If target sticks don't exist....

[remoandiris]

I have read each post in this thread. You folks saying it is a REF and reshoot make, IMO, VERY valid points. I think it comes down to fair and equitable in 4.6.1. Equitable does NOT mean equal. 4.6.2 also comes into play. The target is still able to be engaged, allowing the shooter to complete the CoF.

Considering how seldom a stick gets shot and breaks during a CoF, I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

[Nik Habicht]

That target fell over at a noticeable and apparent angle. It is displaced ('cause it ain't in DAT'place no more)

Reshoot.

Yeah if the target goes from being straight up to being at a angle its no longer the same target. How can you not give a reshoot?

My thinking -- does the angle matter? If so, reshoot every time. If not, nope.....

Do we make competitors reshoot when the wind shifts full targets in the target stand, changing the angle?

[Nik Habicht]

I think Nik has it right. Fully available target and you hit the stick and cause it to lean a bit? Still available, no reshoot, repair for next shooter. Hit the stick and cause the target to fall over completely, or just enough to obscure a portion of it? Not available, reshoot/repair. Obscured target that now becomes more available? Reshoot/repair.

It really falls into the RO's judgement. Did the targets availability change due to the stick being damaged? Did it happen in a timely manner? Ie., The shooter hits the stick and the target stays in place. A gust hits the target and the stick now snaps and it leans over or even falls over completely. The shooter at this point is 20' downrange of the target in question. Reshoot because the target broke behind them?

Nothing in the rules about "availability" of the target.

Rule simply states "displacement of paper target".

Lee

Is a target displaced if it is still fully available without changing the difficulty of the shot?

[PKT1106]

For the record, it was a "shoot through" on a close target that hit a downrange activator cable.

And there is a separate rule for that scenario, which should be enforced and penalize you.

Obviously you can and have questioned the ruling and have been given the answer per what is defined in the rule book. Just because you don't like the answer provided does not make the answer any less valid.

I guess it comes down to the iterpretation of "malfunction" or "failure". I see a malfunction as a popper that falls down because of wind or a target that is not stapled to stay on, not when a shooter shoots a target stick and breaks it or hits the base of the popper and it falls anyway because the shooter caused it to happen, not a poorly set prop or target.

Its not defined in the rulebook that a competitor can cause a failure or malfunction and get a reshoot, at least in 4.6.

[Nik Habicht]

The "Cause" of the range failure does not matter. This is no different than a shooter accidentally shooting through the wire of an activator, shooting the stand of a steel target causing it to shift or fall, or the splatter of a round from one target causing another target to fall or activate.

Yes it does. If the shooter causes the failure, I don't think they should be entitled to a reshoot.

Please don't take this as insulting -- it's not intended that way. You're entitled to think whatever you want, on any topic, and to lobby the BOD for a rule change.

The cold hard reality though is that shooting activator cable definitely entitles the competitor to a reshoot. No questions about that. How do we know this? Because we've read the rule book, and then we've taken part in one or more RO classes, where NROI instructors have made it clear that this is the intent of the rule....

You've got all the makes of a great rules lawyer -- so get thee to the next available RO class: We could use the help, and I think the sport would be better off with your contributions! :D

[mildot1]

PKT1106> I hate to point out the obvious fact that what you "Think" the ruling should be does not match what the rules within the rule book supports. Within this thread there have been numerous NROI certified RO's and CRO's provide the valid answer to this ruling question along with detailed explanations. Even if you "Think" that these answers are not right, it does not matter what you "Think". The rules are the rules. I would suggest that you take an RO course and read the rule book from front to back so you can based your rulings on factual rules, not what you "Think" is the answer or should be.No one will be able to debate rules with people who choose to not use the rules but instead base their argument on what they think the rules should be.

So, we're not allowed to question it?

And section 4.6 about REFs is so vague as to include failures that are non-shooter and shooter induced, then I think we need to review this. This is basically saying if you shoot poorly enough to break a stick or cut a cable, you get a reshoot, which I think is wrong.

Nothing personal, I hope I never have you for a RO. From what I gather you are telling me that if I shot a low right "D" below the staple and broke the stick and the target flops over it is my fault?? Is it the same for both of my shot's as every other competitor? You need to go back and read the part that the sticks do not exist. If I engage a target that is behind another and the shot goes thru a target stick in front of it I still get the points, correct? Who gets to make the call that, "this far is OK but", "that far is not"?? What if I break the stick 4 targets before I even engage said target due to poor stage design or a wild(but safe) shot?

Your job as the RO is to interpet the rules as stated not what you want them to be!

Mildot

[CHA-LEE]

As a competitor I do my best to break down a COF, then memorize it enough times to shoot the stage subconsciously. When something strange happens like a target flopping over due to the stick being hit it IS distracting and WILL negatively impact my stage run. The target is no longer being presented the same way as it should be even if its fully engageable. I would hope that the RO running me would understand the situation the same as me, stop me, then issue a reshoot due to a range equipment failure. As an RO myself any time that I encounter a situation like this I will stop the shooter and issue a reshoot. I don't care if the shooters skill is good or bad causing the target stick to fail. To me the COF is altered and all the other shooter got the opportunity to shoot the COF as it should have been presented so this shooter should have the same fair opportunity.

[PKT1106]

Please don't take this as insulting -- it's not intended that way. You're entitled to think whatever you want, on any topic, and to lobby the BOD for a rule change. The cold hard reality though is that shooting activator cable definitely entitles the competitor to a reshoot. No questions about that. How do we know this? Because we've read the rule book, and then we've taken part in one or more RO classes, where NROI instructors have made it clear that this is the intent of the rule....

"Intentions" are not solid rules. If it specifically said in the rulebook that a competitor-caused malfunction or failure during a COF is a reshoot, fine, but it doesn't say that in 4.6. Everyone said the world was flat for hundreds of years, but it isn't.

You've got all the makes of a great rules lawyer -- so get thee to the next available RO class: We could use the help, and I think the sport would be better off with your contributions! :D

Thank you. And these arguements also have the dual purpose of convincing the local clubs we need another RO class....

Nothing personal, I hope I never have you for a RO. From what I gather you are telling me that if I shot a low right "D" below the staple and broke the stick and the target flops over it is my fault??

Yes, it is your fault, you shot the stick.

What if I break the stick 4 targets before I even engage said target due to poor stage design or a wild(but safe) shot?

There are rules about stage design that must be addressed before the stages are run. As far as a wild shot, that is a safety issue that should be addressed by the RO depending on the situation. If you were moving with the finger in the trigger guard without engaging a target and a shot went off, then it could be a DQ.

Your job as the RO is to interpet the rules as stated not what you want them to be!Mildot

My job is to apply the rules as written, not interpret them. Is there and NROI ruling about this? I didn't see one on the USPSA website.

[kevin c]

I can see that changing the orientation of the target before the shooter is done shooting at it (say, the first of two shots breaks the stick before the shooter has taken the second shot) should lead to a REF reshoot because the scoring zones are now angled and the shooter must make an adjustment to compensate that was not needed beforehand (e.g., an alpha/alpha near double at the top of the A zone is now alpha/charlie if he doesn't adjust between shots).

What if the shooter's last shot on that target breaks the stick, and the target does its flop after the shooter has left the position to move on, and, at the end of the run, unloads, shows clear and holsters in respons to "If you are finished, ULASC". The shooter never reengaged the target, and, by holstering at the end, showed he was done. Does he get an REF reshoot at that point?

I'm inclined to say no in the last case, because the change in target orientation never affected the shooter's run. If he decides, for what ever reason, to not respond to IYAFULASC, but goes back to the target to reengage it, whether at that point he breaks a shot or not, I'd give a REF reshoot, since the intent is shown to reengage a target that has changed. It'd be the same if the wind broke the partially shot through stick after the shooter has left the target. No change in score if he doesn't go back, but REF and a RS if he does.

[Sarge]

Geezul Petes

[PKT1106]

You need to go back and read the part that the sticks do not exist.

Kindly direct me cause all I see is 9.1.7 saying they are niether hard nor soft cover, not that they do not exist.

If I engage a target that is behind another and the shot goes thru a target stick in front of it I still get the points, correct?

9.1.7 says you get the points. We have a rule for that. No guessing needed.

[Chris iliff]

As far as I know target sticks don't exist. They simply are not there. I can't shoot one. Targets leaning over during a course of fire, as we all know, are due to minor shifts in the earths core. Or possibly, to a lesser extent, global warming coupled with increased cell phone activity.

9.1.7. Basically, they ain't there. Not soft, or hard cover. This makes them NOTHING. Pretty sure my RO instructor said pretend they are invisible/non existent.

REF, reshoot everytime.

[deacon12224]

Wow. I just read this entire thread and that is 10 minutes of my life that I will never get back.

[Nik Habicht]

My job is to apply the rules as written, not interpret them. Is there and NROI ruling about this? I didn't see one on the USPSA website.

It's not quite that simple -- if it were we wouldn't need RO classes to teach folks how to officiate.....

It's about more than timer holding,range commands and safety -- it's also about learning how to master the process of applying the rules in a manner that is consistent with the application of the rules by other range officers....

I've been doing this for about a decade now, and I'm still not as good at it as I want to be....

And yes, ROing, CROing, and RMing is very much about interpreting the rules....

[bagdad45]

Wow. I just read this entire thread and that is 10 minutes of my life that I will never get back.

I agree with that. Only thing I would add is that if this happened at my local club match unless the shooter asked for the reshoot I would just score as shot then fix it. Not because the reshoot is not the right thing to do but because many of our shooters bring enough ammo for the match and not much more. Many times they don't want to reshoot. If it was a classifier then reshoot all day. You can argue the what ifs, what if it leaned over and now covered a popper, what if it covered another target. Can't shoot through to get the score targets are impenetrable; all that proves is that noo matter who's fault this is REF and a reshoot.

[Skydiver]

Nothing personal, I hope I never have you for a RO. From what I gather you are telling me that if I shot a low right "D" below the staple and broke the stick and the target flops over it is my fault??

Yes, it is your fault, you shot the stick.

If you continue with that logic of "Yes, it's your fault, you shot the stick." then the shooter does not get the shooter. The shooter gets sent home under 10.6 because rule 8.7.4 states:

8.7.4 Altering stage props, targets or any other part of a COF without the approval of a Range Officer, or setting, resetting or activating moving targets on a COF identified as “Closed” or “Off Limits” will be subject to the provisions of Section 10.6.

Obviously, the RO did not authorize the altering the targets, but the shooter altered the target by shooting the stick so therefore DQ.

Or are you saying that no reshoot, but also no DQ either? The shooter was allowed to alter the target because the shooter was allowed to shoot because of the start signal. So given that idea, then if a shooter decided to kick down a wall and then shoot from the that position with the torn down wall, that should also be perfectly legal because the if the shooter can alter a stage by shooting, they should also be allowed to alter the a stage by manipulating the props, and kicking is one form of manipulation.

As many on this forum will attest, I tend to come up with some pretty absurd scenarios and interpretations in this forum, but to me, the rules are quite clear that target got displaced by the failure of the integrity of the sticks. It's REF, but not yet an automatic reshoot. The RO still needs to make a judgement call on whether that failure would make it impossible of unequitably harder to complete the course (4.6.2, 4.6.1).

[ktm300]

As many on this forum will attest, I tend to come up with some pretty absurd scenarios and interpretations in this forum, but to me, the rules are quite clear that target got displaced by the failure of the integrity of the sticks. It's REF, but not yet an automatic reshoot. The RO still needs to make a judgement call on whether that failure would make it impossible of unequitably harder to complete the course (4.6.2, 4.6.1).

<<I tend to come up with some pretty absurd scenarios >>

Really?

I agree with the 15 people that say it is a reshoot if the RO rules that the target presentation was changed.

The only areas I see the word Fault used in the rulebook are refering to fault lines, not that the shooter is at fault because a piece of range equipment fails.

At the Florida open this year we had a really ugly swinger on our stage (the one with the truck in it). We tried to replace the sticks before they got shot up too much, but we did not anticipate Blake Migueze putting two on the same spot on the stick and it failed leaving the target hanging by one stick, flopping and swinging. At that point Blake was not having a great run but there was no way I could rule that he did it on purpose. I stopped him, we fixed the target and he re-shot the stage. So my question to PKT1106 is should I have just let him finish the stage because he shot the sticks and made the prop fail? How about the other 5 or 6 shooters that shot those sticks before Blake? They made the sticks weaker so what penalty do they get?

This is too simple for this long of a discusion. If the prop fails and the shooter is not getting a fair presentation they re-shoot the stage. If in the opinion of the RO the shooter tried to make the prop fail then they get a 10.6 as that would be unsportsman like conduct.

One last question, if a prop is neither hard or soft cover isn't it "nothing"? Just an easy way to remember that the sitcks don't come into play when scoring targets.

[PKT1106]

As far as I know target sticks don't exist. They simply are not there.

9.1.7 says they are niether hard nor soft cover, not that they dont exist.

It's not quite that simple -- if it were we wouldn't need RO classes to teach folks how to officiate.....

You would still need classes to help people identify, visually, procudeurals, safety infractions, and a simulated weak load where one gets stuck in the barrel.

If you continue with that logic of "Yes, it's your fault, you shot the stick." then the shooter does not get the shooter. The shooter gets sent home under 10.6 because rule 8.7.4 states.....

10.6 says the shooter MAY be sent home, not they WILL be sent home. Unsportsmanlike conduct is at the discretion of the match officials.

Or are you saying that no reshoot, but also no DQ either?

This is what I am saying. The shooter doesn't mean to break a stick, but if they do, its on them for their COF.

So given that idea, then if a shooter decided to kick down a wall and then shoot from the that position with the torn down wall, that should also be perfectly legal because the if the shooter can alter a stage by shooting, they should also be allowed to alter the a stage by manipulating the props, and kicking is one form of manipulation.

In this scenario, the shooter willfully destoyed range equipment to gain an advantage and should be subject to 10.6. An unintentional shooting of a target stick does not compare to this.

As many on this forum will attest, I tend to come up with some pretty absurd scenarios and interpretations in this forum, but to me, the rules are quite clear that target got displaced by the failure of the integrity of the sticks. It's REF, but not yet an automatic reshoot. The RO still needs to make a judgement call on whether that failure would make it impossible of unequitably harder to complete the course (4.6.2, 4.6.1).

The targets, per 4.6, were presented equitably and fairly when the COF commenced. Only the shooter changed the orientation or aspect of the targets by shooting the target stick. As long as it is reset and checked before the next shooter, I don't see how a shooter gets a reshoot for hitting and breaking the target stick.

I agree with the 15 people that say it is a reshoot if the RO rules that the target presentation was changed.

But the target PRESENTATION did not change until the shooter changed it.

The only areas I see the word Fault used in the rulebook are refering to fault lines, not that the shooter is at fault because a piece of range equipment fails.

4.6 does not say the shooter can bust a piece of range equipment and get a reshoot.

At the Florida open this year we had a really ugly swinger on our stage (the one with the truck in it). We tried to replace the sticks before they got shot up too much, but we did not anticipate Blake Miguez putting two on the same spot on the stick and it failed leaving the target hanging by one stick, flopping and swinging. At that point Blake was not having a great run but there was no way I could rule that he did it on purpose. I stopped him, we fixed the target and he re-shot the stage. So my question to PKT1106 is should I have just let him finish the stage because he shot the sticks and made the prop fail? How about the other 5 or 6 shooters that shot those sticks before Blake? They made the sticks weaker so what penalty do they get?This is too simple for this long of a discusion. If the prop fails and the shooter is not getting a fair presentation they re-shoot the stage.

It is on the match officials to check the integrity of the equipment for each shooter. If the sticks were getting shredded beforehand, why did they let it go? In that instance the weakened sticks were going to fail fromt he accumulated hits, something the match officials should have checked. I would say that Mr. Miguez did not have an equitable and fair presentation because of the integrity of the sticks before the COF. If the staick were changed out and he still hit one with 2 shots and made it break, its on him.

If in the opinion of the RO the shooter tried to make the prop fail then they get a 10.6 as that would be unsportsman like conduct.One last question, if a prop is neither hard or soft cover isn't it "nothing"? Just an easy way to remember that the sitcks don't come into play when scoring targets.

10.6 says the shooter MAY be DQ'd, not that they WILL be DQ'd. The sticks are still part of the target set-up, they just don't count for anything. To say they don't exist is not part of the rules. An NFL ref doesn't "exist" for either team, but is still part of the field.

[outerlimits]

Me just thinks that PTK1106 is just bumping his post count. He's gotta be running out of arguments.

[sperman]

Dude, give it up.

There are guys on here who have been RM's at more matches than you've shot. Do you really think you are right and they are wrong?

[CHA-LEE]

PKT1106> If you want to petition NROI for changing the rules for handling this scenario differently then I would suggest that you contact NROI directly. All of the RO's, CRO's, and RM's that have posted here can only offer guidance on the rules that are currently released and enforceable.

[ktm300]

I agree with the 15 people that say it is a reshoot if the RO rules that the target presentation was changed.

But the target PRESENTATION did not change until the shooter changed it.

Please quote something from the rulebook that says anything about range equipment failure and the shooter causing it being a reason to ignore the failure. The way I read it is if Presentation changes it is a re-shoot. Nothing in that rule says anything about when the presentation changed having a bearing on it being a re-shoot or not. Again the RO has to use his or her judgment on the presentation.

So Blake shot the sticks, and he was due a reshoot because the slack RO's did not inpspect them after every shooter, but if he had hit the stick the same place twice he wasn't due the reshoot because he caused it to fail. In your original argument you said if he causes it there is no re-shoot. How do you know he didn't hit it twice in the same place? He caused it when he hit the stick, he was due a reshoot because the equipment failed.

I think you are mad because someone very early on thought something you said was a bit naive and that you could use an RO class, so you are going to argue the point no matter what. The point is clear, the rulebook is clear.

[PKT1106]

Dude, give it up.There are guys on here who have been RM's at more matches than you've shot. Do you really think you are right and they are wrong?

I never said I was right and they were wrong, I am merely trying to apply the rule book from a different point of view.

PKT1106> If you want to petition NROI for changing the rules for handling this scenario differently then I would suggest that you contact NROI directly. All of the RO's, CRO's, and RM's that have posted here can only offer guidance on the rules that are currently released and enforceable.

"Guidance" is not rules. Guidance is interpretation. It is subjective judgement.

Please quote something from the rulebook that says anything about range equipment failure and the shooter causing it being a reason to ignore the failure.

Please show me something in the rulebook that says a shooter initiated failure of a prop constitutes a reshoot.

The way I read it is if Presentation changes it is a re-shoot.

The way I read it is that if the presentation changes before the shooter reaches the target/steel (as in the wind knocks over the steel or staples fall out and drop a target), then the shooter gets a reshoot.

Nothing in that rule says anything about when the presentation changed having a bearing on it being a re-shoot or not.

4.6.1 states .....the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets...... Which leads me to believe the rules are in regards to the stage being correct before the COF and before the shooter engages the targets/steel during the COF.

Again the RO has to use his or her judgment on the presentation. So Blake shot the sticks, and he was due a reshoot because the slack RO's did not inspect them after every shooter, but if he had hit the stick the same place twice he wasn't due the reshoot because he caused it to fail. In your original argument you said if he causes it there is no ne-shoot. How do you know he didn't hit it twice in the same place? He caused it when he hit the stick, he was due a reshoot because the equipment failed.

First off, the other post syas he hit it twice in the same spot. The purpose of the sticks are to hold up the targets. A new stick performs it function endlessly until it either rots out or someone shoots it. The stick did not fail, the shooter broke it. The stick was doing its job before acted upon by the shooters bullet. In the absence of the bullet, it would still perform its function.

I think you are mad because someone very early on thought something you said was a bit naive and that you could use an RO class, so you are going to argue the point no matter what. The point is clear, the rulebook is clear.

I am not mad, I am just arguing the wording and interpretations of the rules. I know I need to go through the RO class, I am not arguing that point. What I am arguing is the interpretation that a shooter can destroy a target stick and get a reshoot because the equipment "failed". The point is not clear, the rulebook is not clear, at least not in 4.6.

When the COF starts, the shooter must be PRESENTED with a challenge fairly and equitibly. It does not say that the targets have to be in the same spot or match the previous presentation at the end of the COF. If this were true, steel targets falling changes the presentation of the steel and any stage with steel would either have to be reshot until the steel never falls or thrown out because the presentation of the steel changes after it is shot and it goes down.

[Poppa Bear]

PKT1106 one common shooter induced failure that is ALWAYS a reshoot is a plate that turns when hit and fails to fall. What you are trying to argue is that a shooter induced REF like hitting a target stick should not be grounds to issue a reshoot. What many here are trying to point out is that REF is more based on target availability. A plate that has spun is not fully available so REF reshoot. A target that is disrupted by hitting the stick which changes its equitable availability is grounds for a reshoot. A target that is dropped a little off axis but which still remains fully available will likely be ignored until the shooter is finished, and then repaired for the next shooter. One that falls fully to the ground or changes significantly will likely be considered REF and a reshoot offered. It is based on the RO's call. If the shooter thinks they should have gotten a reshoot then they appeal to the RM who will ultimately decide.

It ultimately comes down to the RO. Did the target failure disrupt the shooters attempt at the course? Yes, we have a reshoot. No, we score it as shot.

[remoandiris]

There are guys on here who have been RM's at more matches than you've shot. Do you really think you are right and they are wrong?

One of those guys who has been an RM agrees no reshoot in the specific incident shown in the pic on page 1.