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

[GrumpyOne]

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.

Anyway, the original shooter is one of these GMs, and he did win the match.

You mean to tell us that the GM shooter who did this either did not know the wall went to the ground, or knew and still fired rounds into the wall? I would call that sportsman like and DQ. I would love to know his reasoning behind putting the rounds into.the wall....

[Nik Habicht]

@Grumpy: I've met multiple GMs who didn't know one or more of the rules.....

They're no different from any other classes in that regard.....

...especially when it comes to obscure rules, or to things that have changed over time....

[ima45dv8]

@Grumpy: I've met multiple GMs who didn't know one or more of the rules.....

They're no different from any other classes in that regard.....

...especially when it comes to obscure rules, or to things that have changed over time....

I have to agree. I've known GMs who are extremely rules-savvy, and those who are not.

Skill at arms, while admired, doesn't automatically equate to an understanding of the covenants that govern our sport.

No slight or criticism is intended.

It's merely an observation.

[spanky]

IMO defining "FTE" as "Failure to shoot at" is contradictory.

We either need to define "engage" or change the penalty to an FTSA.

Using what some people understand as definition of engage, you have to actually "hit" (or be able to "hit") what you are trying to hit to "engage" it.

By that assumed definition, you can shoot at something without engaging it but you cannot engage it without shooting at it. Thus making "shoot at" and "engage" two separate actions.

A bulletproof glass, for instance. You can "shoot at" something on the other side of it but you aren't really "engaging" it since you know your shots won't penetrate the wall.

[Loves2Shoot]

Good point, that is why I asked if there is a difference between to "aim" at and to "shoot at." In this example, I think people are confusing "he aimed at the target he could see under the transparent part of the the wall and shot at it" with "he fired rounds at the wall because he could see a target behind the transparent part of the wall and wanted to hit it even though rules 2.2.3.3, 9.1.6, and 9.1.6.1 say that is not possible to have a scoring hit on a target behind ANY non soft cover wall."

2.2.3.3 says the target is safe from the bullets scoring on it(even if Troy says we should treat partial walls differently that ones built fully to the ground and transparent) and the example he used to say we can't score it this way because of moving targets (which has it's own rule 9.9.2) is not how the rules read. I respect him and his work, but if we score walls built legally per rule that are partial, snow fence, mesh, ect, why would 2.2.3.3 not treat them like a traditional wall in regard to shooting at them?

If NROI rules we score different walls differently, woo hoo for gamers and ut oh for RO's. It will force people to go back to the traditional walls to avoid these types of issues.

Nik,

GM's have super thick skin, but we can learn. If NROI makes a ruling that says you can "shoot at targets" that are not in a position to be hit because a hard cover wall does not give the shooter the opportunity to shoot through it, trust me, they will learn. A ruling that state that bullets don't need to BE ABLE to make it to the face of the target is not a minor thing.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Loves2Shoot]

Nik,

I just spoke at you. Did you hear what I said? No. That is because the sound waves couldn't reach your ears from here.

Did I just says words that I knew couldn't reach your ears or did I speak at you?

I think there is a difference, but maybe that is where I can't keep track of changes over time, because I'm working from a different set of physics that do have some consequences associated with the application of them.

[Loves2Shoot]

...Could you share his explanation

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

I'm sure he would, and when you said he was GM, I was 99.999999999% sure there is no way he would share what he said voluntarily.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[spanky]

The plot thickens.

[Nik Habicht]

Nik,

I just spoke at you. Did you hear what I said? No. That is because the sound waves couldn't reach your ears from here.

Did I just says words that I knew couldn't reach your ears or did I speak at you?

I think there is a difference, but maybe that is where I can't keep track of changes over time, because I'm working from a different set of physics that do have some consequences associated with the application of them.

When you post when I'm back at work -- I'm not ignoring you, I just don't have access to the forums..... :D

Re: GMs have thick skins -- Honestly my comment above wasn't directed at you. Any reference in those comments was based on personal one-on-one experience on the range with GMs. And for every GM I've met who didn't know something in the rule book, I've also met others, like Dave Olhasso, who have taught me a great deal not only about the rules, but about running matches.....

My best advice at this point is to A) wait for an NROI ruling, and then get thee to an RO class -- because we need anyone with this level of dedication in the RO Corps....

I'm about done here. As the rules are currently written, we're going to disagree. Since the Instructor Corps reportedly isn't on the same page on this one yet, and since we don't have an interpretation either way, I'm o.k. with that....

[mactiger]

Good point, that is why I asked if there is a difference between to "aim" at and to "shoot at." In this example, I think people are confusing "he aimed at the target he could see under the transparent part of the the wall and shot at it" with "he fired rounds at the wall because he could see a target behind the transparent part of the wall and wanted to hit it even though rules 2.2.3.3, 9.1.6, and 9.1.6.1 say that is not possible to have a scoring hit on a target behind ANY non soft cover wall."

2.2.3.3 says the target is safe from the bullets scoring on it(even if Troy says we should treat partial walls differently that ones built fully to the ground and transparent) and the example he used to say we can't score it this way because of moving targets (which has it's own rule 9.9.2) is not how the rules read. I respect him and his work, but if we score walls built legally per rule that are partial, snow fence, mesh, ect, why would 2.2.3.3 not treat them like a traditional wall in regard to shooting at them?

If NROI rules we score different walls differently, woo hoo for gamers and ut oh for RO's. It will force people to go back to the traditional walls to avoid these types of issues.

Nik,

GM's have super thick skin, but we can learn. If NROI makes a ruling that says you can "shoot at targets" that are not in a position to be hit because a hard cover wall does not give the shooter the opportunity to shoot through it, trust me, they will learn. A ruling that state that bullets don't need to BE ABLE to make it to the face of the target is not a minor thing.

Let's get this straight right now. Nobody is saying that hits through walls are scored any differently, regardless of their construction, size shape, or materials. Unless that wall is designated as soft cover, it's deemed impenetrable, even if it does not extend to the ground. I have never stated through this entire discussion, that the hits would score on the target. They won't, and that is fully supported by rule. What I have continually tried to point out is that you cannot deny the shots fired at the target, and give an FTE/FTSA penalty, and I have tried to give you examples, such as a moving target being shot at while it's behind hard cover in it's movement. That moment in time is no different, conceptually, than shooting at the target in this example, because the competitor could see it.

That's the difference, and the reason that an FA would be used here, and the reason that the competitor would not be DQ'd.

You continue to argue about how to score it, when in truth, it should not be scored at all.

Go back and read my posts, carefully, and then tell me where I or anybody other than you said the hits had anything to do with the shots, or if I said they'd be scored differently. The wall is hardcover, the hits don't count, even if it's a rules wall. The shots, in this instance, do.

Do not put words into my mouth, or jump to the conclusion that there will be a ruling saying that shooting through walls is ok. You are either unable to grasp the difference between a shot and a hit, or you are being deliberately obtuse about the whole concept. Either way, I will not tolerate you attributing your misconceptions to me.

Edited July 22, 2011 by mactiger

[mactiger]

I think I posted the instructor corps answer. That was a consensus agreement based on the theory that this would actually be something we would score. For the record we would not score this, it would be declared an FA. But the only way to score it, we agreed, by the rules as written, would be two misses, no FTE/FTSA penalty.

I'm not going to keep reiterating the rules and reasons.

Nik,

I just spoke at you. Did you hear what I said? No. That is because the sound waves couldn't reach your ears from here.

Did I just says words that I knew couldn't reach your ears or did I speak at you?

I think there is a difference, but maybe that is where I can't keep track of changes over time, because I'm working from a different set of physics that do have some consequences associated with the application of them.

When you post when I'm back at work -- I'm not ignoring you, I just don't have access to the forums..... :D

Re: GMs have thick skins -- Honestly my comment above wasn't directed at you. Any reference in those comments was based on personal one-on-one experience on the range with GMs. And for every GM I've met who didn't know something in the rule book, I've also met others, like Dave Olhasso, who have taught me a great deal not only about the rules, but about running matches.....

My best advice at this point is to A) wait for an NROI ruling, and then get thee to an RO class -- because we need anyone with this level of dedication in the RO Corps....

I'm about done here. As the rules are currently written, we're going to disagree. Since the Instructor Corps reportedly isn't on the same page on this one yet, and since we don't have an interpretation either way, I'm o.k. with that....

[Nik Habicht]

I think I posted the instructor corps answer. That was a consensus agreement based on the theory that this would actually be something we would score. For the record we would not score this, it would be declared an FA. But the only way to score it, we agreed, by the rules as written, would be two misses, no FTE/FTSA penalty.

I'm not going to keep reiterating the rules and reasons.

Nik,

I just spoke at you. Did you hear what I said? No. That is because the sound waves couldn't reach your ears from here.

Did I just says words that I knew couldn't reach your ears or did I speak at you?

I think there is a difference, but maybe that is where I can't keep track of changes over time, because I'm working from a different set of physics that do have some consequences associated with the application of them.

When you post when I'm back at work -- I'm not ignoring you, I just don't have access to the forums..... :D

Re: GMs have thick skins -- Honestly my comment above wasn't directed at you. Any reference in those comments was based on personal one-on-one experience on the range with GMs. And for every GM I've met who didn't know something in the rule book, I've also met others, like Dave Olhasso, who have taught me a great deal not only about the rules, but about running matches.....

My best advice at this point is to A) wait for an NROI ruling, and then get thee to an RO class -- because we need anyone with this level of dedication in the RO Corps....

I'm about done here. As the rules are currently written, we're going to disagree. Since the Instructor Corps reportedly isn't on the same page on this one yet, and since we don't have an interpretation either way, I'm o.k. with that....

Sorry Troy. I must have misunderstood your original post......

[Loves2Shoot]

That moment in time is no different, conceptually, than shooting at the target in this example, because the competitor could see it.

That's the difference, and the reason that an FA would be used here, and the reason that the competitor would not be DQ'd.

Troy,

I used the argument that you presented to ASSUME that if the wall was solid you would not have issued the FA. That is where I do not think you were treating the types of the walls the same with targets behind them and not applying 2.2.3.3. to your perspective.

If you are now saying that when anyone shoots through a wall that is open on the bottom it will be scored/ruled differently than a solid wall then that is not consistent with why 2.2.3.3. exists because you just issue a FA and say you cant do it there, that does open a huge door for people to, intentionally or not, insist a FA is made since you continue to say you would not have scored the stage. That was why I originally stated the FA would have to forbid shooting at a wall you shouldn't be shooting at in the first place and ONLY because the wall was a partial wall that by rule extends to the ground.

Am I being square or do I have a valid point? If you say in one case it is a DQ because they shot through a solid the wall, and that is a no no, then why in this case would it not also be a DQ offense if they still (by rule) shot through the transparent part of the wall? Is that treating the walls the same for purpose of scoring/ruling?

Schutzenmeister said perfectly what I was thinking and how I've viewed this call, since when I started walls were solid and I don't think if the wall in this case were solid people would argue that you could say there was no failure to engage per all the points he made, and DQ may be more obvious depending on how and where he shot it.

There is an example in the rulebook where a target can be visible and it can not be engaged, by rule, and since the penalty is a failure to engage, that is important in my pea sized brain. I think that, along with reading how the rest of the rules use the word engage/engagement, are enough information for a semi-reasonable person to say that if you can't, and if you go back and read my original post about the RM must first declare no FA was needed, get a scoring hit on the the target from the location it has not been engaged for purposes of scoring, thus you could if you didn't get DQ'd first score a FTE.

I'm not trying to give you gray hairs, but if you could explain in YOUR opinion (not NROI) 2 questions:

You say, no FTE if you can see the target behind a legally constructed partial wall if there is no way to legally get a scoring hit on the target and rounds are fired in the general direction of the target. Is there a FTE if the wall is solid and the shooter is not DQed firing rounds in the general direction of the target? (not this thread example, just in general)

Would you issue a FA if a (in general) if a shooter shoots through a solid wall (and it is not DQable) because a shooter knew where a static target was, but could not see it?

I do hope you can answer these 2 questions, because your perspective is greatly respected.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Loves2Shoot]

What I have continually tried to point out is that you cannot deny the shots fired at the target, and give an FTE/FTSA penalty, and I have tried to give you examples, such as a moving target being shot at while it's behind hard cover in it's movement. That moment in time is no different, conceptually, than shooting at the target in this example, because the competitor could see it.

The shooter could not have seen it in this example had the wall physically been solid, that is where I do not agree that they are comparable situations conceptually.

It is my understanding the ONLY reason he could see the target is because it was a partial wall and not a full wall.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Loves2Shoot]

My best advice at this point is to A) wait for an NROI ruling, and then get thee to an RO class -- because we need anyone with this level of dedication in the RO Corps....

I'm about done here. As the rules are currently written, we're going to disagree. Since the Instructor Corps reportedly isn't on the same page on this one yet, and since we don't have an interpretation either way, I'm o.k. with that....

A. NROI has not stated they will rule on this.

B. You might be surprised to know I passed my RO class with a high nineties percentage score many moons ago. I do carry a rulebook (IDPA and USPSA) also and try to understand them.

As a competitor with a tiny bit of experience, people will rely on your opinion, be it right or wrong, that is why I'm trying to understand the whole FA ruling instead of just giving them the score. I know how I would have scored it where the wall solid so he could not have seen it or hit it. 2.2.3.3 was supposed to make partial or transparent walls equal, or so I thought.

If I would score them wrong, I want to be sure what NROI would do.

If Troy decides to respond to the 2 questions I asked, then I should have all the info I need to make a proper call regardless of my opinion. It will also give me the info as a shooter that I need to know how my actions should score.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Morphire]

Alright I've got a couple of observations to consider.

We are now making a definable difference between a hardcover wall, a hardcover wall, and a hardcover wall. Sounds silly doesn't it? But the difference is that one is constructed of actual impenetrable material such as steel, another is made out of some other opaque material that you can't see through but you can shoot through, and the final one is made of something that you can both see through and shoot through. The weird part is I can't find any rule(s) that justify making any differentiation between any of these "different" hardcover based on construction materials used. Troy and the other instructors appear to be making a determination that all of these wall are not created equal if my understanding is correct. Their justification for not allowing the FTSA/FTE is that there were two holes in the target so it MUST have been shot at. The ONLY reason there were two holes in the target comes down to construction materials of the hardcover wall. If the wall were made of steel would the instructors have said the shooter was engaging a target behind the truly impenetrable hardcover wall or purposely engaging a prop with all the possible bad outcomes that entails?

Troy, you may have answered this in your many replies but I seem to have missed it so I'll ask it here. If there had not been two hits on the target, would you and the instructiors' argument that the target was demonstrably "shot at" fall apart? That appeared to be your basis so I ask.

I recall in my RO class with George he made the point that we should position ourselves as ROs so that we can follow the index of a shooter to determine if a target was engaged or not. If we could not definitively determine that a target was engaged, then we had to, by default, ignore the possibility of an FTE. In other words, you had to know for certain that the person did not engage that target. In this scenario, the target was engaged from a place where the target was unavailable due to it being behind a wall - an impenetrable wall even though it's construction was of something other than steel. If he then made it through RIC without engaging it from a location where he could actually see the target to shoot at it, then I'd have a definitive FTE call to make. I believe this to be a fundamentally different scenario than the swinging target passing behind hardcover scenario that others have mentioned. In that scenario, the target was available to be shot from the position where it was engaged. The possibility for an engagement exists in that scenario where it didn't in the original argument. That point seems key to me.

That seems to be the point for me in awarding the FTE. The target was unavailable to be shot at from the position where it was engaged. And further more, the target was NOT engaged form a position where it could be shot at. If the walls had been constructed of steel, I believe this discussion would have taken a different direction.

As for the use of a Forbidden Action to award a reshoot, the wording of 2.3.1.1.b. gets in the way for me. A FA should not be used to correct a shooter's bad interpretation of a good rule. Nor should it be used to compel shooter movement when the stage already has, by the rules, provided everything necessary to compel that movement. Score it an FTE or not, I can not find any justification for declaring a FA on a perfectly legal stage.

/drl

[mactiger]

Last post.

One: this is, fundamentally, a course design issue. I know what the rule says about all walls going down to the ground, but to put a target that is visible beneath a wall and expect people to ignore it is naive at best, retarded at worst. Hence the FA, if you leave the target there. There are a lot of other fixes, I suppose, but an FA is a viable option here. If you are reading that rule to say otherwise, you are excluding crucial parts of it.

Why? mostly because, as the past 19 pages or so have shown, it's going to be a scoring nightmare, one most easily fixed by declaring an FA or hiding the target. The FA will state, "you can't see the target"; hiding it will make it so. Be sure: do both.

Second: A shot is a shot. Holes in the target make no difference, because you could just miss. Consider a swinger: shoot twice, miss twice. Any holes? NO. FTE/FTSA penalty? NO. Why? because you fired at least one shot at it. Didn't matter when you fired, if it was visible at the time or not, you still fired at least one shot. That meets the definition of "engage" or "shoot at". Shoot at a target through a port--hit the port edge or wall with both rounds, full bullet diameter. Did you shoot at it? Yes. Did you hit it? No, since the wall is hardcover. You can take the hits away per rule, but you can't take the shots away--no rule to support that.

Same thing here. He shot at a target, and yes, he probably did it because he could see said target because said wall did not actually exist, it was deemed to exist, but in real life, we tend to shoot at targets we can see, and don't shoot at targets we can't see, no matter what the rule says about the wall. See item ONE.

Third: shooting through an opaque wall at a target could certainly be done, but keep in mind that there are possibly other, more severe consequences for doing so. Also consider that if a competitor can't actually see a target, most of the time they won't shoot at it. It's not that common an occurrence, despite all the "what if" scenarios presented here. In this case, though, it was stated that this was a deliberate act. If so, then you must act accordingly.

Deal with the situation as it exists; break it down into it's component parts and see if the rule(s) is satisfied for each part. Try not to read into the rule what you want it to say, but see what it actually does say. That's all I've been trying to get you to do, but many of you focus on one rule and ignore the rest. There are at least 3 or 4 different sections involved in this particular case, and yes, the DQ is a possibility. You can't discount that because we assume the competitor wasn't moving, or don't know how far away the target was. You must consider every aspect.

I am most definitely not advocating treating any wall differently, whether it's a rules wall or not. I am advocating thinking about and ruling on each situation on a case by case basis. Walls are deemed to be impenetrable and to extend to the ground. No argument from me there. Most (all?) people understand that and go with it. Set up a course where a target is visible like this one and you are inviting trouble. So, when something like this happens, you have to make a ruling. My main point here was that he did fire shots at a target. Nothing in the rule book can take that away. You have to decide where to go from there, but you have to do it by the rules. That's how I always try to operate when I work a match--most problems are simple, some, like this one, require some extra effort.

Carry on. Have a good weekend. Go shoot somewhere.

Troy

Edited July 23, 2011 by mactiger

[mactiger]

Troy,

<snip>

There is an example in the rulebook where a target can be visible and it can not be engaged, by rule, and since the penalty is a failure to engage, that is important in my pea sized brain.

Show me that rule, please.

Troy

[Nik Habicht]

Troy,

<snip>

There is an example in the rulebook where a target can be visible and it can not be engaged, by rule, and since the penalty is a failure to engage, that is important in my pea sized brain.

Show me that rule, please.

Troy

I'm not Scott, but he might have been thinking of this:

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates the target movement.

[Loves2Shoot]

Troy,

<snip>

There is an example in the rulebook where a target can be visible and it can not be engaged, by rule, and since the penalty is a failure to engage, that is important in my pea sized brain.

Show me that rule, please.

Troy

Disappearing target . . . . . .A target which when activated and after completing its

movement is no longer available for engagement.

Sort of says to me that targets can not always be engaged even if they are seen just because you fire a shot at them. Reading every other rule that contains engage or engagement paints a picture of how the word is used in the book that says I can determine if it was not able to be engaged = FTE. This is clearly the ruling of the type of target you compared this situation to to draw your opinion.

1. I had no disagreement it is bad stage design, but I didn't see FA apply that per the previous poster Morphire either.

2. If you declare FA he gets an advantage due to his mistake, regardless of poor stage design. This is not fair to his competitors since you said it is a legal presentation, but a scoring nightmare. He made the shots, the wall was not small and he had to shoot under it. 2.2.3.3. Again the FA just will repeat the rules in place. Scoring nightmare, I don't know, word travels fast on a range, down 40 makes people pay attention, DQ even more so. Stage designers are always trying to trick shooters, that one could trick a GM with a target behind a wall was a feat.

3. I have always understood that if they can't see it they won't shooting it, but you are still saying you can treat the target presented behind a partial wall differently than a wall that hides it. That is problematic, but I understand why you wouldn't treat them the same from a match administration standpoint. In reading the FA rule, I didn't see match administration nightmare as a reason to issue it. That is why I prodded you to reply since you said you were "out."

4. "...shooting through an opaque wall at a target could certainly be done, but keep in mind that there are possibly other, more severe consequences for doing so." Well I'd like to see the rule that makes ruling through a solid a wall different than under the visible part of a partial wall, and that was why it appears you are saying that you can score/rule differently on partial walls than you would on real walls. If he is a GM, odd are pretty good he was moving too, but that is speculation and was left out of the OP.

Thanks again, and I for one am going shooting this weekend.

Without RO', CRO's, RM's and the rest, we don't have a sport, so thanks to all who do donate you time, energies and money to allow folks like me to play the best game in the world

Edited July 23, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[mactiger]

Those rules are not even remotely relevant to this discussion. I've never seen anyone twist the rules language around to prove a meaningless point as much as I have in these last few posts.

I give up. In fact, I don't even know why I bothered in the first place.

[Nik Habicht]

2. If you declare FA he gets an advantage due to his mistake, regardless of poor stage design.

It's not just the competitor's mistake though, is it? He had help from the designer, builders, RO, CRO, and RM -- all of whom should have caught the hole in the stage design. To turn this around -- why should this competitor get screwed, and all of the other shooters in the division get an assist, due to the inability of the match staff to recognize that the low target was visible -- and therefore might be engaged "in good faith" by any competitor in the heat of the moment?

Once a problem is identified, it either needs to be fixed, if possible, or the stage needs to go.....

[driver8M3]

2. If you declare FA he gets an advantage due to his mistake, regardless of poor stage design.

It's not just the competitor's mistake though, is it? He had help from the designer, builders, RO, CRO, and RM -- all of whom should have caught the hole in the stage design. To turn this around -- why should this competitor get screwed, and all of the other shooters in the division get an assist, due to the inability of the match staff to recognize that the low target was visible -- and therefore might be engaged "in good faith" by any competitor in the heat of the moment?

would you say the same thing about a target that is intended to be shot from one location but can also be seen and potentially shot while breaking the 180? isnt the shooter responsible for knowing the rules, safety and otherwise? would you suggest that stage builders also need to hide targets that are behind screen walls, so that a shooter doesn't "get screwed" by shooting such a target through the screen wall?

one of our clubs routinely uses low targets that can be shot from under a wall instead of through a port as required. i never thought of this as a stage design problem....it's even specifically allowed. it fact, i believe they set it up intentionally so that the targets are close the the port (and thus can often be seen from under the wall), as they want the rounds going closer to straight down to avoid the possibility of having rounds skip out of the bay)

[Loves2Shoot]

To turn this around -- why should this competitor get screwed, and all of the other shooters in the division get an assist, due to the inability of the match staff to recognize that the low target was visible -- and therefore might be engaged "in good faith" by any competitor in the heat of the moment?

I couldn't find that rule. If competitors don't know how partial walls work, then they get educated, not screwed. We don't give shooters a reshoot and FA if they shoot weakhand and support it do we?

I'd lay money that the guys who originally said you can't engage moving targets before they start or after they stop knew we would remove solid walls and replace them with partials, see through, and snow fence, they would have added that you can't engage targets behind the transparent/invisible part of a wall. I guess I'm stupid for thinking that if they wanted you to engage moving targets when they were in action that that would translate to engaging targets when they are visible AND the shots could hit the target by rule. I guess I read to much into that specific language.

I'm done too, if FA covers bad, but legal stage design, we all now know what to do I just wish the rule book said that specifically.

Sorry for wasting anyone's time. It appears a few other folks were a bit confused also.

Call the RM and be done with it is my call now if I'm the RO. If I'm a good CRO, I check the stage before anyone shoots it.

I don't know if NROI is glad or scared that people got out the rulebook and debated this.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Loves2Shoot]

[

It's not just the competitor's mistake though, is it?

Yes. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm an idiot when it comes to the rules, but I know better than to shoot targets through walls (or try to under them.) The competitor is responsible for knowing the rules and following them.

My last rulebook post in this thread (I hope I don't screw this one up also.)

8. Practical competition is free-style. In essence, the competitive problem is

posed in general and the participant is permitted the freedom to solve it in

the manner he considers best within the limitations of the competitive situation

as provided.