Target presentation

[Diver123]

I just want some collective ideas about this target set up. Imagine a target completely hard cover except the head. Then on this same target a head that was cut off from another target placed upside down in the A zone. I cant imagine that this is a legal arrangement of targets. It was scored as two separate targets. Thoughts?

[RJH]

I don't think it is illegal, but i am not looking at  a rulebook.  If it is illegal then they could simply cut a target in half or a third (whatever fits) paint everything below the head box as hard cover and get the same effect in a legal manner.  Least i think that is right.

[Bench]

4.1.5Declaring a single, intact target to represent two or more targets by use of tape, paint or any other means is prohibited.

Seems to me that this arrangement can not be used as two targets.

[mwray]

Or you could change up the classic scenario of two targets stacked with a no shoot sandwiched in the middle of them and hard cover ever thing but the head on the shoot targets

[RJH]

13 minutes ago, Bench said:

4.1.5Declaring a single, intact target to represent two or more targets by use of tape, paint or any other means is prohibited.

Seems to me that this arrangement can not be used as two targets.

 

But according to the OP it was 2 targets, 1 intact, and one just a head.

[ChuckS]

 

This, right? Unconventional but legal since it was scored as 2 targets. USPSA targets can be presented at any angle. There would need to be a non-scoring border added to the cut edge. See 4.2.4.2

 

Pardon the "B" zone as this is an older Sketchup object

[Diver123]

That is the exact presentation of the target.

 

[Shooturshot]

If you read rule 4.2.4.2, it specifically says that this type of target presentation is illegal.

[RadarTech]

If you read rule 4.2.4.2, it specifically says that this type of target presentation is illegal.

If the target is cut below the head area and a non-scoring border is added per 4.2.2.1
I would likely approve it... but this falls into the category of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

[RJH]

7 hours ago, Shooturshot said:

If you read rule 4.2.4.2, it specifically says that this type of target presentation is illegal.

 

Assuming there was a nonscoring boarder, i.e. a piece of tape, that is not what 4.2.4.2 says at all.  

[Bench]

In this case which 'declares' a single target (which was modified with stuff not specifically identified in 4.1.5) was scored as two separate targets...that still is "prohibited".

[DKorn]

1 hour ago, Bench said:

In this case which 'declares' a single target (which was modified with stuff not specifically identified in 4.1.5) was scored as two separate targets...that still is "prohibited".

 

This isn’t one target scored as two, though. This is two targets, one mounted on the other, which is totally legal. 

[RJH]

1 hour ago, Bench said:

In this case which 'declares' a single target (which was modified with stuff not specifically identified in 4.1.5) was scored as two separate targets...that still is "prohibited".

 

2 minutes ago, DKorn said:

 

This isn’t one target scored as two, though. This is two targets, one mounted on the other, which is totally legal. 

 

Yep what dkorn said

[ATLDave]

What a stupid idea.  This is "clown's mouth" stuff.

 

When stage designers have no concept of what actually makes stages interesting, you get nonsense like this.  

[RJH]

10 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

What a stupid idea.  This is "clown's mouth" stuff.

 

When stage designers have no concept of what actually makes stages interesting, you get nonsense like this.  

It's actually just a headshot Target, nothing to get all bent out of shape about

[HCH]

10 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

What a stupid idea.  This is "clown's mouth" stuff.

 

When stage designers have no concept of what actually makes stages interesting, you get nonsense like this.  

 

I don’t see how this is any more stupid than having two targets side-by-side with all but the upper scoring area blacked out or covered with a no-shoot. 

 

“Aiming is hard”

[ATLDave]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

It's actually just a headshot Target, nothing to get all bent out of shape about

 

It's a disembodied headshot target floating inside the body of another target.  It's idiotic.

 

If my memory serves, IPSC specifically prohibits target presentations like this.  I always thought USPSA shooters were smart enough to know this was a dumb idea without a rule.  

 

I was wrong.  

[ATLDave]

1 hour ago, HCH said:

 

I don’t see how this is any more stupid than having two targets side-by-side with all but the upper scoring area blacked out or covered with a no-shoot. 

 

“Aiming is hard”

 

This has nothing to do with shot difficulty.  It has to do with a disembodied head in the middle of one target.

 

As you note, the actual shot difficulty and challenge is no different than other common target presentations.  That's part of what makes this so stupid... there's literally nothing that is gained from it.  

Edited October 14, 2019 by ATLDave

[broadside72]

1 hour ago, DKorn said:

 

This isn’t one target scored as two, though. This is two targets, one mounted on the other, which is totally legal. 

 

yep, two targets both the minimum required presentation from each and a non scoring border added to the cut one. The rear target complies with 4.2.4.3 and the cut one complies with 4.2.4.2 and both comply with Appendix B1 Minimum A-Zone Requirements

[RJH]

9 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

 

It's a disembodied headshot target floating inside the body of another target.  It's idiotic.

 

If my memory serves, IPSC specifically prohibits target presentations like this.  I always thought USPSA shooters were smart enough to know this was a dumb idea without a rule.  

 

I was wrong.  

 

 

Maybe the club has high winds and had cut off some floppy heads in the past and decided to put them to use.  Seems no more idiotic than a plate "floating" on a plate stand in front of a noshoot, but whatever. The actual shot difficulty and basic presentation is no different than stacked metrics (or whatever they are called now) with all but the head painted as hardcover.  Seriously nothing to blow a gasket over

[Shooturshot]

5 hours ago, RJH said:

 

Assuming there was a nonscoring boarder, i.e. a piece of tape, that is not what 4.2.4.2 says at all.  

I was hoping he would read the rule instead of asking the internet, to be honest.

[Shooturshot]

1 hour ago, ATLDave said:

 

It's a disembodied headshot target floating inside the body of another target.  It's idiotic.

 

If my memory serves, IPSC specifically prohibits target presentations like this.  I always thought USPSA shooters were smart enough to know this was a dumb idea without a rule.  

 

I was wrong.  

 

Why is it inherently dumb? What makes it more stupid than two headshots?

[HCH]

So far we have learned: 

 

1: the target is legal

2: some people are mad about it 

[ATLDave]

The dumbness of a disembodied head-portion of a target superimposed on another is not sufficiently self-evident?

 

Ok, fine, let's consider what happens if people decide this is a suitable target presentation.  Imagine that next match there are randomly-shaped fragments of cardboard targets, each cut to include 25+% of the A-zone stapled over another target... triangular fragments.  Or circular fragments, with the A-zone comprising the left 1/3 of the circle.  Does that sound like fun?  Do you want to see that?  What would the point be?

[HCH]

1 hour ago, ATLDave said:

 

This has nothing to do with shot difficulty.  It has to do with a disembodied head in the middle of one target.

 

As you note, the actual shot difficulty and challenge is no different than other common target presentations.  That's part of what makes this so stupid... there's literally nothing that is gained from it.  

 

Its not a “headshot.” It is the upper scoring area of a USPSA target. This isn’t the school of John Wick. It is a game.