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

[Nik Habicht]

Playing devils advocate here, but if you try and argue no FTE because they shot at it then I could stand in one spot and take shots from from 89 degrees left of me to 89 degrees to the right of me and claim I engaged all targets. Even if I could not see them, all you can score me on is hits and misses.

I'm fine with that -- since the miss penalties would already have you zeroing the stage, the FTEs would be irrelevant.....

[spanky]

Playing devils advocate here, but if you try and argue no FTE because they shot at it then I could stand in one spot and take shots from from 89 degrees left of me to 89 degrees to the right of me and claim I engaged all targets. Even if I could not see them, all you can score me on is hits and misses.

Funny you mention that. I specifically remember a shooter from Area 4 in 2009 that shot through sno-fence hard cover on either half of or maybe a full COF because he apparently had a brain fart. I won't name him but I will be interested to know if he received FTEs as well as 2Ms per target. Unfortunately I can't look it up on the score page on USPSA because that stage got tossed due to flooding.

Edited July 13, 2011 by spanky

[bluenite]

There is a rule that says all barriers are hard cover, there is no rule that says a vision barrier and a snow fence are the same thing.

Not sure I understand the comment.

A snow fence is not a vision barrier per the rulebook.

So the shooter could see the target.

So only 1 rule applies (2.3).

[Loves2Shoot]

30 round stage, ends with one target in a shoot house with door closed. I shoot all targets outside then shoot the house twice. Did I engage the target?

Maybe I missed it, but this is a question that I would like to see answered by both sides.

Are there holes in the target?

The question was "did I engage the target". It makes no difference if it has holes in it or not. You can miss the target and still engage.

Gary

Gary,

If you shoot 2 feet in front of you into the ground, can you argue that you are shooting at targets in China to avoid the DQ? Unless someone has redefined hard cover, you can no more "engage" that targets in China by shooting the ground as those behind a wall that is hardcover that can not be seen from the shooting position.

[Schutzenmeister]

There is a rule that says all barriers are hard cover, there is no rule that says a vision barrier and a snow fence are the same thing.

Not sure I understand the comment.

A snow fence is not a vision barrier per the rulebook.So the shooter could see the target.

So only 1 rule applies (2.3).

Huh? Please review 2.2.3.3

Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, all such barriers [referring to 2.2.3, which directs how to construct barriers], walls, vision barriers and snow fences will be considered to go from the ground to the height as constructed.

For the purposes of this thread, I cannot intrepret that as anything other than an equivocation of vision barriers with snow fences.

[sperman]

There is a rule that says all barriers are hard cover, there is no rule that says a vision barrier and a snow fence are the same thing.

Not sure I understand the comment.

A snow fence is not a vision barrier per the rulebook.

So the shooter could see the target.

So only 1 rule applies (2.3).

The rule is not limited to vision barriers

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”:

[spanky]

I think we are confusing "hard cover" with "vision barrier"

[Schutzenmeister]

I think we are confusing "hard cover" with "vision barrier"

Dosen't matter ... Unless otherwise specified in the WSB, all vision barriers [of whatever description] are hard cover and therefore impenetrable. (9.1.6.)

[vluc]

There is a rule that says all barriers are hard cover, there is no rule that says a vision barrier and a snow fence are the same thing.

Not sure I understand the comment.

A snow fence is not a vision barrier per the rulebook.

So the shooter could see the target.

So only 1 rule applies (2.3).

Sorry for the drift, not finding where it says that. If you are referencing it being a separate item in 2.2.2.3, well, I can't find the word stockade in the rules, does not mean it is not a fence or a barrier or a snow fence.

2.2 says a variety of physical barriers can be used and 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”

A snow fence is an "obstacle", a "physical barrier" and as such is impenetrable whether you can see through it or not. As is mesh screening or landscaping paper or plastic with cut-out holes to allow wind to flow through them so things do not fall over.

[spanky]

All visions barriers are hard cover but not all hard cover are vision barriers.

[bluenite]

I have looked at 2.2.3.3 if you look at it again you will see it lists vision barriers and snow fence as separate items.

[bluenite]

All visions barriers are hard cover but not all hard cover are vision barriers.

That is how i am reading it.

[glefos]

Hypothetical question for those that say holes do not exist due to imaginary/invisible hard cover.

Adding to the original scenario, what if (realizing his/her error) the shooter quickly throws a couple extra shots from a location where the target IS visible, but under scoring there are only two A zone holes? How do you score them?

[sperman]

9.1.6 is the rule to reference.

[spanky]

Hypothetical question for those that say holes do not exist due to imaginary/invisible hard cover.

Adding to the original scenario, what if (realizing his/her error) the shooter quickly throws a couple extra shots from a location where the target IS visible, but under scoring there are only two A zone holes? How do you score them?

Reshoot due to inability to properly score.

[Schutzenmeister]

Hypothetical question for those that say holes do not exist due to imaginary/invisible hard cover.

Adding to the original scenario, what if (realizing his/her error) the shooter quickly throws a couple extra shots from a location where the target IS visible, but under scoring there are only two A zone holes? How do you score them?

I'm stretching a bit here as clearly few of us posting saw the ACTUAL target set up and know where and when the target could and could not have been legitimately engaged from. That being said:

I strongly suspect the angle of entry of the round passing through the target in question would be substantially different and visibly discernable based upon where the shooter shot from upon any reasonable inspection of the target. I would use that information (if at all possible) to determine whether or not the bullet passed through the virtual hard cover of the area below the wall, or if it came from a "legitimate" direction. Though it may be possible for the target to have been situated such that there would not be a difference, I would have to see it to come to that conclusion.

[GrumpyOne]

Here's a thought. Shots through hard cover neither count for score or penalty, right? So even if he shot 2alpha from under the wall, if they count for neither score nor penalty, how can you say he engaged the target? The only way to get points is from a legitimate shot, and these weren't legitimate. Sure, there are holes in the target, but if they aren't scored, then its a miss if he didn't make them up where he wouldn't shoot through hardcover, then he never engaged the target.

[vluc]

I have looked at 2.2.3.3 if you look at it again you will see it lists vision barriers and snow fence as separate items.

I see that but do not recognize the point you are making. It lists barriers separate so are they different from vision barriers or snow fences? They are all barriers, physical obstacles that are impenetrable.

[bluenite]

They are all barriers, physical obstacles that are impenetrable.

I agree but they are not all vision barriers.

There is another rule that states that if you can see it you can shoot it.

That is why only rule (2.3) applies.

[aztecdriver]

They are all barriers, physical obstacles that are impenetrable.

I agree but they are not all vision barriers.

There is another rule that states that if you can see it you can shoot it.

That is why only rule (2.3) applies.

Please copy the relevant part of 2.3 that you are talking about. I don't understand how modifications to a course helps your point.

In order to shoot something, you're bullet needs to BE ABLE to hit it.

[Schutzenmeister]

They are all barriers, physical obstacles that are impenetrable.

I agree but they are not all vision barriers.

There is another rule that states that if you can see it you can shoot it.

That is why only rule (2.3) applies.

Leonard ... I really don't agree, but before I dive any further into your comments, I do not understand why you are referrencing 2.3. That has to do with course modifications. So that I can respond more intelligently, where are you going with that?

[bluenite]

Hard cover that you can see a target through creates a conflict in the rules.

course modification is the only solution.

[aztecdriver]

Hard cover that you can see a target through creates a conflict in the rules.

course modification is the only solution.

So, your position is that we can never create a wall out of snow fence. I think your premise is incorrect simply because the rules specifically state we can.

This is simply an issue of whether if you can see it negates the failure to shoot at penalty. That's all that needs to be determined. I equate see through hard cover like the matrix, bullets stop midair and go away.

I think I'm going to write my WSB to say "shoot them when they are available" and ding anyone that shoots a visible target behind hardcover with 10.2.2.

Maybe the thread is making a little bit course...

[Schutzenmeister]

Hard cover that you can see a target through creates a conflict in the rules.

course modification is the only solution.

Agreed ... Course modification to eliminate the problem would be helpful ---> for the NEXT shooter. However, the central question of the thread is how do we deal with THIS shooter's run.

Unless I'm missing something here, everyone is in agreement the two "hits" on the target do not count - by rule. The only remaining issue(s) are the application of penalty(ies) and/or issuing a reshoot. Clearly, if the CoF is to be modified under 2.3 to fix the problem, I would require the shooter to reshoot under 2.3.3.1. Other shooters/squads ... depends on the facts and circumstances, but in this case I doubt it. (Hmmm... Troy: Might this be the alternate you hinted at?)

I do not see a conflict in the rules, per se. I see a dilemma created by an exemption in the rules allowing the creation of "virtual" barriers vs "physical" barriers, and, in this instance, a course design/set up error that allowed the two to overlap. I would still maintain that the "virtual" portion of the wall is entitled to all the same treatment of a "physical" wall under the rules to include the presumption of impenetrability. If it is impenetrable and you are shooting at/through it (as opposed to accidently "clipping" it as in the case of a moving target going behind it) then you are shooting at the wall and NOT the target. The fact that you can "physically" see the target on the other side is not germaine. Hence, the target has not been engaged, or at least not from the position where the shots were allegedly fired.

[Gary Stevens]

30 round stage, ends with one target in a shoot house with door closed. I shoot all targets outside then shoot the house twice. Did I engage the target?

Maybe I missed it, but this is a question that I would like to see answered by both sides.

Are there holes in the target?

The question was "did I engage the target". It makes no difference if it has holes in it or not. You can miss the target and still engage.

Gary

Gary,

If you shoot 2 feet in front of you into the ground, can you argue that you are shooting at targets in China to avoid the DQ? Unless someone has redefined hard cover, you can no more "engage" that targets in China by shooting the ground as those behind a wall that is hardcover that can not be seen from the shooting position.

So if I read that correctly that is one vote for the FTE, correct?

Still haven't heard anything from the no FTE group.

Just asking questions you know

Gary