Should the hits count?

[Flexmoney]

At my CRO class, I was told to score what you see. If you suspect but cannot be sure of something, you give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, instead of going the other way.

Is this not the correct approach? If there is doubt, are we to zing the shooter by default?

If you can't make a clear determination on the scoring call...you reshoot the competitor.

If you give the benefit of the doubt to one competitor...that is taking it away from all the other competitors.

[Skydiver]

At my CRO class, I was told to score what you see. If you suspect but cannot be sure of something, you give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, instead of going the other way.

Is this not the correct approach? If there is doubt, are we to zing the shooter by default?

If you can't make a clear determination on the scoring call...you reshoot the competitor.

If you give the benefit of the doubt to one competitor...that is taking it away from all the other competitors.

I completely agree: reshoot the competitor.

Remember though that there is the caveat that you need a rule you can hang the reshoot on.

Although 9.1.4 has the phrase "the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined" followed by the phrase in the next sentence "it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire", there is the context of the rule which is around unrestored targets.

The situation where there is a hole without a grease ring on the (properly restored) target, but no evidence of a full diameter hit on the hard cover (as discussed in this thread) may force an RO to earn the big bucks he's getting paid.

Any thoughts about forcing the reshoot through 9.7.5 (not enough hits on the scoresheet), or 4.6.1 (range equipment failure) ?

[Flexmoney]

The situation where there is a hole without a grease ring on the (properly restored) target, but no evidence of a full diameter hit on the hard cover (as discussed in this thread) may force an RO to earn the big bucks he's getting paid.

The RO isn't there to guess what happened. Either he/she can tell or he/she can't.

Then, the shooter can agree or disagree...with the option to run it up to the CRO and then the Range Master.

======================

In this case, the RO made a call, and the shooter did not appeal the call. Score stands as originally called.

[Flexmoney]

... have led us to declare barrels soft cover when used immediately adjacent to targets.

It makes the sport so much more fun.

That is probably a good idea. How do you write that up in the WSB?

[SteveU]

"Barrels are designated soft cover"

We put that right after "Upon start signal .... "

We (usually) pay attention to where we put them so that a shooter choosing to intentionally shoot through barrels doesn't ruin the whole design of the stage. One exception occurred during battle of the bluegrass this past year.

There may be some unintended consequences to this but it has worked pretty well so far.

I'm actually surprised that more ranges don't do it. When Gary Stevens suggested it I was under the impression that it was more widespread.

It wasn't until Skydivers posts above that I thought about potential problems with partial targets, and started for a place in the rulebook that makes a distinction between barriers like barrels that only obscure targets from a certain perspective, and soft cover that COVERS a target ... Which specifically prohibits partial targets behind them. Still looking.

[LPatterson]

4.1.4.1 and/or 4.1.4.2 depending upon whether it hides/hard or obscures/soft a target.

[Skydiver]

4.1.4.1 and/or 4.1.4.2 depending upon whether it hides/hard or obscures/soft a target.

So if you go back to post #2, if the barrels were declared as soft cover, is the stack of classic targets and no-shoots adjacent to targets a legal target presentation?

[SteveU]

Yep. Thats the question