Another Popper / REF question

[sperman]

Shooter takes 3 shots to drive down a stubborn popper. The popper makes a funny twist, but falls forward. As the popper is falling, the RO mutters "That's supposed to be a rearward falling popper."

Should the RO order a re-shoot? I know there is a camp that is going to say "if you shoot it down, you own it." But if the RO sees the popper isn't bahiving as intended, and that it has affected the competitors run, isn't he required to order a re-shoot under 4.6.1?

This was a popper that the base is separate from the body. There is no hinge.

[Nik Habicht]

Broken popper -- maybe.....

The situation you describe -- could it have been caused by a low edge shot on the popper? Twisting the face out of the base? If so, then no....

[sperman]

And that's the problem. There's really no way to tell what went wrong after the fact. If it was set improperly, you have no way to know once it falls.

First shot was an edge hit at about 10 o-clock on the scoring zone. A pretty solid hit, but at the edge. 2nd shot was dead center of the scoring zone.

[spanky]

It would seem reasonable to assume that, with the popper falling forward, the popper was already broken or damaged and that damage could have prevented the popper from falling as designed.

[Dan Hefta]

Shooter takes 3 shots to drive down a stubborn popper. The popper makes a funny twist, but falls forward. As the popper is falling, the RO mutters "That's supposed to be a rearward falling popper."

Should the RO order a re-shoot? I know there is a camp that is going to say "if you shoot it down, you own it." But if the RO sees the popper isn't bahiving as intended, and that it has affected the competitors run, isn't he required to order a re-shoot under 4.6.1?

This was a popper that the base is separate from the body. There is no hinge.

If the RO was talking during the COF? I would call that RO interference and offer a reshoot.

[Scott R]

Shooter takes 3 shots to drive down a stubborn popper. The popper makes a funny twist, but falls forward. As the popper is falling, the RO mutters "That's supposed to be a rearward falling popper."

Should the RO order a re-shoot? I know there is a camp that is going to say "if you shoot it down, you own it." But if the RO sees the popper isn't bahiving as intended, and that it has affected the competitors run, isn't he required to order a re-shoot under 4.6.1?

This was a popper that the base is separate from the body. There is no hinge.

The way I see it is that there are no rules dictating popper design and there probably should be. I think the calibration procedures work well when dealing with a rear falling popper that does not have loose bolts or a worn out hinge and is set up and anchored well. It does not work so well when poppers are used that are in need of repair, just thrown out there on loose ground, or are of some other design. I have seen the popper design you speak of fall in every direction imaginable due to an off centered hit, so I don't think awarding a reshoot due to it not falling the direction that the designer thought it should is valid.

[Graham Smith]

This was a popper that the base is separate from the body. There is no hinge.

I've not seen this kind of a popper before so it's rather difficult to comment on the design. But if it fell forward when it was supposed to go back I would be sorely tempted to call this REF regardless of how many times it was hit. But, because it did go down then shooter is pretty much stuck with the score as shot.

Here's a question I'm fuzzy on. In a case like this, where the RO observes an apparent problem with a mechanical target, should the CRO, RM or MD be called to have a look at it? I know that as an MD I would want to have a look at it as soon as possible to keep there from being any reshoots because something was mis-behaving.

-------

And as an aside, how can you have a popper that is not hinged? Can you have a popper that just stands there like a plate does? Isn't that pretty much asking for trouble?

[Scott R]

This was a popper that the base is separate from the body. There is no hinge.

I've not seen this kind of a popper before so it's rather difficult to comment on the design. But if it fell forward when it was supposed to go back I would be sorely tempted to call this REF regardless of how many times it was hit. But, because it did go down then shooter is pretty much stuck with the score as shot.

Here's a question I'm fuzzy on. In a case like this, where the RO observes an apparent problem with a mechanical target, should the CRO, RM or MD be called to have a look at it? I know that as an MD I would want to have a look at it as soon as possible to keep there from being any reshoots because something was mis-behaving.

-------

And as an aside, how can you have a popper that is not hinged? Can you have a popper that just stands there like a plate does? Isn't that pretty much asking for trouble?

Here is a design similar to if not the same as what the OP is refering to... http://www.horseofiron.com/index.php/USTB-Universal-Target-Base-USPSA-IDPA ...and yes in my opinion this and some of the other designs are asking for trouble.

[Mark R]

And as an aside, how can you have a popper that is not hinged? Can you have a popper that just stands there like a plate does? Isn't that pretty much asking for trouble?

Yea...the Horse of Iron made popper stands that had a small inverted v-shaped adapter you installed on the bottom of the popper. The v set inverted on a rail. I have purchased a couple of these before they stopped selling them. They actually work real good...I never had a popper turn and fall forward. They always fall backward when hit. Horse of Iron will sell them again if you buy like 50 or so of them.

[pjb45]

Did the equipment on the course of fire perform as expected/designed?

That is the first and most important question to be addressed.

If no, then REF. If yes, then it is what it is.

Typically, our rules give the benefit to the shooter in other instances. So following that theme, I would give a reshoot, if the equipment did not perform as expected or designed.

[kevin c]

Did the equipment on the course of fire perform as expected/designed?

That is the first and most important question to be addressed.

If no, then REF. If yes, then it is what it is.

...

I agree: If it did not fall the way it was supposed to, then there was no competitive equity for the shooter.

[sperman]

The popper was the last target on the stage (at least it was after having to go back to it.) Is was busy cussing the popper as the RO mentioned it was falling the wrong way, so there was no interference.

The popper listed above looks almost identical to the one from the stage.

[Schutzenmeister]

The popper was the last target on the stage (at least it was after having to go back to it.) Is was busy cussing the popper as the RO mentioned it was falling the wrong way, so there was no interference.

The popper listed above looks almost identical to the one from the stage.

Go to chrono ... Have your vocabulary calibrated. Clearly it failed to make major while cussing or the popper would have fallen in the correct direction!

[Skydiver]

The popper was the last target on the stage (at least it was after having to go back to it.) Is was busy cussing the popper as the RO mentioned it was falling the wrong way, so there was no interference.

The popper listed above looks almost identical to the one from the stage.

Go to chrono ... Have your vocabulary calibrated. Clearly it failed to make major while cussing or the popper would have fallen in the correct direction!

LOL!

Will there be a special waiver for Junior shooters hoping to shoot major?

[Nik Habicht]

The way I see it is that there are no rules dictating popper design and there probably should be. I think the calibration procedures work well when dealing with a rear falling popper that does not have loose bolts or a worn out hinge and is set up and anchored well. It does not work so well when poppers are used that are in need of repair, just thrown out there on loose ground, or are of some other design. I have seen the popper design you speak of fall in every direction imaginable due to an off centered hit, so I don't think awarding a reshoot due to it not falling the direction that the designer thought it should is valid.

That pretty much nails it.....

Poppers, of good design, in good repair, properly set for the ground conditions, and managed appropriately, will rarely have problems -- but that's a lot to put together....

[Schutzenmeister]

The popper was the last target on the stage (at least it was after having to go back to it.) Is was busy cussing the popper as the RO mentioned it was falling the wrong way, so there was no interference.

The popper listed above looks almost identical to the one from the stage.

Go to chrono ... Have your vocabulary calibrated. Clearly it failed to make major while cussing or the popper would have fallen in the correct direction!

LOL!

Will there be a special waiver for Junior shooters hoping to shoot major?

Nah ... A stern "Shucky Darn" should do for them!

But then I do remember one lady shooter having troubles with some steel. After her reload, she took dead aim on the target and screamed "Die, Bitch!" She pulled the trigger and nailed it. (True story ... Remind me not to piss her off!)

[Ben Stoeger]

I think the shooter should get a reshoot.. but the rules do not support it. There are a limited list of things that can be called for range equipment failure. They are:

the displacement of paper targets

the premature activation of metal or moving targets

failure to reset moving targets or steel targets

the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment

the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers

I don't see a broken popper anywhere on that list.. so I think that the shooter would be SOL (under the rules).