Sloppy Stage Set Up?

[Cypress]

I did a USPSA Action Pistol match recently and got called for hitting a no-shoot (white) that was erroneously sticking out from behind a target. I took the picture after they taped, but the perf on the front target is punctured. The other side of the COF is mirrored and doesn't have the no-shoot sticking out from behind.

 

I was scored as hitting a no-shoot, and when I asked for clarification on whether or not the stage was set up improperly, the reply was one of "Everybody shot the same stage and had no issues with this. Sorry about your bad luck." I accepted the score as-is and happily shot the rest of the match. I'm not bitter, but more intrigued by what happened and was hoping you guys could shed light on my options if this ever happens again in the future.

 

 

[motosapiens]

there's no law that says perfs have to be lined up. you earned a no-shoot. Your option in the future is to not hit no-shoots.

 

The only way you could argue this is if the targets were replaced at some point, and they were in a different position than when other people shot them.

[Sarge]

5 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

there's no law that says perfs have to be lined up. you earned a no-shoot. Your option in the future is to not hit no-shoots.

Pretty much it. If it’s a classifier the set up must be exactly as written but otherwise it’s on you to not hit no shoots. This isn’t sloppy set up. It just doesn’t have to be precise except as noted by Moto when changing targets

[Cypress]

5 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

there's no law that says perfs have to be lined up. you earned a no-shoot. Your option in the future is to not hit no-shoots.

 

The only way you could argue this is if the targets were replaced at some point, and they were in a different position than when other people shot them.

 

There'd be no way to prove they had moved, but I understand what you're saying.

 

Also, my teammate kind of echo'd your response: "You deserved the no-shoot for shooting that crappy anyways!" 

[Hi-Power Jack]

The two photos are shot from slightly different angles :

 

From the top photo, it appears that you could NOT possibly hit the no shoot before hitting the target.

 

From the bottom photo, it appears that you could shoot just the no shoot.

 

BUT, it appears to me, that you hit the target, and as did all the other shots that hit the target,

the bullet also hit the no shoot (directly behind the target).

 

I'm NOT an RO, but sounds to ME like a ridiculous call.  Looks like the bullet hit the target  and

then went on the also hit the no shoot  -  so what ?

[CHA-LEE]

For field course stages there are very few hard rules when it comes to target presentation or no shoot target placement. Its up to the stage designer to setup whatever their intended shooting challenge is as they see fit. Once the targets are stapled to the sticks and the match starts the stages, however they are currently setup, are what they are. Would we all like to see a more clean overlapping of targets? Sure. But them not being overlapped perfectly is the "Practical" part of practical shooting. Stages are setup by humans and each human has a different level of skill or attention to detail. Just like your skill level producing an almost miss Delta hit that also resulted in a No Shoot. This should be a good lesson for future matches to take note of when targets are not lined up perfectly when overlapping and engage those targets with more care.

 

That being said, matches are nothing more than products that match directors hope that shooters want to buy. You are the customer and obviously have some displeasure with the product you purchased. I would suggest that you contact the Match Director and explain your product displeasure. If the MD is effectively doing their job they will accept the feedback and use that to improve future matches. But also keep in mind that this is a volunteer sport and many different people are needed to make matches happen. From my experience small issues like this are better solved by taking the bull by the horns and fixing it yourself before the match starts. There have been many times over the years where I have attended club matches and while walking the stages before the match starts I find a significant issue and simply fix it by making a minor change to the stage. Then I would go find the MD, tell them about the issue and what I did to resolve it. 99% of the time they are fine with the fix I deployed and appreciate not having to deal with it. If there is a major issue with a stage that requires a lot of change I will not change anything and go find the MD and bring them to the stage. Then help them fix the stage as needed with them present. In both of these scenarios I am not just being a whiny customer complaining about stuff. I am part of the solution which goes a long way in helping matches run more smoothly with minimized drama. I am not saying all of this to toot my own horn. I am simply saying that your match feedback can be negatively biased or positively biased. Positively biased feedback will always be accepted better than Negative.

Edited November 1, 2018 by CHA-LEE

[Sarge]

3 minutes ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

The two photos are shot from slightly different angles :

 

From the top photo, it appears that you could NOT possibly hit the no shoot before hitting the target.

 

From the bottom photo, it appears that you could shoot just the no shoot.

 

BUT, it appears to me, that you hit the target, and as did all the other shots that hit the target,

the bullet also hit the no shoot (directly behind the target).

 

I'm NOT an RO, but sounds to ME like a ridiculous call.  Looks like the bullet hit the target  and

then went on the also hit the no shoot  -  so what ?

I’m glad you’re not an RO. Because that’s clearly a Delta/ No shoot

[IHAVEGAS]

The last time I worked a level 2 the RM made sure that we did not have any line on top of line targets on my stage. 

I think what one person would see as a sloppy set up another person would see as a set up that avoids scoring issues. 

 

10 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

There have been many times over the years where I have attended club matches and while walking the stages before the match starts I find a significant issue and simply fix it my making a minor change to the stage. Then I would go find the MD, tell them about the issue and what I did to resolve it. 99% of the time they are fine with the fix I deployed and appreciate not having to deal with it.

 

+100

Edited November 1, 2018 by IHAVEGAS

[motosapiens]

18 minutes ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

The two photos are shot from slightly different angles :

 

From the top photo, it appears that you could NOT possibly hit the no shoot before hitting the target.

 

From the bottom photo, it appears that you could shoot just the no shoot.

 

BUT, it appears to me, that you hit the target, and as did all the other shots that hit the target,

the bullet also hit the no shoot (directly behind the target).

 

I'm NOT an RO, but sounds to ME like a ridiculous call.  Looks like the bullet hit the target  and

then went on the also hit the no shoot  -  so what ?

 

correct, you are not an RO, otherwise you would make the correct call of delta-no-shoot. The non-scoring border outside the perf of the front target essentially doesn't exist. The part of the hole that is inside the perf of the front target doesn't score on the back target, but the part of the hole that is outside the perf does score on the back target.

[Cypress]

Just now, motosapiens said:

 

The non-scoring border outside the perf of the front target essentially doesn't exist. The part of the hole that is inside the perf of the front target doesn't score on the back target, but the part of the hole that is outside the perf does score on the back target.

 

This makes things super clear for me. Thank you!

[Nathanb]

While it may not have been intentional it was a valid shooting array. I try to avoid situations like this and make it very obvious that it was intended.  Takes a few more minutes for set up when hanging targets but it takes away from possible scoring related arguments 

[shakin_bakin]

On 11/1/2018 at 10:13 AM, Hi-Power Jack said:

 

BUT, it appears to me, that you hit the target, and as did all the other shots that hit the target,

the bullet also hit the no shoot (directly behind the target).

 

I'm NOT an RO, but sounds to ME like a ridiculous call.  Looks like the bullet hit the target  and

then went on the also hit the no shoot  -  so what ?

 

I found this interesting. His bullet, hit the intended target (albeit on the edge) and then hit the no shoot. Thats no different than hitting it center mass on the intended target and it going through the no shoot behind it correct? Now it has me pondering....

[IHAVEGAS]

20 minutes ago, shakin_bakin said:

 

I found this interesting. His bullet, hit the intended target (albeit on the edge) and then hit the no shoot. Thats no different than hitting it center mass on the intended target and it going through the no shoot behind it correct? Now it has me pondering....

 

The scoring rules are pretty clearly laid out in the USPSA rulebook. One case is a no-shoot penalty and the other one is not.

 

I think it is a good idea to either read the scoring rules or have somebody at the range explain them to you. That is not being snarky, it is a game, so there have to be rules. 

 

I think with IDPA shoot throughs count, but it has been a while since I've looked at those rules. 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by IHAVEGAS

[CHA-LEE]

16 minutes ago, shakin_bakin said:

 

I found this interesting. His bullet, hit the intended target (albeit on the edge) and then hit the no shoot. Thats no different than hitting it center mass on the intended target and it going through the no shoot behind it correct? Now it has me pondering....

 

Reference the below Rule to answer your own question...... I know that reading the rules is a boring read, but doing so answers a lot of these questions.

 

9.1.5.1- If a bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target, and continues on to strike the scoring area of another paper target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

[Beef15]

14 minutes ago, shakin_bakin said:

 

I found this interesting. His bullet, hit the intended target (albeit on the edge) and then hit the no shoot. Thats no different than hitting it center mass on the intended target and it going through the no shoot behind it correct? Now it has me pondering....

 

Partial hits are not the same at all

 

9.1.5.1.1

In  accordance  with  Rule  9.1.5,  the  scoring  areas  of  scoring   targets   and   no-shoots   are   impenetrable.   Whenever  two  targets  (scoring  and/or  no-shoots)  are  in  direct contact  where  one  target  directly  overlaps  part  of  another  target,  the  area  of  the  "under"  target  which  is  directly  covered  by  the  scoring  area  of  the  "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent. Additionally,  Rule  9.5.2  is  clarified  to  apply  only  to  the  visible  portions  of  targets.  It  specifically does not apply  to  any  area  of  any target which  is  in  direct  contact  with  and  overlapped  by  the  scoring  area  of  another   target   (scoring   and/or   no-shoots)   or   by hardcover.  See illustration in Appendix. 

 

9.1.5.3

If a bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or metal target, and continues on to strike the scoring area of another paper target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will also count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

 

9.1.5.4

If a bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or metal target, and continues on to strike down or hit the scoring area of another metal target, the subsequent metal target will also count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

[shakin_bakin]

3 minutes ago, Beef15 said:

 

Partial hits are not the same at all

 

9.1.5.1.1

In  accordance  with  Rule  9.1.5,  the  scoring  areas  of  scoring   targets   and   no-shoots   are   impenetrable.   Whenever  two  targets  (scoring  and/or  no-shoots)  are  in  direct contact  where  one  target  directly  overlaps  part  of  another  target,  the  area  of  the  "under"  target  which  is  directly  covered  by  the  scoring  area  of  the  "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent. Additionally,  Rule  9.5.2  is  clarified  to  apply  only  to  the  visible  portions  of  targets.  It  specifically does not apply  to  any  area  of  any target which  is  in  direct  contact  with  and  overlapped  by  the  scoring  area  of  another   target   (scoring   and/or   no-shoots)   or   by hardcover.  See illustration in Appendix. 

 

9.1.5.3

If a bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or metal target, and continues on to strike the scoring area of another paper target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will also count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

 

9.1.5.4

If a bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or metal target, and continues on to strike down or hit the scoring area of another metal target, the subsequent metal target will also count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

 

Ahh this clears it up for me. Thank you. Don't even remember that section in the rule book.... Guess I better go back through it before the spring.

[waktasz]

Targets and no shoots are essentially hard cover/impenetrable. Anything you hit after passing through a target doesn't count.

If your hit is on the edge, then the target didn't fully "absorb" the bullet, and it continued on down range. 

[Boudreaux78]

I have found that when setting up a stage, it is not a bad plan to not put one perf directly on top of another. Example would be the edge of a no shoot perf on the perf of an A zone. If you offset it one way or another, it prevents scoring issues. Let’s say the no shoot was covering the A zone and the perfs were lined up. If a shooter hit broke the perf of the no shoot, they would argue the A score as well. Makes it easier to just move it over 1/8 th of an inch one way or the other and avoid the argument. The way they are set up in the picture is a perfect example. Nothing to argue...

[IHAVEGAS]

37 minutes ago, Boudreaux78 said:

I have found that when setting up a stage, it is not a bad plan to not put one perf directly on top of another. Example would be the edge of a no shoot perf on the perf of an A zone. If you offset it one way or another, it prevents scoring issues. Let’s say the no shoot was covering the A zone and the perfs were lined up. If a shooter hit broke the perf of the no shoot, they would argue the A score as well. Makes it easier to just move it over 1/8 th of an inch one way or the other and avoid the argument. The way they are set up in the picture is a perfect example. Nothing to argue...

 

Also makes it less of a pain in the butt if you have to change targets several times at a higher level match. 

[RJH]

The funniest part of this thread is that even if the perfs were lined up perfectly, and he hit the scoring target in the same place, he still would have gotten a delta noshoot......

[IHAVEGAS]

40 minutes ago, RJH said:

The funniest part of this thread is that even if the perfs were lined up perfectly, and he hit the scoring target in the same place, he still would have gotten a delta noshoot......

 

How so?

 

Wouldn't the impenetrable target completely cover the scoring area of the no shoot? Looks like example 1 on page 239 of the rule book except the shoot/no-shoot targets are swapped. 

[RJH]

11 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

How so?

 

Wouldn't the impenetrable target completely cover the scoring area of the no shoot? Looks like example 1 on page 239 of the rule book except the shoot/no-shoot targets are swapped. 

 

I stand corrected, however i would argued the noshoot mike on page 239.  Probably why they have a picture haha

[Sarge]

57 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

I stand corrected, however i would argued the noshoot mike on page 239.  Probably why they have a picture haha

I agree. If perfs are lined up perfectly and you get a noshoot with a perf touch you also touched the A perf.

[Boudreaux78]

That’s why moving them apart saves this argument

[MacLethal]

In this case, either someone just threw the targets up without care, or they really wanted to mess with someone..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk