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

[bluenite]

So, your position is that we can never create a wall out of snow fence. I think your premise is incorrect simply because the rules specifically state we can.

I am not saying that at all.

There are a lot of solutions, from declaration of a forbidden action to just blocking the view of the target using (barrel/noshoot or whatever) this could have been fixed in setup or with the WSB and is easy to fix after the fact, then give a reshoot under 2.3.3.1

[mactiger]

There are a variety of ways to fix this stage, I'm sure. However, fixing it is not the question, nor are the miss penalties, because the rule book is clear on those.

From the OP's original message:

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.

For me, the only question here, in scoring this stage, is whether the competitor earns a procedural for FTE/FTS (whichever you prefer).

Some of you claim that since he couldn't get hits on the target due to it's being covered by an invisible wall (which is the proper call and is supported by the rules, although it is not good course design--we all agree on that?), that he could not have "engaged" or "shot at" the target. Some of you say, well, there are two holes in the target, aren't there, so he clearly engaged it. Most of you aren't supporting the FTE penalty with a rule that clearly states the penalty one way or the other. And, all the far-fetched examples not withstanding, I can think of a couple of ways that a competitor could deliberately shoot at a target that's completely hidden by hardcover, get miss penalties and not earn an FTE. Without deliberately "cheating" and just putting shots through a wall in the general direction of a target.

So, for those of you who say FTE, can you find a rule that supports your statement (and this is just a general summation) of "well, he couldn't see it, the hits don't count because of the hard cover, therefore he could not have engaged it" with a rule?

And, for those of you who say, "yes, he did shoot at it, the hits don't count but he cannot be penalized for a FTE/FTS", can you support that with a rule?

Consider this particular case only. There is a good learning experience here, and this has been an excellent discussion, even if it's several pages long.

Carry on.

Troy

[Nik Habicht]

Hypothetical question for those that say holes do not exist due to imaginary/invisible hard cover.

Adding to the original scenario, what if (realizing his/her error) the shooter quickly throws a couple extra shots from a location where the target IS visible, but under scoring there are only two A zone holes? How do you score them?

Reshoot due to inability to properly score.

Not necessarily....

The RO may be able to determine an accurate score....

[Nik Habicht]

Here's a thought. Shots through hard cover neither count for score or penalty, right? So even if he shot 2alpha from under the wall, if they count for neither score nor penalty, how can you say he engaged the target? The only way to get points is from a legitimate shot, and these weren't legitimate. Sure, there are holes in the target, but if they aren't scored, then its a miss if he didn't make them up where he wouldn't shoot through hardcover, then he never engaged the target.

That's just not the way the rules read.....

And you need to be very careful here, because given that logic, we should be assessing a failure to engage on any target where there are no scoring hits due to full diameter hits in the hard cover....

Consistency matters....

Engaging a target requires rounds to be fired in the vicinity of that target. How close is close enough, is typically at the RO's discretion -- and most of us apply that judgement by watching the tracking of the muzzle from target to target. Suggesting the two misses always equals a failure to engage penalty is a substantive change in how we keep score...

[spanky]

Hypothetical question for those that say holes do not exist due to imaginary/invisible hard cover.

Adding to the original scenario, what if (realizing his/her error) the shooter quickly throws a couple extra shots from a location where the target IS visible, but under scoring there are only two A zone holes? How do you score them?

Reshoot due to inability to properly score.

Not necessarily....

The RO may be able to determine an accurate score....

Yeah, I thought of that after I hit "submit" but got side tracked and forgot to go back and edit.

[Schutzenmeister]

Damn you anyhow, Troy … You must have an ENDLESS supply of new rope to hang folks with!

I will give it a shot (pun intended) and attempt to document each step with a rule:

1 – Competitors must be allowed to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. (1.1.5) From this, I take it to also mean that if the target is not visible, the shooter can be disallowed the entitlement to shoot it. Indeed, it goes on to state that "[…] barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances."

2 – The construction of barriers is specifically addressed in 2.2.3. In summary, they can be made of pretty much any material and are “considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.” From that, I take two things:

a – The fact that a barrier is constructed of a material that the shooter can physically see through does not matter. It is a barrier and serves as a physical limitation to compel a competitor into (or away from) a given shooting location, as it applies in this case.

b – For reasons of economy, range safety, whatever, we allow the use of what can only be described as partial walls and specify their height goes from the top as constructed to the ground. (2.2.3.3) From that I can infer nothing other than the “virtual” portion of the wall (i.e., the portion from the bottom of the physical wall to the ground) must and of rights ought to be deemed to have the same properties as the wall (barrier) above it. Hence, by rule, the portion physically visible under the wall is no more visible by rule than any portion available through the wall if it is made of some material through which one can actually see the target. (No more than one could see through plywood or steel.)

c – Therefore, if it is by rule not visible, it is not eligible to be engaged under the “as and when visible” provision of 1.1.5. The target in question in this case was behind such a barrier constructed to compel a competitor in a shooting location. The competitor chose, possibly due to culpable lack of knowledge of the rules, to shoot from a location that was by rule and design not available to him for engagement of that target.

3 – I conclude, given the facts and circumstances presented in this case, the shots fired were at a wall or barrier as the targets behind that wall or barrier were, by rule, not eligible to be engaged as they were not, by rule, visible. Hence, since it was the wall that was engaged and not the target, there is one FTE/FTS@ per 9.5.7/10.2.7.

[Nik Habicht]

There are a variety of ways to fix this stage, I'm sure. However, fixing it is not the question, nor are the miss penalties, because the rule book is clear on those.

From the OP's original message:

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.

For me, the only question here, in scoring this stage, is whether the competitor earns a procedural for FTE/FTS (whichever you prefer).

Some of you claim that since he couldn't get hits on the target due to it's being covered by an invisible wall (which is the proper call and is supported by the rules, although it is not good course design--we all agree on that?), that he could not have "engaged" or "shot at" the target. Some of you say, well, there are two holes in the target, aren't there, so he clearly engaged it. Most of you aren't supporting the FTE penalty with a rule that clearly states the penalty one way or the other. And, all the far-fetched examples not withstanding, I can think of a couple of ways that a competitor could deliberately shoot at a target that's completely hidden by hardcover, get miss penalties and not earn an FTE. Without deliberately "cheating" and just putting shots through a wall in the general direction of a target.

So, for those of you who say FTE, can you find a rule that supports your statement (and this is just a general summation) of "well, he couldn't see it, the hits don't count because of the hard cover, therefore he could not have engaged it" with a rule?

And, for those of you who say, "yes, he did shoot at it, the hits don't count but he cannot be penalized for a FTE/FTS", can you support that with a rule?

Consider this particular case only. There is a good learning experience here, and this has been an excellent discussion, even if it's several pages long.

Carry on.

Troy

I'll say no FTE. The only thing I can find in the rules that addresses this is:

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).

and

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.

Note: 9.2.4.4 refers to Fixed Time courses of fire, 9.9.2 to moving targets -- neither is germane here.

None of these rules suggest that a competitor is required to be able to see the target, in order to be able to engage it.

I'll also cite 1.1.5:

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. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

1.1.5 leaves the competitor an awful lot of leeway -- the stage design may compel the competitor to get into a difficult or time-consuming position, but generally it is up to the competitor to assess the risk/benefit of when to engage a given target, i.e. he might choose to take a target from a position where only a bit of C or D zone is available, in order to save time....

We also allow competitors to skip targets -- if the competitor thinks that the time gained will make up for the points lost....

If the competitor fired the required number of rounds, without firing at a target twice, or engaging other targets with more than the required number of rounds, and if there are holes in the target in question, it becomes difficult for me to assess an FTE penalty under the rules. (Essentially the math has to work out for me -- 32 rounds course of fire, 32 rounds shot by the competitor, 2 holes in each of 16 targets; or 33 rounds fired, 2 holes in each of 15 targets, 3 holes in the 16th -- or RO certain that the competitor fired the extra round at an earlier target to make up the miss....)

Going back to the RO classes for a moment -- I seem to remember all of my instructors stating that we needed to be certain before applying penalties. Holes in the target doesn't leave me certain the competitor didn't engage the target...

School me, Troy -- I know I'm missing something here, either on the correctness of my call, or on the arguments/rules to support it..... :D

[spanky]

I'm really torn now.

Is the shooter shooting at a wall with a target behind it?

Or is the shooter shooting at a target with a wall in front of it?

Logically speaking, I want to go with the latter. He is shooting AT the target, there is simply a wall in front of it. Therefore, the shooter has shot at the target and cannot be assessed an FTE.

[aztecdriver]

I'm really torn now.

Is the shooter shooting at a wall with a target behind it?

Or is the shooter shooting at a target with a wall in front of it?

Logically speaking, I want to go with the latter. He is shooting AT the target, there is simply a wall in front of it. Therefore, the shooter has shot at the target and cannot be assessed an FTE.

I'm thinking in the same lines - but I'm having problems with this wall changing the situation based on what it's constructed of.. . Now I'm thinking about the scene with Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive when he's stuck in the security door. He can visually see Ford - and engages him, but the bullets stop at the door. I want to look for the supporting rules right now but I don't have time.

I'm half the way there - maybe when I come back on Sunday someone will have written the book.

Edited July 13, 2011 by aztecdriver

[spanky]

I'm really torn now.

Is the shooter shooting at a wall with a target behind it?

Or is the shooter shooting at a target with a wall in front of it?

Logically speaking, I want to go with the latter. He is shooting AT the target, there is simply a wall in front of it. Therefore, the shooter has shot at the target and cannot be assessed an FTE.

I'm thinking in the same lines - but I'm having problems with this wall changing the situation based on what it's constructed of.. . Now I'm thinking about the scene with Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive when he's stuck in the security door. He can visually see Ford - and engages him, but the bullets stop at the door. I want to look for the supporting rules right now but I don't have time.

I'm half the way there - maybe when I come back on Sunday someone will have written the book.

He engaged/shot at Ford, just didn't hit him because of the hardcover.

[Schutzenmeister]

He engaged/shot at Ford, just didn't hit him because of the hardcover.

No, no, no ...

Ford wasn't hit because from a galaxy far, far away Luke used the Force to stop the bullet in its flight!

Actually, the case here is more like the target WAS available and the shot was fired, but the target retreated/became covered by the impenetrable hardcover door that closed just in time. I would treat this much like a swinger and a wall. I don't believe anywhere in the movie Jones took a shot at Ford where Ford was totally and completely behind an impenetrable object prior to Jones taking aim.

[GrumpyOne]

Here's a thought. Shots through hard cover neither count for score or penalty, right? So even if he shot 2alpha from under the wall, if they count for neither score nor penalty, how can you say he engaged the target? The only way to get points is from a legitimate shot, and these weren't legitimate. Sure, there are holes in the target, but if they aren't scored, then its a miss if he didn't make them up where he wouldn't shoot through hardcover, then he never engaged the target.

That's just not the way the rules read.....

And you need to be very careful here, because given that logic, we should be assessing a failure to engage on any target where there are no scoring hits due to full diameter hits in the hard cover....

Consistency matters....

Engaging a target requires rounds to be fired in the vicinity of that target. How close is close enough, is typically at the RO's discretion -- and most of us apply that judgement by watching the tracking of the muzzle from target to target. Suggesting the two misses always equals a failure to engage penalty is a substantive change in how we keep score...

Nik, not necessarily in this case. If the target was partially obscured by hardcover, then yes, there would be no FTE penalty. But in this case, the target was totally obscured by hardcover. You can't say he was firing at a target on the other side of the wall if it were made of concrete, could you? An errant shot(s) on a target is one thing, shooting purposely into hardcover is quite another. Besides, he didn't fire shots in the vicinity of the target. If the target was behind the hardcover, the shots never penetrated the hardcover to get close to the target.

[Loves2Shoot]

Nik,

You said none of the rules required the target to be visible, then quoted a rule that says targets must be engaged "as visible". This is too much.

The rule book sates that it is ok to have wall that don't actually go to the ground and if they don't everything behind them is "not visible" for the sake of shooting/scoring the stage.

Just because you can physically see a target doesn't mean that it is "visible" per the rule book's definition of how walls work.

[Yardbird]

So... If the wall in question was opaque all the way to the ground, the shooter would earn an FTE but if it was transparent and extended to the ground some folks would not call the FTE?

I certainly don't see it that way.

[spanky]

So... If the wall in question was opaque all the way to the ground, the shooter would earn an FTE but if it was transparent and extended to the ground some folks would not call the FTE?

I certainly don't see it that way.

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I would not call an FTE regardless of the construction of the wall simply because I cannot find proof that there should be.

[Loves2Shoot]

So... If the wall in question was opaque all the way to the ground, the shooter would earn an FTE but if it was transparent and extended to the ground some folks would not call the FTE?

I certainly don't see it that way.

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I would not call an FTE regardless of the construction of the wall simply because I cannot find proof that there should be.

Spanky, prove that you can drink a beer that is in a cooler with a closed lid and no other access to it without opening the lid to access it. If you can not possibly grab the beer, how can you open the top to "engage" your beer. If lack of access to the beer prevents you from engaging it, then you might say you have failed to engage the beer, even if you know there is one in the cooler.

[spanky]

So... If the wall in question was opaque all the way to the ground, the shooter would earn an FTE but if it was transparent and extended to the ground some folks would not call the FTE?

I certainly don't see it that way.

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I would not call an FTE regardless of the construction of the wall simply because I cannot find proof that there should be.

Spanky, prove that you can drink a beer that is in a cooler with a closed lid and no other access to it without opening the lid to access it. If you can not possibly grab the beer, how can you open the top to "engage" your beer. If lack of access to the beer prevents you from engaging it, then you might say you have failed to engage the beer, even if you know there is one in the cooler.

If I know where the beer is in the cooler, I can shoot the beer through the cooler and drink out of the exit hole.

Edited July 13, 2011 by spanky

[Loves2Shoot]

You forget the rulebook says the cooler is impenetrable, AR500 plate steel

[spanky]

I don't have to "engage" the beer, I only have to "drink at" it. So if I hold the cooler over my head and shake it and attempt to drink the beer, I have "drank at" it even though I did not successfully drink it.

[Nik Habicht]

Nik,

You said none of the rules required the target to be visible, then quoted a rule that says targets must be engaged "as visible". This is too much.

The rule I quoted doesn't actually say that targets must be engaged as visible. It says that competitors must be permitted to engage targets as visible -- in other words, if you can see it, you may shoot it....

That places a burden on stage designers and builders.....

I'm certain that if I'm wrong -- about either the call or the argument/citation -- that Troy will set me straight. I'm not nearly certain about what the call should be, just offering an opinion/rebutting others' opinions....

[LexTalionis]

I vote no FTE for these reasons:

1. Freestyle rules say we can engage targets as they become visible.
2. The rules defining hardcover only say it is impenetrable, not opaque.
3. An FTE is only incurred when a shooter fails to "shoot at" a target.

Thus, according to the OP, we have a scenario where a shooter can see a target through transparent hardcover, shoot at it, but still not produce scoring hits (because of said hardcover).

Reminds me of this scene from Assassins:

Later on in the movie, Banderas takes a shot at Stallone through the glass because he "had to try..."

Edited July 13, 2011 by LexTalionis

[Nik Habicht]

So... If the wall in question was opaque all the way to the ground, the shooter would earn an FTE but if it was transparent and extended to the ground some folks would not call the FTE?

I certainly don't see it that way.

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I would not call an FTE regardless of the construction of the wall simply because I cannot find proof that there should be.

Spanky, prove that you can drink a beer that is in a cooler with a closed lid and no other access to it without opening the lid to access it. If you can not possibly grab the beer, how can you open the top to "engage" your beer. If lack of access to the beer prevents you from engaging it, then you might say you have failed to engage the beer, even if you know there is one in the cooler.

For that analogy to line up with the scenario here, there would have to be a "beer can tall hole" in one side of the cooler....

[Loves2Shoot]

Then you admit you get a FTE and not a FTDA, since you can't grab the bottle and attempt to pour the contents into you mouth, you can only imagine actually being able to engage the beverage and fill your belly.

Sort of like how if you try to engage a target through hardcover when the target isn't available to be shot from that position, you only get credit for the imagining part and not the doing part, and it's the lack of actually doing that earns you the FTE.

[Loves2Shoot]

For that analogy to line up with the scenario here, there would have to be a "beer can tall hole" in one side of the cooler....

Nope, because in the given instance, there was no way to shoot the target from the position the OP specified.

[Yardbird]

I vote no FTE for these reasons:

1. Freestyle rules say we can engage targets as they become visible.
2. The rules defining hardcover only say it is impenetrable, not opaque.
3. An FTE is only incurred when a shooter fails to "shoot at" a target.

Thus, according to the OP, we have a scenario where a shooter can see a target through transparent hardcover, shoot at it, but still not produce scoring hits (because of said hardcover).

Reminds me of this scene from Assassins:

Later on in the movie, Banderas takes a shot at Stallone through the glass because he "had to try..."

The shooter didn't shoot at a target - he shot at a wall.