Engaging Targets from under a wall – What is the proper call

[CHA-LEE]

We use 6 foot tall walls that have netting on them but the netting only covers the top four feet of the wall. This leaves a 2 foot gap at the bottom of the wall between the ground and the bottom of the netting. On a stage we shot recently a lay down target was used which was visible between walls where it was intended to be engaged, but it was also visible from under the wall in a different location within the shooting area which allowed the shooter to totally skip a whole shooting position by shooting under the wall. This target was visible under the wall without needing to crouch down to see it either. The shooter shot the stage by skipping the intended shooting position for engaging the lay down target between the walls and then engaged the target by shooting under the wall from a different location.

Rule 2.2.3.3 states “Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.” There was no mention within the WSB or during the shooters meeting that it was allowed to shoot under the walls. Knowing this, it was determined that a penalty should be assessed for engaging a target under the wall, but this lead to a heated discussion which nobody really had a solid answer for. Here are of the for and against arguments that were made while trying to figure out what the best plan of action would be. Should the shooter be given 2 Mikes and a Failure To Engage Procedural? Two Mikes? Or just a single Procedural penalty for shooting under the wall? The Shooter argued that the WSB stated in the “Stage Procedure” that it said “At start signal engage targets as they become visible from within shooting area”. His stance was that since the target under the wall was visible without needing to crouch down to see it then it was a viable target to engage from that position because it was “Visible” from within the shooting area. I was not the RO in this situation but I thought it would be reasonable to assess two Mikes and no FTE Procedural. To me, the argument for being able to shoot under the wall because it was visible did not fly because the rules clearly state that barriers go from ground to height constructed. What is the correct call in this situation?

I realize that this stage setup is a good learning experience to put up enough visual blockers so that targets can’t be easily seen and engaged from under a wall. Course construction or improvement of course construction isn’t the question here.

[titandriver]

My standard disclaimer when I was a MD was to state that "all walls go from the bowels of Hell to the gates of Heaven". If they weren't paying attention at the walk-through to my disclaimer and haven't read the rulebook, well, pay the price! I would have assessed two mikes plus failure to engage.

[sperman]

If the wall were constructed all the way to the ground and the shooter engaged the target, would you give him the FTE? I would.

My call is 2 Mike, 1 FTE.

[BritinUSA]

2.2.3.3. says that the walls go all the way to the ground. So essentially the shooter shot through the wall, all walls are hard-cover unless otherwise specified in the WSB so he could not have engaged the target through the wall... 2 Misses and a Failure to Engage, in my opinion.

[Dan Hefta]

Just for this reason I allways have "all walls go from the ground to infinity" on every WSB that I run.

[GrumpyOne]

2 mikes and a fte.

[CHA-LEE]

So you guys don't think an FTE Penalty along with the two Mikes is too hefty of a penalty? I am not sure we can really assess an FTE in this situation based on the wording of Rule 10.2.7 "A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2 apply."

The FTE penalty is intended to penalize a shooter for completely skipping a target and not even attempt to engage it. The shooter obviously took the time to shoot at this target and it had two hits in it even though they passed through imaginary hard cover. He did "Shoot At" the target even if his hits don't count since they went through hard cover.

[Sarge]

I agree with two mikes and FTE. The mikes are obvious but the FTE takes some rationalization. I see two reasons at least to feel safe calling an FTE:

For one, a hidden target can not be engaged because you can't see it. Second, if you did shoot at it, the bullets do not go through the wall because it is impenetrable.

[Sarge]

So you guys don't think an FTE Penalty along with the two Mikes is too hefty of a penalty? I am not sure we can really assess an FTE in this situation based on the wording of Rule 10.2.7 "A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2 apply."

The FTE penalty is intended to penalize a shooter for completely skipping a target and not even attempt to engage it. The shooter obviously took the time to shoot at this target and it had two hits in it even though they passed through imaginary hard cover. He did "Shoot At" the target even if his hits don't count since they went through hard cover.

Whether the hard cover is "imaginary" or not should not matter. You can not engage what you can't see.

[CHA-LEE]

So you guys don't think an FTE Penalty along with the two Mikes is too hefty of a penalty? I am not sure we can really assess an FTE in this situation based on the wording of Rule 10.2.7 "A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2 apply."

The FTE penalty is intended to penalize a shooter for completely skipping a target and not even attempt to engage it. The shooter obviously took the time to shoot at this target and it had two hits in it even though they passed through imaginary hard cover. He did "Shoot At" the target even if his hits don't count since they went through hard cover.

Whether the hard cover is "imaginary" or not should not matter. You can not engage what you can't see.

I don't know dude, that line of thought is fraught with holes. For example, You could "See" the target in its intended location and memorize its location so it can be "Shot At" from a different location where its not visible. This is really no different than a shooter who reached down to shoot through a low port but is able to see through a mesh netting wall to "See" where the target is and their hits as they shoot.

[MarkCO]

Since the competitor intentionally shot through what the rules specify is hard cover, I do not think you can assess an FTE. The target was engaged, just through hard cover, albeit virtual hard cover. It should be 2 misses only unless you want to hang the competitor with a stage Zero based on rule 10.2.11, which to me is excessive in this case.

[JThompson]

2 with an FTE

JT

[Loves2Shoot]

I don't know dude, that line of thought is fraught with holes. For example, You could "See" the target in its intended location and memorize its location so it can be "Shot At" from a different location where its not visible. This is really no different than a shooter who reached down to shoot through a low port but is able to see through a mesh netting wall to "See" where the target is and their hits as they shoot.

The difference is they were "shooting through the wall" even if it wasn't there. That is no little difference, and FTE 2 Mikes, since I don't think that you can "engage" a target through hard cover.

[Dan Hefta]

I would have to agree that he did engage the target, 2 Mikes would be my call... gotta love this sport and all of the grey areas in the rules and our interpretations of them.

[coldchar]

Just have to disagree, in general how are you going to prove which targets were engaged from which position and what holes from what position. I believe the correct ruling would be one procedural per shot fired. Significant competitive advantage. We are supposed to be counting.

Jim G

[CHA-LEE]

MarkCO> I don't think that rule 10.2.11 applies in this case as there were no Forbidden Action(s) defined in the WSB or during the shooter meeting for this stage. If the RM/MD was called and this action was then deemed a Forbidden Action then he would have to Reshoot the stage. If he then reshot the stage and engaged the same target in the same manner going against the defined Forbidden Action then it would be a DQ offense.

[Singlestack]

You can not shoot under a wall. The shooter did not engage the target if he shot at it under a wall.

2 Mike 1 FTE.

[CHA-LEE]

I am still trying to find in the rule book where there is a requirement of being able to See a target before you can Engage it. Or further more where it states that you even need hits on the target to define that you have actually engaged it. The only rule I can find associated with this is 10.2.7 which states "Shoot At", which is pretty vague if you really think about it.

[bluenite]

3.2 dose not require quoting the rules in the WSB

IMO 9.5.7 gives 2 misses and fte.

The fte is from not engaging the target from a location where the target was available.

Leonard

[Loves2Shoot]

Cha,

Can you engage a target that is not visible behind two stacked barrels if you just shoot at the barrels?

[JThompson]

Just have to disagree, in general how are you going to prove which targets were engaged from which position and what holes from what position. I believe the correct ruling would be one procedural per shot fired. Significant competitive advantage. We are supposed to be counting.

Jim G

That's interesting and may be valid, but I can see in some cases where this would still be a significant advantage.

JT

[MarkCO]

MarkCO> I don't think that rule 10.2.11 applies in this case

I agree. You certainly can shoot at a target you can not see, and we have engaged targets we could not see. For instance, a sheet or black plastic strung up to obscure targets is soft cover, we shoot through that.

So Singlestack, on a tight shot around a corner of a wall, a competitor has 2 full diameter hits in the wall, no hits on target...you are going to give that shooter an FTE? No way, and this has happened at at least 2 majors I know of and the penalty was 2 misses. This is that same thing except there was only a virtual wall, not an actual physical wall. If the RO can positively determine that the rounds went under the wall (or within the frame of the wall constituting hard cover), then that is all that matters. The bullets, by rule are deemed to have stopped at the plane of the wall and "missed" the target. If you say the target was not engaged, then you should stop the shooter and give him a DQ for unsafe gun handling.

[coldchar]

On further recollection, I think those are right on the FTE's and Mikes , as the wall goes all the way to the ground it is considered hard cover. Under 9.1.6.1 the bullet that goes thru does not count for either score or penalty. My previous knee jerk reaction was under 10.2.1 equating it with crossing a fault line etc. but that is stretching it.

Jim G

[MarkCO]

Cha,

Can you engage a target that is not visible behind two stacked barrels if you just shoot at the barrels?

At some matches, they will even give you the hits that pass through the barrels.

[Dan Hefta]

You can shoot through hardcover but if you do it's a Mike.