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

What Information Can You Use in Scoring an Unpasted Target (9.1.4)

Recommended Posts

Under rule 9.1.4, if a target is not correctly pasted between shooters, you aren’t allowed to review previous scoresheets when determining which hits are the correct ones to score and must use the actual target as the basis for the scoring call. 

 

At a recent match, we had some questions come up as to what evidence you are allowed to use. Here are a couple of scenarios; I’d like to hear what scoring call you would make in each case as well as your reasoning:

 

In both scenarios, one target was left unpasted after the previous shooter. There are 2 alpha hits, 1 charlie hit, and 1 mike visible in the hard cover. You know that the shooter took exactly 2 shots at the target and there are no chances of a shoot through and no unaccounted for shots that could’ve been wide misses off another target. All holes in the target appear the same and both the current and previous shooter are shooting 9mm. 

 

1 - The scoring RO has been prescoring this target and says that they are 100% sure that they remember that the previous shooter had two alphas. 

 

2 - The scoring RO says that they saw out of their peripheral vision that the target wasn’t pasted as the shooter was moving to that position, and they were able to see that there were two unpasted alphas in the target before the shooter engaged it. 

 

You make the call!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie Mike ! I have done this several times over the years. If the RO can accurately score the target, he does so. If he can’t, he doesn’t. Pretty simple. This is why you have to build a reputation as an RO that NEVER makes any call unless 100% sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If RO can accurately make the call and without a doubt saw 2 Alpha hits before shooter shoot target, then I’d say the call of 1 Charlie, 1 Mike stands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at a target you know he shot, look at the grease ring and how the hits look, compare the other target to it, the other hits will not look the same, plus the other r.o. remember the previous hits.

 

Not hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reshoot.

9.1.4 also reads "...targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call."

None of the other things you know are relevant. Can you score the target based on just the target?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PatJones said:

Reshoot.

9.1.4 also reads "...targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call."

None of the other things you know are relevant. Can you score the target based on just the target?

 

Not necessarily. “The Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined.” 

 

If the RO can score it, he does. If he can’t, it’s a reshoot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an RMI relate the story of his running the timer with J.J. shooting.  Due to the lighting and his angle, he saw the first bullet hit the A zone and watched the second fly to the target and enter the first hole exactly - a perfect double which he called as two alphas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lee Cabana said:

I had an RMI relate the story of his running the timer with J.J. shooting.  Due to the lighting and his angle, he saw the first bullet hit the A zone and watched the second fly to the target and enter the first hole exactly - a perfect double which he called as two alphas.

 

I've gotten that call as well, although i suspect there was a longer delay between the first and second alphas for me, lol.

 

But yeah, if you can score the target accurately, do so. What you can't do is go back to the ipad and say, well, we've been scoring this target 3rd and the 3rd target for the last shooter was 2A, so this must be C-mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the scenario would not have happened because the Scorekeeper would be paying absolutely no attention to the shooter whatsoever. He would be intent upon trying to score what targets he could see, with eyes only for the electronic scoring device. Any responsibilities for watching what the shooter was doing have long since been abandoned. The RO is now on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C, M 

 

I have done this so many times, if yo know you know, if you don't reshoot. it is just that simple.

 

Last major as a CRO one of my ROs had to score a C-M-NS that way, the shooter pushed back we explained how if we know what hits are what, we can score. I talked to him again after the squad was done just to make sure he was ok (would not change call just had more time to discuss) shooter laughed and said he saw the NS happen and just was hoping for the reshoot but totally understood the scoring call, and agreed it was 100% correct

Share this post


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

 (would not change call just had more time to discuss)

Being new to the RO gig it seems vitally important to be able to discuss the issues with a competitor. Thanks!!

Share this post


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

 shooter laughed and said he saw the NS happen and just was hoping for the reshoot but totally understood the scoring call, and agreed it was 100% correct

Those kinds of shooters are a stain on the good name of USPSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those kinds of shooters are a stain on the good name of USPSA.
Even when he questioned the call he was very polite and just wanted to make sure we were doing it by the book. Really nothing nefarious just hoping the rules said automatic reshoot. I've seen shooters that stain our sport this guy was not he.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PatJones said:

Reshoot.

9.1.4 also reads "...targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call."

None of the other things you know are relevant. Can you score the target based on just the target?

Interesting.  

I thought when in doubt the benefit goes to the shooter. With the quote above it would seem a reshoot is appropriate. 

Share this post


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

Interesting.  

I thought when in doubt the benefit goes to the shooter. With the quote above it would seem a reshoot is appropriate. 

What rule says when in doubt the benefit goes to the shooter?

Share this post


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

Interesting.  

I thought when in doubt the benefit goes to the shooter. With the quote above it would seem a reshoot is appropriate. 

No such thing as benefit of the doubt in that context.  I think the interpretation above that leads you to agree on reshoot is grossly over simplified. If an RO can look at a target and KNOW what the score is then it gets scored. If the RO is indeed in doubt then he can’t accurately score it. That’s what gets the reshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pjb45 said:

Interesting.  

I thought when in doubt the benefit goes to the shooter. With the quote above it would seem a reshoot is appropriate. 

 

There is no benefit to the shooter rule - that's a common misconception bred from people trying to keep local matches flowing by not having reshoots, and not knowing the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I or the scorekeeper saw the original two holes and then saw the two new holes appear, clearly, then I score it. If we didn't  reshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, pjb45 said:

Interesting.  

I thought when in doubt the benefit goes to the shooter. With the quote above it would seem a reshoot is appropriate. 

 

The spirit of the rules says this is true. Examples:

 

* Your shot need only touch the perf, not be wholly inside of it.

* Your foot can be 99.7% over the fault line, just not touching the ground outside of it.

 

However, in this situation? Most guys get too dogmatic with that phrase.

 

If the RO is certain what he saw before you punched your first hole in the target, or in some other way is 100% certain which holes are yours? Then there is zero “doubt” from which the shooter can “benefit.”

 

However, it is also true that the correct response of an RO who inwardly wants to stubbornly say that “I’m pretty sure the last shooter had...” is to admit he’s not totally certain, and order a reshoot.

 

As an RO it’s important to be firm - if you saw it and you know you saw it, say you saw it and stick to your guns.

 

But it is also important to be fair; never lose sight of your job. It’s not to make shooters behave a certain way. It is to allow all the competitors to have a fun match which is scored fairly and whose rules are enforced in line with the rulebook. Even the sections you don’t personally like.

 

Edited by MemphisMechanic

Share this post


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

 

The spirit of the rules says this is true. Examples:

 

* Your shot need only touch the perf, not be wholly inside of it.

* Your foot can be 99.7% over the fault line, just not touching the ground outside of it.

 

However, in this situation? Most guys get too dogmatic with that phrase.

 

If the RO is certain what he saw before you punched your first hole in the target, or in some other way is 100% certain which holes are yours? Then there is zero “doubt” from which the shooter can “benefit.”

 

However, it is also true that the correct response of an RO who inwardly wants to stubbornly say that “I’m pretty sure the last shooter had...” is to admit he’s not totally certain, and order a reshoot.

 

As an RO it’s important to be firm - if you saw it and you know you saw it, say you saw it and stick to your guns.

 

But it is also important to be fair; never lose sight of your job. It’s not to make shooters behave a certain way. It is to allow all the competitors to have a fun match which is scored fairly and whose rules are enforced in line with the rulebook. Even the sections you don’t personally like.

 

 

This should be mandatory reading 

Share this post


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

 

This should be mandatory reading 

I heard a great quote the other day. “Talk less, say more.” All those words only to say the hat has already been said. If you know you can score it accurately, score it.

  There is a huge difference between, “give the shooter the benefit of the doubt” and “if in doubt it’s a reshoot”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it’s pretty clear to me that we almost all agree that if the scoring RO saw the 2 unpasted holes before the shooter engaged it, and was able to see where those holes are, that you can and should score the target (Charlie-Mike, in this case). 

 

I’m still not sure if “I remember that the previous shooter had two alphas on this target” is a good enough rationale to support scoring the target - how is this any different in principle from reviewing the previous shooter’s scoresheet, which is clearly not allowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the shooter contests the target I'm scoring, the process is to pull it a call the range master and keep the squad moving.

As a range master walking into a he said he said situation with an unrestored target, what's your call?

Share this post


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

When the shooter contests the target I'm scoring, the process is to pull it a call the range master and keep the squad moving.

As a range master walking into a he said he said situation with an unrestored target, what's your call?

He said he said? If an RM sided against an RO who KNOWS what he saw in this situation, that RM should be retrained. 

Share this post


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

So it’s pretty clear to me that we almost all agree that if the scoring RO saw the 2 unpasted holes before the shooter engaged it, and was able to see where those holes are, that you can and should score the target (Charlie-Mike, in this case). 

 

I’m still not sure if “I remember that the previous shooter had two alphas on this target” is a good enough rationale to support scoring the target - how is this any different in principle from reviewing the previous shooter’s scoresheet, which is clearly not allowed?

Uh....because rules say no scoresheet review? Reason being is not all targets are scored in same order every time.

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...