40. You can use the same ammo in both guns, whether for practice or defence. You can carry them both and use the full size mag in either. A holster that fits the full size should also fit the compact.
I thought this same thing and really liked my M&P compact at first. Then the more I shot it the more it went bang, pick up the mag, bang, bang, pick up the mag. It didn't really fit my hand no matter which back strap I used. Then I never felt comfortable carrying a striker fired gun(I know it's just me) so I went with the DA/SA CZ with a kelteck in my pocket and an AR in the truck. You just never know what you might need these days.
-
That's why I DVR everything I watch and then skip right through the commercials. I can watch 2 one hour shows in about 1 hour, then I go to the reloading bench.
-
I carry my CZ P-01 it has the alloy frame so it is light, I put the slim aluminum grips on and I get 14+1 of 9mm with out an extenden mag.
-
Those that have shot modified guns, how much does the comp help? It seems like they are pretty small and you might be better off with some hybrid holes and be able to get a longer barrel or longer mag for more rounds.
But I am looking for them everyday, and hoping to steer some in that direction.
Scoring targets with hard cover or noshoots overlaping
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
It seems it was changed somewhere in the last year or so and was brought up at the nationals.