Was a reshoot the right decision?

[NicVerAZ]

This happened at a recent level II match.

The stage was composed mostly of square collapsible targets on top of some type of spikes.

It looked like this:

The issue is that some of these targets would sometimes rotate 180 degrees and, although they had already been shot at, would present a square target that the shooter could confuse for a target that had not been shot at yet. This is exactly what happened to the target on the left on the photo, by the way, although it did not rotate all the way.

This happened to a friend who engaged the target with his open gun and hit it on the edge, which made it rotate 180 degrees. He then went on to shoot the other targets and, upon realizing that this target was still presenting a square white surface, thought he had previously missed it and engaged it twice again before moving on.

Upon completion, he complained that he had wasted time shooting at this target and asked for RM arbitration. The RM agreed that he should be awarded a reshoot.

But what do the rules say? Since he engaged it and saw it fall, he should have known he had already successfully engaged it? Or is it a range equipment failure and therefore a reshoot is normal?

I tend to agree with the latter.

What say you?

Edited October 16, 2015 by NicVerAZ

[frag316]

Was range equipment malfunction the reason the RM gave him the reshoot?

I don't know if this really constitutes a malfunction--the target fell. Whether the design of the target is such that it can be confusing to the competitor is largely irrelevant, because the target worked the way it was primarily supposed to work. He didn't have to engage the target again, but chose to because he was confused.

I'd have let it stand as shot, personally.

[wide45]

If the competitor can't easily tell it was hit, I'd call it a range equipment failure and reshoot.

Furthermore, it's a bad target design, and should not be used in a match. Might be possible to modify the base so it can't spin around, but I've seen targets like this that would not drop to an edge hit on the bottom.

[frag316]

I agree it's a bad target design and shouldn't be used in a match, but I don't think the ease with which a competitor can determine it was hit is a mitigating factor. I don't necessarily disagree with ordering a reshoot, but I don't think poor design constitutes an equipment failure, either.

[lcs]

Your description is a little confusing. Any hit that turns the steel 180 AND it does not fall--It Is a reshoot. Range Equipment Failure.

If the turn caused it to be visible from another location--Still range equipment failure. The target must present the same presentation to all competitors.

[d_striker]

I shot this same match. After looking at my run on video, I noticed that I spun one of the plates to where it did a few rotations but didn't fall. I didn't notice it during the run as I called it as a hit and left.

In retrospect, it should have been REF, since it did not fall and steel must fall to score.

As far as the scenario described in the OP, I wouldn't have given a reshoot if I was the RM. Once he engaged it a second time and knocked it down, he owned it. Regardless of being able to see it from another position.

Edited October 17, 2015 by d_striker

[d_striker]

Your description is a little confusing. Any hit that turns the steel 180 AND it does not fall--It Is a reshoot. Range Equipment Failure.

If the turn caused it to be visible from another location--Still range equipment failure. The target must present the same presentation to all competitors.

I agree with what you typed. However, this stage was port to port shooting and the RO had no way of seeing if plates had fallen or not. The fact that the shooter shot it again makes REF go out the window.

[Sarge]

Your description is a little confusing. Any hit that turns the steel 180 AND it does not fall--It Is a reshoot. Range Equipment Failure.

If the turn caused it to be visible from another location--Still range equipment failure. The target must present the same presentation to all competitors.

I agree with what you typed. However, this stage was port to port shooting and the RO had no way of seeing if plates had fallen or not. The fact that the shooter shot it again makes REF go out the window.

Now we go from poor target design to poor stage design. If we are going to shoot steel, especially plates the RO NEEDS to be able to see them get shot

[MarkCO]

If the competitor can't easily tell it was hit, I'd call it a range equipment failure and reshoot.

Furthermore, it's a bad target design, and should not be used in a match. Might be possible to modify the base so it can't spin around, but I've seen targets like this that would not drop to an edge hit on the bottom.

Agree!

[Flatland Shooter]

The fact that the shooter shot it again makes REF go out the window.

I respectfully disagree.

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors.

Though the Rule 2.1.8.3 specifies Poppers, the intent is consistent operation.

2.1.8.3 When Poppers are used in a course of fire, care should be taken to ensure that the location or foundation area is prepared to provide consistent operation throughout the match.

By rotating to a position that made it appear to be a target that had not been engaged for this individual shooter, it became a stage that presented an extra target. Since the rotation of the target was not consistent though all shooters, I feel it was a case of REF.

[Poppa Bear]

What I see in the picture is a target that was knocked down but also rotated so that the the target appeared to not have been engaged. future engagement cannot not knock down a target that has already dropped. I would issue a reshoot in that case.

[Nik Habicht]

I shot this same match. After looking at my run on video, I noticed that I spun one of the plates to where it did a few rotations but didn't fall. I didn't notice it during the run as I called it as a hit and left.

In retrospect, it should have been REF, since it did not fall and steel must fall to score.

As far as the scenario described in the OP, I wouldn't have given a reshoot if I was the RM. Once he engaged it a second time and knocked it down, he owned it. Regardless of being able to see it from another position.

I would have ordered the reshoot both for the opening poster's scenario and for your video run. The fact that you didn't notice it, doesn't negate REF -- and neither does that the competitor eventually shot it down. (That's the rule for poppers -- once it's down you won't get calibration or a reshoot, but not for plates.)

[Nik Habicht]

Your description is a little confusing. Any hit that turns the steel 180 AND it does not fall--It Is a reshoot. Range Equipment Failure.

If the turn caused it to be visible from another location--Still range equipment failure. The target must present the same presentation to all competitors.

I agree with what you typed. However, this stage was port to port shooting and the RO had no way of seeing if plates had fallen or not. The fact that the shooter shot it again makes REF go out the window.

Now we go from poor target design to poor stage design. If we are going to shoot steel, especially plates the RO NEEDS to be able to see them get shot

+1.....

[d_striker]

I shot this same match. After looking at my run on video, I noticed that I spun one of the plates to where it did a few rotations but didn't fall. I didn't notice it during the run as I called it as a hit and left.

In retrospect, it should have been REF, since it did not fall and steel must fall to score.

As far as the scenario described in the OP, I wouldn't have given a reshoot if I was the RM. Once he engaged it a second time and knocked it down, he owned it. Regardless of being able to see it from another position.

I would have ordered the reshoot both for the opening poster's scenario and for your video run. The fact that you didn't notice it, doesn't negate REF -- and neither does that the competitor eventually shot it down. (That's the rule for poppers -- once it's down you won't get calibration or a reshoot, but not for plates.)

If we could go back in time, I would reshoot it. But like I said, I didn't even know it didn't fall until I looked at the video. And obviously the RO didn't notice it either.

As far as shooting down a plate, (not a popper) what you're saying contradicts what was stated in our RO class which was that if the shooter fires and knocks the plate down before REF is called, they own it. Again, we're talking about steel that cannot be calibrated; not poppers.

On this particular stage, the RO was not in a position to call REF until after the shooter was done.

[Dutchman195]

I shot this match last weekend as well. I'm not sure I have much to contribute to the discussion here but here was my take on it....

After asking the RO's a few different ways about what is considered a hit or not the squad finally got: "If you hit it and it moves and doesnt fall, keep shooting and move on. It shall be considered a hit." later on in the walk through as more questions were asked: "It cant hit and not fall" Yet two shooters back to back hit them and just spun them around 360. Also this same steel you could shoot it and have it spin all the way around to the point of looking like it never went down. It was not a good peice of equipment in my mind.

The RO never called a reshoot even on the steel that was hit and didn't fall. When I shot it (Sunday Morning) they seemed to have the mindset that if you shot it and hit it, it was scored as down and move on. benefit was very much on the shooters side.

[MarkCO]

Those are not legal USPSA targets in the first place, so they are not a plate, not a popper either. If that is all they had, then if they do not work as intended or present equally to all shooters, reshoots or toss the stages.

[Nik Habicht]

I shot this same match. After looking at my run on video, I noticed that I spun one of the plates to where it did a few rotations but didn't fall. I didn't notice it during the run as I called it as a hit and left.

In retrospect, it should have been REF, since it did not fall and steel must fall to score.

As far as the scenario described in the OP, I wouldn't have given a reshoot if I was the RM. Once he engaged it a second time and knocked it down, he owned it. Regardless of being able to see it from another position.

I would have ordered the reshoot both for the opening poster's scenario and for your video run. The fact that you didn't notice it, doesn't negate REF -- and neither does that the competitor eventually shot it down. (That's the rule for poppers -- once it's down you won't get calibration or a reshoot, but not for plates.)

If we could go back in time, I would reshoot it. But like I said, I didn't even know it didn't fall until I looked at the video. And obviously the RO didn't notice it either.

As far as shooting down a plate, (not a popper) what you're saying contradicts what was stated in our RO class which was that if the shooter fires and knocks the plate down before REF is called, they own it. Again, we're talking about steel that cannot be calibrated; not poppers.

On this particular stage, the RO was not in a position to call REF until after the shooter was done.

You're absolutely correct -- if a competitor shoots down a plate, they own it. However that also supposes that the plate will fall (either falling off the stand or being visually easy to discern as having fallen.) That didn't happen here -- people said the plate was painted white on both sides and capable of spinning, and clearly attached to its stand -- rather than free falling.

If I were working as RM I likely would have changed the stage -- rather than run with hinged plates. At a bare minimum I would have painted the back of the plate a different color. And yes, the RO should have stopped the shooter......

[Walküre]

If it fell, but rotated as/after it fell, I would call it good. If it rotated without falling, REF, plain an simple.

If a plate moves at all - other than falling from a hit to the plate itself - REF.

Those are not legal USPSA targets in the first place, so they are not a plate, not a popper either.

How so? They seem to just be hinged plates to me - and therefore "plates" - just as one would find on many typical plate racks. Just without the guards and a rather unstable mount, which of course makes a less-than-ideal target. Very much so; in fact, I wouldn't want to use them without a means of properly fixing them in place so they couldn't rotate.

Hinged plates alone aren't the problem here (though they can be at times, that's another discussion), but rather the stands they are on.

[lcs]

Your description is a little confusing. Any hit that turns the steel 180 AND it does not fall--It Is a reshoot. Range Equipment Failure.

If the turn caused it to be visible from another location--Still range equipment failure. The target must present the same presentation to all competitors.

I agree with what you typed. However, this stage was port to port shooting and the RO had no way of seeing if plates had fallen or not. The fact that the shooter shot it again makes REF go out the window.

Show me the rule!

[NicVerAZ]

Was range equipment malfunction the reason the RM gave him the reshoot?

I don't know if this really constitutes a malfunction--the target fell. Whether the design of the target is such that it can be confusing to the competitor is largely irrelevant, because the target worked the way it was primarily supposed to work. He didn't have to engage the target again, but chose to because he was confused.

I'd have let it stand as shot, personally.

The RM did not give any reason. Just agreed with the reshoot.

[NicVerAZ]

If I were working as RM I likely would have changed the stage -- rather than run with hinged plates. At a bare minimum I would have painted the back of the plate a different color. And yes, the RO should have stopped the shooter......

It's the CRO and RM's responsibility, both, to make sure that the range is practical, fair and as safe as can be.

At a level III or more, this stage would have been thrown out due to unfairness in the fact that targets were not always presented the same way to every shooter.

I also concur that the shooter should have called that shot and not engaged it, but we're talking open shooter, here

[racnsoonr]

I didn't think it was up to the shooter to ask for a reshoot? Only available if the RO offers it

In this case I would only offer a reshoot if a hit at the bottom didn't knock the target over. If the shooter takes the target a second time after that, he owns it imo

[d_striker]

Show me the rule!

No problem:

4.3.1.6.1 A plate that has been hit multiple times and falls or overturns before a Range Officer can stop the competitor, will be scored as hit and there will be no reshoot issued.

[OUshooter]

I'm also curious why those would not be considered legal USPSA targets.

If the range is muddy I'd much rather have hinged plates than those stuck in the mud. Lots of clubs cant afford all steel to be poppers.

My post is a slight divergent.

[Flatland Shooter]

I'm also curious why those would not be considered legal USPSA targets.

As long as the targets in the pictures are a minimum of 6" x 6" and a maximum of 12" x 12" and around 1/4" thick, they are legal per Appendix B5.

There are no restrictions on using hinges.

If the targets were set so that they would not spin when hit, this thread would have never happened.