ChuckS Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 Here is the scenario: 2 shots were fired at a scoring target with a no-shoot possibly in the path. None of target hits were positively observed by the ROs. During scoring, a hit within the scoring border on the no-shoot was observed and there are A/C hits on the scoring target. The NS and the scoring target are separated in such a way the shot geometry can not be absolutely be determined as to which shot , A or C, passed through the NS. The targets had just been replaced so the holes all had to come from the shooter being scored. What rule or rules would cover this scoring issue? It was suggested (in another thread) that the hit with a grease ring would be the scoring hit. What rule would cover this? What if the grease ring is not obvious or there is a trace of a ring on both hits? What rule tells us how to deal with this? I have been looking for a while and have come up dry. I really don't want to discuss what we think the call is, I just want to know what rules would come into play here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, ChuckS said: Here is the scenario: 2 shots were fired at a scoring target with a no-shoot possibly in the path. None of target hits were positively observed by the ROs. During scoring, a hit within the scoring border on the no-shoot was observed and there are A/C hits on the scoring target. The NS and the scoring target are separated in such a way the shot geometry can not be absolutely be determined as to which shot , A or C, passed through the NS. The targets had just been replaced so the holes all had to come from the shooter being scored. What rule or rules would cover this scoring issue? It was suggested (in another thread) that the hit with a grease ring would be the scoring hit. What rule would cover this? What if the grease ring is not obvious or there is a trace of a ring on both hits? What rule tells us how to deal with this? I'm sticking with 9.1.4. To me it's simple. Either I can or I can't determine score. I look at every conceivable scoring possibility. There are more than a few ways to NOT be able to determine an accurate score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadarTech Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 Here is the scenario: 2 shots were fired at a scoring target with a no-shoot possibly in the path. None of target hits were positively observed by the ROs. During scoring, a hit within the scoring border on the no-shoot was observed and there are A/C hits on the scoring target. The NS and the scoring target are separated in such a way the shot geometry can not be absolutely be determined as to which shot , A or C, passed through the NS. The targets had just been replaced so the holes all had to come from the shooter being scored. What rule or rules would cover this scoring issue? It was suggested (in another thread) that the hit with a grease ring would be the scoring hit. What rule would cover this? What if the grease ring is not obvious or there is a trace of a ring on both hits? What rule tells us how to deal with this? I have been looking for a while and have come up dry. I really don't want to discuss what we think the call is, I just want to know what rules would come into play here.See this is totally different...If the shots came from that shooter... and it went thru the scoring target to hit the no shoot.. then 9.1.5.1 applies.... and the penalty does not apply...If you can’t be sure of the penalty and think maybe it didn’t go thru a scoring target then 9.1.4 reshoot (questionable hits) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Sarge said: I'm sticking with 9.1.4. To me it's simple. Either I can or I can't determine score. I look at every conceivable scoring possibility. There are more than a few ways to NOT be able to determine an accurate score. 9.1.4 is for unrestored targets. This is clearly not the case in my scenario. In my scenario the RO knows all targets are new and that the shooter only shot 2 shots in the direction of the no-shoot and scoring target. I would say in my scenario the shooter would have to re-shoot the course of fire since it can't be determined if the A or the C is a scoring hit. My question is what rule covers this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, RadarTech said: See this is totally different... If the shots came from that shooter... and it went thru the scoring target to hit the no shoot.. then 9.1.5.1 applies.... and the penalty does not apply... If you can’t be sure of the penalty and think maybe it didn’t go thru a scoring target then 9.1.4 reshoot (questionable hits) sorry. The no-shoot is in front of the scoring target... eta: pic showing shooters POV for this scenario. The RO did not positively see the hits. Edited August 9, 2019 by ChuckS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadarTech Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 sorry. The no-shoot is in front of the scoring target...In that case it is a reshoot for sure...Since you can’t tell if it should be an A or a C, that makes it an extra scoring hit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 Just now, RadarTech said: In that case it is a reshoot for sure... Since you can’t tell if it should be an A or a C, that makes it an extra scoring hit... I don't disagree but what rule are you using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 (edited) From 9.1.4: 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. In this scenario, it is totally obvious which hits were made by the competitor. Edited August 9, 2019 by ChuckS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadarTech Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 I don't disagree but what rule are you using? Still 9.1.4. 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.IMHO, it is an extra hit and I can’t determine the score... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, RadarTech said: Still 9.1.4. 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. IMHO, it is an extra hit and I can’t determine the score... Like I posted a minute before this post, it is totally obvious that the competitor made all the hits in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadside72 Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 Bullets can't go backwards so the NS counts and use the grease ring on the scoring target to make determination of which one was most probable the pass through. That is a plausible and defensible ruling. However you must be sure the stage layout didn't make the NS line up with target father back uprange that was shot and the NS was a pass through hit. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadarTech Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 Like I posted a minute before this post, it is totally obvious that the competitor made all the hits in this case.If it is obvious and you can determine the score, this is a non-issue....If it is obvious and you can’t determine the score... still a reshoot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perttime Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 With that target setup, you should be able to determine which bullet went through the N/S: the one on the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 Let me add a bit to this scenario. The guy who did this nasty thing is Shooter A. This is a major match with prizes. Shooter B is a competitor that is neck and neck with shooter A. We give a reshoot based on uncertainty or a grease ring. Shooter A re-shoots the course but does not have the nasty 5 second gun jam that he had near the end of his first run. Shooter B drops $100 and arbs the call. The shooter says there is no rule book justification for the reshoot. How does the Arb committee respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 22 minutes ago, perttime said: With that target setup, you should be able to determine which bullet went through the N/S: the one on the left. Most likely but in this case the shooter was moving and the impact angles are not exactly the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKorn Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 (edited) I agree that the right call is to look for evidence that would help differentiate which hit passed through the no shoot and which hit didn’t and score accordingly if possible. If it’s impossible to determine, then it’s a reshoot. I also think that the rules don’t make this 100% clear, since the rule that discusses being unable to score a target (9.1.4) is talking about unrestored targets and doesn’t apply. There isn’t really a rule that discusses how to go about figuring out which hits were from what and how to handle this - it’s a judgement call in my opinion, using all the evidence available. I’ve also seen at a local match where ROs have said “Well, one of these hits passed through the no shoot so it doesn’t count. Since we don’t know which one and you only fired 2 rounds, we’re going to count the best 1 remaining hit.” This is wrong and not the right way to approach scoring, but I’ve seen it done several times. Edited August 9, 2019 by DKorn Removed additional question to keep thread on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 (edited) To be clear, I am not trying to troll the rules forum. I am looking for a rule reference. I cannot find one but being a geezer, sometimes I miss things. I know what is typically done but I can't justify it! Edited August 9, 2019 by ChuckS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKorn Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 15 minutes ago, ChuckS said: To be clear, I am not trying to troll the rules forum. I am looking for a rule reference. I cannot find one but being a geezer, sometimes I miss things. I know what is typically done but I can't justify it! If you’re able to accurately determine which hits are which, I think you can justify it under 9.1.5.1. If you can’t accurately determine it, I’m not sure what rule would apply. 99% of the time it won’t matter, but I could see how it might be worth knowing in case of an arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 The problem with the arb is that even if the original ruling was wrong, you definitely can't determine the correct score hours later so it's going to have to be a reshoot anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, waktasz said: The problem with the arb is that even if the original ruling was wrong, you definitely can't determine the correct score hours later so it's going to have to be a reshoot anyway. Indeed. And something else hit me about scoring this. If there were already targets scored before getting to this array they are most likely already pasted. So you can't go back uprange and try to determine if a round passed through to the NS. I guess it would be possible if they were new targets as Chuck said but I most likely would not start tearing off pasters. If they are covered in pasters there would be no way. So like I said, either you can, or either you can't determine score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted August 9, 2019 Author Share Posted August 9, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, DKorn said: If you’re able to accurately determine which hits are which, I think you can justify it under 9.1.5.1. If you can’t accurately determine it, I’m not sure what rule would apply. 99% of the time it won’t matter, but I could see how it might be worth knowing in case of an arbitration. Exactly! A short while ago, I had an unrestored target call at a level 1.5 match where a shooter was demanding a reshoot because a target wasn't taped. There was no issue deciding what this score was (4 A on the target and both ROs saw him get his 2A hits). The guy saw a miss on another target at UASC and was trying to game it. I went back through the rules to make sure we made the right call. We did. Then I got to thinking about this situation. I have still yet to find a rule reference to justify a re-shoot. ETA: It seems that at least one of these weird scenarios show up a major matches. I try to be ready by looking at these kind of things. As I have said previously, I know what we do but what rule do we use to justify it? Edited August 9, 2019 by ChuckS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssanders224 Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 This is the reason the use of no-shoots not placed directly on a target are a terrible idea. I've seen it handled a multitude of ways. Re-shoot, RO making a judgement call on which hit passed through the NS (hate this), but more often than not, I see ROs record the scoring hits, and then add a NS (wrong). I'ts an easy issue to eliminate all together, yet it is still common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatJones Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 This thread is a perfect example of why no shoots should not be set up in the distant foreground of scoring targets. Especially at the local level, no shoots are used to block views and solve problems with the stage. It's always best to block targets with other props or fix the problems in other ways when possible. It's not uncommon for these remote targets to cause scoring problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 Much as we might wish it, there can't be a rule for everything. This is a case where the RO uses his best judgement as to whether he can determine the correct score based on the totality of the circumstances. Based on that determination, there will either be a score or a reshoot per the rules. If the shooter disagrees, he appeals to the RM then Arb. Its not that difficult. By the way, I agree on the NS placement - should be attached to the targets in question whenever possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 Agree with stealthy, I dont agree with a shooter screwing up and getting rewarded with a reshoot. Best possible score is A, M, NS... Thats best score he should get. id try to come up with some way to figure out which shot went through NS. Grease ring, angles, one on the left, the force, a little bird told me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now