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

[GrumpyOne]

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. Troy, that's a different scenario than what was posted. In the scenario above, the shooter made errant shots, while he was engaging the target. In the OP, the shooter did not make errant shots, as he intentionally shot into the hardcover.

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

[mactiger]

How would you score this singular instance, taken by itself?

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 (virtual) hard cover first. These are obviously scored as misses, but would you assess a FTSA penalty?

If you would assess the FTSA, justify it by rule. If not, justify that by rule.

For arguments sake, the two miss penalties are not in question.

Am I saying it's OK to shoot through a wall, whether it's a real wall or a rules wall? No, I'm not, especially if you cannot see the target. And, for clarity, I don't believe that many, if any, shooters woul do this. But, I've seen the example I cited above on more than one occasion, and at all match levels. So, do you, the RO, call the penalty or not?

Troy

[GrumpyOne]

Woohoo! I win!

No Spanky, you don't win....You were just on the winning side.....

Nobody wins in this....It has now opened Pandora's box, with all kinds of implications...

By issuing the FTE, none of the future implications of this "ruling" would have ever come into being, as there would it would be a FTE penalty done in the scoring. Now, someone has to shoot it, RM has to be called, he has to make a decision, FA or modify the course and the WSB, then the shooter has to re-shoot it, slowing everything down to a crawl....then someone else finds something else on the same stage, and we do that process all over again.

[mactiger]

The concept is the same: the competitor fired shots, deliberately, at a target that he could not see. For those of you who insist that a target that cannot be seen cannot be "engaged", what's the difference? In the original problem, that target could be seen, yet was hidden behind a rules wall. In my example, the target, however momentarily, cannot actually be seen when the shots are fired. So-called "errant shots" or not, the shots were fired at a target hidden behind a wall. Make your call accordingly; I don't think that by rule (and that's been my point all along), you can have it both ways.

Troy

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. Troy, that's a different scenario than what was posted. In the scenario above, the shooter made errant shots, while he was engaging the target. In the OP, the shooter did not make errant shots, as he intentionally shot into the hardcover.

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]

How would you score this singular instance, taken by itself?

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 (virtual) hard cover first. These are obviously scored as misses, but would you assess a FTSA penalty?

If you would assess the FTSA, justify it by rule. If not, justify that by rule.

For arguments sake, the two miss penalties are not in question.

Am I saying it's OK to shoot through a wall, whether it's a real wall or a rules wall? No, I'm not, especially if you cannot see the target. And, for clarity, I don't believe that many, if any, shooters woul do this. But, I've seen the example I cited above on more than one occasion, and at all match levels. So, do you, the RO, call the penalty or not?

Troy

Troy,

You did make it to 16!!!

One of the rules of handgun safety, know what you are shooting at and the backstop.

There is no rule or rule book definition of the phrase "to shoot at" thus, you ask a question with no correct answer. I've read the book 10 times cover to cover at least and asked someone who could provide the answer if it existed.

You call the RM and let him decide when you can not make the call.

When I was a certified RO and actively shooting, there was not the FA and understanding how it is being applied changes my views I've posted so far.

[Loves2Shoot]

Woohoo! I win!

No Spanky, you don't win....You were just on the winning side.....

He thought he won...

If you try to break a hole in a stage where there is none 10.6 is right there waiting for you.

[sperman]

Troy,

Here's another scenario for you. A disappearing target is hidden behind hard cover. The shooter fires 2 shots at the hard cover, then shoots the popper that activates the movement of the target.

FTE?

[sperman]

Nevermind, there are no FTE's for disappearing targets. I'm going to bed.

[GrumpyOne]

How would you score this singular instance, taken by itself?

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 (virtual) hard cover first. These are obviously scored as misses, but would you assess a FTSA penalty?

If you would assess the FTSA, justify it by rule. If not, justify that by rule.

For arguments sake, the two miss penalties are not in question.

Am I saying it's OK to shoot through a wall, whether it's a real wall or a rules wall? No, I'm not, especially if you cannot see the target. And, for clarity, I don't believe that many, if any, shooters woul do this. But, I've seen the example I cited above on more than one occasion, and at all match levels. So, do you, the RO, call the penalty or not?

Troy

I see it as two completely different scenarios.

One, in which a shooter made errant shots on a disappearing target, into hardcover (he was after all, trying to engage it, just had bad shots) from a legal shooting position. No FTE. Believe me, I know errant shots...and so does anyone else who's seen me shoot!

Two, the shooter did not have errant shots (as evidenced by the holes on the target, except they aren't really there, are they..), he just put 2 rounds intentionally into hardcover. The target was not disappearing or moving and was static, because in fact, it had never appeared to the shooter (in a legal shooting posiition that is). If the target wasn't shot at from a legal position, then how can you engage it? The holes in the target count for neither score nor penalty, so it's as if they weren't there....and since it didn't "disappear" while he was shooting at it, he could have engaged it from a legal shooting position and corrected his error, but chose not to. Rule 9.5.7 is for the FTE (rule 10.2.7 says almost the same thing, except 9.5.7 states that you must shoot at the "face" of the target....AND...Nowhere in the rule does it state that this rule is for drop turners or the like only...It says "each" and doesn't differentiate from any other target). He did not shoot at the "face" (meaning front side), he shot at an impenetrable wall...FTE per 9.5.7

Edited July 16, 2011 by GrumpyOne

[Singlestack]

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.

Your example is quite a bit different from shooting under a wall. Your example is more like shooting through a port and the shooter puts 2 rounds through the wall instead of the port.

If the target was in the middle of a wall with no port near and the shooter shot 2 rounds through the middle of the wall, even though he could not see the target at all, would you asses a FTSA?

[z40acp]

If you shoot at a target completely hidden behind hard cover and have bullet holes in the target, how can they be errant shots? They can be unwise shots.

[spanky]

Nevermind, there are no FTE's for disappearing targets. I'm going to bed.

There are if you don't activate them.

[GrumpyOne]

If you shoot at a target completely hidden behind hard cover and have bullet holes in the target, how can they be errant shots? They can be unwise shots.

In a scenario where the target is disappearing, they are errant...As the shooter was actively trying to engage the target. He made an aiming error while engaging the target. Deliberately into a wall, whether the bullets strike the target or not, they are not errant, as the bullets, by rule, stopped at that wall, and the target was not engaged, because it (and the shooter) weren't in the proper (legal) position for it (the target) to be engaged.

[Sarge]

Not that it matters to anyone, but I don't agree at all with the opinion NROI came to. Sorry guys.

I would give 2 mikes and an FTE. In my CRO course every time I tried to put something in my WSB's that is already in the rulebook I got gigged for repeating rules. So I will never put in a WSB that walls extend from the ground to height built. I may remind very new shooters of this but then again they generally ask. The shooter shot through a wall, the bullets were stopped by the wall so he did not engage the target. Troy says he did shoot at the target because it was visible through a "rules wall". For all intents and purposes "rules walls" are not only impenetrable but they are also opaque. If the shooter was smart he would just shoot through the wall without squatting, Same thing. I also think its possible for a shooter to be stopped by the RO if he launches rounds through the wall while moving. It would be easy to mistake a shot as an AD and call unsafe gun handling then he gets to convince somebody he was engaging the target, that in reality was not available, and get a reshoot. I really can see that happening especially if the RO was out of position for even a split second.

FWIW, I also think this has been a good discussion. I would not call it onformative as much as I would call it "enlightening".

And as Troy and others have mentioned, don't think a conversation on these forums is going to cover much ground in the real world. A very tiny fraction of the folks involved in this sport even knows about us, let alone this topic. So its entirely probable that this rather lengthy debate will solve anything in the near future.

even if a ruling is made tonight by NROI, two years from now some RO will look at a new rule book and ask, "huh, when did this change?"

Edited to add: I don't see the connection between shooting at a swinger that goes behind hardcover. Tracking a target means you can see it! Just because reflexes are slow and you shoot when it is behind a wall does not equate to an FTE like shooting through a wall.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Kevin Sanders

[z40acp]

If the shooter was within the shooting area and not breaking the 180, it was legal to shoot at it. It just wasn't legal to get any points for shooting it.

[GrumpyOne]

If the shooter was within the shooting area and not breaking the 180, it was legal to shoot at it. It just wasn't legal to get any points for shooting it.

Legal to shoot at yes...in the broadest sense....He wasn't breaking a safety rule....legal in the sense of engaging it, no. Put it this way, what point is there in engaging a target if you can't get points for it? The way you are saying it is like there are 3 shooting boxes, 20' apart, and the shooter can stand in the first box and blast away at all the targets on the stage and not get an FTE (as long as he doesn't break the 180), if the WSB doesn't specifically tell him he has to engage certain targets from certain boxes.

[z40acp]

I think he can stand in one box and blast away. He just won't receive a very good score.

[Gary Stevens]

Since, if I read all of this right, you don't have to actually see a target (virtual or otherwise) to engage it. Does that mean if I shoot an extra shot anywhere on the range I can claim I had engaged a target that I accidently skiped?

Interestingly enough I never did see any of the no FTE group address Yardbirds question asked much earlier in this thread.

Gary

[Loves2Shoot]

Your example is quite a bit different from shooting under a wall.

Per rule, you can't shoot under a wall unless it is specifically allowed. I think that is what derailed everyone. The shooter on post 1 did not shoot under ANY WALL, he shoot at a wall, because per rule (as stated in my post #375 how you can score the stage rule by rule) he shot at a wall, not under one.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[ima45dv8]

It's kind of funny....

We're applying a belt-and-suspenders approach to this scenario, by overlapping the Forbidden Action rule on top of rules that already say a wall extends to the ground, is hardcover, and cannot be shot through (a scoring issue), while peeling back a layer of the rule that prevents handling a dropped gun and now forcing judgement calls as to what portion of an upper appendage (arm) actually trapped it, and saying it sometimes is safe "because they're unloaded" (a safety issue).

Did I step through the looking glass or is this one of those pesky flashbacks they warned us about?

[vluc]

Not that it matters to anyone, but I don't agree at all with the opinion NROI came to. Sorry guys.

I would give 2 mikes and an FTE. In my CRO course every time I tried to put something in my WSB's that is already in the rulebook I got gigged for repeating rules. So I will never put in a WSB that walls extend from the ground to height built. I may remind very new shooters of this but then again they generally ask. The shooter shot through a wall, the bullets were stopped by the wall so he did not engage the target. Troy says he did shoot at the target because it was visible through a "rules wall". For all intents and purposes "rules walls" are not only impenetrable but they are also opaque. If the shooter was smart he would just shoot through the wall without squatting, Same thing. I also think its possible for a shooter to be stopped by the RO if he launches rounds through the wall while moving. It would be easy to mistake a shot as an AD and call unsafe gun handling then he gets to convince somebody he was engaging the target, that in reality was not available, and get a reshoot. I really can see that happening especially if the RO was out of position for even a split second.

FWIW, I also think this has been a good discussion. I would not call it onformative as much as I would call it "enlightening".

And as Troy and others have mentioned, don't think a conversation on these forums is going to cover much ground in the real world. A very tiny fraction of the folks involved in this sport even knows about us, let alone this topic. So its entirely probable that this rather lengthy debate will solve anything in the near future.

even if a ruling is made tonight by NROI, two years from now some RO will look at a new rule book and ask, "huh, when did this change?"

Edited to add: I don't see the connection between shooting at a swinger that goes behind hardcover. Tracking a target means you can see it! Just because reflexes are slow and you shoot when it is behind a wall does not equate to an FTE like shooting through a wall.

Have to agree with Kevin on this one. I can't see why the impenetrability of a wall (by rule) is not the show stopper in the discussion. If he did not know the rule, shame on him, but he would after the cof when he got dinged.

Likewise shooting into a wall while moving because targets are behind it (and unable to be seen or engaged because of that) - I'm thinking AD as well. Let's not use the swinger issue as it is a whole different kettle of fish when compared to 15 feet of solid wall that has targets which are to be engaged from a different (imho legal) point.

[LPatterson]

Wow, reading through has been like sitting on a jury (and I hate juries) with opposing attorneys. My personal decision (which doesn't mean much) is that: 1. The wall went from the ground to the height constructed, therefore the target was not visible per the rules so it could not be engaged, hence a FTE. 2. Since the shots were made through hard cover with a full diameter shot any holes in the target would not count for score. My jury decision would be 1 FTE and 2 misses. There could be another 396 posts and my decision would not change so I think it is time to call the Range Master and get his/her decision.

I'm a hard headed kraut from Missouri and nothing said can make me change my mind. Hope to see y'all at a later date to discuss this further.

[glefos]

How about just define "engage" and "shoot at" in the glossary of the rulebook. Let the existing rules go from there.

[Dan Burwell]

the target was not visible per the rules .

Right there is the problem, that statement is found nowhere in the rules. No where does the rule book mention when a target is visible, and what constitues shooting at a target. You cannot deny, in this case (by english definition) this shooter shot at a visible target. This is why Troy and the other RMIs came to the consensus they did. The rule book just does not support any other conclusion. To rule anything other than 2M no FTE is reading between the lines, something to which most of the current RMIs are very much against.

Further to make a rule as to when a target is visible and when it isn't is going to open a whole other set of problems with swinging targets as to if the shooter shot at them when they were visible, which would introduce RO judgement calls.

Leaving as is will not likely effect a match or stage very often, if it does.... let the system work it is there for a reason

[wide45]

The rules say "shoot at", nothing more.

There's none so blind as those who will not see