If target sticks don't exist....

[remoandiris]

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.

This is the case with the pic on page 1. Target is fully available, though slightly off kilter.

I don't know if PKT is arguing this specific case or any case of a broken target stick. The more of his posts I read, the more I think he is NOT arguing this specific case only.

[PKT1106]

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.

I know 4.3.1.6 says that if the plate is hit and does not fall, it is REF because it cannot be calibrated. My issue with the plate example is that the shooter caused the plate to turn without falling. The shooter's ammo could have been underpowered a bit on that shot and may have hit only the very last edge to induce a spin rather than fully knock the plate down. If everyone else knocks that plate off with one shot (including minor PF) and one shooter merely makes it turn, is it really a failure of the plate? This is assuming the bearing surface between the plate base and the plate stand is clean and there is nothing around the plate to restrict movement (tree branch or something).

Edited October 9, 2012 by PKT1106

[ktm300]

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.

This is the case with the pic on page 1. Target is fully available, though slightly off kilter.

I don't know if PKT is arguing this specific case or any case of a broken target stick. The more of his posts I read, the more I think he is NOT arguing this specific case only.

I agree, it looks to me that he is saying if a shooter causes the issue by shooting the sticks there is no posibility of a reshoot because the shooter caused the problem.

I disagree with that assumption.

There will be a lot of factors in making the decision on the ground but the fact that the shooter shot the stick and that caused the issue is not a factor in the ruling on re-shoot, no re-shoot. It might come into play if the shooter was obviously trying to tear up the target to get a re-shoot but that would come in under a different rule.

[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.

I know 4.3.1.6 says that if the plate is hit and does not fall, it is REF because it cannot be calibrated. My issue with the plate example is that the shooter caused the plate to turn without falling. The shooter's ammo could have been underpowered a bit on that shot and may have hit only the very last edge to induce a spin rather than fully knock the plate down. If everyone else knocks that plate off with one shot (including minor PF) and one shooter merely makes it turn, is it really a failure of the plate? This is assuming the bearing surface between the plate base and the plate stand is clean and there is nothing around the plate to restrict movement (tree branch or something).

Properly designed plates and stands have lips that prevent the plate from spinning. Any hit strong enough to move the plate should be strong enough to cause it to fall off the stand.

[PKT1106]

I agree, it looks to me that he is saying if a shooter causes the issue by shooting the sticks there is no posibility of a reshoot because the shooter caused the problem. I disagree with that assumption. There will be a lot of factors in making the decision on the ground but the fact that the shooter shot the stick and that caused the issue is not a factor in the ruling on re-shoot, no re-shoot.

Why? It wasn't an act of God beyond the shooter's control. It was the shooter that caused the scenario. The rulebook does not say that the shooter gets a reshoot if the shooter, themselves, cause the incident. Their shooting put them in that situation, why should they get a reshoot for breaking a stick or breaking an activator cable before the prop is activated? When a shooter shots a stick, the only factor is that the shooter shot the stick.

It might come into play if the shooter was obviously trying to tear up the target to get a re-shoot but that would come in under a different rule.

Yes, if a shooter was deliberatley trying to destroy range equipment, we have an unsportsmanlike conduct rule.

[BSeevers]

Shooter causing problem and no REF is flawed logic. Seems easy to me and I have never seen it be an issue

On a match we had a door that activated swingers. I opened it like a man not like the little girls on my squad, you know who you are, and made the cable slip outta the clamp. I caused that also but it too is a reshoot. REF

Now if you break props on purpose I will DQ you.

I can separate the two acts

[Poppa Bear]

Who was it that planned to open the door by hitting the bottom with their foot and ended up putting their foot through it?

There are many videos out there where the shooter knocked over/destroyed props that could not handle the strain of multiple squads using them.

If we replaced lath every time someone put a couple of holes in it we would need a bundle on every stage. We shoot, they get holes. Some unlucky shooter will be the one to put that extra hole in it that causes it to come apart. Did it hinder his attempt? Reshoot. If not we fix it after it breaks or when it is so shot up that we decide it cannot handle the strain of one more hit.

[bikerburgess]

The part that confuses me is it sounds like PTK1106 thinks getting a re-shoot is a benefit, In my experience the re-shoot run is a crap shoot some times its good some times its REALLY BAD.

Mike

[outerlimits]

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.

Ok, I just puked.

[Poppa Bear]

Sometimes it does not make any difference. I shot a classifier that required a reload as you transitioned from one side of the wall to the other. First attempt I remembered the reload just before I started shooting the left side. Cost me a few seconds but I got lucky because a target was not pasted from the previous shooter. On the reshoot I did the exact same thing.

[Jaxshooter]

I would require a reshoot. Does not matter if the shooter shot the stick or it feel apart from a previous shot or void in the wood. It is REF no matter how it happens. Mandatory reshoot or 0 on the stage.

[sperman]

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.

And that is not what PKT1106 has spent the better part of 80 posts arguing about.

[Chris iliff]

I'll try once more. If they are not soft cover and they are not hard cover and we know they are not targets, then they are what? They are NOTHING, NADA, NON EXISTENT.

This is why my instructor said "pretend they are not there".

Once you grasp that paper targets are held aloft by the collective will of all competitors, you'll get it. When a target falls over, we know some asshat lost his concentration and let the community down. RESHOOT.

But, I think you do get it.

Now go take an RO class, you'll be a welcome addition.

[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.

And that is not what PKT1106 has spent the better part of 80 posts arguing about.

Yeah, I think you're right. He totally lost me arguing the plate REF.

[ktm300]

Yeah, I think you're right. He totally lost me arguing the plate REF.

Yep, lost me there too.

[Flexmoney]

On a match we had a door that activated swingers. I opened it like a man not like the little girls on my squad, you know who you are, and made the cable slip outta the clamp. I caused that also but it too is a reshoot. REF

ppfffft...I pulled a door off it's hinges at Area 8 one year. Was it a my actions or a faulty door? "hulk not tell"

Reshoot.

[sperman]

As far as the question in post #1, this is how I look at it. Did it affect the competitors attempt at the COF? If he doesn't react to the target moving, and it doesn't affect his hits on the target, why force a reshoot on him. On the other hand, if he hesitates when the target falls over, or reacts in some other way that has a negative affect on his time or hits, then I would stop him and order a reshoot.

[remoandiris]

As far as the question in post #1, this is how I look at it. Did it affect the competitors attempt at the COF? If he doesn't react to the target moving, and it doesn't affect his hits on the target, why force a reshoot on him. On the other hand, if he hesitates when the target falls over, or reacts in some other way that has a negative affect on his time or hits, then I would stop him and order a reshoot.

I understand what you're saying, but you will never know if it affected his hits. The more I read (and think about) this thread, even though the stage is, IMO, still fair and equitable, I think a reshoot is the best answer. And let the reshoot gods do as they will, for better or worse.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

I know 4.3.1.6 says that if the plate is hit and does not fall, it is REF because it cannot be calibrated. My issue with the plate example is that the shooter caused the plate to turn without falling. The shooter's ammo could have been underpowered a bit on that shot and may have hit only the very last edge to induce a spin rather than fully knock the plate down. If everyone else knocks that plate off with one shot (including minor PF) and one shooter merely makes it turn, is it really a failure of the plate? This is assuming the bearing surface between the plate base and the plate stand is clean and there is nothing around the plate to restrict movement (tree branch or something).

FWIW, plates are never subject to calibration.....

They either fall when struck, or they don't -- and if they are hit in any way and don't fall, that's a reshoot.....

If they fall and aren't hit -- that's a reshoot as well.....

[PKT1106]

With an interest in bringing this thread to a close, I am not convinced that a shooter busting a target stick is grounds for a reshoot. I am also not convinced that a plate that fell off the stand for everyone else is a malfunction for one shooter who only turns it with their load and shot placement. There is a lot of grey area with all these scenarios you guys present.

And with that I say good night and shoot straight.

[Nik Habicht]

On a match we had a door that activated swingers. I opened it like a man not like the little girls on my squad, you know who you are, and made the cable slip outta the clamp. I caused that also but it too is a reshoot. REF

ppfffft...I pulled a door off it's hinges at Area 8 one year. Was it a my actions or a faulty door? "hulk not tell"

Reshoot.

I once knocked a door and its frame down, and as it was falling around me, finished engaging the targets......

Was that my fault, or bad construction? I'm not telling..... :D

Then I had to reshoot the stage, and shot it worse..... :devil:

[outerlimits]

Pkt1106 will never, ever, get a reshoot. Never!

[lef-t]

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.

I have to say that this has been a very entertaining thread. I think PKT1106 wins the award for longest multiquote.

B.S. aside, I think this unfortunately falls in the gray area of RO discretion.

"Fairly and equitable" has some wiggle room. I personally don't think it's fair for some shooters to have to shoot bagged targets on a wet day and others not, but it's an acceptable practice and considered "fair and equitable." This specific case of the target still being fully available, but slightly slanted is much less inhibiting than those bags, so in my mind it's still a fair and equitable challenge. I think where some people are getting hung up on this point is they keep saying the presentation of the target has to be fair and equitable, but by the rule it's the "challenge" that must abide. Again, for this specific instance I think the challenge of hitting the affected target is equitable.

"Displacement" is also not clearly defined and open to RO discretion.

I think we've all found through our experience with the sport that sometimes things go wrong on a stage. We miss a reload, or a step, experience a malfunction, etc. and keep shooting the stage til the finish. I don't think as shooters any of us would stop shooting when a target flopped the way we would if a popper was down. It's kind of like if a target isn't pasted, you put your two in it and leave it up to the RO to decide. The mandatory REF reshoot is for when something goes wrong that is out of the control of the shooter that causes them to be "unable to complete the CoF" or not receive a "fair and equitable" challenge.

For this specific instance the shooter shot the target as presented, and completed the CoF as it was. The challenge seemed fair and equitable. The call we made was to score it as shot and after reading through the different opinions, I'm happy with our decision in this instance. For a different target and different circumstances perhaps I'd require a reshoot if the challenge was inequitable or the shooter could not complete the CoF.

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all

competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of

paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the

failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of

mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of

props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

4.6.2 A competitor who is unable to complete a course of fire due to range

equipment failure, or if a metal or moving target was not reset prior to

his attempt at a course of fire, must be required to reshoot the course of

fire after corrective actions have been taken.

Here's a video of the run in question. Due to the course design, from my point of view I can't tell which shot broke the stick.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4664144564188

[DrawandDuck]

In this case it doesn't appear displaced to me.....especially at 4 yds....I see no reason to requre a reshoot, again, in this case.

[Sin-ster]

They're real, alright.

Shoot one that hasn't been trimmed at the shoulders ( ) and get a deflection, or slow down to avoid same said untrimmed stick, and you'll understand...

And yes, before anyone asks, my stupid jacketed .355 deflect off of EVERYTHING. Like any good scientist, I've experimented.

But let's have a real REF discussion. A plate drops off the Texas Star and lands in such a way as to stop the thing from spinning (15-20 RPM to 0 in a flash). Reshoot?