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

[z40acp]

I am wondering why this is such a big issue to further penalize the shooter. Getting the mikes and no additional points for the targets is not going to work well for his score. He is going to figure out it is better to shoot it properly.

[JThompson]

I am wondering why this is such a big issue to further penalize the shooter. Getting the mikes and no additional points for the targets is not going to work well for his score. He is going to figure out it is better to shoot it properly.

That's true... there aren't that many senarios where it would be an advantage. I did post one such example earlier, but it would be rare. It's more about how to score it than whether or not it's an advantage. What we need is a consistent way to score it across the board... that's really what is lacking right now. Also, one thing that popped up in this thread that was new to me is blowing past a target and shooting under a wall just so you don't get the FTS. Another rarity and you could be DQed for it, but you have to KNOW the shooters intent and that is hard to divine.

Edited July 16, 2011 by JThompson

[bluenite]

I believe the shooter earned and deserves the extra penalty of the FTE.

Being able to apply it serves us in many ways.

Most of us believe it to be right.

It makes trying this less appealing to all shooters.

It makes scoring easer and faster and so wont slow down the stage.

It makes it less likely that the RM will need to be involved.

It makes it less likely that a FB will needed.

It denies the shooter the chance for a reshoot.

I think this discussion may have helped us all, but only if we see a change in the rules.

I as an RO do not want to explain to the rest of a squad why I refuse to apply an FTE.

Unfortunately I am bound as an RO to score by the rules as I know them.

16 + pages without the topic getting locked! Impressive!!

[Loves2Shoot]

Here is the "by rule" how to apply a FTE in this case:

If someone shoots through a wall at a target, you log the time but do not score and call the RM, he will decided if it is a situation for a FA, if he agrees he will issue a reshoot, change the WSB and anyone else that does it (it is read in the WSB they cannot) will get a zero.

1.1.5 states they may engage as when visible, 9.1.6.1 states that any round that passes wholly through hard cover will not score, 9.1.6 states vision screens, barriers, props, walls and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”

2.3.1.1 and 3.2.6.1. The only reason someone would shoot through a wall at a target they supposedly cannot see, is to not take a penalty for FTE, that is gaming and gaining an advantage, though many would say unsportsmanlike as well.

2.3.1.1 In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction, a

Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions in

order to maintain competitive equity.

The stage already started, so you can't alter the stage without FA.

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.

If the target presentation was legal, not unsafe, not a loop hole and did not give a competitive advantage, a FA can not be applied per this rule, by rule.

So, by rule 2, M 1 FTE, unless the RM determines there was a safety issue that allows them to make a FA, as it is obvious there was no exploit of a loophole.

On a non rule related note in this particular case, the shooter would be given a huge advantage if you give them a reshoot. Not be given those 30 penalty points is not fair to his competitors, because he chose not to shoot the stage in a way in which he could make shots that could score all his hits.

Thanks to those that helped me understand how the rules work together.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Lee King]

slight drift, I've tried to follow all of this but I may have missed it in a previous page:

Say a shooter engages a target through a port, moves on, then for whatever reason decides to re-engage the target from under a wall. When scoring the target, there are only 2 hits on it. Normally you would look for the grease rings to determine which shots passed through hard cover. But in this case, you can't tell which were from the original port and which were from under the wall.

Declare FA and reshoot?

[Schutzenmeister]

slight drift, I've tried to follow all of this but I may have missed it in a previous page:

Say a shooter engages a target through a port, moves on, then for whatever reason decides to re-engage the target from under a wall. When scoring the target, there are only 2 hits on it. Normally you would look for the grease rings to determine which shots passed through hard cover. But in this case, you can't tell which were from the original port and which were from under the wall.

Declare FA and reshoot?

Lee

Unless the port and the location from where the shooter fired "under the wall" were close together, you have a pretty good chance of being able to tell the difference ... However, in the event you just cannot make that determination, I would have to go with the RO is not able to determine an accurate score on the target and a reshoot should be ordered. Unfortunately, the only place I can find that remotely comes close to this in the rules is 9.1.4 ... and that's not entirely on point. (If anyone can find a more appropriate rule, please help!) Thus, my call here may not be totally supported by the rules.

Note that if the shooter shoots "under the wall" there should be grease rings, just as there would be with the rounds from the port. About the only evidence of where the shots originated would be either the angle at which the rounds penetrated the target, thus indicating where they were fired from - OR - one or both of the ROs observing the target was hit or not from the port and/or under the wall as the shots were being fired. (This practice may be greeted with some skeptcisim, though!)

Hence a reshoot may be the best solution. I'm +/- on the FA. It may be solveable with a simple stage modification under 2.3.1 without an FA and only requiring the one shooter to reshoot per 2.3.3.1. This would be a facts and circumstances determination by the RM.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Schutzenmeister

[Loves2Shoot]

You can not engage a target under a wall per 2.2.3.3 and 9.1.6 only through them. 2.3.1.1 Doesn't say you can issue a FA for a scoring issue, only safety and loophole for unfair advantage.

(see above)

The only reason someone would shoot through a wall at a target they supposedly cannot see, is to not take a penalty for FTE, that is gaming and gaining an advantage, though many would say unsportsmanlike as well. 6.10

[Nik Habicht]

Here is the "by rule" how to apply a FTE in this case:

If someone shoots through a wall at a target, you log the time but do not score and call the RM, he will decided if it is a situation for a FA, if he agrees he will issue a reshoot, change the WSB and anyone else that does it (it is read in the WSB they cannot) will get a zero.

1.1.5 states they may engage as when visible, 9.1.6.1 states that any round that passes wholly through hard cover will not score, 9.1.6 states vision screens, barriers, props, walls and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”

2.3.1.1 and 3.2.6.1. The only reason someone would shoot through a wall at a target they supposedly cannot see, is to not take a penalty for FTE, that is gaming and gaining an advantage, though many would say unsportsmanlike as well.

2.3.1.1 In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction, a

Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions in

order to maintain competitive equity.

The stage already started, so you can't alter the stage without FA.

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.

If the target presentation was legal, not unsafe, not a loop hole and did not give a competitive advantage, a FA can not be applied per this rule, by rule.

So, by rule 2, M 1 FTE, unless the RM determines there was a safety issue that allows them to make a FA, as it is obvious there was no exploit of a loophole.

On a non rule related note in this particular case, the shooter would be given a huge advantage if you give them a reshoot. Not be given those 30 penalty points is not fair to his competitors, because he chose not to shoot the stage in a way in which he could make shots that could score all his hits.

Thanks to those that helped me understand how the rules work together.

Scott,

the RM can impose a forbidden action in the scenario presented by the OP. The stage designer/builder presented a low target "behind" a wall that that was constructed from ~ 2-6 feet off the ground, leaving the target plainly visible -- a conflict with 1.1.5.

Looking at 2.3.1.1

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.

I'm assuming it was an unintentional wall choice on the part of the builders, since they intended the target to engaged from elsewhere. Ideally the target shouldn't have been visible, so I believe that the FA can be imposed....

I have yet to see a rule cited for the FTE/FTSA that negates the holes in the target. I'm on board with scoring the target two misses, but given that it was visible, and given that there are holes in it, I'm not calling the penalty, unless specifically directed by a higher authority....

Higher Authority: Could be an NROI interpretation, could be as simple as an RM saying "this is how we're calling it for this match if it occurs." Consistency during a match matters too, though the RM might get called every time to explain it to the shooter...

[Nik Habicht]

The only reason someone would shoot through a wall at a target they supposedly cannot see, is to not take a penalty for FTE, that is gaming and gaining an advantage, though many would say unsportsmanlike as well. 6.10

Through a solid -- as opposed to imaginary -- wall, you're close to being right. I once put rounds through a wall -- knocking down steel each time -- twice in a row, while engaging a badly set, not yet activated swinger. On the third crack at the stage, I finally managed to miss the steel.....

Wasn't unsportsmanlike, wasn't malicious, was just a shoot-through no one had considered....

[Loves2Shoot]

Scott,

the RM can impose a forbidden action in the scenario presented by the OP. The stage designer/builder presented a low target "behind" a wall that that was constructed from ~ 2-6 feet off the ground, leaving the target plainly visible -- a conflict with 1.1.5.

You are leaving out rules to say 1.1.5 is king, you can't leave out 9.1.6.1 and 9.1.6 and say, well you can see it, because they are in the book and they do apply. The rulebook clearly states that you don't have to build the walls to the ground and the rules 9.1.6.1 and 9.1.6 address how to deal with shots taken under the lower edge of a wall that is 2-6 feet off the ground.

The rules state you can't shoot under walls, because they go to the ground and stop bullets.

Show me the loophole and I would agree with you on the FA since they didn't state their was a safety issue. Shooting at a wall is not a loophole IMO, it is just not good strategy.

I agree, the modification BEFORE the stage starts would have been ideal, and I don't think it was a good presentation, but it looks to be legal.

[Loves2Shoot]

The only reason someone would shoot through a wall at a target they supposedly cannot see, is to not take a penalty for FTE, that is gaming and gaining an advantage, though many would say unsportsmanlike as well. 6.10

Through a solid -- as opposed to imaginary -- wall, you're close to being right. I once put rounds through a wall -- knocking down steel each time -- twice in a row, while engaging a badly set, not yet activated swinger. On the third crack at the stage, I finally managed to miss the steel.....

Wasn't unsportsmanlike, wasn't malicious, was just a shoot-through no one had considered....

This is not my statement, I was quoting someone else replying to the target presentation in this example, not incidental hits, and it makes perfect sense to me.

[GrumpyOne]

Here is the "by rule" how to apply a FTE in this case:

If someone shoots through a wall at a target, you log the time but do not score and call the RM, he will decided if it is a situation for a FA, if he agrees he will issue a reshoot, change the WSB and anyone else that does it (it is read in the WSB they cannot) will get a zero.

1.1.5 states they may engage as when visible, 9.1.6.1 states that any round that passes wholly through hard cover will not score, 9.1.6 states vision screens, barriers, props, walls and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”

2.3.1.1 and 3.2.6.1. The only reason someone would shoot through a wall at a target they supposedly cannot see, is to not take a penalty for FTE, that is gaming and gaining an advantage, though many would say unsportsmanlike as well.

2.3.1.1 In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction, a

Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions in

order to maintain competitive equity.

The stage already started, so you can't alter the stage without FA.

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.

If the target presentation was legal, not unsafe, not a loop hole and did not give a competitive advantage, a FA can not be applied per this rule, by rule.

So, by rule 2, M 1 FTE, unless the RM determines there was a safety issue that allows them to make a FA, as it is obvious there was no exploit of a loophole.

On a non rule related note in this particular case, the shooter would be given a huge advantage if you give them a reshoot. Not be given those 30 penalty points is not fair to his competitors, because he chose not to shoot the stage in a way in which he could make shots that could score all his hits.

Thanks to those that helped me understand how the rules work together.

I think that this was the coffin nail for the non FTE people....^^^^^^^

[Nik Habicht]

Here is the "by rule" how to apply a FTE in this case:

If someone shoots through a wall at a target, you log the time but do not score and call the RM, he will decided if it is a situation for a FA, if he agrees he will issue a reshoot, change the WSB and anyone else that does it (it is read in the WSB they cannot) will get a zero.

1.1.5 states they may engage as when visible, 9.1.6.1 states that any round that passes wholly through hard cover will not score, 9.1.6 states vision screens, barriers, props, walls and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”

2.3.1.1 and 3.2.6.1. The only reason someone would shoot through a wall at a target they supposedly cannot see, is to not take a penalty for FTE, that is gaming and gaining an advantage, though many would say unsportsmanlike as well.

2.3.1.1 In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction, a

Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions in

order to maintain competitive equity.

The stage already started, so you can't alter the stage without FA.

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.

If the target presentation was legal, not unsafe, not a loop hole and did not give a competitive advantage, a FA can not be applied per this rule, by rule.

So, by rule 2, M 1 FTE, unless the RM determines there was a safety issue that allows them to make a FA, as it is obvious there was no exploit of a loophole.

On a non rule related note in this particular case, the shooter would be given a huge advantage if you give them a reshoot. Not be given those 30 penalty points is not fair to his competitors, because he chose not to shoot the stage in a way in which he could make shots that could score all his hits.

Thanks to those that helped me understand how the rules work together.

I think that this was the coffin nail for the non FTE people....^^^^^^^

It's not until there' an interpretation posted.....

Nobody has yet cited a rule that imposes an FTE/FTSA for a target that has holes in it. I'm aware that there are at least two different opinions on that scenario in the RMI camp -- so that tells me that it hasn't been cleanly addressed. Hopefully it will be, so we can all call it the same way at matches.....

The current situation is untenable....

[Loves2Shoot]

Nobody has yet cited a rule that imposes an FTE/FTSA for a target that has holes in it.

I've cited it several times, in several ways, per rule.

Cliff note version:

Walls are not required to stop bullets physically, by rule they stop them. Intentionally shooting through a wall (since by rule you can not shoot under them) would only give the shooter an unfair advantage if they did not get the FTE (see previous posts on unfair advantage rules)and they did not shoot at them from another position where they could legally be engaged with a scoring hit, per this example. If you give them a reshoot, you also give them an unfair advantage if there is no exploit of a loophole or safety issue.

9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1

What you are saying is that walls don't stop bullets unless they go to the ground, and that is not what 9.1.6 or 9.1.6.1 say. You could have a 12" wall at 6' high, and by rule it goes to the ground and will stop bullets.

Having the "holes" on the target is not important if you know as a RO that the only way they could have been put there is through a wall that stops bullets.

Seems reasonable to me, since not scoring it with a FTE would give the shooter an advantage over a shooter who just skipped the target and did not try to shoot through an impenetrable wall.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Yardbird]

30 round stage, ends with one target in a shoot house with door closed. I shoot all targets outside then shoot the house twice - believe it or not, I put 2 rounds through the wall and hit the target with both shots. Did I engage the target?

[wide45]

Nobody has yet cited a rule that imposes an FTE/FTSA for a target that has holes in it.

I've cited it several times, in several ways, per rule.

Cliff note version:

Walls are not required to stop bullets physically, by rule they stop them.

That's just wrong. No rule "stops" bullets. The bullets continue on their way to where they were aimed. The rules tell us how the results are scored.

Firing a shot aimed at a target, fulfills all requirements to fire at shot at that target. No rule requires that you must see the target to aim at it, or hit it, or shoot at it. No rule states that you can't shoot through a wall at a target. The rules only state that such a shot won't be scored as a hit. No rule prevents it from being a shot at a target.

[Loves2Shoot]

Nobody has yet cited a rule that imposes an FTE/FTSA for a target that has holes in it.

I've cited it several times, in several ways, per rule.

Cliff note version:

Walls are not required to stop bullets physically, by rule they stop them.

That's just wrong. No rule "stops" bullets. The bullets continue on their way to where they were aimed. The rules tell us how the results are scored.

Firing a shot aimed at a target, fulfills all requirements to fire at shot at that target. No rule requires that you must see the target to aim at it, or hit it, or shoot at it. No rule states that you can't shoot through a wall at a target. The rules only state that such a shot won't be scored as a hit. No rule prevents it from being a shot at a target.

Please feel free to explain how bullets continue through impenetrable "hard cover" by rule. There are rules to deal with unfair advantage, and I think if you have bullets that you want to go through impenetrable hard cover, that is an unfair advantage 10.6.

Read 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”:

Definition of IMPENETRABLE

1 a : incapable of being penetrated or pierced

The rule stops the bullet at the wall by definition.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Loves2Shoot]

30 round stage, ends with one target in a shoot house with door closed. I shoot all targets outside then shoot the house twice - believe it or not, I put 2 rounds through the wall and hit the target with both shots. Did I engage the target?

Will your bullets go through impenetrable "hard cover?"

[Yardbird]

I don't think so. But I'm waiting for someone to say that I did engage it and explain how.

[Loves2Shoot]

OK, I would have said 5.5.3, 5.5.5, and 10.4.1 apply. If the impenetrable "hard cover" won't stop your round, either will the berm, unsafe.

Are we the only club/section/state who tapes walls and gives FTE if there are two hits on hardcover and one target? It has been that way since I've been shooting USPSA.

I was fortunate and received some tutoring on the rules this weekend, thus all my posts in this thread contain rules.

[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 - believe it or not, I put 2 rounds through the wall and hit the target with both shots. Did I engage the target?

Will your bullets go through impenetrable "hard cover?"

Doesn't really matter. If a competitor misses an open target twice, we don't penalize him with an FTE. If the target is partially covered in steel hard cover and he misses the available portion we don't penalize the shooter.

There is no definition that requires being able to see the target or that requires that the bullets are actually able to get to the target for "having shot at the target."

Absent such a definition, if the shooter fires rounds in the general vicinity of the target, I'm not calling the penalty. At least one RMI agrees with that.

Bottom line: I care that this gets addressed through an interpretation, one way or the other. (I'm perfectly o.k. with an interpretation that matches yours, as long as it's board approved and published.) That interpretation gives me something to hang a ruling on. At the moment I can't do that, without reading something into the rules that isn't included in the current verbiage....

[GrumpyOne]

30 round stage, ends with one target in a shoot house with door closed. I shoot all targets outside then shoot the house twice - believe it or not, I put 2 rounds through the wall and hit the target with both shots. Did I engage the target?

Will your bullets go through impenetrable "hard cover?"

Doesn't really matter. If a competitor misses an open target twice, we don't penalize him with an FTE. If the target is partially covered in steel hard cover and he misses the available portion we don't penalize the shooter. Oh contrare...If the competitor misses an open target twice, while truly shooting at it, he's just a bad shot, therefore no FTE. Shooting at something you can't possibly hit (or hit and get points for), well that's an FTE, with the appropriate misses.

There is no definition that requires being able to see the target (What happened to engage targets as they become "visible"?) or that requires that the bullets are actually able to get to the target for "having shot at the target."

Absent such a definition, if the shooter fires rounds in the general vicinity of the target, I'm not calling the penalty. At least one RMI agrees with that.

Bottom line: I care that this gets addressed through an interpretation, one way or the other. (I'm perfectly o.k. with an interpretation that matches yours, as long as it's board approved and published.) That interpretation gives me something to hang a ruling on. At the moment I can't do that, without reading something into the rules that isn't included in the current verbiage....

[Yardbird]

We have stages with a hidden target or two at the end all the time to force the shooter to move forward. If I can game most of these stages by not having to move the last 10, 20, 30 feet... sounds like it might be a good deal to lose 10 points even 20 points and save a handful of seconds. -30 points but 5 seconds quicker on a big field course could get you a higher hit factor. We've got a serious problem here if you can't hide targets to compel people to move forward.

[GrumpyOne]

We have stages with a hidden target or two at the end all the time to force the shooter to move forward. If I can game most of these stages by not having to move the last 10, 20, 30 feet... sounds like it might be a good deal to lose 10 points even 20 points and save a handful of seconds. -30 points but 5 seconds quicker on a big field course could get you a higher hit factor. We've got a serious problem here if you can't hide targets to compel people to move forward.

I agree...Only way to offset that factor is set a bunch of hidden targets at the end of a COF, make it too expensive to just fire downrange in their general area to not get the FTE. Losing 120 points might be a deterrent.....

[Loves2Shoot]

30 round stage, ends with one target in a shoot house with door closed. I shoot all targets outside then shoot the house twice - believe it or not, I put 2 rounds through the wall and hit the target with both shots. Did I engage the target?

Will your bullets go through impenetrable "hard cover?"

Doesn't really matter. If a competitor misses an open target twice, we don't penalize him with an FTE. If the target is partially covered in steel hard cover and he misses the available portion we don't penalize the shooter. Misses are not equivalent to a deliberate attempt to shoot through cover to avoid penalty.

There is no definition that requires being able to see the target or that requires that the bullets are actually able to get to the target for "having shot at the target." What happened to 1.1.5?

Absent such a definition, if the shooter fires rounds in the general vicinity of the target, I'm not calling the penalty. At least one RMI agrees with that. Again your 1.1.5 and 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1

Bottom line: I care that this gets addressed through an interpretation, one way or the other. (I'm perfectly o.k. with an interpretation that matches yours, as long as it's board approved and published.) That interpretation gives me something to hang a ruling on. At the moment I can't do that, without reading something into the rules that isn't included in the current verbiage....

I've addressed every point you have made, multiple times, by rule. I don't see you disputing ANY of the rules used to do so. Given, I cut and paste the "how to" procedures that were given to me by someone who knows more about rules and rulings than I'll ever know, but by rule you can give a FTE per the rules and outline given. You don't need to define anything, it is already there.

You are flat out saying with your interpretation, YOU WILL give an advantage to a shooter who engages hard cover in the general vicinity of a target that is completely hidden from the shooter by use of a wall versus the shooter who does not shoot the wall for the sole purpose of avoiding a FTE (as it is not possible to engage a target behind a wall as defined in 9.1.6 if the bullets stop at the wall, and rule 9.1.6 says it does.) I know that there are those that would consider that unsportsmanlike conduct and unfair advantage.

To be clear I DID NOT create the verbiage used to make the conclusion, I assembled it to applied to this situation. If the application is incorrect, I would like to know, but NO ONE has so far presented a challenge to the application that can not be addressed by rule already. It doesn't matter if we've done it wrong for 15+ years to me.

I can take NROI saying you are wrong and here is why, so far all I've gotten since my tutorial is you are wrong, but I don't have a rule to back me up.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Loves2Shoot