Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
Sign in to follow this  
waktasz

2.1.8.5 and 9.9.3

Recommended Posts

The rule was there before, it just didn't have the "before the last shot" wording.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Obviously, but if you don't activate it you get misses for shots that were hits, and a FTSA for a target you shot at.  Seems like silly IDPA rules to me.

 

If it were up to me I'd of just made it a PE for not activating. Well, really I would of just left it alone it wasn't broken to begin with.

 

 

I think the intent is to force the competitor to use whatever prop the stage designer employed on the clock.

 

I agree though; build better stages and avoid the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ChuckS said:

:roflol:

I'm taking a screen shot of that  😉

 

I am pretty sure 9.9.3 was a reaction to a problem at a recent area match where the hidden target could be seen from somewhere and people were shooting the target (as is legal in > level 1 matches) and the strolling back to the stomp pad after the last shot. I think building the stage properly was the answer but the rule is here.

The same stage that helped spawn the new rule about wall supports is the same example I’d use for this.  Villigier was the one who shot it. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

build better stages and avoid the problem. 

 

I'm guessing that the folks that liked the new rule thought it would aid in building fun stages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ChuckS said:

For clarity, here is the rule:

 

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates the target movement before the last shot is fired in a course of fire. This includes no-shoot targets that must be activated when in front of scoring targets to expose them. Penalties are based on number of shots required for the moving scoring target or the scoring target(s) behind the no-shoot.

 

9.9.3 would be a better rule if it said "Appearing scoring targets will always..."

 

It would also align better with 2.1.8.5.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the intent of the rule was to give those penalties, assuming the target had never been shot at all, because making the mover visible before activation is just lazy course design. But agreed, the wording says 2 mikes, 1 FTSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, bret said:

Wrong,  it says you can shoot them if you can see them.

That was my first reaction, too, but after talking with other RMs, the penalties would be applied.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lee Cabana said:

That was my first reaction, too, but after talking with other RMs, the penalties would be applied.   

 

Weird to give FTSA's and penalty Mikes for disappearing targets sometimes, I can see a lot of folks getting by with FTSA and NPM's if the r.o. is not on his/her toes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Weird to give FTSA's and penalty Mikes for disappearing targets sometimes

 

 

This is not at all what is happening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

 

This is not at all what is happening

 

??????????

 

When an activator operates a disappearing target 9.9.2 and 9.9.3 apply. Where I have seen activators skipped is exactly this circumstance, the shooter calculates that the possible extra 10 points from two A's are not worth the time to get to the activator on the clock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Thread has been talkin about shooting a moving Target that has not been activated, no mention of disappearing targets 

Edited by RJH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 12:53 PM, waktasz said:

9.9.3 says moving targets have to be activated before the last shot and 2.1.8.5 says shoot em if you can see em.

 

How do these two work together? If there is a swinger that is somehow available at rest and you shoot it but never activate the movement do you get Mikes on it even though there are two hits on the paper?

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, RJH said:

This Thread has been talkin about shooting a moving Target that has not been activated, no mention of disappearing targets 

 

Since activator triggered disappearing targets are often moving targets I'm not seeing why butthurt would flow when they were included in the discussion. 

Edited by IHAVEGAS
simplify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

 

Since disappearing targets are often moving targets I'm not seeing why butthurt would flow when they were included in the discussion. 

 disappearing targets have to be activated but never have to be shot at. Moving targets have to be activated and shot at.  Bringing one up in the discussion of the other is just going to confuse more people. And you always treat unactivated targets the same, so there is that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RJH said:

disappearing targets have to be activated but never have to be shot at.

 

Which is why I said it was weird to give a FTSA for an unactivated disappearing target and penalty mikes (9.9.2, 9.9.3) . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Which is why I said it was weird to give a FTSA for an unactivated disappearing target and penalty mikes (9.9.2, 9.9.3) . 

 

It is not weird, ALL unactivated targets are treated the same, so maybe it should have been brought up in this thread after all, haha.  But a thread dedicated t odisappearing targets might give people in the dark more clarity, which was really all i was getting at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules for NPMs are clear as are FTA. Don’t confuse the two rules. The situation 

s are entirely different. If you cannot see the difference then your are the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, pjb45 said:

The rules for NPMs are clear as are FTA. Don’t confuse the two rules. The situation 

s are entirely different. If you cannot see the difference then your are the problem. 

 

If I understand you correctly you are saying it is not weird to give penalty mikes on a disappearing target.

 

I don't have a dog in the fight I just think it is something that you might need to be able to explain to a shooter one day, and I could see folks mistakenly giving the NPM and no FTSA out of habit.

 

Easiest way o remember it might be just 

 

44 minutes ago, RJH said:

ALL unactivated targets are treated the same,

 

Share this post


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

ALL unactivated targets are treated the same

 

Not true.  9.9.3 penalties only come into play for moving scoring targets and appearing targets.  For example, a max trap where the head is exposed prior to activating the no shoot target in front of it.  You can just shoot at the exposed head and never activate and not incur any penalties for not activating.

 

And disappearing targets only have to be activated if they are either moving targets or also appearing targets, otherwise 9.9.3 doesn't apply.  It's pretty rare to see one, but I've seen disappearing targets like these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

 

 

 

And disappearing targets only have to be activated if they are either moving targets or also appearing targets, otherwise 9.9.3 doesn't apply.  It's pretty rare to see one, but I've seen disappearing targets like these.

 

 

I don't quite get what you are saying here,  wouldn't a disappearing target have to move? Or are you saying if an activator causes something to move in front of the target?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RJH said:

I don't quite get what you are saying here,  wouldn't a disappearing target have to move? Or are you saying if an activator causes something to move in front of the target?  

 

Yes, this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

 

Yes, this.

 

Interesting, kinda begs the question, if you can not use an activator to make a target disappear, then is it scored as a disappearing target?  I.e., if you miss the target but don't use an activator to make it "disappear" then are those no penalty mikes?  I truly have no idea, but if the target was considered available at if clear etc, i would have a hard time with a shooter getting NPMs, and don't know where the rule book falls on this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Interesting, kinda begs the question, if you can not use an activator to make a target disappear, then is it scored as a disappearing target?  I.e., if you miss the target but don't use an activator to make it "disappear" then are those no penalty mikes?  I truly have no idea, but if the target was considered available at if clear etc, i would have a hard time with a shooter getting NPMs, and don't know where the rule book falls on this
Failed to activate so 2M+FTSA per the rules. Same as we have been discussing. Like a max trap you didn't activate but shot at (hit or miss doesn't matter)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RJH the stage you described sound like a trap. Why design a stage where you can shoot the target and after the activator makes it disappear? Good stage design should never run into this type  of issue. The days of the joker in the video shooting a target from behind a wall while standing on a support are over. That was never the intention in the first place. Its gaming IDPA style. As an MD I would never allow a mover to be shot from a static position where it wasn't activated and had to be activated later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Southpaw said:

 

Not true.  9.9.3 penalties only come into play for moving scoring targets and appearing targets.  For example, a max trap where the head is exposed prior to activating the no shoot target in front of it.  You can just shoot at the exposed head and never activate and not incur any penalties for not activating.

 

And disappearing targets only have to be activated if they are either moving targets or also appearing targets, otherwise 9.9.3 doesn't apply.  It's pretty rare to see one, but I've seen disappearing targets like these.

 

8 hours ago, broadside72 said:
13 hours ago, RJH said:
 
Interesting, kinda begs the question, if you can not use an activator to make a target disappear, then is it scored as a disappearing target?  I.e., if you miss the target but don't use an activator to make it "disappear" then are those no penalty mikes?  I truly have no idea, but if the target was considered available at if clear etc, i would have a hard time with a shooter getting NPMs, and don't know where the rule book falls on this

Failed to activate so 2M+FTSA per the rules. Same as we have been discussing. Like a max trap you didn't activate but shot at (hit or miss doesn't matter)

 

 

Not according to what Southpaw says, and i think he is right . 9.9.3 does specify exposing targets, so if you had a clamshell with an open headshot and a stomp pad, it doesn't look like you would have to hit the stomp pad, since the target is exposed, you could just opt for the tougher shot.  Looks like in this scenario, no penalties would be applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Diver123 said:

RJH the stage you described sound like a trap. Why design a stage where you can shoot the target and after the activator makes it disappear? Good stage design should never run into this type  of issue. The days of the joker in the video shooting a target from behind a wall while standing on a support are over. That was never the intention in the first place. Its gaming IDPA style. As an MD I would never allow a mover to be shot from a static position where it wasn't activated and had to be activated later.

 

I wouldn't design a stage like that, matter of fact i didn't even think it up, someone else did

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...