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

[Nik Habicht]

The competitor is responsible for knowing the rules and following them.

So are the folks putting on the match. We need both of them to be on the same page for this to work -- and I believe most of the time they are.....

And we need a way to deal with problems discovered during the match. At that point it's already a bad situation, but the choices are either to fix it and attempt to save the stage, or to toss the stage....

Either course of action has the potential to affect the match outcome. Nobody involved in the match, from RM and MD down to the newest competitor wants these situations to occur, but sometimes despite best efforts, they do....

If you don't want to admit the "ruling" is problematic, OK. The rules say the walls are legal, the presentation is legal, the shooter made the shots.

I'm accountable for my shots and MY WALK THROUGH. I don't blame match staff or stage designers for my mistakes. That probably is why I don't agree that if the presentation was legal, even if bad, I should get a reshoot, even if the FA can be used outside of safety and loopholes. Blowing a hole into into a stage is no loophole in my tiny brain.

The ONLY solution I see to cure this type of issue, is to back to real walls if NROI says you can shoot at targets behind hard cover. Heck, there are targets at Area 1 that you could have forced a FA/reshoot using the rulings presented here, and they were dang fine stages.

I hope everyone who uses a car in their stage says you can't shoot though the windows, because you can see the targets through them.

The presentation violates 1.1.5 -- so legality is not as absolute as you state it is.....

[Loves2Shoot]

2.2.3.3, 9.1.6, 9.1.6.1 and the part of 1.1.5 you leave out

However, conditions may be created,

and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel

a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

We'll agree to disagree as I think all walls are equal and you don't.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[wide45]

This is a game.

It has rules.

The rules state that walls (no matter what they are made of. Steel, wood, air whatever) are impenetrable.

Bullets can't make holes in them (the walls).

So, just like the holes that are not in the wall, there are no holes in the target behind the wall.

The holes are not there.

Scoring problem fixed.

Does not change the fact that the target was shot at.

[Loves2Shoot]

Shot at through a wall, and NROI consensus is that is ok if no DQ applies (per Troy.) Since they have decide you can engage (shoot at) targets through walls but the hits will not score and no FTE, do not score the stage, FA, restate you can't shoot through the wall, hide the target physically be it solid wall, partial wall, snow fence, windscreen, ect., reshoot.

[Singlestack]

Does not change the fact that the target was shot at.

This is a game.

It has rules.

The game rules suspend reality. You can't mix reality and rules reality. It's one way or the other. The target was not shot at because the target can't be seen.

2 mikes, 1 FTE/FTSA.

[Dan Burwell]

The target was not shot at because the target can't be seen.

Care to quote a rule on that?

the is because I know you can not.

No where in the rule book does it say you have to be able to see (reality or rules reality) in order to "shoot at" it or engage it. It only says when the shots count for score and when they don't. This is the whole reason that this thread has gone on for so long. We all know what we'd like the book to say or what we think the book says but the reality is that it doesn't say a target must be visible in order to "shoot at" it.

[Loves2Shoot]

Does not change the fact that the target was shot at.

This is a game.

It has rules.

The game rules suspend reality. You can't mix reality and rules reality. It's one way or the other. The target was not shot at because the target can't be seen.

2 mikes, 1 FTE/FTSA.

Well, I tried to point out that at level 1, you can't engage movers before or after they are done moving and they say engage, and that is apparently the most twisting of words some people have ever seen. But since that would seem to say not all targets that you see are always available, there is a camp of thought that say, that example doesn't matter because those targets aren't available to be engaged (shot at) during those circumstances. All that matter is "shot at" regardless of be it a shot that has zero chance of scoring a hit by rule.

Saying that targets you can not see or "invisible or never appearing target" per rule" are not ruled similarly as "disappearing" (in that they can only be engaged when they can be seen from a position where they can be shot at with scoring hit) is a huge perversion of the rules, even thought the words used are engage, and it actually makes more sense to most folks that you can't engage targets you can't shot at per rule or hit with legally scoring hits.

I see your point, there are circumstances where that what you said is true, but this case, that doesn't hold, because per the NROI consensus agrees that you can't take shots back and FTE uses "shot at" at the requirement. The fact that you can't hit target through a wall will not stop them from ruling you can try if you do not DQ first.

Reality apparently has no impact on rule.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[wide45]

It has rules.

It sure does. The rules are what is actually written in the book.

We all know what "shoot at" means.

That is the rule, the competitor must shoot at the target.

"Shoot at" does not mean two different things depending on the involvement of a wall.

"shoot at" always means the same thing.

[Loves2Shoot]

We all know what "shoot at" means.

"shoot at" always means the same thing.

No we don't or there wouldn't be the debate.

No, you can't "shoot at" moving targets for purpose of engagement after they have stopped moving, so it doesn't always mean the same thing.

[wide45]

Well, I tried to point out that at level 1, you can't engage movers before or after they are done moving

Wrong again.

You do not get a failure to engage, it's a procedural penalty for failing to comply with the wsb.

9.9.4 Level I matches only - If the written stage briefing prohibits the engagement of certain targets prior to activation, the competitor will incur one procedural penalty per shot fired at such targets prior to oper- ating the activating mechanism, up to the maximum number of avail- able hits (see Rule 2.1.8.5.1).

And targets that remain visable after movement can still be shot.

[wide45]

...No, you can't "shoot at" moving targets for purpose of engagement after they have stopped moving, so it doesn't always mean the same thing.

Completely wrong.

[Loves2Shoot]

Am I wrong?

Appendix A3

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

movement is no longer available for engagement.

[wide45]

Am I wrong?

Appendix A3

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

movement is no longer available for engagement.

Yep, wrong.

A target that remains visable after movement is not a disappearing target.

You are never required to shoot at a disappearing target.

[Loves2Shoot]

Ok, how am I wrong.

I didn't say you had to be able to see it, or there was a penalty, but it does say that is no longer available for engagement. Any shots fired at it would not count for engagement after it stopped moving, even thought the shots happened, and not that the shots would NEED to count for engagement, but those shots happened and could not count for engagement.

In the case of mesh, snow fence, or other semi transparent walls, you might even actually be able to see a disappearing target when it was "disappeared". Sort of like a target behind a snow fence, mesh, or partial wall.

[Loves2Shoot]

The target was not shot at because the target can't be seen.

Care to quote a rule on that?

the is because I know you can not.

No where in the rule book does it say you have to be able to see (reality or rules reality) in order to "shoot at" it or engage it. It only says when the shots count for score and when they don't. This is the whole reason that this thread has gone on for so long. We all know what we'd like the book to say or what we think the book says but the reality is that it doesn't say a target must be visible in order to "shoot at" it.

Why did the add a definition of disappearing target in the appendix and use the word engagement since there is no penalty associated with FTEing it?

[Loves2Shoot]

PS. With NROI's consensus, I wouldn't issue a FTE at this point. From the start, I think there were greater penalties to be issued, and people asked for examples, by rule and that is what I've tried to do.

[Nik Habicht]

Ok, how am I wrong.

I didn't say you had to be able to see it, or there was a penalty, but it does say that is no longer available for engagement. Any shots fired at it would not count for engagement after it stopped moving, even thought the shots happened, and not that the shots would NEED to count for engagement, but those shots happened and could not count for engagement.

In the case of mesh, snow fence, or other semi transparent walls, you might even actually be able to see a disappearing target when it was "disappeared". Sort of like a target behind a snow fence, mesh, or partial wall.

Scott,

if a moving target disappears -- there's no miss or failure to engage penalty. See Section 9.9 of the rulebook for scoring of moving targets.

Level 1 matches may require (by writing it into the WSB) that movers be activated prior to being shot at. Once activated, the shooter may choose to wait until they stop moving, prior to shooting at the target, if the shooter wishes.....

To get back to an earlier statement of yours -- no I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you passed an RO class with a percentage in the high 90s. Most folks who are willing to put the time in can manage that -- and clearly anyone who can make it to GM in the sport has no shortage of determination to excel at any chosen activity. Are you still a certified RO? Have you taken a refresher recently?

By some of the statements you make about the rules we're operating under currently, it doesn't seem you've kept up....

[Nik Habicht]

The target was not shot at because the target can't be seen.

Care to quote a rule on that?

the is because I know you can not.

No where in the rule book does it say you have to be able to see (reality or rules reality) in order to "shoot at" it or engage it. It only says when the shots count for score and when they don't. This is the whole reason that this thread has gone on for so long. We all know what we'd like the book to say or what we think the book says but the reality is that it doesn't say a target must be visible in order to "shoot at" it.

Why did the add a definition of disappearing target in the appendix and use the word engagement since there is no penalty associated with FTEing it?

Most likely to clear up the change from the prior wording -- remember how once upon a time miss penalties and FTEs applied to movers that presented more than once? You've also got the minimum A-zone requirements to contend with at this point -- which would become important in the "final rest" position for any activated targets that stop moving at some point....

[Loves2Shoot]

Nik,

Read post 514, you are repeating what I said (again) and are still repeating things I already know.

When I see a wall, I see it per 2.2.3.3. It goes to the ground, is impenetrable, and I can't see through it, just like a real wall. You don't have to agree with me, but in a walk through, that is what I do.

[wide45]

Ok, how am I wrong.

I didn't say you had to be able to see it, or there was a penalty, but it does say that is no longer available for engagement. Any shots fired at it would not count for engagement after it stopped moving, even thought the shots happened, and not that the shots would NEED to count for engagement, but those shots happened and could not count for engagement.

In the case of mesh, snow fence, or other semi transparent walls, you might even actually be able to see a disappearing target when it was "disappeared". Sort of like a target behind a snow fence, mesh, or partial wall.

That is certainly not what is says. Read it again.

Edited July 24, 2011 by wide45

[Morphire]

Troy is saying you can "shoot at" a target even if you can't (or aren't supposed to be able to) see it. FTE is defined as failure to shoot at.

Consider the other case: if a wall are as tall as built (unless otherwise specified in a WSB) and a shooter sticks his strong hand over a wall and "shoots at" a target on the other side of the wall. If it's a solid wall he can't even see the target. Will you give the shooter an FTSA penalty if he completely misses that target? I don't think there is a requirement that one has to see the target to shoot at it.

Actually I believe 1.1.5 states that.

The problem for me as an RO isn't that you can't see the target though. A very tall shooter could see over the wall and engage the target with visibility that a very short competitor might not. If that's the intent of the stage then you get to argue inequity of the challenge presented and would likely get a FA stating all walls go upwards to infinity as well.

But

In the scenario you mentioned, the bullets passed from pistol to target without encountering a hardcover obstacle and thusly the target was accessible and therefore no FTE. Visibility has nothing to do with it. That's the point I've been trying to make. The fact that the target was visible or not shouldn't have anything to do with it's ability to be engaged and prevent an FTE. It's all about whether it was accessible from the position where it was engaged either through being unavailable from hardcover or from a rules designation. If it's not available then you can't have shot at the face of the target, only the objects that were in front of it which by definition are impenetrable.

It's not a point of visibility but of availability. The problem with this whole enchilada seems to me to be 1.1.5 where it states "Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an 'as and when visible' basis". This is the only requirement for dealing with visibility that I've been able to find in my searching and it specifically refers to shooting a target and not hitting a target. The "as and when visible" could/should be changed to "as and when available" and you have a rule that more closely reflects the rest of the rule book. Visibility shouldn't be a requirement for when a target is able to be shot at when the rules allow for transparent and even non-existent hardcover. If you make 1.1.5 about availability then everything seems to fall into place for me at least. No rules conflict and it comes down to availability and not visibility so all the hardcover is treated equally and universally.

[wide45]

Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permit- ted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to com- pel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

Targets that are visible may be shot. Does not say that targets that are not visible may not be shot.

Nothing about "availability".

Targets need not be "available" to be shot. The shot may not score, but it is a shot at a target.

[DrawandDuck]

So, let me see if I understand....say a shooter blows by a port with 3 targets gets to the end of course of fire then remembers he missed them....they are down range but NOT visible due to a wall, so he caps off 3 rounds into my perfecty good wall and states he will not receive the FTE penalities because he engaged them, is that what "one side" is stating?

[wide45]

If he was shooting at the targets, then he can not be given a penalty for not shooting at the targets.

[Schutzenmeister]

So, let me see if I understand....say a shooter blows by a port with 3 targets gets to the end of course of fire then remembers he missed them....they are down range but NOT visible due to a wall, so he caps off 3 rounds into my perfecty good wall and states he will not receive the FTE penalities because he engaged them, is that what "one side" is stating?

If he was shooting at the targets, then he can not be given a penalty for not shooting at the targets.

Maybe ... maybe not. (Remember, the RMIs were split in their thoughts on the subject!)

Nevertheless - Given the situation described above, I would most certainly issue a 10.6.1 DQ. This is unsportsmanlike conduct personified.

Moderators ... This subject is way out of control. I respectfully submit that it be closed pending some sort of official ruling from DNROI and supported by the BoD.