Disappearing Targets

[pvhendrix]

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?

Not the question.

Does it REQUIRE, in the rules a competitor, to reactivate a moving target once it is at rest?

[aztecdriver]

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.

9.9.1 is all that is required. There is no "completion of designed movement". Because the targets can reappear, the rest of the rule applies here and applicable miss and FTE penalties apply. Just because a shooter needs to do X to have them reappear doesn't negate that fact. I'll turn it back to you and ask, which rule requires a moving target to be activated only once? The target CAN reappear, therefore it's not a disappearing target.

[spanky]

"or which continuously appear or disappear will always incur failur to shoot at or miss penalties."

IMO if the shooter can control the appear/disappear then it is technically continuous.

[Sherwyn]

Maybe we just need to look at

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSAmatches are freestyle. Competitors must be permit-

ted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot

targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire must not

require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or

stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created,

and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to com-

pel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

Course almost always require a shooter to do something to get targets visible.

By the logic in this thread, any star, swinger, etc that is activated by a door, port or whatever, would be a disappearing target if the door or port was closed.

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?

Not the question.

Does it REQUIRE, in the rules a competitor, to reactivate a moving target once it is at rest?

[pvhendrix]

"or which continuously appear or disappear will always incur failur to shoot at or miss penalties."

IMO if the shooter can control the appear/disappear then it is technically continuous.

Don't see it required in the rules. To continue to activate or reactivate a target that has completed it's initial travel.

[pvhendrix]

"Maybe we just need to look at

1.1.5 Freestyle USPSAmatches are freestyle. Competitors must be permit-

ted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot

targets on an as and when visible basis. Courses of fire must not

require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or

stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created,

and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to com-

pel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

Course almost always require a shooter to do something to get targets visible.

By the logic in this thread, any star, swinger, etc that is activated by a door, port or whatever, would be a disappearing target if the door or port was closed."

Again not the question. You are referring to props. Opening a door or port and maintaining it in order to shoot targets, are not the same nor considered "moving targets". If the swinger activated by the door were to not be visible at it's final rest per Appendix B2 or B3, it would be a disappearing target, regardless of the time it moved. The competitors were compeled to a position to activate the targets. The targets were activated to be visible, they disappeared, after that activation.

The logic in this thread is not about "a door, ports or whatever..." It is about disappearing targets and the USPSA rules that govern them.

Edited October 10, 2011 by pvhendrix

[aztecdriver]

"or which continuously appear or disappear will always incur failur to shoot at or miss penalties."

IMO if the shooter can control the appear/disappear then it is technically continuous.

Don't see it required in the rules. To continue to activate or reactivate a target that has completed it's initial travel.

The rules don't have to - it's basically what spank is saying. The targets continuously reappear - it doesn't matter if it's on a bobber or swinger or the rising or lowering of a shooters hand. I also don't see reference to "initial travel". Being that you used the term - initial travel means that there is more travel to come - which proves the point that they are not at rest yet.

[pvhendrix]

"or which continuously appear or disappear will always incur failur to shoot at or miss penalties."

IMO if the shooter can control the appear/disappear then it is technically continuous.

Don't see it required in the rules. To continue to activate or reactivate a target that has completed it's initial travel.

The rules don't have to - it's basically what spank is saying. The targets continuously reappear - it doesn't matter if it's on a bobber or swinger or the rising or lowering of a shooters hand. I also don't see reference to "initial travel". Being that you used the term - initial travel means that there is more travel to come - which proves the point that they are not at rest yet.

Unfortunately the targets did not "continuously reappear". You could have stood there until today and they would not have reappeared without someone reactivating them.

[aztecdriver]

"or which continuously appear or disappear will always incur failur to shoot at or miss penalties."

IMO if the shooter can control the appear/disappear then it is technically continuous.

Don't see it required in the rules. To continue to activate or reactivate a target that has completed it's initial travel.

The rules don't have to - it's basically what spank is saying. The targets continuously reappear - it doesn't matter if it's on a bobber or swinger or the rising or lowering of a shooters hand. I also don't see reference to "initial travel". Being that you used the term - initial travel means that there is more travel to come - which proves the point that they are not at rest yet.

Unfortunately the targets did not "continuously reappear". You could have stood there until today and they would not have reappeared without someone reactivating them.

You seem to have a problem with the word continuously, which I can understand why... Let's look at the first part:

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,

What I am saying is that if the movement of the target allows the target to reappear, whether it by competitor action (reactivation, to use your term) or through an automated function after activation, the targets are not disappearing. If it is designed that I can pull a handle and the targets expose, let go of the handle and they go away, pull the handle again and they are exposed again - the designed movement NEVER completes, because I can always do the movement again. There's no need for a rule that says you have to reactivate it because the design of the prop COMPELLS it, the targets can always move, it's designed that way, so there is no completion. Therefore, they do not qualify as disappearing targets.

[Sherwyn]

So by what you have said, a star (moving target) activated by a door...is a disappearing target if the door is closed after activation.

Now you would have to explain why the door (a prop) is any different from an activation rope (a prop).

"Maybe we just need to look at

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSAmatches are freestyle. Competitors must be permit-

ted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot

targets on an "as and when visible" basis. Courses of fire must not

require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or

stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created,

and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to com-

pel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

Course almost always require a shooter to do something to get targets visible.

By the logic in this thread, any star, swinger, etc that is activated by a door, port or whatever, would be a disappearing target if the door or port was closed."

Again not the question. You are referring to props. Opening a door or port and maintaining it in order to shoot targets, are not the same nor considered "moving targets". If the swinger activated by the door were to not be visible at it's final rest per Appendix B2 or B3, it would be a disappearing target, regardless of the time it moved. The competitors were compeled to a position to activate the targets. The targets were activated to be visible, they disappeared, after that activation.

The logic in this thread is not about "a door, ports or whatever..." It is about disappearing targets and the USPSA rules that govern them.

[pvhendrix]

"What I am saying is that if the movement of the target allows the target to reappear, whether it by competitor action (reactivation, to use your term) or through an automated function after activation, the targets are not disappearing. If it is designed that I can pull a handle and the targets expose, let go of the handle and they go away, pull the handle again and they are exposed again - the designed movement NEVER completes, because I can always do the movement again. There's no need for a rule that says you have to reactivate it because the design of the prop COMPELLS it, the targets can always move, it's designed that way, so there is no completion. Therefore, they do not qualify as disappearing targets."

You are correct that the design of the prop compels the targets be activated. The rules compel that the targets be activated or receive the penalties. The rule does not require the shooter to continually raise and lower the targets. Therefore they disappear at the completion of the designed travel up, then down and out of sight. The rule makes no mention of the method of activation for the target.

[pvhendrix]

So by what you have said, a star (moving target) activated by a door...is a disappearing target if the door is closed after activation.

Now you would have to explain why the door (a prop) is any different from an activation rope (a prop).

"Maybe we just need to look at

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSAmatches are freestyle. Competitors must be permit-

ted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot

targets on an "as and when visible" basis. Courses of fire must not

require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position, location or

stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created,

and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to com-

pel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances.

Course almost always require a shooter to do something to get targets visible.

By the logic in this thread, any star, swinger, etc that is activated by a door, port or whatever, would be a disappearing target if the door or port was closed."

Again not the question. You are referring to props. Opening a door or port and maintaining it in order to shoot targets, are not the same nor considered "moving targets". If the swinger activated by the door were to not be visible at it's final rest per Appendix B2 or B3, it would be a disappearing target, regardless of the time it moved. The competitors were compeled to a position to activate the targets. The targets were activated to be visible, they disappeared, after that activation.

The logic in this thread is not about "a door, ports or whatever..." It is about disappearing targets and the USPSA rules that govern them.

The door is not what makes the star (target) continue to move. The door is a view to the star (target) and the shooter does not have to maintain control of the star (target) for it to be visible.

[Rob Tompkins]

I am not a trained RO and have only been shooting USPSA for 2-3 years but ... To my simple mind it seems odd to make a distinction between pulling a lever and opening a port to shoot a target (with that target not a disappearing target, because you can reopen or even hold open the port) and pulling a lever to raise the target to shoot it as often as you want (or even holding back to shoot as much as you want)

In a practical sense that distinction is nonsensical.

[aztecdriver]

"What I am saying is that if the movement of the target allows the target to reappear, whether it by competitor action (reactivation, to use your term) or through an automated function after activation, the targets are not disappearing. If it is designed that I can pull a handle and the targets expose, let go of the handle and they go away, pull the handle again and they are exposed again - the designed movement NEVER completes, because I can always do the movement again. There's no need for a rule that says you have to reactivate it because the design of the prop COMPELLS it, the targets can always move, it's designed that way, so there is no completion. Therefore, they do not qualify as disappearing targets."

You are correct that the design of the prop compels the targets be activated. The rules compel that the targets be activated or receive the penalties. The rule does not require the shooter to continually raise and lower the targets. Therefore they disappear at the completion of the designed travel up, then down and out of sight. The rule makes no mention of the method of activation for the target.

The rule that ALLOWS targets to be considered disappearing requires the designed movement to COMPLETE AND be at rest with not being visible. The rule doesn't compel the shooter to continually activate them - the course does. Because the targets CAN move again by course design, means the movement NEVER completes. You're going to disagree with that.

You keep going to the rule that requires activation. Consider them non-disappearing targets for a second - which rule requires activation before engaging a moving target? You are boot strapping the activation rule for disappearing targets to MAKE them disappearing targets. That doesn't work. Look at the course design and forget about the competitor action required to expose those targets. The targets go up and go down, can they go up again, and again, and again - does it ever stop, regardless of competitor action? Nothing prevents them from going up again except for the competitor CHOOSING not to raise them again. Therefore, they never complete. If they are not disappearing targets - there are NO rules (except for the level 1 exception) that requires ANYTHING about activation, whether the first time or multiple times.

When a competitor can choose not to expose targets again, they can never complete their designed movement.

Edited October 10, 2011 by aztecdriver

[pvhendrix]

"What I am saying is that if the movement of the target allows the target to reappear, whether it by competitor action (reactivation, to use your term) or through an automated function after activation, the targets are not disappearing. If it is designed that I can pull a handle and the targets expose, let go of the handle and they go away, pull the handle again and they are exposed again - the designed movement NEVER completes, because I can always do the movement again. There's no need for a rule that says you have to reactivate it because the design of the prop COMPELLS it, the targets can always move, it's designed that way, so there is no completion. Therefore, they do not qualify as disappearing targets."

You are correct that the design of the prop compels the targets be activated. The rules compel that the targets be activated or receive the penalties. The rule does not require the shooter to continually raise and lower the targets. Therefore they disappear at the completion of the designed travel up, then down and out of sight. The rule makes no mention of the method of activation for the target.

The rule that ALLOWS targets to be considered disappearing requires the designed movement to COMPLETE AND be at rest with not being visible. The rule doesn't compel the shooter to continually activate them - the course does. Because the targets CAN move again by course design, means the movement NEVER completes. You're going to disagree with that.

You keep going to the rule that requires activation. Consider them non-disappearing targets for a second - which rule requires activation before engaging a moving target? You are boot strapping the activation rule for disappearing targets to MAKE them disappearing targets. That doesn't work. Look at the course design and forget about the competitor action required to expose those targets. The targets go up and go down, can they go up again, and again, and again - does it ever stop, regardless of competitor action? Nothing prevents them from going up again except for the competitor CHOOSING not to raise them again. Therefore, they never complete. If they are not disappearing targets - there are NO rules (except for the level 1 exception) that requires ANYTHING about activation, whether the first time or multiple times.

When a competitor can choose not to expose targets again, they can never complete their designed movement.

Just because the targets CAN move again, does not require they MUST move again. They were designed to appear or move by pulling the lever and disappear when the lever was released. They have at that time completed their designed movement.

[Sherwyn]

"What I am saying is that if the movement of the target allows the target to reappear, whether it by competitor action (reactivation, to use your term) or through an automated function after activation, the targets are not disappearing. If it is designed that I can pull a handle and the targets expose, let go of the handle and they go away, pull the handle again and they are exposed again - the designed movement NEVER completes, because I can always do the movement again. There's no need for a rule that says you have to reactivate it because the design of the prop COMPELLS it, the targets can always move, it's designed that way, so there is no completion. Therefore, they do not qualify as disappearing targets."

You are correct that the design of the prop compels the targets be activated. The rules compel that the targets be activated or receive the penalties. The rule does not require the shooter to continually raise and lower the targets. Therefore they disappear at the completion of the designed travel up, then down and out of sight. The rule makes no mention of the method of activation for the target.

The rule that ALLOWS targets to be considered disappearing requires the designed movement to COMPLETE AND be at rest with not being visible. The rule doesn't compel the shooter to continually activate them - the course does. Because the targets CAN move again by course design, means the movement NEVER completes. You're going to disagree with that.

You keep going to the rule that requires activation. Consider them non-disappearing targets for a second - which rule requires activation before engaging a moving target? You are boot strapping the activation rule for disappearing targets to MAKE them disappearing targets. That doesn't work. Look at the course design and forget about the competitor action required to expose those targets. The targets go up and go down, can they go up again, and again, and again - does it ever stop, regardless of competitor action? Nothing prevents them from going up again except for the competitor CHOOSING not to raise them again. Therefore, they never complete. If they are not disappearing targets - there are NO rules (except for the level 1 exception) that requires ANYTHING about activation, whether the first time or multiple times.

When a competitor can choose not to expose targets again, they can never complete their designed movement.

Just because the targets CAN move again, does not require they MUST move again. They were designed to appear or move by pulling the lever and disappear when the lever was released. They have at that time completed their designed movement.

So what part of 9.9.3 says you only have to activate once?

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.

[pvhendrix]

"What I am saying is that if the movement of the target allows the target to reappear, whether it by competitor action (reactivation, to use your term) or through an automated function after activation, the targets are not disappearing. If it is designed that I can pull a handle and the targets expose, let go of the handle and they go away, pull the handle again and they are exposed again - the designed movement NEVER completes, because I can always do the movement again. There's no need for a rule that says you have to reactivate it because the design of the prop COMPELLS it, the targets can always move, it's designed that way, so there is no completion. Therefore, they do not qualify as disappearing targets."

You are correct that the design of the prop compels the targets be activated. The rules compel that the targets be activated or receive the penalties. The rule does not require the shooter to continually raise and lower the targets. Therefore they disappear at the completion of the designed travel up, then down and out of sight. The rule makes no mention of the method of activation for the target.

The rule that ALLOWS targets to be considered disappearing requires the designed movement to COMPLETE AND be at rest with not being visible. The rule doesn't compel the shooter to continually activate them - the course does. Because the targets CAN move again by course design, means the movement NEVER completes. You're going to disagree with that.

You keep going to the rule that requires activation. Consider them non-disappearing targets for a second - which rule requires activation before engaging a moving target? You are boot strapping the activation rule for disappearing targets to MAKE them disappearing targets. That doesn't work. Look at the course design and forget about the competitor action required to expose those targets. The targets go up and go down, can they go up again, and again, and again - does it ever stop, regardless of competitor action? Nothing prevents them from going up again except for the competitor CHOOSING not to raise them again. Therefore, they never complete. If they are not disappearing targets - there are NO rules (except for the level 1 exception) that requires ANYTHING about activation, whether the first time or multiple times.

When a competitor can choose not to expose targets again, they can never complete their designed movement.

Just because the targets CAN move again, does not require they MUST move again. They were designed to appear or move by pulling the lever and disappear when the lever was released. They have at that time completed their designed movement.

So what part of 9.9.3 says you only have to activate once?

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.

Conversley what portion of rule 9.9.3 do you find that requires more than 1 activation. With 1 activation I have complied with the rule as written.

[aztecdriver]

"What I am saying is that if the movement of the target allows the target to reappear, whether it by competitor action (reactivation, to use your term) or through an automated function after activation, the targets are not disappearing. If it is designed that I can pull a handle and the targets expose, let go of the handle and they go away, pull the handle again and they are exposed again - the designed movement NEVER completes, because I can always do the movement again. There's no need for a rule that says you have to reactivate it because the design of the prop COMPELLS it, the targets can always move, it's designed that way, so there is no completion. Therefore, they do not qualify as disappearing targets."

You are correct that the design of the prop compels the targets be activated. The rules compel that the targets be activated or receive the penalties. The rule does not require the shooter to continually raise and lower the targets. Therefore they disappear at the completion of the designed travel up, then down and out of sight. The rule makes no mention of the method of activation for the target.

The rule that ALLOWS targets to be considered disappearing requires the designed movement to COMPLETE AND be at rest with not being visible. The rule doesn't compel the shooter to continually activate them - the course does. Because the targets CAN move again by course design, means the movement NEVER completes. You're going to disagree with that.

You keep going to the rule that requires activation. Consider them non-disappearing targets for a second - which rule requires activation before engaging a moving target? You are boot strapping the activation rule for disappearing targets to MAKE them disappearing targets. That doesn't work. Look at the course design and forget about the competitor action required to expose those targets. The targets go up and go down, can they go up again, and again, and again - does it ever stop, regardless of competitor action? Nothing prevents them from going up again except for the competitor CHOOSING not to raise them again. Therefore, they never complete. If they are not disappearing targets - there are NO rules (except for the level 1 exception) that requires ANYTHING about activation, whether the first time or multiple times.

When a competitor can choose not to expose targets again, they can never complete their designed movement.

Just because the targets CAN move again, does not require they MUST move again. They were designed to appear or move by pulling the lever and disappear when the lever was released. They have at that time completed their designed movement.

Your right - they don't HAVE to - but it's a competitors CHOICE not to make them move again. If they CAN move again - there IS NO COMPLETION to their designed movement. They were Designed TO MOVE as the competitor chooses, and as such, never complete the designed movement.

You can say this how ever you want to... if the targets can be revealed again, they are not disappearing, especially if the competitor can CHOOSE for them not to move again.

[pvhendrix]

"What I am saying is that if the movement of the target allows the target to reappear, whether it by competitor action (reactivation, to use your term) or through an automated function after activation, the targets are not disappearing. If it is designed that I can pull a handle and the targets expose, let go of the handle and they go away, pull the handle again and they are exposed again - the designed movement NEVER completes, because I can always do the movement again. There's no need for a rule that says you have to reactivate it because the design of the prop COMPELLS it, the targets can always move, it's designed that way, so there is no completion. Therefore, they do not qualify as disappearing targets."

You are correct that the design of the prop compels the targets be activated. The rules compel that the targets be activated or receive the penalties. The rule does not require the shooter to continually raise and lower the targets. Therefore they disappear at the completion of the designed travel up, then down and out of sight. The rule makes no mention of the method of activation for the target.

The rule that ALLOWS targets to be considered disappearing requires the designed movement to COMPLETE AND be at rest with not being visible. The rule doesn't compel the shooter to continually activate them - the course does. Because the targets CAN move again by course design, means the movement NEVER completes. You're going to disagree with that.

You keep going to the rule that requires activation. Consider them non-disappearing targets for a second - which rule requires activation before engaging a moving target? You are boot strapping the activation rule for disappearing targets to MAKE them disappearing targets. That doesn't work. Look at the course design and forget about the competitor action required to expose those targets. The targets go up and go down, can they go up again, and again, and again - does it ever stop, regardless of competitor action? Nothing prevents them from going up again except for the competitor CHOOSING not to raise them again. Therefore, they never complete. If they are not disappearing targets - there are NO rules (except for the level 1 exception) that requires ANYTHING about activation, whether the first time or multiple times.

When a competitor can choose not to expose targets again, they can never complete their designed movement.

Just because the targets CAN move again, does not require they MUST move again. They were designed to appear or move by pulling the lever and disappear when the lever was released. They have at that time completed their designed movement.

Your right - they don't HAVE to - but it's a competitors CHOICE not to make them move again. If they CAN move again - there IS NO COMPLETION to their designed movement. They were Designed TO MOVE as the competitor chooses, and as such, never complete the designed movement.

You can say this how ever you want to... if the targets can be revealed again, they are not disappearing, especially if the competitor can CHOOSE for them not to move again.

Again I ask for a rule that supports or enforces your view.

[JakeMartens]

What if opening a door activates a clamshell, that after it is activated the upper a zone is still exposed, not a disappearing Target, but once the door closes, is it now? No because opening it again exposes the upper a zone

So a shooter can open the door and take the head shot if he wants/needs to, same with pulling the rope to expose the targets again

[The Antichrome]

They're not disappearing.

The rules do not have to tell us exactly how and what we can and cannot do in every case.

Why not? Because (with exceptions) courses are freestyle i.e. 'engage targets as they become visible from within the shooting area'

Freestyle courses are a problem to be solved. The problem here is how to make those targets visible...in this case it's pulling them up with a rope. The shooter can and will need to pull them up for as long or as many times as he needs.

The rulebook doesnt require it, it doesnt need to.

[aztecdriver]

"What I am saying is that if the movement of the target allows the target to reappear, whether it by competitor action (reactivation, to use your term) or through an automated function after activation, the targets are not disappearing. If it is designed that I can pull a handle and the targets expose, let go of the handle and they go away, pull the handle again and they are exposed again - the designed movement NEVER completes, because I can always do the movement again. There's no need for a rule that says you have to reactivate it because the design of the prop COMPELLS it, the targets can always move, it's designed that way, so there is no completion. Therefore, they do not qualify as disappearing targets."

You are correct that the design of the prop compels the targets be activated. The rules compel that the targets be activated or receive the penalties. The rule does not require the shooter to continually raise and lower the targets. Therefore they disappear at the completion of the designed travel up, then down and out of sight. The rule makes no mention of the method of activation for the target.

The rule that ALLOWS targets to be considered disappearing requires the designed movement to COMPLETE AND be at rest with not being visible. The rule doesn't compel the shooter to continually activate them - the course does. Because the targets CAN move again by course design, means the movement NEVER completes. You're going to disagree with that.

You keep going to the rule that requires activation. Consider them non-disappearing targets for a second - which rule requires activation before engaging a moving target? You are boot strapping the activation rule for disappearing targets to MAKE them disappearing targets. That doesn't work. Look at the course design and forget about the competitor action required to expose those targets. The targets go up and go down, can they go up again, and again, and again - does it ever stop, regardless of competitor action? Nothing prevents them from going up again except for the competitor CHOOSING not to raise them again. Therefore, they never complete. If they are not disappearing targets - there are NO rules (except for the level 1 exception) that requires ANYTHING about activation, whether the first time or multiple times.

When a competitor can choose not to expose targets again, they can never complete their designed movement.

Just because the targets CAN move again, does not require they MUST move again. They were designed to appear or move by pulling the lever and disappear when the lever was released. They have at that time completed their designed movement.

Your right - they don't HAVE to - but it's a competitors CHOICE not to make them move again. If they CAN move again - there IS NO COMPLETION to their designed movement. They were Designed TO MOVE as the competitor chooses, and as such, never complete the designed movement.

You can say this how ever you want to... if the targets can be revealed again, they are not disappearing, especially if the competitor can CHOOSE for them not to move again.

Again I ask for a rule that supports or enforces your view.

I've already given that to you. 9.9.1 - just because you are stating that the completion of movement occurs when they go back down one time doesn't mean it's right. As I've already explained to you - if the course was designed that they can go up and down repeatedly. It doesn't matter if I trip a pressure plate and and a motor drives a bobber until it's turned off or if I pull the cord repeatedly manually, they never complete the movement and come to rest.

[pvhendrix]

What if opening a door activates a clamshell, that after it is activated the upper a zone is still exposed, not a disappearing Target, but once the door closes, is it now? No because opening it again exposes the upper a zone

So a shooter can open the door and take the head shot if he wants/needs to, same with pulling the rope to expose the targets again

Not the same in my view as the target / clamshell does not disappear. The head is visible when the target / clamshell has completed movement. The door only activated the target / clamshell. The target / clamshell is still meeting the requirements of Appendix B2 and B3 when at rest.

Edited October 10, 2011 by pvhendrix

[pvhendrix]

They're not disappearing.

The rules do not have to tell us exactly how and what we can and cannot do in every case.

Why not? Because (with exceptions) courses are freestyle i.e. 'engage targets as they become visible from within the shooting area'

Freestyle courses are a problem to be solved. The problem here is how to make those targets visible...in this case it's pulling them up with a rope. The shooter can and will need to pull them up for as long or as many times as he needs.

The rulebook doesnt require it, it doesnt need to.

My position is they were activated, moved and disappeared from view when at final rest. Rule 9.9 defines moving targets, I believe they are moving targets. Appendix B2 and B3 define final rest availability of scoring area presented. At final rest none of the target was visible. I believe them to be disappearing, within the application of the rules.

[pvhendrix]

"What I am saying is that if the movement of the target allows the target to reappear, whether it by competitor action (reactivation, to use your term) or through an automated function after activation, the targets are not disappearing. If it is designed that I can pull a handle and the targets expose, let go of the handle and they go away, pull the handle again and they are exposed again - the designed movement NEVER completes, because I can always do the movement again. There's no need for a rule that says you have to reactivate it because the design of the prop COMPELLS it, the targets can always move, it's designed that way, so there is no completion. Therefore, they do not qualify as disappearing targets."

You are correct that the design of the prop compels the targets be activated. The rules compel that the targets be activated or receive the penalties. The rule does not require the shooter to continually raise and lower the targets. Therefore they disappear at the completion of the designed travel up, then down and out of sight. The rule makes no mention of the method of activation for the target.

The rule that ALLOWS targets to be considered disappearing requires the designed movement to COMPLETE AND be at rest with not being visible. The rule doesn't compel the shooter to continually activate them - the course does. Because the targets CAN move again by course design, means the movement NEVER completes. You're going to disagree with that.

You keep going to the rule that requires activation. Consider them non-disappearing targets for a second - which rule requires activation before engaging a moving target? You are boot strapping the activation rule for disappearing targets to MAKE them disappearing targets. That doesn't work. Look at the course design and forget about the competitor action required to expose those targets. The targets go up and go down, can they go up again, and again, and again - does it ever stop, regardless of competitor action? Nothing prevents them from going up again except for the competitor CHOOSING not to raise them again. Therefore, they never complete. If they are not disappearing targets - there are NO rules (except for the level 1 exception) that requires ANYTHING about activation, whether the first time or multiple times.

When a competitor can choose not to expose targets again, they can never complete their designed movement.

Just because the targets CAN move again, does not require they MUST move again. They were designed to appear or move by pulling the lever and disappear when the lever was released. They have at that time completed their designed movement.

Your right - they don't HAVE to - but it's a competitors CHOICE not to make them move again. If they CAN move again - there IS NO COMPLETION to their designed movement. They were Designed TO MOVE as the competitor chooses, and as such, never complete the designed movement.

You can say this how ever you want to... if the targets can be revealed again, they are not disappearing, especially if the competitor can CHOOSE for them not to move again.

Again I ask for a rule that supports or enforces your view.

I've already given that to you. 9.9.1 - just because you are stating that the completion of movement occurs when they go back down one time doesn't mean it's right. As I've already explained to you - if the course was designed that they can go up and down repeatedly. It doesn't matter if I trip a pressure plate and and a motor drives a bobber until it's turned off or if I pull the cord repeatedly manually, they never complete the movement and come to rest.

I haven't inserted any activity other than what was present in the stage. No what if's, No motor driven bobbers until it's turned off, as they would be continually appearing, and receive penalty misses. And just because you are stating "they never complete movement and come to rest." Does not mean it's anymore right. I can assure you they were at rest, when they returned to the position, where they began.

Edited October 10, 2011 by pvhendrix