Disappearing Targets

[sperman]

The stage in question has a couple of targets that are hidden behind barrles. The target stands are attached to a rope. When the shooter pulls the rope, the targets lift up from behind the barrels. When the shooter lets go of the rope, the barrels are hidden again. The WSB made no mention fo disappearing targets, and the score sheet had no boxes for NPMs.

On the second day of the match, some shooters decided these were disappearing targets and convinced the match officals. They chose not to shoot the targets, and activated the targets after their last shot was fired. I have 2 questions:

1. Does this meet the USPSA definition of a disappearing target?

2. Given that they weren't defined as disappearing targets on day 1, if the RM decides that they should be scored as disappearing targets, doesn't that mean that anyone who shot the stage on day 1 should get a re-shoot, or the stage should be tossed?

[walter hornby]

They are not disappearing targets since pulling the rope causes them to reappear at any time.

That is a major change in the stage briefing and all of day one should have gotten a reshoot.

[High Lord Gomer]

Those do sound like disappearing targets to me. From Appendix A3:

Disappearing target . . . . . .A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement

Yes, re-shoots or delete the stage:

2.3.4 If the Range Master (in consultation with the Match Director) determines that the physical or procedural change results in a loss of competitive equity and it is impossible for all competitors to attempt the revised stage, or if the stage has been rendered unsuitable or unworkable for any reason, that stage and all associated competitor scores must be deleted from the match.

[Too_Slow]

HLG,

Because the shooter can make them appear at any time just by pulling the rope they are NOT disappearing targets (if they go back down you have to pull the rope again, it is your fault that you didn't shoot them fast enough).

Brian

[High Lord Gomer]

Thanks, that makes sense...it is still "available for engagement".

[sperman]

HLG,

Because the shooter can make them appear at any time just by pulling the rope they are NOT disappearing targets (if they go back down you have to pull the rope again, it is your fault that you didn't shoot them fast enough).

Brian

Can you point to a rule to support that? I'm not saying I disagree, but if it goes to arb, what rule can you use for that decision?

[JakeMartens]

this was a question at Double Tap this year, there was a "trap door" with 2 targets under, you had to shoot a popper to drop the door so that you could cross the section to move forward.

They were not disappearing targets because you could manually open the "trap door" and engage them

Where as on a drop turner once it has been activated, there is nothing that you can manually do to set it off again

I do not know of a specific rule that states that, but that is how it was ruled for the DT stages and approved by Amidon

In the case of the stage you are referring to, if they changed it from day 1 to day 2, then yes a reshoot is in order.

Now if they decide to go back and say that they are not disappearing targets then everyone from day 2 on would need a reshoot.

And this is how stages get tossed

[sperman]

I think the difference between this stage and the one at DT is that at DT, the targets never moved.

Either way, I don't think "Amidon said so" would hold up under arbitration.

I really don't think these should be considered disappearing targets, but they seem to meet a strict interpretation of a "disappearing target."

[ima45dv8]

Scott, think of stage 7 at the recent GA State match. Pulling the handle allowed the competitor to engage the targets behind the respective ports. Yes, it's slightly different in that the targets didn't move, but the action and access provided by it seem very much the same.

[JakeMartens]

Scott, think of stage 7 at the recent GA State match. Pulling the handle allowed the competitor to engage the targets behind the respective ports. Yes, it's slightly different in that the targets didn't move, but the action and access provided by it seem very much the same.

Same at the IN section with the pull down ports

Not considered disappearing when you can repeat an action that makes the visible

[The Antichrome]

The appendix seems to cover it.

Those targets are available at anytime that the shooter chooses to activate them, and as many times as the shooter chooses.

Slight drift: Can a target that does not 'actually' disappear, be declared a disappearing target? (declared beforehand, in the wsb) My devious intention is to have an 'optional' target in a stage.

[sperman]

Ok, let's make this a little more hypothetical. You are at match XYZ. You've just heard that someone in match management decided the targets on stage 1 are disappearing (as described above.) This has you so upset that you are willing to risk $100 to arb the decision. What rules are you going to quote on your arbitration form?

The only relevant rules I can find are 9.9.1/9.9.2 and A3.

Are they moving targets?

Do they conitnually appear and disappear?

When at rest, do they present at least a portion of the highest scoring area?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want these to be considered disappearing targets, but I'm trying to find a way to support that opinion.

Slight thread drift: The more matches I work and shoot, the more I'm learning that the rules applied are very dependent on the knowledge of the CRO on any given stage, and the RM of the match. (This is not intended at any one individual or match, just something I've noticed.)

[Gary Johnson]

The only relevant rules I can find are 9.9.1/9.9.2 and A3.

Are they moving targets?

You nailed it right there.

9.9 covers scoring of moving targets. The targets in question are stationary so they can not disappear.

Everyone who shot after the change has to reshoot or the stage gets tossed.

[EEH]

I shot a match that had a stage with two targets on a rope hid behind two barrels,WSB,you were seated at signal you pull rope engage two targets plus two other paper targets that were not hidden--8 shot max,don't rember if you could stand and shoot or had to stay seated,,point we had about 40-45 shooters and no one questioned it..just saying--thing is you could not see the targets unless you pulled the rope,,but you could pull it as many times as you wanted..

Edited October 9, 2011 by EEH

[Gary Johnson]

Can a target that does not 'actually' disappear, be declared a disappearing target? (declared beforehand, in the wsb) My devious intention is to have an 'optional' target in a stage.

You can't use the exemption in 9.9.2 without satisfying the rest of 9.9.

I'm not sure about the legality of arbitrarily declaring a target to be optional but the idea is intriguing.

[sperman]

The only relevant rules I can find are 9.9.1/9.9.2 and A3.

Are they moving targets?

You nailed it right there.

9.9 covers scoring of moving targets. The targets in question are stationary so they can not disappear.

Everyone who shot after the change has to reshoot or the stage gets tossed.

Now I'm really confused.

Go to 3 minutes into this video. Those aren't moving targets?

[Gary Johnson]

The only relevant rules I can find are 9.9.1/9.9.2 and A3.

Are they moving targets?

You nailed it right there.

9.9 covers scoring of moving targets. The targets in question are stationary so they can not disappear.

Everyone who shot after the change has to reshoot or the stage gets tossed.

Now I'm really confused.

Go to 3 minutes into this video. Those aren't moving targets?

Those targets move but they aren't 'moving' targets. How's that for some DRL talk?

A moving target as used in 9.9 is one that moves under its own power (gravity, spring, electric motor...). Targets that are made available by repeatable competitor action do not disappear. That is why opening a door then closing it does not make the targets behind the door disappear. They are always available if the competitor chooses to make them so.

[pvhendrix]

"A moving target as used in 9.9 is one that moves under its own power (gravity, spring, electric motor...). Targets that are made available by repeatable competitor action do not disappear. That is why opening a door then closing it does not make the targets behind the door disappear. They are always available if the competitor chooses to make them so."

I don't find any of this verbage in Rule 9.9. In opening a door, to see targets, the prop is the responsibility of the shooter. The target does not move. If the target moves then certain portions of it's A zone must be available at final rest to be considered NON disappearing. No where does it state about competitor responsibilities to maintain the target moving. That makes the targets disappearing as they "moved" and at final rest no portion of either A zone was available for engagement.

Edited October 9, 2011 by pvhendrix

[aztecdriver]

"A moving target as used in 9.9 is one that moves under its own power (gravity, spring, electric motor...). Targets that are made available by repeatable competitor action do not disappear. That is why opening a door then closing it does not make the targets behind the door disappear. They are always available if the competitor chooses to make them so."

I don't find any of this verbage in Rule 9.9. In opening a door, to see targets, the prop is the responsibility of the shooter. The target does not move. If the target moves then certain portions of it's A zone must be available at final rest to be considered NON disappearing. No where does it state about competitor responsibilities to maintain the target moving. That makes the targets disappearing as they "moved" and at final rest no portion of either A zone was available for engagement.

They might be moving - but they are not hidden at rest, due to the fact that the only time they are truely at rest, is when the competitor is done shooting. If the competitor can continuously activate them - they are always available.

[pvhendrix]

"A moving target as used in 9.9 is one that moves under its own power (gravity, spring, electric motor...). Targets that are made available by repeatable competitor action do not disappear. That is why opening a door then closing it does not make the targets behind the door disappear. They are always available if the competitor chooses to make them so."

I don't find any of this verbage in Rule 9.9. In opening a door, to see targets, the prop is the responsibility of the shooter. The target does not move. If the target moves then certain portions of it's A zone must be available at final rest to be considered NON disappearing. No where does it state about competitor responsibilities to maintain the target moving. That makes the targets disappearing as they "moved" and at final rest no portion of either A zone was available for engagement.

They might be moving - but they are not hidden at rest, due to the fact that the only time they are truely at rest, is when the competitor is done shooting. If the competitor can continuously activate them - they are always available.

What rule will support that?

[Gary Johnson]

"A moving target as used in 9.9 is one that moves under its own power (gravity, spring, electric motor...). Targets that are made available by repeatable competitor action do not disappear. That is why opening a door then closing it does not make the targets behind the door disappear. They are always available if the competitor chooses to make them so."

I don't find any of this verbage in Rule 9.9. In opening a door, to see targets, the prop is the responsibility of the shooter. The target does not move. If the target moves then certain portions of it's A zone must be available at final rest to be considered NON disappearing. No where does it state about competitor responsibilities to maintain the target moving. That makes the targets disappearing as they "moved" and at final rest no portion of either A zone was available for engagement.

Even if we stipulate that targets moved by the competitor meet the definition of 'moving' for the purposes of rule 9.9 they still don't disappear because they "continuously appear and disappear" as long as the competitor wants them to.

The exemption in 9.9.2 is there to relieve a competitor from penalties imposed for failure to engage a target that is no longer available. The targets in the example are available any time the competitor wants them to be.

[pvhendrix]

Fortunately Rule 9.9 doesn't require the competitor to make targets appear and reappear in any manner.

It only addresses moving targets. Appendix B2 and B3 dictate the requirements of visability/availability of A zone for engagement for moving targets to NOT be considered as disappearing. Rule 9.9.3 requires the competitor to activate the mechanism which initiates the targets movement, or be penalized. I do not find any rule that requires a competitor to continously make a target appear and or reappear after activation/initiation of movement. I can find no other mention of moving targets in the current rule book. Again I ask what rule can be used to indicate these are not disappearing targets.

[Sherwyn]

I would look at the wording of 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 pre-

sented.

Any target that the competitor can reactivate has not completed its "designed movement"

Sherwyn

[pvhendrix]

I would look at the wording of 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 pre-

sented.

Any target that the competitor can reactivate has not completed its "designed movement"

Sherwyn

The targets in question were designed to "appear" upon pulling a handle. They were designed to complete their movement of "disappearing" upon releasing the handle. At their final resting postion NO portion of the targets were visible or available for engagement. Per rule 9.9 this makes them disappearing targets.

Where in the rule book does it state "Any target that the competitor can reactivate has not completed its "designed movement""?

These were not targets "which continuously appear and disappear" without a reactivation. I find nothing that requires a competitor to reactivate any targets after the initial activation.

[ac4wordplay]

I find nothing that requires a competitor to reactivate any targets after the initial activation.

Does the WSB prohibit a competitor from "reactivating" the targets?