Disappearing Targets

[JakeMartens]

"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 q 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.

Send it up to NROI, but I don't think you are going to like the answer

[aztecdriver]

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.

I used a perfectly legitimate analogy of a similar movement driven by outside forces vs. a shooters manual efforts. There is no difference in movements, both can be done similarly, and because both are possible, both have the same effect. You can't have one be non-disappearing because it's driven by a motor and another not because it's driven by a shooter. Just because they STOPPED moving, doesn't mean they are at rest. IMO, rest means they can't move again. You'll continue to disagree - so I'll encourage you to send it to NROI as well. I look forward to the response.

[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.

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.

I understand and respect your position. But I dont agree with it.

First, I believe them to be 'appearing' targets, not movers. (appearing targets are covered somewhere in 2.1 I think)

I dont have my rulebook on me, but I dont recall the term 'final rest'

The gist of my position is the shooter (and only the shooter) controls when, how long, how much, and how many times the targets are visible. Therefore, they are not disappearing.

9.9 doesnt define movers, just how to score them.

[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.

I understand and respect your position. But I dont agree with it.

First, I believe them to be 'appearing' targets, not movers. (appearing targets are covered somewhere in 2.1 I think)

I dont have my rulebook on me, but I dont recall the term 'final rest'

The gist of my position is the shooter (and only the shooter) controls when, how long, how much, and how many times the targets are visible. Therefore, they are not disappearing.

9.9 doesnt define movers, just how to score them.

I agree with your position in theory. Rule 2.1.8.5.1, is directed to Level 1 matches when targets are visible prior to activation and requires the WSB to spell out the prohibited shooting prior to activation, then refers to 9.9.4.

Under the circumstances of this stage; had the targets "appeared" under with the shooting of a popper, stepping on a pressure plate, or you choose your type of activation, came from a hidden position and returned to that hidden position, with no portion available for engagement per Appendix B2 or B3, how would you score it? If you say 4 NPM, I agree.

The debate seems to center around how they are made to "appear". I don't believe the rules, as now written, make any distinction on, the method of making them appear to the shooter.

Now had pulling the handle/lever opened a port, door, to view a target or targets, then the shooter missed the targets they would rightfully be scored as penalty misses and I totally agree. If they had released the handle/lever and blown them off then 4 penalty mikes and 2 failure to shoot at penalties. I understand the design intent; however, there is in my opinion the flaw of the "targets moving" not a port or door to view said targets. Under 9.9 I think the only alternative is to score them as disappearing, with NPM. If NORI is to make a ruling either way I don't care. I just want there to be a understandable rule that can be applied.

I've explained and discussed this as much and all that I will. Some seem to have taken this personally, never intended. It was only poised to make folks think and provide published rules to support their thoughts and position. I hope this has provoked the thinking as intended.

Edited October 10, 2011 by pvhendrix

[spanky]

The rule is understandable. If YOU can make the target appear by some sort of manual manipulation then it's not disappearing.

[Punkin Chunker]

The targets in question aren't moving targets -- a target which is made available at any time during the course of fire by some competitor action doesn't become a moving target just because the shooter moves it; it is not designed to be moving when engaged. Releasing the rope and letting the target fall is the competitor's problem, but does not make it a moving target, just because gravity pulls the target out of sight.

Same thing with a port -- if the shooter opens a port, throws a couple quick shots downrange, then closes the port, is the target behind the port considered a disappearing target? No -- the targets are still available if competitor action re-opens the port. Likewise, a target which lifts when a shooter pulls a rope is still available at the shooter's choice. 9.4.4 says misses are penalized, so the shooter can make the choice about re-shooting them. There doesn't have to be a rule to require a shooter to make the target available again -- it's entirely his choice to take the mikes or make better shots.

Trying to force 'moving target' provisions onto a target that shooter's actions directly control is a red herring and does not apply.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

I used a perfectly legitimate analogy of a similar movement driven by outside forces vs. a shooters manual efforts. There is no difference in movements, both can be done similarly, and because both are possible, both have the same effect. You can't have one be non-disappearing because it's driven by a motor and another not because it's driven by a shooter. Just because they STOPPED moving, doesn't mean they are at rest. IMO, rest means they can't move again. You'll continue to disagree - so I'll encourage you to send it to NROI as well. I look forward to the response.

Ding! I suspect that's pretty close to NROI's rationale, when you send that up.....

[Nik Habicht]

PV,

quick question: Two targets behind a door, that has a door closer on it. Shooter opens door, engages T1, door closes. Shooter does not open door again -- though nothing prevents him from doing so....

Assess Mikes/FTE penalties on T2?

[pvhendrix]

PV,

quick question: Two targets behind a door, that has a door closer on it. Shooter opens door, engages T1, door closes. Shooter does not open door again -- though nothing prevents him from doing so....

Assess Mikes/FTE penalties on T2?

Nik,

I've addressed that, the TARGET in your stage did not move, the prop moved. 2 M 1 FTS. I have applied the rules earlier that I believe support my position.

Look at post #54.

Edited October 10, 2011 by pvhendrix

[aztecdriver]

I've explained and discussed this as much and all that I will. Some seem to have taken this personally, never intended. It was only poised to make folks think and provide published rules to support their thoughts and position. I hope this has provoked the thinking as intended.

Personal in conversation tone - but I'm not taking offense to the discussion. I just know we are at an impasse. It's just a good idea for us to get anothers view on this.

[Nik Habicht]

PV,

quick question: Two targets behind a door, that has a door closer on it. Shooter opens door, engages T1, door closes. Shooter does not open door again -- though nothing prevents him from doing so....

Assess Mikes/FTE penalties on T2?

Nik,

I've addressed that, the TARGET in your stage did not move, the prop moved. 2 M 1 FTS. I have applied the rules earlier that I believe support my position.

Look at post #54.

Let's look at the rules:

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 presented.

The completion of their designed movement -- If a target can be reactivated as many times as a competitor wants to reactivate it, I would argue that it never completes its designed movement, it merely pauses that motion, until reactivated.....

This is different from a swinger, a drop turner, a clamshell, or bear trap, which can not be reactivated....

Therefore, miss and FTE penalties apply.....

Pretty sure that DNROI will see it that way.....

[LPatterson]

PV,

quick question: Two targets behind a door, that has a door closer on it. Shooter opens door, engages T1, door closes. Shooter does not open door again -- though nothing prevents him from doing so....

Assess Mikes/FTE penalties on T2?

Nik,

I've addressed that, the TARGET in your stage did not move, the prop moved. 2 M 1 FTS. I have applied the rules earlier that I believe support my position.

Look at post #54.

Let's look at the rules:

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 presented.

The completion of their designed movement -- If a target can be reactivated as many times as a competitor wants to reactivate it, I would argue that it never completes its designed movement, it merely pauses that motion, until reactivated.....

This is different from a swinger, a drop turner, a clamshell, or bear trap, which can not be reactivated....

Therefore, miss and FTE penalties apply.....

Pretty sure that DNROI will see it that way.....

Just for S & G, what is the completion of the designated movement? Is it fully exposed or fully hidden? This is not about how the target is viewed or not viewed through a prop but how the target is scored. If the target can be moved then it must be scored per 9.9.1 - 9.9.4, if at rest the conditions of App B2 or B3 must be met. The rules as written do not allow us to decide that the shooter could have activated it multiple times so it must not be disappearing. Send it DNROI if you want but remember the BoD approves the rules and interpretations there of.

[aztecdriver]

PV,

Have you a response from NROI yet? I'm very curious to the response. I don't want to hound John, but if you'd rather I send a note, I will.

[spanky]

PV,

quick question: Two targets behind a door, that has a door closer on it. Shooter opens door, engages T1, door closes. Shooter does not open door again -- though nothing prevents him from doing so....

Assess Mikes/FTE penalties on T2?

Nik,

I've addressed that, the TARGET in your stage did not move, the prop moved. 2 M 1 FTS. I have applied the rules earlier that I believe support my position.

Look at post #54.

Let's look at the rules:

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 presented.

The completion of their designed movement -- If a target can be reactivated as many times as a competitor wants to reactivate it, I would argue that it never completes its designed movement, it merely pauses that motion, until reactivated.....

This is different from a swinger, a drop turner, a clamshell, or bear trap, which can not be reactivated....

Therefore, miss and FTE penalties apply.....

Pretty sure that DNROI will see it that way.....

Just for S & G, what is the completion of the designated movement? Is it fully exposed or fully hidden? This is not about how the target is viewed or not viewed through a prop but how the target is scored. If the target can be moved then it must be scored per 9.9.1 - 9.9.4, if at rest the conditions of App B2 or B3 must be met. The rules as written do not allow us to decide that the shooter could have activated it multiple times so it must not be disappearing. Send it DNROI if you want but remember the BoD approves the rules and interpretations there of.

IMO since it is user controlled, there is no "completion."

[Skydiver]

PV,

quick question: Two targets behind a door, that has a door closer on it. Shooter opens door, engages T1, door closes. Shooter does not open door again -- though nothing prevents him from doing so....

Assess Mikes/FTE penalties on T2?

Nik,

I've addressed that, the TARGET in your stage did not move, the prop moved. 2 M 1 FTS. I have applied the rules earlier that I believe support my position.

Look at post #54.

Let's look at the rules:

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 presented.

The completion of their designed movement -- If a target can be reactivated as many times as a competitor wants to reactivate it, I would argue that it never completes its designed movement, it merely pauses that motion, until reactivated.....

This is different from a swinger, a drop turner, a clamshell, or bear trap, which can not be reactivated....

Therefore, miss and FTE penalties apply.....

Pretty sure that DNROI will see it that way.....

Just for S & G, what is the completion of the designated movement? Is it fully exposed or fully hidden? This is not about how the target is viewed or not viewed through a prop but how the target is scored. If the target can be moved then it must be scored per 9.9.1 - 9.9.4, if at rest the conditions of App B2 or B3 must be met. The rules as written do not allow us to decide that the shooter could have activated it multiple times so it must not be disappearing. Send it DNROI if you want but remember the BoD approves the rules and interpretations there of.

IMO since it is user controlled, there is no "completion."

I mostly agree with Jeremy: If it is shooter controlled AND the shooter can make the target reappear as many times as they want, then there is no "completion". If it's shooter controlled but the shooter only gets a set number of opportunities, then when the number of opportunities has expired it has come to "completion".

[LPatterson]

Let's ASSUME that in this case it is shooter controlled, he can jerk it as many times as he wants! So it is shooter controlled at the instant the shooter is trying to shoot, scoring is not normally done until after "Range is clear" so why would this change the requirement of 9.9.1 relating to a moving target and Appendix B3 "... MUST remain visible around hardcover or overlapping no-shoots." I don't have a dog in this hunt but I would NEVER RO this stage if the target were not on the score sheet as a NPM.

[aztecdriver]

Let's ASSUME that in this case it is shooter controlled, he can jerk it as many times as he wants! So it is shooter controlled at the instant the shooter is trying to shoot, scoring is not normally done until after "Range is clear" so why would this change the requirement of 9.9.1 relating to a moving target and Appendix B3 "... MUST remain visible around hardcover or overlapping no-shoots." I don't have a dog in this hunt but I would NEVER RO this stage if the target were not on the score sheet as a NPM.

It doesn't. What it doesn't do, though, is ever come to rest.

[Poppa Bear]

Let's ASSUME that in this case it is shooter controlled, he can jerk it as many times as he wants! So it is shooter controlled at the instant the shooter is trying to shoot, scoring is not normally done until after "Range is clear" so why would this change the requirement of 9.9.1 relating to a moving target and Appendix B3 "... MUST remain visible around hardcover or overlapping no-shoots." I don't have a dog in this hunt but I would NEVER RO this stage if the target were not on the score sheet as a NPM.

If the targets were activated then NPM would be the correct call. The OP's targets are not activated, they are controlled. The difference here is that activation denotes a mechanical trigger that sets the target in motion independent of the shooters actions. Because the targets motion is dependent on the shooters actions the targets are always available to the shooter.

For arguments sake lets attach the rope that controls the targets to a door. The more you open the door the less target that is available. 1/4 open and 75% of the target is available, open the door all the way and just the upper A zone is available, shut the door and it is no longer visible. The shooter cannot open the door, make the target available and then shut it and claim all misses are NPM because the target disappears when the door is shut. He controls the door, he controls the rope, he controls the target, he pays the penalty if he fails to hit the target when he controls the ability to make it available.

[Punkin Chunker]

It doesn't. What it doesn't do, though, is ever come to rest.

And when it is being engaged, what it doesn't do is move.

I don't recall ever hearing of, or seeing, a shooter using a sawing action on the line activating one of these types of targets to make it move while it is being shot.

[Steven Cline]

PV,

quick question: Two targets behind a door, that has a door closer on it. Shooter opens door, engages T1, door closes. Shooter does not open door again -- though nothing prevents him from doing so....

Assess Mikes/FTE penalties on T2?

Nik,

I've addressed that, the TARGET in your stage did not move, the prop moved. 2 M 1 FTS. I have applied the rules earlier that I believe support my position.

Look at post #54.

Let's look at the rules:

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 presented.

The completion of their designed movement -- If a target can be reactivated as many times as a competitor wants to reactivate it, I would argue that it never completes its designed movement, it merely pauses that motion, until reactivated.....

This is different from a swinger, a drop turner, a clamshell, or bear trap, which can not be reactivated....

Therefore, miss and FTE penalties apply.....

Pretty sure that DNROI will see it that way.....

I agree with this.

Apparently we need the DNROI or BOD to clarrify. But why do we need a "show me that in the rules" when we have a brain that tells us a target which can be made shootable at the shooters discretion hasn't truly disappeared (no that's not in the rules; it's common sense). The target(s) are different from the swinger and drop turner, therefor we can't apply rules written for drop-turners or swingers (that's not in the rules either; it's common sense). Whether I pull on a rope and make a target visible bcause I raise a port covering, lower hard cover, or raise the target, it's really the same; an obsecured target is made visible and can be made visible again as many times as I want... UNLIKE the swinger or drop-turner.

Well, wait, can I run out a swinger and push it into swinging again and return to the shooting area and engage it???? No? Show me that in the rule book. The closest thing is 10.6.2

Other persons may be expelled from the range for conduct which a

Range Officer deems to be unacceptable. Examples of unacceptable

conduct include, but are not limited to, failing to comply with the reasonable

directions of a Match Official, interference with the operation

of a course of fire and/or a competitors attempt thereof, and any other

behaviour likely to bring the sport into disrepute.

I would call it interference with the operation of a course of fire. The swinger is designed to challenge the shooter to get difficult hits fast or easy hit slowly or no hits at all if his skill isn't up to par and once it stops moving you've lost your chance to shoot it. "Show me that in the rule book." Sigh.

This isn't directed anyone in particular- just the mindset.

If we insist on being obtuse, difficult, unreasonable, argumentative, semantical... instead of reasonable, then we're in for a long hard tiring road.

Some 350 people heard Porter tell us in 2011 the targets were not dissappearing since we could always raise the door and shoot the targets.

Some 350 people heard Porter tell us in 2010 targets were not dissapearing since we controlled when the ports closed.

Almost 350 accepted these reasonable explanations. Why do we do this to ourselves?

Oh, I forgot- Because it's fun, entertaining and might just identify a problem that needs fixing.

Disregard the previous.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Steven Cline

[Steven Cline]

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?

1- No

2- Yes

[LPatterson]

PV,

quick question: Two targets behind a door, that has a door closer on it. Shooter opens door, engages T1, door closes. Shooter does not open door again -- though nothing prevents him from doing so....

Assess Mikes/FTE penalties on T2?

Nik,

I've addressed that, the TARGET in your stage did not move, the prop moved. 2 M 1 FTS. I have applied the rules earlier that I believe support my position.

Look at post #54.

Let's look at the rules:

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 presented.

The completion of their designed movement -- If a target can be reactivated as many times as a competitor wants to reactivate it, I would argue that it never completes its designed movement, it merely pauses that motion, until reactivated.....

This is different from a swinger, a drop turner, a clamshell, or bear trap, which can not be reactivated....

Therefore, miss and FTE penalties apply.....

Pretty sure that DNROI will see it that way.....

I agree with this.

Apparently we need the DNROI or BOD to clarrify. But why do we need a "show me that in the rules" when we have a brain that tells us a target which can be made shootable at the shooters discretion hasn't truly disappeared (no that's not in the rules; it's common sense). The target(s) are different from the swinger and drop turner, therefor we can't apply rules written for drop-turners or swingers (that's not in the rules either; it's common sense). Whether I pull on a rope and make a target visible bcause I raise a port covering, lower hard cover, or raise the target, it's really the same; an obsecured target is made visible and can be made visible again as many times as I want... UNLIKE the swinger or drop-turner.

Well, wait, can I run out a swinger and push it into swinging again and return to the shooting area and engage it???? No? Show me that in the rule book. The closest thing is 10.6.2

Other persons may be expelled from the range for conduct which a

Range Officer deems to be unacceptable. Examples of unacceptable

conduct include, but are not limited to, failing to comply with the reasonable

directions of a Match Official, interference with the operation

of a course of fire and/or a competitor’s attempt thereof, and any other

behaviour likely to bring the sport into disrepute.

I would call it interference with the operation of a course of fire. The swinger is designed to challenge the shooter to get difficult hits fast or easy hit slowly or no hits at all if his skill isn't up to par and once it stops moving you've lost your chance to shoot it. "Show me that in the rule book." Sigh.

This isn't directed anyone in particular- just the mindset.

If we insist on being obtuse, difficult, unreasonable, argumentative, semantical... instead of reasonable, then we're in for a long hard tiring road.

Some 350 people heard Porter tell us in 2011 the targets were not dissappearing since we could always raise the door and shoot the targets.

Some 350 people heard Porter tell us in 2010 targets were not dissapearing since we controlled when the ports closed.

Almost 350 accepted these reasonable explanations. Why do we do this to ourselves?

Oh, I forgot- Because it's fun, entertaining and might just identify a problem that needs fixing.

Disregard the previous.

I'm sorry I don't know who Porter is or which match you are referring to so how does that apply to the original question. In any case you are referring to a prop that moves while the original post was about a moving target (controlled by the shooter but it is still a target that moves). If the questionable target can not be seen from any shooting location because it moved and returned to a hidden position then it becomes at rest and Appendix B2-B3 apply. All that was needed was to declare the barrel soft cover or position the target so the upper A zone was available.

[The Antichrome]

I'm sorry I don't know who Porter is or which match you are referring to so how does that apply to the original question. In any case you are referring to a prop that moves while the original post was about a moving target (controlled by the shooter but it is still a target that moves). If the questionable target can not be seen from any shooting location because it moved and returned to a hidden position then it becomes at rest and Appendix B2-B3 apply. All that was needed was to declare the barrel soft cover or position the target so the upper A zone was available.

It's an appearing target. It's appearance is controlled by the shooter.

Your solution is to declare the barrel softcover, their solution was to allow the shooter to make the target appear as many times and for as long as he wants.

Also, if the barrel is soft cover, it must be a transparent barrel, or a "portion" (not defined)of the target must be visible above or around the 'soft cover'.

This thread has given me an idea for a target presentation that is cruelly devious and will cause the 'moving target NPM faction' to have a stroke. ;-)

[ima45dv8]

This thread has given me an idea for a target presentation that is cruelly devious and will cause the 'moving target NPM faction' to have a stroke. ;-)

Please share!

[Jim Norman]

If I follow all this falderall the discussion centers on what is truly a disappearing target. Can a target that is made visible by an action of the shooter that can be repeated until the shooter gets tired of performing the action be considered a disappearing target when the shooter decides to stop making it appear? What is the difference if the shooter pulls on a rope to make the target visible by moving the target or he pulls on the same rope and moves a vision barrier?

If the target's motion is not repeatable by the actions of the shooter as in a DT or a Swinger, then I would consider the target to be a disappearing target, if however the shooter can make the target appear on command by opening a port or pulling a rope to expose the target (or any other method besides running down range to restart a swinger as in the example above)then I consider it a non-disappearing target that should incur FTE and Miss penalties.

Porter is the man behind the Double Tap. THe stage in question had you shooting two targets that were covered by a trap door that you had to open. It started open as I remember and closed when you shoot a piece of steel however you could reopen the trap door to engage the targets.