RO 's wrong call ?

[d_striker]

So we will accept that a RO saw you DQ but not drill some hard cover?

Depends on the situation. If the HC is ridden with bullet holes and that RO says he is certain that a specific 1 out of 10 is mine, I'm not going to agree with the call but I won't argue it. Again, if that RO can look me in the eye and say with 100% certainty I'll accept it. However, I would be very skeptical of that RO's integrity and do my best to never squad with them again.

[terrydoc]

That's what I'm getting at you don't think He's honest enough to call a miss but if he DQ's you it's different and you accept it.

[d_striker]

That's what I'm getting at you don't think He's honest enough to call a miss but if he DQ's you it's different and you accept it.

I never said I wouldn't accept it. I said I would call BS on his speculative call.

[RenoShooter]

So we will accept that a RO saw you DQ but not drill some hard cover?

Depends on the situation. If the HC is ridden with bullet holes and that RO says he is certain that a specific 1 out of 10 is mine, I'm not going to agree with the call but I won't argue it. Again, if that RO can look me in the eye and say with 100% certainty I'll accept it. However, I would be very skeptical of that RO's integrity and do my best to never squad with them again.

If the RO can look you in the eye and you still don't believe him/her in your gut, then you should argue it. It's not combative to respectfully disagree with a call. Just because someone is an RO doesn't necessarily make them infallible. People make mistakes or think they see something that maybe they didn't all the time. How many of us have scored an Alpha, Charlie audibly as we are walking up to a target only to have to correct ourselves because the perf was broken and it's really 2 Alpha's? People think they see things all the time. There's no problem with tactfully disagreeing. If the RO takes it personally, then that's their own issue and probably shouldn't be an official in the first place. Just don't be a jerk about it and most RO's will at least listen to your side.

[Thomas H]

To avoid those situations at our monthly matches part of our standard stage briefing is, "Barrels are soft cover but bullets must leave recognizable arc to score."

Wait a sec...you are making it clear that barrels are soft cover....

....but you are then putting an additional requirement on bullet holes? How does that work? If there is a hit on the target, noting that soft cover doesn't make any difference other than obscuring the target, how are you justifying the scoring rule change?

Particularly since in this rule....

4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score.

....it doesn't say anything about "....only if there is still a recognizable arc."

[motosapiens]

At a L1 match in this scenario, if the RO can look me in the eye and say that he/she is 100% certain that it's a mike, I'll accept the call. I'm the first to admit that it's a miss if I'm certain what happened and I know I earned it.

It's the situations where speculation is used to make a call that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I haven't seen every situation in the world, but every time I've seen a bullet go through a barrel or piece of wood, it has left no grease ring (or dramatically less grease ring) than a clean shot. I'm not sure there's a huge amount of speculation going on most of the time, but I didn't see the whole you had a problem with, so who knows?

The last two major matches I've worked as CRO both had opportunities for shots through hardcover, so it was something I kept a pretty close eye on. The ones through wood and barrels were pretty easy because we taped the wood and painted the barrels, but I had a few go through mesh and not hit the mesh, so it was pretty much a matter of me being certain of what I saw, and pointing out the possible angle of the shooters gun. I asked to put a banner over the mesh above the port but the RM didn't think it was necessary. Lesson learned.

All the same, even in an local match, if you don't feel the call is right, it's not unreasonable to ask for the RM or more senior RO or whatever to take a look at it. If a couple experienced RO's agree, I would probably take their word for it. If not, a reshoot is not out of the question. Sure, most of us are not going to win the winnebago that we give away at each monthly match, and would probably rather keep the match going so we can get home and drink beer and watch the tour de france, but it certainly is an option to ask for a second look.

[Nik Habicht]

To avoid those situations at our monthly matches part of our standard stage briefing is, "Barrels are soft cover but bullets must leave recognizable arc to score."

So scoring "arcs" are RO opinion?

Well -- yeah. If you don't have some portion of bullet ogive in your hole in the target, it's just a tear. You need definitive proof that it was made by a bullet, before you can call it a hit....

See 9.5.5:

9.5.5 Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter.

[gng4life]

What if the hole is not enlarged?

[Nik Habicht]

To avoid those situations at our monthly matches part of our standard stage briefing is, "Barrels are soft cover but bullets must leave recognizable arc to score."

Wait a sec...you are making it clear that barrels are soft cover....

....but you are then putting an additional requirement on bullet holes? How does that work? If there is a hit on the target, noting that soft cover doesn't make any difference other than obscuring the target, how are you justifying the scoring rule change?

Particularly since in this rule....

4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score.

....it doesn't say anything about "....only if there is still a recognizable arc."

Typically -- though not always -- there's an enlarged whole in the target, and then you're looking for evidence of a hit....

[Nik Habicht]

What if the hole is not enlarged?

Score as normal, if possible; pull target if necessary; or reshoot if it can't be scored....

[gng4life]

What if the hole is not enlarged?

Score as normal, if possible; pull target if necessary; or reshoot if it can't be scored....

Why would the arc be needed if the hole is not enlarged? 9.5.5 only covers enlarged holes.

[Nik Habicht]

What if the hole is not enlarged?

Score as normal, if possible; pull target if necessary; or reshoot if it can't be scored....

Why would the arc be needed if the hole is not enlarged? 9.5.5 only covers enlarged holes.

Read post 34...... :-)

[gng4life]

What if the hole is not enlarged?

Score as normal, if possible; pull target if necessary; or reshoot if it can't be scored....

Why would the arc be needed if the hole is not enlarged? 9.5.5 only covers enlarged holes.

Read post 34...... :-)

I'm referring to post #32 [emoji1]

Sent from the range

Edited July 7, 2015 by gng4life

[Thomas H]

To avoid those situations at our monthly matches part of our standard stage briefing is, "Barrels are soft cover but bullets must leave recognizable arc to score."

Wait a sec...you are making it clear that barrels are soft cover....

....but you are then putting an additional requirement on bullet holes? How does that work? If there is a hit on the target, noting that soft cover doesn't make any difference other than obscuring the target, how are you justifying the scoring rule change?

Particularly since in this rule....

4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score.

....it doesn't say anything about "....only if there is still a recognizable arc."

Typically -- though not always -- there's an enlarged whole in the target, and then you're looking for evidence of a hit....

...but the rule you later cited is for cases where we are worried about hits through hard cover or off steel, yes?

After all, the barrel (the only thing in the way of the shot) is defined as SOFT cover. As such, whatever it does to the bullet is immaterial as long as there is a hit on the paper. The rule cited (9.5.5) is worried about ricochet or splatter. And yet---we are talking about soft cover.

If there is a hit on the paper, and the bullet passed through soft cover to get there, for all we know the bullet may be going sideways when it hits the target (the polymer in barrels can do weird things). Obviously the hit cannot be ricochet or splatter from a hard cover hit, or any hit on steel--it is merely the effect on what you are using for soft cover. As such, it is obviously a hit from the bullet, and any change in shape is due to what you decided to use for soft cover material.

I'm still not understanding how you are making an additional requirement for scoring after a bullet passes through a material you have defined as soft cover, when any difference in hit will be due to the material you have chosen to use and define as soft cover. Especially since someone could quite easily argue that you are penalized people who are using HPs more than people who are using FMJs, due to the difference in effect on the bullet passing through the polymer...

If you've defined something as soft cover, you have (by definition) stated that the material itself has no effect on the shots passing through it from a rules perspective with respect to hits. But you are saying that because the material you are using may make the bullet tumble or act strangely, people will just have to hope it actually acts like soft cover for their shots even though (since it is soft cover) obviously the hits can't be ricochets or splatter?

I'm thinking if you are making that additional requirement, someone could argue (and arb, successfully) that if it is supposed to be soft cover, you'd better be making it out of a material that doesn't affect the bullet as it passes through it. Unless we are setting up a match in which we need to start buying barrier-blind ammo depending on what types of "soft cover" the match director decides to use....

[Thomas H]

Here's another way of putting that:

There is a barrel defined as soft cover directly in front of a target. I'm the first shooter on the stage, and the barrel is pristine, with no holes in it. The target is also pristine. There is not hard cover, and no steel nearby.

During the course of first I put two shots directly into the middle of the barrel (as evidenced by the holes). The target has two elongated hits in the A-zone that are larger than the bullet diameter, and there is no evidence of any sort of "arc".

Are you going to tell me I get two mikes?

[Nik Habicht]

Here's another way of putting that:

There is a barrel defined as soft cover directly in front of a target. I'm the first shooter on the stage, and the barrel is pristine, with no holes in it. The target is also pristine. There is not hard cover, and no steel nearby.

During the course of first I put two shots directly into the middle of the barrel (as evidenced by the holes). The target has two elongated hits in the A-zone that are larger than the bullet diameter, and there is no evidence of any sort of "arc".

Are you going to tell me I get two mikes?

Yep. we don't score holes in paper, as my Instructor put it -- we score holes that were made by bullets. Typically that's blatantly obvious; occasionally you have to look a little harder at the edges for evidence of the hit. By your definition above -- elongated hits in the Azone that are larger than the bullet diameter -- how does 9.5.5 not come into play?

[MarkCO]

Here's another way of putting that:

There is a barrel defined as soft cover directly in front of a target. I'm the first shooter on the stage, and the barrel is pristine, with no holes in it. The target is also pristine. There is not hard cover, and no steel nearby.

During the course of first I put two shots directly into the middle of the barrel (as evidenced by the holes). The target has two elongated hits in the A-zone that are larger than the bullet diameter, and there is no evidence of any sort of "arc".

Are you going to tell me I get two mikes?

Yep. we don't score holes in paper, as my Instructor put it -- we score holes that were made by bullets. Typically that's blatantly obvious; occasionally you have to look a little harder at the edges for evidence of the hit. By your definition above -- elongated hits in the Azone that are larger than the bullet diameter -- how does 9.5.5 not come into play?

WADR, Nik is right, but the circumstances are wrong. You can not use a material as "soft" cover that will disrupt the bullet and create a hit that, by rule, would be a non-scoring hit. The overall solution is simple...don't use the barrels as hard cover nor soft cover. Design and build the stage appropriately and then score it according to the rulebook. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Nik Habicht]

Here's another way of putting that:

There is a barrel defined as soft cover directly in front of a target. I'm the first shooter on the stage, and the barrel is pristine, with no holes in it. The target is also pristine. There is not hard cover, and no steel nearby.

During the course of first I put two shots directly into the middle of the barrel (as evidenced by the holes). The target has two elongated hits in the A-zone that are larger than the bullet diameter, and there is no evidence of any sort of "arc".

Are you going to tell me I get two mikes?

Yep. we don't score holes in paper, as my Instructor put it -- we score holes that were made by bullets. Typically that's blatantly obvious; occasionally you have to look a little harder at the edges for evidence of the hit. By your definition above -- elongated hits in the Azone that are larger than the bullet diameter -- how does 9.5.5 not come into play?

To expand on that a little more -- we actually don't score normal holes any differently than we do elongated ones -- it's just that normal holes have an ogive or continuous arc that's easily discernible, without having to really examine the edges of the hole for it.....

I suspect that 9.5.5 was written so that shooters wouldn't automatically get credit for "best two holes" per paper, rather than "best two hits" per paper.....

And I agree with Mark -- using Barrels as soft cover is less than ideal and should be discouraged whenever possible....

[Thomas H]

Here's another way of putting that:

There is a barrel defined as soft cover directly in front of a target. I'm the first shooter on the stage, and the barrel is pristine, with no holes in it. The target is also pristine. There is not hard cover, and no steel nearby.

During the course of first I put two shots directly into the middle of the barrel (as evidenced by the holes). The target has two elongated hits in the A-zone that are larger than the bullet diameter, and there is no evidence of any sort of "arc".

Are you going to tell me I get two mikes?

Yep. we don't score holes in paper, as my Instructor put it -- we score holes that were made by bullets. Typically that's blatantly obvious; occasionally you have to look a little harder at the edges for evidence of the hit. By your definition above -- elongated hits in the Azone that are larger than the bullet diameter -- how does 9.5.5 not come into play?

"...to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter."

It is soft cover. Therefore, it cannot be a ricochet or splatter. Therefore, no presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter.

Sure, if you want to only go with the first part of 9.5.5, you can say "elongated hole, therefore we must check" however...

You are defining something as "soft cover" and then saying "oh, by the way, if your bullet doesn't come through the soft cover in a way that we like, we won't count it even though the hit was obviously from a bullet that you shot."

Again, what happens if someone shots JHPs and they all tumble, and someone else shoots FMJs and they don't? "Sorry dude, you brought the wrong bullet today. Even though this is soft cover which by definition doesn't make any difference to hits, we are going to penalize you anyway for your obvious hits because our soft cover changed them."

Seriously, how could that survive any sort of arb?

The material you are using as soft cover changed the appearance of the hit. However, soft cover by definition does not change hits. If the hit appearance it changed, you are penalizing the shooter due to your choice of soft cover materials.

My example was:

There is a barrel defined as soft cover directly in front of a target. I'm the first shooter on the stage, and the barrel is pristine, with no holes in it. The target is also pristine. There is not hard cover, and no steel nearby.

During the course of first I put two shots directly into the middle of the barrel (as evidenced by the holes). The target has two elongated hits in the A-zone that are larger than the bullet diameter, and there is no evidence of any sort of "arc".

...and you said that would be scored two mikes.

Which is amazing, considering that the only thing that could have caused the hits were bullets shot by me, through the barrel. But you aren't going to count them because you chose to use a material for something defined as soft cover that changed the bullet hit. How does that make sense to you?

Actually, looking at this, we see an obvious example of range equipment malfunction, as the stage is not presented in a equitable manner to all participants. Different rounds will go through your choice of materials for "soft cover" in different ways, some of which you will penalize as mikes. Therefore, any stage of this sort should obviously be thrown out, or reshoots given after the stage is fixed (by using materials actually proper for soft cover).

Seriously, how it that not a stage that by definition is not presented in a equitable manner?

I agree with MarkCO that the use of barrels for soft cover in the first place is a bad idea (because it will change the appearance of a hit) but if you are going to use them in such a manner (and the shooters are stuck with it), the idea that you are then penalizing people in a random manner (based on their bullet type and velocity) seems an extremely poor choice that compounds the problem. It certainly doesn't fix the problem---which the match staff caused, not the shooter.

Seems to me that penalizing the shooter for the match staff's bad choices is going to result in upheld arbitration complaints pretty much every time.

[Nik Habicht]

Thomas,

pray tell where is this definition of soft cover located? I can't find anywhere in the rulebook where it says that pieces of soft cover might not be able to go flying? Nor do I find anything related to soft cover about tumbling bullets......

What I do find are some pretty simple rules:

9.5.4 Radial tears will not count for score or penalty.

9.5.5 Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evi-dence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter.

So, yes -- irrespective of what the bullet might have passed through, for me to score a hole as a hit, there needs to be some evidence that it was made by a bullet. Using your hypothetical example, the bullet could have knocked plastic out of the barrel and dropped to the ground before ever hitting the target. If there's a huge hole in the target and one hit -- it's always possible that I might not be able to score the target accurately. But I won't blindly give you credit for a hole that might not have been made by a bullet.....

And you can't arb a scoring call -- so the scoring challenge would survive arbitration just fine.

9.6.6 The Range Master’s ruling will be final. No further appeals are allowed with respect to the scoring decision.

All that said -- you won't find me defending the use of barrels as cover, either soft or hard. Vision barriers -- placed close to the FFZ, maybe -- but even there I prefer walls.....

Finally -- if I was serving as RM at such a match, and such a stage got past me during set-up, then if presented with your problem, I probably would have a long conversation with the MD about pulling the stage. (Yes, I know -- it's an RM call. That said there's nothing preventing an RM from consulting with the MD, any other member of the staff or any other member of DNROI as well as competitors before making her decision.)

[Sarge]

I have seen barrels used at nearly evey match I have shot. If you know what you are doing they can be used just fine. You just have to keep up with them

[gng4life]

Rule 9.5.5 was mainly for ricochets and soft cover does have a definitive write up about scoring:

4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score. Shots that have passed through soft cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized. All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact. Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must be visible from around or over the soft cover.

I still don't like barrels for soft cover though.

Sent from the range

[Thomas H]

Thomas,

pray tell where is this definition of soft cover located? I can't find anywhere in the rulebook where it says that pieces of soft cover might not be able to go flying? Nor do I find anything related to soft cover about tumbling bullets.....

4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score. Shots that have passed through soft cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized. All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact. Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must be visible from around or over the soft cover.

So, given that something is defined as "soft cover," according to 4.1.4.2 it must be provided merely to obscure targets. If it does anything else, then it isn't soft cover. As such, if the "soft cover" changes the bullet trajectory, response, or look upon hitting the target, it isn't soft cover.

If the match decides to use a material for soft cover that DOES change those things, then the idea that the match decides to also penalize people for shooting the wrong types of bullets at the wrong velocity because the match created an illegal stage seems like compounding their error. (Various match-legal types of bullets will deform/alter less or more through said material.)

And no, I have never seen plastic fly off a barrel. Have seen plenty of other materials create shrapnel of various types, but have never seen a plastic barrel do that.

You know, I have this great material: It allows high velocity .38super and 9mm major in FMJ to go straight through, but it'll generally stop .45acp and most minor jhp loads, or at least deform them enough that you'll never get a normal-looking bullet hole on the other side. I think I'll use that for soft cover (since I'm told there is no definition of soft cover) and while I'm at it, even though 9.5.2 exists (in its own words) to eliminate hits due to ricochet or splatter, I'll use it to not count any hits on paper targets from deformed bullets that have passed through the soft cover I'm deciding to use. If anyone argues, I'll say "there is no definition of soft cover, I can use what I want" and "9.5.2 says it doesn't count."

That doesn't make sense, right? It is obviously a range equipment failure as it doesn't present the same field problem in an identical fashion to all competitors. You simply can't use materials like that---and I see that you agree with that.

But...that a range would 1) choose to use materials like that in the first place, and then 2) specifically say that when it makes a difference, they will make sure to penalize the people not using the right type of ammo---that's a problem. (I'll note I recall a Nationals stage a couple of years ago that used barrels as soft cover. I don't recall people applying 9.5.2 to deny hits that were elongated that didn't have an "arc" to them.)

Oh, as for the arb: The arb isn't about the scoring. The arb is about the material used as hard cover, which caused the scoring issue.

[Nik Habicht]

OK -- now I see where you're coming from -- your arb is designed to toss the stage......

I'm in total agreement on the set-up argument -- there are better ways to achieve goal, than to use barrels or other really solid objects as softcover....

Where my problem came in was on the idea that if there's a large hole the "benefit of doubt should go to the shooter" in terms of scoring the targets......

[ac4wordplay]

And no, I have never seen plastic fly off a barrel. Have seen plenty of other materials create shrapnel of various types, but have never seen a plastic barrel do that.

Interesting. I didn't expect this to be unfamiliar to someone experienced with our activity. Maybe it just depends on the clubs one shoots at, and the extent/manner in which barrels (the big plastic ones) are used.