Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Miss or equipment failure


mont1120

Recommended Posts

At a match this year there was a stage that had a very odd situation arise. During the course of fire, a round was fired at a steel popper that did get knocked down, hoever the round went completely through a wall support, there was a clean hole right through the wood, and the RO witnessed it. 

 

When the stage was complete, the RO called it as a miss since the hit was through the wall, it could not count even though the popper fell. The shooter countered it was equipment failure since the steel was knocked down, he could not re-engage the target.

 

What is the correct ruling, miss or equipment failure with a re-shoot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9.1.6.2 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to
hit a plate or strike down a popper; this will be treated as range
equipment failure (see Section.4.6). The competitor will be
required to reshoot the course of fire, after it has been restored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is the rule from the 2019 draft rulebook:

 

9.1.6.2 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover and continues on to hit a
plate or strike down a popper; this will be treated as range
equipment failure (see Section.4.6). The competitor will be
required to reshoot the course of fire, after it has been restored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Currently a reshoot but may be changing in the new rules

 

42 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

And here is the rule from the 2019 draft rulebook:

 

9.1.6.2 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover and continues on to hit a
plate or strike down a popper; this will be treated as range
equipment failure (see Section.4.6). The competitor will be
required to reshoot the course of fire, after it has been restored.

So what is the change ? reads the same to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, toothandnail said:

 

So what is the change ? reads the same to me.

I’m in the hospital on morphine right now so I may literally be hallucinating. Probably the part about wall supports platforms etc are going to be treated like target sticks. i.e. they don’t exist. But think that pertains to faulting etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe.....

 

From the draft 2019 rulebook:

9.1.7      Target sticks are neither Hard Cover nor Soft Cover. Shots which have passed wholly or partially through target sticks and or barrier supports, and which hit a paper or metal target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, George Jones said:

Maybe.....

 

From the draft 2019 rulebook:

9.1.7      Target sticks are neither Hard Cover nor Soft Cover. Shots which have passed wholly or partially through target sticks and or barrier supports, and which hit a paper or metal target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

 

Yup, I totally overlooked the word support in the OP. I'm thinking there may need to be some language defining supports. It seems like it would be obvious, but you know how this goes...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under current rules it should be reshoot due to range equipment malfunction. The shooter argued correctly that he couldn't reengage.

Reading the new edit it would appear it would just be scored as a hit.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question would have to be around what part of the support did he hit? If it was a leg on the same plane as the face of the wall I’d think that would be more in line with the walls to floor and infinity concept. Now if it was a support brace on the back side of the wall then I’d be in agreement of the ref. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats correct in my reading. Supports/braces for walls are like target sticks...non existent. However wall ends that are part of the wall itself are impenetrable hard cover. So here is what I don't understand and it will cause a lot of trouble. Shots passing through any hardcover don't count for score or penalty because hard cover is considered impenetrable. However it seems if that shot knocks over steel, then a reshoot is required. I see the logic because a cardboard target can be reengaged and the steel can not.

 

That said a lot of rules are careful to avoid the temptation of a competitor to deliberately provoke a reshoot when he is doing poorly. Such actions as knocking glasses off.

What is to stop a gamer from deliberately firing through snow fence or even a wall end and knocking down steel to get himself a reshoot? 

 

I think if you knock down a steel target with a hardcover shot it should be considered as failure to engage and a mike. Whats unfair. If you shoot somebody while shooting at someone who may deserve it you don't get a pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mjmagee67 said:

The side of the wall is both the wall and the support for the wall........

 

Then the center of the wall is also support cause it holds the 2 sides together and without it the wall would fall down......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2018 at 9:31 AM, nasty618 said:

A great example of why we as shooters need to know the rules of the game we play and be able to support it with the rule book. 

 

OP, so what was the outcome of that discussion? Was the shooter able to reshoot?

He did get a reshoot which was what I thought was correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, muncie21 said:

A bit off topic, but I hope it's nothing serious Sarge and hope to work/shoot with you next season

Had pancreatitis. Seems to have cleared up on its own. It hurt like the bejesus!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule change discussion has me a bit confused. To clarify what everyone is saying, the new rule allows for shooting through "target sticks and or barrier supports" will count as a hit, but what is the exact definition of a barrier support. Is a wall a barrier support????? Or is it something different since a wall is at this point impenetrable?

 

I really do not understand the intent of this rule anyway. Now we are going to allow shooters to blaze away unhindered by the fact the supports mean zero? If wall supports are included in this, say goodbye to the wall supports. Now we can blaze away at a target and the walls be damned, shoot those pesky little pieces of wood to hell and back. Stages will be held up to take the time to replace a wall that has been blown into toothpicks because shooters no longer have to aim to get the shot.

 

Certainly that is not the intent, but it really does need to be clarified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...