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

[Coach]

Wow. Makes me nervous about the upcoming Indiana Sectional. Something this simple can be seen from so many perspectives. I think one big step here is the importance of stage design and setup. The lesson I am taking away is that if you have an intent you had better make it clear through the use of props.

What about this? No walls going to the ground to infinity or from the top of the prop to the ground for any level of match. How about if you can see them you can engage them. This means a little more work for Lazy Larry setting up stages at club matches but it does simply things with all levels of matches and sticks nicely to the freestyle theme of USPSA that is so near and dear to many of us.

[Morphire]

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

At what point do you call it shooting at a prop or a wall and not shooting at a target then? Is the RO not allowed to use common sense?

[Morphire]

Wow. Makes me nervous about the upcoming Indiana Sectional. Something this simple can be seen from so many perspectives. I think one big step here is the importance of stage design and setup. The lesson I am taking away is that if you have an intent you had better make it clear through the use of props.

What about this? No walls going to the ground to infinity or from the top of the prop to the ground for any level of match. How about if you can see them you can engage them. This means a little more work for Lazy Larry setting up stages at club matches but it does simply things with all levels of matches and sticks nicely to the freestyle theme of USPSA that is so near and dear to many of us.

Actually that doesn't solve the issue at hand. The walls and other props, in the believe on one side of the argument, have no impact on the competitor shooting at a target so the competitor could still just shoot up all your walls and props and relieve himself of any FTEs. Stage design doesn't fix this problem if indeed the rules are to be interpreted that you can shoot through a prop to circumvent an FTE.

[sperman]

I think it's great that some areas of the country have a warehouse full of equipment, and a seemingly endless supply of volunteers to help setup for the match. Please understand that isn't the case everywhere. I think you're use of "Lazy Larry" is a little insulting considering people are setting up matches per the current edition of the USPSA rulebook.

Talk to me when you've shown up an hour before the match director with the intent of setting up 3 of 5 stages on a Saturday morning for a match that starts at 10. The club has a nice selection of target stands and poppers. You want walls, go buy them. You want fault lines, go buy them. You want barrels, find some on your own. Some of us have to make do with what we have, and if that means we don't have time to actually make walls that go all the way to the ground (when the rulebook says they don't have to) I'm sorry if that makes us lazy.

I agree that this conversation would have never taken place if the walls went all of the way to the ground. The rulebook says walls that stop short of the ground are the same as walls that go all the way to the ground.

I really hope that NROI will issue a ruling that the BOD approves. I can't wait to read it.

[Morphire]

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.

Hense my desire to have the powers that be look into whether or not the word "available" is better suited to the rule than visible since there are situations where visibility causes hangups in the execution of a legal stage design.

[DrawandDuck]

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

Just so I am clear, look at the attached stage......by what you are saying the shooter could actually shoot through 3 walls(in this example) at a target he forgot to "engage" and NOT receive a FTE penalty? No, I am not dense and understand what you are saying but that is crazy....If a shooter pulled this at my match he would most certainly NOT be welcomed back....and receive 2 Mikes & a FTE.

[Coach]

I think it's great that some areas of the country have a warehouse full of equipment, and a seemingly endless supply of volunteers to help setup for the match. Please understand that isn't the case everywhere. I think you're use of "Lazy Larry" is a little insulting considering people are setting up matches per the current edition of the USPSA rulebook.

Talk to me when you've shown up an hour before the match director with the intent of setting up 3 of 5 stages on a Saturday morning for a match that starts at 10. The club has a nice selection of target stands and poppers. You want walls, go buy them. You want fault lines, go buy them. You want barrels, find some on your own. Some of us have to make do with what we have, and if that means we don't have time to actually make walls that go all the way to the ground (when the rulebook says they don't have to) I'm sorry if that makes us lazy.

I agree that this conversation would have never taken place if the walls went all of the way to the ground. The rulebook says walls that stop short of the ground are the same as walls that go all the way to the ground.

I really hope that NROI will issue a ruling that the BOD approves. I can't wait to read it.

I am the match director and have spent a few hours doing set up. Props to hide a swinger or other such activators and things are not that hard to come by. A little scrouging and dumpster diving will turn them up. I was not meaning to insult anyone in particular with the Lazy Larry comment but I have shot a ton of club level matches where there are walls and props laying around and just did not get used because it was a level one match.

I don't need any tone about not doing my part for club matches. I do my part and then some and therefore feel like I have room to say the level one rule could go.

[Morphire]

I don't need any tone about not doing my part for club matches. I do my part and then some and therefore feel like I have room to say the level one rule could go.

Where the level 1 rule really shines is at indoor matches where they really don't have walls due to storage constraints.

[sperman]

Want to move to Charlotte and run a match?

Let me know what stage you are working this weekend. I'll be sure to say "Hi". Hopefully there won't be any walls that stop short in Warsaw.

[Nik Habicht]

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

At what point do you call it shooting at a prop or a wall and not shooting at a target then? Is the RO not allowed to use common sense?

Technically, never, though depending on the situation, parts of 10.4 could apply.....

Honestly -- has anyone seen a competitor deliberately shoot at a solid wall in order to not receive a FTSA penalty? I haven't seen it in a decade. Everyone I've handed out or seen handed out involved a shooter going "Oh, crap" or something equally colorful when we scored the stage -- the shooter typically had no idea he'd skipped a target.....

[Nik Habicht]

I think it's great that some areas of the country have a warehouse full of equipment, and a seemingly endless supply of volunteers to help setup for the match. Please understand that isn't the case everywhere. I think you're use of "Lazy Larry" is a little insulting considering people are setting up matches per the current edition of the USPSA rulebook.

Talk to me when you've shown up an hour before the match director with the intent of setting up 3 of 5 stages on a Saturday morning for a match that starts at 10. The club has a nice selection of target stands and poppers. You want walls, go buy them. You want fault lines, go buy them. You want barrels, find some on your own. Some of us have to make do with what we have, and if that means we don't have time to actually make walls that go all the way to the ground (when the rulebook says they don't have to) I'm sorry if that makes us lazy.

I agree that this conversation would have never taken place if the walls went all of the way to the ground. The rulebook says walls that stop short of the ground are the same as walls that go all the way to the ground.

I really hope that NROI will issue a ruling that the BOD approves. I can't wait to read it.

I am the match director and have spent a few hours doing set up. Props to hide a swinger or other such activators and things are not that hard to come by. A little scrouging and dumpster diving will turn them up. I was not meaning to insult anyone in particular with the Lazy Larry comment but I have shot a ton of club level matches where there are walls and props laying around and just did not get used because it was a level one match.

I don't need any tone about not doing my part for club matches. I do my part and then some and therefore feel like I have room to say the level one rule could go.

From a best practices standpoint, certainly you avoid problems if design/building allow you to not invoke the Level 1 exemption.

On the other hand, lots of developing clubs need that exemption in the rulebook as they get their matches going. Hopefully, as the matches grow, they are able to invest in additional props and supplies, but absent a very supportive hosting facility, that may take some time (years).....

[Morphire]

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

At what point do you call it shooting at a prop or a wall and not shooting at a target then? Is the RO not allowed to use common sense?

Technically, never, though depending on the situation, parts of 10.4 could apply.....

Honestly -- has anyone seen a competitor deliberately shoot at a solid wall in order to not receive a FTSA penalty? I haven't seen it in a decade. Everyone I've handed out or seen handed out involved a shooter going "Oh, crap" or something equally colorful when we scored the stage -- the shooter typically had no idea he'd skipped a target.....

I for one have never and would have never done it because I thought it was against the rules. Should it be ruled otherwise, then things might possibly change.

[Coach]

Want to move to Charlotte and run a match?

Let me know what stage you are working this weekend. I'll be sure to say "Hi". Hopefully there won't be any walls that stop short in Warsaw.

I am not working a stage. Rangemaster during the match. Leaving at 5:50am to drive up and spend the week setting up. No walls will be short in this match except by design. We don't write things as going to infinity or to the ground. If you can see it around a prop you can shoot it. There will be no FA's either. We run the match as freestyle as we can, and my club matches are the same.

I think there is a big difference about shooting through a wall or underneath. We should not make this a sport about memory on the part of a shooter. Vision barrier says don't shoot targets through here. A wall stopping short puts the shooters memory into play and that is not best.

Are there really that many clubs that are so strapped that they cannot afford some snow fence walls????

Never been to NC but for a good job yes I will move and run a match.

[BR]

Dear respected Forum Members-

I would have DQ'd that gamer SOB in a heartbeat. Seriously, what was he thinking, putting two rounds through an invisible wall into a wholly visible target? Okay, I have to admit, it sounds like he did it completely safely and within all the rules in the rule book, but he, literally, engaged a visible target through an invisible wall! God forbid -- by the rules it was a WALL dammit (albeit invisible), and even though I cannot find a single rule to support it, it seems obvious that shooting at that fully visible target through an invisible wall should be a disqualifying offense (still looking for that rule). Minimally it should have been a failure to shoot at under 9.5.7, even though clearly there were 2 hits on the face of the scoring target (still looking for that rule too). And then the unofficial majority of NROI does not support my position! How dare they - I demand a BOD vote on this, because it is SO important and we already do not have enough specificity in the USPSA rules.

But, at the end of the day, I would just rely on 10.6.1, because this competitor, playing our game, was clearly cheating, dishonest, failed to comply with the reasonable directions of the MD, and/or brought disrepute on our sport. Frankly, this is a game -- and for us to tolerate such behavior -- shooting a visible target through an invisible wall -- by a so-called "competitor" is just beyond the bounds of my comprehension. I, for one, think we should report this behavior to USPSA, and also formally ask this competitor to commit ritualistic seppuku for his violation of the unwritten "code."

By the way, JC and CP -- great shooting with you guys this weekend. Playing this game is a lot more fun than arguing about the rules. Cheers.

-br

Edited July 25, 2011 by BR

[CHA-LEE]

Dear respected Forum Members-

I would have DQ'd that gamer SOB in a heartbeat. Seriously, what was he thinking, putting two rounds through an invisible wall into a wholly visible target? Okay, I have to admit, it sounds like he did it completely safely and within all the rules in the rule book, but he, literally, engaged a visible target through an invisible wall! God forbid -- by the rules it was a WALL dammit (albeit invisible), and even though I cannot find a single rule to support it, it seems obvious that shooting at that fully visible target through an invisible wall should be a disqualifying offense (still looking for that rule). Minimally it should have been a failure to shoot at under 9.5.7, even though clearly there were 2 hits on the face of the scoring target (still looking for that rule too). And then the unofficial majority of NROI does not support my position! How dare they - I demand a BOD vote on this, because it is SO important and we already do not have enough specificity in the USPSA rules.

But, at the end of the day, I would just rely on 10.6.1, because this competitor, playing our game, was clearly cheating, dishonest, failed to comply with the reasonable directions of the MD, and/or brought disrepute on our sport. Frankly, this is a game -- and for us to tolerate such behavior -- shooting a visible target through an invisible wall -- by a so-called "competitor" is just beyond the bounds of my comprehension. I, for one, think we should report this behavior to USPSA, and also formally ask this competitor to commit ritualistic seppuku for his violation of the unwritten "code."

By the way, JC and CP -- great shooting with you guys this weekend. Playing this game is a lot more fun than arguing about the rules. Cheers.

-br

AWESOME

[ima45dv8]

Dear respected Forum Members-

I would have DQ'd that gamer SOB in a heartbeat. Seriously, what was he thinking, putting two rounds through an invisible wall into a wholly visible target? Okay, I have to admit, it sounds like he did it completely safely and within all the rules in the rule book, but he, literally, engaged a visible target through an invisible wall! God forbid -- by the rules it was a WALL dammit (albeit invisible), and even though I cannot find a single rule to support it, it seems obvious that shooting at that fully visible target through an invisible wall should be a disqualifying offense (still looking for that rule). Minimally it should have been a failure to shoot at under 9.5.7, even though clearly there were 2 hits on the face of the scoring target (still looking for that rule too). And then the unofficial majority of NROI does not support my position! How dare they - I demand a BOD vote on this, because it is SO important and we already do not have enough specificity in the USPSA rules.

But, at the end of the day, I would just rely on 10.6.1, because this competitor, playing our game, was clearly cheating, dishonest, failed to comply with the reasonable directions of the MD, and/or brought disrepute on our sport. Frankly, this is a game -- and for us to tolerate such behavior -- shooting a visible target through an invisible wall -- by a so-called "competitor" is just beyond the bounds of my comprehension. I, for one, think we should report this behavior to USPSA, and also formally ask this competitor to commit ritualistic seppuku for his violation of the unwritten "code."

By the way, JC and CP -- great shooting with you guys this weekend. Playing this game is a lot more fun than arguing about the rules. Cheers.

-br

AWESOME

No, it's not so.....AWESOME.

It's easy to take a sarcastic attitude towards a discussion that has (surprisingly) lasted 22 pages only due to reasoned and restrained debate with very little emotional interjection. Anyone could make a stab at undermining that with little or no effort. That's the easy way out. More effort is required to make a valid argument in favor of, or opposed to, a specific position.

Make your case, folks. This ain't over yet.

[Steven Cline]

the rule is shoot at, NOT ENGAGE, the two phrases are not the same,

People are trying to use the definition of engage to say he violated a rule that doenst exist.

Engage :(the way it is being used) military to begin an action with (an enemy) yes I can see the argument, it is impossible to begin an action against an enemy or target 100% covered by hard. Its also has nothing to do with a USPSA rule book

The rule is failure to shoot at,

shoot, he pulled the trigger, I think we all agree he shot,

at :(used to indicate a point or place occupied in space); in, on, or near: to stand at the door; at the bottom of the barrel,

the holes are a dead give away he shot in on or near, his gun facing in the general direction of the position occupied in space of the targets when it went bang, also tells me he satisfied the requirement of "at"

If you write FTE on a scoresheet your credibility as an RO will head down the tubes.

I'm sorry, but this logic doesn't work for me. The only way you can provide proof that the shooter shot at the target was because there are holes in it. There are holes in the target only because the real world cover wasn't really ground to height and impenetrable.

Had reality met with the expectation of the rule (impenetrable ground to height cover [and the expecation the shooter would know this and not try such a lame gaming of the stage]) there would be no holes.

Then the lack of holes aren't from lack of trying to shoot "at" the target but from pure raw inability to shoot the target.

If we carried your logic to a reasonable end, a shooter could bypass the only place a target can be engaged, to a place where it was totally obscured and pop a round into or at a truly impenetrable hard cover and claim he shot AT the target and did not fail to engage the target.

We shouldn't try to use M-W to prove our position correct, we should instead look to what the RULES really say.

Here is why you are wrong, per the rules, and my assessment of penalties/misses:

Two Misses (because the shots passed wholely through hard-cover and therefor do not count)

Citation:

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as "soft cover" (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable "hard cover":

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.4.4 Each miss will be penalized twice the value of the maximum scoring hit available on that target, except in the case of Fixed Time or disappearing targets (see Rules 9.2.4.4 and 9.9.2).

AND

One Procedural (for failing to shoot at the face of a scoring target)

Citation:

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).

He did not shoot at the face of the scoring target because he can't shoot at the face of the scoring target from where he shot.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Steven Cline

[Dan Burwell]

Citation:

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).

He did not shoot at the face of the scoring target because he can't shoot at the face of the scoring target from where he shot.

You are reading something that isn't there. There is no requirement to shoot at the face only from where it is possible to get scoring hits. It just doesn't say that anywhere in the rule book and that is the problem. Read the PE rule again and tell me where it says the target must me shot at from a location where it is possible to get scoring hits:

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).

I completly understand your logic the problem is it is not supported by current written rules. That is the reason the RMIs reasoned what they reasoned.

I really feel this is one of those things we all believe that the shooter did something they shouldn't and should have gotten the PE for FTSA but it just isn't supported by the current wording of the rule book.

I suppose this is how we end up with new rules.

[spanky]

Exactly, as I have stated a few times. Call the definition failure to engage as available (or something to that effect) and issue an FTE or call it ftsa and no FTE. Currently, as defined, there is no justification for an FTE.

[Coach]

the rule is shoot at, NOT ENGAGE, the two phrases are not the same,

People are trying to use the definition of engage to say he violated a rule that doenst exist.

Engage :(the way it is being used) military to begin an action with (an enemy) yes I can see the argument, it is impossible to begin an action against an enemy or target 100% covered by hard. Its also has nothing to do with a USPSA rule book

The rule is failure to shoot at,

shoot, he pulled the trigger, I think we all agree he shot,

at :(used to indicate a point or place occupied in space); in, on, or near: to stand at the door; at the bottom of the barrel,

the holes are a dead give away he shot in on or near, his gun facing in the general direction of the position occupied in space of the targets when it went bang, also tells me he satisfied the requirement of "at"

If you write FTE on a scoresheet your credibility as an RO will head down the tubes.

I'm sorry, but this logic doesn't work for me. The only way you can provide proof that the shooter shot at the target was because there are holes in it. There are holes in the target only because the real world cover wasn't really ground to height and impenetrable.

Had reality met with the expectation of the rule (impenetrable ground to height cover [and the expecation the shooter would know this and not try such a lame gaming of the stage]) there would be no holes.

Then the lack of holes aren't from lack of trying to shoot "at" the target but from pure raw inability to shoot the target.

If we carried your logic to a reasonable end, a shooter could bypass the only place a target can be engaged, to a place where it was totally obscured and pop a round into or at a truly impenetrable hard cover and claim he shot AT the target and did not fail to engage the target.

We shouldn't try to use M-W to prove our position correct, we should instead look to what the RULES really say.

Here is why you are wrong, per the rules, and my assessment of penalties/misses:

Two Misses (because the shots passed wholely through hard-cover and therefor do not count)

Citation:

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as "soft cover" (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable "hard cover":

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.4.4 Each miss will be penalized twice the value of the maximum scoring hit available on that target, except in the case of Fixed Time or disappearing targets (see Rules 9.2.4.4 and 9.9.2).

AND

One Procedural (for failing to shoot at the face of a scoring target)

Citation:

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).

He did not shoot at the face of the scoring target because he can't shoot at the face of the scoring target from where he shot.

Agree completely and I feel this a reasonable and rational way to look at this incident.

The rules should not have to say that target must be engaged when visible. The WSB does that or should do that every time. As I stated in an earlier post cover the target.

[sperman]

So if the WSB stated "engage targets as they become available from within the shooting area" you still wouldn't give the FTE, but you would give a procedural under 10.1.1?

[Coach]

So if the WSB stated "engage targets as they become available from within the shooting area" you still wouldn't give the FTE, but you would give a procedural under 10.1.1?

If you did not engage them when they were available then yes you should be rung up with two mikes and FTE or Procedural however you want to call. I just could see how a shooter caught up in the momment dropped to prone and shot a target. If a shooter shoots through some sort of vision barrier that is not understandable.

Does the term for the procedural really matter? I would say it does hence the 22 pages.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Coach

[bluenite]

"engage targets as they become available from within the shooting area"

This could cause problems with swingers and moveing targets with hard cover.

[DrawandDuck]

"engage targets as they become available from within the shooting area"

This could cause problems with swingers and moveing targets with hard cover.

How so?

[mhs]

I haven't been reading the forum for a while, and haven't read this thread really carefully. With that disclaimer, has anyone considered 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."

According to 9.9.3, you can shoot all the holes you want in a target (through hard cover for example) before it is activated, but if you fail to activate the target you still get a failure to shoot at penalty.

In this case, shooting at, or even hitting the target isn't enough to avoid a FTSA penalty.

I think that a FTSA penalty should be given if the shooter has not attempted a shot which could result in a legal scoring hit on a target.