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

[mactiger]

Nice rule citations, but, playing devils advocate, how do you support your "no" answer, if there are two holes in the target, and you observed the competitor fire the shots?

Troy

For the moment, I'm not going to say what I'd call, but I do have a couple of questions. (believe me, I do have an opinion here).

First, if you are in the "2 mikes, one FTE" group, what rule would you use to support your FTE call?

9.5.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at the face of each scoring target in a

course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target for failure to shoot at the target, as well as appropriate penalties for misses (see Rule 10.2.7).

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

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the

written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during

non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural

penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple

shots contrary to the required position or stance). Do not apply

two different penalties for the same offense, (e.g. not firing the required

rounds in a Virginia Count stage; competitor gets a miss and no procedural).

Second, if you say no FTE, can you support that by rule? No

Third, what other possible call could be made here which would eliminate all the argument?

2.3.1.1a 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.

Then....either 2.3.3.1 or 2.3.3.2

This type of thing is inevitable, I suppose, given our insistence on freestyle, "shoot em as you see em" course design. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. But, I've seen some good points made here, and, quite frankly some that are, um, "out there".

Good discussion, though. I think the main point to take away from this would be "hide the targets better".

Troy

[GrumpyOne]

Nice rule citations, but, playing devils advocate, how do you support your "no" answer, if there are two holes in the target, and you observed the competitor fire the shots? Troy

For the moment, I'm not going to say what I'd call, but I do have a couple of questions. (believe me, I do have an opinion here).

First, if you are in the "2 mikes, one FTE" group, what rule would you use to support your FTE call? Answer to question #1 The holes do not exist, as they were fired through hardcover...They stopped being shots after they went through the plane of where the hardcover would be. They may be taped, but won't be scored...He didn't engage the target, he engaged the hardcover... 9.5.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at the face of each scoring target in a

course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target for failure to shoot at the target, as well as appropriate penalties for misses (see Rule 10.2.7).

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

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the

written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence.

However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during

non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural

penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple

shots contrary to the required position or stance). Do not apply

two different penalties for the same offense, (e.g. not firing the required

rounds in a Virginia Count stage; competitor gets a miss and no procedural).

Second, if you say no FTE, can you support that by rule? No, unless you think about 9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not

count for score or penalty, as the case may be. But, IMO, that is talking about a target partially hidden by hardcover and in this instance, is taken out of context for this situation.

Third, what other possible call could be made here which would eliminate all the argument?

2.3.1.1a 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.

Then....either 2.3.3.1 or 2.3.3.2

This type of thing is inevitable, I suppose, given our insistence on freestyle, "shoot em as you see em" course design. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. But, I've seen some good points made here, and, quite frankly some that are, um, "out there".

Good discussion, though. I think the main point to take away from this would be "hide the targets better".

Troy

Edited July 13, 2011 by GrumpyOne

[Dan Burwell]

The holes do not exist,

Self healing targets? or "these are not the droids you are looking for"

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

The holes do exist they just don't count for score.

invisible walls, disapearing bullet holes never thought I'd see make believe this in this sport.

Shooter shoots at target rounds happen to passs through hard cover, any other target this is a no brainer, still not seeing how this is any thing special (other than a learning experience for setup people and a warning to shooters that you may or may not get the call)

Troy please tell me there is a better rule we are missing that can clear this all up. I don't really care one way or another, but a nice rule quotation would make it easier for all to get some rest.

For some reason I thought I recall some disucssion in the past about not using such walls at nationals to avoid this? I tried a search on here but didn't turn anything up and I know they are using them, so I am guessing there is something we are just missing other than the DQ for unsportsman like.

as for my rules citations for no PE I am going with

1.1.5 Freestyle USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted

to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot

targets on an as and when visible basis.

the word "must" is used here not should making it manditory not optional that the competitors get to shoot targets as and when visible. BUT this is a course design rule (chapter1), not a scoring rule(chapter9)or a penalty rule (chapter 10)

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as soft cover (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the

written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and

other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable hard cover:

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not

count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

this is a scoring rule, so we know the hits on the target do not count since they passed through hard cover.

9.5.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at the face of each scoring target in a

course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty

USPSA Handgun Rules, June 2010 Edition 39

per target for failure to shoot at the target, as well as appropriate penalties

for misses (see Rule 10.2.7).

OK here is another scoring rule that applies, the shooter shot at the scoring surface of the target(through a wall) and here is where the opinion enters if a competitor shoots at a target they shoot at a target, makes no difference to me what is between them. Pretty hard to tell someone when you are standing there looking at a target with two holes in it thet they didn't shoot at it, just because they didn't shoot at it from where we wanted them to shoot it from.

Lastly we have from chapter 10 Penalties:

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.

it doesn't read that the shooter must shoot at the target only within the shooting areas and not through hard cover. Only that the shooter must shoot at each target. Again hard pressed to tell me a shooter didn't shoot at the target when I am looking at a target with two holes in it.

Funny how both side are pointing to the same rules, but getting different answers.

and yes, the easy fix is to call for a forbiden action do the reshoot and everyone has a happy day.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Dan Burwell

[twodownzero]

I'm wondering how this situation changes if the "target" is steel. Mike + FTE? but now the competitor doesn't have the chance to shoot at the target from a legitimate location, either. Since there's no procedural error, it is not a situation where a competitor is correcting a past procedural by taking further action.

My opinion is that if one shoots under a wall and knocks down a steel target, the correct call is REF and a reshoot, unless an unsportsmanlike DQ is something the RO wants to issue (I'd only issue such a DQ if the act was clearly intentional to gain a reshoot).

[aztecdriver]

My opinion is that if one shoots under a wall and knocks down a steel target, the correct call is REF and a reshoot, unless an unsportsmanlike DQ is something the RO wants to issue (I'd only issue such a DQ if the act was clearly intentional to gain a reshoot).

Good point. I was thinking about this as a response to something and then I started for the airport. Let's say I tank a stage and I'm looking for a reason to get a reshoot. All I have to do is ding a steel through a wall and bingo. Yeah I know, unsportsmanlike dq. But following dans logic, I could argue 1.1.5 and now we have a mess.

As per quoting rules grumpy has already put mine up there and I'm now iPhone based so the book response will have to wait. Anxiously awaiting troys opinion as well. We know we can look this stage over and fix the problem before the match starts to avoid it.

[Nik Habicht]

I have a hard time assessing an FTE penalty when there are holes in the target.....

Consider this: Solid walls, going all the way down to the ground -- competitor during the walk-through figures out that engaging this target from a "legit" location is such a time waster, that flinging one round through hardcover is preferable. Competitor memorizes the location, and engages the target once, creating one bullet hole in the target...

Same scenario -- mesh walls: now it's easier to see where the target is....

Hard cover may be impenetrable, but I'm not seeing that anywhere as the standard for not being able to engage the target....

[Nik Habicht]

30 round stage, ends with one target in a shoot house with door closed. I shoot all targets outside then shoot the house twice. Did I engage the target?

Maybe I missed it, but this is a question that I would like to see answered by both sides.

Are there holes in the target?

[twodownzero]

My opinion is that if one shoots under a wall and knocks down a steel target, the correct call is REF and a reshoot, unless an unsportsmanlike DQ is something the RO wants to issue (I'd only issue such a DQ if the act was clearly intentional to gain a reshoot).

Good point. I was thinking about this as a response to something and then I started for the airport. Let's say I tank a stage and I'm looking for a reason to get a reshoot. All I have to do is ding a steel through a wall and bingo. Yeah I know, unsportsmanlike dq. But following dans logic, I could argue 1.1.5 and now we have a mess.

As per quoting rules grumpy has already put mine up there and I'm now iPhone based so the book response will have to wait. Anxiously awaiting troys opinion as well. We know we can look this stage over and fix the problem before the match starts to avoid it.

I had a long debate with a few people at a local match about this, including Alpha-charlie (I think that's Matt's screenname).

I'd be interested to see what others say. If a wall is hard cover, and one "shoots through" a "wall" (or under it) and knocks steel down, that has to be a reshoot...there's no other way (that I know of, anyway) consistent with the rules to deal with such a situation.

A local match I'm talking to offered just that. It also had NOTHING in the stage description about walls, so the procedural dog don't hunt.

[Poppa Bear]

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not

count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

The bold section deals with targets. To expand ....will not count for hits on scoring targets or penalty targets, as the case may be. The area under the wall is still considered hard cover so the targets are deemed as not being hit, therefore not being engaged. The deciding factor here being the visibility of the target when the entire wall is treated as solid. Is there ANY way to see the target from either end of the wall, or over the wall, from the position used to engage the target? If the answer is that the target was at least partially visible then the hits would be treated as misses and there would be no procedural. If the answer is that it was not visible from any point within the immediate shooting area then the target was never available to shoot, hence a procedural for failure to engage. If the shooter never approached an area where the target was available then this further substantiates the procedural call because he never made an attempt to engage the target from where it was available.

[Nik Habicht]

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not

count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

The bold section deals with targets. To expand ....will not count for hits on scoring targets or penalty targets, as the case may be. The area under the wall is still considered hard cover so the targets are deemed as not being hit, therefore not being engaged. The deciding factor here being the visibility of the target when the entire wall is treated as solid. Is there ANY way to see the target from either end of the wall, or over the wall, from the position used to engage the target? If the answer is that the target was at least partially visible then the hits would be treated as misses and there would be no procedural. If the answer is that it was not visible from any point within the immediate shooting area then the target was never available to shoot, hence a procedural for failure to engage. If the shooter never approached an area where the target was available then this further substantiates the procedural call because he never made an attempt to engage the target from where it was available.

Hmmm, careful there: Why would we treat that target any differently from any other target with two mikes on it? To assess the FTE penalty, the RO must be certain that the shooter did not engage the target. Bullet holes in the target are prima facie evidence that the target was engaged, though the hits may not count for score if they passed entirely through hard cover, a no-shoot, or another target....

[Loves2Shoot]

if they passed entirely through hard cover, a no-shoot, or another target....

How can a bullet pass through hard cover? Isn't the definition of hard cover that a bullet can not pass through it? I know some folks have a problem with us not using steel walls and all, but the rules were written so that we don't have to, and as someone said, we can pretend the walls are impenetrable even if you can see through them, or shoot under them.

If the scenario was presented keeping this fact in mind, I think there wouldn't be such a debate.

The guy drops in the shooting area and shoots two round into a steel plate that is in front of a target he can't see. According to the book, isn't that what he did, since the rulebook doesn't require we use steel walls and allows us to use simulated walls and specifies they extend to the ground?

[twodownzero]

If it's a steel plate, it's no longer available to the shooter from a legitimate shooting position. That is range failure and stage design failure, not a procedural error.

There's no rule that says that shooting through hard cover and then later shooting a target from a legitimate shooting location (say there's 4 holes in the target) is a penalty.

In fact, that situation would probably require a reshoot as well, unless an RO knew which holes were the scoring ones. RO can't determine score? Reshoot.

This is ultimately a stage design issue, although of course it'll require a ruling on the scoring as well.

[Loves2Shoot]

By steel plate, I meant a steel plate wall, not a steel plate that you shoot and it falls over.

I don't get why a shooter not following the rulebook by shooting under a wall is a stage design issue, it is a shooter not knowing/following the rules issue.

[mactiger]

if they passed entirely through hard cover, a no-shoot, or another target....

How can a bullet pass through hard cover? Isn't the definition of hard cover that a bullet can not pass through it? I know some folks have a problem with us not using steel walls and all, but the rules were written so that we don't have to, and as someone said, we can pretend the walls are impenetrable even if you can see through them, or shoot under them.

If the scenario was presented keeping this fact in mind, I think there wouldn't be such a debate.

The guy drops in the shooting area and shoots two round into a steel plate that is in front of a target he can't see. According to the book, isn't that what he did, since the rulebook doesn't require we use steel walls and allows us to use simulated walls and specifies they extend to the ground?

The misses aren't in question. In your example, would you assess the FTE penalty? Did he "shoot at" the target or not?

[twodownzero]

I don't get why a shooter not following the rulebook by shooting under a wall is a stage design issue, it is a shooter not knowing/following the rules issue.

Even if it results in a stage that does not provide an equal challenge to all shooters, if for no other reason than a mistake for which we cannot assess a procedural error?

Sorry, I just don't buy that. Stages should be designed to prevent these sorts of situations. If they're not, the penalty should be on the stage designer, not the competitor.

If you want a wall to go to the ground or to obscure vision, it should (absent snow fence that we use for safety's sake). A competitor should not have to decide if a wall goes to the ground or if the missing section is a large, low port.

[Poppa Bear]

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not

count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

The bold section deals with targets. To expand ....will not count for hits on scoring targets or penalty targets, as the case may be. The area under the wall is still considered hard cover so the targets are deemed as not being hit, therefore not being engaged. The deciding factor here being the visibility of the target when the entire wall is treated as solid. Is there ANY way to see the target from either end of the wall, or over the wall, from the position used to engage the target? If the answer is that the target was at least partially visible then the hits would be treated as misses and there would be no procedural. If the answer is that it was not visible from any point within the immediate shooting area then the target was never available to shoot, hence a procedural for failure to engage. If the shooter never approached an area where the target was available then this further substantiates the procedural call because he never made an attempt to engage the target from where it was available.

Hmmm, careful there: Why would we treat that target any differently from any other target with two mikes on it? To assess the FTE penalty, the RO must be certain that the shooter did not engage the target. Bullet holes in the target are prima facie evidence that the target was engaged, though the hits may not count for score if they passed entirely through hard cover, a no-shoot, or another target....

What I am trying to say here is that if the shooter has no way of "Seeing" the target he cannot engage the target because he cannot know the target is there. If he has some way of seeing the target prior to shooting at it then he can argue the procedural for failure to engage. In the OP's description the target was shot at from a location where the target was not "visible". If the shots took place prior to reaching a point where it was visible then FTE, if they took place after that point then it could be argued that they memorized its location. The key point here being was the target visible around or over a wall prior to it being engaged?

Playing devils advocate here, but if you try and argue no FTE because they shot at it then I could stand in one spot and take shots from from 89 degrees left of me to 89 degrees to the right of me and claim I engaged all targets. Even if I could not see them, all you can score me on is hits and misses.

[Loves2Shoot]

I don't get why a shooter not following the rulebook by shooting under a wall is a stage design issue, it is a shooter not knowing/following the rules issue.

Even if it results in a stage that does not provide an equal challenge to all shooters, if for no other reason than a mistake for which we cannot assess a procedural error?

Sorry, I just don't buy that. Stages should be designed to prevent these sorts of situations. If they're not, the penalty should be on the stage designer, not the competitor.

If you want a wall to go to the ground or to obscure vision, it should (absent snow fence that we use for safety's sake). A competitor should not have to decide if a wall goes to the ground or if the missing section is a large, low port.

The rule book says what it says:

(from the OP)

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.

YOU might want the walls to go to the ground, but the rulebook doesn't say they have to.

Troy,

I don't think you can engage a target intentionally through a hardcover wall, but I'm not a certified RO anymore, but if I was, FTE. I don't know if the intentional shooting under a wall is worthy of something harsher though.

The last guy I saw who engaged a target through the center section of a solid wall where you couldn't see any targets got a DQ (area match CRO was ROing.)

Edited July 13, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[sperman]

Scott is doing an excellent job of making my point, so I'll just say +1 to everything "Loves2Shoot" says.

[remoandiris]

Unless a lot of the posts in this (now) 6 page thread are from non-ROs, I find it alarming so many people trained by NROI have vastly different interpretations of the same rules. How can USPSA matches be fair across the board when so many ROs are on opposite sides of the same competitor failure? Yes, competitor failure...the competitor failed to follow the rules written in plain English in the USPSA rulebook.

[Rob Boudrie]

How can USPSA matches be fair across the board when so many ROs are on opposite sides of the same competitor failure?

How can the US justice system possibly be fair when 9 of the finest legal minds in the country are often split 5-4 on an issue?

[Dan Hefta]

How can USPSA matches be fair across the board when so many ROs are on opposite sides of the same competitor failure?

How can the US justice system possibly be fair when 9 of the finest legal minds in the country are often split 5-4 on an issue?

It's the human factor, all of us are different, one RO may DQ a shooter for an infraction and another may not. It's like that with every sport, ours is no different. It's forums like this one that help us all learn and become better RO's.

[spanky]

Unless a lot of the posts in this (now) 6 page thread are from non-ROs, I find it alarming so many people trained by NROI have vastly different interpretations of the same rules. How can USPSA matches be fair across the board when so many ROs are on opposite sides of the same competitor failure? Yes, competitor failure...the competitor failed to follow the rules written in plain English in the USPSA rulebook.

Because there is not a rule that says "A shooter who fires rounds in the direction of a target through a wall that cannot be seen from the spot that the rounds are fired will incur...XXXX"

[bluenite]

There is a rule that says all barriers are hard cover, there is no rule that says a vision barrier and a snow fence are the same thing.

[vluc]

There is a rule that says all barriers are hard cover, there is no rule that says a vision barrier and a snow fence are the same thing.

Not sure I understand the comment.

[Gary Stevens]

30 round stage, ends with one target in a shoot house with door closed. I shoot all targets outside then shoot the house twice. Did I engage the target?

Maybe I missed it, but this is a question that I would like to see answered by both sides.

Are there holes in the target?

The question was "did I engage the target". It makes no difference if it has holes in it or not. You can miss the target and still engage.

Gary