Activator Targets - Engaging

[Garfield]

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?

Because 9.9.3 says so .

I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me .

Just like I will hand-out misses should that target have been shot at through hardcover.

The hits are there, but when it comes to scoring, they don't count either !

Or should we not take 9.1.6.x in account ?

THAT would really simplify scoring AND make a strong case for shooting major .

To me, not giving FTSA and misses for not-activated targets as per 9.9.3 is the same as not giving misses for cases as described in 9.1.6.x.

Just trying to make my point that sometimes reality (hits are there) gets overturned by the rules (hits don't count) ...

But I'm willing to rule as you explained while I'm RO-ing, but would you consider "improving" the rules then please ?

And maybe add this to the IROA FAQ / Rules Interpretations ?

Because I really do feel that they will lead to misunderstandings in cases as described earlier in this thread.

Fair deal or not ?

[diehli]

BTW, this argument about what 9.9.3 says is like the argument about what the 2nd Amendment says. It's pretty frickin' clear. I agree w/ Garfield.

[omnia1911]

With all of the talk of moving targets and disappearing targets the most important point to this dilemma has been missed.....APPEARING. We are talking about appearing targets first and formost. That means the shooter can't technically "see" the target to shoot at it until the activator has been engaged. Without the activator being engaged the target can't be shot, therefore, the hits on a non-activated appearing target should not count for score.

Now what do you do about someone who has managed to put hits on a target before and after it was activated? If they were all As, it's a no brainer.

I think a procedural penalty is in order for shooting at a non-activated appearing target.

[Vince Pinto]

I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me.

Noted.

Just like I will hand-out misses should that target have been shot at through hardcover. The hits are there, but when it comes to scoring, they don't count either!

With hardcover, the targets are not visible. With the subject at hand, the targets were visible.

But I'm willing to rule as you explained while I'm RO-ing, but would you consider "improving" the rules then please ?

The subject rules are perfectly clear to me. However if you read Rule 9.9.3 to mean that FTSA penalties and misses apply regardless of the hits visible on the subject targets, then you must also read Rule 9.9.1 to mean that non-disappearing targets are subject to the same fate.

Anyway, I'm done here.

[Garfield]

The subject rules are perfectly clear to me.

Anyway, I'm done here.

Hi,

I am very sorry to say this but you disappointment me big time .

Am I to understand that if the rules are clear to you, everything is ok ?

From the posts in this thread I gather that there are other people as well who find the rules not clear on this point.

[Jim Norman]

I for one have to agree with Arvid. The rule says that targtets that are not activated get the penalties. Simple and final. 9.3.3 doesn't say "except if the shooter is able to see the targets prior to activation", it says that "unactivated targets shall receive FTE (FTSA) and miss penalties".

[Edited]

Luca, you would seem to be correct, either the rule says what I believe you and Arvid are saying and if Vince wants it to say what he says it says, it needs either the above additonal wording or it needs to be changed to a sub-set of 9.3.2

The idea of an appearing activated target is that you cannot see it until it is activated. Proper stage construction would eliminate this discussion, but there is always the posibility htat a shooter may see a small patch of target that no one else saw and take advantage, that is what freestyle is all about. Now you can go into the rules about when and where a RM can change a COF, but that is far different than what we are discussing. In fact, that is probably the correct remedy for this situation. Make the required correction to the COF and require a reshoot by all that were affected. You of course have to be carefull here as the consistancy of the stage could suffer as well as the stage could wind up getting tossed.

Jim Norman

Edited December 7, 2004 by Flexmoney

[TRNinTX]

Jim,

All you have to do is have the shooter that saw the patch of target reshoot and then block that veiw.

Remember the argument that BJ had at A8 on the suitcase stage. When I went a reread the rules, the RM could have rewrittn the SB and made him reshoot the stage. No harm, no foul to the other shooters who shot it as the RM intended.

[diehli]

The array that sparked this thread was designed as follows:

Pepper Popper on the left that activated the swinger, which was facing to the right and was "behind" two no-shoot targets, there was then a static several yards closer in to the right. When the swinger was at rest and waiting to be activated it was at about 90 degrees on its left side and the lower A-zone and part of the C-zone above it were visible, as were the head, the C-zone below/left of the A-zone and the majority of the D-zone (less the stuff hidden behind the no-shoots). The no-shoots were on 3 uprights, with the middle upright just about bisecting the lower A-zone.

The fastest way to shoot the array would be to shoot the popper, the swinger before it moved, and then the static (the popper was the first visible target to shoot). However, with my C-class skills, I would have shot the swinger, the popper, and then the static. As it stood, I was told that shooting the swinger before the popper was unsportsmanlike conduct (maybe the IPSC equivalent of IDPA's FTDR), but that shooting the popper and then the swinger before it moved wasn't. I ended up shooting the popper, the static and then STILL had to wait for the swinger.

If two more no-shoots had been added or the two that were there had been moved down, it wouldn't have been an issue. Shitty stage design, yes, but what rule would have prevented me from shooting it the way I wanted to?

BTW, the only thing that EVERYONE was in concensus on was that if the swinger was shot first and the popper was never activated but was shot at, there would be three misses and one FTE given for those two targets. This is how the language of 9.9.3 reads to everyone that was hanging out on stage 10 of the Infinity match in SoCal when I was having the RO run around to figure out WTF was going on with this array. I just gave up, after someone mentioned that I could be given an FTDR.

[Nik Habicht]

As it stood, I was told that shooting the swinger before the popper was unsportsmanlike conduct

Horse Pucky! Whoever came up with that should be sent to remedial RO School....

I could maybe see that at a local match, under the exemption of US 1.1.5.1, but if I was stage building or match directing, we'd find another solution......

One of my earliest design mistakes came when I assumed everyone would shoot a stage with a Texas Star in a certain order --- the people who decided to take the positions in a different order got to shoot the beginning of the star stationary. Lesson learned, but at no time did we consider forcing shooters to shoot the stage in a certain way or order.....

[Jim Norman]

Jim,

All you have to do is have the shooter that saw the patch of target reshoot and then block that veiw.

Remember the argument that BJ had at A8 on the suitcase stage. When I went a reread the rules, the RM could have rewrittn the SB and made him reshoot the stage. No harm, no foul to the other shooters who shot it as the RM intended.

Similar but different.

[Flexmoney]

Nik is right on.

And, even under the "local match exemption", the written stage procedure would have to spell that out.

Our shooting is freestyle.

[benny hill]

Shot the nat's a few years ago, they had a stage where you engaged a popper that after falling raised 2 targets that were flat on the ground. After hitting the popper, we would run foward & shoot the targets on the ground before the popper fell. You had to be fast but most everyone that shoots open is. The ro did not like it, but nothing he could do about it because the activator had been engaged first.

[omnia1911]

If the COF says that a moving target is just that, a moving target that will disappear after being activated, I would say that moving target is fair game and could be engaged, if visible, when it is in the set position. But, if the COF says that a moving target is also an appearing target that may, or may not, disappear after being activated, I would say that particular moving target cannot be engaged, even if it is visible in the set position. Appearing means that it is hidden, whether physically or technically.

Let me ask you this. Once a moving target "disappears", can I still engage it if I can still see it at some point on the COF, or is it incumbent upon the match officials to make sure that there is no physically possible way for me to get even the slightest glimpse of a target once it disappears? I say it is technically hidden, just as an appearing target is technically hidden, and neither can be engaged.

I have no problem, if after striking the activating popper, a shooter engages a moving target before it actually starts to move....fast is fast.

[Nik Habicht]

If the COF says that a moving target is just that, a moving target that will disappear after being activated, I would say that moving target is fair game and could be engaged, if visible, when it is in the set position. But, if the COF says that a moving target is also an appearing target that may, or may not, disappear after being activated, I would say that particular moving target cannot be engaged, even if it is visible in the set position. Appearing means that it is hidden, whether physically or technically.

Let me ask you this. Once a moving target "disappears", can I still engage it if I can still see it at some point on the COF, or is it incumbent upon the match officials to make sure that there is no physically possible way for me to get even the slightest glimpse of a target once it disappears? I say it is technically hidden, just as an appearing target is technically hidden, and neither can be engaged.

I have no problem, if after striking the activating popper, a shooter engages a moving target before it actually starts to move....fast is fast.

Omnia,

I disagree. If you want to have a target appear, or disappear, then you need to design and build the stage so that happens. You can't mandate it with words --- it flies in the face of freestyle. Freestyle allows me to decide if I want to take the risk of hitting the no-shoot that in many cases is used to cover the mover in its set position, or if I'd rather run the risk of a miss when the mover's in motion.

I looked really hard to see if I still had a shot at disappearing targets at the nats this past year, but they were virtually all so well designed and built that there was no shot left......

[wide45]

Simple and final. 9.3.3 doesn't say "except if the shooter is able to see the targets prior to activation", it says that "unactivated targets shall receive FTE (FTSA) and miss penalties".

Close.

From my new book;

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.

It spells out that the moving target gets the penalties.

Note the word "always", which means no exceptions.

Bad rule, but there is no question what it means.

[Jim Norman]

You are correct, I typed 9.3.3 instead of 9.9.3 Not sure if I copied it wrong or just typed it wrong, but the wording is there.

We agree, Always means always. So if it is not activated it gets the penalties. Now, of course we get tot he other part of the equation. If you set up a stage where you can see the targets with out activating them it is most likely a poor design. A N/S or some hard cover would most likely rectify the situation.

Ohterwise, you could conceivably shoot the targets, shoot at and miss the activator and have say two A's that get counted as Mikes. I would, according to the rules have to dock you the FTE as well. BUt if I were trying to help the shooter, within the rules, I might be inclined to call the RM over and have the stage rectified. You get a reshoot. Great care must be taken to ensure that the available engagement window is not reduced or all previous shooters would have to reshoot as well or maybe the stage gets shot for fun only.

Jim Norman

[wide45]

9.9.1 and 9.9.2 do not apply.

I agree with Vince on the way We'd like to score it.

He can't agree that the rule won't let us.

I'd say the possibility of shooting the moving target before activation was overlooked when the rule was written.

An official clarification is needed.

[wide45]

I should not be up so late, but I came up with a few things to say before this gets locked.

We may be dealing with some kind of culture clash.

Why would you give a failure to shoot, for a target that has holes in it? That does not make sense.

We follow rules as they are written. We have seen rules that did not make sense. The usual response is to follow the rule as best we can, and try to get it changed.

Ignoring the rule when it suits us, is not what we do where I come from.

[Vince Pinto]

Why would you give a failure to shoot, for a target that has holes in it? That does not make sense.

Bingo-bango!

[Jim Norman]

Because:

9.9.3 Moving targets will alwaysincur failure to shoot at and miss

penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism, which

initiates the target movement.

If you want the rule to say something, you should write it so that it says it.

Proposed 9.9.3.1 Unless the moving targets are visible prior to activation. In which case hits on the moving targets will count, however the targets must still be activated or the shooter will be assesed one proceedural for failure to follow the Stage Brief. (10.2.2)

This may not be the perfect answer, I don't claim to be the rule writing king. But it goes towards making the rules say more of what we want them to.

OR, you could just build the course right in the first place so that the targets are not visible prior to activaton. The case Benny cites, where the shooters activate the targets but are so quick that hey shoot them before they start to move is not in question, the targets are activated, you cannot penalize speed.

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

If you want the rule to say something, you should write it so that it says it.

What a great idea:

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 FTSA 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.

In other words, Rule 9.9.3 is an exception to the previous rule, and it states that although disappearing targets are normally exempt from FTSA penalties and misses, if you don't activate the activator, you will still get an FTSA penalty and misses on the disappearing targets if you don't actually shoot at and/or hit them, as the case may be.

Of course if you actually place hits on the disappearing targets, they are scored normally, but you would incur an FTSE penalty and a miss for the activator if it's a plate or popper (or possibly a procedural if the activator is a lever or similar device).

[Dead Buff]

Can it be any clearer than that? Shoot what you see, get scored for your hits. If you don't start the target thingy that disappears you gonna get hit by many penalties. It's easy, I think

[omnia1911]

When rules are made, they tend to be made with the big matches (USPSA level II and III) in mind. I tend to look at what the rule does at the club level matches.

Many times at the club matches we use drop turners that may be set out in the open on the stage without hard cover. This is done for ease of construction and for minimal setup time. It is possible, in some instances, to have a view of these appearing targets prior to the activators being engaged. We also need to be able to state in the course description that this type of target cannot be engaged prior to the activator. In other words, we need to do it with words, not physical barrier. I don't want to see a rule made saying we can't do it with words. If this is indeed a freestyle issue, I would address this issue under the exemption that the rule book gives to level I matches regarding the strict compliance with the freestyle philosophy. This would satisfy my concerns.

[Fireant]

Let me see if I have this straight: if the WSB says to activate first and I don't then it's a procedural. If the WSB does not say to activate first and I shoot the swinger first then hit the activator then I'm o.k.? I'm not worried about missing the plate or popper or switch, just the order of engagement. I think the rule just assumed good stage design.

[Flexmoney]

I think I agree with Vince on how it should be scored. I think I agree with others that the wording of the rule(s) are not crystal clear.

Also...everybody here needs to be comparing apples to apples...perhaps it would be best to assmume, for the sake of discussion, that the written stage procedure reads, "engage targest as visible."