Nik Habicht Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I cannot find the original question with reference to the squib ... So ... Included by reference! In order to shoot at a target one must actually fire a shot. (I think in previous threads it has been long established that one cannot simply point the gun and say "Bang" then call it "engaging" the target!) IF we can agree on that, I offer the following: From the Glossary: Shot - A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm. Squib - A bullet or solid obstruction lodged inside the barrel of a firearm. Hence, as I recall the question: The shooter experiences a squib as he attempts to fire his first shot at [the last target as he chose to solve the CoF.] Is this an FTE? Answer - Yes. By definition and under the circumstances, no round exited the barrel hence no shot was fired. Accordingly, he did not "shoot at" the target in question. Except in this instance, where obvioulsly the squib exits the barrel, yet they are still calling it a squib..... 10.4.2.1 Exception — A bullet which strikes the ground within 10 feet of the competitor due to a “squib”. Nik never said the so called squib never left the barrel, or if it did leave the barrel....So one is an FTE and the other is not? That don't seem right.... We're all learning something..... Clearly I need to read the definitions a little more.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Nik, i'm not saying he didn't shoot at something, he just didnt shoot at the target......he shot at a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Start in box A and engage as visible. I shoot the paper and steel and index over and blow a hole in the snow fence putting a shot on the paper to the right. I'll take the two mikes and not Max or anyone else is going to be able to get to that door quick enough to beat me. If I really want to plead ignorance I just drop to a knee and take the shot. Done deal I win for cheating, er not knowing the rules. Nope, I can't shoot at what I can't see and if we had built the wall, of wood, and to the ground, we could not have seen it. Since the rules give us the option to not build to the ground or use materials we can see through, they give us definitions to make them the same as an opaque build from height to the ground and call all of it HC. IMHO they let us use the materials for safety and cost and then give us the rules to prevent just such an occurrence and to prevent an advantage from being gained by cheating a wall. What we have here is an inequity... you are saying that a wall that is opaque and runs from height to the ground is treated one way, but if the wall doesn't run to the ground we treat the scoring another way. This is inconsistent and imo not correct. A wall is a wall is a wall... Either the target is available to shoot or it is not, we shouldn't treat scoring different because of what we construct our wall from and it appears to me, that's what we are considering here. JT EDIT: I'm still in the 2M 1FTS camp. JT Edited July 14, 2011 by JThompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I think part of the confusion (at least mine) and indecision comes from the conflicting names of the procedural. FTE = You can't "engage" a target through hard cover since it is impenetrable FTSA = You can shoot at the target yet not hit it because the wall blocked your shots that were directed at the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Fine. Round exits the barrel, lands on the ground or is stuck on the front face of the target without penetrating through. RO doesn't stop the shooter -- who unloads and shows clear. FTE? Nik ... The pace here is getting crazy! See my subsequent post, #295. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I think part of the confusion (at least mine) and indecision comes from the conflicting names of the procedural. FTE = You can't "engage" a target through hard cover since it is impenetrable FTSA = You can shoot at the target yet not hit it because the wall blocked your shots that were directed at the target. I understand and appreciate your conflict. It arises from the two camps' positions. One is that the shooter shot at the target but the wall blocked the shots. The other is that he shot at the wall and the fact that he could actually see the target behind the wall is irrelevant. Some say potato, some say potatoe. But therein lies the difference in understanding the situation. I agree with one thing at this point ... 13 pages and 300 + posts are enough. Troy, there has been substantially no new information provided or positions argued in several pages. If you would like to steer the discussion in some direction it might help. Otherwise, the confusion factor is mounting and this is only serving to further muddy the waters. I think it time to come out with something ... That is unless the RMI Corps and/or DNROI are split and y'all are trying to come together before you answer!!! Respectfully Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) I think part of the confusion (at least mine) and indecision comes from the conflicting names of the procedural. FTE = You can't "engage" a target through hard cover since it is impenetrable FTSA = You can shoot at the target yet not hit it because the wall blocked your shots that were directed at the target. Right, but you can not shoot at a target under a wall because there is no under a wall shot to be taken... see my above post for the reasons why I read it that way. Think of a solid wall from height to the ground.... there is nothing to "shoot at" the rules give us leeway to use cheaper and safer stuff and added rules that make them the same as a solid wall from height to ground. Hence, you can not see it you can not shoot at or engage it. To say anything different is to say that we are changing the scoring because the wall is not height to ground, or that I can see through, but clearly the rules state that it is the same as one I can not see through and goes from the ground to height constructed.... I can not engage or shoot at what I can not see... otherwise we are changing the rules because of design material for a wall. To me that is not the case. I know where you are coming from though and some rather experienced people agree with you. Respectfully, I submit they are wrong on this one.... JT Edited July 14, 2011 by JThompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) 2 mikes, 1 FTE camp here. And, edited to add.....my brain hurts! Edited July 14, 2011 by GrumpyOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 2 mikes, 1 FTE camp here. And, edited to add.....my brain hurts! Mine would too ... Except it turned to mush about 6 pages ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark R Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Stumble...stumble... 2.3.1 says Match officials may, for any reason, modify a stage procedure...and “should” be done before the stage begins. (read should) 2.3.1.1 says “In lieu of modifying course design…the RM may explicitly forbid a certain competitor action in order to maintain competitive equity. 2.3.1.1a The declaration of a Forbidden action may be made to prohibit competitor movement…in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain an unfair competitive advantage. 2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any such actions after match begins, he must either… 2.3.3.1 Allow to continue and “that competitor must be required to re-shoot the altered course of fire (I read altered WSB); or 2.3.3.2 Require all competitors to complete the course of fire as revised… Since this competitor was the first to shoot the target in question under the wall through hard cover, the MD/RM could have declared it a Forbidden Action at that time, modified the WSB, and let the competitor re-shoot the stage or give him a zero for the stage if he refused to re-shoot. Thus a re-shoot is in order or a zero for score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 If I ran 10 feet past a fault line and engaged targets, would you call that a forbidden action and order a re-shoot? The rules say the walls go all the way to the ground. The MD/RM shouldn't have to issue a forbidden action for something that is already covered in the rulebook. (IMO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Stumble...stumble... 2.3.1 says Match officials may, for any reason, modify a stage procedure...and “should” be done before the stage begins. (read should) 2.3.1.1 says “In lieu of modifying course design…the RM may explicitly forbid a certain competitor action in order to maintain competitive equity. 2.3.1.1a The declaration of a Forbidden action may be made to prohibit competitor movement…in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain an unfair competitive advantage. 2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any such actions after match begins, he must either… 2.3.3.1 Allow to continue and “that competitor must be required to re-shoot the altered course of fire (I read altered WSB); or 2.3.3.2 Require all competitors to complete the course of fire as revised… Since this competitor was the first to shoot the target in question under the wall through hard cover, the MD/RM could have declared it a Forbidden Action at that time, modified the WSB, and let the competitor re-shoot the stage or give him a zero for the stage if he refused to re-shoot. Thus a re-shoot is in order or a zero for score. Why would any of the above have to occur when the rule book says walls go the the ground AND are impenetrable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark R Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 If I ran 10 feet past a fault line and engaged targets, would you call that a forbidden action and order a re-shoot? The rules say the walls go all the way to the ground. The MD/RM shouldn't have to issue a forbidden action for something that is already covered in the rulebook. (IMO) No, I'd give you a procedural for each shot fired while faulting. I do agree we shouldn't be issuing a forbidden action for something that is already covered in the rulebook (the walls ground to top), but in this case, the competitor didn't follow the rulebook, did he? And we MD's can't expect to cover all possible incidents in the WSB...since most if not all are covered in the rulebook too...except this one. that's why a forbidden action should have been declared after match start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark R Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Stumble...stumble... 2.3.1 says Match officials may, for any reason, modify a stage procedure...and “should” be done before the stage begins. (read should) 2.3.1.1 says “In lieu of modifying course design…the RM may explicitly forbid a certain competitor action in order to maintain competitive equity. 2.3.1.1a The declaration of a Forbidden action may be made to prohibit competitor movement…in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain an unfair competitive advantage. 2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any such actions after match begins, he must either… 2.3.3.1 Allow to continue and “that competitor must be required to re-shoot the altered course of fire (I read altered WSB); or 2.3.3.2 Require all competitors to complete the course of fire as revised… Since this competitor was the first to shoot the target in question under the wall through hard cover, the MD/RM could have declared it a Forbidden Action at that time, modified the WSB, and let the competitor re-shoot the stage or give him a zero for the stage if he refused to re-shoot. Thus a re-shoot is in order or a zero for score. Why would any of the above have to occur when the rule book says walls go the the ground AND are impenetrable? Because it did occur...the competitor shot where he shouldn't have. I'm up for a better option...if there is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Stumble...stumble... 2.3.1 says Match officials may, for any reason, modify a stage procedure...and “should” be done before the stage begins. (read should) 2.3.1.1 says “In lieu of modifying course design…the RM may explicitly forbid a certain competitor action in order to maintain competitive equity. 2.3.1.1a The declaration of a Forbidden action may be made to prohibit competitor movement…in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain an unfair competitive advantage. 2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any such actions after match begins, he must either… 2.3.3.1 Allow to continue and “that competitor must be required to re-shoot the altered course of fire (I read altered WSB); or 2.3.3.2 Require all competitors to complete the course of fire as revised… Since this competitor was the first to shoot the target in question under the wall through hard cover, the MD/RM could have declared it a Forbidden Action at that time, modified the WSB, and let the competitor re-shoot the stage or give him a zero for the stage if he refused to re-shoot. Thus a re-shoot is in order or a zero for score. Why would any of the above have to occur when the rule book says walls go the the ground AND are impenetrable? Because it did occur...the competitor shot where he shouldn't have. I'm up for a better option...if there is one. All that is unnecessary....Only 1 shooter did it, give him his 2 mikes and his FTE, and let the rest shoot...You don't need to modify the course, make a forbidden action, or anything else. If he did know the rules, well then, he obviously broke them and knew it....If he didn't know the rules, well he obviously knows the one about walls now....and won't do it again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I agree with the Grumpy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Stumble...stumble... 2.3.1 says Match officials may, for any reason, modify a stage procedure...and “should” be done before the stage begins. (read should) 2.3.1.1 says “In lieu of modifying course design…the RM may explicitly forbid a certain competitor action in order to maintain competitive equity. 2.3.1.1a The declaration of a Forbidden action may be made to prohibit competitor movement…in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain an unfair competitive advantage. 2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any such actions after match begins, he must either… 2.3.3.1 Allow to continue and “that competitor must be required to re-shoot the altered course of fire (I read altered WSB); or 2.3.3.2 Require all competitors to complete the course of fire as revised… Since this competitor was the first to shoot the target in question under the wall through hard cover, the MD/RM could have declared it a Forbidden Action at that time, modified the WSB, and let the competitor re-shoot the stage or give him a zero for the stage if he refused to re-shoot. Thus a re-shoot is in order or a zero for score. Why would any of the above have to occur when the rule book says walls go the the ground AND are impenetrable? Because it did occur...the competitor shot where he shouldn't have. I'm up for a better option...if there is one. All that is unnecessary....Only 1 shooter did it, give him his 2 mikes and his FTE, and let the rest shoot...You don't need to modify the course, make a forbidden action, or anything else. If he did know the rules, well then, he obviously broke them and knew it....If he didn't know the rules, well he obviously knows the one about walls now....and won't do it again.... Not necessarily that easy. How many times have there been targets below a wall that we had to shoot at. If the target was not meant to be engaged from under the wall, it should have been stated in the WSB. If not, and the stage designer did not mean for the target to be engaged under the wall, the shooter gets a reshoot and the WSB is modified... But if he knew and was written in the WSB - 2M 1FTE Edited July 14, 2011 by racerba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps it's time to reconsider the provisions of 2.2.3.3. Should we perhaps consider eliminating the rule and thereby require that walls cover/hide what they cover/hide ... nothing more, nothing less. (i.e., Do away with the fiction that they go from the height as constructed to the ground unless otherwise stated in the WSB.) Just thinking out loud ... Opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 The rulebook says the walls go to the ground. There is no need to put it in the WSB, and no recourse for the shooter if it isn't in the WSB. It's just like the new shooter who puts 8 shots on a piece of steel until it finally falls. We may want to give him a re-shoot, but that's not an option per the rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Stumble...stumble... 2.3.1 says Match officials may, for any reason, modify a stage procedure...and “should” be done before the stage begins. (read should) 2.3.1.1 says “In lieu of modifying course design…the RM may explicitly forbid a certain competitor action in order to maintain competitive equity. 2.3.1.1a The declaration of a Forbidden action may be made to prohibit competitor movement…in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain an unfair competitive advantage. 2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any such actions after match begins, he must either… 2.3.3.1 Allow to continue and “that competitor must be required to re-shoot the altered course of fire (I read altered WSB); or 2.3.3.2 Require all competitors to complete the course of fire as revised… Since this competitor was the first to shoot the target in question under the wall through hard cover, the MD/RM could have declared it a Forbidden Action at that time, modified the WSB, and let the competitor re-shoot the stage or give him a zero for the stage if he refused to re-shoot. Thus a re-shoot is in order or a zero for score. Why would any of the above have to occur when the rule book says walls go the the ground AND are impenetrable? Because it did occur...the competitor shot where he shouldn't have. I'm up for a better option...if there is one. All that is unnecessary....Only 1 shooter did it, give him his 2 mikes and his FTE, and let the rest shoot...You don't need to modify the course, make a forbidden action, or anything else. If he did know the rules, well then, he obviously broke them and knew it....If he didn't know the rules, well he obviously knows the one about walls now....and won't do it again.... Not necessarily that easy. How many times have there been targets below a wall that we had to shoot at. If the target was not meant to be engaged from under the wall, it should have been stated in the WSB. If not, and the stage designer did not mean for the target to be engaged under the wall, the shooter gets a reshoot and the WSB is modified... But if he knew and was written in the WSB - 2M 1FTE Per the rules, the wall goes to the ground UNLESS stated in the WSB that it does not. It was not stated in the WSB, therefore the wall goes to the ground. No re-shoot. Under what provision would he be given a re-shoot for not knowing the rules? Perhaps the only way around shooting under the wall, where it might be a legitimate shot, would be for you to run up to the wall, drop to your knees, and dig a hole under the wall, stick your weapon through it, and fire....But even then, the wall goes to the ground, you have just moved the ground under the wall, but it's still there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I got to thinking about this whole mess....If the shooter was an experienced shooter (wasn't his first time at the BBQ, so to speak!), then he obviously knew the wall went to the ground, and chose to ignore it....IMO, that would be unsportsman like, but all he's doing is penalizing himself, so let it be... If the shooter was a new shooter, shooting his first, second, or even third match, then he would know it also, by watching all the experienced shooters do their walkthrough.... I'm quite sure that a new shooter wouldn't just decide, after watching (or even barely watching) everyone else's walkthrough, that hey, I can gain some time if I shoot this target from under that wall....I wonder why no one else is? They aren't so concerned with time....most of the time... Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenDot Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Unsubscribing.... My Brain...and Email Box hurts. Thanks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps it's time to reconsider the provisions of 2.2.3.3. Should we perhaps consider eliminating the rule and thereby require that walls cover/hide what they cover/hide ... nothing more, nothing less. (i.e., Do away with the fiction that they go from the height as constructed to the ground unless otherwise stated in the WSB.) Just thinking out loud ... Opinions? I think this is a problem that is best solved by RM attention...... But then I think that 1.1.5 is the supreme authority..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenDot Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I got to thinking about this whole mess....If the shooter was an experienced shooter (wasn't his first time at the BBQ, so to speak!), then he obviously knew the wall went to the ground, and chose to ignore it....IMO, that would be unsportsman like, but all he's doing is penalizing himself, so let it be... If the shooter was a new shooter, shooting his first, second, or even third match, then he would know it also, by watching all the experienced shooters do their walkthrough.... I'm quite sure that a new shooter wouldn't just decide, after watching (or even barely watching) everyone else's walkthrough, that hey, I can gain some time if I shoot this target from under that wall....I wonder why no one else is? They aren't so concerned with time....most of the time... Thoughts? Yes.. If I would have done it it would be cause i'm new. I've never shot anything over a level 1 club match. I've only read the rule book once. It's alot to absorb..but I carry mine in my range bag now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Perhaps the only way around shooting under the wall, where it might be a legitimate shot, would be for you to run up to the wall, drop to your knees, and dig a hole under the wall, stick your weapon through it, and fire....But even then, the wall goes to the ground, you have just moved the ground under the wall, but it's still there... Ah yes, oh dimuative giant ... But would not that run afoul of 4.5.1? (Gee ... If we can just keep this going a while longer, perhaps we can quote EVERY rule in the book! ) 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