SO interference? Re-shoot?

[JohnRodriguez]

I've been going over new rule book with a fine tooth comb to make sure that I don't get caught with a "i don't know" situation when shoot at a above local level match. I will point out two rules and how they can conflict with each other and could be used to the shooters advantage.

1.3.2.9 Re-shoots are allowed for stage equipment failures or SO interference.

4.22 Touching targets

4.22.3 The SO or scorekeeper will not touch a target on the front or back of the target near the bullet holes before or during the scoring process.

My question is, is this SO interference? I know that a SO getting run over because they didn't get out of the shooters way is interference and does a get a reshoot. Not trying to start any hate and discontent, but we have all seen SO's and RO's sticking their fingers into the holes and pushing the back of the targets to determine weather or not two bullets passed through a hole. especially on targets that are 2 to 3 yards that you know you didn't miss

[MAC702]

Good question. 4.24.6, in discussing reactive targets, gives the additional language that a reshoot will be given if the match staff or another competitor touches or interferes.

Edited July 5, 2015 by MAC702

[JohnRodriguez]

I asked the MD at todays match and showed him the two rules, and he said yes it would qualify for a reshoot it the SO touched the bullet holes on a target., One of the reasons why overlays are not used in IDPA. Now our MD does tend to have a lot more common sense then others if seen, but I would like to see what HQ says to clarify this question.

[afoulk]

This could be correct, depending on the scoring call. Benefit of the doubt scoring (4.5) extends to calling doubles and scoring zones. So that should be used in lieu of manipulating the target. If the target is manipulated and the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt on scoring zone and possible presence of a double (i.e. target is called "down zero"), I don't see how there can be a disagreement worthy of being resolved by issuing a reshoot.

If however, the target is touched and the lower score is given and the shooter disagrees and has the target pulled for an appeal to the CSO/MD/Arbitration chain, I don't see how the target can be considered valid. In this case, it would seem that they also have the choice to reverse the scoring call, because the target manipulation introduced the requisite reasonable question on scoring.

[Rob Tompkins]

This could be correct, depending on the scoring call. Benefit of the doubt scoring (4.5) extends to calling doubles and scoring zones. So that should be used in lieu of manipulating the target. If the target is manipulated and the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt on scoring zone and possible presence of a double (i.e. target is called "down zero"), I don't see how there can be a disagreement worthy of being resolved by issuing a reshoot.

If however, the target is touched and the lower score is given and the shooter disagrees and has the target pulled for an appeal to the CSO/MD/Arbitration chain, I don't see how the target can be considered valid. In this case, it would seem that they also have the choice to reverse the scoring call, because the target manipulation introduced the requisite reasonable question on scoring.

So the shooter blows past a target or two and gets 2 x (10 down + FTN + PE) and the SO touches a target he then calls 0 down - shooter might be hot to get a reshoot.

[afoulk]

This could be correct, depending on the scoring call. Benefit of the doubt scoring (4.5) extends to calling doubles and scoring zones. So that should be used in lieu of manipulating the target. If the target is manipulated and the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt on scoring zone and possible presence of a double (i.e. target is called "down zero"), I don't see how there can be a disagreement worthy of being resolved by issuing a reshoot.

If however, the target is touched and the lower score is given and the shooter disagrees and has the target pulled for an appeal to the CSO/MD/Arbitration chain, I don't see how the target can be considered valid. In this case, it would seem that they also have the choice to reverse the scoring call, because the target manipulation introduced the requisite reasonable question on scoring.

So the shooter blows past a target or two and gets 2 x (10 down + FTN + PE) and the SO touches a target he then calls 0 down - shooter might be hot to get a reshoot.

Shooter should save themselves the trouble and mail $100 directly to HQ and go about their day.

[wgj3]

Why not consistent application of the "rule"? Whether the call is in the shooter's favor or not, it should either be reshoot required or no reshoot. Giving the "option" of a reshoot seems very questionable.

Edited July 6, 2015 by wgj3

[motosapiens]

especially on targets that are 2 to 3 yards that you know you didn't miss

I see people miss at 2-3 yard targets all the time. Even good shooters. Blake miguez missed one on my stage at nationals IIRC.

[Sac Law Man]

If the SO touched the target, its most likely due to a questionable scoring hit,, perf or no perf for example. I think if the SO did touch the taget, the shooter would get the beneift of the lower scoring hit as opposed to a reshoot for the entire stage.. This makes the most sense to me..