Un-restored Targets 9.1.4

[bishop414]

Our squad had started this conversation at Nationals but would like to hear others' input.

Subject rule 9.1.4

We all agree a RO or CRO can use the target for evidence in determining the hits on the un-restored target. If not, reshoot is ordered.

The question, can the RO/CRO use other targets in the COF as evidence? Example, colors of grease rings compared to question target or other evidence?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

[Sarge]

Last sentence of 9.1.4:

Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must

be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

This tells me that you can not look at other targets to determine hits on target in question. Besides grease rings are not even close to being exactly the same for every shot fired from a particular gun. Sometimes my gun makes nice pretty black rings and other times there is just a clean hole.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Sarge

[EkuJustice]

Basically unless it's a different caliber it's a reshoot. If the first holes are from a larger caliber than the second and one is missing then it should be a reshoot as well.

[motosapiens]

here's what the rule says:

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. For the pur-pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call

It can be a bit of a judgement call what is 'obvious'. If all the holes in the target are same score (all alpha's or all a mix of B/C), then there's no need to reshoot. If it is obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, then no need to reshoot.

[JayWord]

here's what the rule says:

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. For the pur-pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call

It can be a bit of a judgement call what is 'obvious'. If all the holes in the target are same score (all alpha's or all a mix of B/C), then there's no need to reshoot. If it is obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, then no need to reshoot.

First, this is only my opinion.

The only time I will look at another target is if I am confirming a hit. For example, if you walk up to a target that has 3 holes and one of the holes is obviously not the same as the others, you need to determine whether the hit belongs to the first or second shooter. A common issue is when shooters tape they are looking for the required number of hits. So they tape the two they are looking for and an extra hit may be be un-taped. This especially occurs on edge hits and hits sitting in shadows.

So you as the RO walk up to the target and see three hits and you know they only fired 2 shots. In that case I will look at another target and see if I can determine which hits belong to the current shooter. If I can I will score them. If not, it is a reshoot.

I also will use this same method on "funky" looking hits where the shooter is looking for a double and there is only one hit on the target. Of course, you can only use a target that was shot at the apx. same angle or it is pretty useless.

The rulebook specifically states you cannot rely on the previous score sheets or your fallible memory.

Jay

Edited October 1, 2014 by JayWord

[Jakobi]

What are you looking for when you look at the other target? Trying to confirm the competitors caliber?

[motosapiens]

What are you looking for when you look at the other target? Trying to confirm the competitors caliber?

I don't think caliber is the only way of differentiating. Even in the same caliber, different bullet shapes and materials leave different holes.

But the best bet is to just double-check that all the targets are taped.

[Guzza]

... But the best bet is to just double-check that all the targets are taped...

Having scored and taped a target, only to be shown an un taped mike from a previous shooter that just touched outer the edge of the target, I now scan the target twice. First look gets the obovious, second look concentrates on the edges.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Guzza

[JAFO]

I would think that 9.1.5.1 would give you some leeway to use another target, but only if determining whether an extra hole was a shoot-through from said target, not whether it came from a previous shooter.

9.1.5.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target, and continues on to strike the scoring area of another paper target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

[Poppa Bear]

Our squad had started this conversation at Nationals but would like to hear others' input.

Subject rule 9.1.4

We all agree a RO or CRO can use the target for evidence in determining the hits on the un-restored target. If not, reshoot is ordered.

The question, can the RO/CRO use other targets in the COF as evidence? Example, colors of grease rings compared to question target or other evidence?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Yes you can use prior targets as evidence. 9.1.4 says the call must be made on the actual target in question but it does not say you cannot use other targets to confirm your ruling. Similarities between the target in question and prior or later targets can help the RO to make the right call be it scoring the target or ordering a reshoot.

[remoandiris]

Yes you can use prior targets as evidence. 9.1.4 says the call must be made on the actual target in question but it does not say you cannot use other targets to confirm your ruling. Similarities between the target in question and prior or later targets can help the RO to make the right call be it scoring the target or ordering a reshoot.

Help me understand your thought process on using other targets when the last sentence of 9.1.4 says "using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call."

Edited October 2, 2014 by remoandiris

[mgardner]

Yes you can use prior targets as evidence. 9.1.4 says the call must be made on the actual target in question but it does not say you cannot use other targets to confirm your ruling. Similarities between the target in question and prior or later targets can help the RO to make the right call be it scoring the target or ordering a reshoot.

Help me understand your thought process on using other targets when the last sentence of 9.1.4 says "using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call."

The entire sentence makes it clear. "Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call". I believe this means that previous score sheets cannot be used, just the hits on the target.

[peterthefish]

L

[Sarge]

Yes you can use prior targets as evidence. 9.1.4 says the call must be made on the actual target in question but it does not say you cannot use other targets to confirm your ruling. Similarities between the target in question and prior or later targets can help the RO to make the right call be it scoring the target or ordering a reshoot.

Help me understand your thought process on using other targets when the last sentence of 9.1.4 says "using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call."

agreed! Regardless, if I can't score a target based on looking at it I just go with a reshoot.

I think the rules now say we can't use previous scoresheets as evidence for a reason. The targets could have been scored in a different sequence therefore the RO can't be 100% certain. Same logic applies when you start wandering around looking at other targets.

[remoandiris]

The entire sentence makes it clear. "Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call". I believe this means that previous score sheets cannot be used, just the hits on the target.

Right. Got that. Can't look at the previous shooter's hits on the target to see what the unpatched holes were. I want to understand Poppa saying it is o.k. to use other targets to help with the call.

[jester121]

Based on the original text, I wonder if this conversation came about from looking at a really dark grease ring to determine a perfect double, and comparing it with the lighter grey grease ring on all the shooter's other targets? I've heard of this happening and I'm not sure what I think about it.

[Sarge]

Based on the original text, I wonder if this conversation came about from looking at a really dark grease ring to determine a perfect double, and comparing it with the lighter grey grease ring on all the shooter's other targets? I've heard of this happening and I'm not sure what I think about it.

Sounds like a Mike to me.

[motosapiens]

Based on the original text, I wonder if this conversation came about from looking at a really dark grease ring to determine a perfect double, and comparing it with the lighter grey grease ring on all the shooter's other targets? I've heard of this happening and I'm not sure what I think about it.

it would be tough to call it a double based on grease ring color. I got hosed on one just like that at a match last year, but I couldn't complain about the call. The overwhelming majority of single-holes are not doubles.

[lcs]

(You are the RO for both shooters) Your stage has 4 paper targets and 4 steel. Last shooter has ALL Alphas and is shooting a 9MM. The next shooter completes the COF and you begin to score the targets.

One target has 4 untaped 9 MM holes. There are 3 Alphas and 1 Bravo. What is your call?

[Thomas H]

I've had a case where I looked at a hit, and it looked like a tumbling round instead of a double, and called it a charlie-mike. (No evidence of crown or secondary grease ring.) Shooter was adamant that it was a double. I pointed out that on several targets at similar distances on this course of fire he had obviously tumbling bullets, and this was no different.

Charlie mike.

Didn't change my mind regarding what I saw (again, no evidence of crown or secondary grease ring), but was useful supplementary information. Also helped get the shooter to accept the call without continuing to be a pain in the butt.

I can think of plenty of occasions where I have used things other than the actual target to help make calls---hits on various hardcover props, no-shoots, stepping back and looking at angles---I guess I don't see the issue with making the call based on what the target tells me given the external situation as known. I'm not going to ignore what I've seen elsewhere on the course of fire, and anything that gives me information to make the correct call on the target as given is going to be used.

If it is ambiguous or vague, then it is a re-shoot.

But---if it is clear, then I can make the call.

Example: Unpasted target. Shooter shot a .45, as did the shooter before. Target has 4 .45 hits on it, 3 alpha, one charlie. And yet----there is an obvious differentiation between two of those hits (heavy grease rings on both) and the other two (nice punched perfect holes, thank you SWC bullets). I look back on the stage, and this competitor has heavy grease rings on all targets, without that perfect punched hole.

I can make that call. But to do it, I had to look at other targets on that stage. I don't see the issue with looking at other targets to gain information used to differentiate. The target itself is the basis for the call, however.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Thomas H

[acpie360]

The entire sentence makes it clear. "Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call". I believe this means that previous score sheets cannot be used, just the hits on the target.

Right. Got that. Can't look at the previous shooter's hits on the target to see what the unpatched holes were. I want to understand Poppa saying it is o.k. to use other targets to help with the call.

I think It would be silly not to allow the use "other targets" as a reference. Here is a scenario - There is a no-shoot in front of a target. There are two head shots on the target. However, there is also a partial shot on the edge of the NS. From the location of the head shots in reference to the location of the NS hit, you can be sure that this shooter did not hit the NS. The hit on the NS must come from the previous shooter. In this case, we are using "other targets" to determine the target in question, aren't we?

[Thomas H]

(You are the RO for both shooters) Your stage has 4 paper targets and 4 steel. Last shooter has ALL Alphas and is shooting a 9MM. The next shooter completes the COF and you begin to score the targets.

One target has 4 untaped 9 MM holes. There are 3 Alphas and 1 Bravo. What is your call?

Ouch. According to the letter of the rule, since you can't use the previous shooter's score, and if there is no other way to differentiate between hits, it is a re-shoot. (And with most 9mm, there isn't much difference between guns/bullets, unlike the .45 example I gave above.)

So even though the RO unofficially knows that the target should be scored Alpha/Bravo, the RO should officially call for a re-shoot. Even if the shooter says they are all right with it.

Hm. Brings up a question---can you call the RM and ask for a scoring call override? (Would it make a difference? The RM should make the call based on the rules, too...)

[motosapiens]

(You are the RO for both shooters) Your stage has 4 paper targets and 4 steel. Last shooter has ALL Alphas and is shooting a 9MM. The next shooter completes the COF and you begin to score the targets.

One target has 4 untaped 9 MM holes. There are 3 Alphas and 1 Bravo. What is your call?

Ouch. According to the letter of the rule, since you can't use the previous shooter's score, and if there is no other way to differentiate between hits, it is a re-shoot. (And with most 9mm, there isn't much difference between guns/bullets, unlike the .45 example I gave above.)

So even though the RO unofficially knows that the target should be scored Alpha/Bravo, the RO should officially call for a re-shoot. Even if the shooter says they are all right with it.

Hm. Brings up a question---can you call the RM and ask for a scoring call override? (Would it make a difference? The RM should make the call based on the rules, too...)

The rule says you can't review previous scoresheets. It doesn't appear to say you can't use your own knowledge of previous scores, although I know some people who consider themselves hard core literal rule-followers like to treat it that way.

I have to say tho, that if I *know* the previous hits, but they are the same caliber, I would treat that in a way that the shooter wouldn't feel screwed over. If he didn't believe I could make the call, I would probably go for the reshoot. If he was satisfied, I would probably call what I know is right. That's an unpleasantly gray area. No one wants to force a shooter to reshoot when he has a really good run. there's just not much excuse at a big match for not taping all the targets, even tho it always seems to happen a couple times.

[remoandiris]

The entire sentence makes it clear. "Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call". I believe this means that previous score sheets cannot be used, just the hits on the target.

Right. Got that. Can't look at the previous shooter's hits on the target to see what the unpatched holes were. I want to understand Poppa saying it is o.k. to use other targets to help with the call.

I think It would be silly not to allow the use "other targets" as a reference. Here is a scenario - There is a no-shoot in front of a target. There are two head shots on the target. However, there is also a partial shot on the edge of the NS. From the location of the head shots in reference to the location of the NS hit, you can be sure that this shooter did not hit the NS. The hit on the NS must come from the previous shooter. In this case, we are using "other targets" to determine the target in question, aren't we?

Actually, no, you're not using other targets. If the RO "knows" the shooter fired only 2 rds and "knows" the NS is not from that shooter, the RO is basing his call on the target. If the RO can't determine the score, it is a reshoot. Of course the clipboard RO may help in scoring, too.

Edited October 2, 2014 by remoandiris

[bishop414]

Based on the original text, I wonder if this conversation came about from looking at a really dark grease ring to determine a perfect double, and comparing it with the lighter grey grease ring on all the shooter's other targets? I've heard of this happening and I'm not sure what I think about it.

No, and no doubles. Hits were 2 Alpha, 1 Charlie 1 delta. All .40 cal. It was obvious that 2 alpha had 1 color of grease ring, while the other 2 matched each other. As the shooter, I want the RO to use his overlay and prove which shots were fired from me, and don't think you can based on the above.

For those of you saying you can use multiple targets as evidence, what happens when competitor asks to pull question target and get RM involved? Do you pull the other targets for evidence? Seems to violate last sentence of rule.

Now you are beginning to see our fun, except this started to happen on a stage during Nationals.