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

[Loves2Shoot]

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.....

or 6.10

[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.....

or 6.10

10.6 you mean?

[Loves2Shoot]

DOH!!!

My dyslexia is kicking in.

[aztecdriver]

That's it. I'm fixing the problem and making sure stages state in the wsb " engage targets as they become Available from within the fault lines ".

That way if they shoot a visible unavailable target, it's 10.2.2 per target and they can't shoot their way out of it by going to an available position and shooting from there.

Still going to try and fix those errors first but then I won't have to deal with this fte and visible invisible walls nonsense.

[Yardbird]

I agree that it's an FTE. However, if my RO believes that it is not an FTE and the target is engaged - legally engaged - then how are they going to come to conclusion that it's unsportsmanlike?

[GrumpyOne]

I agree that it's an FTE. However, if my RO believes that it is not an FTE and the target is engaged - legally engaged - then how are they going to come to conclusion that it's unsportsmanlike?

They wouldn't, if they agree it's been legally engaged...therein lies the crux of the problem...you are giving the shooter a free hand to just blindly fire into a wall, and run the course blazing fast, without the true DVC....If you don't impose the FTE, then you can't say it's an unfair advantage.....

[Loves2Shoot]

Well, I've given this a little thought, and if I was RO'ing Nik (or any shooter) on the stage in this thread and they said "you can't give me the FTE, I shot at the target because I could see it 1.1.5 and if I can see it I can shoot at it and no FTE."

I would walk over to the wall and wave my arms dramatically, this is a wall, here is the rulebook, please read 2.2.3.3, 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1. Impenetrable means the bullet stops here at the wall, then pointing at the target, it can not by the rules you just read, get there, thus it can not be engaged from here. 1.1.5 says that we can use walls to compel you to shoot from places, and you just can't engage any target from any position on the stage, that is unsportsmanlike, and we have rules on that we would rather not have to apply.

If you do not like my ruling you can pay your money for arbitration.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[remoandiris]

That's it. I'm fixing the problem and making sure stages state in the wsb " engage targets as they become Available from within the fault lines ".

Isn't there a rule that says you can't do that unless a physical barrier (like caution tape on sticks) prevents shooters from leaving the fault lines?

[Nik Habicht]

Scott,

feel free to insist that you are correct.

Please show me where in the two following rules there is anything remotely connected to determining whether or not a shooter can have engaged a target that is behind a wall:

9.5.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at the face of each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target for failure to shoot at the target, as well as appropriate penalties for misses (see Rule 10.2.7).

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.

I don't see it there. If the argument is that walls are impenetrable, therefore if there are only hits on the target that have passed full diameter through the wall, the target is scored as 2 mikes 1 FTE, then that's a fundamental change to how we've scored in the past.....

Swingers, long shots through ports, etc. where both rounds fired at a target result in a full diameter hit on the hard cover. This one;s going to be very tricky to wordsmith.

As far as me favoring one shooter over another -- as long as I make the call consistently, for both stage and match, every competitor has the same opportunities.....

The problem arises when a call is made one way on Stage 2 and a different way on Stage 4 for an identical situation, or when the same situation is called differently for two competitors....

[spanky]

Has anyone requested an official ruling from JA on this?

[MarkCO]

This thread has been rather enlightening in many ways. Since I know the hows and why of the actual shooter and shots taken that this thread is about, it is even more enlightening.

I'm starting to wonder though, if we should make up a little RO quiz card that we can ask the RO a few questions about their officiating before "Make Ready" and if they don't agree with our "opinions" on the rules, then ask for a new RO. Now that would be ISPC lawyering...

While my "call" was posted (#11) and is in agreement with what to collective of the RMIs came up with, if I happened to be wrong, the response is to learn and move on. I am frankly dismayed that there are so many people (not sure if they are ROs or not) who are clinging so staunchly to their opinion even though it has been explained to be improper application of the rules.

[Loves2Shoot]

I'm not insisting I'm correct, I am presenting rules to support a method of scoring targets legally presented, feel free to present your rules to dispute.

Here you go,

One, the definition of shot, two the definition of squib, three 2.2.3.3, 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1., 9.5.9

According to these rules, shots have a specific distance that is pertinent to scoring. Do you think aim at and shoot at have the same definition?

9.5.5

Why are you trying to say this will "fundamentally change scoring", because they are no where close to being the same example:

Shoots fired where the targets are in a position to be hit (ie you can hit them with a scoring hit) are not the the same as shots fired that are not in the position to be engaged with a legal hit.

Can you score stacked shots? They are all shots at targets that you can see.

As you stated, the goal is to give every competitor has the same opportunities, and by not issuing a FTE on a target that IS NOT ENGAGE-ABLE for purposes of scoring, that is not the same opportunity for equal score as the person who does not fire those round.

[Loves2Shoot]

While my "call" was posted (#11) and is in agreement with what to collective of the RMIs came up with, if I happened to be wrong, the response is to learn and move on. I am frankly dismayed that there are so many people (not sure if they are ROs or not) who are clinging so staunchly to their opinion even though it has been explained to be improper application of the rules.

I want to know if I can "shoot at" a target at any spot on a stage that is not behind me to avoid a FTE (not that I would do that) or get a reshoot. That is what a true gamer will want to know.

You stated you know the intention of this particular shooter, but the intentions of strangers is not so easy.

Many RO's have chimed in that they would 2 M 1 FTE, and I am simply stating the rules that seem to support that call.

It seems the RMI are not all in agreement, so I presented rules.

If you say that walls do not stop bullets (per 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1) and walls, per 1.1.5, do not compel you to shoot from one position without a penalty, those conclusions do change the options shooters have to shoot a stage.

I've seen stage designers put "shoot my props or walls and you are DQ'd" in the wsb, so there are a lot of things stage designers could do, but do they need to?

Troy said there is a consensus, but when another RMI was presented with questions here is the response:

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”, 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, (I added the bold)

Since they added, "at the least," that does not make it so cut and dried and I set out to figure out how the rules support another penalty other than the 10.6. This is partly how I came my conclusion, since it seems RMI's want you to learn how to use the book, not be spoon fed. Good for them too.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[MarkCO]

Scott, I am assuming that post #437 was addressing Nik. so I will only respond to #438.

Provided all other safety rules are not violated, I see no rule that prohibits engaging any target from anywhere. That is a fundamental of "freestyle". This is also a part of figuring the stage hit factors...can you decide in a millisecond whether picking up a miss or an FTE will increase your HF? If you can, why should you be prohibited from using that skill?

While I know why this particular shooter did what he did, and it makes perfect sense as he explained it, as an RO, we can not assume intent, only rule on actions.

I do agree with you that walls, whether a "rule" or actual wall, by rule are impenetrable. That certainly could be why the phrase "at least" was used because that is pretty straight forward. But that RMI did not use the phrase "at most". As the "intent" of the course desinger or shooter does not, by rule, exist, only what is written and actions performed, I think stretching the wordsmithery to imply that RMI inferred an FTE should be given is errant.

If a stage designer sets up a stage where a target is protected by a no shoot, if I hit that no shoot, fully inside the scoring border twice, I get 2 NS and 2 M. I've never even heard anyone consider giving an FTE in that kind of situation. There are numerous occurances where there are misses on targets and 2Ms were given with not FTE that are clsoe to the instance siutation. I could not find nor recall any situation where a target had 2 holes and an FTE was given.

In the instance case, two rounds left the barrel of the shooter while aimed at a target, and hit that target while passing through a virtual (or "rule") wall. There was absolutely nothing there except freespace so the target was visible. Was it an error on his part? Yes. Was it done to gain an advantage? No.

We are blessed to have 7 very competitive GMs here on the front range, 4 of who are MDs and design and set up stages every month. Some of the individual skills, competiveness and gamer (I do not consider this a "bad" thing BTW) things they do makes my jaw drop. Regardless of match, I think through what these guys would do on my stages before I put them on the ground. Anyway, the original shooter is one of these GMs, and he did win the match. I think all of us who know what happen beleive it was scored wrong, but we still want to know what the right call would be.

IMHO, the benefit goes to the shooter, provided you are consistent as an RO. In this case, with the acknowledged differences of opinion, 2Ms are all I would ever assess in this situation provided the RM did not declare it a PA. If it is gray, tie goes to the shooter until an official ruling changes it to something else.

[Loves2Shoot]

Scott, I am assuming that post #437 was addressing Nik. so I will only respond to #438.

Provided all other safety rules are not violated, I see no rule that prohibits engaging any target from anywhere. That is a fundamental of "freestyle". This is also a part of figuring the stage hit factors...can you decide in a millisecond whether picking up a miss or an FTE will increase your HF? If you can, why should you be prohibited from using that skill? I was only quoted 6.10 when I asked this question.

While I know why this particular shooter did what he did, and it makes perfect sense as he explained it, as an RO, we can not assume intent, only rule on actions. Could you share his explanation?

I do agree with you that walls, whether a "rule" or actual wall, by rule are impenetrable. That certainly could be why the phrase "at least" was used because that is pretty straight forward. But that RMI did not use the phrase "at most". As the "intent" of the course desinger or shooter does not, by rule, exist, only what is written and actions performed, I think stretching the wordsmithery to imply that RMI inferred an FTE should be given is errant. I did not take this to mean a FTE was required, only that "at least" to me is equal to minimum and that it is possible that other penalties apply.

If a stage designer sets up a stage where a target is protected by a no shoot, if I hit that no shoot, fully inside the scoring border twice, I get 2 NS and 2 M. I've never even heard anyone consider giving an FTE in that kind of situation. There are numerous occurances where there are misses on targets and 2Ms were given with not FTE that are clsoe to the instance siutation. I could not find nor recall any situation where a target had 2 holes and an FTE was given. 4.1.4.1Again, target visible not equal to target behind a wall.

In the instance case, two rounds left the barrel of the shooter while aimed at a target, and hit that target while passing through a virtual (or "rule") wall. There was absolutely nothing there except freespace so the target was visible. Was it an error on his part? Yes. Was it done to gain an advantage? Not by intention, but by rule 2.2.3.3 The advantage was that by putting the rounds into the wall, by your interpretation, he avoids the FTE. A shooter that looks at it, doesn't fire a round, FTE. Does a shooter who supports his strong or weak hand in a SH/WH stage need to know 10.2.8.2 to get the procedural?

We are blessed to have 7 very competitive GMs here on the front range, 4 of who are MDs and design and set up stages every month. Some of the individual skills, competiveness and gamer (I do not consider this a "bad" thing BTW) things they do makes my jaw drop. Regardless of match, I think through what these guys would do on my stages before I put them on the ground. Anyway, the original shooter is one of these GMs, and he did win the match. I think all of us who know what happen beleive it was scored wrong, but we still want to know what the right call would be. Me too. Gm's are just a bunch of trouble makers

IMHO, the benefit goes to the shooter, provided you are consistent as an RO. In this case, with the acknowledged differences of opinion, 2Ms are all I would ever assess in this situation provided the RM did not declare it a PA. If it is gray, tie goes to the shooter until an official ruling changes it to something else.

[MarkCO]

Scott, I am assuming that post #437 was addressing Nik. so I will only respond to #438.

Provided all other safety rules are not violated, I see no rule that prohibits engaging any target from anywhere. That is a fundamental of "freestyle". This is also a part of figuring the stage hit factors...can you decide in a millisecond whether picking up a miss or an FTE will increase your HF? If you can, why should you be prohibited from using that skill? I was only quoted 6.10 when I asked this question. Is that a future rule?

While I know why this particular shooter did what he did, and it makes perfect sense as he explained it, as an RO, we can not assume intent, only rule on actions. Could you share his explanation? I sent him a note with your request, but that is up to him.

I do agree with you that walls, whether a "rule" or actual wall, by rule are impenetrable. That certainly could be why the phrase "at least" was used because that is pretty straight forward. But that RMI did not use the phrase "at most". As the "intent" of the course desinger or shooter does not, by rule, exist, only what is written and actions performed, I think stretching the wordsmithery to imply that RMI inferred an FTE should be given is errant. I did not take this to mean a FTE was required, only that "at least" to me is equal to minimum and that it is possible that other penalties apply. I baited you a bit here, but you made my last point. Benefit to the shooter. Gray areas should not be used to impose penalties.

If a stage designer sets up a stage where a target is protected by a no shoot, if I hit that no shoot, fully inside the scoring border twice, I get 2 NS and 2 M. I've never even heard anyone consider giving an FTE in that kind of situation. There are numerous occurances where there are misses on targets and 2Ms were given with not FTE that are clsoe to the instance siutation. I could not find nor recall any situation where a target had 2 holes and an FTE was given. 4.1.4.1Again, target visible not equal to target behind a wall.But in the instance case, the target was fuly visible and uncovered by anything.

In the instance case, two rounds left the barrel of the shooter while aimed at a target, and hit that target while passing through a virtual (or "rule") wall. There was absolutely nothing there except freespace so the target was visible. Was it an error on his part? Yes. Was it done to gain an advantage? Not by intention, but by rule 2.2.3.3 The advantage was that by putting the rounds into the wall, by your interpretation, he avoids the FTE. A shooter that looks at it, doesn't fire a round, FTE. Does a shooter who supports his strong or weak hand in a SH/WH stage need to know 10.2.8.2 to get the procedural?I think you are mixing advantages here. Yes, it was advantageous to avoid the penalty, but it was not advantageou in comparison to shooting it in a legal manner. Provided 2Ms were assesed, no advantge over others who shot it right. It does not matter what others who also screwed up the stage did.

We are blessed to have 7 very competitive GMs here on the front range, 4 of who are MDs and design and set up stages every month. Some of the individual skills, competiveness and gamer (I do not consider this a "bad" thing BTW) things they do makes my jaw drop. Regardless of match, I think through what these guys would do on my stages before I put them on the ground. Anyway, the original shooter is one of these GMs, and he did win the match. I think all of us who know what happen beleive it was scored wrong, but we still want to know what the right call would be. Me too. Gm's are just a bunch of trouble makers Not really. Their skills force us to be GM level ROs, not B class ROs. Not busting your chops, just making a general statement on this comment.

IMHO, the benefit goes to the shooter, provided you are consistent as an RO. In this case, with the acknowledged differences of opinion, 2Ms are all I would ever assess in this situation provided the RM did not declare it a PA. If it is gray, tie goes to the shooter until an official ruling changes it to something else.

[Loves2Shoot]

Scott, I am assuming that post #437 was addressing Nik. so I will only respond to #438.

Provided all other safety rules are not violated, I see no rule that prohibits engaging any target from anywhere. That is a fundamental of "freestyle". This is also a part of figuring the stage hit factors...can you decide in a millisecond whether picking up a miss or an FTE will increase your HF? If you can, why should you be prohibited from using that skill? I was only quoted 6.10 when I asked this question. Is that a future rule?Sorry 10.6 I'm dyslexic.

While I know why this particular shooter did what he did, and it makes perfect sense as he explained it, as an RO, we can not assume intent, only rule on actions. Could you share his explanation? I sent him a note with your request, but that is up to him.

I do agree with you that walls, whether a "rule" or actual wall, by rule are impenetrable. That certainly could be why the phrase "at least" was used because that is pretty straight forward. But that RMI did not use the phrase "at most". As the "intent" of the course desinger or shooter does not, by rule, exist, only what is written and actions performed, I think stretching the wordsmithery to imply that RMI inferred an FTE should be given is errant. I did not take this to mean a FTE was required, only that "at least" to me is equal to minimum and that it is possible that other penalties apply. I baited you a bit here, but you made my last point. Benefit to the shooter. Gray areas should not be used to impose penalties.By the rule I think it is black, the gray is that it was a transparent wall I think.

If a stage designer sets up a stage where a target is protected by a no shoot, if I hit that no shoot, fully inside the scoring border twice, I get 2 NS and 2 M. I've never even heard anyone consider giving an FTE in that kind of situation. There are numerous occurances where there are misses on targets and 2Ms were given with not FTE that are clsoe to the instance siutation. I could not find nor recall any situation where a target had 2 holes and an FTE was given. 4.1.4.1Again, target visible not equal to target behind a wall.But in the instance case, the target was fuly visible and uncovered by anything.By rule 2.2.3.3 that is not accurate.

In the instance case, two rounds left the barrel of the shooter while aimed at a target, and hit that target while passing through a virtual (or "rule") wall. There was absolutely nothing there except freespace so the target was visible. Was it an error on his part? Yes. Was it done to gain an advantage? Not by intention, but by rule 2.2.3.3 The advantage was that by putting the rounds into the wall, by your interpretation, he avoids the FTE. A shooter that looks at it, doesn't fire a round, FTE. Does a shooter who supports his strong or weak hand in a SH/WH stage need to know 10.2.8.2 to get the procedural?I think you are mixing advantages here. Yes, it was advantageous to avoid the penalty, but it was not advantageou in comparison to shooting it in a legal manner. Provided 2Ms were assesed, no advantge over others who shot it right. It does not matter what others who also screwed up the stage did. You admit it was advantageous to avoid a FTE by shooting at the transparent part of the wall? Ut oh, that could affect the overall results.

We are blessed to have 7 very competitive GMs here on the front range, 4 of who are MDs and design and set up stages every month. Some of the individual skills, competiveness and gamer (I do not consider this a "bad" thing BTW) things they do makes my jaw drop. Regardless of match, I think through what these guys would do on my stages before I put them on the ground. Anyway, the original shooter is one of these GMs, and he did win the match. I think all of us who know what happen beleive it was scored wrong, but we still want to know what the right call would be. Me too. Gm's are just a bunch of trouble makers Not really. Their skills force us to be GM level ROs, not B class ROs. Not busting your chops, just making a general statement on this comment. Come on GM are trouble makers, and that is how everyone gets better, so it isn't ALL bad.

IMHO, the benefit goes to the shooter, provided you are consistent as an RO. In this case, with the acknowledged differences of opinion, 2Ms are all I would ever assess in this situation provided the RM did not declare it a PA. If it is gray, tie goes to the shooter until an official ruling changes it to something else.

[mactiger]

My comments are in blue and below the quoted portion. All of these are my opinion only, and the emphasis in the quoted rules is mine as well.

I'm not insisting I'm correct, I am presenting rules to support a method of scoring targets legally presented, feel free to present your rules to dispute.

Here you go,

One, the definition of shot, two the definition of squib, three 2.2.3.3, 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1., 9.5.9

The definition of a shot is met in this example. There is no squib. 9.5.9 has no relevance here, as it's already been stipulated that the shots fired (note that wording) have not hit the target because the "rules wall" is impenetrable.

According to these rules, shots have a specific distance that is pertinent to scoring. Do you think aim at and shoot at have the same definition?

They certainly don't, but by the definition of "shot", this competitor definitely shot at the target.

9.5.5

Randomly sticking irrelevant rules into your discussion doesn't further your case. This rule pertains to enlarged holes, caused by splatter or ricochet, and how to score them. That is not the case in this instance.

Why are you trying to say this will "fundamentally change scoring", because they are no where close to being the same example:

Shoots fired where the targets are in a position to be hit (ie you can hit them with a scoring hit) are not the the same as shots fired that are not in the position to be engaged with a legal hit.

Can you support that statement with a rule? I don't think you can, because 9.5.7 and 10.2.7 disagree with your statement, and I note that you have not cited these at all. A shot is a shot.

Can you score stacked shots? They are all shots at targets that you can see.

Of course you can. But, stacking is not in question here, as this was most likely a Comstock course of fire, and in any case, the competitor did not stack. What makes you think you can't score stacked shots? There is a procedural penalty for stacking, but note also that it involves firing shots. If you want to use Virginia count as an example, there are plenty of times that you can fire an extra shot, but not get an extra hit. Your position seems to be that since you can't score the hit, you must not have fired the shot: that simply isn't the case, and Virginia count penalties illustrate that fact very well.

As you stated, the goal is to give every competitor has the same opportunities, and by not issuing a FTE on a target that IS NOT ENGAGE-ABLE for purposes of scoring, that is not the same opportunity for equal score as the person who does not fire those round.

That statement makes no sense at all. The competitor in question earned two misses, as stipulated by the OP. A competitor who shoots this target from the right place, i.e., somewhere that it's not covered by a "rules wall", earns his hits and no penalty. If he doesn't shoot at it at all, however, he would earn two misses and a FTSA/FTE penalty. There is no rule that says that a target is not engage-able; there are two rules that cover what shooting at a target means. These have been conspicuously absent from your arguments. You have been quoting 9.1.6.1 quite a bit, and that rule does indeed rule out the hits, which has never been in question. It does not, however, rule out the shot(s): 9.1.6.1--If a bullet (that had to come out of the barrel, right?) strikes wholly within hard cover (which is what happened here, even if it's a rules wall), and continues on to strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot (note the word "shot") will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

All of this to define how to score a target in a stage that should not be scored at all. This is a prime example of where and when to use the FA rule. The wording of that rule does not prohibit it being used in this example; in fact, it's one of the best places to use it.

Now for another twist: why, if that target was invisible, as you claim it to be, would you not DQ this competitor for an AD? As described, this would fit well into 10.4.2 or 10.4.2.2, and even 10.5.10. Possibly even 10.6, if you decided the competitor was trying to gain some sort of advantage by it (forcing a reshoot on a stage he was tanking, for example). For Yardbird's example, the same would hold true--firing shots at a wall or door, where there is no visible target, has historically been treated as either unsafe gun handling or accidental discharge, or both. Since this target could be seen, though, we've been arguing how to score it, when in reality, this is either going to be declared a Forbidden Action and generate a reshoot and a change in the WSB,or it will be a DQ. If you say, "that's too harsh", or, "but, he could see the target" (which is what the competitor would probably argue), or if you say, "yeah, that's the right call, he's outta here", you are accepting the fact that he fired a shot. If you maintain that he can not "shoot at" that target because of the rules wall, I don't see where you have a choice--it's a DQ per 10.4.2, if the shot hits within 10 feet, or 10.5.10 applies. Or both. It that wall had been solid, and the competitor dumped two rounds through it, would you not stop him at that point? What was he shooting at?

The key is he could see the target. And fired shots at it.

That's the whole point here: the competitor fired a shot. You can't take that away, because he did indeed fire a shot or two, as defined by the rules. What you have to determine are the consequences for the competitor and your actions based on that shot being fired.

As I stated in my previous examples, this is, in theory, no different from a target being visible at some point then becoming hidden, however temporarily. If you fire shots at it while it's hidden, and strike a wall or actual hardcover, the hits won't count. You still fired shots at it, though, so no FTE/FTSA penalty.

In this example, the rules wall failed to hide the target, and a competitor fired shots at it. Proceed accordingly, but an FTSA/FTE is not supported by rule.

This is all I'm going to say on this subject.

[MarkCO]

...Could you share his explanation

I asked, he prefers to let the thread die...

[LPatterson]

It is my opinion that we have beat the situation to death like people are said to beat a dead horse. The easiest thing would be to say in the WSB that walls go from the ground to height constructed. Then if a competitor choses to shoot under a wall the rules that have been beat to death would apply.

I am a very hard headed kraut from Missouri and I have decided what I would do and another 500 posts will not change my mind so I am going to call for the Range Master to render a decision. Or maybe the Moderators should stuff a sock in it.

[Schutzenmeister]

My personal spin ... This may or may not be worth the electrons consumed in putting it on screen.

Once upon a time, walls were walls. They were exclusively, or almost exclusively made of something that you actually could not see through. This was certainly true for me when I entered the sport in 1993, though some of your experiences may differ.

Somewhere along the line, folks found this new material called "snow fence" (or sometimes called "construction fence," you all know what I'm referring to) and decided for a number of reasons it was preferable to "solid" walls. It was lighter, easier to work with, cheaper, and less prone to blowing over in the wind. The only problem was you could in fact "see" targets on the other side of it. Then again, ROs could see if anyone was downrange before loading a shooter, and spectators could see more of what was going on during the match. Hence a compromise was born: Though you could see through them, they were still hard cover, impenetrable, and shots passing through them did not count.

A further iteration took us to the curent wording in 2.2.3.3 ... Now we can use walls that measure only 4x8, yet set them horizontally and high enough that the average person could not see over them to shoot at targets. But that left a "hole" at the bottom where no wall existed at all. Hence, we defined that space as part of the wall above it ... hard cover, impenetrable, and shots passing through them would not count.

Numerous discussions/threads have passed over the years whereby the merits and faults of such wisdom have been discussed. Like most compromises, mesh walls are not perfect, but we put up with their faults to take advantage of their benefits.

At the same time as all of this was evolving, the rules too were evolving.

When I look back at my 1995 rule book, I can find NO MENTION of "as and when visible" in the rules. However, it DID state that "Practical competition is freestyle. [...]" and that "(barriers, physical limitations, simulate disabilities, etc.) [may be used] which will force a competitor into certain positions or stances." {2.07, 1995} At the time, the most common barrier I can recall were 2x4 frames with plywood coverings.

The next book I still have in my collection is the 2001 book. (Note: If anyone has another book in-between 1995 and 2001, please feel free to fill in the gap here. However, I think you will see where I'm going with this.) In this book I now find the rule 1.1.5 (substantially as it is today) which uses the phrase "as and when visible" to describe when a competitor may shoot targets. It was along this point in the history of our sport we began in earnest to transition from telling the shooter what to do and how to do it to our current "Freestyle - shoot 'em as you see 'em" philosophy. Prior to that it was not uncommon to have stage descriptions like: "On signal, from Box A, shoot targets 1-3 ... then from box B shoot target 4 & 5 ..., etc." (Yes ... We used to do that. Even at the Nationals!)

Unfortunately, the transition from "Box-to-Box" to true "Freestyle, as and when visible" took place at the same time as the transition from solid walls to mesh walls. Also, rules are generally worded based on past experiences and seldom take into consideration "cutting edge" developments. This, I believe, is true for virtually everything, including our sport.

I believe the clear and unmistakable intent of the original use of the term "as and when visible" was that if you could not see the target it was not legitimate to be shooting at it. This is further supported by DQs for finger inside the trigger guard while moving (10.5.10) and/or shots fired while moving except while actually shooting at targets (10.4.6.) The message was clear: If it's behind a wall and you cannot see it, DON'T SHOOT AT IT!

Many of the debates over time with respect to mesh walls have centered on just this issue ... The fact that you could actually see the target on the other side. For many years now, we have CONSISTENTLY upheld the concept that if you cap off a round while moving and there was no target in the direction you fired, it DIDN'T matter if you could see a target on the other side of the wall. It was a wall and you had an AD IAW 10.4.6.

Now we are engaged in a great debate over another rule that uses the same language ... "as and when visible" and "shoot at" at it applies to the FTS@ rule, 10.2.7. Yet here, we have numerous folks, both learned and otherwise, wanting to impose a different perspective from what we have - for at least the last 10 years - deemed to be actions one could not do: i.e., "Shoot through a wall and at a target."

Given the history and evolution of it all, I feel it somewhat silly to suggest that we can use the excuse that we can somehow shoot through a wall (of ANY construct) and avoid some sort of procedural penalty or match disqualification for the act. I simply do not recall this being the remotest of an issue in the days of "solid" walls. I fail to understand why we are not treating "mesh" walls with the same principles we have always used for walls in the past. Their function has not changed ... only their form and construction.

That is why (and I forget my post number - a long time ago, on a page far, far away) I took the position that under 1.1.5 a barrier was constructed to compel a competitor into a position, location, or stance. The competitor fired his shot(s) through a wall either by design or culpable negligence. Such action is, IMHO, contrary to 1.1.5 itself and ought to be punished with procedural penalties in addition to not allowing him the points he might have earned by hitting the target through the wall. I felt - and to some degeree sitll do - the appropriate penalty here is 10.2.7 as, by design under 1.1.5, the target was not "visible" and therefore not eligible to be shot at from that location ... the realities of physics and the fact he actually could see the target notwithstanding.

It appears a preponderence of the RMIs disagree with that, though Troy did indicate it was not a unanimous position. I too hope JA will present a definitive intrepretation to the BoD for eventual inclusion in the next iteration of the rules. FWIW, I would propose the following definition be added to the Glossary which would close (I believe) ALL the loopholes discussed:

Shoot at/Shooting at - The act of firing a shot at a target from a position or location where the shooter can have some possibility of achieving a scoring hit on that target. A shot fired in the direction of a target from a position or view that cannot possibly achieve a scoring hit on that target will not qualify as "shoot(ing) at." Note also that a shot fired in the direction of a moving target will be considered "shot at" even if the target is, or moves behind cover so long as the shooter is in a position or location to achieve a scoring hit on that target were it not behind that cover.

If you like it, feel free to suggest it to your AD. If you don't, well ... he/she dosen't need to hear about it! I know this was a little long-winded. Philosophical arguments frequently are. Forgive me!

[Schutzenmeister]

Troy

I was composing a post when you made your previous post. Without quoting the entire post ...

I will agree he fired a shot - by definition. I don't think anyone would argue that. The question becomes at what did he shoot. See my previous post ... Clearly there exists a philosophical difference of opinion here.

Your examples of potential 10.4.2, 10.4.6, and/or 10.5.10 DQs are good, though not necessarily suported by the informnation in the OP. We are not told WHERE the round impacted (10.4.2) nor whether or not the shooter was MOVING at the time he fired the shots (10.4.6 or 10.5.10.) Hence, no determination can be made with the information at hand. However, based on my previous post, I think you can discern what I would be inclined to call, given the information to make a call.

This clearly needs an official intrepretation and or clarification in the rules. I sincerely hope John is working on one!

Edited July 20, 2011 by Schutzenmeister

[Loves2Shoot]

My comments are in blue and below the quoted portion. All of these are my opinion only, and the emphasis in the quoted rules is mine as well.

I'm not insisting I'm correct, I am presenting rules to support a method of scoring targets legally presented, feel free to present your rules to dispute.

Here you go,

One, the definition of shot, two the definition of squib, three 2.2.3.3, 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1., 9.5.9

The definition of a shot is met in this example. There is no squib. 9.5.9 has no relevance here, as it's already been stipulated that the shots fired (note that wording) have not hit the target because the "rules wall" is impenetrable.

According to these rules, shots have a specific distance that is pertinent to scoring. Do you think aim at and shoot at have the same definition?

They certainly don't, but by the definition of "shot", this competitor definitely shot at the target. I was assuming the shot stopped at the wall per 2.2.3.3 and 9.1.6 and 9.1.6, this appears to not be the case that round need not be able to reach the face of the target (by rule) to be considered shot at.

9.5.5

Randomly sticking irrelevant rules into your discussion doesn't further your case. This rule pertains to enlarged holes, caused by splatter or ricochet, and how to score them. That is not the case in this instance. I posted that to show you can't bounce rounds into a target.

Why are you trying to say this will "fundamentally change scoring", because they are no where close to being the same example:

Shoots fired where the targets are in a position to be hit (ie you can hit them with a scoring hit) are not the the same as shots fired that are not in the position to be engaged with a legal hit.

Can you support that statement with a rule? I don't think you can, because 9.5.7 and 10.2.7 disagree with your statement, and I note that you have not cited these at all. A shot is a shot. Yes, 2.2.3.3 impenetrable, shot can't make it to target face. But if a shot is not require to be able to make it to the target face, I understand

All of this to define how to score a target in a stage that should not be scored at all. This is a prime example of where and when to use the FA rule. The wording of that rule does not prohibit it being used in this example; in fact, it's one of the best places to use it. I only read that FA could be used for safety or loophole exploit, so I didn't know how to apply it to a poor target presentation if 2.2.3.3 makes it impossible for a scoring hit because I did not know we can treat walls differently because of construction.

Now for another twist: why, if that target was invisible, as you claim it to be, would you not DQ this competitor for an AD? As described, this would fit well into 10.4.2 or 10.4.2.2, and even 10.5.10. Possibly even 10.6, if you decided the competitor was trying to gain some sort of advantage by it (forcing a reshoot on a stage he was tanking, for example). For Yardbird's example, the same would hold true--firing shots at a wall or door, where there is no visible target, has historically been treated as either unsafe gun handling or accidental discharge, or both. Since this target could be seen, though, we've been arguing how to score it, when in reality, this is either going to be declared a Forbidden Action and generate a reshoot and a change in the WSB,or it will be a DQ. If you say, "that's too harsh", or, "but, he could see the target" (which is what the competitor would probably argue), or if you say, "yeah, that's the right call, he's outta here", you are accepting the fact that he fired a shot. If you maintain that he can not "shoot at" that target because of the rules wall, I don't see where you have a choice--it's a DQ per 10.4.2, if the shot hits within 10 feet, or 10.5.10 applies. Or both. It that wall had been solid, and the competitor dumped two rounds through it, would you not stop him at that point? What was he shooting at? Acutally, yes, DQ was my first thought when I read the original question. I do not see in the rules where we can treat solid walls of steel differently than a partially built wall made of snow fence because of 2.2.3.3.

The key is he could see the target. And fired shots at it. Yes, because the wall was not fully built solid and to the ground, but the rule book allows this type of wall.

That's the whole point here: the competitor fired a shot. You can't take that away, because he did indeed fire a shot or two, as defined by the rules. What you have to determine are the consequences for the competitor and your actions based on that shot being fired. Yes, the rub is that I did not know we could treat walls that are transparent or not fully built to the ground differently than those that are by rule.

As I stated in my previous examples, this is, in theory, no different from a target being visible at some point then becoming hidden, however temporarily. If you fire shots at it while it's hidden, and strike a wall or actual hardcover, the hits won't count. You still fired shots at it, though, so no FTE/FTSA penalty. I saw it differently because the target in your example could be seen at some point before going behind hardcover, where were the wall in the example built solid and to the ground in this case it could not, and again I did not know that we could treat partial walls differently because of construction

In this example, the rules wall failed to hide the target See I was under the impression that 2.2.3.3 did not require full walls to hide targets because of 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1, and a competitor fired shots at it. Proceed accordingly, but an FTSA/FTE is not supported by rule.

This is all I'm going to say on this subject. Thanks for sharing this much!

If NROI says that "shoot at" does not require the shot to be able to reach the face of the target, walls that a target can be seen under are treated differently that walls built solidly and to the ground and rule 2.2.3.3 doesn't apply to the applications of DQ for imaginary parts of the wall, then I understand where you are coming from.

I'm from Schutzenmeister's history, and that might explain my confusion. Walls were walls, so I've applied my thinking with that history.

[ima45dv8]

[sNIP]

All of this to define how to score a target in a stage that should not be scored at all. This is a prime example of where and when to use the FA rule. The wording of that rule does not prohibit it being used in this example; in fact, it's one of the best places to use it.

Now for another twist: why, if that target was invisible, as you claim it to be, would you not DQ this competitor for an AD? As described, this would fit well into 10.4.2 or 10.4.2.2, and even 10.5.10. Possibly even 10.6, if you decided the competitor was trying to gain some sort of advantage by it (forcing a reshoot on a stage he was tanking, for example). For Yardbird's example, the same would hold true--firing shots at a wall or door, where there is no visible target, has historically been treated as either unsafe gun handling or accidental discharge, or both. Since this target could be seen, though, we've been arguing how to score it, when in reality, this is either going to be declared a Forbidden Action and generate a reshoot and a change in the WSB,or it will be a DQ. If you say, "that's too harsh", or, "but, he could see the target" (which is what the competitor would probably argue), or if you say, "yeah, that's the right call, he's outta here", you are accepting the fact that he fired a shot. If you maintain that he can not "shoot at" that target because of the rules wall, I don't see where you have a choice--it's a DQ per 10.4.2, if the shot hits within 10 feet, or 10.5.10 applies. Or both. It that wall had been solid, and the competitor dumped two rounds through it, would you not stop him at that point? What was he shooting at?

The key is he could see the target. And fired shots at it.

That's the whole point here: the competitor fired a shot. You can't take that away, because he did indeed fire a shot or two, as defined by the rules. What you have to determine are the consequences for the competitor and your actions based on that shot being fired.

As I stated in my previous examples, this is, in theory, no different from a target being visible at some point then becoming hidden, however temporarily. If you fire shots at it while it's hidden, and strike a wall or actual hardcover, the hits won't count. You still fired shots at it, though, so no FTE/FTSA penalty.

In this example, the rules wall failed to hide the target, and a competitor fired shots at it. Proceed accordingly, but an FTSA/FTE is not supported by rule.

This is the most compelling explanation by the "No FTS/FTE" camp I've seen so far.

Off to ponder some more...

[JThompson]

If a competitor fires a round/s from a location, from which, hits will not count for score or penalty, he/she is deemed not to have shot at, or engaged the target. Examples are, but not limited too, under walls, or through walls which are classified as hard cover and from a location at which those shots will not count for score or penalty. ( see 9.5.7)

One less FA...

The only thing that is completely clear to me, in this 450 post discussion, is we need to clarify this rule for the thousands of people that don't come here. Hell, with all this discussion we still differ on the call. If that is not grounds to add a bit to the book then I don't know what is....

JT

Edited July 20, 2011 by JThompson