Was a reshoot the right decision?

[frag316]

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.

Really? Because the target presentation was exactly the same. The difference is that the competitor got confused on whether he'd engaged a fallen target.

Again, poor target design does not constitute an equipment failure in my mind.

[frag316]

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

There's absolutely NOTHING saying a competitor can't ask for a reshoot.

But the RO decides whether he's going to direct or offer one. Reshoots are directed events in every situation except RO interference.

[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.

Really? Because the target presentation was exactly the same. The difference is that the competitor got confused on whether he'd engaged a fallen target.

Again, poor target design does not constitute an equipment failure in my mind.

The presentation of the target was not the same. It spun around after he hit it. His confusion has nothing to do with the facts. The following rule does not apply. It would apply ... I shoot a plate and it spins sideways versus falling and I continue shooting till I knock it off. 4.3.1.6.1 applies. Shooter cannot get a reshoot. Another example, one plate of a star hangs after I hit it. I keep shooting the plate until it falls. Again, 4.3.1.6.1 applies. (I'm pressuming all this happpens because the RO fails to call REF)

In the above examples, the shooter has visual input the plate turned sideways or the plate hung on the star and the shooter makes a concious decision to keep shooting. In the OPs' example, the shooter had no visual input that the plate tuned around. He's shooting other plates or targets and his input is "I missed this plate", shoot it again. I think the RM made the correct decision.

I agree with "poor equipment design". You can look at the plate design and see the stage is one shot away from an arbitration.

[frag316]

If the target fell and the competitor was confused whether it had fallen because it had spun, that's irrelevant, in my mind. The initial target presentation was the same. Once the target falls, it's no longer a valid target and the presentation of the already-engaged target is irrelevant.

I don't know whether the steel was consistently painted between competitors, but if it was, then your argument holds less water, in my mind.

REF definition:

4.6.1. Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

I don't think expanding the concept of "present(ing) the challenge fairly and equitably" includes targets that performed correctly (they fell), yet spun and confused the competitor. The design worked in so far as its primary purpose. It just was poor design and caused issues later.

[mike821504]

Yes the plates were panted after each shooter, we went through a case pf paint on this stage alone. Also, just the fronts of the plates were painted white.

[e5gator]

It appears to be a case of good initiative/ poor judgment on the range staff for picking those types of targets with the posts not having a way of not spinning. I can see the idea behind a quick reset to reduce time, but that gets null when multiple shooters are having to reshoot due to REF. And if it was my call, I would give the REF ruling.

Edited October 29, 2015 by e5gator

[ctay]

Just to be clear, the targets did actually have a mechanism to stop the spinning. Sadly, the bolt that kept it from spinning broke off nearly every target as the match went on. We realized that the bolt was slightly too high on the neck which allowed the plate to hit it when it was shot. Repeat a hundred times or so and they broke off. We did the best we could once this started. This was one of those things that I wish I had found before the match started.

[NicVerAZ]

I want to make it clear that my initial intent never was to point out a defective stage but rather to ask a question related to rules and interpretation.

This was an excellent match and it was very well run. Thanks for everything.

[ctay]

No worries - it's a good question

[frag316]

It appears to be a case of good initiative/ poor judgment on the range staff for picking those types of targets with the posts not having a way of not spinning. I can see the idea behind a quick reset to reduce time, but that gets null when multiple shooters are having to reshoot due to REF. And if it was my call, I would give the REF ruling.

If this was a widespread thing, then I think it's incumbent on the MD to throw out the stage instead and stop any squad that hasn't already shot it. REF is not the correct call, and making a guy shoot it over is just a waste of ammo.

Think about it this way, too--it's a violation of competitive equity if a guy shoots the stage and doesn't like his run, then claims the spinning target made him confused and demands a reshoot. Whether he shoots a spun target or not, your earlier decision to give out REF reshoots means you have to give him one here, if only to preserve competitive equity--but he could be lying, too.

[e5gator]

It appears to be a case of good initiative/ poor judgment on the range staff for picking those types of targets with the posts not having a way of not spinning. I can see the idea behind a quick reset to reduce time, but that gets null when multiple shooters are having to reshoot due to REF. And if it was my call, I would give the REF ruling.

If this was a widespread thing, then I think it's incumbent on the MD to throw out the stage instead and stop any squad that hasn't already shot it. REF is not the correct call, and making a guy shoot it over is just a waste of ammo.

Think about it this way, too--it's a violation of competitive equity if a guy shoots the stage and doesn't like his run, then claims the spinning target made him confused and demands a reshoot. Whether he shoots a spun target or not, your earlier decision to give out REF reshoots means you have to give him one here, if only to preserve competitive equity--but he could be lying, too.

i thought about this more and you're right frag, i wouldn't call an REF because they couldn't tell it had been hit so shot it again, because the same argument could be given on a stage where you could see the same paper target from 3 different spots. if you finished the stage and saw 6 holes it it should you be able to demand a reshoot because you couldn't see you're other 4 holes when you got to your last position?

Edited November 3, 2015 by e5gator

[pjb45]

I shot that match. That was one of a few illegal stages.

[ctay]

I shot that match. That was one of a few illegal stages.

Pray tell Paul - what stages were illegal?

[frag316]

It appears to be a case of good initiative/ poor judgment on the range staff for picking those types of targets with the posts not having a way of not spinning. I can see the idea behind a quick reset to reduce time, but that gets null when multiple shooters are having to reshoot due to REF. And if it was my call, I would give the REF ruling.

If this was a widespread thing, then I think it's incumbent on the MD to throw out the stage instead and stop any squad that hasn't already shot it. REF is not the correct call, and making a guy shoot it over is just a waste of ammo.

Think about it this way, too--it's a violation of competitive equity if a guy shoots the stage and doesn't like his run, then claims the spinning target made him confused and demands a reshoot. Whether he shoots a spun target or not, your earlier decision to give out REF reshoots means you have to give him one here, if only to preserve competitive equity--but he could be lying, too.

i thought about this more and you're right frag, i wouldn't call an REF because they couldn't tell it had been hit so shot it again, because the same argument could be given on a stage where you could see the same paper target from 3 different spots. if you finished the stage and saw 6 holes it it should you be able to demand a reshoot because you couldn't see you're other 4 holes when you got to your last position?

Kind of like the poorly adjusted popper stage thread going on now--if you shoot at it again, you own it.

[ChuckS]

Kind of like the poorly pooply adjusted popper stage thread going on now--if you shoot at it again, you own it.

FIFY

[frag316]

Shucks, I knew my fingers didn't type that right.