fewer shots taken than scored

[BDH]

Is it REF if there is an array with a NS and a shoot target, the bullet breaks the perf on both and is such scored on both?

To me it seems like the same situation?

Jake, NOT the same issue. Under 9.5.4 and 9.5.5 (14th ed) or 9.5.3 (15th ed), this scores both hits (shoot and penalty target). The issue the L2S brings up is that the competitor does not have the opportunity to shoot at the other target, so how can we give him a Procedural? Under 4.5.1 (14th ed) or 4.6.1 (15th ed) we have not 'presented the challenge fairly and equitably'...... so REF applies and a reshoot is issued......

[Barrettone]

Hey guys:

I have an important question to ask regarding this very issue. I have designed a stage for our Area 5 3-Gun that actually allows for doubles. I have placed them together to enable a limited shooter to clear them as well as an open shooter on my shotgun COF. Now under 2.1.8 of course construction, it states that "care must be taken with the physical placement of paper targets to prevent "shoot-throughs". It also states under 4.5.1, that "the premature activation of metal or activating targets" requires a REF ruling, and therefore a re-shoot. However, if the course design SPECIFICALLY states in the set-up notes, RO notes, and the course description that the designer wishes the placement of targets to call for "doubles", then the targets in my opinion, are not being activated prematurely. I think Flex has eluded to this is previous posts, but I want the issue to be addressed specifically, as it has implications in my match. If someone feels that it is REF for metal targets as well, then tell me if this includes frangibles (12.5.5), as I see no mention of doubles on frangibles in the rulebook.

Thanks,

Jeff

[Jim Norman]

Is it REF if there is an array with a NS and a shoot target, the bullet breaks the perf on both and is such scored on both?

To me it seems like the same situation?

As long as the shot breaks the perf on the front target, it is not a shoot-through. If the shot is wholly within the front target and not tangent to or breaking hte perf, then it would constitute a shoot-through.

If it is steel and steel, there is not perf, the target scores tothe edge, so conceivablya round could shear and it could take down a second piece of steel.

Happened to me athe the AWARE a few years ago. I got two plates with one shot, on, if I remember correctly, my third reshoot on the stage, it stood.

Jim

[shred]

We don't give FTE's on disappearing targets because at some theoretical point in time, they are no longer available to shoot at. I'd say the same holds for steel-- if it's not available to shoot at, no FTE.

(of course most COF's around here don't have the 'engage with at least one shot per target' language anyway, so the problem is more or less moot)

[mactiger]

Guys, here's the deal.... you must engage every target with at least one round. That seems very clear to me (or seriously, help me understand if I am mis-understanding the rules). Regardless of which target gets the Procedural, you only fired one shot at two targets in this scenario. Help me understand what I am missing here???

Calling hoser.... calling mactiger..... calling Uncle Vince.... Junior Jedi under attack.....

Oh sure, "Junior Jedi", you start all this stuff, and then holler for help.

Instead of using steel, think about this as if you set up two, overlapping paper scoring targets. A competitor fires a shot which touches the scoring lines on both targets. One shot, two hits.

(Unlikely, you say, but a good reason to not set up targets this way.)

My interpretation: if you set the course up so that a competitor can get a "two-fer", then you can't penalize him for FTE-- in effect, he fired a round at each of the two targets.

I've seen this happen on some shotgun courses--not that often, but enough. In no instance was an FTE given, nor was it called REF. It was simply scored. I'm not saying it was right, or that BDH's read of the rule is wrong. It is an ambiguous part of the rule book, and says to me: course designers beware.

YMMV, of course.

Troy

PS: Anybody see where my bulldog went?

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

My ears were burning (BDH, you definitely know how to use The Force). In respect of "magic bullets" which hit more than one target:

9.1.5 Impenetrable – The scoring area of all IPSC scoring and penalty paper targets is deemed to be impenetrable. If a:

9.1.5.1 Bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target, and continues on to strike the scoring area of another paper target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.1.5.2 Bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target, and continues on to hit or strike down a metal target, this will be treated as range equipment failure. The competitor will be required to reshoot the course of fire, after it has been restored.

9.1.5.3 Bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or metal target, and continues on to strike the scoring area of another paper target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will also count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.1.5.4 Bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or metal target, and continues on to strike down (or hit the scoring area of) another metal target, the fallen (or hit on the) subsequent metal target will also count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

Questions?

(Troy - your bulldog is still there, and I don't know what you're seeing, but I suggest you clear your cache).

[mactiger]

Yeah, what the Darth one said.

Troy

[mactiger]

Well, I'm looking at an empty Corona bottle, er, never mind...

What I'm seeing here is pink pop lettering that says "emmie".

I'll try clearing the cache. Thanks.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

Heck...now that Troy and Vince chimed in...I think I'll argue on BDH's side for a while.

Say a stage has 16 pieces of steel. The shooter only shoots 15 times. How could they have engaged all 16 targets?

It says (right there in the stage briefing) that 16 rounds are needed/required.

-----------

Troy, I always see the bulldog...it must by your computer.

[Tman33_99]

I had this same type of situation one time. There were two overlaping scoring targets set up in a V type of arrangement where the top targets lower D zone was over the A zone of the bottom target. I engaged each target twice. The top target was Alpha-Mike. The Bottom Target was 2 Alpha.....BUT one alpha had cut the perf on the top target. I argued and won that the top target should be Alpha Delta, not Alpha Mike.

Most didn't like it because many got 2 Alpha on the Top target, with a D zone hit on the top target that was meant for the lower target and ended up with Alpha Mike on the bottom target.

I guess I got lucky once.

Travis

[mactiger]

Flex$, Vince cited the right rules to answer your question with 9.1.5.3 and 9.1.5.4.

Even though the timer might indicate less than the required number of shots, I think it's generally accepted that in this instance, the competitor engaged each target with one shot, part of the shot striking one target, the other part striking the other. It falls more on course design than on procedural penalties. It's more obvious to the person shooting if it happens with steel than on paper targets, but it would be the same call either way, IMO.

Of course, Big John could slap me upside the head with the rulebook for saying that...

One other thing: most stage briefings say how many rounds the course requires, but not how many you must fire. "Best 2 hits per paper will score, steel must fall to score. Engage all targets as they become visible..." (At least that's how I write them.)

Troy

__________

I got the dog back. Cleared the cache as Uncle Vinny suggested, and reloaded it. I guess my computer hates me.

Edited May 19, 2004 by mactiger

[Neil Beverley]

I specifically had to consider whether these rules caused a problem for SG as it is common enough for 2 targets to fall with one hit.

As shotgunners will often look for the opportunity to go for it then it was my opinion that I didn't need to look for a change to the rule.

If the competitor goes for a pair of targets he has still fired a shot at each target. The rule does not state one shot per target.

On the other hand I personally don't like stages where this can happen and I think it's generally as a result of poor stage design which is exploited rather than by any cleverness on behalf of the designer.

There was one such stage in the Europeans SG Championships and I predicted it would be a mess and, IMHO, it was.

[Vince Pinto]

Say a stage has 16 pieces of steel.  The shooter only shoots 15 times.  How could they have engaged all 16 targets?

Rule 9.1.5.4 applies. And since this rule declares that the shot on both targets count for score, then obviously both targets were engaged with a single round. Therefore COF requirements were fulfilled, hence no procedural.

And Troy's summation of the wording of a typical written stage briefing is spot on.

[BDH]

Kyle, thanks for coming to my defense. I take back all the bad stuff I said about ya..

Now I am going to push the envelope and challenge three RM's (WARNING: Do not try this at home. Only for the brave or foolish).

Neil/Troy/Vince, I am just not getting this. While I understand and agree with 9.1.5.4, I don't know how 9.5.6 (9.5.9 14th) could be any clearer...... 'with at least ONE round'. Not one half round.... not one quarter round.... at least ONE round. It seems like these rules are in conflict with each other.

Troy, if you and Gary simultaneously beat me up both sides of my head with your rulebooks this weekend, maybe I'll be able to figure this one out.

[shred]

Well.. we don't give a 1/2 no-shoot for one that splits the perf, so I'd guess that they're declaring that a target with any legal hit on it has, by definition, been shot at.

It's an edge case, to be sure.

[mactiger]

Shred has it right. It is an edge case--one shot counts for two targets--for scoring and engagement purposes. As Neil says, proper course design and setup eliminates the problem, although even when you go over a course with a fine-toothed comb prior to the event, you'll usually find someone willing to "push the envelope a little" and try to get a two-fer. John Dixon and Jimbo Clark are two of the best at finding and taking advantage of these kind of "holes' in the course.

In the event that a competitor can fire one shot and get a score on two separate targets, however, he's considered to have engaged both targets with that single shot. It would be extremely difficult to call a piece of steel "missed" when it's obviously down, or to say that the competitor didn't engage it, just because the opportunity to get two targets with one shot was available.

(I have a rule book with a lead sap sewn into it, just for remedial education, BDH.)

Troy

[Neil Beverley]

Neil/Troy/Vince, I am just not getting this. While I understand and agree with 9.1.5.4, I don't know how 9.5.6 (9.5.9 14th) could be any clearer...... 'with at least ONE round'. Not one half round.... not one quarter round.... at least ONE round. It seems like these rules are in conflict with each other.

Brian,

I'll again restrict my perspective to the shotgun point of view.

The rule does not say one round per target.

Depending on distance, the pattern spread is likely to be between 4-20 inches. It is therefore absolutely possible to deliberately aim to shoot 2 targets with one round. Some competitors choose spreader chokes or spreader cartidges to achieve just that.

This conforms to "shoot at each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round ", as opposed to not shooting one or both targets with one round. The targets will have been shot with one round each it just so happens that it's the same round.

Take 00 buck as an example (9 ball) (8.4mm per pellet). Split the pattern between 2 targets so 4 hits (nearly 9 mm) on one and 5 hits on the other (OK, OK. I know it's a convenient example). The competitor has found a way to achieve/exploit this by the way the targets are presented from a given position.

The proof of the pudding that 9.5.6 has been complied with is in the fact that by shooting at the 2 targets with one shot both of them are hit and fall.

[Vince Pinto]

BDH,

OK, I'll come to your defence, in a roundabout sorta way. If a handgun competitor shoots one round at P1, but the shot knocks over P1 and P2, I agree that he didn't actually engage P2.

So far, so good.

However P2 fell down due to bad course construction, right? Well since it fell down, how can you possibly give the competitor a procedural for failing to shoot at P2, when P2 was no longer available to be shot? This is how Rule 9.1.5.4 kicks in.

Walk towards the light, my Young Jedi Warrior

[Jake Di Vita]

How is it he did not engage both targets if a projectile from his firearm knocked them both down?

[Vince Pinto]

Jake,

The fact is he only engaged a single target, and a "magic bullet" did the dirty work, unless you're gonna tell me that a competitor with a handgun intentionally shot down two poppers, during a COF, with one bullet.

And if anyone can actually do so, I salute them and I want their autograph.

Personally though, I think this falls into the realms of the Tooth Fairy Club (current membership 1 - The Perfect Double)

[Flexmoney]

Sounds like we have come back to BDH's earlier thought...stage design.

I'm going to differ from Neil in that (for shotgun) I don't think being able to get a two-for-one with shotgun means bad stage design. Perhaps it did on the stage that he talks about above. But, on most of the courses that I have shot (granted, not a lot) it's just part of the game. It's an aspect of the shooting challenge. And it is up to the competitor to choose how to engage those targets (it is riskier to go for a two-for-one).

[BDH]

I'll again restrict my perspective to the shotgun point of view.

The rule does not say one round per target.

Neil, either I am losing my vision, OR maybe this is the problem I am having...... is the SHOTGUN rule written differently than the PISTOL rule on this point (remember, we have not yet seen our long gun rules)? I'm looking in both my 14th and 15th ed rule books, and it sure says 'at least one round' in both of them.

However P2 fell down due to bad course construction, right? Well since it fell down, how can you possibly give the competitor a procedural for failing to shoot at P2, when P2 was no longer available to be shot? This is how Rule 9.1.5.4 kicks in.

[/b].

Vince, it was L2S that helped me understand the flaw in my logic on the Procedural issue. I got that part. My bad. It just seems that we have two rules that contradict each other. That's my confusion. I'll shut up and go away, and maybe some day I will see the light.....

[Loves2Shoot]

Discussions like this are great for us pre-Jedi's who can't even quote a single rule by number Thanks BDH!

[Neil Beverley]

Brian

Neil, either I am losing my vision, OR maybe this is the problem I am having...... is the SHOTGUN rule written differently than the PISTOL rule on this point (remember, we have not yet seen our long gun rules)? I'm looking in both my 14th and 15th ed rule books, and it sure says 'at least one round' in both of them.

The shotgun rule is not written differently and we took great pains to try to make as many rules as possible identical. If you refer back to my earlier posts you will see that I have said that I had to consider whether the wording of the rule would cause any problems for shotgun.

I have tried to only focus on the shotgun side of things in my replies but I really don't think that there would be very many competitors at all who, with a handgun or rifle, would spend time trying to get 2 targets with Vince's magical bullet. However, shotgun is very different.

I think you're still focusing on the wording of the rule in one particular way. If you bear with me I'll try a completely different tack.

Task:

To take 2 acorns and smash each of them with a mallet.

Do you take the first acorn and smash it and then take the second acorn and smash it, OR do you take both acorns and put them side by side and hit them once at the same time? Using the latter method have both of them (each of them) been smashed with the mallet?

I think you are conceiving an interpretation that includes an additional "each" as below in red. This isn't a necessary requirement if there is an overlapping, adjacent or close target in shotgun.

A competitor who fails to shoot at each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round each

Brian, I hope this helps explain my approach to the rule.

Flex

IMHO the C of F at the ESC was poor design because it was nigh on impossible to maintain an equitable challenge throughout the entire match. A very many poppers can move, lean or shift after a number of shots particularly on some surfaces. If there is a chance this can happen thereby giving different opportunities from one competitor to the next then the stage is arbitrary and unfair.

However, I'm happy to concede that IF built correctly then there could be a place for such opportunies on a shotgun stage. My gripe (and dislike) is because many of the 2 targets with one shot are created by accident in the build process. The quality of the build is all important. If consistency is in doubt, leave it out.

[Vince Pinto]

Neil,

The issue of "shooting at" targets is clearly quite different between handgun and shotgun disciplines, despite the identical rules.

As we all agree, it's quite possible to intentionally construct a shotgun stage where competitors have the option of "going for it" by attempting to down two poppers with one shell, or they can "play it safe" and make one shot on each popper. With either result, I agree they have "shot at" both poppers, as per your acorn analogy.

However a "one shot, two poppers" course design is not an option for handgun stages, because you don't have a spray of shot to enable a realistic attempt. With a handgun stage, if one shot downs two poppers, it can only be a case of bad course construction (and pure luck if it works). As a result, the rules allow for partial hits (i.e. a portion of the round hits each target), and we score them accordingly, without assessing procedurals for "failing to shoot at" one target or the other.

And this has been an interesting topic !