Barrettone Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Here's a little diddy I would like to get a little feedback on...Here is the situation: There is a 14 round shotgun comstock course that has 3 frangibles, 7 plates and 4 pepper poppers. It is engage 'em as you see 'em. There are targets available from various different positions, some of which could be doubled if you knew what you were doing. The RO set-up notes even call for the targets to be set up to accommodate potential doubling. After the competitor hits a couple of the doubles, he makes it to the last array where he engages the last four clustered poppers. He fires 3 rounds before he runs dry, and leaves one standing rather than taking the extra time and would rather take the mike. Trouble is, MR. CRO issues an FTE because he did not fire four at the array. Competitor admits only firing 3, but states he hit the first two with a double, and then fired two more rounds down range to engage the remaining two poppers. Mr CRO is watching the gun (as he should), and the RO is not in a position to see downrange (barricades / ports). Now there are a few questions that need answering. First, before we cry "bad stage design", let's remember that we are dealing with shotgun and poppers, and often they are doubled (wide spreads), and that it is possible to score on two paper targets if you hit the perfs (so they are not impenetrable). First question: Is this COF legal? Second, if so much as one pellet had hit that remaining target, was it engaged? Third, how does 10.2.7 relate to this topic? Remember, you had previous doubles, so your timer is useless. And finally, what would your opinion be if the above scenario was arbitrated to you??? I'll post the outcome after we get a consensus. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Jeff, When you use the term "double" for shotgun, I assume you mean there were target arrays where, say, two poppers could be shot and downed with a single shot? Assuming I do understand you correctly (and yielding to Neil's superior knowledge of Shotgun, as soon as he wakes up from his beauty sleep!): 1. Yes, the COF sounds legal to me. Sometimes a shotgun course designer will intentionally allow the possibility of "doubles" to give competitors the option of "going for it", with the inherent risk that his failure to down two poppers with a single round might cause his game plan to go pear-shaped. Much depends on the resistance of, say, poppers, which will usually need a well-placed single shot to down two of them. 2. You don't even need a single pellet to actually strike a popper to have engaged it - it's possible that the subject target was actually engaged, but it was entirely missed. Yes, it's harder to believe with Shotgun due to the shot spread, but it's nonetheless possible, depending on how widely spaced they were. 3. Rule 10.2.7 applies to any target which a Range Officer declares was not engaged. Of course if I were a superior ranking Range Official called to adjudicate, I would require that the RO who called the "failure to shoot at" be absolutely sure of his call. If there was any hesitation on the part of the RO, I would most likely overrule the Procedural Penalty and leave it simply as a Miss. Mr CRO is watching the gun (as he should), and the RO is not in a position to see downrange (barricades / ports). Um, no. In this particular case, it sounds like the CRO should've been watching the targets over the competitor's shoulder. As I explained in another thread (which I can't find at the moment), ROs need to change their focus, depending on the competitor's activity. If the competitor is moving, loading, reloading etc., the RO should watch the gun. If the competitor is standing still shooting at targets, the RO should be watching the targets. Neil, old son, how did I do? POSTSCRIPT: OK, I just found my earlier "Watch What Needs To Be Watched" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 I can't speak for Neil, but I think you did just fine, Vince. If the course was set up so that knocking down or breaking two targets was likely, (even encouraged, from what you said), then there is no way that the competitor should be assessed a failure to shoot at (engage) penalty for the last array. I think we had this discussion earlier this year, but I'm not sure. Anyway--one miss, no FTE. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Beauty sleep? It'll take more than sleep!!! Vince has again proved I'm "almost redundant". Without actually seeing the target array (the spacing), and without knowing where the cometitor was standing, it's impossible to properly determine what the call could have/should have been, but the principles oulined by Vince and supported by Troy are correct. Vince very correctly states that an RO should be taking in more than just a narrow focus on the competitor. An experienced RO is usually able to tell where the gun was pointed and even small adjustments to the point of aim can be noticed. I can mostly tell which target is being engaged and usually how. Personally I don't like stages that finish with anything other than an indisputable set of targets except in exceptional circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Beauty sleep? It'll take more than sleep!!! Vince has again proved I'm "almost redundant". Well I didn't want to mention the Botox treatments No Sir, you are not redundant, not even "almost". After I screwed up my call on the private email we received last week about a single pellet striking a frangible target (when you and Mike Voigt let me off with a light spanking, God bless you both), it's clear that we still need you here for SG (and then some). (Cue music: "We are the world, we are the children .......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 I am going to jump on the bandwagon too. - Legal stage, from my perspective. - No need to have a pellet hit to call it "engaged". You can engage a target and miss it by a mile. - The CRO and RO were not (apparently) in position to make the call. Even if they were, they would have to be able to say...beyond a showdow of a doubt...that they were entirely sure the competitor didn't engage the target. That would seem near impossible with the course described. On course design...while it is a legal course (IMO)...and it sounds good (I'd run it...I like the shooting challenge "doubles" present)...the problem there is that a situation like this could arise. Neil gives good advise. I'd look to the shooters likely reload points (in early arrays of a stage) and not give them an opportunity to "call double" when they want to leave the array and not do a standing reload...and, like Neil suggests, a spread of targets at the end kills the desire to skip reloading for that one last piece of steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted July 12, 2004 Author Share Posted July 12, 2004 OK...Here were the results...The rangemaster (RMI) was running the shooter at the time. I was assisting. The RM/CRO called it an FTE since pursuant to 10.2.7, all targets must be engaged with at least one round in a COF. So, if you choose to try and double, you do so at your own peril. You MUST fire four shots at that array to insure an FTE is not assessed. It's a "CYA" thing according to the RM. The decision was made by the competitor to arbitrate. A committee was formed including two CRO's and an RO. They denied the arbitration persuant to the rule stated above. As for the one pellet thing...that was meant to ask, if a popper goes down, and the one next to it is struck with one pellet on the same shot...Is it still an FTE? Hope this clarifies. As for not watching the gun when the competitor is static...I disagree. Everyone say it together "The gun is your world". Nothing else matters IMHO. Targets can be replaced...people can't. Seems we had some pretty high ranking officials who disagree with the consensus here. Seems that there is no clear answer. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnL Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 It seems simple to me. If the shooter downed two whis first shot there were only two left. He fired two more shots, right? He just missed. The FTE is for not engaging a target not for missing. Bad, initial call and a bad arb decision, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted July 12, 2004 Author Share Posted July 12, 2004 Yes, I see the shooters point as well, but I also understand that watching the gun comes first (the first double was the shooters CONTENTION...not gospel), and that if you decide to try doubles, it can come back to haunt you. When you game something, the plan can always go to hell, and you then have to make up those shots. You can't always have your cake and eat it too. The rule says: "all targets MUST be engaged with one round EACH". If you get the double...all praise to Allah. If you don't...you'd best get to reloading and watch that HF sink into oblivion cause you got caught in a gamers trap. Now that's good course design...he-he. Oh the choices... Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Jeff, Which target was not engaged with one round? If you set up two potential doubles and I fire one round at each set, it is my contention that I have engaged each of the four targets ---- T1 with Round 1, T2 with Round1, T3 with Round 2 and T4 with Round 2. This ain't paper ---- where you can't engage two targhets with one round, unless they somehow overlap..... Bogus call ---- that really should have been opverturned at arbitration --- unless I'm missing something here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted July 12, 2004 Author Share Posted July 12, 2004 Nik, First let me state that I was a little blown away at first also. But, upon further CLOSE examination of the 2004 SHOTGUN RULES, 10.2.7 states "all targets must be engaged with at least one round each". The rule is very clear. If you got the double, you were lucky...If not...get to shootin' or it is FTE's. I didn't say that I agreed with the rule, but dems is da rules...likes 'em or leaves 'em. These were SHOTGUN RULES, so whether paper or not, it is of little consequence apparently. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13745 http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13722 Try these two for more information and clarification. IMO, if you set up targets that can be engaged "two for one", then there can be no penalty for FTE. By shooting at both of them with one shot, they both have effectively been "engaged". As for watching the gun only, there are certain times when it's paramount, other times when you need to shift focus, as Vince points out. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Jeff What I'm getting at is that it's sometimes possible to engage more than one target with a single round with a shotgun. You set 'em up that way --- don't come crying now with FTE penalties because the shooters decided to plan the stage with that in mind..... And No, the word "you" above isn't directed at you specifically. Think about it some more --- don't just accept what was said/decided because that's how the rules were interpreted today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopalong Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Ok, Let me in on this. but first, Hi Troy, Hi Jeff. Jeff, is that the new rules as they are now written? If so I agree with you that if you "game" out a stage and try doubles and only get one or even worse, hit both targets but do not knock them down it is only 1 shot so 1 shot 2 targets = 1 miss & 1 FTE. This is shotgun and IMHO if you want to take that chance and don't hit the home run, too bad. If not( rules written exactly like that) I am with Troy on this If you can get one pellet in a frangeable target while shooting at another (spreaders thank you) and not shoot the same number of shots as targets why not the same on falling steel? Now here is the biggest thing we have to work on.... lets get this infront of the rules committee (Area Cooridnators included) and make a decision. I don't like having a ton of rules to worry about no more than the next guy, but something like this will happen again constanly because of the nature of the beast (shotgun) so lets address it and go on. Sam Keen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 The arb is (should be) a catch 22. As the RO, you would have to write down on the scoresheet exactly which target the shooter didn't engage. Once you do...the shooter can say...nope, I engaged THAT target. (Just happened to miss it and hit the other). Anyway...I don't agree with the call. But, I think we covered most of this ion the other threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 OK, how about this? There are only two targets available, they are set up as a possible double, I fire ONE shot and take them both. According to the statement above: 2004 SHOTGUN RULES, 10.2.7 states "all targets must be engaged with at least one round each" Would you score one FTE? There is no target to shoot at, One MIKE, no, ther target is gone, I can't engage a target that has been knocked down, or in the case of a frangable, already broke. Does this mean that such a course is illegal? I hope not! Does it mean that I have to fire a shot at an already hit target? I hope not! Just what does it mean? BTW, If I fire one round at a pair and only succeed in knocking down one, but others have made the double, can I claim I was going for the double and missed? OK, I get a Mike, but no FTE? There is no easy happy answer to this in my mind. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 You answered your own questions, Jim. Bottom line, if you shoot at two targets with one shot, whether they are set up to be shot that way or not, then you've engaged both targets. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 You have to shoot at each target with one shot. Are you saying that the shot you took at one target, can be the same shot you took at another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 (edited) Yes, but we've been through all this before. Please see the link I posted earlier, in reference to "not enough shots on the timer". Neil Beverly has an excellent summation for this situation. Troy Edited July 12, 2004 by mactiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 The RM/CRO called it an FTE since pursuant to 10.2.7, all targets must be engaged with at least one round in a COF. So, if you choose to try and double, you do so at your own peril. You MUST fire four shots at that array to insure an FTE is not assessed. So, if the competitor fires 2 shots and downs 4 poppers, and the RO says "FTE", can the competitor argue "Range Equipment Failure" and get a reshoot?? Two poppers are either allowed to go down with one shot or they're not. If allowed, you cannot assess an FTE. If they're not, it's REF. Pick one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Hi All The link to to other topic results in 6 pages of stuff to read through so I'm copying 2 of my posts to here as well for convenience. (1) The rule does not say one round per target. Depending on distance, the pattern spread is likely to be between 4-20 inches. It is therefore absolutely possible to deliberately aim to shoot 2 targets with one round. Some competitors choose spreader chokes or spreader cartridges to achieve just that. This conforms to "shoot at each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round ", as opposed to not shooting one or both targets with one round. The targets will have been shot with one round each it just so happens that it's the same round. Take 00 buck as an example (9 ball) (8.4mm per pellet). Split the pattern between 2 targets so 4 hits (nearly 9 mm) on one and 5 hits on the other (OK, OK. I know it's a convenient example). The competitor has found a way to achieve/exploit this by the way the targets are presented from a given position. The proof of the pudding that 9.5.6 has been complied with is in the fact that by shooting at the 2 targets with one shot both of them are hit and fall. The shotgun rule is not written differently and we took great pains to try to make as many rules as possible identical. If you refer back to my earlier posts you will see that I have said that I had to consider whether the wording of the rule would cause any problems for shotgun. (2) I think you're still focusing on the wording of the rule in one particular way. If you bear with me I'll try a completely different tack. Task: To take 2 acorns and smash each of them with a mallet. Do you take the first acorn and smash it and then take the second acorn and smash it, OR do you take both acorns and put them side by side and hit them once at the same time? Using the latter method have both of them (each of them) been smashed with the mallet? I think you are conceiving an interpretation that includes an additional "each" as below in red. This isn't a necessary requirement if there is an overlapping, adjacent or close target in shotgun. A competitor who fails to shoot at each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round each Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now