SingleStackHawaii Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 At a club match this past weekend a shooter received a procedural for shooting a steel plate from between the target sticks of a paper target. The procedural was backed up by the MD. I have attached an image that gives a simplified example of the shooter's view and shooting location. (Sorry, I'm not very good with SketchUp, but I wanted to include a visual aid to help explain the situation I am trying to describe). As far as I know target sticks are clearly outlined in rule 9.1.7 (Target sticks are neither Hard Cover nor Soft Cover. Shots which have passed wholly or partially through target sticks and which hit a paper or metal target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.). To me this means the RO and MD were in the wrong. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximis228 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 You can give out procedurals for poor stage design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) I would say you aren't wrong. Target sticks basically don't exist, scoring-wise. Also, there's nothing in the rule book to say you can't shoot between target sticks, or around them or over them, or close enough to give them goose bumps, or whatever. The thing you can't do is shoot a full-diameter hit through a paper target and then take credit for knocking down a steel - unless the hit on paper was a partial diameter, which makes it count on both the paper and the steel. If the stage designer wanted to keep you away from the steel while the paper was visible, s/he should have designed the stage so the targets were separated by more space or by barriers. I'd say the penalty calls were incorrect. Edited June 8, 2015 by teros135 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatland Shooter Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Nothing wrong with the stage design. I've put out a few for USPSA matches where the steel was placed directly below metric targets and visible from around the target as well as between the sticks. The steel would be placed far enough back to avoid splatter on the paper targets and far enough below the target where shoot throughs were not a problem. We never had a problem with it. So in my opinion (assuming nothing in the WSB prevented shooting between the sticks) there was nothing done to earn a procedural. Did the RO or MD attempt to justify their call with a Rule? Bill Edited June 8, 2015 by Flatland Shooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SingleStackHawaii Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 Did the RO or MD attempt to justify their call with a Rule? Bill Thanks for the response, Bill. The MD was convinced that such a rule existed in the rule book, but he did not produce anything to support his claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 The shooter's first line of defense: The Rulebook. If someone "knows" a penalty applies, they should be able to produce a rulebook and point to the evidence. If they don't have a rulebook, loan them yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 you sure this wasn't an IDPA MD who showed up to the wrong match ... don't they have penalties for everything a shooter does? Sorry to make light of the situtation but I probably would be looking elsewhere to shoot if I encountered a MD like that .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatland Shooter Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 The shooter's first line of defense: The Rulebook. If someone "knows" a penalty applies, they should be able to produce a rulebook and point to the evidence. If they don't have a rulebook, loan them yours. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJH Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Could he see it? If yes and it was a field course, then he could shoot it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SingleStackHawaii Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 Thanks for all the input guys. I really appreciate it. I was 99.99% sure I was correct, but I wanted to hear other voices on the matter. Especially since the MD was adamant that the penalty applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) MD should not be making rules calls... that's the job of the RM. Probably confused this situation with the rule about barriers (rule 2.2.3.3), which - by default - indeed do extend from the ground to the height as built, so you can't shoot under them. Edited June 9, 2015 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 it was a club match which means the MD was most likely the RM but it desn't change anything. He needs to be able to site the rulebook if he's going to make a ruling ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatland Shooter Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) He needs to be able to site the rulebook if he's going to make a ruling ... And its up to the shooter to keep him honest. Have your rule book handy and ask him to show you the rule if you disagree. If you can locate a rule that supports your position, be ready to offer it. Bill Edited June 10, 2015 by Flatland Shooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gng4life Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 That's just bad design. If they were oriented that way, you could stand up/stand over and have a shoot-through. This just invites REFs for the match. Sent from the range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g.willikers Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) 2 cents from a late comer: If the popper wasn't meant to be shot at in that manner, there should have been a vision barrier extended from the bottom of the target to the ground, blocking the view. Edited July 4, 2015 by g.willikers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 MD wrong. Bad call. Next month ask him to show you the rule since he had all month to find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now