Activator Targets - Engaging

[Indiana James]

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

This rule is unclear (although the intent may be obvious). At the Infinity shoot it was in quesiton by 300lbGorilla. A moving target could be shot. They didn't put "No Shoot" targets up where they could have to block it. So, the rule says it has to be activated, but not when. So, according to the letter of the rule you could shot the target and then the activator. That meets the rule.

Any experts out there on the rules?

Also, on clam shells, the guys would shot the steel and shot the clam before it started moving. Basically, it was on the ground in front of them. This was on Stage 7. Silly me I waited for the thing to pop up!!!

Thank you - Indiana

[Garfield]

IF moving targets and so can be shot before they are activated, thus creating a situation where there is no need anymore to activate the targets from a shooting point of view, that is BAD Stage Design / BAD Stage Briefing.

Indeed a shooter can in such a situation "legally" shoot the targets before activating them.

Such things should be remedied by the RM when doing the inspection of all stages as built, prior to the commencement of the match.

If he hasn't changed it, the CRO/RO could (should) do it.

If all them them fail to notice this situation, it can still be remedied at the point where you encounter the first shooter who actually shoots the stage in this unintended way. With permission of the RM, the Stage Briefing could be changed at that very moment and have the shooter in question reshoot the stage. Note that this can only be done when NO other shooter has shot the stage in this unforeseen way. This way of remedying the situation does not deserve a prize for elegance, but is a possible one.

To summarize: YES it is legal, BUT it should not occur.

(But we are all people, and we all make mistakes).

[Vince Pinto]

So, according to the letter of the rule you could shot the target and then the activator. That meets the rule.

In a nutshell, Yes, but as Garfield already explained, if you're able to shoot a moving target before it's activated, this is usually evidence of poor course construction.

[Flexmoney]

Jim,

If you can see it...you can shoot it.

Rock-on!

[wide45]

So if you put hits on the moving target, and then forget to activate it, the rule does not allow the hits to be scored? Can you consider the target does not need to be initiated, therefore this rule does not apply?

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

[warpspeed]

We had that happen.

Shooter hits popper but an edge hit. He continues and shoots the 2 targets even though they did not move. After, the calibration 9mm was used and popper fell.

Shooter was given mikes and the FTE instead of the hits. OUCH!

FYI - In the red book, it was 9.9.2.

[Garfield]

So if you put hits on the moving target, and then forget to activate it, the rule does not allow the hits to be scored?

Correct.

[vluc]

So if you put hits on the moving target, and then forget to activate it, the rule does not allow the hits to be scored?

Correct.

aaah, the perils and risks of being a gamer....

No risk, no reward!

[Vince Pinto]

So if you put hits on the moving target, and then forget to activate it, the rule does not allow the hits to be scored?

Correct.

Incorrect.

Presuming the activator is a popper, if you shoot the would-be moving targets without activating the activator, your shots on the moving targets would indeed count for score, however you would get a miss on the activator popper (and a "failure to shoot" penalty if you didn't even try to shoot the activating popper).

On the other hand, if the activator for the moving targets was, say, a lever, then you obviously can't get a miss or "failure to shoot" penalty, but you might incur a procedural penalty (depending upon the written stage briefing).

[Tman33_99]

So if you put hits on the moving target, and then forget to activate it, the rule does not allow the hits to be scored?

Correct.

Incorrect.

Presuming the activator is a popper, if you shoot the would-be moving targets without activating the activator, your shots on the moving targets would indeed count for score, however you would get a miss on the activator popper (and a "failure to shoot" penalty if you didn't even try to shoot the activating popper).

On the other hand, if the activator for the moving targets was, say, a lever, then you obviously can't get a miss or "failure to shoot" penalty, but you might incur a procedural penalty (depending upon the written stage briefing).

Vince,

That is not how 9.9.3 is written:

It says if you don't activate the target, moving targets get FTE and misses (no ands, no ifs, no buts). Is there an interpretation clarifying this to be different?

I believe in your senario the shooter gets FTEs on the movers AND the popper (if the popper was not engaged) as well as misses on the movers and the popper. If the activator is a lever or door or what have you, if the shooter does not activate the targets they get misses and FTE on the movers AND a procedural, unless the shooter tried to activate and the movers didn't then it would be REF.

Edited December 4, 2004 by Tman33_99

[warpspeed]

I read it the same as T-Man.

[benny hill]

If you shoot the popper first , then shoot targets before popper fall's & targets move, all is well?

[Tman33_99]

If you shoot the popper first , then shoot targets before popper fall's & targets move, all is well?

Yes....Last time I checked we don't penalize for speed.

[Garfield]

Presuming the activator is a popper, if you shoot the would-be moving targets without activating the activator, your shots on the moving targets would indeed count for score, however you would get a miss on the activator popper (and a "failure to shoot" penalty if you didn't even try to shoot the activating popper).

On the other hand, if the activator for the moving targets was, say, a lever, then you obviously can't get a miss or "failure to shoot" penalty, but you might incur a procedural penalty (depending upon the written stage briefing).

I don't get it ??

How can you match that with:

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.

Please explain this because I really can't follow you on this one ?

[Flexmoney]

Garfield,

I see what you are saying. The wording doesn't seem to go together. Perhaps this one needs some tweaking on the wording?

I do agree with scoring it like Vince has mentioned.

- If you can see it...shoot it.

- If you can't see it, forget to activate it, then you get a procedual for FTE and the miss penalties...even though the target may never have become "visible"

[Skywalker]

My take is that Rule 9.3.3 will apply as follows: if the moving target is a disappearing one (thus it would not incurr miss penalties), it will however incurr miss penalties if you don't activate it.

I agree with Flex and Vince that the hits, in the case of a moving target shot and hit without shooting the activator, should count for score, but IMHO the rule (as it is written) is quite open to different interpretations.

[Garfield]

IMHO the rule (as it is written) is quite open to different interpretations.

In my maybe-not-so-humble-opinion the rule is absolutely not open for interpretation .

Furthermore, I was always taught that rules should be taken litterally and that a lot of effort was put into avoiding interpretability as much as possible.

Vince, get your @$$ out of those Bali-bars and shed some light on this please .

[Skywalker]

IMHO the rule (as it is written) is quite open to different interpretations.

In my maybe-not-so-humble-opinion the rule is absolutely not open for interpretation .

It shouldn't, but the very fact that you and Vince have different (opposite) outcomes from reading the same rule means you have different interpretations of it.

[Vince Pinto]

Vince, get your @$$ out of those Bali-bars and shed some light on this please.

I was in Bali with Princess Leia and my two Stormtroopers, so my wildest extra-curricular thrill was sneaking a peek at the Bintang Beer girls and the Dji Sam Sue cigarette girls at the hotel. Anyway, you must read Section 9.9 as a whole and not isolate individual rules:

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).

The above rule defines non-disappearing moving targets, and it essentially states that they will be treated like static targets (i.e. failure to shoot at penalties and misses will be incurred, where appropriate).

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.

The above rule defines disappearing moving targets and it states that failure to shoot penalties and misses cannot be incurred, unless ......

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.

The above rule states that although disappearing targets are normally exempt from failure to shoot at penalties and misses, if you try to game the stage and not activate the activator, you will be severely spanked.

However this thread is about shooting moving targets before they are activated, and the answer is that any points you score on the moving targets (disappearing or not), before they are activated will count, but if the activator is a popper and you fail to shoot it, then the usual failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties will continue to apply to the popper. If the activator is a lever or a similar device, you'll probably be subject to a procedural, depending on the wording of the written stage briefing.

Hope this clarifies.

[Garfield]

Vince,

I can follow what goal you wish to achieve with these rules, but imo the rules as they are now do not lead to the outcome that you want.

I simply cannot read that from the rules as they are now.

I think this is a case where the rules need to be updated, and in the meantime an addition to the IROA-interpretations should be made.

If I were rich, I would love to spend $ 100,- and file a 3rd party arbitration on this to see where it leads, because I honestly believe that your explanation of the rules is not correct.

I am not doing this to annoy you or anyone else, but to me 9.9.3 is crystal clear: penalties / misses must be given if the shooter fails to activate the mechanism, no matter what mechanism, no matter how many hits are on the targets involved.

Care to try again to convince me ?

PS: Princess Leia ? Did Kees put on some make-up and were you that drunk ?

[Skywalker]

Arvid, Vince,

I can see each one's merit in respective posts. I mean, I agree with Vince on the final scoring for the subject situation, but I can see that (according to present formulation of the rules) rule 9.9.3 is not immediately intelligible as a specific exemption for rule 9.9.2.

I guess, if the latter is the case, rule 9.9.3 better be renumbered as 9.9.2.1 (making it a specific sub-rule of 9.9.2, hyerarchically dependent), or add Vince's explanation to rule 9.9.2: "...except where Rule 9.9.3 applies...

[Vince Pinto]

I am not doing this to annoy you or anyone else, but to me 9.9.3 is crystal clear: penalties / misses must be given if the shooter fails to activate the mechanism, no matter what mechanism, no matter how many hits are on the targets involved. Care to try again to convince me ?

OK, one last try before you contribute $100 to the Match Director's Beer Fund. How can you possibly give a competitor an FTSA penalty and two misses on a target which has (for argument's sake) two Alphas on it? The fact that it's a disappearing target which has not been activated is irrelevant.

I mean, I agree with Vince on the final scoring for the subject situation, but I can see that (according to present formulation of the rules) rule 9.9.3 is not immediately intelligible as a specific exemption for rule 9.9.2.

Huh? Rule 9.9.2 specifically refers to Rule 9.9.3.

Anyway guys, my new policy is that I will continue to do my very best to explain rules to you, and I will continue to answer follow-up questions for clarify, but if you don't accept my explanations, no hard feelings, but there's only so far I can go before I get dizzy, and I really hate getting dizzy when I don't have a Bundaberg Rum & Coke in my hands.

[Skywalker]

Huh? Rule 9.9.2 specifically refers to Rule 9.9.3.

My bad, and my apologies Vince.

I misunderstood your italic in quoting rule 9.9.2 as an explanation of yours, but now, upon re-reading the relevant rules in the rulebook I realize the explanation I was asking to include in rule 9.9.2 is already present, and this clarifies the whole question.

[blackdragon]

Vince,

At one time didn't 10.6.1 apply to shooting an target before it was activated? I'm looking in the green book and can't locate it.?

Ivan

[diehli]

I wish I had $100 with me, 'cause I woulda have arb'd that stage and gotten it thrown. That's inexcusable.