Schutzenmeister Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Damn ... I'm disappointed. Not a beer drinker in the whole of ya. DQ for Alcohol Abuse! Shake the beer ... Shoot the beer ... If that ain't alcohol abuse I don't know what is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Hefta Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Read post number 177... I think that I am going to take this as a lesson learned and go with what Troy posted. 2 mikes and 1 FTE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I vote no FTE for these reasons: Freestyle rules say we can engage targets as they become visible. The rules defining hardcover only say it is impenetrable, not opaque. 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. Or did he shoot at a target with a wall in the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenite Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) I have all ready spit out the only far-fetched idea I can come up with and now have a headach. So. No FTE rule # (Troy said he engaged the target) Post # 177 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. Edited July 13, 2011 by bluenite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Can you cite an enos post on an arb form? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yardbird Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I have all ready spit out the only far-fetched idea I can come up with and now have a headach. So. No FTE rule # (Troy said he engaged the target) 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. There is no "under the wall." He shot into the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenite Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 There is no "under the wall." He shot into the wall. Those are not my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHA-LEE Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 WOW...... This topic has gone on way longer than I thought it would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 WOW...... This topic has gone on way longer than I thought it would Rable Rouser! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Can you cite an enos post on an arb form? You can cite Lil' Abner if ya like ... Probably do ya about as much good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Look at it like this... How far can you miss a target by before its an FTE? 2 feet? 3 feet? If the target in question was 20 feet behind the hardcover, the shooter missed said target by 20 feet, as the bullets did not go through the hardcover. Or like this... Wide open target, shooter puts 2 rounds down range, 20 feet to the right of the target, into the been. Did he engage that target? FTE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenite Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Can you cite an enos post on an arb form? You can cite Lil' Abner if ya like ... Probably do ya about as much good! Thats all I got! Other a lot of pain in the brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 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. Huh? Then how do you explain the missing 2 feet of wall surface and the bullet holes in the target..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I vote no FTE for these reasons: Freestyle rules say we can engage targets as they become visible. The rules defining hardcover only say it is impenetrable, not opaque. 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. Reading the shooter's mind now, are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I vote no FTE for these reasons: Freestyle rules say we can engage targets as they become visible. The rules defining hardcover only say it is impenetrable, not opaque. 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. Reading the shooter's mind now, are we? It's immaterial what the shooter thought he was shooting at. He may have thought he was shooting a legitimate target, but was shooting a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 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. Huh? Then how do you explain the missing 2 feet of wall surface and the bullet holes in the target..... Nik, I think you are playing for sure now, because I know you know that the rulebook says that wall extend to the ground even if the physical wall doesn't unless specified and the OP said there was not an exception on this stage. The bullet holes don't exist per the rule book, because they hit the part of the wall that extends to the ground per the rulebook and is impenetrable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Read post number 177... I think that I am going to take this as a lesson learned and go with what Troy posted. 2 mikes and 1 FTE. I read Troy's post, 177, three times. He did NOT say it was anything, he just asked questions to try to get people looking at the rulebook... For those of you confused, the shooter did not shoot at, or through an "actual" wall. He shot through a 2' x 8' opening, so the target was clearly visible. I know why he did what he did, but it is really irrelevant as "intent" of the shooter, stage designer etc. never matters in USPSA. Edited July 13, 2011 by MarkCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Springer Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I'm thinking there are several people funnin us =D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Can you cite an enos post on an arb form? No, but based on the questions on the RO exam I just took, the Pool Question writers read these posts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 All in favor of 2 mikes, 1 FTE say "I". "I" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodownzero Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I'm still wondering about the steel target scenario, where the stage can neither be scored nor a penalty assessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Springer Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CZinSC Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenite Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 If we all post 1 rule number till all of them have been posted, someone is bound to get it right. 2 mikes no fte Nay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now