Question about unpasted targets

[dukeofurl]

Hello! (I'm new here)

I shot my first USPSA match today after years of other competition and we had a bit of a problem after one stage.

I shot the stage, forgot a target and caught a few mikes and a LOT of C/D's.

The next shooter went up - the targets werent pasted. He was burning through it and then paused. I heard firing resume and later on they commented on how backwards the rulebook was.

How do you score something like that? My run was TERRIBLE by the way if that affects his placement.

[sargenv]

I think but I am not certain...

14th edition... Best 2 on paper regardless of size.

15th edition.... Still Best 2 on paper if they are the same size, or Best 2 on paper for the caliber you are shooting. If it is unrecognizable, reshoot after all targets have been taped.

I'm sure someone will look it up, but I believe that is the ruling. Since we haven't started shooting the 15th edition in the US, the 14th edition rules would apply.

Vince

[Tman33_99]

If he was shooting a different caliber than you, and you can tell the difference between the hits on targets, you score the hits as they are shown. If you you can't tell the difference then it is a reshoot.

14th Edition (Red Book)

9.1.4.2 If scoring or penalty paper targets have not been patched or taped after a previous competitor’s

attempt at the course of fire, and there are extra scoring or questionable penalty hits on one or more targets and

it is not obvious to the Range Officer which hits were made by the immediate competitor, the Range Officer

shall order the competitor to re-shoot the course of fire.

Jan. 2004 Edition (Green Book)

US9.1.4 Unrestored targets - If, following completion of a course of fire

by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been

properly patched or taped for the competitor being scored, the

Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can

be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable

penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made

by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be

ordered to reshoot the course of fire.

[Guest Larry Cazes]

Was he given a reshoot?

[Jim Norman]

The problem with the rules as they is writ is this:

I am having a great run, I have not engaged yet T6 (for arguments sake) It may be visible from an earlier position, but since I am shooting L-10 or Production, I "KNOW" I didn't shoot at it yet, but there as big as life are two holes. It causes me to start to wonder, "Did I skip an earlier target and somehow shoot this one?"

My run is now off the mark. I am now thinking instead of shooting.

Tow problems: One I Don't shoot T6, it already has two holes, I get to the end of the course and find that there are no misses, so the two hits were not mine. (determined by round counts) The call, one FTE and two mikes? OR I shoot at the target, but am now wondering all throught eh balance of the stage, no penalties, but my run is way off.

My suggestion; untaped targets are the same as steel that is not reset, RANGE EQUIPMENT FAILURE.

Jim Norman

[wide45]

So, what if there is one far target that was not taped, but you never noticed. You shot the stage of your life, way over your head. You shoot .40, the untaped holes are 9mm, no problem to distinguish.

Automatic reshoot? Flush your great run?

No

[Vince Pinto]

Duke,

Firstly a very warm welcome to the BE Forums ...... and I love your login name. Ha!

Anyway, TMan has correctly quoted Rule 9.1.4 (so he gets a cookie), however there's another aspect to this rule which must be considered, and that is the calibre used by the previous competitor and the competitor being scored.

For example, consider a situation where the previous guy was shooting 45ACP, and the second guy was shooting 9mm but, on the target which has not been properly patched, there are 2x45ACP holes and 1x9mm hole visible. Since the competitor being scored has obviously hit the subject target with one 9mm round, the RO cannot positively declare a Miss, because it's possible that a second shot from the 9mm passed cleanly through one of the larger 45ACP holes.

In such a case, I would order a reshoot (after I severely spanked my patchers).

However even if there were no 9mm holes on the same target, it's likely that I would still order a reshoot on the assumption that, during the COF and under time pressure, the competitor saw two holes in the subject target and he genuinely believed he made them. Remember that it's virtually impossible to determine the calibre of the holes on a target while you're zipping through a COF, especially if the first guy was shooting 10mm and you're shooting 9mm.

Hope this helps.

[Vince Pinto]

My suggestion; untaped targets are the same as steel that is not reset, RANGE EQUIPMENT FAILURE.

Absolutely not. The range equipment did not fail, and the targets were available to the competitor.

And why automatically force a competitor to reshoot a COF if he knew during the COF that the unpatched holes on the target were not his, and he shoots at each target as required? You run the risk of unnecessarily penalising the competitor with a potentially lesser run, for something which was not his doing.

The rule as it stands now is fine, because it gives the RO latitude to make a case-by-case decision on the evidence available to him.

[Yoda]

Let me add another thing to consider ...

Imagine an outdoor range with the sun coming from behind the targets ... after two-three shooters you come to the openings to shoot the targets and it looks like the target already has 4-6 holes (although it properly has been patched). Or insects sitting on the target giving the impression the target already has been shot ...

If the shooter stops at those moments the RO has to score the remaining targets with the appropriate number of Mikes and PE's.

The rule as written now gives the RO's the possibility to order a re-shoot when necessary, in all other cases the score stands as shot.

[Skywalker]

Duke, a heartily welcome first of all.

Next, to answer the questions: the key word in rule 91.4.2 (IPSC 9.1.4) as quoted by Tman is "it is not obvious to the Range Officer which hits were made by the immediate competitor.

If the RO can determine which were the hit of the immediate competitor (or the previous one), no re-shoot. Period.

As an example: the shooter before you scores on T3 A-C with .40" caliber. T£ is not patched.

You shoot and score A-D on the same target with a .40" caliber too.

Now, if the RO has (and should have) the same scoring sequence for the stage, he can easily check on the previous score sheet that A-C was pre-existent, and A-D is your actual score.

The RO is able to tell wich were your hits, the no re-shoot.

[dukeofurl]

Was he given a reshoot?

No, he wasnt. He was running a 40 and I was running 9x19.

For the record: I asked if he was given a reshoot and he said an emphatic "NO!"

[Barrettone]

Vince, Sky and Yoda:

I'm afraid I must disagree with you and side with Jim on this particular issue. I have often reflected on this rule, and have always felt that it is unfair to let the RO decide the course of action, and I will explain why. As Jim alluded to in his post, 90% of this game is mental. When you have to pause and discern whether or not you engaged targets or not, you are at a decided disadvantage, as other competitors did not have these extraneous things to worry about when they ran through the COF. I liken it to a competitor in the gallery shouting "STOP" when you are shooting. Now, some will say that an RO will give you a reshoot if they felt you were at a disadvantage, but that is not always so (as dukeofurl said, he "paused", and then was not allowed a reshoot), and letting the RO decide whether or not you get a reshoot rather than having a written guideline that MANDATES a reshoot is unacceptable. That poor competitor had to "pause for the cause", and was unjustly hindered as he had to process more information than the other competitors. We preach that we want to offer this "level playing field" for all the participants at an IPSC match. This rule leaves that ideaology out in the cold. If the COF is not equally presented to all, it is unfair and unjust. If holes are in the targets, it is not a uniform presentation, and in my book is a "form" of REF. You may wish to consider the scenario as I listed it above before you deem the rule fair and equitable in the RO's hands. Just my opinion FWIW, as I have been through this exact situation before, and it cost me valuable time, as it got me "out of my groove". Not pasting targets between shooters should MANDATE a reshoot, no if's, ands, or buts. Yoda, the examples you listed are only a direct result of IPSC being an outdoor sport, and suseptable to weather, and act of God...They are not a direct result of human error, so I would not classify them as a good example in this particular case. I hope you all understand my point.

Jeff

[Vince Pinto]

Jeff,

The only flaw in your argument is that it assumes all competitors are equal, but clearly they are not.

Competitors of the highest grades to whom I've spoken are not affected by existing holes in targets, because they know exactly what they've shot and haven't shot. It would therefore be grossly unfair to force a mandatory reshoot when a competitor doesn't want one or when it's not a case of a missing or faulty target (e.g. an unrestored popper or an activator which didn't work).

However if a competitor visibly hesitated during his run due to an unpatched target, I will most likely order the reshoot, but I only have that option while the decision remains discretionary.

Anyway, the greatest minds in IPSC (and me too!), think the current rule is the best of various solutions, but I thank you for your input.

[Barrettone]

Well, as dukeofurl said in his posts above..."he paused", and when the competitor was asked if he got a reshoot, he said an emphatic "NO". While well-studied range officials such as those who frequent these forums would probably have given the guy a reshoot if he visibly hesitated, this RO did not, as dukepfurl has stated here. Not all RO's have the same discretion. Keep in mind, I am playing devils advocate here, as none of us were there to witniss the event. However, at a minimum, there should be a rider attached to the rule that states something to the effect of "if the competitor was, in the opinion of the RO hindered due to unpasted targets, the RO can order a reshoot". Now, some will say, but he can already do that!!! However, a lot of RO's go strictly by the rulebook as printed, rather than using discretion in these instances. I know that we cannot hypothosize and include every possible scenario and incorporate it into the rulebook, but this one in particular needs more clarification IMHO. If we have to leave it to the RO's discretion, the terminology needs to be reworked a little to give the competitor something to point to. At least it will compel the RO to consider the competitors point of view if he is not a student of the game as those who participate in this forum are. I hope this clarifies my position and seems to strike a better compromise.

Jeff

[Barrettone]

Also, FWIW, regarding your comment about "all competitors being equal". When I am in the points series, or trying to get a higher match percentage to tour the prize table before others, it is of consequence. While a GM may not be affected by unpasted targets, a "C" shooter can, and it can effect that all-important match percentage, as a fellow "C" shooter could easily pass him by in the standings. In my opinion, that is discriminatory. This is not solely about "competitors of the highest grades", but fairness across the board. Not trying to stir the pot, but I am very passionate about this flawed rule.

Jeff

[wide45]

However if a competitor visibly hesitated during his run due to an unpatched target, I will most likely order the reshoot, but I only have that option while the decision remains discretionary.

The rule as written makes no mention of the competitors actions. The ONLY criteria used in deciding a reshoot is if the RO can determine the proper hits.

Can you explain what rule would give you the option of a reshoot if the competitor hesitated?

[Barrettone]

Wide 45:

My point exactly, we need a "tool" for this sort of occurrence. It is a bit of a gray area, and a blanket, catch-all is not the answer, however, we need something.

Here's something else to chew on:

The odd thing is, that as the IPSC rule 9.1.4 is worded:

Unrestored Targets - If, following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped in preparation for the competitor being scored, or if there are extra scoring or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious to the range officer which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire.

In the IPSC version, the word "or" makes it a mandatory reshoot in my book, as that word makes it non-consequential whether or not the RO can discern the hits. In the USPSA examples listed below, however, that is not the case:

9.1.4.2 If scoring or penalty paper targets have not been patched or taped after a previous competitor’s

attempt at the course of fire, and there are extra scoring or questionable penalty hits on one or more targets and

it is not obvious to the Range Officer which hits were made by the immediate competitor, the Range Officer

shall order the competitor to re-shoot the course of fire.

Jan. 2004 Edition (Green Book)

QUOTE

US9.1.4 Unrestored targets - If, following completion of a course of fire

by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been

properly patched or taped for the competitor being scored, the

Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can

be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable

penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made

by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be

ordered to reshoot the course of fire.

I just think it needs a little tweaking.

Jeff

[Jim Norman]

Jeff,

You said a lot of what I tried to, only better.

One additional scene. There are targets available from multiple positions, the previous shooter and you both shoot the same caliber, You move from position A to Position B and seeing there right in front of you two beutiful A hits on the target, do not take a shot, after all, there are two holes in the target, you proceed to the end of the COF and the RO calls out one FTE and 2 MIKES! You ask where, he points to the target with two holes and says you didn't shoot at them, you ask then where did the two same caliber holes come from? He says they were there. You fired more than the minimum number of rounds on the stage and some of those extras were rounds that weree fired from positions where you could see that target earlier.

Now what is the call?

Assume that the target presentations are one of those where you see a number of targets from multiple postions, but not all the targets from each postion, however the presentation looks similar at each position.

Jim Norman

[Barrettone]

Jim,

There are many scenarios where this rule can bite you in the rump, but we need a workable rule change that gives us some latitude to make the right call. The rule in IPSC is worded poorly IMHO, and needs a little tweaking. I also understand Vinces point too, but we disagree as to the rules fairness.

Jeff

[Skywalker]

The odd thing is, that as the IPSC rule 9.1.4 is worded:

Unrestored Targets - If, following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped in preparation for the competitor being scored, or if there are extra scoring or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious to the range officer which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire.

In the IPSC version, the word "or" makes it a mandatory reshoot in my book, as that word makes it non-consequential whether or not the RO can discern the hits.

Jeff,

I think you're misinterpreting (IPSC) rule 9.4.1.

It says that a minimum of two events shall take place to make a re-shoot mandatory, and these are:

1a: If, following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped in preparation for the competitor being scored.

1b: or if there are extra scoring or questionable penalty hits thereon.

2: and it is not obvious to the range officer which hits were made by the competitor being scored.

To my understanding (but Vince and Kees might chime in to correct me if I'm wrong), to make a re-shoot mandatory there shall be the concurrence of:

1a and 2,

or

1b and 2.

I won't question if this is fair or not, I will only apply it as it is until it will be changed.

[Skywalker]

Jeff, as a side note, the following happened to me one month ago at the last league match I shot.

It was a 24-rounds long course, with 4 3-targets windows placed on the vertices of a 8m sides square.

I was given start signal and proceeded to shoot it clockwise in 14.67s.

When I finished the COF, I informed the RO that the second window had unrestored targets.

The RO then checked it out and discovered that the first window had unrestored targets too, and since he was not able to tell my hits from previous ones, he ordered a reshoot.

As you might guess I was pretty disappointed of this, because I had a perfect run, only 1s slower than the GM that actually won the stage (and I'm a low A-class shooter).

I then re-shot the stage in a smoking (for me) 14.15s.

Now, what I'm trying to point out is that, apart from the obvious advantage due to re-shooting the same stage (that IMHO accounts for that .5s time difference), I feel I was not slowed down at all in my first run, and the scored times are pretty much similar.

I just noticed with my peripheral vision that there were already holes in the targets, but I was focused on shooting and didn't waste any time on that issue apart from taking note of it.

You said it's a mental game: I agree. If you are prepared to shoot the targets, it will really make no difference if they are untaped.

[Yoda]

Jeff,

I think you're misinterpreting (IPSC) rule 9.4.1.

It says that a minimum of two events shall take place to make a re-shoot mandatory, and these are:

1a: If, following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped in preparation for the competitor being scored.

1b: or if there are extra scoring or questionable penalty hits thereon.

2: and it is not obvious to the range officer which hits were made by the competitor being scored.

To my understanding (but Vince and Kees might chime in to correct me if I'm wrong), to make a re-shoot mandatory there shall be the concurrence of:

1a and 2,

or

1b and 2.

Luca,

you're right on with your explanation ... As I'm not allowed to issue gold/silver stars (spanking neither ) I'll recommend you to Vince for a gold star + an extra portion of chocolate chip cookies! However - when I'm in Italy I'll drop by to collect my 10% share

[Skywalker]

Thanks master Yoda,

I'll save your part of the cookies, but I'm afraid there'll be none, since it looks like Vince is still a bit angry with me for my misbehaving in other threads...

Looks like the Dark Side still has all the cookies...

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Skywalker's interpretation of the current rule is correct, and I apologise for my partial brain fade, because the little voices in my head whispered the 2002 edition rulebook version to me, which has "and, and, and" (i.e. three conditions), whereas the 2004 edition rulebook has "or, and" (i.e. two conditions).

Anyway, in an effort to address Jeff's concerns but without making a reshoot mandatory (as this opens another can of worms), I intend to bring this matter to the attention of my Rules Committee colleagues in Bali next week. I've also temporarily pinned this thread to the top of this forum, so that it doesn't get buried.

And Jeff, you're in charge of keeping me to my word - if I don't reply by the middle of December latest, you're authorised to take away my cookies.

[Garfield]

Very interesting discussion, especially as this was precisely what the two CRO's of a match held this weekend had different opinions on. (The two opinions discussed here in this thread). And I was one of these CRO's .... The other CRO had ordered / offered a few reshoots because of unpatched targets and hesitating competitors. Later, upon discussing this in the debriefing, our RM said, like me, that the Rulebook as it is now doesn't offer a possibility to offer / order a reshoot.

Personally I can feel for the competitors who are distracted by unpatched targets, but on the other hand I feel a sliding slope coming. IF it is ruled that RO's officially get the possibility to offer a reshoot in case of a competitor being distracted, a wide variety of possible distraction-reasons can be thought of, which, IMO, cannot practically be limited but in fact should be, to avoid competitors demanding a reshoot because they were distracted because of suddenly seeing a target which they had forgotten in the walkthrough ! (to give an example). I think you will agree that that is a case where a reshoot is not in order.

But what if some TL-lights fall from the ceiling ? Although we have no option for that per the rules, we generally offer a reshoot for that here in NL (we almost 100% shoot indoors). So, that might also be mentioned as a reason to offer a reshoot.

BUT if we don' t create a limitative list of things for which a reshoot can be offered, it still is fully up to the RO to decide whether the circumstances warrant a reshoot.

SO, by adjusting the rules to allow for RO's to offer a reshoot for distracted competitors, we might solve one problem but possibly create another ....

So I am very interested in the outcomes of this discussion !