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

[mactiger]

OK. Sorry for the delay, but I'd like to note that I didn't sit here and urge you guys on. This thing kinda deteriorated a while back. Just the nature of this forum and the people who participate on it (and don't get me wrong, I (almost) always like it) is like herding cats.

Also, my apologies for the length of this explanation. If you don't need to know how we got there, scroll down to the bottom.

First, some information: My first inclination on this was that I'd declare a forbidden action, make the competitor reshoot, and then go from there. Simple fix, and probably the best fix for this situation. Even though I don't like the FA rule, it would eliminate a lot of argument/scoring discussion/dissension, right?

But,I thought, "If I had to penalize this action, how would I do it?" Going by rule, and I've already cited them, the two misses were a no-brainer, but I couldn't find a rule to support the FTSA penalty.

Why? Consider this: a swinger that goes behind hard cover and/or a no-shoot in it's motion, and while there, is completely covered. A competitor fires two shots at it while it's behind the wall, completely hidden (he chased it, shot it after activating it but before it started moving, whatever). Both bullets penetrate the wall to a full bullet diameter, and he doesn't shoot again. Both shots hit the target, but it's obvious that they went through hard cover first. These are obviously scored as misses, but would you assess a FTSA penalty? I'd be willing to bet that nobody here would.

So, not wanting to just jump in and stir things up (because it would be only my opinion), I took this question to the Instructor group. As you might imagine, we argued it pretty strenuously, but the final consensus was that we could not, by rule, assess the FTE/FTSA. No matter how much you want to, the rules don't support it, simply because the competitor did fire shots at the face of the target. No matter how desirable it is to say, "well, the wall is impenetrable, so he must not have fired shots at it", he did indeed fire two shots at the target, just as in my example above.

Here is a part of my email discussion with the instructors:

9.1.6

9.1.6.1

(Both deal with full bullet diameters through hard cover.)

9.5.7

10.2.7

(note here that neither one says anything about hard cover, visibility, etc. they merely mention shooting at a target)

In this example, you cannot deny that the competitor shot at the target. That's a fact. What we are arguing is the penalty for shooting through invisible hardcover, i.e., deemed hardcover as noted in the following rule:

2.2.3.3

Penalizing two miss penalties can be justified, per rule, through 2.2.3.3 , 9.1.6, and 9.1.6.1, because the rules allow us to do so. The wall goes to the ground (whether it really does or not) and it's impenetrable hard cover (whether it really is or not).

My position is that you cannot penalize the competitor for a failure to engage or failure to shoot at penalty, because he did, in fact, shoot at the target. No question, can't take the bullets back, and nowhere in either 9.5.7 or 10.2.7 is it stated that you must see a target to shoot at it. In my opinion, that's what 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1 are there for.

I know some of you will vehemently disagree with this, and you should note that you aren't alone, nor is this an official ruling. It's a consensus decision arrived at through discussion amongst several experienced Range Master Instructors, including the Director of NROI. Bottom line score: 2 misses, no additional penalty for FTSA.

Also note that none of us would have scored this anyway, and would have gone with the FA/reshoot option.

Did I make page 16?

Troy

[Loves2Shoot]

So Troy, to make this crystal clear, if at any time a competitor goes to the ground and shoots under a wall (or at a wall) at a target they can or can't see, by this explanation (since you stated that it doesn't matter if you can see the target or not) you can force a reshoot?

That is a BIG can of worms if I understand your ruling.

[Nik Habicht]

How many of the other rules already in the rule book do we need to add the WSB? Are you really saying if a shooter doesn't understand the rules the get a reshoot for no other reason than they don't know the rules?

Can you quote that rule in the rule book that a shooter gets a reshoot because they don't understand how walls work?

Even if the shooter understands how walls work -- the low target (from the opening post) was still visible to the shooter, right? Do you not see that the setup of that target conflicts with 1.1.5? And that in a conflict between two rules you've got to expect some competitors to pick one solution, while others will pick the wrong one? I don't want to play "gotcha" in that way when I setup a stage or match....

No need to add a rule citation to the WSB -- just put up more fence, a barrel(s), a noshoot or two, or elevate the target behind the wall, and the problem is solved for everyone.....

And so is most every target on most every stage we shoot if we kneel down and look under the wall.

And how often is that a possibility without sending a round over the berm?

[Loves2Shoot]

see above ruling, if you can see the sticks, you know where the target is because of the walk through, it is easy to shoot through walls at targets if it is not required that you see or can hit targets due to the wall being their first and not go over the berm.

[Nik Habicht]

So Troy, to make this crystal clear, if at any time a competitor goes to the ground and shoots under a wall (or at a wall) at a target they can or can't see, by this explanation (since you stated that it doesn't matter if you can see the target or not) you can force a reshoot?

That is a BIG can of worms if I understand your ruling.

No, the shooter can't necessarily force a reshoot. He'd have to divine that the RM would invoke the Forbidden Action, make the changes, etc.

The RM would also have the option to simply score the target(s) as 2 mikes. The competitor is still 30 points in the hole, on a single target, clearly more if there are multiple targets....

While it's possible to design a stage where the advantage might go to the shooter in that situation, it would most likely be a rare stage....

Heck, at this point, it rarely makes sense to skip disappearing targets -- because ten points is ten points. Typically it would have to be a very slow to activate mover, with nothing else to engage in the interim....

[Nik Habicht]

My position is that you cannot penalize the competitor for a failure to engage or failure to shoot at penalty, because he did, in fact, shoot at the target. No question, can't take the bullets back, and nowhere in either 9.5.7 or 10.2.7 is it stated that you must see a target to shoot at it. In my opinion, that's what 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1 are there for.[/i]

I know some of you will vehemently disagree with this, and you should note that you aren't alone, nor is this an official ruling. It's a consensus decision arrived at through discussion amongst several experienced Range Master Instructors, including the Director of NROI. Bottom line score: 2 misses, no additional penalty for FTSA.

Also note that none of us would have scored this anyway, and would have gone with the FA/reshoot option.

Did I make page 16?

Troy

Troy,

would you always go with the FA/Reshoot option, or only on the rare stage where by engaging a target that way, the shooter drove a truck through the loophole and totally changed the outcome on the stage?

Could you also see situations where you'd simply score the target(s) as two misses and call it a day?

[Loves2Shoot]

If intentionally shooting through a wall (per the OP's example) is not a FTE (FTSA), there are lots of positions that have a single popper or something similar. I think this violates your 1.1.5 in that you can't force a shooter using walls if you can shoot at targets through them to engage them.

The more likely average situation if this IS a NROI ruling, is that you get to the end of a stage and realize you forget to shot a target, you blast and extra round because by the above ruling. You don't have to be able to hit the target, you just have to shoot a round in a general direction of said skipped target and you just saved 10 points. It also opens the door to intentionally shooting at steel through hard cover, which does force a reshoot.

With mesh or snow fence walls, what is going to stop people from engaging them "early" and blasting rounds as they come in and go out of a port if things go bad during the stage so there are lots of hits and the RO can not score the target?

I wouldn't do it, but do know people who would.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[mactiger]

Most of what you guys speculate is possible now, with or without an FTE/FTSA penalty, especially if your aim is to confuse the scoring on a target to force a reshoot. That action could fall under 10.6, if the RO thinks you did it deliberately to force the reshoot.

Please understand, this was a theoretical exercise for me, in that yes, in just about any case where this would happen, the FA rule would be the one to apply. I don't think I would score this as is, because of the can of worms scoring it would open. There is only one reshoot associated with an FA--that for the first person to cause the FA to be declared. Everyone else gets a zero if they do it.

That's it for me folks. We could what if? this for another 15 pages or so, and I realize that you don't agree. That's fine.

It's good to know that: 1) most of the time nobody will do this, and 2) most of the time, the competitors in this sport are stand up people and don't deliberately throw a wrench into the works.

Have a good weekend.

Troy

[spanky]

Woohoo! I win!

[Mark R]

Do you care to address the rule for the reshoot you suggested?

Post 310.

[Mark R]

how do we handle it since it clearly is not laid out in the rulebook?

In your opinion.

In my opinion, it IS clearly laid out in the rulebook. The onus is on competitors to know the rules and play the game within the rules. Yes, MDs and stage designers can help, but over thinking leads to one way to shoot a stage. If competitors don't read the rules/learn the rules/know the rules, we might as well throw cotton balls at concrete for all the enjoyment we'll get out of it. Individual responsibility has to count for something.

What's not clear in the rulebook is how to handle this situation...but now we know the rest of the story.

[bluenite]

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.

[Schutzenmeister]

OK ... Troy has given us all the collective, though apparently not unanimous opinion of the top minds in NROI. Whether each of us agrees with it or not, until there is a rule change or "official" ruling, I for one will support it, if only to assure consistency.

For those who think this SHOULD have been scored with a 10.2.7 penalty applied, may I suggest a change in the wording of the rule by adding the following two sentences:

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. For the purposes of this rule, a shot at the target must be fired from a position or location where the shooter could have achieved a legitimate scoring hit on the target in order for the target to be considered shot at. A shot at the target from a position or location where there is no possibility of achieving a scoring hit will not serve to avoid this penalty.

IF you think this is the path we should take, then contact your AD and let him/her know you think the rule needs to be changed and why. Otherwise, the rule is what it is!

[Mark R]

Good idea Schutzenmeister...copy and paste to my AD. Thanks!

[JThompson]

I don't think we changed anyone's mind here, but that's not necessary, the point is to achieve consistency. We have some pretty good heads here and the NROI debated this one and there was decention in both houses.

Now that we have identified a problem, perhaps the NROI can tweak a rule or two to make it clear to the masses. Perhaps, I can add a little fuel to that idea... when I'm CRO/RM'n the call will be 2M FTS until an official ruling or rules change. I state this in the hopes we will have a rules tweak so in the future RO/CROs don't have to recreate this discussion on the range. Don't forget that 95% of people do not come here, nor do they have the benifit of a full fledged RM, let alone RMI.

The FA part of this bugs the hell out of me. It's quickly become a FTDR and when it was sold to us it was for safety reasons.... I railed against it because I knew it would take on a much greater role. I'll save the rest of the rant for another thread.

Thanks for a very interesting, thought provoking discussion on both sides, and for keeping it civil throughout. And to Troy for his honest thoughts and rules quotes as to how they arrived at their decision. For me, that was significant in that I could divine the thought process. Even though I still don't agree, I can see both sides and understand, perfectly, the reason for their divination.

Bottom line is we need a rules tweak on this one guys... The axiom "publish or parish" has never been more relevant; I'd hate to see this all for naught.

JT

Edited July 15, 2011 by JThompson

[ima45dv8]

I don't think we changed anyone's mind here, but that's not necessary, the point is to achieve consistency. We have some pretty good heads here and the NROI debated this one and there was decention in both houses.

Now that we have identified a problem, perhaps the NROI can tweak a rule or two to make it clear to the masses. Perhaps, I can add a little fuel to that idea... when I'm CRO/RM'n the call will be 2M FTS until an official ruling or rules change. I state this in the hopes we will have a rules tweak so in the future RO/CROs don't have to recreate this discussion on the range. Don't forget that 95% of people do not come here, nor do they have the benifit of a full fledged RM, let alone RMI.

The FA part of this bugs the hell out of me. It's quickly become a FTDR and when it was sold to us it was for safety reasons.... I railed against it because I knew it would take on a much greater role. I'll save the rest of the rant for another thread.

Thanks for a very interesting, thought provoking discussion on both sides, and for keeping it civil throughout. And to Troy for his honest thoughts and rules quotes as to how they arrived at their decision. For me, that was significant in that I could divine the thought process. Even though I still don't agree, I can see both sides and understand, perfectly, the reason for their divination.

Bottom line is we need a rules tweak on this one guys... The axiom "publish or parish" has never been more relevant; I'd hate to see this all for naught.

JT

This, on all counts... ^^^^^^

[z40acp]

Here is why this is my favorite forum. At times this thread might have been frustrating, but there is some good knowledge and experience being shared here. This helps with consistency in USPSA. Plus I have seen times that the forum has helped change our rules.

[JThompson]

Here is why this is my favorite forum. At times this thread might have been frustrating, but there is some good knowledge and experience being shared here. This helps with consistency in USPSA. Plus I have seen times that the forum has helped change our rules.

Thread drift into endless scenarios can be tedious, but I never got frustrated because both sides had relevant thoughts and valid rules to back them.

Funny really, some of those whom I thought would agree with me didn't and many I thought would not, did. That shows me that we ALL want one thing and that's the most consistent fair set of rules possible. There was very little, if any, petty bickering or people being obstinate because of who put fourth a view.

Overall, one of the best rules discussions we have had here. The mods had to be sitting there waiting for it to blow, but it never got close.

Kudos to all....

JT

Edited July 15, 2011 by JThompson

[Loves2Shoot]

Do you care to address the rule for the reshoot you suggested?

Post 310.

The shooter did not meet the requirements of that rule.

In the event that a competitor action contravenes the course requirements, (the course didn't specifically state you can't shoot through walls, and since walls BY RULE extend to the ground, you CAN NOT shoot UNDER a wall unless the stage briefing says you can by RULE.)

but is not specifically prohibited in the Written Stage Briefing,

the Range Master must be immediately summoned for a ruling.

The Range Master may rule that the action is allowed and the competitor’s

score will stand. (as stated by Troy, you can shoot at walls, you will just get two misses) Alternatively, the Range Master may require modifications to the course of fire, and/or may declare that the action is “forbidden”. (the ruling of Troy says that a the RM MUST DECLARE that shooting through walls is "forbidden" AFTER someone does it before they can be issued a reshoot, and only the first person to shoot through a wall will receive the reshoot)

So how can you issue and re-shoot for intentionally shooting THROUGH a wall? I don't see your post 310 applies.

No competitive advantage since the hits can't score, the shooter would have a better score, not even taking the shots through the wall as he could have fired one round in the general direction from another position where he was shooting targets he could make a scoring hit, since walls in the way don't prevent you from "shooting at" or "engaging" the target.

If you say intentionally shooting through walls (since that IS what he did) is OK, then that opens up some serious safety issues also.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Mark R]

Do you care to address the rule for the reshoot you suggested?

Post 310.

The shooter did not meet the requirements of that rule.

In the event that a competitor action contravenes the course requirements, (the course didn't specifically state you can't shoot through walls, and since walls BY RULE extend to the ground, you CAN NOT shoot UNDER a wall unless the stage briefing says you can by RULE.)

but is not specifically prohibited in the Written Stage Briefing,

the Range Master must be immediately summoned for a ruling.

The Range Master may rule that the action is allowed and the competitor’s

score will stand. (as stated by Troy, you can shoot at walls, you will just get two misses) Alternatively, the Range Master may require modifications to the course of fire, and/or may declare that the action is “forbidden”. (the ruling of Troy says that a the RM MUST DECLARE that shooting through walls is "forbidden" AFTER someone does it before they can be issued a reshoot, and only the first person to shoot through a wall will receive the reshoot)

So how can you issue and re-shoot for intentionally shooting THROUGH a wall? I don't see your post 310 applies.

No competitive advantage since the hits can't score, the shooter would have a better score, not even taking the shots through the wall as he could have fired one round in the general direction from another position where he was shooting targets he could make a scoring hit, since walls in the way don't prevent you from "shooting at" or "engaging" the target.

If you say intentionally shooting through walls (since that IS what he did) is OK, then that opens up some serious safety issues also.

Dude...a reshoot for only that shooter was in order after a FA is issued (forbidden action and WSB change to reflect it).

And I didn't say it was OK to shoot thru the wall or under it. I was trying to indicate that the RO should have stopped the shooter or ceased all shooters at that point, called the range official (MD/RM/CRO) and create a forbidden action and let the gent re-shoot the COF since he was the first to shoot it that way, illegally (against the wall rule). Basically saying the same thing Troy said, but with using the rule set as the example instead of the shooter.

We are on the same sheet of music.

[Loves2Shoot]

I guess I can't see WHY a rule needs to be created since it doesn't meet the criteria of the rule that allows you to create a FA. Troy said he would have issued a FA and reshoot.

Using the reasoning that you just a stated, any time a shooter skips a target you would need to stop them and have a ruling and a rule made.

All the shooter did was skip the opportunity to shoot scoring hits on the target and shot at a wall instead. I've read the rulebook and do not see that it allows for shooters to be corrected by the RO or RM for shooing at targets that they can not put scoring hits on when they do not gain an advantage.

I have yet to see anyone address this with a rule that shows that shooter deserves a reshoot for intentionally skipping the opportunity to put scoring hits on a target.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[LexTalionis]

W00t, 2M, no FTE!

That was a fun, if not exhausting, go around.

Edited July 15, 2011 by LexTalionis

[Loves2Shoot]

No ruling yet, only opinion so far Mark

Until NROI makes a ruling it will remain gray. I've e-mailed JA to see he will rule on if you can "shoot at" or "engage" a target that it is impossible to hit by rule.

Troy might be out, but since their was no exploit of the stage, I hope he chimes in to clarify how a reshoot is justified for shooting at targets you can't put a scoring hit on if you don't gain an advantage or how you can create a rule without the conditions being met by rule to do make a rule.

Heck, I hope every one of my competitors try to shoot targets they can't hit.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[OpenDot]

Just wanted to say, I really learned alot from this thread... like..ALOT!!!

just wanted to show my thanks.

[Loves2Shoot]

It appears we may all be wrong...

I've learned a lot about the rule book changes and how they are interpreted though.

1.1.5 states they (targets)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”, so anyone intentionally shooting a wall that they think may have a target behind it whether you see or not, would have a penalty of a miss at the least, they may if the RO sees it as unsportsman like conduct, could DQ under 10.6

2.3.1.1 is forbidden action, which could make the competitor reshoot and the WSB changed to include the forbidden action and then 3.2.6.1 and 10.2.11 come into play.

Since

1.1.5, 9.1.6.1, 9.1.6 all apply, I don't see any advantage was gained and the stage seems to be legal already and properly set up, so no modification or declaration is needed, 10.6 if the RO sees it as unsportsman like conduct.

FTSA / FTE seems to still be a very gray area with no feedback on yes or no on a definition of TSA a target fully behind hardcover.