scoring disappearing target

[Tim/GA]

New to all the bits and pieces of scoring correctly and have a question on moving target scoring. The rule is:

9.9 Scoring of Moving Targets

9.9.1 Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest

scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designed

movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always

incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule

9.2.4.4).

9.9.2 Moving scoring targets, which do not comply with the above criteria

are considered disappearing targets and will not incur failure to shoot

at or miss penalties except where Rule 9.9.3 applies.

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss

penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates

the target movement.

9.9.4 Level I matches only - If the written stage briefing prohibits the

engagement of certain targets prior to activation, the competitor will

incur one procedural penalty per shot fired at such targets prior to oper-

ating the activating mechanism, up to the maximum number of avail-

able hits (see Rule 2.1.8.5.1).

Question is this- if a target is either hidden or the A zone not visible prior to the target being activated and it disappears at the end, how is it scored if it is either activated and missed or activated and then the shooter does not engage? If I read the rule right, there would be no penalties in either case, right? So am I right that the target would be scored as a 0 since no scoring hits were made but there would not be a -10 for the miss OR the failure to engage? Basically this would just result in the shooter not getting any points for the target. Had seen this done once and never really understood.

If that is the case, what if a shooter does NOT activate the target. What penalties would be assessed if the target was to be engaged with 2 rounds?

Thanks

[Pat Miles]

If the target does not meet the requirements in 9.9.1 it is considered a disappearing target and any misses whether intentional (not engaged) or unintentional (shot at and missed) should be scored as no penalty misses. You are not penalized but you obviously don't get the possible points. If the shooter does not activate the disappearing target and it does not matter HOW it is activated (popper, lever, pressure pad, etc.) he will incur a "failure to engage and the misses per 9.9.3.

Pat

[Steven Cline]

Question is this- if a target is either hidden or the A zone not visible prior to the target being activated and it disappears at the end, how is it scored if it is either activated and missed or activated and then the shooter does not engage? If I read the rule right, there would be no penalties in either case, right? So am I right that the target would be scored as a 0 since no scoring hits were made but there would not be a -10 for the miss OR the failure to engage? Basically this would just result in the shooter not getting any points for the target. Had seen this done once and never really understood.

If the target is a disappearing target as defined by the rules, then not shooting at the target does NOT incur a penalty, neither does shooting and missing the target. On a disappearing target you either get points or you don't, but you can not incur a failure to engage or miss penalty. The score sheet should have a box for NPM- no penalty miss.

If that is the case, what if a shooter does NOT activate the target. What penalties would be assessed if the target was to be engaged with 2 rounds?

Though 9.9.2 says shooters are not penalized for failing to shoot at or miss disappearing targets...

9.9.2 Moving scoring targets, which do not comply with the above criteria

are considered disappearing targets and will not incur failure to shoot

at or miss penalties except where Rule 9.9.3 applies.

The caveat at the end except where Rule 9.9.3 applies means we look at this:

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss

penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates

the target movement.

And note that if the shooter does not activate the mechanism he WILL receive the failure to engage and misses even though the target is a disappearing target. Because 9.9.2 references 9.9.3 the two are intrinsically linked. The moving target in 9.9.3 includes the dissaperaing target refrenced in 9.9.2. The reason why the shooter is penalize is because of the failing to activate, not the failig to hit or engage. This prevents the shooter from gaming (such as not running to an activator of a disappearing target which others are running to - he must still run to the activator and activate, he just doesn't have to shoot at and hit the disappearing target)

So, assuming your hypothetical shooter never... shot the popper which activated the moving target... he would be assessed the mike on the popper, the two mikes on the target and one procedural for failing to engage.

Assume the shooter had to pull a rope to activate a drop turner... he is penalized the failure to engage and two misses even though the drop turner was a disappearing target because he never activated the mechanizm which initiates the target movement.

Anyone see how I got that wrong?

Edited October 18, 2010 by Steven Cline

[mhs]

Question is this- if a target is either hidden or the A zone not visible prior to the target being activated and it disappears at the end, how is it scored if it is either activated and missed or activated and then the shooter does not engage? If I read the rule right, there would be no penalties in either case, right? So am I right that the target would be scored as a 0 since no scoring hits were made but there would not be a -10 for the miss OR the failure to engage? Basically this would just result in the shooter not getting any points for the target. Had seen this done once and never really understood.

If that is the case, what if a shooter does NOT activate the target. What penalties would be assessed if the target was to be engaged with 2 rounds?Thanks

Just to be clear, 1 FTS and 2 mikes (normal mikes with penalties).

Editted to add bold.

Edited October 18, 2010 by mhs

[mgood]

Just to be clear, 1 FTS and 2 mikes (normal mikes with penalties).

What's an FTS?

No-Penalty Mikes on disappearing targets.

EDIT: Never mind. I believe mhs was answering the second part, about not activating the target. When I posted, I thought we were still discussing a target that had been activated, but missed or just not shot at.

Yeah, penalties if you just skip the whole activator thingy:

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss

penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates

the target movement.

Edited October 18, 2010 by mgood

[sfchorn]

FTS = Failure to Shoot At (used to be called Failure to Engage or FTE). The FTS and 2 mikes will be incurred if the competitor does not activate the mechanism that initiates target movement (stomp box, handle, etc.).

There is a separate thread discussing if activating the mechanism should be allowed "off the clock" (after the last shot, but before "if clear, hammer down, holster."

[mgood]

I've seen the discussion of activating after firing last shot.

Never heard of FTS. Always knew it as FTE. I figured it was something like that. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Tim/GA]

Thanks for the help and replies. Think I have it. I am sure it is not the last time I will be asking for help/opinions as I get further into this. Been reading back posts to help as well.

Going to go find that post on activating AFTER last shot, I was doing alright until that one came up!

[mgood]

Going to go find that post on activating AFTER last shot, I was doing alright until that one came up!

The idea was that you have to activate the disappearing target. You don't HAVE to shoot at it, since there are no penalties for not doing so. Nothing says when you must activate the disappearing target. Your time, of course, stops after the last shot is fired.

So some gamer suggests ignoring the activator (say it's not a target, but something you step on or whatever). Shoot the non-disappearing targets. When done, your time stops. THEN walk over and activate the target - off the clock. Debates over whether or not that's legal and/or ethical followed in a fairly lively discussion.

I'm not sure if this is the original thread or not. I haven't read it recently and just glanced at it just now. It difinitely touches on the subject though:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=110665&hl=disappearing&st=0

Also, this looks interesting:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=111961&hl=disappearing&st=0

And maybe this:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=110633&st=0&p=1256028&hl=disappearing&fromsearch=1entry1256028

[Tim/GA]

That explains the instructions for one of the stages last month. They included that the ammo can had to be ON the activator prior to the last shot being fired.

[chbrow10]

For the gamers, you could write a "Forbidden Action" per 2.3.1.1 to forbid the activation like that, but you've got to have it in the WSB.

[sperman]

I thought the FA rule was meant to be used to address safety issues, not because the shooter didn't shoot the stage the way you wanted him to.

[ima45dv8]

I thought the FA rule was meant to be used to address safety issues, not because the shooter didn't shoot the stage the way you wanted him to.

2.3.1.1

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage.

[emphasis added]

[sperman]

Doh. I remember that rule being applied at a state match earlier this year.

Reminder to self: Always read the rule before opening your mouth (or typing on Enos.)

[JThompson]

I thought the FA rule was meant to be used to address safety issues, not because the shooter didn't shoot the stage the way you wanted him to.

2.3.1.1

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage.

[emphasis added]

That bold part is crap... when the rule was proposed it was for "safety only" then we get this failure to do right crap. Of all the rules in the book this is the one I despise. IMO it's in direct opposition to freestyle. Design the course and let the shooter shoot. If we do this we might as well just shoot classifiers for all the freestyle we have left.

JT

[ima45dv8]

I thought the FA rule was meant to be used to address safety issues, not because the shooter didn't shoot the stage the way you wanted him to.

2.3.1.1

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage.

[emphasis added]

That bold part is crap... when the rule was proposed it was for "safety only" then we get this failure to do right crap. Of all the rules in the book this is the one I despise. IMO it's in direct opposition to freestyle. Design the course and let the shooter shoot. If we do this we might as well just shoot classifiers for all the freestyle we have left.

JT

I fought hard against it, but it's what we now have.

[sfchorn]

I thought the FA rule was meant to be used to address safety issues, not because the shooter didn't shoot the stage the way you wanted him to.

2.3.1.1

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage.

[emphasis added]

IMHO the FA rule should only be involked under the rarest of circumstances.

The overarching theme of this sport is FREESTYLE. The perfect WSB is only four words: "Engage targets as visible." The rest should be achieved with course design that allows the shooter multiple options on the best way for him or her to solve the problem.

[mhs]

That bold part is crap... when the rule was proposed it was for "safety only" then we get this failure to do right crap. Of all the rules in the book this is the one I despise. IMO it's in direct opposition to freestyle. Design the course and let the shooter shoot. If we do this we might as well just shoot classifiers for all the freestyle we have left.

JT

Total agreement on this one.

[Steven Cline]

I thought the FA rule was meant to be used to address safety issues, not because the shooter didn't shoot the stage the way you wanted him to.

2.3.1.1

a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage.

[emphasis added]

IMHO the FA rule should only be involked under the rarest of circumstances.

The overarching theme of this sport is FREESTYLE. The perfect WSB is only four words: "Engage targets as visible." The rest should be achieved with course design that allows the shooter multiple options on the best way for him or her to solve the problem.

I second this. I used to want shooters to shoot a stage a certain way. Now it is much more enjoyable to create teh stage (which is legal) and let them sort it out. Some shoot it the way it was "intended," while others give you very imaginative solutions. This shouldn't be discouraged.