unpasted target - could not find the answer

[motosapiens]

I don't recall anything in the rule book which provides guidance on RO's determination of what a shooter was doing during the run for scoring. Targets are scored at the target.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're expected to know when a shooter hit a plate stand, according to the rulebook.......

So it's a little more grey than you'd like to believe.....

I must have missed that one. Where is it? (I searched the book for "stand" and couldn't find anything relating to watching the plate stand for hits.)

Actually, this is covered by painting the steel. If there's a distinct steel hit, it'll show up, right there on the plate. I don't think we're actually supposed to be watching the steel for hits while the shooter is shooting. Scored at the target, as usual.

i have two eyes and peripheral vision. I watch alot of stuff besides the shooter and the gun. good thing too, or i'd be running into walls and stuff.

[Jake Di Vita]

I have seen shooters hesitate for a moment when they transition to a target with holes in it before they start going again. Could it not be considered that he didn't have the same conditions as the shooter before him and reshoot on those grounds?

that's what people argue, but the rules very specifically state otherwise. that's why when I see unpasted holes I just keep shooting. I agree it would be disconcerting on a stage where a target is available from multiple positions. bottom line is that it's a good idea for an RO team to have a routine to check every target before the next shooter gets make ready. at a major, it's pretty easy to do. less so at a local match with embedded RO's.

Which rule states specifically otherwise?

[motosapiens]

I have seen shooters hesitate for a moment when they transition to a target with holes in it before they start going again. Could it not be considered that he didn't have the same conditions as the shooter before him and reshoot on those grounds?

that's what people argue, but the rules very specifically state otherwise. that's why when I see unpasted holes I just keep shooting. I agree it would be disconcerting on a stage where a target is available from multiple positions. bottom line is that it's a good idea for an RO team to have a routine to check every target before the next shooter gets make ready. at a major, it's pretty easy to do. less so at a local match with embedded RO's.

Which rule states specifically otherwise?

whoops, my bad, i was thinking of unpainted steel not being grounds for a reshoot. good catch.

[Sarge]

I have seen shooters hesitate for a moment when they transition to a target with holes in it before they start going again. Could it not be considered that he didn't have the same conditions as the shooter before him and reshoot on those grounds?

that's what people argue, but the rules very specifically state otherwise. that's why when I see unpasted holes I just keep shooting. I agree it would be disconcerting on a stage where a target is available from multiple positions. bottom line is that it's a good idea for an RO team to have a routine to check every target before the next shooter gets make ready. at a major, it's pretty easy to do. less so at a local match with embedded RO's.

Which rule states specifically otherwise?

About the closest I could find:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets If following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the target for the competitor BEING SCORED, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur- pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

BEING SCORED seems to imply the COF is complete. No wording to indicate stopping a shooter.

I gets Jakes point about shooters hesitating but the harsh reality is, that's their problem as currently written .

One problem I could see with stopping them could be they already engaged said target from another location. In that case stopping them would be a mistake.

I prefer the way things are now and encourage all level of shooters to know the rules

[Jake Di Vita]

About the closest I could find:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets If following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the target for the competitor BEING SCORED, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur- pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

BEING SCORED seems to imply the COF is complete. No wording to indicate stopping a shooter.

I gets Jakes point about shooters hesitating but the harsh reality is, that's their problem as currently written .

One problem I could see with stopping them could be they already engaged said target from another location. In that case stopping them would be a mistake.

I prefer the way things are now and encourage all level of shooters to know the rules

9.1.4 looks to be only applicable to addressing this after the completion of the course of fire, as you said. If I were litigating on behalf of the shooter in question, I might point to 8.6.4 to say that a target that was clearly unpasted could be considered an external influence that interfered with the competitor as grounds for a reshoot.

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire.

[motosapiens]

I've used that other external influence for wind blowing walls over or flapping banners in the shooters way, or even blowing a stray target or bag out of the trash through the COF so that it interferes with the shooter. Also have seen it used when someone in the peanut gallery said something loudly that sounded enough like 'stop' that the shooter hesitated and looked back at the RO. Kinda hard for me to call an unpasted target an 'external influence' tho, since it's part of the COF.

seems simplest for A)RO's and squads to make sure all targets are pasted, and shooters to keep shooting until they are done, or until they are told to stop.

[Jake Di Vita]

I agree with A and B.

Nothing prevents a part of the COF from being an "external influence" that I can think of. If someone used that against me as an RO, I'd have a hard time finding a compelling reason to quote why they are wrong. If something the shooter is not in control of happens and it interferes with his run, that seems to qualify the rule the way it is written.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Jake Di Vita

[JAFO]

I don't recall anything in the rule book which provides guidance on RO's determination of what a shooter was doing during the run for scoring. Targets are scored at the target.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're expected to know when a shooter hit a plate stand, according to the rulebook.......

So it's a little more grey than you'd like to believe.....

I must have missed that one. Where is it? (I searched the book for "stand" and couldn't find anything relating to watching the plate stand for hits.)

Actually, this is covered by painting the steel. If there's a distinct steel hit, it'll show up, right there on the plate. I don't think we're actually supposed to be watching the steel for hits while the shooter is shooting. Scored at the target, as usual.

4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring poppers which fail to fall when hit are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which a Range Officer deems to have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1).

This doesn't seem to preclude the RO from determining REF before the end of the COF. If it happened on the first array of a 32-rd course, for example, I'd appreciate being stopped before I wasted ammo on the rest of the stage.

Edited June 17, 2016 by JAFO

[Nik Habicht]

I don't recall anything in the rule book which provides guidance on RO's determination of what a shooter was doing during the run for scoring. Targets are scored at the target.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're expected to know when a shooter hit a plate stand, according to the rulebook.......

So it's a little more grey than you'd like to believe.....

I must have missed that one. Where is it? (I searched the book for "stand" and couldn't find anything relating to watching the plate stand for hits.)

Actually, this is covered by painting the steel. If there's a distinct steel hit, it'll show up, right there on the plate. I don't think we're actually supposed to be watching the steel for hits while the shooter is shooting. Scored at the target, as usual.

See rule 4.3.1.5 -- kind of difficult to call REF if you didn't see it.

You argue for only scoring what you see on the target.....

Consider this: Competitor fires only one round at a target. You're certain because it's a target off by itself, perhaps engaged on the move, and the competitor kept going. There was no opportunity to shoot the target from anywhere else, that the competitor fired rounds from. Competitor is shooting a 9mm. During scoring you find 2 .45 caliber holes, and one 9mm hole in the target. How do you score that?

You see a competitor fire at targets that are visible through a port 5 yards away -- you see the competitor pull a round into the wood, to the left side of the port. When you go to score the targets that were centered in the window, the left target has two holes in it. Does the competitor get credit for both, or only one?

Same scenario as above, except the shooter blows past the target and never engages it, yet during scoring there are two 9mm holes in it. Does the competitor get credit, 2 mikes and an FTE, or a reshoot?

Scoring shots at the line and hits on the targets works well for Virginia and Fixed Time courses of fire. Comstock sometimes requires something more -- you need to pay attention to what's going on to know where to look and what else to consider.....

Edited to add: Steel is also not required to be painted at all match levels, so that also presents a challenge....

[Nik Habicht]

I have seen shooters hesitate for a moment when they transition to a target with holes in it before they start going again. Could it not be considered that he didn't have the same conditions as the shooter before him and reshoot on those grounds?

that's what people argue, but the rules very specifically state otherwise. that's why when I see unpasted holes I just keep shooting. I agree it would be disconcerting on a stage where a target is available from multiple positions. bottom line is that it's a good idea for an RO team to have a routine to check every target before the next shooter gets make ready. at a major, it's pretty easy to do. less so at a local match with embedded RO's.

Which rule states specifically otherwise?

9.1.4 -- which specifically references unrestored targets and provides the guidance necessary to score them. If the RO can determine an accurate score -- no reshoot. This point is emphasized by the direction that for purposes of determining an accurate score, B and C zone hits shall be considered to be one and the same.

[Nik Habicht]

About the closest I could find:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets If following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the target for the competitor BEING SCORED, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur- pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

BEING SCORED seems to imply the COF is complete. No wording to indicate stopping a shooter.

I gets Jakes point about shooters hesitating but the harsh reality is, that's their problem as currently written .

One problem I could see with stopping them could be they already engaged said target from another location. In that case stopping them would be a mistake.

I prefer the way things are now and encourage all level of shooters to know the rules

9.1.4 looks to be only applicable to addressing this after the completion of the course of fire, as you said. If I were litigating on behalf of the shooter in question, I might point to 8.6.4 to say that a target that was clearly unpasted could be considered an external influence that interfered with the competitor as grounds for a reshoot.

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire.

That would be a fine argument, and I considered that rule as well as Section 4.6. However while 4.6 specifically mentions unrestored moving and metal targets, and specifically orders a reshoot if a mover or metal target is not reset, if also specifically omits unrestored paper targets. The rule book does specifically address unrestored paper targets in 9.1.4 -- and that's how the material is taught in the RO courses....

Edited to Add: Jake -- I share your concern, and I'm really not happy when I see unrestored targets, whether I'm a competitor or a member of the match staff. I'm probably less happy if I see it as a member of the match staff though -- because that means that I or one of my colleagues made an error and potentially affected a match result.

That said -- I've seen plenty of competitors engage a target from one position, because they could see it, and then reengage the same target later in the course of fire, from where they planned to engage it in the first place -- so sometimes the target was restored and the competitor just managed to shoot it twice from different positions. If a reshoot were mandatory here, then gamers could force a redo of a bad run, on those stages offering more than one view....

[Jake Di Vita]

About the closest I could find:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets If following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the target for the competitor BEING SCORED, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur- pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

BEING SCORED seems to imply the COF is complete. No wording to indicate stopping a shooter.

I gets Jakes point about shooters hesitating but the harsh reality is, that's their problem as currently written .

One problem I could see with stopping them could be they already engaged said target from another location. In that case stopping them would be a mistake.

I prefer the way things are now and encourage all level of shooters to know the rules

9.1.4 looks to be only applicable to addressing this after the completion of the course of fire, as you said. If I were litigating on behalf of the shooter in question, I might point to 8.6.4 to say that a target that was clearly unpasted could be considered an external influence that interfered with the competitor as grounds for a reshoot.

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire.

That would be a fine argument, and I considered that rule as well as Section 4.6. However while 4.6 specifically mentions unrestored moving and metal targets, and specifically orders a reshoot if a mover or metal target is not reset, if also specifically omits unrestored paper targets. The rule book does specifically address unrestored paper targets in 9.1.4 -- and that's how the material is taught in the RO courses....

So could 8.6.4 be applicable here? 9.1.4 addresses unrestored paper targets during scoring. The way 8.6.4 reads to me, if I saw the shooter get distracted by something outside of his control (which I think an unpatched target could qualify) I could offer the competitor a reshoot before scoring, thus 9.1.4 would not apply.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Jake Di Vita

[Nik Habicht]

About the closest I could find:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets If following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the target for the competitor BEING SCORED, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur- pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

BEING SCORED seems to imply the COF is complete. No wording to indicate stopping a shooter.

I gets Jakes point about shooters hesitating but the harsh reality is, that's their problem as currently written .

One problem I could see with stopping them could be they already engaged said target from another location. In that case stopping them would be a mistake.

I prefer the way things are now and encourage all level of shooters to know the rules

9.1.4 looks to be only applicable to addressing this after the completion of the course of fire, as you said. If I were litigating on behalf of the shooter in question, I might point to 8.6.4 to say that a target that was clearly unpasted could be considered an external influence that interfered with the competitor as grounds for a reshoot.

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire.

That would be a fine argument, and I considered that rule as well as Section 4.6. However while 4.6 specifically mentions unrestored moving and metal targets, and specifically orders a reshoot if a mover or metal target is not reset, if also specifically omits unrestored paper targets. The rule book does specifically address unrestored paper targets in 9.1.4 -- and that's how the material is taught in the RO courses....

So could 8.6.4 be applicable here? 9.1.4 addresses unrestored paper targets during scoring. The way 8.6.4 reads to me, if I saw the shooter get distracted by something outside of his control (which I think an unpatched target could qualify) I could offer the competitor a reshoot before scoring, thus 9.1.4 would not apply.

Short answer -- no, an unrestored target is not considered to be an external influence. What if this competitor is reengaging a target he already shot at? If you grant him the reshoot -- are you not also affecting all the other shooters in his division? Holes in cardboard don't keep the competitor from firing two rounds at it. That's different from REF, where if a popper wasn't reset, it's not available to be shot. And therein lies the difference.....

I get that you'd feel bad for not having correctly supervised and confirmed the rest of the stage -- but the competitor can continue, and then, after the stage is over, you can determine whether an accurate score can be obtained.

[Jake Di Vita]

Short answer -- no, an unrestored target is not considered to be an external influence. What if this competitor is reengaging a target he already shot at? If you grant him the reshoot -- are you not also affecting all the other shooters in his division? Holes in cardboard don't keep the competitor from firing two rounds at it. That's different from REF, where if a popper wasn't reset, it's not available to be shot. And therein lies the difference.....

I get that you'd feel bad for not having correctly supervised and confirmed the rest of the stage -- but the competitor can continue, and then, after the stage is over, you can determine whether an accurate score can be obtained.

How exactly is it determined what is and is not an external influence? You're gonna have to explain to me how an obviously unpatched target that a shooter sees, pauses, then finishes is not interference from an external influence.

Earlier, I qualified my statement with if it was obviously an unpatched target and that if the external influence was out of his control. If he shot the target once already and hesitated that was his fault - no reshoot. Unpatched targets are not his fault.

As far as affecting other competitiors: To me, the most important thing is always going to be competitive integrity. That everyone gets an opportunity under as close as possible to the same conditions. If I can find a way to grant a reshoot that works righteously with the rulebook, I'll do it, and I'll do it for everyone.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Jake Di Vita

[Nik Habicht]

Broader thinking here: Reshoot bad; ideally to be avoided. There are only a limited number of circumstances in which a reshoot is required and none of those situations include unpatched targets.

On the other hand we have a rule that specifically covers how to deal with unpatched targets. And one of the principles the RMIs pound into our heads is to first look to see if we have a rule that specifically covers the situation at hand, and only if we don't to branch out. Here's what the rule says:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets – If, following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the tar-get for the competitor being scored, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur-pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

Note that the rule starts by telling us what kind of targets it's concerned with -- paper that was either not properly patched, or paper that lost pasters, possibly from the blast of a comp or muzzle on a close paper target. Then in the middle of the rule we have a sentence that clarifies very specifically the circumstances under which a reshoot must be ordered. Then we get to the fun part that for the purposes of this rule, and for the purposes of determining whether an accurate score can be determined, we are to consider B and C hits to be the same. That implies a certain level of interest in avoiding a reshoot where possible. Why? Cause reshoot bad.....

On the other hand 8.6.4 says the following:

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.

Clearly when invoking 8.6.4 you're not going to stop the competitor right there, because if you would that would be a mandatory reshoot. You're going to make the judgment at the end of the stage -- and at that point you have situation that's directly addressed by another rule. You don't have inadvertent RO contact. Last but not least, shooters can expect to encounter targets on a stage -- both metal and paper. They're not an external influence, no matter how much you may want to argue that.....

An unpatched target is part of the stage -- and I've explained more than once that it might be unpatched, or that it might have already been shot by the competitor....

External influence = something from outside the stage, i.e. persons suddenly appearing on top of a berm; a gust of wind sending a tent from the vendor's area floating into the middle of the stage, etc.......

But don't take my word for it -- feel free to check with any of the RMIs, or DNROI......

And from a competitive standpoint -- have fewer expectations. When you don't expect to see perfect targets, you're likely going to find it easier to just shoot them and move on.....

[GrumpyOne]

I have seen shooters hesitate for a moment when they transition to a target with holes in it before they start going again. Could it not be considered that he didn't have the same conditions as the shooter before him and reshoot on those grounds?

that's what people argue, but the rules very specifically state otherwise. that's why when I see unpasted holes I just keep shooting. I agree it would be disconcerting on a stage where a target is available from multiple positions. bottom line is that it's a good idea for an RO team to have a routine to check every target before the next shooter gets make ready. at a major, it's pretty easy to do. less so at a local match with embedded RO's.

Which rule states specifically otherwise?

About the closest I could find:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets If following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the target for the competitor BEING SCORED, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur- pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

BEING SCORED seems to imply the COF is complete. No wording to indicate stopping a shooter.

I gets Jakes point about shooters hesitating but the harsh reality is, that's their problem as currently written .

One problem I could see with stopping them could be they already engaged said target from another location. In that case stopping them would be a mistake.

I prefer the way things are now and encourage all level of shooters to know the rules

I found this out at the BITBG this year...rounded a corner, there was a target with holes in it already...hesitated, shot it anyway, asked for RM, didn't get reshoot...

[Youngeyes]

I have seen shooters hesitate for a moment when they transition to a target with holes in it before they start going again. Could it not be considered that he didn't have the same conditions as the shooter before him and reshoot on those grounds?

that's what people argue, but the rules very specifically state otherwise. that's why when I see unpasted holes I just keep shooting. I agree it would be disconcerting on a stage where a target is available from multiple positions. bottom line is that it's a good idea for an RO team to have a routine to check every target before the next shooter gets make ready. at a major, it's pretty easy to do. less so at a local match with embedded RO's.

Which rule states specifically otherwise?

About the closest I could find:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets If following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the target for the competitor BEING SCORED, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur- pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

BEING SCORED seems to imply the COF is complete. No wording to indicate stopping a shooter.

I gets Jakes point about shooters hesitating but the harsh reality is, that's their problem as currently written .

One problem I could see with stopping them could be they already engaged said target from another location. In that case stopping them would be a mistake.

I prefer the way things are now and encourage all level of shooters to know the rules

I found this out at the BITBG this year...rounded a corner, there was a target with holes in it already...hesitated, shot it anyway, asked for RM, didn't get reshoot...

Yup. I remember. You not only didn't get a reshoot, Gary didn't give you any sympathy either.

[Jake Di Vita]

Broader thinking here: Reshoot bad; ideally to be avoided. There are only a limited number of circumstances in which a reshoot is required and none of those situations include unpatched targets.

On the other hand we have a rule that specifically covers how to deal with unpatched targets. And one of the principles the RMIs pound into our heads is to first look to see if we have a rule that specifically covers the situation at hand, and only if we don't to branch out. Here's what the rule says:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets – If, following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the tar-get for the competitor being scored, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur-pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

Note that the rule starts by telling us what kind of targets it's concerned with -- paper that was either not properly patched, or paper that lost pasters, possibly from the blast of a comp or muzzle on a close paper target. Then in the middle of the rule we have a sentence that clarifies very specifically the circumstances under which a reshoot must be ordered. Then we get to the fun part that for the purposes of this rule, and for the purposes of determining whether an accurate score can be determined, we are to consider B and C hits to be the same. That implies a certain level of interest in avoiding a reshoot where possible. Why? Cause reshoot bad.....

On the other hand 8.6.4 says the following:

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.

Clearly when invoking 8.6.4 you're not going to stop the competitor right there, because if you would that would be a mandatory reshoot. You're going to make the judgment at the end of the stage -- and at that point you have situation that's directly addressed by another rule. You don't have inadvertent RO contact. Last but not least, shooters can expect to encounter targets on a stage -- both metal and paper. They're not an external influence, no matter how much you may want to argue that.....

An unpatched target is part of the stage -- and I've explained more than once that it might be unpatched, or that it might have already been shot by the competitor....

External influence = something from outside the stage, i.e. persons suddenly appearing on top of a berm; a gust of wind sending a tent from the vendor's area floating into the middle of the stage, etc.......

But don't take my word for it -- feel free to check with any of the RMIs, or DNROI......

And from a competitive standpoint -- have fewer expectations. When you don't expect to see perfect targets, you're likely going to find it easier to just shoot them and move on.....

I don't agree whatsoever on a single point in your assessment. Your position depends on an arbitrary decree that nothing in the stage can be considered external to the shooter under any circumstance. Even if that is what all the RMIs think, I still disagree.

I'm most concerned with every shooter having as fair and equitable run at each stage as possible. I don't expect DNROI to agree with me considering I read what Troy thinks about poppers not falling and it made me want to gouge my own eyes out with a potato peeler.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Jake Di Vita

[teros135]

Gosh, Jake, if you did that you'd have to go to Open and use the all-knowing Red Dot!

[Jake Di Vita]

Gosh, Jake, if you did that you'd have to go to Open and use the all-knowing Red Dot!

Too late man, I shoot open with good eyes and still suck. lol

[teros135]

Gosh, Jake, if you did that you'd have to go to Open and use the all-knowing Red Dot!

Too late man, I shoot open with good eyes and still suck. lol

Me too!

[terrydoc]

From the IPSC rulebook. 9.1.4.2 A competitor who hesitates or self-stops during his attempt at a course of fire, due to a belief that one or more targets have not been restored or reset, is not entitled to a reshoot.

I know you guy's are talking USPSA but surely you have this rule or similar?

[Jake Di Vita]

We do not have that rule or one worded like it that I've seen. I'd be fine with it if it were spelled out like that in our book.

[Nik Habicht]

Broader thinking here: Reshoot bad; ideally to be avoided. There are only a limited number of circumstances in which a reshoot is required and none of those situations include unpatched targets.

On the other hand we have a rule that specifically covers how to deal with unpatched targets. And one of the principles the RMIs pound into our heads is to first look to see if we have a rule that specifically covers the situation at hand, and only if we don't to branch out. Here's what the rule says:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets – If, following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the tar-get for the competitor being scored, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the pur-pose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

Note that the rule starts by telling us what kind of targets it's concerned with -- paper that was either not properly patched, or paper that lost pasters, possibly from the blast of a comp or muzzle on a close paper target. Then in the middle of the rule we have a sentence that clarifies very specifically the circumstances under which a reshoot must be ordered. Then we get to the fun part that for the purposes of this rule, and for the purposes of determining whether an accurate score can be determined, we are to consider B and C hits to be the same. That implies a certain level of interest in avoiding a reshoot where possible. Why? Cause reshoot bad.....

On the other hand 8.6.4 says the following:

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.

Clearly when invoking 8.6.4 you're not going to stop the competitor right there, because if you would that would be a mandatory reshoot. You're going to make the judgment at the end of the stage -- and at that point you have situation that's directly addressed by another rule. You don't have inadvertent RO contact. Last but not least, shooters can expect to encounter targets on a stage -- both metal and paper. They're not an external influence, no matter how much you may want to argue that.....

An unpatched target is part of the stage -- and I've explained more than once that it might be unpatched, or that it might have already been shot by the competitor....

External influence = something from outside the stage, i.e. persons suddenly appearing on top of a berm; a gust of wind sending a tent from the vendor's area floating into the middle of the stage, etc.......

But don't take my word for it -- feel free to check with any of the RMIs, or DNROI......

And from a competitive standpoint -- have fewer expectations. When you don't expect to see perfect targets, you're likely going to find it easier to just shoot them and move on.....

I don't agree whatsoever on a single point in your assessment. Your position depends on an arbitrary decree that nothing in the stage can be considered external to the shooter under any circumstance. Even if that is what all the RMIs think, I still disagree.

I'm most concerned with every shooter having as fair and equitable run at each stage as possible. I don't expect DNROI to agree with me considering I read what Troy thinks about poppers not falling and it made me want to gouge my own eyes out with a potato peeler.

Somehow I'm not surprised by your reaction, Jake.....

Typically though -- I see this happen at Level 1 matches, where different folks are taking turns running shooters/recoding hits and times on the nook/pasting targets. At level 2 and above -- I'd guess it happens, though I'm not certain it happens in appreciable quantity on stages with dedicated and competent staff.....

All that said, I'd love to see a different proposal for resolving the issue with a couple of caveats:

I'd still want to be able to set targets in such a manner that they can be engaged from multiple positions -- and the new proposal would need to be able to deal with not reshooting a competitor who engages a target from position 1, then freezes when he sees it has holes in it at position 2....

And I'd need the proposal to refrain from enabling an at will reshoot. You're a bright guy and have clearly thought about it -- got a proposal in mind that will accomplish that?

Put it together, and lets talk to our Ads about getting it in front of the BOD......

Final note -- Stoeger converted me to his point of view on poppers not falling with his podcast rant. No -- that doesn't mean I won't be enforcing the rules as they're currently taught by NROI; only that I agree with his position, and would probably support a rule change, depending on the specifics.....

[Nik Habicht]

We do not have that rule or one worded like it that I've seen. I'd be fine with it if it were spelled out like that in our book.

That was a quick potential resolution. Or do you have a better idea?