Failure to engage.

[jspruance]

I would like to generate some opinions about the random shots we sometimes see a competitor throw at a target in order not to get an FTE penalty.

If a COF is set up that may require a competitor to go a considerable distance to engage a target that is hidden behind a wall. or some other prop, he may rationalize that the time required to get the hits is not worth the time it takes to get them. He decides to throw one shot in the general direction of the target and take the two mikes but still avoid the FTE penalty.

My question is, if the target is absolutely, completely hidden behind a wall or some other prop and it is impossible to see any part of it, unless you are standing very near the prop that is the visual barried, is it possible to call that target engaged if a shot is fired from 15 yards away where no part of the target can be seen?

If you charged the competitor with a FTE what kind of litigation would you be in for. Is there a specific rule that would back up your decision?

Thanks JFS

[Kingman]

most the time people don't get an FTE if they have fired at least the required number of rounds per stage

[Vince Pinto]

JFS,

In view of the simple fact that you cannot shoot at something which is not in the line of fire, and since:

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as "soft cover" (see Rule 4.1.5.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable "hard cover".

-:it therefore follows that a target totally concealed by hard cover is not in the line of fire, so shots merely "in the general direction" of such a target will invoke:

10.2.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one round will incur 1 procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.5 or 9.9.2 apply.

Of course if the competitor really wants to argue, then the normally kind, gentle and friendly RO might possibly invoke:

10.6.1 Competitors will be disqualified from a match for conduct which a Range Officer deems to be unsportsmanlike. Examples of unsportsmanlike conduct include, but are not limited to, cheating, dishonesty, failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official, or any behavior likely to bring the sport into disrepute. The Range Master must be notified as soon as possible.

I hope this helps.

[Flexmoney]

most the time people don't get an FTE if they have fired at least the required number of rounds per stage

As Vince pointed out...the rules don't read "shoot enough bullets to satisfy the stage", they read to engage each target with atleast one round.

[EricW]

Make 2 mikes a severe enough penalty and the problem will solve itself.

That was the awesome part of experiencing 3 gun rules for the first time last weekend. Not many serious competitors were leaving targets when the penalty was 10 secs per.

[Neil Beverley]

As per Vince but also good stage design can usually avoid this. While a single target might not be worth going for, 2 or even 3 targets in the location start to really hurt if ignored.

Also for Shotgun and Rifle we have:

9.4.1.1 In order to recognize a difficult shot in a course of fire, a small number of metal and/or frangible targets may score double value for a hit.  The use of such targets is restricted to not more than 10% of the total number of targets in the match.  Their use must have been approved during the course review process and they must be clearly identified in the written stage briefing.

9.4.4 Each miss will be penalized twice the value of the maximum scoring hit available on that target, except in the case of disappearing targets (see Rules 9.2.4.5 and 9.9.2).

This is more relevant to SG & R.

For SG, on medium and long courses there is the added time factor of generally slower reloading, and this comes into to the calculation of to shoot or not to shoot. Very useful on a stage with dissappearing clays for example. This subject has been covered elsewhere in the forums.

For Rifle a good example of where this can be useful is plates at some distance. The time taken can be considerable but with the plate being declared as double value i.e. 10 points, and misses penalised at twice that value, the total points away for not shooting such a target is minus 30 off your potential score. This assumes that a competitor has avoided the "failure to shoot at" penalty by throwing a shot roughly in the direction of.

[Dead Buff]

What is said above.....

Ensure that your stage design is such to ensure FTE-gaming on the loner targets is avoided through too high points lost. More targets there than in open/op front/etc...

And make hitting disapearing targets possible for the average shooter. I've seen to many top guys leave them due to the difficulty while the average guys go for them and can't make hits....

[Vince Pinto]

Make 2 mikes a severe enough penalty and the problem will solve itself.

If a competitor just fires shots wily-nily (no chance for any score), he loses a potential 10 points of score, plus he gets 20 points in misses, so he's already down 30 points. Throw in a 10 point procedural on top of that, he's down 40 points, and then he really wants his Momma

And 40 points is 25% of even the longest (32 round) COF .............. ouch!

[jspruance]

Thanks for all of the input guys. I pretty much had formed the same opinion but it was good to have it reinforced and see some of the official rule sections.

This situation arises more at the club match level than at bigger matches but I have never seen an RO issue this penalty anywhere.

Thanks

JFS

[BDH]

JS,

I 'think' I know the stage you are talking about, and since I had also questioned this, I asked a couple of RM's this weekend and we agreed with the following....

'A shooter can NOT 'engage' a target if he/she can NOT see it'.

Hope this helps....

[wide45]

Um, do the new rules go back to the "engage" thing, or does it only say "shoot at" the target?

If the term is "shoot at", then any shot which might put a hole in the target qualifies. There is no requirement that the shot fired might score. If the shot goes through "hard cover", and still puts a hole in the target in question, you can't deny the target was shot at.

I'd say it was not engaged, but thats no longer at issue.

[Vince Pinto]

If the shot goes through "hard cover", and still puts a hole in the target in question, you can't deny the target was shot at.

Yes you can:

9.1.6.1 Bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to strike any scoring or penalty paper target, that shot will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

-:means the shot (and the resultant hit, if any) did not occur so, for all intents and purposes, the target was not "shot at" (nor "engaged").

The rule is effectively saying that the hard cover represents a solid brick wall so, unless you "shoot at" the target when you actually have "line of sight" around or over the "brick wall", then you are subject to the applicable misses and "failure to shoot at" penalty.

[wide45]

It says what it says, regardless of what you want it to say.

9.1.6.1 Bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to strike any scoring or penalty paper target, that shot will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

Notice this part "that shot will not count for score or penalty"?

Rule clearly states it is a shot. It is a shot that does not count for score, but it is still a shot.

[Vince Pinto]

OK.

[Jim Norman]

The rule says: if a round passes entirely through the Hard Cover then no penalty and no score. Fine I agree, BUT that should be applied to a target that is at least partially visible. A target that is entirely concealed has not been shot at as you cannot shoot at something that is entirely behind hard cover.

Assuming that hard cover is impenatrable of course. After all I suppose I could make the Argument that a 50 AE might just penatrate that metal building or that aluminum sided house. But for our purposes, the shooter can't see the target and the target is behind an impenatrable wall, he in my book would get 2 Mikes and an FTE.

Jim

[wide45]

There is no "failure to engage" penalty.

I need to repete that, because a lot of people don't seem to get it.

There is no "failure to engage" penalty.

There is a penalty for failing to shoot at a target.

It's not the same thing.

The rules do not require that when you "shoot at" a target, that you are attempting to score on the target. They only require that you launch a bullet in the general direction of the target.

This may not have been the intent of whoever wrote the rule, but it is what they wrote.

It is entirely possible to shoot at a target without seeing it. I've done it many times through soft cover.

[Neil Beverley]

There is no "failure to engage" penalty.

I need to repete that, because a lot of people don't seem to get it.

There is no "failure to engage" penalty.

There is a penalty for failing to shoot at a target.

It's not the same thing.

The rules do not require that when you "shoot at" a target, that you are attempting to score on the target.  They only require that you launch a bullet in the general direction of the target.

This may not have been the intent of whoever wrote the rule, but it is what they wrote.

It is entirely possible to shoot at a target without seeing it.  I've done it many times through soft cover.

wide45

I don't think you're going to carry many others with your arguments on this one.

The soft cover issue is a different thing completely. Soft cover is nominated as such to enable you to shoot at targets,

Hard cover is entirely a different thing. If you can't see the target then you are shooting at the hard cover you are not shooting at the target.

[Jim Norman]

Targets that are concealed by use of soft cover are required to have a portion visible are they not? In the stated case, the targets were not visible AND the cover was hard.

Two Mikes, 1 FTE

Keep arguing and I might DQ for USC

Jim

[Dead Buff]

Two Mikes, 1 FTE

Keep arguing and I might DQ for USC

The way it should be....