CIrcle Mikes ?

[67 LS1 Camaro]

Need to know if this would be No-Penalties misses , Penalties misses, or simply

bad stage design.

T1 and T2 are visible only through shooting port "A" . P1(activator) and T3 are visible only

through shooting port "B"...When P1 is activated , port "A" closes...If a shooter activates port"A" to close, T1 and T2 disappears without having to engage them first, there is no turning back. Is this EVIL? Or is it even legal?

I do know that appearing/disappearing targets are No-penalties such as drop-turners and some swingers . But how would this be ruled?

[spanky]

Can port A be manually opened after it is closed by PP1?

If yes, score normally. If no, disappearing.

Edited August 3, 2011 by spanky

[aztecdriver]

Can port A be manually opened after it is closed by PP1?

If yes, score normally. If no, disappearing.

Which rule would apply here, Spanky? The only reference I can see to disappearing targets is for moving targets. These appear to be static targets and a port closes. If port A is accessible at anytime in the COF before being necessary to go to port B - whats the problem with the COF other than if the shooter mistakenly activates the port and the shots are no longer available?

It might be evil stage design and generally frowned upon - and/or I'm misreading the rules for moving/disappearing targets. If Port B is uprange of Port A - yeah - I would say that's quite evil - but I'm not finding the rules that will reclassify the targets behind a port as moving - but as Bill Murray says in stripes - I am willing to learn!

[Joe4d]

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 disappearing targets.

Although moving targets refer back to this, 9.4.4 makes no mention of the word moving. So if they disappear during the COF then they are circle mikes.

[spanky]

Can port A be manually opened after it is closed by PP1?

If yes, score normally. If no, disappearing.

Which rule would apply here, Spanky? The only reference I can see to disappearing targets is for moving targets. These appear to be static targets and a port closes. If port A is accessible at anytime in the COF before being necessary to go to port B - whats the problem with the COF other than if the shooter mistakenly activates the port and the shots are no longer available?

It might be evil stage design and generally frowned upon - and/or I'm misreading the rules for moving/disappearing targets. If Port B is uprange of Port A - yeah - I would say that's quite evil - but I'm not finding the rules that will reclassify the targets behind a port as moving - but as Bill Murray says in stripes - I am willing to learn!

I was going from memory based on a similar discussion recently. When I get to work and wake up I might post something that makes sense. Or I might retract my statement.

[ima45dv8]

The first word in 9.9.2 is "moving":

9.9.2 Moving scoring targets, which do not comply with the above criteria are considered disappearing targets and will not incur failure to shoot at or miss penalties except where Rule 9.9.3 applies.

The "above" in 9.9.2 is referencing 9.9.1:

9.9.1 Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designed movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.4). See Appendix B2 or B3 for the percent of target to be presented.

(*.9.9.3 is included for reference, since it is also mentioned above:)

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.

It's arguable that because the shooter in your scenario shot the P1 activator through port B first, thus closing Port A and thereby making T1 and T2 unavailable, he willfully removed the option of engaging those static (non-moving) targets. Because they weren't moving targets, they'd be exempt from NPMs. He'd earn 4 Mikes and 2 FTEs/FTSAs.

Hopefully there would be some sort of manual activation available for Port A. If not....sucks to be that competitor.

Yeah, it's evil.

I like it.

[EEH]

That would be one way to GAME this stage if you did not get the miss,or FTE,shoot one ,not four,,game on

[Joe4d]

The first word in 9.9.2 is "moving":

9.9.2 Moving scoring targets, which do not comply with the above criteria are considered disappearing targets and will not incur failure to shoot at or miss penalties except where Rule 9.9.3 applies.

The "above" in 9.9.2 is referencing 9.9.1:

9.9.1 Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designed movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.4). See Appendix B2 or B3 for the percent of target to be presented.

(*.9.9.3 is included for reference, since it is also mentioned above:)

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.

It's arguable that because the shooter in your scenario shot the P1 activator through port B first, thus closing Port A and thereby making T1 and T2 unavailable, he willfully removed the option of engaging those static (non-moving) targets. Because they weren't moving targets, they'd be exempt from NPMs. He'd earn 4 Mikes and 2 FTEs/FTSAs.

Hopefully there would be some sort of manual activation available for Port A. If not....sucks to be that competitor.

Yeah, it's evil.

I like it.

but moving isnt mentioned in 9.4.4.

9.9.2 is defining when moving falls into and out of the disappearing category, but all disappearing targets dont have to be moving.

9.4.4 stands on its own and can be read in simple terms.

"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 disappearing targets."

Now for the head scratching kicker

although 9.4.4 says no Miss penalty, the procedurals for failure to shoot at still apply, because the exceptions for failing to shoot at only apply to disappearing targets that are moving.

So assuming no way to reopen the port

T1 and 2 two would get 2 procedurals for failing to shoot at, but not the mike penalties.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Joe4d

[spanky]

Except a disappearing target is defined as "A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement."

[Singlestack]

The first word in 9.9.2 is "moving":

9.9.2 Moving scoring targets, which do not comply with the above criteria are considered disappearing targets and will not incur failure to shoot at or miss penalties except where Rule 9.9.3 applies.

The "above" in 9.9.2 is referencing 9.9.1:

9.9.1 Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designed movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.4). See Appendix B2 or B3 for the percent of target to be presented.

(*.9.9.3 is included for reference, since it is also mentioned above:)

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.

It's arguable that because the shooter in your scenario shot the P1 activator through port B first, thus closing Port A and thereby making T1 and T2 unavailable, he willfully removed the option of engaging those static (non-moving) targets. Because they weren't moving targets, they'd be exempt from NPMs. He'd earn 4 Mikes and 2 FTEs/FTSAs.

Hopefully there would be some sort of manual activation available for Port A. If not....sucks to be that competitor.

Yeah, it's evil.

I like it.

pfffttt... I'd just blast through the closed port and and save myself some FTSA's.

[ima45dv8]

but moving isnt mentioned in 9.4.4.

9.9.2 is defining when moving falls into and out of the disappearing category, but all disappearing targets dont have to be moving.

9.4.4 stands on its own and can be read in simple terms.

"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 disappearing targets."

That's true. Moving isn't mentioned in 9.4.4.

That's why I didn't reference it. It wouldn't help the competitor at all. 9.4.4 calls up 9.2.4.4 [Fixed Time scoring, which this isn't] and 9.9.2. Those just point out exemptions for Fixed-Time Courses of Fire, and further define moving targets as described in 9.9.1 [the percentage of scoring area that must be available on a target to NOT be considered disappearing].

The fact that the first word in 9.9.2 and 9.9.1 is "Moving", it makes it clear that only moving targets enjoy the distinction of "disappearing".

At least it seems that way to me.

[ima45dv8]

pfffttt... I'd just blast through the closed port and and save myself some FTSA's.

You're mixing metaphors, or at least, two differnt rules threads.

[Joe4d]

Except a disappearing target is defined as "A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement."

I retract all previous statements, I was using the draft copy of the rule book, I see the above definition was added to the final 2010 version,

So with a rule book definition of disappearing target requiring "its" movement, 2 mikes, and 2 procedurals for the failure to shoot at.

[Flexmoney]

We've covered this material before. From the Double Tap or Texas Limited match two years back or so... (in case all y'all don't want to type a lot)

[spanky]

We've covered this material before. From the Double Tap or Texas Limited match two years back or so... (in case all y'all don't want to type a lot)

Or double tap this year I think is where I remember the discussion.

[spanky]

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=124001&st=0&p=1400633&hl=disappear%20and%20port&fromsearch=1entry1400633

[Nik Habicht]

Are your walls and ports hardcover? Better check Appendix B2 and B3 -- 25% of the A-zone, or the entire upper A must remain available from somewhere during the shooter's attempt at the course of fire...

Appendix B3 text:

At least 25% of the lower A-zone, or the entire upper A-zone, must remain visible around hardcover or overlapping no-shoots.

Now it's perfectly o.k. if the closing port is easy, and once closed the targets are available from another, harder location....

[Joe4d]

so illegal stage since only moving targets can be disappearing ?

[aztecdriver]

Are your walls and ports hardcover? Better check Appendix B2 and B3 -- 25% of the A-zone, or the entire upper A must remain available from somewhere during the shooter's attempt at the course of fire...

Appendix B3 text:

At least 25% of the lower A-zone, or the entire upper A-zone, must remain visible around hardcover or overlapping no-shoots.

Now it's perfectly o.k. if the closing port is easy, and once closed the targets are available from another, harder location....

Reading the other thread - if indeed that said port could not be opened manually, the application of the 25% around hardcover needs to be clarified. I find it stupid that we are using a rule that sets a requirement on the amount of target that must be visible (so that people aren't leaving 1" of A zone around a no shoot) to remove the possibility from completely removing a set of targets from availability. Why have ports, or walls or anything else?

Do what they did in Mississippi. Put a shoot box 70 ft away that has visibility on those targets and move on.

[67 LS1 Camaro]

I find it stupid that we are using a rule that sets a requirement on the amount of target that must be visible (so that people aren't leaving 1" of A zone around a no shoot) to remove the possibility from completely removing a set of targets from availability. Why have ports, or walls or anything else?

+1. Exactly my thinking

[Nik Habicht]

I find it stupid that we are using a rule that sets a requirement on the amount of target that must be visible (so that people aren't leaving 1" of A zone around a no shoot) to remove the possibility from completely removing a set of targets from availability. Why have ports, or walls or anything else?

+1. Exactly my thinking

Unfortunately the rules currently do not allow us to treat the targets as disappearing -- if disappearing targets weren't restricted to moving targets, this wouldn't be a problem.....

A pull rope could be challenging, as could a second, prone port, as could a distant, alternate shooting location....

[Nik Habicht]

Why have ports, or walls or anything else?

Well, generally they make engagement more challenging -- but you can move or lean past most walls, or visualize the targets through parts....

The key being that the shooter can see all or a large enough portion of the target.....

So, basically, walls and ports are one of the elements that separate us from Steel Challenge, Bullseye, etc.

[aztecdriver]

I find it stupid that we are using a rule that sets a requirement on the amount of target that must be visible (so that people aren't leaving 1" of A zone around a no shoot) to remove the possibility from completely removing a set of targets from availability. Why have ports, or walls or anything else?

+1. Exactly my thinking

Unfortunately the rules currently do not allow us to treat the targets as disappearing -- if disappearing targets weren't restricted to moving targets, this wouldn't be a problem.....

A pull rope could be challenging, as could a second, prone port, as could a distant, alternate shooting location....

Why have ports, or walls or anything else?

Well, generally they make engagement more challenging -- but you can move or lean past most walls, or visualize the targets through parts....

The key being that the shooter can see all or a large enough portion of the target.....

So, basically, walls and ports are one of the elements that separate us from Steel Challenge, Bullseye, etc.

Nik, I get it - the question about ports and walls was a little more facetious than asking for the real reason. One also has to look at disappearing targets more for the reason that they are appearing more than anything else. In order to be disappearing they need to be moving and thus activated before they become available. That's why the link to moving targets. The real crux of this is that there is a finite amount of time that said targets are available.

In the OP post, the static targets through port A are available for an infinite amount of time - yes, they eventually go away, but that eventuality is controlled by the shooter - meaning after the buzzer - the shooter has as much time as necessary to go to port A and engage said targets BEFORE going to port B and activating the closing mechanism for port A. There SHOULD (i understand what the rules say, I'm relating this to the way I think the challenge should be able to be made to the shooter) be a way to allow a challenge in this manner legally, without making extreme accomodations with extraneous shoot boxes and reopenable ports.

The real issue will then become what about static targets that in turn become a timing challenge and are available for a finite amount of time - ie., consider the same arrangement of ports, except this time, the popper in port A closes port B and the popper in port B closes port A. In this situation, the shot on one of those poppers is only available for a finite time after the shot on the other is fired. THERE is a case for disappearing static targets. Changing the rules for this can open a hairy can of worms in stage design and legality - and I get that. It's just easier to have a pull cord or openable port - or another shoot box and call it a day.