Would this be a legal target presentation?

[9x23]

I made a paddlewheel target stand that holds 3 Metric or Classic(turtle) targets. The design is such that the targets can rotate forward or reverse. It works by gravity/weight after activation. Speed can be varied with amount of weight. You get 2 views of each target. My idea was for it to be placed to be shot through

a window. The drawback is the fact that the bottom 1/3 of the target needs to be cut off or obscured by a steel piece. The reason being that you can have shoot-thru's on the lower portion of the targets. To spread the targets out any further would make them too high as to cause it to be unsafe. (over the berm wise)

My question is would this be a legal presentation in USPSA and/or IPSC matches? I've checked the USPSA 14th ed. and am still not sure. I haven't checked in 2004 rules yet. I hope I've explained that well enough.

thanks

9x

[mactiger]

IMO, it is a legal means of presenting targets. Targets can be "upside down" on activated/moving holders, they just can't be that way if presented statically.

I'm assuming that this is treated as a disappearing target--my only question is about scoring it, but you probably have that worked out already.

HTH,

Troy

[PhilTerry]

If it is the target presentation device that was used at Area 6 - the targets were not treated as disappearing targets because it was claimed that they appeared more than once.

[9x23]

Troy,

Normally the targets are rightside up, but they could be placed upsidedown.

We scored it as 3 regular targets because as Phil stated about the Area 6

target it allows for two chances at each of the 3 targets.

Phil,

I didn't get to Area 6 match, so I haven't seen that one. I'd like to see it

though. I made this one after seeing on of the windmill targets. It's basically

same thing with 1 less target and turned 90 degrees.

9x

[JFlowers]

9x23,

Are you rotating the targets edgewise or face-up? The windmill at Area 6 rotated the targets face-up, ie the target came toward the shooter rather than rotating perpendicular to the shooter. Either way is a challenge....

The only problem I saw at Area 6 is when the targets were coming towards you shoot thrus were possible, I think.

By the overlap I am assuming you need to overlap the bottoms of the targets at the center hub due to height restriction. I would think you would want a steel no-shoot protecting the center hub anyway to keep it from being shot and destroyed.

I can't find anything at the moment that would make it not legal! So go for it!

James

[9x23]

James,

The targets are face up and can rotate toward or away from you. The targets

don't overlap though, but there is the possibility of a shoot-through due to the

speed of the targets turning. That's why the bottom 1/3 of the targets need to

be cut off. The center hub does need to be covered with steel. The top target

should only be visible as it turns. The rest of it should be behind a steel wall or

window.

9x

[Vince Pinto]

9x23,

I think I understand the contraption you're describing and, if I do, it sounds kinda cool because not only are the targets the right way up, it sounds like the device replicates the movement of a series of targets dropping out of a window or coming down stairs. Anyway, yes, it sounds legal to me.

However when it comes to scoring, the important thing to remember is that in the January 2004 Edition rulebook, unless a target continuously appears and disappears, it's classified as a disappearing target, hence "failure to shoot" penalties and misses will apply. The relevant rules are:

9.9 Scoring of Moving Targets

Moving targets will be scored in accordance with the following:

...... 9.9.1 Moving targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.5).

...... 9.9.2 Moving targets, which do not comply with the above criteria, will not incur failure to shoot at or miss penalties except where Rule 9.9.3 applies.

...... 9.9.3 Moving targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism, which initiates the target movement.

I have no information about the Area 6 match, but I presume it was run under the old (USPSA still current) rulebook, in which case "multiple exposures" were sufficient to have targets classified as "non-disappearing (see Rule 9.9.1 in the USPSA 14th Edition 2001 rulebook), in which case you could indeed assess "failure to shoot" penalties and misses if the targets gave you 2 or more exposures.

Hope this helps and answers your question.

[9x23]

Vince,

That's what I was wondering about. We were under the "multiple exposures"

type of scoring. Now that brings up another question. Can it still be scored as

3 separate targets since FTE's and misses no longer apply? It would be more

of a bonus target I assume, but you would be required to shoot the actavitor

target/steel or incur FTE's and/or miss penalties. Is that correct?

Now if I motorize it for continuous operation, the FTE's and misses will apply?

9x

[Vince Pinto]

Can it still be scored as 3 separate targets since FTE's and misses no longer apply?  It would be more of a bonus target I assume, but you would be required to shoot the actavitor target/steel or incur FTE's and/or miss penalties. Is that correct? Now if I motorize it for continuous operation, the FTE's and misses will apply?

OK, you've basically asked three questions, so here goes:

1. I hope I haven't misunderstood you, but targets are always scored individually, regardless of presentation and/or movement.

2. Provided you "activate the activator" (e.g. shoot the popper, throw the switch, pull the lever etc.), you cannot incur "failure to shoot" penalties or misses if the subject target is classified as "disappearing" (regardless of which rulebook you're using). Also note that Rule 9.9.3 exists for those who, intentionally or otherwise, fail to "activate the activator".

3. Yes, if you motorize the device so that each target continuously appears and disappears, then the target cannot qualify as "disappearing".

Hope this helps but, if you're still unsure, don't hesitate to ask for more clarity.

[9x23]

Thanks everyone. I think I've got it now.

Since I made it, I just want to be damn sure I know the rules that govern it.

thanks

9x

[Jon Merricks]

If one of the targets remain visible when it comes to rest that target would not be considered a disappearing target so it would be a gamble on which target that would be, right.

[Barrettone]

That is a very good point Jon...Vince or Troy, can you comment on that??? Is it a crap shoot on the shooters part if he doesn't engage a target, and one is visible at the end of the targets movement??? I do not think the rulebook (either edition) takes this into account. It would be a de-facto ruling that you MUST engage them unless you want to risk a single FTE, and two mikes (9.9.1). Please advise.

Jeff

[mactiger]

Using the new rules, which make this answer less complicated, it's my opinion that the course designer must choose: either make the targets appear continuously, or make them all disappear. There may be a third option, and that would be to make the same target appear and stay visible after the other two appear and then disappear. Unique hardcover or some mark on the target would be helpful in accomplishing this, I think.

I haven't seen it in action, so I'm only working off my best visualization of how it would work.

Troy

[9x23]

Hmm that is an interesting point I hadn't considered.

It can be set to leave one target visible or none.

I set it up with 2 shoot targets and 1 NS on it. That

made it fairly interesting challenge.

I've got a video of it around here somewhere I think.

[Vince Pinto]

If one of the targets remain visible when it comes to rest that target would not be considered a disappearing target so it would be a gamble on which target that would be, right.

Absolutely, and this is why I said earlier that targets are always scored (and "rated" if you like), individually. It's quite possible to have, say, a total of 4 targets mounted on a "paddlewheel" contraption, but where there is always one of 4 identical targets visible at the end of the (non-motorised) movement.

However if there's a possibility that a non-motorised contraption could end up stopping with (say) either 1 or 2 targets visible (hence they do not qualify as "disappearing" under the rules), or if each of the 4 targets were different (e.g. some full, some partial), then that's creating a potential scoring nightmare. Note that a course designer would not be able to simply declare, for the sake of expediency, that all 4 targets are disappearing when that's not necessarily the case, because that would be in contravention of the rules.

Obviously it would be unfair to somebody if the "paddlewheel" sometimes stopped with 1 target visible, while at other times it stopped with 2 targets visible, and it gets even more complicated if the targets which do remain visible are different from competitor to competitor.

All things considered, my recommendation is to motorize the contraption. "Luck of the draw" contraptions are simply inequitable.

I haven't seen it in action, so I'm only working off my best visualization of how it would work.

Yep, this does make it tougher to answer, but my visualization is that the targets are mounted on the part of the "paddlewheel" which "churns the water" (i.e. on the blades, between the wheels). Anyway, let's wait for the video (Troy, it's your turn to get the sodas and popcorn!).

[mactiger]

Will cold beer, rum and (fill in your choice), and hot wings do?

Troy

[Jim Norman]

Would someone care to define "Continuously" If the targets appear and disappear repeatedly and are still in motion, albeit slow motin at the end of 60 seconds on a COF that the worst shooter takes 2030 seconds to shoot, but that will evenually come to rest after say 90 seconds, does that qualify as Continuous or as disappearing?

Motorizing an array may not be within the capabilities or desires of all ranges.

I assume that as long as the targets are still in motion at the ULSC that they are "In Motion" and that if they stop prior, then they are "DIsappearing", but what is a reasonable time to require motion? 30 minutes? 60 seconds, 5 minutes?

Jim Norman

[mactiger]

My interpretation of this rule (and remember, I'm not the official interpreter) would be that if the targets are still moving when the IYAF,ULSC command is given, then they are "continuously appearing and disappearing".

YMMV,

Troy

[Vince Pinto]

Troy,

I hear you, and I see where you're coming from, but remember what the rule says:

9.9.1 Moving targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.5).

Now if we take this to the absolute extreme, worst case scenario, if a "momentum" (i.e. non-motorised) mover eventually (e.g. even, say, 5 minutes after activation), comes to rest without a portion of the A zone visible then, by rule definition, it's a disappearing target, eventhough it might still be moving (albeit at a slightly, perhaps even imperceptibly decreasing pace) when the "ULASC" command is given.

In other words, the rule does not say you determine a target's "rating" based on it's position and/or action at the "ULASC" command. The rule requires assessment be made based on the ultimate "at rest" position of the target (for the first part of the rule) OR the target must be "continuously" moving, which by dictionary definition (and for IPSC purposes), means "never-ending" or "endlessly" (until intentionally stopped by deactivation or reset).

Hope my explanation helps.

[Barrettone]

Back to the single exposed target at the end of motion...If you had a Wheel-of-Fortune-type invention like they have on the wheel they spin, and the targets were consistently spaced ala a Texas Windmill, you would get a consistent target exposure left, and it would still be a gamble as to which one it would be, so it would COMPEL the shooter to engage them all...no? We do a lot with vision barriers to COMPEL a shooter to do things...Is there really a difference in this case??? It helps the designer get the desired effect. I, personally see no difference, except that it might contavert the rule as it was intended, but not clearly defined. I really don't see a scoring nightmare in the way I present above. Your thoughts???

Jeff

[Vince Pinto]

Jeff,

Nothing compels a competitor to shoot anything. Moreover, we score each target individually (not in arrays), based on what each target is, and how it is presented, in accordance with the rules. The apparatus holding the target is irrelevant.

When it comes to moving targets, we rate each individual target in one of two ways - if a target ultimately comes to a complete stop, then we rate it on whether or not "at least a portion of the highest scoring area" is visible from the demarcated shooting area. If a target never stops moving (e.g. it's motorised), then it complies with the word "continuously", so it is rated accordingly. Rules 9.9.1 and 9.9.2 apply in all cases.

To avoid what I described earlier as "a scoring nightmare", Moving Target 1 ("MT1") must always be rated, and must consistently act, as either an appearing or disappearing for each competitor. So, strictly speaking, if you have three identical targets on a revolving contraption but, when the device ultimately stops moving, and it typically might end up being either MT1 or MT2 or MT3 which remains wholly visible to the competitor, then MT1 is sometimes appearing but at other times it is disappearing. Now what?

Unless each target is actually marked "MT?", provided the three targets are identical (e.g. they are all full targets) and provided one of them always ultimately stops in the same position with the same exposure, no harm done, and it's equitable for all competitors.

However it would be a scoring nightmare if sometimes one target was visible at the end of the movement, but at other times there were, say, two targets (or maybe part of each thereof) visible, and/or if each of the targets on the contraption is different (e.g. one full, one with painted hard cover, one with a PT attached etc.).

In other words, the problem is not the rule - the challenge is ensuring equity, but this is not difficult to do, unless you try to complicate things by introducing too many variables on a single moving device. Remember K.I.S.S. (and the last "S" is "Señor"!).

[Gary Stevens]

If I remember correctly, the "Wheel of Doom" at Area 6 started with a No Shoot visable and ended with the No Shoot visable. Under the new rules this would qualify as disappearing targets.

[Jim Norman]

Troy,

I hear you, and I see where you're coming from, but remember what the rule says:

9.9.1 Moving targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.5).

Now if we take this to the absolute extreme, worst case scenario, if a "momentum" (i.e. non-motorised) mover eventually (e.g. even, say, 5 minutes after activation), comes to rest without a portion of the A zone visible then, by rule definition, it's a disappearing target, eventhough it might still be moving (albeit at a slightly, perhaps even imperceptibly decreasing pace) when the "ULASC" command is given.

In other words, the rule does not say you determine a target's "rating" based on it's position and/or action at the "ULASC" command. The rule requires assessment be made based on the ultimate "at rest" position of the target (for the first part of the rule) OR the target must be "continuously" moving, which by dictionary definition (and for IPSC purposes), means "never-ending" or "endlessly" (until intentionally stopped by deactivation or reset).

Hope my explanation helps.

Then by definition given by the above, all targets that move must always and forever move? because if they ever stop without showing a portion of the highest scoring zone, they are now disappearing? So, if I motorize a target and we stop it to score it and the position that the target stops in does not present a portion of the high zone it is a disappearing, but if it does, it is not? and what if each time I flip the off switch to score it stops in a different position?

This is a rule that says a lot more than what was intended, in my opinion.

I think that Troy and I have it right, as long as it is moving at the IYAF, ULSC then it is a moving non-disappearing, but if it is a single or multiple that appears and stays gone, then it is a disappearing.

[Vince Pinto]

So, if I motorize a target and we stop it to score it and the position that the target stops in does not present a portion of the high zone it is a disappearing, but if it does, it is not? and what if each time I flip the off switch to score it stops in a different position?

You're not serious, are you? If you are, then since every target eventually ends up in a trash can, then all targets are disappearing. If you stop a motorised target solely for the purpose of scoring and patching, this has nothing to do with the target presentation to the competitor during the course of fire.

.... as long as it is moving at the IYAF, ULSC then it is a moving non-disappearing, but if it is a single or multiple that appears and stays gone, then it is a disappearing.

Which part of "when at rest" in Rule 9.9.1 is unclear?

If we changed the rule to say "at the ULASC command", then the target would be rated differently depending on your skill level and the time it takes you to shoot the COF.

[Jim Norman]

Any target that is not motorized will slow down and eventually stop moving. If it is a swinger and I am a fast shooter, the target will present itself very quickly giving me a far different shooting problem than if I am a slow shooter that walks position to position. Then the target may present me a very slowly moving face to engage. I suppose that if the at rest position were blocked with a NS or Hardcover, and I moved at a snails pace, then the target could under the interpetation and rules quoted be considered a disappearing target, even though it took 3 minutes to fully stop swinging.

No Vince, I am not really serious about calling a motorized target that is shut off to score a disappearing target, but then why should that be different than a weight activated target? Consider that I have a battery powered target motor and a timer that shuts the target off after 60 seconds to conserve power. Is that a reasonable time frame to engage the target? Suppose the course runs 30 seconds start to finish for the slowest shooter and the moving target is the second target engaged? Are you seriously stating that if I take 5 minutes to complete a 15 round COF, that all the targets must remain in motion the entire time or come to rest with the A-Zone showing or be declared as disappearing?

Jim