Determining hits on Paper Targets

[whitedog]

I agree with flex....just took course....if I can positively get an accurate score on that Target, by any means legal, I will. If previous score sheet is available, great. .45 vs 9mm, great. If I can, I will. If all available, reliable, accurate tries don't, or can't, work.....its a reshoot. I believe just because the rules don't say you can, does not mean you can't. As long as you follow the rules.

[Sherwyn]

At one of our local matches, we often have a Stage Designer who loves high round count, complicated stages-- with "hidden" targets (legal of course) that entire squads of people have been known to miss, both in terms of engaging them and/or scoring them.

In recent months, when the stages he designs are of this intricate nature, he has taken to numbering the targets for the sake of easy and consistent scoring. Most squads have written down the hits accordingly, even if the RO's don't score the targets in order.

We expressly had this situation arise in my squad, and yours truly was on the clipboard. I immediately went back to the last score sheet and used it to score the targets.

9.1.4 supported my decision; I was 100% positive that the single C belonged to the current shooter, as the previous one had shot 2 As.

Had the targets not been numbered, it might have been a different story-- although again, if we were scoring the targets in a specific order and I was 100% sure of the consistency, I likely would have made the same call. Had someone else been on the clipboard previously, even if they were 100% positive, I would have rewarded a Reshoot.

I trust no one!

Just have to add a twist. Even if you know 100% that the targets were scored in order. Do you really know that the previous shooter didn't fire 3 rounds?

[Skydiver]

At one of our local matches, we often have a Stage Designer who loves high round count, complicated stages-- with "hidden" targets (legal of course) that entire squads of people have been known to miss, both in terms of engaging them and/or scoring them.

In recent months, when the stages he designs are of this intricate nature, he has taken to numbering the targets for the sake of easy and consistent scoring. Most squads have written down the hits accordingly, even if the RO's don't score the targets in order.

We expressly had this situation arise in my squad, and yours truly was on the clipboard. I immediately went back to the last score sheet and used it to score the targets.

9.1.4 supported my decision; I was 100% positive that the single C belonged to the current shooter, as the previous one had shot 2 As.

Had the targets not been numbered, it might have been a different story-- although again, if we were scoring the targets in a specific order and I was 100% sure of the consistency, I likely would have made the same call. Had someone else been on the clipboard previously, even if they were 100% positive, I would have rewarded a Reshoot.

I trust no one!

Just have to add a twist. Even if you know 100% that the targets were scored in order. Do you really know that the previous shooter didn't fire 3 rounds?

You are an evil man!

[Nik Habicht]

It could be as simple as a 25y El Prez (best 4 hits per target).

- Shooter 1 runs it clean, with 12 Alphas. (T1=4A, T2=4A, T3=4A)

- We go to score for Shooter 2 and realize that T3 didn't get pasted. There are 6 Alphas and 2 Charlies on T3.

It is obvious...from the available evidence...what he proper hits are for Shooter 2. Score that run!

Do you change your mind if there are misses on T1 and T2? Presuming that no one fired extra rounds....

[bobert1]

YES, Jay Worden & Gary Johnson who was being mentored by Jay this past weekend did instruct us that NROI, is telling the classes to NOT use the previous shooters scoresheets. Heck I've been a CRO for more than 4 years. I have very seldome used a previous scoresheet. Always thought I could.

So now if NROI is teaching the troops one way NOW.How will the RM's require us to do it when we are out at the MAJOR matches.

Gary Johnson will be working stage 7 at the OHIO Sec.

[Sin-ster]

Just have to add a twist. Even if you know 100% that the targets were scored in order. Do you really know that the previous shooter didn't fire 3 rounds?

Good twist/question!

If there was any doubt in my mind, and 5 holes in the target-- reshoot.

No way am I going to potentially ding a shooter!

ETA-- The shots fired won't matter, only the hits. If the first shooter took 12 shots, was scored A-D, and there are now only 4 holes in the target, I can score accordingly. Similarly, if the previous shooter took 2 shots, and now there are only 3 holes in the target, the A-M on the first score sheet will also be sufficient.

I see what you're really driving at, though.

Shooter 1 takes 3 shots, gets 3 hits, 2 are scored.

Shooter 2 takes 2 shots, gets ? hits, and now there are 4 holes in the target.

It really boils down to what I remember-- and I'm pretty good with minute details. Again, any doubt in my mind at all-- reshoot. I'd also confer with the other RO, to see if he had any discrepancies in his memory.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Sin-ster

[Flexmoney]

Just have to add a twist. Even if you know 100% that the targets were scored in order. Do you really know that the previous shooter didn't fire 3 rounds?

Do you change your mind if there are misses on T1 and T2? Presuming that no one fired extra rounds....

This is so simple, I am trying to figure out why everybody is making it hard.

- Can you determine out an accurate score or not?

- If you can't, then it's a reshoot.

- If you can...DO IT!

The shooter (and the other competitors) deserve their first run, if possible. THAT is what is fair to everybody.

Blindly ordering up a reshoot is a static...safe...non-thinking way for the RO to handle it, but it means ordering up a reshoot at times when you could determine a correct score. It is following a common practice, instead of applying proper logic.

[Mitch Harrington]

Here's another twist. Previous shooter was shooting .40S&W. Current shooter is shooting 9mm. There are two .40S&W hits and one 9mm hit. From where I stand, a reshoot should be given instead of a mike called. It's not likely, but it is possible for that 9mm bullet to pass through the .40S&W hole.

[Mitch Harrington]

There's the bottom line answer.

Just have to add a twist. Even if you know 100% that the targets were scored in order. Do you really know that the previous shooter didn't fire 3 rounds?

Do you change your mind if there are misses on T1 and T2? Presuming that no one fired extra rounds....

This is so simple, I am trying to figure out why everybody is making it hard.

- Can you determine out an accurate score or not?

- If you can't, then it's a reshoot.

- If you can...DO IT!

The shooter (and the other competitors) deserve their first run, if possible. THAT is what is fair to everybody.

Blindly ordering up a reshoot is a static...safe...non-thinking way for the RO to handle it, but it means ordering up a reshoot at times when you could determine a correct score. It is following a common practice, instead of applying proper logic.

[whitedog]

I agree. Any grey at all its a reboot.

[Nik Habicht]

Blindly ordering up a reshoot is a static...safe...non-thinking way for the RO to handle it, but it means ordering up a reshoot at times when you could determine a correct score. It is following a common practice, instead of applying proper logic.

No, with respect I can see an argument for it following a different, and possibly also proper logic.....

For all competitors we use the targets, and the targets only to arrive at a score. When we can't arrive at an accurate score by looking at the targets -- really we as officials are at fault for not managing our stage appropriately -- we have failed the competitor. Thus the competitor must be ordered to reshoot the COF.....

[sfchorn]

A similar argument exists in different threads on the forums about procedurals penalties for faulting a line (one vs. one per shot due to a significant advantage) or about crown and grease marks on an irregular shaped hole in a target (was it a tumbling bullet or splatter?), or a number of other topics. The problem is that no single, absolute “one size fits all” rule can be applied in this (or any other) case.

Only one constant remains: Life isn’t fair. Any of us could argue either side of this discussion equally effectively:

If you make every situation fit into a blanket rule (in the spirit of fairness), you end up making it unfair when something occurs outside of what the rule maker anticipated

or

If you weigh every situation on its merits (in an effort to be fair), then you are not always consistent and risk making a judgment error that is unfair.

We are imperfect beings in an imperfect world. We have an imperfect rulebook. We apply imperfect judgment in the application of it when imperfect competitors demonstrate their imperfection on an imperfectly designed course of fire using imperfect guns firing imperfect bullets at imperfectly designed targets.

It’s never going to perfect each and every time. So take the imperfect rulebook (it’s actually pretty good most of the time), and apply judgment (most folks actually have pretty good judgment most of the time) when a competitor (who does pretty well most of the time) makes a mistake. You’ll come to a decision that’ll be correct far more often than not. And while it may not be “fair”, it pretty much means everyone will get to share equally in the “unfairness”, which is about as fair as we can hope for……

[Flexmoney]

Blindly ordering up a reshoot is a static...safe...non-thinking way for the RO to handle it, but it means ordering up a reshoot at times when you could determine a correct score. It is following a common practice, instead of applying proper logic.

No, with respect I can see an argument for it following a different, and possibly also proper logic.....

For all competitors we use the targets, and the targets only to arrive at a score. When we can't arrive at an accurate score by looking at the targets -- really we as officials are at fault for not managing our stage appropriately -- we have failed the competitor. Thus the competitor must be ordered to reshoot the COF.....

You might give that a second poke with the logic stick...

Don't fail the competitor(s) twice. If you can accurately determine the score, you owe it to the shooter (and/or all the competitors) to do so, and not order the reshoot.

[deacon12224]

I know that it goes without saying, but most of these issues can be avoided entirely if we just take the time to put our eyes on every single target and no-shoot before we run the next shooter. Especially with the no-shoots, how can you give a shooter a no-shoot hit when you don't know with absolute certainty that the target was clean before his attempt at the COF? Never trust the squad to properly paste and reset a COF. I know that it is hard after the 350th shooter of a three day match to keep checking those targets, but that is why you make the big money...ah, I mean get a free lunch.

[Joe4d]

At one of our local matches, we often have a Stage Designer who loves high round count, complicated stages-- with "hidden" targets (legal of course) that entire squads of people have been known to miss, both in terms of engaging them and/or scoring them.

In recent months, when the stages he designs are of this intricate nature, he has taken to numbering the targets for the sake of easy and consistent scoring. Most squads have written down the hits accordingly, even if the RO's don't score the targets in order.

We expressly had this situation arise in my squad, and yours truly was on the clipboard. I immediately went back to the last score sheet and used it to score the targets.

9.1.4 supported my decision; I was 100% positive that the single C belonged to the current shooter, as the previous one had shot 2 As.

Had the targets not been numbered, it might have been a different story-- although again, if we were scoring the targets in a specific order and I was 100% sure of the consistency, I likely would have made the same call. Had someone else been on the clipboard previously, even if they were 100% positive, I would have rewarded a Reshoot.

I trust no one!

Just have to add a twist. Even if you know 100% that the targets were scored in order. Do you really know that the previous shooter didn't fire 3 rounds?

If you dont know, then you cant score it, if you do know you can. Every case is different . That is why the rule book doesnt spell out specific pieces of evidence. If the RO can be sure of the score using any means at his disposal short of video, he scores it. If he isnt 100 % sure of the score he doesnt. Its simple as that.

[Sin-ster]

This is so simple, I am trying to figure out why everybody is making it hard.

- Can you determine out an accurate score or not?

- If you can't, then it's a reshoot.

- If you can...DO IT!

The shooter (and the other competitors) deserve their first run, if possible. THAT is what is fair to everybody.

Blindly ordering up a reshoot is a static...safe...non-thinking way for the RO to handle it, but it means ordering up a reshoot at times when you could determine a correct score. It is following a common practice, instead of applying proper logic.

Hey, hey, hey--

No saying exactly what I'm trying to in such succinct and logical terms.

Area Director or not.