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

[bluenite]

How so?

It may or may not be true, but it could just be changing the label on a can of worms.

Until there is a rule change, I intend to address this by stage design.

I believe if there had been two or more targets at that position, this would not have come up.

-40 points for 2 or -60 for 3 targets is not an advantage on any stage I have ever seen.

So from now on I will not put just 1 target to be shot from an isolated position.

Leonard

[wide45]

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.

Read the rule again, and the entire thread. This was covered.

Edited July 27, 2011 by wide45

[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.

Read the rule again, and the entire thread. This was covered.

I can't find where it was covered in the context I presented. In my example the shooter makes multiple holes in the target, but still gets a FTSA.

[Morphire]

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:

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.

Dan and Spanky,

Not picking on you guys specifically but you both posted recently that the rules do not support an FTE in this case. So both of you are saying that the rules state, even though they say that you specifically have to shoot at a part of a target to avoid a FTSA 9.5.7 penalty, that you can shoot at a wall specifically and avoid the procedural if the target is behind it? I'm confused by how you see the rules stating that you can shoot at the face of a wall and it being the same as shooting at the face of a target. If the wall extended to the ground, or even further extended to the ground and was made of steel, would the FTSA be supported by the rules in your opinion(s)? I know that's been asked many times but I swear I haven't seen an answer from the no FTE camp as of yet.

9.5.7 gets specific, and I'm of the opinion that this specificity supports the FTE in this case no matter what sort of hardcover (rules or real) is in the way. Shooting at the target, but not at the face, still gives you an FTE by 9.5.7. That would mean that the face of the target must be available from the position where you shot it in my opinion and it appears to be supported by the rules.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Morphire

[spanky]

How can you shoot at the target without shooting at the face of it if it is facing you?

Can you shot shoot at something without being able to see it?

[sperman]

I hate to keep asking the same questions over an over. Maybe someone will answer this time.

For the No-FTE guys, please tell us how you would rule in the following scearios:

Wall is snow fence, but goes to the ground. Shooter can see the target, but knows he is shooting through a wall.

Wall is plywood, and goes to the ground. Shooter can't see the target, but bullet will penetrate.

Wall is steel, and goes to the ground. Shooter can't see the target, and the bullet has no chance of reaching the target.

Edited July 27, 2011 by sperman

[Dan Burwell]

I hate to keep asking the same questions over an over. Maybe someone will answer this time.

For the No-FTE guys, please tell us how you would rule in the following scearios:

Wall is snow fence, but goes to the ground. Shooter can see the target, but knows he is shooting through a wall.

Wall is plywood, and goes to the ground. Shooter can't see the target, but bullet will penetrate.

Wall is steel, and goes to the ground. Shooter can't see the target, and the bullet has no chance of reaching the target.

All treated the same except the steel wall if is closer than 23 feet. Within the scope of the rules about the only thing you can do about someone shooting holes in your walls is 10.6.1.

Look at it this way: three targets around a corner the first two targets the shooter engages no problem, but the shooter doesn't quite get out around the corner far enough and puts two rounds through the wall trying to hit the last inside target.

FTE? his bullets had no chance to hit the target(wall in the way)? maybe he could see the target from where he was(shooting error) maybe he couldn't (foot placement error) Who makes the call? RO is watching the gun clip board guy is on other side not really in a position to see both feet, gun, and target.

is this really any different than the original scenario?

[spanky]

I hate to keep asking the same questions over an over. Maybe someone will answer this time.

For the No-FTE guys, please tell us how you would rule in the following scearios:

Wall is snow fence, but goes to the ground. Shooter can see the target, but knows he is shooting through a wall.

Wall is plywood, and goes to the ground. Shooter can't see the target, but bullet will penetrate.

Wall is steel, and goes to the ground. Shooter can't see the target, and the bullet has no chance of reaching the target.

No FTE. In all situations the shooter was "shooting at" the target. There was just a wall in the way.

[sharps4070ss]

Look at it this way: three targets around a corner the first two targets the shooter engages no problem, but the shooter doesn't quite get out around the corner far enough and puts two rounds through the wall trying to hit the last inside target.

FTE? his bullets had no chance to hit the target(wall in the way)? maybe he could see the target from where he was(shooting error) [snip]is this really any different than the original scenario?

I'd like to expand on this thought.

Multiple posters have said that a swinger chased into hardcover/no shoot is okay, but somewhere between that situation and shooting under/ through the wall is not okay.

For the "yes FTE" guys, how far away from having a clear shot at the target is okay?

6 inches? 1 foot? 20 feet?

Where do you draw the line?

You can't have it both ways. Both situations are either FTE/FTSA or they are not.

Lee

[mhs]

I'd like to expand on this thought.

Multiple posters have said that a swinger chased into hardcover/no shoot is okay, but somewhere between that situation and shooting under/ through the wall is not okay.

For the "yes FTE" guys, how far away from having a clear shot at the target is okay?

6 inches? 1 foot? 20 feet?

Where do you draw the line?

You can't have it both ways. Both situations are either FTE/FTSA or they are not.

Lee

You can have it both ways:

With the swinger you are shooting from a postion that you could make legal scoring hits. Under the wall there is no way to make a legal scoring hit. If you can't legally score from where you are shooting, I vote for FTSA.

[sharps4070ss]

You can have it both ways:

With the swinger you are shooting from a postion that you could make legal scoring hits. Under the wall there is no way to make a legal scoring hit. If you can't legally score from where you are shooting, I vote for FTSA.

Let's forget the swinger situation and go back to Dan's hypothetical.

Because the shooter didn't hit the target, they were in a position that they couldn't legally score.

I believe that you are saying that if they moved the gun 6 inches, they could have hit the target, and that makes it not a FTE/FTSA.

I'm asking at what distance do they cross the line to "they could not have scored"?

Lee

Edited July 27, 2011 by sharps4070ss

[Morphire]

I hate to keep asking the same questions over an over. Maybe someone will answer this time.

For the No-FTE guys, please tell us how you would rule in the following scearios:

Wall is snow fence, but goes to the ground. Shooter can see the target, but knows he is shooting through a wall.

Wall is plywood, and goes to the ground. Shooter can't see the target, but bullet will penetrate.

Wall is steel, and goes to the ground. Shooter can't see the target, and the bullet has no chance of reaching the target.

No FTE. In all situations the shooter was "shooting at" the target. There was just a wall in the way.

By that same logic then a shooter that is shooting at the berm is shooting at the next bay over. There was just a berm in the way. That would likely result in a DQ (10.6.2) for unsporstman-like conduct by trying to interfere with the next bay over's shooters and RO. "There was just a wall in the way" is sort of denying that common sense has a notion in our sport doesn't it? Any maybe that's the point us in the FTE camp are missing - that notion that common sense has no bearing if the rules state otherwise? But really the rules don't state otherwise in this instance, do they? The rules just don't specifically disallow it except in the case of 9.9.3. The Production rules went through a cleansing to get rid of the notion that what is not specifically disallowed is allowed. It sort of feels like the same scenario is happening to 9.5.7 in denying the FTE.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Morphire

[Morphire]

Look at it this way: three targets around a corner the first two targets the shooter engages no problem, but the shooter doesn't quite get out around the corner far enough and puts two rounds through the wall trying to hit the last inside target.

FTE? his bullets had no chance to hit the target(wall in the way)? maybe he could see the target from where he was(shooting error) maybe he couldn't (foot placement error) Who makes the call? RO is watching the gun clip board guy is on other side not really in a position to see both feet, gun, and target.

is this really any different than the original scenario?

Yes it's very different. The "location" of the shooter allowed for the possibility of the hits. "Location" is not a new concept to the rules and is even in the Glossary (A3) The scenario you describe is like the swinger with hardcover. The original scenario involves the attempt to engage the target(s) from a location where the target(s) was completely unavailable. The RO should be allowed enough variance to make a common sense subjectivity call in this. We ask them to do it all the time with 180 calls and the like.

[Morphire]

Look at it this way: three targets around a corner the first two targets the shooter engages no problem, but the shooter doesn't quite get out around the corner far enough and puts two rounds through the wall trying to hit the last inside target.

FTE? his bullets had no chance to hit the target(wall in the way)? maybe he could see the target from where he was(shooting error) [snip]is this really any different than the original scenario?

I'd like to expand on this thought.

Multiple posters have said that a swinger chased into hardcover/no shoot is okay, but somewhere between that situation and shooting under/ through the wall is not okay.

For the "yes FTE" guys, how far away from having a clear shot at the target is okay?

6 inches? 1 foot? 20 feet?

Where do you draw the line?

You can't have it both ways. Both situations are either FTE/FTSA or they are not.

Lee

USPSA makes the definition for "Location" to mean "a geographical place in a course of fire" be it a box or a port in a wall or whatever. We often use it to determine if we have broken the more than 8 shots from one location stricture within the rules when designing a CoF. (1.2.1)

The ruling is simple. Is the target available from the shooting location or not? If it is, then no FTE. The competitor clearly had an opportunity to hit the target and successfully made that attempt if they indexed on the target and "shot" at it's face. If, from that shooting location, the target was unavailable to be engaged then it is unavailable and therefore will incur an FTE if that is the only place the shooter shoots at it's face. You draw the line at a well trained RO to know enough of what a shooting location is. We ask it of them in other scenarios within the rules so why not here as well?

[spanky]

Then the rule needs to be rewritten to call it an FTSA from an available location.

[Dan Burwell]

Look at it this way: three targets around a corner the first two targets the shooter engages no problem, but the shooter doesn't quite get out around the corner far enough and puts two rounds through the wall trying to hit the last inside target.

FTE? his bullets had no chance to hit the target(wall in the way)? maybe he could see the target from where he was(shooting error) [snip]is this really any different than the original scenario?

I'd like to expand on this thought.

Multiple posters have said that a swinger chased into hardcover/no shoot is okay, but somewhere between that situation and shooting under/ through the wall is not okay.

For the "yes FTE" guys, how far away from having a clear shot at the target is okay?

6 inches? 1 foot? 20 feet?

Where do you draw the line?

You can't have it both ways. Both situations are either FTE/FTSA or they are not.

Lee

USPSA makes the definition for "Location" to mean "a geographical place in a course of fire" be it a box or a port in a wall or whatever. We often use it to determine if we have broken the more than 8 shots from one location stricture within the rules when designing a CoF. (1.2.1)

The ruling is simple. Is the target available from the shooting location or not? If it is, then no FTE. The competitor clearly had an opportunity to hit the target and successfully made that attempt if they indexed on the target and "shot" at it's face. If, from that shooting location, the target was unavailable to be engaged then it is unavailable and therefore will incur an FTE if that is the only place the shooter shoots at it's face. You draw the line at a well trained RO to know enough of what a shooting location is. We ask it of them in other scenarios within the rules so why not here as well?

Kevin,

I totally get what you are saying, the problem is the rule book make no mention of the target being available from a given location in regards to the FTE/FTSA to support your call.

the way it is currently the written shooter either shot at the target or they didn't.

going back to my scenario, how close to shooting around a wall do I have to be to avoid the FTE? if my rounds are within 2 inches of the corner, 4inches, 6inches, I shoot a foot into the wall, or 6ft into the wall, at what point do I get the FTE?

So maybe it's not about where the rounds impact? How about where my feet were when the shots were broken (IDPA does it with cover calls and we all know how much that is discussed as being subjective). Does one foot have to be exposed to the target or both? I can lean pretty far so...

Maybe you can only shoot at targets that you can actually see without any walls between the shooter's head and the target, but wait then I guess Taran Butler can no longer do the point a gun under a port to shoot because there was a wall between his head and the target so now he gets an FTE? (ok crappy sentence structure but you get the idea).

So what is the long term answer? I don't know, but I do know for the short term (current rule book)if a shooter shoots at a target they do not get a FTE/FTSA. By the way this notion was supported by the majority of the current RMIs.

[Morphire]

USPSA makes the definition for "Location" to mean "a geographical place in a course of fire" be it a box or a port in a wall or whatever. We often use it to determine if we have broken the more than 8 shots from one location stricture within the rules when designing a CoF. (1.2.1)

The ruling is simple. Is the target available from the shooting location or not? If it is, then no FTE. The competitor clearly had an opportunity to hit the target and successfully made that attempt if they indexed on the target and "shot" at it's face. If, from that shooting location, the target was unavailable to be engaged then it is unavailable and therefore will incur an FTE if that is the only place the shooter shoots at it's face. You draw the line at a well trained RO to know enough of what a shooting location is. We ask it of them in other scenarios within the rules so why not here as well?

Kevin,

I totally get what you are saying, the problem is the rule book make no mention of the target being available from a given location in regards to the FTE/FTSA to support your call.

the way it is currently the written shooter either shot at the target or they didn't.

going back to my scenario, how close to shooting around a wall do I have to be to avoid the FTE? if my rounds are within 2 inches of the corner, 4inches, 6inches, I shoot a foot into the wall, or 6ft into the wall, at what point do I get the FTE?

So maybe it's not about where the rounds impact? How about where my feet were when the shots were broken (IDPA does it with cover calls and we all know how much that is discussed as being subjective). Does one foot have to be exposed to the target or both? I can lean pretty far so...

Maybe you can only shoot at targets that you can actually see without any walls between the shooter's head and the target, but wait then I guess Taran Butler can no longer do the point a gun under a port to shoot because there was a wall between his head and the target so now he gets an FTE? (ok crappy sentence structure but you get the idea).

So what is the long term answer? I don't know, but I do know for the short term (current rule book)if a shooter shoots at a target they do not get a FTE/FTSA. By the way this notion was supported by the majority of the current RMIs.

The rule book doesn't say you have to actually shoot at a target to score on it either, yet we score targets with holes in them all the time. Common sense has to play a part in interpreting the rules doesn't it? You have to look at all the rules of the rule book and take them into consideration. This circumstance isn't only about 9.5.7. The entire rule book is being used in the process of a competitor making an attempt at a stage. Things such as location make sense in that viewpoint. Each specific rule doesn't have to cover every possible outcome where it might be used when the rest of the rulebook leads the RO to make a good common sense judgement call. We not only expect our RO's to have common sense, we demand it of them to ensure the fair application of the rules in a consistent manner.

To answer your scenario, the RO uses their training and common sense and makes a judgement call as to when the target goes from unavailable to available for a particular course of fire. He does have the advantage of evidence (holes in the wall) to show just how far away from an available location the target attempt was made too. FTEs fall accordingly as well as investigations into a DQ for ND or movement with the finger in the trigger guard. It's really no different than many other subjective calls we ask the ROs to make all the time.

[sperman]

So what is the long term answer? I don't know, but I do know for the short term (current rule book)if a shooter shoots at a target they do not get a FTE/FTSA. By the way this notion was supported by the majority of the current RMIs.

Can you provide evidence to support that statement? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just haven't seen anything in this thread from anyone but Troy.

[aztecdriver]

USPSA makes the definition for "Location" to mean "a geographical place in a course of fire" be it a box or a port in a wall or whatever. We often use it to determine if we have broken the more than 8 shots from one location stricture within the rules when designing a CoF. (1.2.1)

The ruling is simple. Is the target available from the shooting location or not? If it is, then no FTE. The competitor clearly had an opportunity to hit the target and successfully made that attempt if they indexed on the target and "shot" at it's face. If, from that shooting location, the target was unavailable to be engaged then it is unavailable and therefore will incur an FTE if that is the only place the shooter shoots at it's face. You draw the line at a well trained RO to know enough of what a shooting location is. We ask it of them in other scenarios within the rules so why not here as well?

Kevin,

I totally get what you are saying, the problem is the rule book make no mention of the target being available from a given location in regards to the FTE/FTSA to support your call.

the way it is currently the written shooter either shot at the target or they didn't.

going back to my scenario, how close to shooting around a wall do I have to be to avoid the FTE? if my rounds are within 2 inches of the corner, 4inches, 6inches, I shoot a foot into the wall, or 6ft into the wall, at what point do I get the FTE?

So maybe it's not about where the rounds impact? How about where my feet were when the shots were broken (IDPA does it with cover calls and we all know how much that is discussed as being subjective). Does one foot have to be exposed to the target or both? I can lean pretty far so...

Maybe you can only shoot at targets that you can actually see without any walls between the shooter's head and the target, but wait then I guess Taran Butler can no longer do the point a gun under a port to shoot because there was a wall between his head and the target so now he gets an FTE? (ok crappy sentence structure but you get the idea).

So what is the long term answer? I don't know, but I do know for the short term (current rule book)if a shooter shoots at a target they do not get a FTE/FTSA. By the way this notion was supported by the majority of the current RMIs.

The rule book doesn't say you have to actually shoot at a target to score on it either, yet we score targets with holes in them all the time. Common sense has to play a part in interpreting the rules doesn't it? You have to look at all the rules of the rule book and take them into consideration. This circumstance isn't only about 9.5.7. The entire rule book is being used in the process of a competitor making an attempt at a stage. Things such as location make sense in that viewpoint. Each specific rule doesn't have to cover every possible outcome where it might be used when the rest of the rulebook leads the RO to make a good common sense judgement call. We not only expect our RO's to have common sense, we demand it of them to ensure the fair application of the rules in a consistent manner.

To answer your scenario, the RO uses their training and common sense and makes a judgement call as to when the target goes from unavailable to available for a particular course of fire. He does have the advantage of evidence (holes in the wall) to show just how far away from an available location the target attempt was made too. FTEs fall accordingly as well as investigations into a DQ for ND or movement with the finger in the trigger guard. It's really no different than many other subjective calls we ask the ROs to make all the time.

I would also, though, apply that in order to assess a penalty, the same subjectivity rules apply as does that in which we need to issue the DQ. It must be a 100% POSITIVE assertion that the offense has been committed.

Keep in mind, in this situation, we are asserting that the "failure to shoot at" a target happened because I had no expectation my rounds would arrive at the target. We are not talking about solid walls. We are talking about see through walls, either snow fence or the mandated from the ground to height as constructed - so the evidence of holes in the wall - MAY be there, or may not. In either case, what is the assertion under the rule - that the shooter didn't "shoot at the face of a scoring target", correct?

What is required to "shoot at a target" in the rule book? We need a shot, which is defined as the bullet fully passing through the gun. Ok, we have that. The target needs to be visible, according to 1.1.5. We have that, I can see the target.

I hear what everyone is saying, but I assert that for obvious reasons, you can't change the visibility of the wall by rule, it's either see through, or it's not. The rules say "as and when visible", as spanky shows, not as and when available.

I'm still extremely concerned about the application of this - though I understand what is said.

Think about the stage that Drawandduck posted. A few posts back. Imagine the wall as snow fence and the missed target is a Popper. What happens if I take that shot knowing full well by rule that said piece of steel being hit and falling through a piece of hardcover is a reshoot. Stage construction aside, is this an FA (why, it's legit stage construction) and how to you prove 10.6.1... "Hey, I just looked and didn't register the wall - can I get my reshoot for REF?"

Just somethings I'm thinking about --

[Dan Burwell]

So what is the long term answer? I don't know, but I do know for the short term (current rule book)if a shooter shoots at a target they do not get a FTE/FTSA. By the way this notion was supported by the majority of the current RMIs.

Can you provide evidence to support that statement? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just haven't seen anything in this thread from anyone but Troy.

Sorry, I chose the wrong word it was consensus not majority:

Troy's post

OK. Sorry for the delay, but I'd like to note that I didn't sit here and urge you guys on. This thing kinda deteriorated a while back. Just the nature of this forum and the people who participate on it (and don't get me wrong, I (almost) always like it) is like herding cats.

Also, my apologies for the length of this explanation. If you don't need to know how we got there, scroll down to the bottom.

First, some information: My first inclination on this was that I'd declare a forbidden action, make the competitor reshoot, and then go from there. Simple fix, and probably the best fix for this situation. Even though I don't like the FA rule, it would eliminate a lot of argument/scoring discussion/dissension, right?

But,I thought, "If I had to penalize this action, how would I do it?" Going by rule, and I've already cited them, the two misses were a no-brainer, but I couldn't find a rule to support the FTSA penalty.

Why? Consider this: a swinger that goes behind hard cover and/or a no-shoot in it's motion, and while there, is completely covered. A competitor fires two shots at it while it's behind the wall, completely hidden (he chased it, shot it after activating it but before it started moving, whatever). Both bullets penetrate the wall to a full bullet diameter, and he doesn't shoot again. Both shots hit the target, but it's obvious that they went through hard cover first. These are obviously scored as misses, but would you assess a FTSA penalty? I'd be willing to bet that nobody here would.

So, not wanting to just jump in and stir things up (because it would be only my opinion), I took this question to the Instructor group. As you might imagine, we argued it pretty strenuously, but the final consensus was that we could not, by rule, assess the FTE/FTSA. No matter how much you want to, the rules don't support it, simply because the competitor did fire shots at the face of the target. No matter how desirable it is to say, "well, the wall is impenetrable, so he must not have fired shots at it", he did indeed fire two shots at the target, just as in my example above.

Here is a part of my email discussion with the instructors:

9.1.6

9.1.6.1

(Both deal with full bullet diameters through hard cover.)

9.5.7

10.2.7

(note here that neither one says anything about hard cover, visibility, etc. they merely mention shooting at a target)

In this example, you cannot deny that the competitor shot at the target. That's a fact. What we are arguing is the penalty for shooting through invisible hardcover, i.e., deemed hardcover as noted in the following rule:

2.2.3.3

Penalizing two miss penalties can be justified, per rule, through 2.2.3.3 , 9.1.6, and 9.1.6.1, because the rules allow us to do so. The wall goes to the ground (whether it really does or not) and it's impenetrable hard cover (whether it really is or not).

My position is that you cannot penalize the competitor for a failure to engage or failure to shoot at penalty, because he did, in fact, shoot at the target. No question, can't take the bullets back, and nowhere in either 9.5.7 or 10.2.7 is it stated that you must see a target to shoot at it. In my opinion, that's what 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1 are there for.

I know some of you will vehemently disagree with this, and you should note that you aren't alone, nor is this an official ruling. It's a consensus decision arrived at through discussion amongst several experienced Range Master Instructors, including the Director of NROI. Bottom line score: 2 misses, no additional penalty for FTSA.

Also note that none of us would have scored this anyway, and would have gone with the FA/reshoot option.

Did I make page 16?

Troy

[Morphire]

The rule book doesn't say you have to actually shoot at a target to score on it either, yet we score targets with holes in them all the time. Common sense has to play a part in interpreting the rules doesn't it? You have to look at all the rules of the rule book and take them into consideration. This circumstance isn't only about 9.5.7. The entire rule book is being used in the process of a competitor making an attempt at a stage. Things such as location make sense in that viewpoint. Each specific rule doesn't have to cover every possible outcome where it might be used when the rest of the rulebook leads the RO to make a good common sense judgement call. We not only expect our RO's to have common sense, we demand it of them to ensure the fair application of the rules in a consistent manner.

To answer your scenario, the RO uses their training and common sense and makes a judgement call as to when the target goes from unavailable to available for a particular course of fire. He does have the advantage of evidence (holes in the wall) to show just how far away from an available location the target attempt was made too. FTEs fall accordingly as well as investigations into a DQ for ND or movement with the finger in the trigger guard. It's really no different than many other subjective calls we ask the ROs to make all the time.

I would also, though, apply that in order to assess a penalty, the same subjectivity rules apply as does that in which we need to issue the DQ. It must be a 100% POSITIVE assertion that the offense has been committed.

Keep in mind, in this situation, we are asserting that the "failure to shoot at" a target happened because I had no expectation my rounds would arrive at the target. We are not talking about solid walls. We are talking about see through walls, either snow fence or the mandated from the ground to height as constructed - so the evidence of holes in the wall - MAY be there, or may not. In either case, what is the assertion under the rule - that the shooter didn't "shoot at the face of a scoring target", correct?

What is required to "shoot at a target" in the rule book? We need a shot, which is defined as the bullet fully passing through the gun. Ok, we have that. The target needs to be visible, according to 1.1.5. We have that, I can see the target.

I hear what everyone is saying, but I assert that for obvious reasons, you can't change the visibility of the wall by rule, it's either see through, or it's not. The rules say "as and when visible", as spanky shows, not as and when available.

I'm still extremely concerned about the application of this - though I understand what is said.

Think about the stage that Drawandduck posted. A few posts back. Imagine the wall as snow fence and the missed target is a Popper. What happens if I take that shot knowing full well by rule that said piece of steel being hit and falling through a piece of hardcover is a reshoot. Stage construction aside, is this an FA (why, it's legit stage construction) and how to you prove 10.6.1... "Hey, I just looked and didn't register the wall - can I get my reshoot for REF?"

Just somethings I'm thinking about --

I agree with your assertion. If there is 100% possibility that a target can not be engaged from a location, and the shooter attempts to engage that target from that location, then I'm 100% positive that they have failed to engage it from that location. Seems 100% clear to me.

We do have a shot I agree. I disagree with your assessment of 1.1.5 as there is that pesky last sentence stating "However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances." Not only must the target be visible but the target must have been made available by the course designer. 1.1.5 makes allowance for the course designer to play a part in making a target visible yet still unavailable from particular shooting locations through the use of conditions, barriers or other physical limitations. Make sure you bring the whole rule into place and not just pieces and parts of it.

The popper question is already handled in the rules as a REF due to steel being shot through hardcover. There is a very specific rule dealing with that specific scenario. (4.6.1) If the "offense" is a blatant one in the eyes of the RO then it may be grounds for a 10.6 DQ but that is again a subjective RO call. Course designers and ROs deal with that sort of thing within the rules all the time.

[DrawandDuck]

going back to my scenario, how close to shooting around a wall do I have to be to avoid the FTE? if my rounds are within 2 inches of the corner, 4inches, 6inches, I shoot a foot into the wall, or 6ft into the wall, at what point do I get the FTE?

Again guys we have to apply some common sense...where would I draw the line....if a target was available from the shooting position....see attached diagram....We know when a shooter blows by a target but at the end of a stage if cranks of a round that travles through 3 walls across the bay and says to me "I shot at it" so I do not get a FTE (2nd diagram) that is not going to fly. I believe we all agree but because it is not written in black and white in the RULE book as we would like it there is a chance to argue the fact.

Edited July 27, 2011 by DrawandDuck

[ima45dv8]

going back to my scenario, how close to shooting around a wall do I have to be to avoid the FTE? if my rounds are within 2 inches of the corner, 4inches, 6inches, I shoot a foot into the wall, or 6ft into the wall, at what point do I get the FTE?

Again guys we have to apply some common sense...where would I draw the line....if a target was available from the shooting position....see attached diagram....We know when a shooter blows by a target but at the end of a stage if cranks of a round that travles through 3 walls across the bay and says to me "I shot at it" so I do not get a FTE (2nd diagram) that is not going to fly. I believe we all agree but because it is not written in black and white in the RULE book as we would like it there is a chance to argue the fact.

Randall,

To be very clear, I would NOT give the shooter who fired through three of your walls to avoid an FTE/FTSA penalty that 10 point scoring disadvantage.

I do believe it is written in black and white as several rules simply don't allow engaging targets through hard cover, but in this case I would not asses that penalty even though he earned it.

I believe that to apply that penalty would be considered excessive after I just DQ'd him for committing such a foolish action.

[DrawandDuck]

going back to my scenario, how close to shooting around a wall do I have to be to avoid the FTE? if my rounds are within 2 inches of the corner, 4inches, 6inches, I shoot a foot into the wall, or 6ft into the wall, at what point do I get the FTE?

Again guys we have to apply some common sense...where would I draw the line....if a target was available from the shooting position....see attached diagram....We know when a shooter blows by a target but at the end of a stage if cranks of a round that travles through 3 walls across the bay and says to me "I shot at it" so I do not get a FTE (2nd diagram) that is not going to fly. I believe we all agree but because it is not written in black and white in the RULE book as we would like it there is a chance to argue the fact.

Randall,

To be very clear, I would NOT give the shooter who fired through three of your walls to avoid an FTE/FTSA penalty that 10 point scoring disadvantage.

I do believe it is written in black and white as several rules simply don't allow engaging targets through hard cover, but in this case I would not asses that penalty even though he earned it.

I believe that to apply that penalty would be considered excessive after I just DQ'd him for committing such a foolish action.

Stop it!!!! You are making too much sense and there is no room for that in a rules debate ...

Edited July 27, 2011 by DrawandDuck

[sharps4070ss]

I agree with your assertion. If there is 100% possibility that a target can not be engaged from a location, and the shooter attempts to engage that target from that location, then I'm 100% positive that they have failed to engage it from that location. Seems 100% clear to me.

Nope, sorry.

Just because you are 100% sure doesn't mean that the next RO will agree with you.

I could say that ANY shot into hard cover is a FTE/FTSA, no matter how close to the edge.

We CANNOT allow judgement calls of where a shooter can and cannot shoot at a target.

I keep asking, and nobody has answered my question: how far out of location is too far?

Until that is answered with a fixed dimension in the rule book, we cannot allow RO's to make that judgement call.

Lee