Is this a no-shoot?

[L9X25]

I really hate to introduce this into the equation but...

There was once a principle where the shooter received the benefit of the doubt, in cases where there was doubt. If it requires a 15 minute discussion to determine if a hole is a hit, when several reasonable people cannot come to a consensus, the shooter should get the benefit of the doubt.

Leo

[bigsaxdog]

no-shoots are supposed to be good guys. splatter that didn't knock down the popper and left a big hole in the no-shoot came from a improperly aimed shot which did not have enough concern for my favorite uncle(the no-shoot!), and consequently he didn't walk away, so........... i think vladimir should get dinged!

[SmittyFL]

Vince,

You concentrate on writing the rule, I'm going to go watch Grease 2 again.

[Skywalker]

Vince,

You concentrate on writing the rule, I'm going to go watch Grease 2 again.

Ok, Vince concentrates on the rule, Smitty watches Grease 2, I'll have nothing else to do than going to aks a date to Michelle...

[Vince Pinto]

There was once a principle where the shooter received the benefit of the doubt, in cases where there was doubt.  If it requires a 15 minute discussion to determine if a hole is a hit, when several reasonable people cannot come to a consensus, the shooter should get the benefit of the doubt.

Leo,

I have (and teach) a contrary viewpoint. For me, I will examine a hole in a target very carefully but, unless there is actual evidence of something, it's just not there, and I believe this is the fairest treatement for all competitors, not just the guy being scored.

Consider two huge holes, one being dead centre in a Scoring Target and the other being dead centre in a Penalty Target, and let's presume that they're (for this argument) otherwise identical in all respects. If you apply your "benefit of doubt" theory, you'd give an Alpha on the Scoring Target but you'd ignore the hole on the Penalty Target, right?

If so, you're treating two identical holes differently based on where they are, not on what they are, and that's neither consistent or equitable. Sure, if it's one competitor, he'll certainly be a happy camper, but it's also possible that you've just unintentionally screwed another dozen or so competitors in the same match.

On the other hand, using my WYSIWYG approach, you'd ignore both holes. Just something for you to think about.

[Radagast]

Yo Vince, this is a fascinating topic, as at the last Aussie Nationals I had a triangular section out of the A zone of a target. The RO called it a fragment and a miss, not having seen/heard a round hit a prop I appealed to Moonie, he called it a miss as well. That round cost me third place in Production.

My take on the matter is that an irregular bullet hole is spatter or fragments, and isn't paid if it came off a prop. Moony made the correct call.

How you are going to write that rule I have no idea. Good luck to you.

Ken

[Skywalker]

My take on the matter is that an irregular bullet hole is spatter or fragments, and isn't paid if it came off a prop. Moony made the correct call.

Radagast,

sorry to hear about your missed third place in Prod at Aussie Nats, but I don't agree on the above statement.

If it can be determined that the round impacting the prop wasn't completely confined into the prop (see tires example I cited above), or if the round just grazed the prop, the subsequent mark on a scoring/penalty target falls under the provision of rules 9.1.6.3 and 9.1.6.4 regardless of the hole tipe left on the target.

Otherwise, rules 9.1.6.1 and 9.1.6.2 will apply.

[L9X25]

Vince,

I am absolutely not advocating a "free for all" and feel that there must be significant evidence to support any decision. I realize that a "less than perfect hole" does not mean that it is a double. I believe that we should address fragments similarly to radial tears, you need to identify where the bullet hole is and where the tear is. My contention is that you MUST be able to identify something recognizable as a hit before it can score in either direction. I cannot support that the existence of any hole on the face of a target constitutes a "hit".

I believe that Sky is skiing on a slippery slope with his ricochet theory. A partial diameter “pass through” should count as a hit but a ricochet where the bullet is significantly deformed, beyond identification as a bullet hole, should be excluded as splatter.

I agree with your “one standard, regardless of the target (score or penalty)” but others have applied totally different standards depending on the target. They claim that any hole in a no-shoot scores while you must have an identifiable “hit” to score on a shoot target.

Just come up with something that can be applied consistently to all targets and situations and let the RO/RM make the call BASED ON THE RULE and not arbitrary and indiscriminate standards.

Leo

[Skywalker]

I believe that Sky is skiing on a slippery slope with his ricochet theory.  A partial diameter “pass through” should count as a hit but a ricochet where the bullet is significantly deformed, beyond identification as a bullet hole, should be excluded as splatter.

Leo,

even if I'm ready to accept whater definition/interpretation will come out of this whole discussion, I'm not trying to speculate on the rules regarding ricochets, I'm just applying them by the word.

In rules 9.1.6.1 through 9.1.6.1 it is nowhere mentioned a ricochet or a splatter.

The above rules refer to a bullet, and a bullet (by the definition given in Glossary, 12.5) is:

The projectile in a round intended to strike a target.

My point is that, whenever the RO can determine the hit on a target is determined by a round that grazed a prop or a metal target, it shall count according to the rules.

Besides, when dealing with metal targets or props, there is no such thing as a partial diameter “pass through”, but only ricochets, splatter and shavings.

Now, at what extent a deformed bullet hit on a target can still be considered a bullet hit, I guess, is a judgement up to the RO/CRO/RM; and (again) I guess the rules could only give some guidelines, but will not be able to clearly define it.

[L9X25]

My point is that, whenever the RO can determine the hit on a target is determined by a round that grazed a prop or a metal target, it shall count according to the rules.

Besides, when dealing with metal targets or props, there is no such thing as a partial diameter “pass through”, but only ricochets, splatter and shavings.

Sky,

Anytime we have splatter on the face of a target it almost certainly grazed or bounced off of a prop or metal target, how else could it get there?

When a bullet passes completly through a prop (hardcover), and strikes a target, the resulting hole will not score. A bullet can (partial diameter) pass through some props without any deformation. In other cases the bullet may deform radically with a minor impact. I think that the resulting hole must be the determining factor as to whether it is a "hit" or not. You are correct that there will be a "grey areas" but it would be better to have guidelines as to what constitutes a "Hit". Currently, each RO uses a different set of beliefs make the call and there is no consistency.

Leo

[Liota]

Liota,

You clearly have the right frame of mind, but there's a balance to strike between assisting one competitor and inadvertently screwing another bunch of competitors. This is the same argument which applies to the infamous "perfect double". If you use the dreaded "benefit of doubt" theory, you might make one guy happy, but you can also affect the outcome of the match.

You must judge on the visible evidence, not with your heart, no matter how big it is

Vince,

I never said my heart was involved in it. It all depends on what's on the paper. If it isn't there, then it isn't there. I comiserate with the competitor and we go on. If he doesn't like the call, we can always get a second opinion. No problem. By the way, it is awfully difficult to tell your own husband, "Alpha Mike" much less "Alpha Mike No Shoot". That one really sucked, but the call was correct.

Liota

[Vince Pinto]

Anytime we have splatter on the face of a target it almost certainly grazed or bounced off of a prop or metal target, how else could it get there?

Leo,

I thought you'd never ask

On more than once occasion, I've seen holes in targets caused by rocks launched by bullets striking the ground behind a target placed very low to the ground where there was another target mid-height further downrange. The last time it happened, it was only by chance that I saw it because another RO was on the timer and I was looking over his shoulder. When we examined the target, there was a typical triangular hole in it similar to what you might see with a bullet ricochet.

Luckily the competitor had two legitimate bullet holes in the target in addition to the rock hole, otherwise I was quite prepared to order a reshoot. In any case, we had to pile a bunch of additional sandbags behind the low target to prevent further problems. Anyway, I only mentioned this to show that not all big holes are caused by bullet ricochets.

Liota,

You RO your husband?????? I need to have a serious talk with you.

[Liota]

Vince,

Usually, only at club level, but...

Everyone gets treated EXACTLY the same. Everything I say, everything I do, and how I score. My personal relationship with the person at the line doesn't matter. It is always the same from first competitor to last.

I have noticed that, with the original situation in this thread, that once you offer to overlay the "immaculate double" or the hit on a NS, even the most diehard whiner will take his medicine. Good or bad.

Basically, I'm a hard-ass, but I'm not mean about it. All of the comments from competitors have been that I am extremely professional and run a really tight stage.

Liota

[Vince Pinto]

Liota,

My apologies. I was not implying you give preferential treatment - I was actually ribbing you for being so brave. Hell, if I had to DQ my wife from a stage, I'd be banished from the bedroom, and there's not much room in the doghouse

Hence when it's her turn to shoot, I go sit in the bleachers.

[hoser]

Hell, if I had to DQ my wife from a stage, I'd be banished from the bedroom, and there's not much room in the doghouse

Hey Vince, with your size, when you are in the bedroom, there ain't much room in there either!!!

Actually, when my son was shooting with me on a regular basis, we never RO'ed each other.

Arnie

[tightloop]

Just looks like common sense not to instruct or oversee the shooting of a spouse or loved one..

Leads to really hard feelings after the match if the call doesn't suit everyone's perception of what happened..

[Jim Norman]

Not to ruffle feathers here, but isn' this thread way off course? It was about whether or not a particular hole in a certain target was a hit or was it splatter. We are now discussing whether or not to RO one's spouse.

Seems that this thread should be stopped.

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

Jim,

Quit stealing my lines.

As for the rest of you soldiers...GET IN STEP.

[Vince Pinto]

As for the rest of you soldiers...GET IN STEP.   

Und I vant to hear vun klick ............ ein, zwei, drei

The more I think about the issue at hand, the more I want to emphasize my "visible evidence" scoring credo, and I think the solution might be expanding upon our radial tears rule with a sub-rule as follows:

9.5.4 Radial tears radiating outwards from the diameter of a bullet hole will not count for score or penalty.

9.5.4.1 Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competior's bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark, striations or a "crown"), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter.

In other words, it's non-scoring splatter unless there's evidence to the contrary.

[shred]

How do this handle the extreme-angle shots? One dimension might be within the bullet diameter, but the other isn't. Most of the time these will have other indications of bullet passage (grease, etc), but not always.

[Skywalker]

Moreover, how do this handle the tires example I made before?

[Vince Pinto]

How do this handle the extreme-angle shots?

Moreover, how do this handle the tires example I made before?

On the evidence.

The competitor's angle of fire and the nature of the props used in the COF are irrelevant. We must score targets on a WYSIWYG basis, and this is the thrust of my argument in respect of enlarged holes and a so-called "perfect double". I urge everyone to take the time to examine each questionable hole with great care, using scoring aids such as overlays and magnifiers but, if there's no evidence, the hole cannot be scored as legitimate scoring or penalty hit.

Of course the real issue (yet again) is good course design and construction, where proper care and attention to detail before a single round is fired will obviate most, if not all, challenges later in the match. What we're trying to do here is to provide a reasonable solution for exceptional cases - I certainly hope that these problems are not endemic in our sport.

[Skywalker]

How do this handle the extreme-angle shots?

Moreover, how do this handle the tires example I made before?

On the evidence.

Ok Vince,

evidence is that, after grazing the tires, the bullet left a key-hole with some radial tears departing from it in the target.

My call would be that this is a scoring hit, because the bullet didn't completely pass through the tire pile, got deviated some 30 degrees from its original trajectory, and eventually hit the target (placed some 30 cm behind the tires) sideways.

Am I right or wrong in my call?

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

Without actually seeing the hypothetical hole I guess I agree with your conclusion, the only difference is that I would change my train of thought from:

SKY: evidence is that, after grazing the tires, the bullet left a key-hole with some radial tears departing from it in the target.

VINCE: evidence is that, <snip> the bullet left a key-hole with some radial tears <snip>

SKY: My call would be that this is a scoring hit, because the bullet didn't completely pass through the tire pile, got deviated some 30 degrees from its original trajectory, and eventually hit the target (placed some 30 cm behind the tires) sideways.

VINCE: My call would be that this is a scoring hit <snip>

In other words, I would only consider evidence actually visible on the target - all the rest is presumption.

[ivanhu]

Lord Vader,

I like this definition of yours.

9.5.4 Radial tears radiating outwards from the diameter of a bullet hole will not count for score or penalty.

9.5.4.1 Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competior's bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark, striations or a "crown"), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter.

We definitely should somehow decide what do we deem to be a hit. Will we ever able to find a perfect definition? Perhaps not. But then, who cares? That's not unprecedented that some sports pin down exact and absolute definitions. The definition above won't cover each and every case for sure, and sometimes we won't score a deserved hit. But it covers most of the possible cases, and if you recall how do you work on the stage today, it's quite close to the definition above. Recall, for example, the football: the ball must pass the line with full extend, otherwise it's not scored. Is there a room for personal judgment on the part of the referee? Certainly is. We're even in a much better position: we don't have to judge in a fragment of a second, we have ample time to decide.

Shred:

As for the extreme-angle shots, the RO will see the "visible evidence within the remnants of the hole" that it indeed is a hit, so I see no problems here.

Skywalker,

We too use piles of tyres sometimes, therefore I understand the problem. However, as I see it, we might easily decide that in addition to that "fully or partially penetrates the barricade" rule, the hits caused by bullets that distorted enough by the impact on the edge of the prop won't count for score either. These two rules won't contradict each other - they just simply co-exist. Today, some ROs will say that "this hole is big enough, so maybe your bullet has travelled through the target here", which, in my opinion, is the wrong application of the "benefit of doubt" rule. The suggested amendment will be clear that only those holes count where the RO sees the evidence that it's a bullet hole. The RO is still there to decide, but with less ground for the personal interpretations.