Flexmoney Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 OK...it doesn't happen too often. Lets say... The shooter is a World Champion...he is shooting at a target that is all hard-cover except for the A/B zone...target is 5-7 yards. You go to score, and can only make out one hole. The shooter claims a "double". If it is a true double...how can you score it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Try to use two overlays. If there's only one radius, it's a Miss. 1999 Area 1 c'ship, Reno. World champ Todd J., shooting Open, argued an Alpha-Mike call on a close swinger. Appealed up to the CRO, then RM, who scored it 2 A and then posted the target for passers-by to examine. Sure enough, there was a possible second radius. But it was oh-so-close to being a perfect (imperfect) double. On a swinger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 That's why I always try not to shoot doubles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 22, 2003 Author Share Posted December 22, 2003 Try to use two overlays. If there's only one radius, it's a Miss. That is what I am talking about. It could be a miss...or it could be a perfect double. What about the poor sap that shoots a real double? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 This is very difficult. I feel that there is no hard yes/no rule for this. I always try to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, but if I really don't see anything that could mean a double, then I will (have to) call it a Mike. Theoretial it is possible to shoot a perfect double, but what are the chances at that ? So the chances of the RO not seeing a perfect double are really small. And for those cases, it's just bad luck for the shooter. The shooter can of course appeal up to the RM, but I think that if there is really no indication of a double, the RM will rule the same. But I must admit that if the shooter on most of his targets shoots both shots within half an inch from each other, I would be mor inclined to award a double. As I said, I think there is no hard rule for this. In the end, the only real hard rule here is (at least for me) to do what your conscience tells you. Can you look yourself straight in the eye and uphold/defend your decision ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Ok, my guess as RO. If I couldn't determine where the 2nd shot struck (I may have noticed a hit on one of the stands, or whatever else), and I'm not sure by eye inspection if the shot is a double, I'll use the scoring overlay. BTW, as a competitor, I'd ask the RO to check with the overlay whenever I have the slightest doubt, I won't wait for him to decide it's time to pick it out of the pocket. If the hole and its black ring border are all contained inside the appropriate caliber overlay, I'd call it a mike. I know that a perfect double could slip through this procedure, but in accepting the overlay as a measure tool, we implicitly accepted its limitations and possible errors. If the perfect double is the case, I'd guess the overlay is to blame instead of the RO, because the RO only follows the rules and procedure; to avoid this we all need to move up to a different and more accurate instrument of verification. Of course, there is always Julien's signature for this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Nesbitt Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Ya know, - - - - - - - We're all trying to put them in the same hole aren't we? Why should we be so surprised when it happens? Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Hi guys, The Perfect Double, huh? According to some people I know, any target with only one clearly visible hole is a "Perfect Double", and some guys get as many as four in a single stage. Truly awesome shooting Jokes aside, a few years back when my belly was smaller and my hair was still black, I spent the best part of a day trying to achieve a perfect double. I used an indoor range and I had a paper targets set at 5 metres, and I securely clamped my legendary-for-accuracy SIG 210-6 (which, back then, I could easily group into a 2" circle at 25 metres from a handheld, standing position), into a ransom rest. For the experiment, I fired 500 rounds from 4 different brands of ammo, but I failed to achieve even one "perfect double". There were some incredibly close calls but, without exception, there were two distinct holes or burn marks visible, although you might need a magnifying glass to see them clearly. Sure, it's possible that a competitor while moving briskly through an IPSC COF with a less accurate gun might actually get a "Perfect Double", but is it probable?. However this is why I'll go the extra mile, and I'll use an open mind, a magnifying glass, a flashlight and whatever other tools are available to me (including, as a last resort, a scoring plug), and I'll take as much time as necessary to examine the target carefully, in an effort to find reasonable evidence that what at first view appeared to be a single hole, is actually two very closely overlapping holes or burn marks. Of course my examination will be conducted in full view of the competitor, and I've often pulled targets for much closer examination as allowed in the rules. And, believe me, I really, really, really want to find that second hole, but there's no way on God's earth I'll award a double unless I have reasonable certainty, because there are another dozen or so other competitors who will be directly affected by the call I make, and I take my duties as an RO very, very seriously. I hope this gives some guidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 What about when the "crowd" actually sees the shot hit the same hole? Assuming that no hard evidence exists to refute the double, should the RO be swayed by multiple eyewitness accounts? The last match I shot, three or four of us saw one happen, but fortunately you could make out a second radius even without the overlays. But what if you couldn't and people still saw it happen? And what if all of the other targets have pairs within an inch or less of one another, with more than one pair touching, and then one target with one hole? Would that "corroborating evidence" lead an RO to reasonably believe that a "perfect double" was more likely? Don't forget that random errors can reduce group size as well as make it larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 A "Perfect Double" is easy, it's scored hit value/Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 perfect double recognition is why some shooting disciplines use so-called "backing targets" behind the actual targets. If it's a perfect double on one, it's geometrically virtually impossible to be a one-holer on the backing target. --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davecutts Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 At area II this year shooting on the limited super squad, I saw three prefect doubles, or I saw three mikes get argued into hits. I was soooooo pissed off yes guys who are in the running to win the match, but too obviously lying their asses off to get a mike called a double by an RO who has an impatient squad waiting and no patience for the jerk's BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 22, 2003 Author Share Posted December 22, 2003 We are starting to get off base here. I'm not talking about the snake-bellied cheaters. Not really asking about the "odds". A perfect double can happen...and likey has. But, it sounds like we are all going to score it as a MISS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 If there is no visible difference between a miss and a "perfect double" how can you score it anything but a miss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Rhino, Assuming that no hard evidence exists to refute the double ... We make scoring (and other) calls on the presence of evidence, not the lack thereof, and the crowd never figures in the equation, unless of course the Bionic Man or Robocop is there with a telescopic eye. Detlef, If I'm not mistaken, "backing targets" are used by "static" shooting sports, there are only 1 or 2 targets per competitor, which get changed after each competitor shoots. I'd love to be able to do the same for an IPSC match but, as you know, it's logistically impossible. Maybe one day we'll have electronic targets which can record hits in the scoring zone, and I believe some IPSC Rifle matches are experimenting with such targets. davecutts, I can't comment on the A2 match, but I know some ROs buckle under pressure of a "big name" or an argumentative competitor, and not just on scoring of targets. For me, it makes absolutely no difference whether the competitor's name is Robbie Leatham or Hugh Jarse - they get treated identically and impartially - with a Coke and a Flex, As I said, I never dismiss "double" claims, and I'll do a thorough investigation but, if I can't find it, I can't find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 I'm with PaulW, ain't no such animal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 22, 2003 Author Share Posted December 22, 2003 If there is no visible difference between a miss and a "perfect double" how can you score it anything but a miss? I'd ask how you could score it as anything other than a double? (just playing Devil's Advocate) As I said, I never dismiss "double" claims, and I'll do a thorough investigation but, if I can't find it, I can't find it. Good point. I see where (9.4.2 14th 2001) it says "visible" hit for a penalty target. I haven't dug deep, but I don't see where it is says "visible" evidence needs to show on the scoring target. (i.e. two scoring edges in the same hole) Without that little word (visible)...they might be able to argue a double (rightly or wrongly)? (Let's not go with "let them arb my call if they want". I'd like to get the call right from the start, if possible.) Just thinking out loud here...I hope nobody is getting bent out of shape about this...the rules section has been too quiet lately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 I'd ask how you could score it as anything other than a double? (just playing Devil's Advocate) I'd say because there is no visible evidence another bullet hit the target. If everything that could be a perfect double was scored as a perfect double, there would be no more Mikes on paper targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L9X25 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 ... I really, really, really want to find that second hole, but there's no way on God's earth I'll award a double unless I have reasonable certainty ... Vince, Not trying to mince words but I thought past rulebooks all said that "In situations where there is ANY doubt, the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt". Your comment seems to imply a much higher standard than "any doubt" in that you want "reasonable certainty" to issue the "benefit". Just curious, Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Leo, The expression "Benefit of Doubt" is one of the most widely misused expressions in IPSC shooting, and it's incorrectly applied to far more situations than allowed by the rulebook. Under the IPSC 14th Edition 2000 and IPSC 14th Edition 2002 rulebooks, the expression only appears in a single instance (scoresheets): 9.7.6.4 If the overall total of scoring hits and misses recorded for a single target are excessive, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the competitor. The USPSA 14th Edition 2001 rulebook has the same rule above, plus one additional instance of the subject expression: US 9.1.4.2 It is the range officer’s responsibility to see that all targets are taped after each competitor. In the event that a target is missed and not taped, if more hits are on the target than required and they are all of the same caliber, only the highest scoring specified number of shots may be scored. When the hits are of different calibers, only the hits of the competitor’s caliber will be scored. If the competitor has a miss, and there are hits from a larger caliber on the target, then the benefit of doubt should go to the competitor and a reshoot issued. However the USPSA rule essentially deals with the possibility that you just finished shooting a 45ACP, the target wasn't restored, then I shoot a 9mm, but only one 9mm hole is found on that target during scoring for me. In other words, I'm given the "benefit of doubt" that my second 9mm shot passed through one of your 45ACP holes which, to me, is more likely than a "perfect double". Also note that this rule invokes a reshoot to settle the matter - it does not award 2 hits when you can only see one. In any case, the expression "Benefit of Doubt" no longer appears in the IPSC January 2004 Edition rulebook. I hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 23, 2003 Author Share Posted December 23, 2003 I'd ask how you could score it as anything other than a double? (just playing Devil's Advocate) I'd say because there is no visible evidence another bullet hit the target. That's a pretty good arguement, I think. Maybe we can work on getting the wording of the rules to reflect that (clearly)? We could call it the "save Hanna's bacon from the Prez" rule. Basically, if you(shooter) want a double, it can't be "perfect". The RO needs to be able to see something to score. ............ FYI Here is some data...from a target and holes I just measured: From some 9mm holes that I have shot (I put the calipers on bullets from the same box: .355), the holes left in the cardboard measure...with my eye...all the way down to .330 inches, quite a few under .340 inches. Seems like we could squeeze quite a few rounds in there before we got to .355 inches. (Actually, my overlays measure a touch big...so there might be more room.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L9X25 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Vince, I feel that "the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt" is a general philosophy that should not be tied exclusively to the one or two special circumstances illustrated in the rulebook. I feel that there are far more "doubt filled" situations where the principle applies equally well. I think that your interpretation of the rulebook is far too literal in this instance. I respectfully disagree. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Wait I have an Answer!!! F'it, we'll only shoot 1 shot into ever target! I know some people who would still cry for a double! But that's another story. C'mon, what is the odds for "real perfect" doubles? I'm sure it goes down expodentionally the farther the targets is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Leo, No problem - it's always a pleasure exchanging views with you - but would you kindly give me examples (other than the scoring of targets), where you believe the "benefit of doubt" should apply. I have an open mind but, with the onset of the silly season, some of my grey cells are not operating to full capacity Cheers, Vince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Leo and Vince, if you want to discuss other circumstances of benefit of the doubt, it deserves its own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now