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

[JThompson]

MarkCO> I don't think that rule 10.2.11 applies in this case

I agree. You certainly can shoot at a target you can not see, and we have engaged targets we could not see. For instance, a sheet or black plastic strung up to obscure targets is soft cover, we shoot through that.

So Singlestack, on a tight shot around a corner of a wall, a competitor has 2 full diameter hits in the wall, no hits on target...you are going to give that shooter an FTE? No way, and this has happened at at least 2 majors I know of and the penalty was 2 misses. This is that same thing except there was only a virtual wall, not an actual physical wall. If the RO can positively determine that the rounds went under the wall (or within the frame of the wall constituting hard cover), then that is all that matters. The bullets, by rule are deemed to have stopped at the plane of the wall and "missed" the target. If you say the target was not engaged, then you should stop the shooter and give him a DQ for unsafe gun handling.

What you may not be thinking about is the target was available to shoot around that wall, it is not available from under a wall. So your FTE for the shots that hit the corner of a wall or 2x4 where a target is available is not the same issue.

JT

[CHA-LEE]

Loves2Shoot> I am not sure now given the verbiage of the rule book. The term "Shoot at" is pretty loose is you ask me. I am just being the devils advocate here taking the stance of this shooter during the match.

In this particular situation the shooter still got his hits on the target and was assessed 1 Procedural penalty. Which rule was used to back up the procedural I don't know. I was not the RO in this situation, just an observer who pointed out that we can't engage targets under walls. I at the time felt that he should have at least been given 2 mikes and possibly an FTE. Now that we have talked about his, it would have made more sense to simply call the MD and have him declare a forbidden action to engage the target under the wall or simply change the stage to visually block the target then require the shooter to reshoot the stage. I think this would have been the best course of action without beating the shooter over the head with the rule book. Our squad started the match on this stage and no other shooters engaged this target in the same manner so changing the stage or defining a forbidden action would have been easy without affecting the rest of the shooters in the match.

[Sarge]

call the MD and have him declare a forbidden action to engage the target under the wall or simply change the stage to visually block the target then require the shooter to reshoot the stage.

I don't see declaring a forbidden action on something that is clearly outlined in the rules as not being possible. Impenetrable means nothing went through. It's a stretch but bullet proof glass comes to mind as the only impenetrable material you can see through. But then the target would not be hidden. So I think for our applications Impenetrable means you can't shoot or see through it. So FTE.

Also, you said have the forbidden action declared for shooting "under" the wall. By the rules you already can not shoot under a wall.

[JThompson]

Loves2Shoot> I am not sure now given the verbiage of the rule book. The term "Shoot at" is pretty loose is you ask me. I am just being the devils advocate here taking the stance of this shooter during the match.

In this particular situation the shooter still got his hits on the target and was assessed 1 Procedural penalty. Which rule was used to back up the procedural I don't know. I was not the RO in this situation, just an observer who pointed out that we can't engage targets under walls. I at the time felt that he should have at least been given 2 mikes and possibly an FTE. Now that we have talked about his, it would have made more sense to simply call the MD and have him declare a forbidden action to engage the target under the wall or simply change the stage to visually block the target then require the shooter to reshoot the stage. I think this would have been the best course of action without beating the shooter over the head with the rule book. Our squad started the match on this stage and no other shooters engaged this target in the same manner so changing the stage or defining a forbidden action would have been easy without affecting the rest of the shooters in the match.

At a local if that happened and we were the first one I would go ahead and call it out in the WSB even though it's addressed in the rules. "All walls go from construction height to the ground" Break the book out and show him why he can't do that, have him reshoot it and call it a day. The bottom line on a lot of this stuff should be a good chance to teach people the rules, so when they hit that major they don't get toasted on it.

If people are honest about what really happens at LI matches you will find this stuff happens all the time and the guy get's a laugh a grin and a nice try look from the RO. Ya make any mods to the stage and the WSB needed and move on. I'm not saying the rules shouldn't be followed, I'm just saying there are times when a learning session and a quick mod are better than a 20 min argument ending up with people pissed off.

JT

Edited July 8, 2011 by JThompson

[sperman]

Let's say the wall is 8' wide, made of plywood and goes all the way to the ground. If a shooter engages a target in the middle of the wall, even if he gets his hits, I'm calling an FTE. You can't "shoot at" a target if it is behind a wall. I'm not talking about leaning around the edge of a wall. If the shooter has to move 3 or 4 steps to "shoot at" the target, it isn't available from the current location. 2 Mikes, 1 FTE, + 1 FTDR for good measure.

[JThompson]

Let's say the wall is 8' wide, made of plywood and goes all the way to the ground. If a shooter engages a target in the middle of the wall, even if he gets his hits, I'm calling an FTE. You can't "shoot at" a target if it is behind a wall. I'm not talking about leaning around the edge of a wall. If the shooter has to move 3 or 4 steps to "shoot at" the target, it isn't available from the current location. 2 Mikes, 1 FTE, + 1 FTDR for good measure.

[Ray_Z]

It's obvious that what the shooter did was a procedural error. Also the advantage was there over other shooters each shot. I would give per shot procedurals for each shot fired at that target.

[bluenite]

Break the book out and show him why he can't do that, have him reshoot it and call it a day.

The best thing you can teach a shooter is that they need to read the rulebook, applying the appropriate penalties will help do that.

There is no allowance in the rulebook to give a shooter a reshoot for saying they did not know the rules.

Leonard

[bluenite]

Maybe this will help:

Disappearing target…….and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement.

You can still see the target but it is not available for engagement.

A target entirely behind hard cover whether you can see it or not is not available for engagement from that location.

[wide45]

Engage?

There is no rule that penalizes a competitor for not engaging a target.

10.2.7 is the rule in question.

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.

If the competitor has shot holes in the target, he has unquestionably shot at it. His hits may not be counted for score, but 10.2.7 does not require that they be.

2 mikes. No other penalty.

[JThompson]

Break the book out and show him why he can't do that, have him reshoot it and call it a day.

The best thing you can teach a shooter is that they need to read the rulebook, applying the appropriate penalties will help do that.

There is no allowance in the rulebook to give a shooter a reshoot for saying they did not know the rules.

Leonard

Yes... and we all are agreed on the proper rule.

IT

[sperman]

Engage?

There is no rule that penalizes a competitor for not engaging a target.

10.2.7 is the rule in question.

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.

If the competitor has shot holes in the target, he has unquestionably shot at it. His hits may not be counted for score, but 10.2.7 does not require that they be.

2 mikes. No other penalty.

What if the wall is steel, instead of plywood? Can he shoot at a target through a steel wall?

[Loves2Shoot]

Hard cover is impenetrable, regardless of the actual material (or lack of) so if there are hit on the cover under a wall, the hits don't exists. That's my understanding anyway.

[Don Springer]

My vote is DQ for unsafe gun handeling.

10.4.2.2 In the case of a shot striking a prop where the bullet is deflected

or does not continue to strike the ground, if the Range Official

determines that the bullet would have struck the ground within

10 feet of the competitor had it not been deflected or stopped by

the prop, the provisions of 10.4.2 shall apply.

Bring me back a Snickers Blizzard.

[coldchar]

Hard cover is impenetrable, regardless of the actual material (or lack of) so if there are hit on the cover under a wall, the hits don't exists. That's my understanding anyway.

I hear you intuitively but.......

In RO class the scoring is done at two levels. The first is what happens at the shooting line, i.e. the shooter shot under the wall, which to my way of thinking was directly into hard cover. No penalty.

Then, you go downrange and deal with the targets. Can you as the RO determine what were effectively the shoot thrus. Hopefully while you were watching the gun, the board guy was doing his job, watching for foot faults, finger on the trigger and what was happening down range.

If he can identify the shoot thrus through the hard cover, go ahead and score. If he can not identify what was shot thru the hard cover, may be an reshoot?

Help George...

[Sarge]

My vote is DQ for unsafe gun handeling.

10.4.2.2 In the case of a shot striking a prop where the bullet is deflected

or does not continue to strike the ground, if the Range Official

determines that the bullet would have struck the ground within

10 feet of the competitor had it not been deflected or stopped by

the prop, the provisions of 10.4.2 shall apply.

Bring me back a Snickers Blizzard.

[Don Springer]

I guess you'd have to use a little imagination.

[Joe4d]

i couldnt find it but isnt it a DQ to intentionally shoot a prop ? I the imaginary prop goes to the ground would he get an imaginary DQ ?

On serious note, 2 mikes, No such thing as a FTE in USPSA. The rule is shoot at, he shot at it.

[spanky]

No such thing as an FTE?

Definitely no reshoot, regardless L1 or not.

I'm torn on the FTE so I'll watch and learn.

[ChuckS]

Look what I found in the index on page 95:

Procedural Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Assistance/Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.6

Cooper Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.2.5

Creeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.2.6

Failure to Engage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.2.7

[GrumpyOne]

On the FTE, he did not engage the Target, he engaged the wall, which by definition is impenetrable. The hits on the Target don't count. The FTE comes in cause he never engaged the target.

[Joe4d]

looks like a problem with the index, 10.2.7 says nothing about FTE, maybe an older rule book did,

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.

[z40acp]

Are you telling me if at your shoot, I engage a swinging target and accidentally shoot through the wall, I get two mikes and a FTE? He did engage the target, just not from where you wanted him to and for that he earns two mikes. If the RO thinks it gave him an advantage there rules for that. I just don't think -20 was a very good game plan.

[Sarge]

Are you telling me if at your shoot, I engage a swinging target and accidentally shoot through the wall, I get two mikes and a FTE?

Totally different circumstances. You can SEE the target when it is out from behind cover. When it is behind hard cover such as the wall in this thread you can't see it to shoot at it. The rules allow simulated hard cover which you can technically see through but in reality the target is unavailable.

You are just shooting into the wall in this scenario.

[sperman]

The fact that the walls we use don't go all the way to the ground, or may be made of snow fence, doesn't change the fact that in our imaginary world they are solid and impenetrable. You can't shoot at a target through snow fence any more than you can shoot at a target through a solid steel wall. Like GrumpyOne said, all you've done is shoot at the wall.