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

Two Alpha's & One No-shoot

Recommended Posts

Local match, long course, shooter completes course and scoring begins.  One target has two alpha's and nearby no-shoot (not in direct contact with target) has one full diameter hit.  How should target be scored?  Reshoot?  Please cite rules if possible.

It is not disputed that competitor took only two shots at every target and bullet impacting no-shoot could not have continued on to hit a scoring target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stuntman said:

Local match, long course, shooter completes course and scoring begins.  One target has two alpha's and nearby no-shoot (not in direct contact with target) has one full diameter hit.  How should target be scored?  Reshoot?  Please cite rules if possible.

It is not disputed that competitor took only two shots at every target and bullet impacting no-shoot could not have continued on to hit a scoring target.

Define "nearby" please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me make sure I understand this...

The shooter took no extra shots and there is no way a shot hit the no shoot and a scoring target.

The no shoot also could not have been as a shoot thru from any other target.

So what you have is an unaccounted for hole, that this shooter could not have made.

So in this instance, are you saying you can’t accurately determine the score for this shooter?
In that case, rule 9.1.4 comes into play..

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. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RadarTech said:


The shooter took no extra shots and there is no way a shot hit the no shoot and a scoring target.

The no shoot also could not have been as a shoot thru from any other target.

So what you have is an unaccounted for hole, that this shooter could not have made.
 

 

Correct on all points.  I have to think this is an oversight but nowhere does 9.1.4 mention no-shoots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9.1.4 is for unrestored targets. This is not the case as 2 shots were fired and 2 holes are observed on the scoring target. I have been trying to find a rule that covers this specific case, especially if there were not both A hits. Any suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the RO is CERTAIN there is no way he shot the no shoot then score targets without the no shoot as it’s likely it belonged to the previous shooter. 

  If RO IS CERTAIN it belongs to the shooter being scored the look for scoring hits without a grease ring. That will be the one that passed through the no shoot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sarge said:

If the RO is CERTAIN there is no way he shot the no shoot then score targets without the no shoot as it’s likely it belonged to the previous shooter. 

  If RO IS CERTAIN it belongs to the shooter being scored the look for scoring hits without a grease ring. That will be the one that passed through the no shoot.

 

I don't disagree but what rule covers this?

Share this post


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

If the RO is CERTAIN there is no way he shot the no shoot then score targets without the no shoot as it’s likely it belonged to the previous shooter. 

  If RO IS CERTAIN it belongs to the shooter being scored the look for scoring hits without a grease ring. That will be the one that passed through the no shoot.

 

 

The only things that were certain in this scenario is competitor fired only two rounds at every target and no shots passed through a no-shoot and onto target.

Share this post


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

 

The only things that were certain in this scenario is competitor fired only two rounds at every target and no shots passed through a no-shoot and onto target.

Then score it minus NS and move on.

Share this post


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

I don't disagree but what rule covers this?

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.

 

It's a judgment call. If you are certain that all the shots the shooter fired are accounted for on the targets, and there is still a stray no-shoot, you can't really blame that on the shooter. It means someone got away with one earlier that no one noticed. It happens, and it's annoying, but I would way rather someone get away with a freebie than to penalize a shooter for something he didn't actually do. This is why at majors we are so careful about checking the walls and no-shoots after every shooter. I usually assign the spare RO (not running the timer or scoring device) to do exactly that... check the hardcover and no-shoots, and make sure the stage is clear of resetters so we can make ready for the next shooter.

 

Share this post


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

I don't disagree but what rule covers this?

I think 9.1.4 covers it where it says,”one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off, 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”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I think 9.1.4 covers it where it says,”one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off, 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”

I asked that when I didn't understand the original scenario. I will clarify my question in another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Correct on all points.  I have to think this is an oversight but nowhere does 9.1.4 mention no-shoots. 


9.1.4 does mention a questionable penalty hit...
now if you can say it went through a scoring target and then hit the no shoot... 9.1.5.1 applies.

How would you classify a penalty hit? What target or target type or hit is a penalty hit?

9.4.2 mentions a penalty for no shoots. Making no shoots a penalty hit.
Another questionable penalty hit would be a hardcover hit that makes it a miss.. Or it’s an extra hole making it an extra hit penalty on a Virginia count stage..

Just realize a penalty hit can be looked at several ways.. it may be a no shoot, an extra hit, or oversized, making it not meet the definition of a hit in 9.5.5

This makes 9.1.4 applicable..

So if there can’t be a shoot thru from scoring to penalty targets, then someone got a
Gift.. meaning this was an unpatched target..


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

 


9.1.4 does mention a questionable penalty hit...
now if you can say it went through a scoring target and then hit the no shoot... 9.1.5.1 applies.

How would you classify a penalty hit? What target or target type or hit is a penalty hit?

9.4.2 mentions a penalty for no shoots. Making no shoots a penalty hit.
Another questionable penalty hit would be a hardcover hit that makes it a miss.. Or it’s an extra hole making it an extra hit penalty on a Virginia count stage..

Just realize a penalty hit can be looked at several ways.. it may be a no shoot, an extra hit, or oversized, making it not meet the definition of a hit in 9.5.5

This makes 9.1.4 applicable..

So if there can’t be a shoot thru from scoring to penalty targets, then someone got a
Gift.. meaning this was an unpatched target..

 

 

I use 9.1.4 and combine it with the KISS principle. IF I can score accurately I do. If I CAN'T, reshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

 


9.1.4 does mention a questionable penalty hit...
now if you can say it went through a scoring target and then hit the no shoot... 9.1.5.1 applies.
. . .
 

 

 

I'm interpreting "If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon " hits in 9.1.4 to mean extra hit penalties.  If meant to mean no-shoot penalties it's very poorly worded.

 

6 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

. . .
So if there can’t be a shoot thru from scoring to penalty targets, then someone got a
Gift.. meaning this was an unpatched target..
 

 

We considered this angle (get it?) and couldn't line up the two holes at all.  And Angolina Jolie wasn't the shooter.

A previous shooter definitely got a gift.  I'm just trying to reconcile the incident with the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I use 9.1.4 and combine it with the KISS principle. IF I can score accurately I do. If I CAN'T, reshoot.

 

What if you were the shooter and the RO cited 9.1.4 and required you to reshoot because they couldn't accurately score target?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stuntman said:

 

What if you were the shooter and the RO cited 9.1.4 and required you to reshoot because they couldn't accurately score target?

Uh, I would reshoot it unless I could make a better argument that the NS belongs to somebody else in which case I would ask for the RM. If he says reshoot, I reshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stuntman said:

 

I'm interpreting "If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon " hits in 9.1.4 to mean extra hit penalties.  If meant to mean no-shoot penalties it's very poorly worded.

 

Aren't we discussing a questionable penalty hit? That's what the hit on the NS is in your example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually in this scenario some previous shooter tagged the NS and didn't get caught.

 

But, it could also be a paster fell off the NS or the shoot target and there's no way to know for sure...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reshoot, unless the RO is somehow able to determine that one of the holes wasn't made by a bullet that this competitor fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ah, glossary to the rescue:

Target(s) - A term that can include both scoring target(s) and no-shoot(s)

Thus 9.1.4 does apply.

So applying 9.1.4 with same scenario.  Is it obvious which hits were made by the competitor?  Or is it reshoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d say it’s most likely that I’d give the shooter a reshoot - how do I know whether  the unposted hole was the one in the no shoot or one of the alphas? Unless I have another way to know for sure (different caliber holes, other evidence, etc.), if the shooter only fired 2 rounds that could’ve caused those 3 holes, I’m unable to determine an accurate score and therefore the shooter must reshoot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One clarifying question: Had the NS been previously hit and pasted or was it pristine?

 

And a geometry question: There's NO PLACE in the stage that the no-shoot would have been behind any other target from the shooter's perspective?

 

And a math question: Is the hole the same diameter as the shooter's bullet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And was one of the alpha hits missing a grease ring, or look different than all the other holes in targets from that shooter?

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...