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

[Schutzenmeister]

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.

Seems to me, that if it is scored as 2 Mike +/- an FTE, then there is no "advantage" to have been gained. Not the best call.

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.

Let's back the truck up ... I don't recall anywhere in the description that the round impacted the ground within 10 feet. If it did, THEN maybe you'd have an argument here, but only maybe.

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.

The only DQ I can imagine for "intentionally" shooting a prop MIGHT be under 10.6.1, unsportsmanlike conduct. From the description, I see more ignorance of the rules than intentional misconduct.

However, there is the POTENTIAL for arguing 10.5.10, "Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during movement." I say potential as there is really not enough information in the OP to actually make this call. IF he was in fact moving at the time and there were no legitimate targets available, you MIGHT be able to make this one stick. Although physically visible, by rule the target is behind hardcover and not technically available to be engaged (or shot at.)

Finally, while "Failure to Shoot At" is the correct and proper terminology in USPSA, the term "Failure to Engage" has long been used in the IPSC book for the same infraction. While we should use the correct term here in the US, it nevertheless describes the same offense. Let's not get hung up on the EXACT phrase as that is not the central question at issue here.

Absent more information that might support a DQ'able offense, as the RM I would uphold 1 penalty under 9.5.7/10.2.7 and 2 Mikes. I would uphold the "FTE/FTS@" as the target was by rule not available to be shot at from the position where the shooter took his shots. Hence, effectively, they did not happen. I would score it the same way if he, for example, intentionally shot through a plastic (hardcover) barrel and hit the target behind it. The Mikes are because shots through hardcover do not count for score or penalty. (9.1.6.1)

[Schutzenmeister]

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.

Not in the least ... Here, you're engaging the target and simply missed. (I've bolded the important part of what you said.) The fact that the round struck the wall is not material under this scenario. In the OP, the shooter INTENTIONALLY shot at the target through hardcover, per the description in the post.

[Schutzenmeister]

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

Thanks Chuck ... I knew there had to still be a reference SOMEWHERE in the book to this term. Perhaps a holdover from the days when the two rulebooks were more closely aligned!

[Dan Hefta]

This thread cracks me up Here we have a situation that happens every so often and we have a lot of very experienced RO's, CRO's and still no definate black and white answer. Our sport is full of grey areas my friends.

[aztecdriver]

This thread cracks me up Here we have a situation that happens every so often and we have a lot of very experienced RO's, CRO's and still no definate black and white answer. Our sport is full of grey areas my friends.

I think it's pretty straight forward. You can't shoot at the face of a target THROUGH a wall. 2 M is what's scored by the evidence then because the target was not engaged 10.2.7 comes into play. The shots into the walls aren't the procedural. They hit hard cover - they can't score - period - we deal with this all the time with actual hard cover and the impenetrable concept. Then - there is the engagement - The target is not "as and when AVAILABLE" - period. As such, it would be the same as missing a target uprange and firing into the berm those extra two shots you SHOULD have put on target and saying "look at your timer, there's 32 rounds there". Doesn't fly.

2 Mikes, as those hits struck impenetrable hard cover. 1 Procedural (10.2.7) because that target is not available to the shooter at the point at which it was shot.

Edited July 11, 2011 by aztecdriver

[Dan Hefta]

This thread cracks me up Here we have a situation that happens every so often and we have a lot of very experienced RO's, CRO's and still no definate black and white answer. Our sport is full of grey areas my friends.

I think it's pretty straight forward. You can't shoot at the face of a target THROUGH a wall. 2 M is what's scored by the evidence then because the target was not engaged 10.2.7 comes into play. The shots into the walls aren't the procedural. They hit hard cover - they can't score - period - we deal with this all the time with actual hard cover and the impenetrable concept. Then - there is the engagement - The target is not "as and when AVAILABLE" - period. As such, it would be the same as missing a target uprange and firing into the berm those extra two shots you SHOULD have put on target and saying "look at your timer, there's 32 rounds there". Doesn't fly.

2 Mikes, as those hits struck impenetrable hard cover. 1 Procedural (10.2.7) because that target is not available to the shooter at the point at which it was shot.

I just think it's funny that there are three pages on this topic. It's easy to make the call sitting in front of a keyboard, not so easy come match time.IMHO

[Mark R]

I'd like to hear from the NROI side of the house on this one. I can see 2 misses since wall is impenetrable, but the "Failure to Shoot at" has me wondering.

[Dan Burwell]

I think it's pretty straight forward. You can't shoot at the face of a target THROUGH a wall.

Care to quote me a rule on that Ken?

1 Procedural (10.2.7) because that target is not available to the shooter at the point at which it was shot.

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.

The rule makes no mention on if the target is available only if it was shot at. I think we are reading into the book because we know what was done isn't right, but there is no rule to penalize the crime.

2M no PEs. if you disagree please show me a written rule in the current rule book.

[vluc]

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”:

Seems this would indicate that you cannot shoot through a wall into a target. May be one of the "watch-fors" with the increasing used of fencing.

Edited July 11, 2011 by vluc

[Dan Burwell]

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”:

Yes, Vince that defines walls as hardcover, but all that means is the hits on target do not count for score, not that you cannot shoot them.

[sperman]

I disagree. If there is a solid wall between you and the target, you cannot shoot at the target. You can shoot at the wall, but not at the target.

[Dan Hefta]

I rest my case! :roflol:

[GrumpyOne]

The big question is this then: How can you engage a target when it's not available? If it's hidden behind hardcover (whether that wall/hardcover is snow fence, plywood, barrels, etc.), it's just not available at that position. Shooting at it doesn't make it available, all you are doing is shooting at the hardcover, therefore the FTE. You can't engage what you can't see (through harcover, that is), and if he did engage what he theorhetically could not see (from under the wall, theorhetically aiming upwards) then 10.4.1 might apply....

10.4.1 A shot, which travels over a backstop, a berm or in any other direction, specified in the written stage briefing by the match organizers as being unsafe. Note that a competitor who legitimately fires a shot at a target, which then travels in an unsafe direction, will not be disqualified (the

provisions of Section 2.3 may apply)

Note that per all rules, he did not actually fire a legitimate shot at a target, he fired at hardcover....

Had the target been partially obscured by hardcover, and he fired 2 rounds at it (engaging the target, not the hardcover), striking hardcover each time, then there would not be an FTE, just 2 MIKES, but since it was unavailable....

[aztecdriver]

I think it's pretty straight forward. You can't shoot at the face of a target THROUGH a wall.

Care to quote me a rule on that Ken?

1 Procedural (10.2.7) because that target is not available to the shooter at the point at which it was shot.

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.

The rule makes no mention on if the target is available only if it was shot at. I think we are reading into the book because we know what was done isn't right, but there is no rule to penalize the crime.

2M no PEs. if you disagree please show me a written rule in the current rule book.

Sure!

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted 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 compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

I'm not trying to read into the rules - but here's my thought process. If it's wrong - I'll be glad to Mea Culpa - because I really don't want to hand out the extra penalty, but this was my understanding: Here goes.

By 1.1.5, we are to shoot targets "as and when visible". If hard cover walls go from the ground to height as constructed (2.2.3.3), we'll treat under the walls as a wall that goes to the ground. If a target is behind that - it's not visible. Putting two rounds on the target through the wall - you are not shooting at the target - you are shooting at the wall. You still havn't shot at the target yet.

This is different in the case of a mover that goes behind the wall and you shoot at it because the target is visible - you just missed.

Another thought process - and one I don't advocate for - just pointing it out - that 10.2.2 could be applied. The WSB CHA-LEE posted state “At start signal engage targets as they become visible from within shooting area”. Engaging a target that is not visible is not following the stage briefing - right? Obviously there is no advantage at firing two mikes so it would stay at one - but an RO might be able to lawyer that one in too.

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance). Do not apply two different penalties for the same offense, (e.g. not firing the required rounds in a Virginia Count stage; competitor gets a miss and no procedural).

Like I said - it's a cheesy stretch to apply an additional procedural on a 30 pt mistake. My understanding, though was that if the target was completely not visible and shot through a wall that you weren't shooting at a target - but shooting at a wall, and therefore until the target was shot at visibly the penalty was still applicable. I'd actually be glad for someone to point out that I am wrong.

[aztecdriver]

I rest my case! :roflol:

This is what I get for jumping in midstream You're right - it's not that straight forward.

[vluc]

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”:

Yes, Vince that defines walls as hardcover, but all that means is the hits on target do not count for score, not that you cannot shoot them.

How can you shoot them if it is impenetrable?

[coldchar]

I think it's pretty straight forward. You can't shoot at the face of a target THROUGH a wall.

Care to quote me a rule on that Ken?

1 Procedural (10.2.7) because that target is not available to the shooter at the point at which it was shot.

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.

The rule makes no mention on if the target is available only if it was shot at. I think we are reading into the book because we know what was done isn't right, but there is no rule to penalize the crime.

2M no PEs. if you disagree please show me a written rule in the current rule book.

Can I say I agree fully. Looking for a reason because it does not feel right is, in my way of training, not what we are about.

Jim G

[aztecdriver]

Can I say I agree fully. Looking for a reason because it does not feel right is, in my way of training, not what we are about.

Jim G

Sorry to disagree with my intent, but that's not it at all. Asked how I make the call, this is how I would make it. I'm not looking for a way to ding the shooter, it's my understanding that you just can't willy/nilly engage targets without having eyes on them. For a shooter that mistakenly plans and engages a target under a wall, yeah, it sucks, but it's the same call as whether he shoots through a plywood wall or a snow fence wall that goes to the ground.

You can disagree with the call all you want, but please don't tell me I'm digging for a way to ding the shooter - that's the farthest from the truth. If you want to point out how my understanding (and several other fairly thoughtful people as well) of the application of the rules, please do, but I will ask that you stop inferring that my intent is malicious toward the shooter, because I can assure you, it is not.

[Joe4d]

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.

[aztecdriver]

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.

If a wall is deemed impenetrable - those holes do NOT exist. For all purposes of scoring - they stopped when the hit the wall. Let's say as an example, we actually have a hardcover wall that will stop the round at the wall. Does your definition still hold true? If I KNOW my rounds will not reach the target - have I shot at the target, or shot at the object in front of the target?

Again, let's leave personal attacks at credibility aside - I don't want the thread closed - I want to get to the root of the discussion and come to a resolution.

[Loves2Shoot]

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.

Joe, according to the rulebook those holes do not exist if you shoot over or under a wall that is not a shooting port or designated soft cover. Are you saying that you could run to the end of a stage skipping whatever targets you wish and fire rounds to satisfy the "at" requirement?

If you say you can shoot "at" a target that can not possibly be engaged from where you fired the shots, how can the shot be fired "at" the target according to the rule that walls extend from the ground to infinity and are not penetrable?

Think about it.

[sperman]

The NROI guys have chosen to stay out of this discussion, but we've had an RM offer his opinion (2M, 1 procedural.) My recommendation is for those who disagree with Schutzenmeister to contact the instructor of their RO class and get their opinion. Further discussion in this thread isn't going to solve anything, and will likely lead to improper calls at future matches.

[vluc]

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.

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.

How do you shoot at a scoring target that you cannot see through a wall that is impenetrable?

(oops, sorry, saw this comment was already made!)

Edited July 12, 2011 by vluc

[Poppa Bear]

2 mikes and 1 (10.2.7) procedural for shooting under the wall. I would also gig the designer for poor design and WSB. It should have been noticed that the target was "available" from under that wall and either the wall changed to hide the target or the specific wording in the WSB that "all walls go from the ground to infinity" be included so that a 10.2.2 penalty would be the obvious choice for the procedural.

The shooter earned a procedural, but I wanted to say no FTE procedural when I first started reading this thread, but FTE is the only available procedural that could be legitimately given to the shooter due to the course design and WSB. I would have preferred using 10.2.2.

[vluc]

I would also gig the designer for poor design and WSB. It should have been noticed that the target was "available" from under that wall and either the wall changed to hide the target or the specific wording in the WSB that "all walls go from the ground to infinity" be included so that a 10.2.2 penalty would be the obvious choice for the procedural.

Flex has stated before that part of our game is mental. Things like barrels, ports, no-shoots, hard cover targets, etc. are "distractions" that we have to be able to work around and through as shooters. I agree with him on that, and is why I quoted your comment above. While I see your point about it should not have been there, the shooter still has the responsibility to be aware of and know the rules. To me this would qualify as one of those "distractions". If we protect and remove every single possible thing (including the thread on 180 traps), we might as well just stand and punch paper at an indoor range. WSB should not have to say that walls go from ground to infinity, it is already stated in the rulebook.

2.2.3.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such

barriers, walls, vision barriers and snow fence barriers will be

considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.

Personally, I like the notion of it being there - just to mess with the head. But then I like very low ports, stages you back up on and cross-bay activators.