PDF of overlapping target call

[The Antichrome]

They had overlapping targets that would allow one bullet to score on two targets?

Oh no.......

Sure, why not?

If 1 bullet hole can get both a score and a penalty (alpha, no-shoot)

...and 1 bullet hole can get 2 penalties (mike, no shoot)

and 1 bullet hole could even collect 2 no shoot penalties...

Then 1 bullet hole should also be able to collect 2 scores.

Clubs around here use overlapping targets all the time. It isnt an issue.

I do like when they are separated by 3rd target. (NS or Hardcover)

Edited July 16, 2011 by The Antichrome

[spanky]

It is an issue when you have 3 hits on 2 targets and one "scores" on both, IMO.

Edited July 16, 2011 by spanky

[The Antichrome]

It is an issue when you have 3 hits on 4 targets and one "scores" on both, IMO.

That sounds like 4 Mikes to me.

[spanky]

It is an issue when you have 3 hits on 4 targets and one "scores" on both, IMO.

That sounds like 4 Mikes to me.

I meant two targets.

[wide45]

What issue? We know how to score it. No problem.

[The Antichrome]

It is an issue when you have 3 hits on 4 targets and one "scores" on both, IMO.

That sounds like 4 Mikes to me.

I meant two targets.

Still, it's not an issue. It's just the score the guy shot. You're thinking he 'lucked out' by not collecting a Mike? Not really. He managed to hit both targets twice. He just used 3 shots to do it and I bet he acually took 4 shots. I doubt it could be 'gamed' to shoot just 3 shots, saving time, and get scored for 4 hits. Besides, a broken perf hit is usually a Delta, sometimes a Bravo. So he's not getting very far shooting 2 targets with 3 shots...

If a shot can penetrate 2 targets, then it should count on both, whether they're scoring targets, no shoots, or for that matter, hardcover.

BTW, I'm not being argumentative. I think this is a fun discussion.

[spanky]

iPhone AD.

Edited July 16, 2011 by spanky

[spanky]

So the guy gets a hit instead of a mike because he lucked up and hit the perf?

And if you give him the mike, on which target?

I just don't see why it's hard to put a half inch piece of tape or a no-shoot between them.

We have a lot of leeway with hardcover, especially on metric targets so there really is no reason, IMO, to have to subject anyone to questionable calls or undeserved points.

[Schutzenmeister]

So the guy gets a hit instead of a mike because he lucked up and hit the perf?

And if you give him the mike, on which target?

I just don't see why it's hard to put a half inch piece of tape or a no-shoot between them.

We have a lot of leeway with hardcover, especially on metric targets so there really is no reason, IMO, to have to subject anyone to questionable calls or undeserved points.

Come on now, Spanky ...

The scoring is not in the least bit questionable, nor would I call it undeserved. Lucky ... perhaps, as I doubt the shooter actually planned a Delta-Whatever, but he nevertheless had a round touching the scoring zone of both targets. You wouldn't argue one shot counting on two targets in the least if one of those targets was a no shoot, would you? Just because both targets are tan (as opposed to one being white and the other tan) dosen't change the color of the horse that scores the result!

Though allow me to throw you all a slightly different question ... Assume the scoring was VC and each target required two hits. (Arrange the hits as you will ... Discuss both 3 total hits with one touching two targets as well as 4 total hits with one touching two targets.) Brings up a moderately different discussion, dosen't it!

[The Antichrome]

So the guy gets a hit instead of a mike because he lucked up and hit the perf?

And if you give him the mike, on which target?

I just don't see why it's hard to put a half inch piece of tape or a no-shoot between them.

We have a lot of leeway with hardcover, especially on metric targets so there really is no reason, IMO, to have to subject anyone to questionable calls or undeserved points.

Well, I'm not going to change your mind and thats ok.

But I'll address your questions and comments anyway.

Yes, the guy gets a hit. I dont know if thats really luck, or just another poor hit.

If he hits the perf on an A zone and a No Shoot, is it good luck that he got an A, or bad luck that he got a NS? Neither, it's just the points that he shot, period.

No, he doesnt get a Mike.

It's not hard to put a NS between targets, or some Hardcover, and there is nothing wrong with that type of target presentation. It's just another variety.

The calls are 'by the book' and not questionable. Undeserved points? No such thing, if hits are scored correctly. You get the points you shoot and nothing more.

This is all, of course, 'IMO' and I'm accustomed to stacked targets, soooo...

[George Jones]

Overlapping targets. One hit "scores" on both targets. On target A it's a C. On target B it's a D. Rules say score the higher value when a perf is overlaped (9.5.2).

By rule, how do you score that single hit as a hit on both targets?

The only rule which specifically allows scoring a single hit in two places is 9.5.3.

Overlapping targets is bad stage set-up and invites way too many scoring inconsistencies. Spread them out or place at least 0.50 inch hardcover between them and the problems disappear.

[The Antichrome]

Overlapping targets. One hit "scores" on both targets. On target A it's a C. On target B it's a D. Rules say score the higher value when a perf is overlaped (9.5.2).

By rule, how do you score that single hit as a hit on both targets?

The only rule which specifically allows scoring a single hit in two places is 9.5.3.

Overlapping targets is bad stage set-up and invites way too many scoring inconsistencies. Spread them out or place at least 0.50 inch hardcover between them and the problems disappear.

Seems pretty plain to me, but you're the authority.

What am I missing here?:

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.

[Schutzenmeister]

Overlapping targets. One hit "scores" on both targets. On target A it's a C. On target B it's a D. Rules say score the higher value when a perf is overlaped (9.5.2).

By rule, how do you score that single hit as a hit on both targets?

The only rule which specifically allows scoring a single hit in two places is 9.5.3.

Overlapping targets is bad stage set-up and invites way too many scoring inconsistencies. Spread them out or place at least 0.50 inch hardcover between them and the problems disappear.

George

With respect ... 9.5.2 refers to a scoring hit touching a line on a scoring target. In that instance, yes ... the round receives the higher of the two values. We are not talking about that here, nor are we talking about 9.5.3 ... though the situation is similar. I believe the applicable rule here is 9.1.5.3. The score on BOTH targets would count.

I agree I do not prefer such target arrays, but I do not believe there is anything necessarily wrong with them, either. I personally prefer seperation of some type between targets, but not for ease of scoring purposes. I just prefer to make each target stand on its own. Scoring them really isn't all that terribly difficult, IMO. One just has to apply the rules without regard to personal preferences.

[George Jones]

OK. Neither one of you is missing anything. There are times (like after a busy day like today) when it's best to pause and think before posting. I did neither.

I allowed my distaste for this kind of array to cloud my comments. Rule 9.5.2 does cover a (singular) target, therefore does not apply here. 9.5.3 covers overlapping hits on a scoring target and a no-shoot target. Does not apply to overlapping scoring targets either.

So what are we left with? As you both said, we are left with 9.1.5.3. So, for scoring purposes, the single hit would count as two scores, I agree. What bothers me is that this essentially brings us to a shoot-through situation, which we are supposed to avoid per 2.1.8.

To have an array which invites a shoot-through is not good course set-up, IMO.

[Schutzenmeister]

OK. Neither one of you is missing anything. There are times (like after a busy day like today) when it's best to pause and think before posting. I did neither.

I allowed my distaste for this kind of array to cloud my comments. Rule 9.5.2 does cover a (singular) target, therefore does not apply here. 9.5.3 covers overlapping hits on a scoring target and a no-shoot target. Does not apply to overlapping scoring targets either.

So what are we left with? As you both said, we are left with 9.1.5.3. So, for scoring purposes, the single hit would count as two scores, I agree. What bothers me is that this essentially brings us to a shoot-through situation, which we are supposed to avoid per 2.1.8.

To have an array which invites a shoot-through is not good course set-up, IMO.

George

I can understand the potential problem for a "shoot through" situation as the targets become more and more seperated from each other. However, in the case of targets that physically overlap (e.g., stapled together), how is that a problem? One can easily determine whether or not a shot touches the scoring line at the non-scoring border and make an appropriate call. I will concede it becomes more of an issue as the space between targets becomes measured in inches, and certainly feet or yards. But in the case of targets physically stacked together, I do not see any problem with 2.1.8 or in scoring them.

I don't like to shoot them, particularly from any distance, as it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine where one target ends and the other begins in order to place my shot(s) accurately. That's all.

[ima45dv8]

I can understand the potential problem for a "shoot through" situation as the targets become more and more seperated from each other. However, in the case of targets that physically overlap (e.g., stapled together), how is that a problem? One can easily determine whether or not a shot touches the scoring line at the non-scoring border and make an appropriate call. I will concede it becomes more of an issue as the space between targets becomes measured in inches, and certainly feet or yards. But in the case of targets physically stacked together, I do not see any problem with 2.1.8 or in scoring them.

Yeah, having them stalped together as one plane actually reduces the effort to score them.

They're a bitch to shoot, but that's just part of the challenge.

(yeah, I've been bit by them, too)

[George Jones]

I don't like to shoot them, particularly from any distance, as it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine where one target ends and the other begins in order to place my shot(s) accurately. That's all.

And when you get as old and feeble and blind as me, you'll like them even less.

Seriously, besides the fact that I fundamentally disagree with purposely opening the door to double hits with a single shot, I just see it as unneccesary bother. I want to have a bit of fun when I shoot and unnecessary bother is.... well, bothersome.

[spanky]

yeah, I suppose I should have been more specific. Admittedly I wasn't totally sure that they were legal but obviously they area. that said, it doesn't really change my opinion on it. my opinion pretty much align's with george's, it seems. it just seems unnecessary.

[Schutzenmeister]

I don't like to shoot them, particularly from any distance, as it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine where one target ends and the other begins in order to place my shot(s) accurately. That's all.

And when you get as old and feeble and blind as me, you'll like them even less.

Seriously, besides the fact that I fundamentally disagree with purposely opening the door to double hits with a single shot, I just see it as unneccesary bother. I want to have a bit of fun when I shoot and unnecessary bother is.... well, bothersome.

Why thank you, George ... I never knew you considered me to be younger, less feeble, and of clearer vision than you! (I'll take a compliment any way I can get it somedays!!!)

[The Antichrome]

Spanky, C'mon up to Arkansas and shoot some matches.

You're likely to see some stacked target arrays.

I've seen you shoot, you'll handle them just fine.

I doubt anybody beats you because they lucked out and got a two-fer.

[OpenDot]

Here's a drawing I made that is a good bit easier to read... hope this helps!

Thanks!!