What is the penalty

[sperman]

There are 4 targets hidden behind walls, with a port to engage the targets. The walls in question are tarps, and due to high winds at a previous match have had "V" shaped cuts put in them.

The shooter gets confused, and accidentally engages one of the targets through the "V" instead of the port. He realizes his mistake, and makes up the shots on the target through the port. Due to the angle of the shots taken through the "V", it's easy to tell which hits came through the legal port.

Should a penalty be applied to the shooter? If so, under what rule?

The stage procedure was "Upon start signal engage all targets as they become visible from behind the fault lines."

Here is a picture. You can see the port just over the shooters sholder, and to the left are the openings in the wall.

[Ronnie j]

Misses applied to shots taken through the hard cover should be all.

[wgnoyes]

If he had the presence of mind to realize what he did and burned extra time to shoot the target(s) again through the correct port, then no penalty. The hits are there.

[walter hornby]

One procedural for not following the written stage briefing. 10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the

written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance). Do not apply two different penalties for the same offense, (e.g. not firing the required

rounds in a Virginia Count stage; competitor gets a miss and no procedural).

[High Lord Gomer]

I vote no penalty.

Unless the stage briefing explicitly said, "Don't shoot through the walls." I don't see how that would count as not following the written stage briefing. Since walls are assumed to be hard cover, I've never seen a stage briefing explicity tell you not to shoot through them.

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as "soft cover" (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable "hard cover":

Since they were apparent;y paper targets, this applies:

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

So not counting the hits that you could tell went through the card cover sounds correct to me.

[remoandiris]

There are 4 targets hidden behind walls, with a port to engage the targets. The walls in question are tarps, and due to high winds at a previous match have had "V" shaped cuts put in them.

The shooter gets confused, and accidentally engages one of the targets through the "V" instead of the port. He realizes his mistake, and makes up the shots on the target through the port. Due to the angle of the shots taken through the "V", it's easy to tell which hits came through the legal port.

Should a penalty be applied to the shooter? If so, under what rule?

The stage procedure was "Upon start signal engage all targets as they become visible from behind the fault lines."

Here is a picture. You can see the port just over the shooters sholder, and to the left are the openings in the wall.

Unless shots were mandated thru the opening with the red tape, how can any penalty be applied if shots were taken thru the "V"s? The WSB said "Upon start signal engage all targets as they become visible from behind the fault lines" and that is what the shooter did.

I believe a Forbidden Action should have been declared stating no shots thru the Vs and added that statement to the WSB.

[ima45dv8]

"...as they become visible..."

Sounds like he did just that.

The lesson I'll take away from this is to cut any similar ports at knee-level.

[open17]

No penalty. The shots through the wall are nothing--neither hit nor miss.

9.1.6 "walls are hard cover"

9.1.6.1 "scoring a target hit through hard cover"

Let's not head down the "write it in to the WSB" or "create

a forbidden action"trail. Some of us use snow fence walls,

and you can see every target in a COF through them.

Edited October 9, 2011 by open17

[remoandiris]

No penalty. The shots through the wall are nothing--neither hit nor miss.

9.1.6 "walls are hard cover"

9.1.6.1 "scoring a target hit through hard cover"

Let's not head down the "write it in to the WSB" or "create

a forbidden action"trail. Some of us use snow fence walls,

and you can see every target in a COF through them.

You may have misread the OP. The competitor did NOT shoot thru the "wall". He shot thru a "V" shaped opening on the wall. He engaged the target when it was visible thru an opening in the wall as if it was a port, which it was. How do you stop someone from doing that? Add it to the WSB or declare a forbidden action.

2.3.1.1.a Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit

competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe

condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole

in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain

unfair competitive advantage.

Seems to me the "V"s were an unintended course loophole.

Edited October 9, 2011 by remoandiris

[warpspeed]

Right but as Open17 stated, many clubs use the orange snow fences and we all know they are hardcover and even though you can see through them, they are not mini ports.

10.2.2 does not apply cause I doubt the WSB said "don't shoot through hardcover" or "don't shoot through "V" cuts"

HighLord Gomer has it right, IMHO.

Edited October 9, 2011 by warpspeed

[twodownzero]

What is a v shaped cut if not a port?

I vote no penalty, but not because he "made up" his shots (in fact, that would specifically violate the rule that says that a procedural error cannot be undone by competitor action), but rather, because there's no difference between "hole in the wall" and a "port." They're the same thing unless otherwise specified, and even then, only if it'd be within the rules to specify such a stage procedure.

[remoandiris]

What is a v shaped cut if not a port?

I vote no penalty, but not because he "made up" his shots (in fact, that would specifically violate the rule that says that a procedural error cannot be undone by competitor action), but rather, because there's no difference between "hole in the wall" and a "port." They're the same thing unless otherwise specified, and even then, only if it'd be within the rules to specify such a stage procedure.

+1 on the V cut being a port unless otherwise specified. And if the MD wants to prevent using the V cuts, declare a FA. Otherwise, the competitor followed the WSB.

IMO, snow fence walls are understood to be solid walls in accordance with the rule book versus a solid blue wall (tarp) that has openings in it...ports or V cuts. Another way to prevent the use of V cuts would have been to slap a piece of duct take on them.

[Loves2Shoot]

So, the ports had a big red line around them and people want to say the wind slits would be considered shooting ports unless the WSB states otherwise? Really?

I guess the rules committee should have never allowed for walls other than solid.

If he stuck his gun through the slit, how does this play out? Does it change anything if his gun muzzle was on the other side of a wall?

3.2.6 Let them RM make the call since you are not allowed scoring hits through hard cover. 4.1.4.1 9.1.6

[spanky]

So did he engage the targets through the v slits?

No procedural IF he made them all up in the port, otherwise mikes c 2 per target. FTEs are questionable.

[aztecdriver]

What is a v shaped cut if not a port?

I vote no penalty, but not because he "made up" his shots (in fact, that would specifically violate the rule that says that a procedural error cannot be undone by competitor action), but rather, because there's no difference between "hole in the wall" and a "port." They're the same thing unless otherwise specified, and even then, only if it'd be within the rules to specify such a stage procedure.

Even if the holes were covered in translucent snow fencing and he shot through it - there is NO procedural assigned for mistakenly shooting a target through the wall. The hits just stop AT the wall. If he moved to a vantage that was through a legitimate gap AND then engaged, there is no penalty whatsoever.

[Jim Norman]

We will note on the WSB that ONLY the ports that are drawn are the ports you can use. This eliminates mouse holes in the fences being used as a port. The 'V' cuts should never have been considered as ports unless specifically named such. I would score it as shot. The shooter made up the two shots that were fired from an illegal location. Was this a Level One match?

[Singlestack]

You guys must have forgotten about the thread where it was decided that if you can see it, you can shoot it. Like under a wall or through a slit. My search foo is failing me now and I can't find it.

[aztecdriver]

You guys must have forgotten about the thread where it was decided that if you can see it, you can shoot it. Like under a wall or through a slit. My search foo is failing me now and I can't find it.

I don't know how - it was only 30 pages.

Just a small correction in what you posted, it's "shoot AT it", you may not HIT it, depending if your shots hit an impenetrable wall.

[Singlestack]

You guys must have forgotten about the thread where it was decided that if you can see it, you can shoot it. Like under a wall or through a slit. My search foo is failing me now and I can't find it.

I don't know how - it was only 30 pages.

Just a small correction in what you posted, it's "shoot AT it", you may not HIT it, depending if your shots hit an impenetrable wall.

You seem to have forgotten too Ken. The way I remember it, under the wall shots counted if they hit the target (much to my dismay). I remember the argument you can only score the target. Target has hits with grease rings, good to go.

[Singlestack]

Found it, but I ain't reading it again. No need to get pissed all over again.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=132118&view=findpost&p=1487585

[Loves2Shoot]

You guys must have forgotten about the thread where it was decided that if you can see it, you can shoot it. Like under a wall or through a slit. My search foo is failing me now and I can't find it.

I don't know how - it was only 30 pages.

Just a small correction in what you posted, it's "shoot AT it", you may not HIT it, depending if your shots hit an impenetrable wall.

You seem to have forgotten too Ken. The way I remember it, under the wall shots counted if they hit the target (much to my dismay). I remember the argument you can only score the target. Target has hits with grease rings, good to go.

I don't recall it saying that, they were misses, the argument was FTE or no FTE and the whle forbidden action for gaming through a wall. This case the shooter did "shoot at" from a legal position, so the FTE is a non factor. How close he was to the wall when he made the shots at the wal might be a whole other matter though,

[spanky]

You guys must have forgotten about the thread where it was decided that if you can see it, you can shoot it. Like under a wall or through a slit. My search foo is failing me now and I can't find it.

I don't know how - it was only 30 pages.

Just a small correction in what you posted, it's "shoot AT it", you may not HIT it, depending if your shots hit an impenetrable wall.

You seem to have forgotten too Ken. The way I remember it, under the wall shots counted if they hit the target (much to my dismay). I remember the argument you can only score the target. Target has hits with grease rings, good to go.

That's not how I remember it at all.

That thread, as I recall it, was about incurring or not incurring FTE under walls, through walls, etc, not the actual hits. (hence my quip about whether the shooter engaged the targets)

[Singlestack]

Y'all ain't gonna make me read it again!

[aztecdriver]

You guys must have forgotten about the thread where it was decided that if you can see it, you can shoot it. Like under a wall or through a slit. My search foo is failing me now and I can't find it.

I don't know how - it was only 30 pages.

Just a small correction in what you posted, it's "shoot AT it", you may not HIT it, depending if your shots hit an impenetrable wall.

You seem to have forgotten too Ken. The way I remember it, under the wall shots counted if they hit the target (much to my dismay). I remember the argument you can only score the target. Target has hits with grease rings, good to go.

That's not how I remember it at all.

That thread, as I recall it, was about incurring or not incurring FTE under walls, through walls, etc, not the actual hits. (hence my quip about whether the shooter engaged the targets)

Yeah, no... my recollection is right on the money - the others have confirmed that. That thread was all about whether engagement can be determined because you could see it... firing shots through a wall, whether it is a rules wall (from the ground to height as constructed) or through mesh, only negates the FTE because it was still "visible", but the rounds were still deemed to have hit an impenetrable piece of hardcover. The only thing that was argued about the holes from those shots is that the person fired AT the target. It just was not possible to HIT it from that location due to hard cover.

Without bringing that thread back to life - there's no point here - my whole point with posting here was that there are no penalties assignable for shooting through those slit cuts, except that the hits would be negated so unless they fired from some other location that they COULD hit the target from - there would just be misses. Firing from somewhere legitimately allowed the hits they fired from there to count. There's no penalty to "shoot your way out of" because those rounds, mistaken as they are, were just misses in the first place.

[EkuJustice]

So what is the difference in a port cut in the tarp and a slit cut in the tarp. It could easily be argued they are ports also since they were cut in the tarp same as the port