different paper targets

[outerlimits]

shot a local match yesterday that had a stage with both classic and metric targets. basically turned over a cup, and looked at a coin-heads you shot the metric, tails you shot the classic targets...and it was a field course. to make matters worse, there was a procedural per target for putting a round in the wrong target.

at first glance, i thought the stage was illegal, but it's a level 1 and it was fun so we didn't make a stink. i cought the stage designer later in the day and told him about rule 4.2.1. he said he had written to uspsa and they said the stage was fine as long as the shooter did not have to engage different targets (do not know who in uspsa stated this. the uspsa rule states "there are two types of paper targets approved for uspsa matches. these types must not be included together in any stage".

the way i always understood that is one type of target only, regardless of whether you are asked to only engage one or the other. gets back to the old argument of not having the same challenge for each shooter. again, not complaining, just wondering why my interpretation of 4.2.1 is different than that of uspsa.

[Corey]

seems illegal to me based on 2 dif types of targets in the same COF and the fact that different shooters had dif COFs to run.

[Skydiver]

A couple of years ago, right before the last presidential election, we had a stage where there was black tape down the middle of the target, half of the target "misted" with blue spray paint, and the other half with red spray paint. At the start signal, you drew a rubber mask of a Republican or Democratic candidate out of a box (your choice). Your candidate's color was considered hard cover. The mask had to be deposited to to the "winner's table" at the end of the stage before the last shot was fired. I think the course designer ensured that the stage was mirrored so that if you picked one or the other color the same types of challenges came up. I'm not sure about the legality of the stage, but it was fun. :-)

Edited September 27, 2010 by Skydiver

[aztecdriver]

Reading 4.2.1:

4.2.1 There are two types of paper targets approved for use in USPSA Handgun matches (see Appendix . These types must not be included together in any stage.

It doesn't stipulate whether they are scoring targets - just that they must not be included together in any stage. If it's the opinion of the designer they are not included together as one can't be engaged and are mearly penalty targets - then we need to look at 4.1.3

4.1.3 No-shoots must be clearly marked or be of a single color different from scoring targets. Metal no-shoots in the general size and shape of authorized paper targets may be used. Metal no-shoots do not have a nonscoring border.

So it's not a no-shoot - it's a procedural for shooting a stage prop... ok... then - I would also counter that it was two separate stages on the same bay and in that one shooter engaged a differently presented target than another competitor in the same COF. You are not presenting the same challenge to each shooter, and therfore it's akin to a modified course of fire.

Anyway you look at this one - while I like the idea presented, it's an intriguing way to run a course, I'm pretty certain it's illegal through a number of considerations.

[mactiger]

Illegal as hell. Can't think of anybody at USPSA that would have said it was OK.

Troy

[Schutzenmeister]

[...]

So it's not a no-shoot - it's a procedural for shooting a stage prop... [...]

Slight thread-drift ... Under what rule would you call a procedural for shooting a prop? (Especially as described in the OP ...)

[aztecdriver]

Just the WSB, they declared it so, and I didn't even bother to think about the legality of declaring procedurals in the WSB - I just acknowledged it was there. I did look but didn't find one standard in the rule book, although, I think this was in a previous version of the rules? Before my time.

[Schutzenmeister]

Just the WSB, they declared it so, and I didn't even bother to think about the legality of declaring procedurals in the WSB - I just acknowledged it was there. I did look but didn't find one standard in the rule book, although, I think this was in a previous version of the rules? Before my time.

I've been shooting this game since about 1993 ... I don't recall that ever being in the rules, though I admit I have seen folks try to claim it was. I doubt you could convince me or any of my fellow RMs that it warrants a penalty absent perhaps some concurrent violation of something in 10.4 or 10.5. ... maybe 10.6. Declaring it as a "penalty target" is real iffy as it does not qualify as a target in the first place.

[aztecdriver]

Hey, don't get me wrong. I completely agree with you. My comment was basically what you said - without the history. I had heard that, and being i'm just looking at current rules, I couldn't find it - and if IT WAS a rule - it's long since gone.

My post was simply playing contrarian to a stage designer that believed this is a legal stage, and how many different ways it wasn't. My comments about it being a "cool" idea would be for something of a side match. It has no place in USPSA for competition.

[Schutzenmeister]

Hey, don't get me wrong. I completely agree with you. My comment was basically what you said - without the history. I had heard that, and being i'm just looking at current rules, I couldn't find it - and if IT WAS a rule - it's long since gone.

My post was simply playing contrarian to a stage designer that believed this is a legal stage, and how many different ways it wasn't. My comments about it being a "cool" idea would be for something of a side match. It has no place in USPSA for competition.

Many years ago, when certain rules in fact read differently concerning targets - AND, the scoring lines (A-B-C-D) were commonly printed on BOTH sides of the targets (i.e., white and tan sides) - I did design several stages along a "Friend or Foe" concept. The target presentations were always symetrical so as to ensure everyone had the same challenge ... The difference being that one did not know whether white/tan was friend/foe or foe/friend until after the start signal. IF there were still scoring zones printed on the white sides of the targets, I THINK one could still get away with this - given the wording of 4.1.2 ... However: Given the engrained mindset in our sport of White=NS, I suspect it could be argued those shooting white foe / tan friend would be at a slight disadvantage to those shooting the traditional way.

[JeffWard]

Sucks to draw turtles... The USPSA target is SOOOO much bigger!

JW

[Tom D]

Hey, don't get me wrong. I completely agree with you. My comment was basically what you said - without the history. I had heard that, and being i'm just looking at current rules, I couldn't find it - and if IT WAS a rule - it's long since gone.

My post was simply playing contrarian to a stage designer that believed this is a legal stage, and how many different ways it wasn't. My comments about it being a "cool" idea would be for something of a side match. It has no place in USPSA for competition.

Many years ago, when certain rules in fact read differently concerning targets - AND, the scoring lines (A-B-C-D) were commonly printed on BOTH sides of the targets (i.e., white and tan sides) - I did design several stages along a "Friend or Foe" concept. The target presentations were always symetrical so as to ensure everyone had the same challenge ... The difference being that one did not know whether white/tan was friend/foe or foe/friend until after the start signal. IF there were still scoring zones printed on the white sides of the targets, I THINK one could still get away with this - given the wording of 4.1.2 ... However: Given the engrained mindset in our sport of White=NS, I suspect it could be argued those shooting white foe / tan friend would be at a slight disadvantage to those shooting the traditional way.

I don't think so, 4.1.2.1 says that the scoring paper must be a typical cardboad color.

Tom

[Schutzenmeister]

[...]

I don't think so, 4.1.2.1 says that the scoring paper must be a typical cardboad color.

Tom

I considered that. It would not be very hard at all to argue that white IS a typical cardboard color. The current wording evolved from a standard of:

IPSC recognizes one target: the IPSC target. It may be camouflaged or of some plain color. {USPSA/IPSC Rule Book, 7th Edition, 1995, para 6.03(i)}

Hence, given the origins of the rule, one could argue white is a typical cardboard color ... I've seen a LOT of white cardboard boxes in my day!

Again ~ I'm not certain this would be a very good practice, for other reasons previously stated.

[sperman]

I'm not sure the origin of the rule has any relevance. The match is being run under the latest version of the rulebook.

I'm with Tom D. Typical cardboard color = brown.

[Schutzenmeister]

I'm not sure the origin of the rule has any relevance. The match is being run under the latest version of the rulebook.

I'm with Tom D. Typical cardboard color = brown.

Let me be perfectly clear:

1 - I haven't SEEN any white targets with scoring lines in probably 10 years. Hence, it would not be feasible to attempt such an arrangement today.

2 - I have already stated that because of our ingrained predeliction of "brown - shoot ... white - NO shoot" I am not convinced it would actually pose an "equal challenge for all shooters."

3 - Similar to history, if you do not know where you have been, it may be difficult to understand where you are ... and you certainly could have problems knowing where you are going. What got abandoned in the rule change were camouflaged painted targets, and targets painted different (plain) colors in order to facilitate even more "sinsiter" mind games about which targets to shoot or not shoot. (Trust me ... I've had to shoot all of these at one time or another.)

Could white be considered a "typical" cardboard color? Maybe ... But I've already stated why I don't think that would necessarily be a good idea. If the folks writing the rules seriously wanted to limit paper shoot targets to "brown," it would have been just as easy to say "brown" instead of "typical" ... easier in fact. They could have saved 2 letters!!! (LOL)

Edited September 28, 2010 by Schutzenmeister

[Daniel Rice]

I shoot that match that weekend....it was a different but really fun stage, at a level 1 match....seems were making to much of...just sayin

[GrumpyOne]

Reading 4.2.1:

4.2.1 There are two types of paper targets approved for use in USPSA Handgun matches (see Appendix . These types must not be included together in any stage.

It doesn't stipulate whether they are scoring targets - just that they must not be included together in any stage. If it's the opinion of the designer they are not included together as one can't be engaged and are mearly penalty targets - then we need to look at 4.1.3

4.1.3 No-shoots must be clearly marked or be of a single color different from scoring targets. Metal no-shoots in the general size and shape of authorized paper targets may be used. Metal no-shoots do not have a nonscoring border.

If indeed it is a penalty target, then it is included in the stage, and therefore illegal. If it didn't score one way or the other (for either penalty or score), then maybe it could be construed as to not being in the stage (such as cover or a barricade).

[John Baier]

I shoot that match that weekend....it was a different but really fun stage, at a level 1 match....seems were making to much of...just sayin

Even though it may have been fun. It makes no difference if it's a level 1 or level 3, we still need adhere to the rules

[Flexmoney]

I shoot that match that weekend....it was a different but really fun stage, at a level 1 match....seems were making to much of...just sayin

Even though it may have been fun. It makes no difference if it's a level 1 or level 3, we still need adhere to the rules

That is a big +1