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

Scoring headshots with new metric targets

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

 

I'm not sure that's even permissible. Perfs are for scoring areas and no-shoots.  There's no such thing as hard-cover perf.  If it's painted black (or whatever color is designated), it's hard-cover.  

How do we delineate if a noshoot partially covering a scoring target double counts (no shoot and score)? I thought it was when the overlay straddled both targets, and we delineate based on the perf on the no shoot, and not the non scoring boarder. Wouldnt the same apply for hard cover? Or are we saying the non scoring edge of a uspsa target when painted black counts as hard cover and perfs dont mean anything anymore.

Edited by Smithcity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting a whole black-painted target as hard-cover?  Prohibited by the rules:

 

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered hard cover. When possible, hard cover should not be simulated but constructed using impenetrable materials (see Rule 2.1.3). Whole cardboard targets must not be used solely as hard cover.

 

There is no such thing as "hard cover perf" or "hard cover non-scoring border."  The WHOLE THING is "non-scoring."  

 

4.2.4 When the scoring area of a cardboard target is to be partially hidden, course designers must simulate hard cover in one of the following ways: 4.2.4.1 By actually hiding a portion of the target (see Rule 4.1.4.1). 4.2.4.2 By physically cutting targets to remove the portion deemed to be hidden by hard cover. Such targets must be fitted with a replacement non-scoring border, which must extend the full width of the cut scoring area (see Rule 4.2.2). 4.2.4.3 By painting or taping the portion of the target deemed to be hidden by hard cover a single and visibly contrasting color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time the perf on a hard cover target would matter is if the shot was almost totally inside the hard cover target.  If the overlay touched the perf forming the non scoring border then it would count as a hit on the target underneath provided that the target underneath was available.  In other words if the scoring target was covered edge to edge, then the only available area would be that portion under either the top or the bottom of the hard cover targets non scoring borders the sides would still be misses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Poppa Bear said:

The only time the perf on a hard cover target would matter is if the shot was almost totally inside the hard cover target. 

 

I think even this is wrong.  There is no such thing as "a hard cover target."  Hard cover is applied over a target.  It can be a whole separate object (and often is).  If you paint a piece of 8x11 paper black and staple it to a target, then that paper is hard cover (with no non-scoring border).    

 

You have to have some area of the hit outside the black in order for it to score as anything.  Hard cover and no-shoots are not the same thing.

 

Edited by ATLDave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MemphisMechanic said:

Damn, you guys think too hard.

I thought I was the only one shaking my head at all of this. Sounds like a yogi Berra commercial.😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, this works really well. Let's change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

WOW, this works really well. Let's change it.

 

Even though the change is always scored the same and isn’t even really a change, they should avoid simplifying the targets... just because some people will still manage to lose their minds over nothing?

 

I *will* miss the guy who landed a shot right on the B/C line urgently appealing a hit called “Charlie” by the RO.

 

”Hey man, that’s a bravo!”

 

”My mistake. Bravo it is!”

 

Enjoy you score of... exactly the same points, buddy.

 

Edited by MemphisMechanic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Smithcity said:

How do we delineate if a noshoot partially covering a scoring target double counts (no shoot and score)? I thought it was when the overlay straddled both targets, and we delineate based on the perf on the no shoot, and not the non scoring boarder. Wouldnt the same apply for hard cover? Or are we saying the non scoring edge of a uspsa target when painted black counts as hard cover and perfs dont mean anything anymore.

 

To clarify your question, you are asking about the situation where someone sets up two targets such that a partial target is stapled on top of another target? For example if the left side of the Zebra/Tuxedo below was on top of the open target with the C/D zones overlapping the right side of the open target? 

 

I have never seen a target set up in such a way, but by my reading of 4.2.4 and 4.1.4 I think that is a legal target set up because that array would be hard cover as defined by 4.2.4.1, and 4.1.4.1 says "Whole cardboard targets must not be used solely as hard cover". Clearly the Zebra target is not being used solely as hard cover. In that case, the black portion of the zebra is not target, it is simulated hard cover, and hard cover doesn't have a non-scoring border, so you would use the edge of the black portion, not the perf within the black area. 

 

That being said, I think that is an exploitation of the wording and I don't know why you would make the target that way when you could just overlap the zebra with a Half-Zebra (Right) to the same effect. I would change the end of 4.1.4.1 to say "Whole cardboard targets must not be used solely as hard cover and partial targets may not be used to simulate hard cover on another target". 

Image result for uspsa hard cover targets

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

Even though the change is always scored the same and isn’t even really a change, they should avoid simplifying the targets... just because some people will still manage to lose their minds over nothing?

 

I *will* miss the guy who landed a shot right on the B/C line urgently appealing a hit called “Charlie” by the RO.

 

”Hey man, that’s a bravo!”

 

”My mistake. Bravo it is!”

 

Enjoy you score of... exactly the same points, buddy.

 

Many moons ago, a B was a tie-breaker. B was the same points as C, but gooder.. 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, regor said:

 

To clarify your question, you are asking about the situation where someone sets up two targets such that a partial target is stapled on top of another target? For example if the left side of the Zebra/Tuxedo below was on top of the open target with the C/D zones overlapping the right side of the open target? 

 

I have never seen a target set up in such a way, but by my reading of 4.2.4 and 4.1.4 I think that is a legal target set up because that array would be hard cover as defined by 4.2.4.1, and 4.1.4.1 says "Whole cardboard targets must not be used solely as hard cover". Clearly the Zebra target is not being used solely as hard cover. In that case, the black portion of the zebra is not target, it is simulated hard cover, and hard cover doesn't have a non-scoring border, so you would use the edge of the black portion, not the perf within the black area. 

 

That being said, I think that is an exploitation of the wording and I don't know why you would make the target that way when you could just overlap the zebra with a Half-Zebra (Right) to the same effect. I would change the end of 4.1.4.1 to say "Whole cardboard targets must not be used solely as hard cover and partial targets may not be used to simulate hard cover on another target". 

Image result for uspsa hard cover targets

 

 

So what if you take Peeker Left and Peeker Right and place them so that the perfs align with the A/C perf on the Open target?  At 2 rounds per target. you now have a 3 target array worth 30 points.  If you treat the edge of the target as HC then it extends .2" into the A zone and you would require that an edge hit that touches the edge of the target to give the shooter an A zone hit.  If you treat the non scoring border of the target as non existent then you would just need the shot to touch the perf to give the shooter an A zone hit.  A shot that touches the perf on the Hard Cover would be treated as an A zone hit one way and as a miss on the other.  That is a 15 point difference based on how you treat the edge of a hard cover cardboard target.

 

I have always treated the non scoring border of a cardboard HC target as non existent just like the non scoring border of a shoot target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ATLDave said:

Are you suggesting a whole black-painted target as hard-cover?  Prohibited by the rules:

 

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered hard cover. When possible, hard cover should not be simulated but constructed using impenetrable materials (see Rule 2.1.3). Whole cardboard targets must not be used solely as hard cover.

 

There is no such thing as "hard cover perf" or "hard cover non-scoring border."  The WHOLE THING is "non-scoring."  

 

4.2.4 When the scoring area of a cardboard target is to be partially hidden, course designers must simulate hard cover in one of the following ways: 4.2.4.1 By actually hiding a portion of the target (see Rule 4.1.4.1). 4.2.4.2 By physically cutting targets to remove the portion deemed to be hidden by hard cover. Such targets must be fitted with a replacement non-scoring border, which must extend the full width of the cut scoring area (see Rule 4.2.2). 4.2.4.3 By painting or taping the portion of the target deemed to be hidden by hard cover a single and visibly contrasting color.

Good stuff. Thanks for the answers as well as everyone else that entertained this rabbit hole. I can think of a few corner cases but I think this question has been answered. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Poppa Bear said:

I have always treated the non scoring border of a cardboard HC target as non existent just like the non scoring border of a shoot target.

 

The black portion of the target is NOT a target as defined by the rule book, it is hard cover. Hard cover does not have a non-scoring border (even though there happens to be one present when you paint over a standard cardboard target). The confusion of this situation is exactly why 4.1.4.1 says "When possible, hard cover should not be simulated but constructed using impenetrable materials". All hard cover should be treated equally when scoring, so if you replaced the black portion of the peekers in your situation with a sheet of plywood, how would you score it? 

 

If you and I were both ROing the same match, and we scored that array our respective ways, would that be a fair match? No. This is a corner case that exists because of the wording of the rules and should be fixed. Partial targets should not be used to simulate hard cover on another target (again, I have never seen them used this way, although it sounds like you have).

 

Better solution for your array: Use three open targets and put two no-shoots at the desired angles to create the same effect of the peekers but with higher risk. 

Edited by regor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

regor, I agree with your reading of the rule.  Maybe a clarification from DNROI would be in order?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ATLDave said:

regor, I agree with your reading of the rule.  Maybe a clarification from DNROI would be in order?  

 

I sent an email asking for clarification, we will see what Troy says. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Response from troy (in blue) @ATLDave @Poppa Bear. TL;DR: the black portion is hard cover, hardcover is impenetrable, score edge to edge. The only difference from my conclusion was that Troy says covering a target with another partial target is the same as painting the underlying (4.2.4.3) instead of covering it (4.1.4.1), but the result is still the same. 

 

Quote

 

So my questions are:

  1. Are target setups where a partial target is on top of another target such that the simulated hard cover overlaps with a scoring area of the underlying target allowed under the current rules?
Yes, this is legal. 
  • If so, should the edge or the perforation be used for deciding misses/hits? 
The edge, just as if it was a piece of actual hard cover.  Once it's painted black, it's considered impenetrable, so hard cover runs edge to edge.
  1. In light of the potential for inconsistencies in scoring due to the presence of a non-scoring border within the simulated hard cover, should 4.1.4.1 be modified to clarify that either (a) an existing partial target may not be used to provide hard cover for any other target or (b) the outer most edge of the cardboard should be used, just as if the hard cover was true hardcover? 
See 4.2.4.3. Overlapping a painted-hardcover target on another scoring target is identical to painting a portion of the underlying target.  Hardcover is hardcover.  It is always scored edge-to-edge, however.
 
Troy

 

 
I would still paint the underlying target or use a no-shoot just to make sure this rule is applied consistently at a match. 
Edited by regor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, regor said:

Response from troy (in blue) @ATLDave @Poppa Bear. TL;DR: the black portion is hard cover, hardcover is impenetrable, score edge to edge. The only difference from my conclusion was that Troy says covering a target with another partial target is the same as painting the underlying (4.2.4.3) instead of covering it (4.1.4.1), but the result is still the same. 

 

 
I would paint the underlying target or use a no-shoot just to make sure this rule is applied consistently at a match. 

 

Agreed. I like both Troy’s interpretations and the idea of painting the back target (or adding a no shoot or thin strip of hard cover to provide obvious separation) as a best practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, regor said:

Response from troy (in blue) @ATLDave @Poppa Bear. TL;DR: the black portion is hard cover, hardcover is impenetrable, score edge to edge. The only difference from my conclusion was that Troy says covering a target with another partial target is the same as painting the underlying (4.2.4.3) instead of covering it (4.1.4.1), but the result is still the same. 

  

 
I would still paint the underlying target or use a no-shoot just to make sure this rule is applied consistently at a match. 

 

Troy's answer is exactly how I have understood it.  Thanks for submitting and getting confirmation!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good to have that clarified.  Being as 4.2 mentions non scoring borders several times to include when it discusses hard cover I was under the impression that All cardboard targets had to include a non scoring border (4.2.2) so when you used a cardboard target as hard cover you still needed to account for that border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "non-scoring border" referenced in the rules is simply the .2" border on the outside perimeter of the paper target.  This "non-scoring border" has nothing to do with hard cover.  

 

Hard cover is hard cover regardless of it being simulated by black paint.  Most of the time we treat plastic barrels and wooden wall stands as hard cover.  There is no "non-scoring border" on these.  It's either a full diameter hit or a partial diameter hit and we score accordingly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...