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

[Loves2Shoot]

One of the clubs I shoot/RO at has no wood, it is all snow fence so I really want to know the proper call in case this ever happens.

Bluenite,

Can you answer one question?

This is it:

Can you "shoot at" a target if it is impossible for the bullet to score a hit(that's for you Nik) on the target from where you fired the shot according to the rule book?

[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

post 19

edited to add: that did not pass the Troy test.

Leonard

Edited July 14, 2011 by bluenite

[Nik Habicht]

Nope -- the bullet holes exist. They are scored as misses per 9.1.6.1 -- a subsection Chapter 9: Scoring

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.

Nik, they can't be scored as misses..... You pointed that out in 9.1.6.1....."will not count for score....." A miss is a score. They don't exist. The only way its a miss is if he doesn't put 2 more rounds on it from a legitimate position, before the end of his course of fire. By definition, a miss means there are no holes in the target, and since those bullets stopped at that impenetrable wall, there are no holes in the target.

Better read Section 9.4 as well....

9.4 Scoring and Penalty Values

9.4.1 Scoring hits on authorized targets will be scored in accordance with the values assigned such targets. (See Appendix . Commentary: Appendices B2 and B3 cover paper targets -- scores are limited to A,C,or D for Classic Targets; to A, B, C, or D for Metric Targets. -- NH

9.4.2 Each hit visible on the scoring area of a paper no-shoot will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit.

9.4.3 Each full or partial diameter hit visible on the frontal surface of a metal no-shoot will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit, regardless of whether or not it is designed to fall (see Rules 4.3.1.7 and 4.3.1.8).

9.4.4 Each miss will be penalized twice the value of the maximum scoring hit available on that target, except in the case of Fixed Time or disappearing targets (see Rules 9.2.4.4 and 9.9.2).

"Will not count for score or penalty" still doesn't mean that the hits aren't there -- just that they're scored as misses, in the case of targets, or not scored as penalties, in the case of no-shoot targets.

So you've got hits on paper, indicating that the target was engaged....

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Actually, in your example, no FTE, because he did fire rounds at that target. He shot at it, therefore he engaged it. He just missed by a mile.

Troy

So you are saying I can face 179 degrees away from the target and fire rounds and not get an FTE? Exactly how far away does a shot have to be then? Some bays are only 20 feet wide....put a target in one back corner and shoot in the other and I've engaged that target? I'm dumb, but even I know that's not engaging the target.....

Probably depends on how far away you are. If the distance is long, and a shooter's slide cracks, throwing rounds 20 feet wide, are you going to call an FTE? It would probably look to you like the shooter was engaging the correct target....

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Nope -- the bullet holes exist. They are scored as misses per 9.1.6.1 -- a subsection Chapter 9: Scoring

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.

If the bullet holes didn't exist, the rule book wouldn't need to tell us they don't count.....

And -- here's the fun part: Show me the full diameter hit in the prop, wall, barrier, vision screen, or other obstacle that lets you remove the hit..... :P

Bad stage design, bad! :devil:

Nil, they can't be scored as misses..... You pointed that out in 9.1.6.1....."will not count for score....." A miss is a score. They don't exist. The only way its a miss is if he doesn't put 2 more rounds on it from a legitimate position, before the end of his course of fire. By definition, a miss means there are no holes in the target, and since those bullets stopped at that impenetrable wall, there are no holes in the target.

Uh, wait, what? Huh?

Troy

Even a negative score is a score......book says no score....it's only a miss if he doesn't put 2 more holes in it....9.1.6.1.......at the time he shot the wall, while trying to hit the target, the shots he fired don't count.....shots on hardcover count for neither score nor penalty, so at that time, they are not misses, as he had not completed his course of fire. Once he completed his course of fire, and did not engage that target from a legitimate firing location, then the target itself would be 2 misses. The holes that were in it from his previous attempt to engage it mean nothing.....they are not there, for all intents and purposes.

BINGO!!!!

Keep reading Chapter 9...... :P

[Nik Habicht]

But did he engage the target, if the bullets never got there? Hardcover is impenetrable...... If he had missed in his attempt when shooting through the wall, and the target was pristine, (they still would have hit the hardcover and as such would have stopped anyway), would you still say he engaged that target, even when you have no idea where the actual shots went? Do you know that the shooter wasn't intentionally dumping rounds? Only the shooter knows that......

Shooter is firing the first round at the last target on a stage. Shooter has a squib. Stage is scored as shot -- do you assess an FTE penalty?

[Nik Habicht]

But did he engage the target, if the bullets never got there? Hardcover is impenetrable...... If he had missed in his attempt when shooting through the wall, and the target was pristine, (they still would have hit the hardcover and as such would have stopped anyway), would you still say he engaged that target, even when you have no idea where the actual shots went? Do you know that the shooter wasn't intentionally dumping rounds? Only the shooter knows that......

And to really answer your question -- if the shooter fires a round anywhere in the vicinity of the target, and isn't obviously engaging a different target, then yes he has engaged the first target.....

[Nik Habicht]

There seems to be no disagreement that he shot at it, be it from behind hard cover.

9.5.7 says nothing about the bullet needing to get to the target.

Correct, it doesn't, but it does say "at the face of the target". How can you shoot at the face of a target if it's behind hardcover? Since those shots, by the rules, stopped at the hardcover, how can you decide that he was shooting at the face of the target? Face meaning front. Could have been blind luck he hit it at all......

9.5.7 was designed to deal with drop turners -- which could sometimes catch a round in the "back" of the target during an early or late engagement....

[Nik Habicht]

On a serious note, many clubs don't have a lot of walls and I've shot I dare say hundreds if not more stages with mesh or snow fences walls with and without ports that had 4'x 8' panels 2'-3' off the ground, so I really don't get the "poor course design" since the rule book clearly states you can't shoot under walls unless they say you can. Why would they state in the rule book that the walls go to the ground?

Was it a poor design, I don't know, as I don't know if they have better walls to use. I've been to many a match you could drop and shoot under almost all the walls, but the rule book says you can't so I've never seen anyone try to.

Here is a clip illustrating a stage with such walls

Scott, it's really simple from a design/build perspective: Either put the target high enough to be behind the fence, or build something low enough to hide the target....

If it's visible -- well, there's a conflict with 1.1.5 -- and we should try hard to avoid that kind of gotcha.....

[Loves2Shoot]

But did he engage the target, if the bullets never got there? Hardcover is impenetrable...... If he had missed in his attempt when shooting through the wall, and the target was pristine, (they still would have hit the hardcover and as such would have stopped anyway), would you still say he engaged that target, even when you have no idea where the actual shots went? Do you know that the shooter wasn't intentionally dumping rounds? Only the shooter knows that......

Shooter is firing the first round at the last target on a stage. Shooter has a squib. Stage is scored as shot -- do you assess an FTE penalty?

That is easy, yes.

[Loves2Shoot]

On a serious note, many clubs don't have a lot of walls and I've shot I dare say hundreds if not more stages with mesh or snow fences walls with and without ports that had 4'x 8' panels 2'-3' off the ground, so I really don't get the "poor course design" since the rule book clearly states you can't shoot under walls unless they say you can. Why would they state in the rule book that the walls go to the ground?

Was it a poor design, I don't know, as I don't know if they have better walls to use. I've been to many a match you could drop and shoot under almost all the walls, but the rule book says you can't so I've never seen anyone try to.

Here is a clip illustrating a stage with such walls

Scott, it's really simple from a design/build perspective: Either put the target high enough to be behind the fence, or build something low enough to hide the target....

If it's visible -- well, there's a conflict with 1.1.5 -- and we should try hard to avoid that kind of gotcha.....

The thing is if you drop to the ground with the type of walls in the video, you can see a lot, so though I agree, you should try to avoid the conflict, you still have to score it if it is a legal presentation. Since the rules say the walls go to the ground, many stage designers don't consider a shooter might try to engage targets through the rule book specified hard cover of a wall extending to the ground.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Loves2Shoot]

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

post 19

edited to add: that did not pass the Troy test.

Leonard

Didn't he just ask for more examples of rules that apply or did he say you were wrong.

[mactiger]

There seems to be no disagreement that he shot at it, be it from behind hard cover.

9.5.7 says nothing about the bullet needing to get to the target.

Correct, it doesn't, but it does say "at the face of the target". How can you shoot at the face of a target if it's behind hardcover? Since those shots, by the rules, stopped at the hardcover, how can you decide that he was shooting at the face of the target? Face meaning front. Could have been blind luck he hit it at all......

9.5.7 was designed to deal with drop turners -- which could sometimes catch a round in the "back" of the target during an early or late engagement....

It was also designed to prevent/define shooting targets from the back, which can be done due to vagaries of target layout in some courses.

Troy

[mactiger]

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

post 19

edited to add: that did not pass the Troy test.

Leonard

Didn't he just ask for more examples of rules that apply or did he say you were wrong.

I didn't say nuthin'. Seems like you quoted some rules.

Troy

[Mark R]

If the paper target in this scenario was a popper and was shot from under a hardcover wall and knocked down, it would be considered REF because when the shooter reaches a place where the steel is available and eligible to be shot from, it would not be available to engage.

So what is the difference between this paper target and a steel target?

That's why I call REF and a re-shoot.

Edited to add: Or you can REF on the hardcover wall...did not stop the bullets.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Mark R

[aztecdriver]

Because there is no ref there, it's not supported in the rules. You can score the target. It may be and I haven't seen it. You can help me by quoting a rule. iPhone until sunday

[Schutzenmeister]

If the paper target in this scenario was a popper and was shot from under a hardcover wall and knocked down, it would be considered REF because when the shooter reaches a place where the steel is available and eligible to be shot from, it would not be available to engage.

So what is the difference between this paper target and a steel target?

That's why I call REF and a re-shoot.

Edited to add: Or you can REF on the hardcover wall...did not stop the bullets.

Sorry Mark ... No go. We have different rules governing shoot throughs striking metal and paper targets for a reason. Suggest you re-read 9.1.5 and 9.1.6. The difference between a paper and metal target is that once the metal target is hit (legitimately or not) and falls it is no longer available for the shooter to properly engage fram another position. The paper target is still there and can be re-engaged and scored.

[Mark R]

Because there is no ref there, it's not supported in the rules. You can score the target. It may be and I haven't seen it. You can help me by quoting a rule. iPhone until sunday

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all

competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of

paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the

failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of

mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of

props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

[Mark R]

If the paper target in this scenario was a popper and was shot from under a hardcover wall and knocked down, it would be considered REF because when the shooter reaches a place where the steel is available and eligible to be shot from, it would not be available to engage.

So what is the difference between this paper target and a steel target?

That's why I call REF and a re-shoot.

Edited to add: Or you can REF on the hardcover wall...did not stop the bullets.

Sorry Mark ... No go. We have different rules governing shoot throughs striking metal and paper targets for a reason. Suggest you re-read 9.1.5 and 9.1.6. The difference between a paper and metal target is that once the metal target is hit (legitimately or not) and falls it is no longer available for the shooter to properly engage fram another position. The paper target is still there and can be re-engaged and scored.

Exactly...if the target was a popper and was hit through hard cover, then it would not be available when the shooter reached the area where he/she should engage it...thus REF.

As for the original post...I understand that the shooter did not re-engage the paper when it should have been available and therefore gained a competitive advantage by the attempt through the hardcover...or I missed it.

[sperman]

I don't think giving up a minimum of 30 points is a competitive advantage.

[sfchorn]

Here is a bit of thread drift, but an intersting question.

No one said (unless I missed it) how far away from the competitor the paper target was. It it was closer than 23 feet, substitute a steel target for the paper target, and do we have a DQ?

For those that say the snow fence is hard cover and therefore the competitor could not have shot at the steel (since it wasn't available), would you say no DQ? Or would you stop the competitor under 10.5.17? I would stop the competitor.

Re the OP, I started in the 2 mike/1 FTSA camp, now I'm leaning towards 2 mikes and 2 procedurals under 10.2.2 (one per shot, significant advantage) because the targets were not engaged as visible from within the shooting area.

Might be a stretch, and would have a great possibility to go to arb.

These are interesting discussions. They will certainly make me a better RO.

[glefos]

By the hard cover definition some of you are using to assess an FTE, answer this:

A shooter is engaging an array around the side of a wall. He is in a hurry to leave the shooting location and his last two shots make full diameter hits through the wood 2x4 edge of the wall and both impact the scoring area of the final target in the array. Based on the position of the gun when the shots broke, no portion of the target's scoring area was exposed to the muzzle and scoring impacts were impossible based on the hard cover. Does he get an FTE there?

At what point does 2 Mike become 2 Mike/ 1 FTE through hard cover? 1 inch, 6 inches, 1 foot, 10 feet?

[Singlestack]

Here is a bit of thread drift, but an intersting question.

No one said (unless I missed it) how far away from the competitor the paper target was. It it was closer than 23 feet, substitute a steel target for the paper target, and do we have a DQ?

For those that say the snow fence is hard cover and therefore the competitor could not have shot at the steel (since it wasn't available), would you say no DQ? Or would you stop the competitor under 10.5.17? I would stop the competitor.

Re the OP, I started in the 2 mike/1 FTSA camp, now I'm leaning towards 2 mikes and 2 procedurals under 10.2.2 (one per shot, significant advantage) because the targets were not engaged as visible from within the shooting area.

Might be a stretch, and would have a great possibility to go to arb.

These are interesting discussions. They will certainly make me a better RO.

Lets not drift away from the topic at this point. Start a new thread if you want to talk about a different scenario.

[Joe4d]

By the hard cover definition some of you are using to assess an FTE, answer this:

A shooter is engaging an array around the side of a wall. He is in a hurry to leave the shooting location and his last two shots make full diameter hits through the wood 2x4 edge of the wall and both impact the scoring area of the final target in the array. Based on the position of the gun when the shots broke, no portion of the target's scoring area was exposed to the muzzle and scoring impacts were impossible based on the hard cover. Does he get an FTE there?

At what point does 2 Mike become 2 Mike/ 1 FTE through hard cover? 1 inch, 6 inches, 1 foot, 10 feet?

2 mikes should never become 2 mikes and a FTE, because there is no such penalty in USPSA, Nor is there a Cover penalty, or failure to neutralize, for all the people on this thread that keep saying the scenario should be scored a FTE, please tell me the rule in the CURRENT rule book that supports this.

There are no local rules and you cant just make up penalties that dont exist because there was one in an old IPSC rulebook.

An FTE is as wrong as a cover, or FTDR penalty on a USPSA scoresheet.

[Yardbird]

By the hard cover definition some of you are using to assess an FTE, answer this:

A shooter is engaging an array around the side of a wall. He is in a hurry to leave the shooting location and his last two shots make full diameter hits through the wood 2x4 edge of the wall and both impact the scoring area of the final target in the array. Based on the position of the gun when the shots broke, no portion of the target's scoring area was exposed to the muzzle and scoring impacts were impossible based on the hard cover. Does he get an FTE there?

At what point does 2 Mike become 2 Mike/ 1 FTE through hard cover? 1 inch, 6 inches, 1 foot, 10 feet?

2 mikes should never become 2 mikes and a FTE, because there is no such penalty in USPSA, Nor is there a Cover penalty, or failure to neutralize, for all the people on this thread that keep saying the scenario should be scored a FTE, please tell me the rule in the CURRENT rule book that supports this.

There are no local rules and you cant just make up penalties that dont exist because there was one in an old IPSC rulebook.

An FTE is as wrong as a cover, or FTDR penalty on a USPSA scoresheet.

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).