What is the penalty

[Loves2Shoot]

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

Do you mean besides the port having the material cut out of the center, lined around the perimeter of the port and painted red?

[ima45dv8]

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

Do you mean besides the port having the material cut out of the center, lined around the perimeter of the port and painted red?

Yes, besides that.

I don't like that someone shot through there, either, but it is a port whether intended or not.

That's why I said I would take the lesson to make such windage adjustments so low they wouldn't invite engagement.

[colt]

How about fix the walls. I have learn if its there , someone will do it. Weather just by someone caught in the action and not thinking about it or a gamer.

I try to remove as many potential problem before hand but that doesn't always work either.

Brent

[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)

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.

That's what I meant.

[Yardbird]

Did the WSB have a picture showing where the actual ports were located?

[Joe4d]

The WSB said as visible,

If you only wanted shooters using the side outlined port, you needed either a better WSB, or better props,

Bad WSB's and confusing props arnt the shooters fault.

[remoandiris]

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?

Seems to me this is exactly the type of loophole the FA was designed to fix. But for some reason, people are against using an FA.

[aztecdriver]

That's what I meant.

Sorry spank - hit reply on your post instead of John's

[BMartens]

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

Freestyle does not include stage designer's intent.

Score it and move on.

[Loves2Shoot]

The WSB said as visible,

If you only wanted shooters using the side outlined port, you needed either a better WSB, or better props,

Bad WSB's and confusing props arnt the shooters fault.

Are you saying that you are confused between the shooter ports and winds slits in the OP's picture? It seems crystal clear that they are slits to prevent the walls from falling over, and they went to great lengths to make the shooting ports very clear.

We have a windy range certain times of the year, so I empathize with others who have such issues where whole wall sections can be blown away, even if securely anchored. That might be why I can't imagine anyone thinking it is OK to shoot through a slit made to prevent the wall from falling over.

[Gary Stevens]

Another example of a shooter running out of talent (been there got the t-shirt). Unfortunately this now requires a rule modification or the limited number of set up people doing more construction to keep the props standing in bad weather.

[remoandiris]

The WSB said as visible,

If you only wanted shooters using the side outlined port, you needed either a better WSB, or better props,

Bad WSB's and confusing props arnt the shooters fault.

Are you saying that you are confused between the shooter ports and winds slits in the OP's picture? It seems crystal clear that they are slits to prevent the walls from falling over, and they went to great lengths to make the shooting ports very clear.

We have a windy range certain times of the year, so I empathize with others who have such issues where whole wall sections can be blown away, even if securely anchored. That might be why I can't imagine anyone thinking it is OK to shoot through a slit made to prevent the wall from falling over.

As someone else already mentioned, stage designer intent has nothing to do with it.

Easy way to prevent someone from shooting thru a slit is to write a better SB. If you say shoot the targets when visible, and they are visible thru a slit in a prop, you get what you get. Arrange targets, no shoots, barrels or whatever to prevent shooting thru the slits. An easier measure is to put it in the WSB.

[Loves2Shoot]

We can use snow fences specifically per the rulebook but not walls with wind slits, which is essentially does the same thing in a better way from a vision barrier standpoint, without specific WSB language?

[LT45]

I've had shooters engage targets from between a small gap that I had inadvertently left at the corner between two walls.

That was my mistake and I learned from it...

Bottom line is 1.1.5 Freestyle... if you can see it, you can shoot it... and this certainly applies to the field course in question.

We have a shoot house with plastic walls. If I didn't repair holes in the walls before a match, you better believe some of the guys would exploit the opportunity to shoot through it, if it was to their advantage.

As far as the OP.. even if he hadn't taken the 2 makeup shots through the port, I would not have issued a penalty. He saw it, he shot it.

I don't like using snow fence for this very reason... but that's a whole different issue.

[LT45]

We can use snow fences specifically per the rulebook but not walls with wind slits, which is essentially does the same thing in a better way from a vision barrier standpoint, without specific WSB language?

If I had had walls with slits cut in them as in the video, I would add language to the WSB such as "Targets must be engaged through the Red Ports only" of course this is only Level I compliant.

Edited October 10, 2011 by LT45

[EkuJustice]

Snow fense is designed to have the holes in in and is considered solid. The tarp (as would be the same as a board) had holes cut in it which is what a port is, a hole cut in the board or in this case tarp. If its a very windy match, you would probibally be better served with snow fense anyway. If durability is a concern, there is a match in OH that uses very heavy duty snow fense for their walls not the flimsy stuff

[sperman]

FWIW, I watched approximately 100 shooters one this course of fire. Only 1 made the mistake of shooting through the slit. He clearly thought it was a mistake, he wasn't looking for a loop hole.

Something else I've learned recently. There aren't nearly enough shooters that know they should ask for the RM if they disagree with a call.

[Skydiver]

Something else I've learned recently. There aren't nearly enough shooters that know they should ask for the RM if they disagree with a call.

Slightly off topic:

It's the conditioning we get/got at home and in school. Parents words are law. Teachers are (or at least seem to be) the final authority. Final calls are made by referees on the court/field. It's not often that students realize that they can ask to talk to the principal, or that some sports allow for review. As for parents, you're on your own if choose to defy them. :-)

Back on topic:

This is why I tend to sometimes annoy the MD/RM during the shooter's meeting before a local match when I ask about gaps between walls that I spot. I ask if the gaps can be used as parts and if walls extend all the way to the sky. The answer is always "No", but somehow it never gets written into the WSB. If I did take advantage of it not being written in, I think it'll cause more heartache than goodwill.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Skydiver

[twodownzero]

FWIW, I watched approximately 100 shooters one this course of fire. Only 1 made the mistake of shooting through the slit. He clearly thought it was a mistake, he wasn't looking for a loop hole.

Something else I've learned recently. There aren't nearly enough shooters that know they should ask for the RM if they disagree with a call.

Fortunately for him, the rules don't depend on how many other people chose to solve the competitive problem his way.

[sperman]

That wasn't how he chose to solve the competitive problem. He screwed up.

[twodownzero]

That wasn't how he chose to solve the competitive problem. He screwed up.

Fortunately for him, the rules do not depend on his subjective intent.

[kalaur]

Holy cripes, it's crazy how long these simple questions go. It's a local match, there's a little more leeway in whats 'intentional' from 'unintentional'. Just because you can see the target through the unintentional port, doesn't mean you can shoot it through the unintentional port. Its pretty clear which is the 'port' and which is not.

Could the WSB have been more clear? Yeah. Could the walls have been fixed? Yeah. Should people use some common sense when shooting in situations like this? Yeah.

Given he made up the shots he fired through the V, no penalty. If another shooter intentionally shoots the loophole through the ports claiming "I CAN SEE THE TARGET", FTEs and mikes all around. If he does it again, DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct, and invite them to fix the walls before they shoot again.

[sperman]

Tim,

Since you seem intent on turning this into an arguement, I'll play along.

The shooter screwed up. He knew he screwed up and he made up the shots through the legal port. 200 people shot this match, and as far as I know, he is the only one that made that mistake. I see no reason to get the RM involved, and re-write the stage breifing in the middle of the match because 1 shooter had a brain fart. If the shooter was intentionally exploiting a hole in the WSB, then it might be time for the FA rule. He wasn't, so IMO, yes, his subjective intent matters.

The reason I started this thread is becasue the CRO on the stage awarded a procedural to the shooter, and it didn't seem right to me. The consensus seems to be that the procedural penalty was unwarranted.

Edited October 11, 2011 by sperman

[Nik Habicht]

The WSB said as visible,

If you only wanted shooters using the side outlined port, you needed either a better WSB, or better props,

Bad WSB's and confusing props arnt the shooters fault.

Are you saying that you are confused between the shooter ports and winds slits in the OP's picture? It seems crystal clear that they are slits to prevent the walls from falling over, and they went to great lengths to make the shooting ports very clear.

We have a windy range certain times of the year, so I empathize with others who have such issues where whole wall sections can be blown away, even if securely anchored. That might be why I can't imagine anyone thinking it is OK to shoot through a slit made to prevent the wall from falling over.

If I came to visit/shoot the match, how would I know that? If you say as visible, either mean it or add "through ports appearing on the WSB" or some other clarification....

And no, if I knew the purpose of the slits, I wouldn't engage targets through them -- well, at least not without checking with an RO prior to my run....

[aztecdriver]

Holy cripes, it's crazy how long these simple questions go. It's a local match, there's a little more leeway in whats 'intentional' from 'unintentional'. Just because you can see the target through the unintentional port, doesn't mean you can shoot it through the unintentional port. Its pretty clear which is the 'port' and which is not.

Could the WSB have been more clear? Yeah. Could the walls have been fixed? Yeah. Should people use some common sense when shooting in situations like this? Yeah.

Given he made up the shots he fired through the V, no penalty. If another shooter intentionally shoots the loophole through the ports claiming "I CAN SEE THE TARGET", FTEs and mikes all around. If he does it again, DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct, and invite them to fix the walls before they shoot again.

Um - no. In fact, I should have stopped reading after I saw "It's a local match..." It doesn't matter. You want to put up a stage that someone can drive a truck through, be my guest, but don't get your nose bent out of shape when there's a hood with PETERBILT stuck in the middle of it. Beyond what the OP stated as happening, the first time someone does it - if it was not clear that those are solid walls, write an FA around it and grant a reshoot. None of this I'll just assign two mikes and FTE to it. There was a whole in the wall, I saw a target through it, the stage description says as visible, 1.1.5 says as visible - intent of the stage design doesn't matter.

The stage has a problem, not the shooter. Fix the stage, or don't, but issue a 10.6.1 for the stage being broken is a stretch, and one I'll pull a match fee and arb form out of my bag to see to it that it's fixed.