Scoring Policy

[zorba]

During a shoot this weekend i engaged a full target and hit a penalty target instead,which was parcialy obscuring the scoring target.(there is a two foot gap between them).

The bullet passed through the PT and struck the scoring target.1st shot.

The second shot was fired which was on and i decided to fire a third.

Come scoring time i have one hit on the PT one A one C and one D on the scoring target.

How is this scored?

Did i have to fire a third shot?

The RO scored me like this. One PT one C and one D.

What i expected was one PT one A and one C.

The explanation given was that the RO had seen the first shot hit the PT and strike the A on the scoring target,so i lose the A and get the C D .

On further investigation i quoted rule 9.5.3, and was quoted back rule 9.1.5.

I know its only three points but when you are shooting your club champs and the whole shoot is only four stages it is a huge score to throw away.

Your help as usual would be greatly appreciated

[George]

Zorba,

If the full diameter of the bullet hole on the PT was within the scoring zone of that target then 9.1.5.1 is the correct rule to apply and the 3rd shot was required to avoid a mike.

--

Regards,

[zorba]

Thanx George

My reason for disreguarding rule 9.1.5.1 is because of my lack of understanding that the words "strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target" applied to a PT as well.

Looking at it this way indicates to me that you are correct.

[Vince Pinto]

Zorba,

From your description of the events, it seems that your RO was sharp and he made the correct call. Since the RO saw your first shot hit the PT and subsequently hit the A zone of the scoring target, he was correct to ignore the A zone hit during the scoring process. And, as young George says, you made the right decision to fire a third shot in order to avoid being lumbered with a Miss.

Having said all that, the course designer/builder needs to be severely spanked for allowing the shoot-through to be possible in the first place

[Garfield]

Vince,

You are really into that spanking thing, aren't you ?

[zorba]

thanx guys.

[Vince Pinto]

Garfield,

My regular "spanking" comments actually mean "he deserves a good kick in the ass", but I'm trying to maintain a civil tone here

Then again, if there's a sexy girl in stiletto heels, knee-high boots and fishnet stockings .................. whip me, whip me

[.40AET]

Out of curiosity, would the bullet that scored the A zone hit have left a grease mark on the PT, and subsequently left no grease mark when it went through the second target?? I get forced to RO on setup days and this is the sort of thing is what I look for when there is the possibility of one strike on two targets. That doesn't happen often because you get a rompin stompin a** whoopin if you set up the stage to fail. I belive that statement translates in the politically correct handbook as "spanking" or "stern dissagreement". I kill myself.

[Vince Pinto]

Out of curiosity, would the bullet that scored the A zone hit have left a grease mark on the PT, and subsequently left no grease mark when it went through the second target??

Possibly, but not always - some guys have very greasy barrels and/or bullets and others do not, but it's definitely one test an RO might use to determine which of the three holes in the Scoring Target first passed through the Penalty Target. Of course, as I'm sure you know, doing so is not an exact science.

However there's no way in the world a shoot-through will be possible on any stage under my care - eliminating shoot-throughs is the second thing I do when debugging a COF construction - the first is ensuring that the COF is safe, and the third is marking the exact location, positioning and layout of targets, so that I can replace them when necessary for the NNNth competitor exactly as they were for my very first competitor.

Hmmm. Maybe it's time I did a "How To Debug A Stage" post ...............

[zorba]

Vince what would prevent an RO in a situation like this from disadvantaging a competitor out of score by saying that the A is gone because i saw it was the shot that passed through the PT.If the RO did not see which shot landed where he would give me the two highest scores , the D would fall away and i would recieve the PT,sounds fair.As far as lining up holes is concerned depending on how much you bend your knees you can line up any holes you want, it does not work.

I am just being curious , the rules should not allow one persons belief or view to choose which hole counts and which does not.Its clear to me now how important the vetting of shoots is now, this type of thing would not happen.

[zorba]

Would the correct way to do this have been to paste the PT to the target?

ie no gap.

[Yoda]

Vince what would prevent an RO in a situation like this from disadvantaging a competitor out of score by saying that the A is gone because i saw it was the shot that passed through the PT.If the RO did not see which shot landed where he would give me the two highest scores , the D would fall away and i would recieve the PT,sounds fair.As far as lining up holes is concerned depending on how much you bend your knees you can line up any holes you want, it does not work.

I am just being curious , the rules should not allow one persons belief or view to choose which hole counts and which does not.Its clear to me now how important the vetting of shoots is now, this type of thing would not happen.

Zorba, the first line of your post assumes an RO without integrity. I've been in the sport for quite some time and have worked quite a number of matches on all levels but I have yet to encounter someone who would treat a scoring issue on purpose to disadvantage a competitor.

That being said I agree with you that this scoring issue (and a lot of other issues too) is based upon the judgement of the Range Official. That is the nature of our sport and the way we guide our competitors through the stages. The Official is there to safely guide the competitor through the stage and uphold the rules. He notices a lot of things and must react upon it.

*IF* the RO is not sure which bullet went through the PT and caused the other hit on the scoring target the competitor should receive the benefit of the doubt. In all other cases the shooter will receive the score as determined by the RO (and when in disagreement judged by the CRO/RM)

[Garfield]

I think the point Zorba is trying to make is that competitors could unintentionally be (dis)advantaged on account of the RO seeing or not seeing where a bullet shot through a PT has landed. So, just because the RO sometimes does see, and sometimes does not see, where those bullets land. If he sees and is sure, he must score accordingly, if he does not see he must give the benefit of the doubt. But alas, the RO is not capable of seeing everything 100%, so here could emerge some unequality....

[zorba]

I have no doubt to the integrity of the RO in my case, and all the ROs out there.

Like i said just fishing.

Thanx Garfield for straightening my words.

[Vince Pinto]

Zorba,

I fully support the comments made by my friends in the Dutch Mafia - Godfather Yoda and Consigliere Garfield

However the real solution is avoiding the problem in the first place and, yes, I will invariably have Penalty Targets physically attached to Scoring Targets, rather than having them a few feet apart. The trouble is that some course designers or builders get lazy, and they try to make the PT serve as a vision barrier as well as a PT, but this will definitely cause scoring headaches.

If I want to partially conceal a whole Scoring Target, I will use plywood or netting, but I'll also declare it to be Soft Cover. This way, the target is still partially concealed, but shots passing through still count for score.

[zorba]

Cool dudes thanx plenty

[Yoda]

Allow me to add something to the wise words of our "Capo de tutti Capi" Vince

another solution to the problem Zorba described which nobody has touched is having the PT be real impenetrable. We have all steel PT targets which do a very nice job when placed in front of PP. You can imagine the expression on faces when a shooter engages ... err ... shoots at a PP at 25 yards, hears PLING, and the damn PP is still standing. We have also used kevlar behind PT on shorter distances which also do a very good job. Other than that it is best to have the PT attached so close to the target that there won''t be any discussion.

[Vince Pinto]

Yoda,

You're an evil man, almost as evil as, well, Dr. Evil (my kid brother Chepit Dulay from IPSC Philippines). He also uses real hard cover, and he used it very effectively on at least one stage at WSXII in Cebu, where there was a fast moving swinger behind what looked like an ordinary piece of plywood.

When the first competitor went "Blam, Blam, Blam", the sound he heard was "Ding, Ding, Ding", and the rest of the squad got the message

[Jim Norman]

Vince,

Are you suggesting that we can't partially block a target with a NS? The course designer should be spanked? Kicked in the Ass? Vince, you got to stop shooting bullseye! This is Action Shooting/IPSC/USPSA. NS targets are a fact of life. You shoot to avoid them. What difference is there if a NS is tight against a shoot or standing out 2 feet or more, maybe it blocks the target from "port A' but allows a full unclutterd view from another position! Would you change the sport even more by having everyone shoot the course in the same manner, Port A, Box B, positin C? Freestyle! This is what it is all about. If the shot is too tight take it from another position, or slow down.

If the shooter got the NS on shot 1, AND the RO could actually see where the shot hit on the NS, then he wasn't doing his job anyway. He is supposed to watch the shooter and the gun, not see where the hits are, that comes after Unload and show clear, et al. Yes you have to be sure the shooter isn't shooting ove rhte berm, but thats it. You shouldn't be calling his shots!

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

Are you suggesting that we can't partially block a target with a NS?

No.

What difference is there if a NS is tight against a shoot or standing out 2 feet or more .....

The former eliminates the possibility of shoot-throughs, while the latter creates them. This is an elementary and fundamental principle of Course Design & Construction and I covered this in Point 2a. of this thread.

If the shooter got the NS on shot 1, AND the RO could actually see where the shot hit on the NS, then he wasn't doing his job anyway. He is supposed to watch the shooter and the gun, not see where the hits are, that comes after Unload and show clear, et al.

A Range Officer worth his salt watches much more than just the competitor's gun. In any case, if the Course Design & Construction is done properly (such as with no possibility of shots passing through one scoring or penalty target and striking another scoring or penalty target), there will be fewer things for the RO to watch.

I hope this helps, however I urge you to take a Range Officer's Course, as I think you'll find it to be extremely useful. I don't know who covers the Tallahassee area for the USPSA but, if your RO Course Instructor is John Amidon, Troy McManus or Arnie Christiansen, you'll definitely be in good hands.

Information on how to schedule a USPSA RO Seminar is available here.

[Yoda]

If the shooter got the NS on shot 1, AND the RO could actually see where the shot hit on the NS, then he wasn't doing his job anyway. He is supposed to watch the shooter and the gun, not see where the hits are, that comes after Unload and show clear, et al.

A Range Officer worth his salt watches much more than just the competitor's gun. In any case, if the Course Design & Construction is done properly (such as with no possibility of shots passing through one scoring or penalty target and striking another scoring or penalty target), there will be fewer things for the RO to watch.

Amen to that brother Vince!

Jim,

it all comes with experience. An experienced RO will see a lot in his peripheral vision while automatically being focussed on the shooter and his gun. It also depends on range layout, but when the view on the target is not blocked by vision barriers and they are at a reasonable distance the RO gets a lot more visual information than just the gun in the hand of the shooter.

[Flexmoney]

[beaver & ButtHead mode on]

Loose No-Shoots suck asssss.

[b&BH off]

[Nik Habicht]

Kyle,

I couldn't disagree more. They're used quite a bit in this corner of the USPSAverse (MASC of A8). Loose no-shoots have their place. Imagine yourself running through a pit where targets appear and disappear behind both vision barriers and no-shoots. This can set up cool stages. The use of no-shoots both breaks things up and discourages arrays. It also leaves the shooter options if it's done right --- i.e. I can try to sneak two rounds past a no-shoot here and eliminate one whole position, or I can move over here and the whole target's available for an easier shot. On the other hand --- using no-shoots as vision barriers when you should be using walls or using them without giving a shooter an easier option is a bad thing....

[Vince Pinto]

Nik,

If stages as you've described allow shoot-throughs, you're creating a potential scoring nightmare, especially if the targets beyond the "free-standing" Penalty Targets are moving targets.

[Nik Habicht]

Vince,

Generally no moving targets past the free standing no-shoots. Have seen no-shoot swingers placed in front of arrays and had a shoot-through at the A8FG in 2002. was simple to score though --- I engaged each of three targets twice and had one hole in the penalty target and two alpha on each scoring target. Talk about making it easy for the R.O.

I get your point about the potential for a scoring nightmare --- but it seldom occurs --- and I strongly feel that eliminating the use of free-standing no-shoots removes a valid challenge in in practical shooting. In a stage I designes recently, you turned a corner and had a no-shoot three feet away from you blocking a target that you couldn't see to shoot until you had moved past the no-shoot. You were also looking at a fully open target, that disappeared behind a no-shoot when you took the three steps required to make the first target appear. No shoot-throughs if you moved properly. Both targets were also shootable (without shoot-through threat) from a third position position 10- 12 steps down the lane, from which you had to engage another target that was only visible from there. The shooter had two choices --- shoot the targets on the move as they appeared, or to sprint to the end of the lane and take all three, which involved a partial turn, some swinging of the muzzle between targets, and three different engagement distances. We ran thirty some shooters through the stage and no one had a shoot through.

In case you haven't figured it out yet --- I'm opposed to rules or guidelines that rigidly restrict stage design because occasionally someone screws it up. Better to point out what the potential concerns are --- and let designers learn how to prevent the problem without stifling creativity.