Flexmoney Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I think the same should certainly apply to shotgun. If the shooter wants to chance using half their shot spread for one piece of steel, and the other half for another...that is part of the game (IMO). I've had that work for me and against me. Kyle, this is a course design issue. The targets should not be set so that you can engage two targets with one shot. Just like you have to watch for shoot thru's etc... I agree it is a course design issue...I'd call it a feature And...further...why shouldn't they be set so that a shooter can get more than one? It doesn't get much more practical than that. As to what you should have done...I am with Vince. It sounds like, with the information given, you'd have to score the targets and write down the time. Hopefully, you meant to say you are with Vince and me! Remember what I said, I was NOT 100% sure so I let it stand. Just clarifying.... Opps...Vince's post was the freshest one in my memory. Back to pistol.... We have come up with a variety of possible issues...things that could have happened. Bottom line for me as an RO would be that I would have to know...for sure...or the shooter gets the hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted May 18, 2004 Author Share Posted May 18, 2004 jspruance, painting the steel between shooters would have made this a non-issue. However, club matches around here rarely paint between squads and almost never paint between shooters. That's one of the things I love about the nationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Shooter comes to an array of four steel and one paper, fires five shots (I counted) and moves on. Scoring, that array has all four steel down and the required two hits on the IPSC paper.What should I have done? You should have called out the two hits on the paper and four steel. Anything else would be speculative and invite an RO v Shooter thread drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Score it and tape, unless the paper shows different caliber holes. My guess is that one steel was down or somehow got frightened and fell like a NFL QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted May 18, 2004 Author Share Posted May 18, 2004 OK, for all you guys who say score it without quoting a rule, let's say the shooter demands a reshoot due to range equipment failure, saying a steel was down. Now what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 OK, for all you guys who say score it without quoting a rule, let's say the shooter demands a reshoot due to range equipment failure, saying a steel was down. Now what? It's still your call, and you must be satisfied that the claim is true, before awarding a reshoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 OK, for all you guys who say score it without quoting a rule, let's say the shooter demands a reshoot due to range equipment failure, saying a steel was down. Now what? Then I'd say, "Gee, if you had only stopped and pointed it out before we continued I would have given you the reshoot based on range equipment failure but since I did not see it I can't give it to you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I agree it is a course design issue...I'd call it a feature And...further...why shouldn't they be set so that a shooter can get more than one? It doesn't get much more practical than that. Not quite sure how you can engage two targets with one shot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Not quite sure how you can engage two targets with one shot.... Unless you're using a shotgun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Unless you're using a shotgun! True, but now we are back to a course design issue..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 If he goes to engage a popper and it has already fallen ( range failure ) then give him a reshoot. Like you said, you only heard 5 shots where 6 should have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I agree it is a course design issue...I'd call it a feature And...further...why shouldn't they be set so that a shooter can get more than one? It doesn't get much more practical than that. Not quite sure how you can engage two targets with one shot.... It's mighty simple. I look for the opportunity on every 3-gun stage that I shoot that has poppers shot with a SG. Sometimes it is a good shooting stategy, somethimes not. And, sometimes the shooter won't have enough power to knock over either target. It's the same with pistol. We can have a partial bullet diameter hit that goes on to score on "other" targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 AikiDale: There is another thread on stopping because a piece of steel is down. Not a good idea, I found that out the hard way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I look for the opportunity on every 3-gun stage that I shoot that has poppers shot with a SG. Sometimes it is a good shooting stategy, somethimes not. And, sometimes the shooter won't have enough power to knock over either target. It's the same with pistol. We can have a partial bullet diameter hit that goes on to score on "other" targets. Kyle, we both agree on the stage design issue (ask Troy to talk about SG9 at last years 3 Gun during the class this weekend). However, on the engage two targets with one shot, here's the issue.... 9.5.9 (14th ed) If a competitor fails to shoot at each target in a course of fire with at least one round, the competitor shall incur one procedural penalty for each target not shot at as well as the appropriate penalties for misses. 9.5.6 (15th ed) A competitor who fails to shoot at each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target for failure to shoot at the target, as well as appropriate penalties for misses (see Rule 10.2.7). 10.2.7 (15th ed) A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one round will incur 1 procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.5 (Fixed Time) or 9.9.2 apply (disappearing). So, it seems to me that you can NOT engage two targets with one round. What is an interesting twist is the situation you described where there is a partial hit goes to score on two targets. Let's say you hit two poppers with a half a bullet each target, and they both fall. In that case, they both score per 9.5.5 and 9.5.6 (14th ed), 9.1.5.4 (15th ed), but since you did not fire one round at each target, it sure appears to me that you earn a Procedural. In other words, I would call out "2 Alpha.... one GREAT shot.... one Procedural". That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Ummm...which target are you going to give the FTE on? Write it up... Seriously...it sounds like we may have an issue here that the rulebook hasn't considered. At least, not the pistol rules. I'm sure shotgunners from around the world have been hitting doubles for a long time, and have probably dealt with this issue a time or two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Ummm...which target are you going to give the FTE on? YOUR choice, but if I get to pick.... you engaged one target and knocked it down, so you are good there. OTOH, a fragment hit another target and knocked it down.... you did not engage it, so under the rules previously quoted....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I am pretty sure YOU (the RO) have to pick, right? As in... "One procedural for FTE PP6" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Ummm...which target are you going to give the FTE on? YOUR choice, but if I get to pick.... you engaged one target and knocked it down, so you are good there. OTOH, a fragment hit another target and knocked it down.... you did not engage it, so under the rules previously quoted....... ...and then I say range equiptment failure, please give me a reshoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 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..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I think you might be missing the fact that you can't penalize someone for NOT shooting at a target that wasn't there (ie. steel blown down, splater knocking it over or re-set) because it is range equiptment failure if the target is not present to be shot at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 L2S, I am working off of Kyle's post about one shot engaging two targets (sorry for the thread drift....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I know, but if one shot takes down 2 targets isn't that REF? Why would it not be, it is not the shooters fault, and how can he shoot at a target that isn't there? It seems you are saying you should just smoke one round in the general direction of where the target was if it is knocked over. I don't think you should penalize the shooter for not shooting at a target that wasn't there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 I know, but if one shot takes down 2 targets isn't that REF? Why would it not be, it is not the shooters fault, and how can he shoot at a target that isn't there? It seems you are saying you should just smoke one round in the general direction of where the target was if it is knocked over. I don't think you should penalize the shooter for not shooting at a target that wasn't there Oh oh... apparently, I am going to have to call on higher powers on this one! What I was trying to say (Kyle's case)..... one round, hits on two targets, they both score, the shooter moves on, and since only one round fired at two separate targets, we have to apply a Procedural. What I did not say (L2S case)...... one round, hits on two targets, and they both fall. The shooter swings to PP2 to engage, and it is not there. That should be REF. Now I got it..... Seems like if the shooter fires one, gets two, and tries to move on, it is one call. OTOH, if they fire one, drop two, and are standing there looking for the other target, that is a REF call.... Like I said... calling a higher power on this one..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 Ok, that makes much more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now