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

extra hit penalty on separated targets, virginia count stage

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, nasty618 said:

 

Ah good catch. Is that true even if the (tux) target is wholly available from another position?

The complete rule...

 

4.1.4.2         Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score. Shots that have passed through soft cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized. All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact. Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must be visible from around or over the soft cover.

 

I see nothing that changes the requirement to leave the zones intact, just because the target will be available from another location or view.

Share this post


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

Big question in my mind, is this: Could you design a Virginia count stage laid out sort of like this where you use hardcover on some targets to lure Shooters into shooting faster, hitting the hardcover and getting a Mike and an extra shot penalty on the shoot through target a few yards behind, and still have the stage be legal?

The legality of this stage is not about how the targets are set up, but about the number of rounds and requirements for various courses in rules 1.2. It requires 24 rounds, so it only satisfies rule 1.2.1.3 for long courses (and does not satisfy any of the Special Courses of Fire in 1.2.2; the closest would be "Standard Exercise," but it requires "two or more" strings). However, this is not a legal long course out of the gate as it is shot from a single location (among other things, such as rule 9.2.3.2). 

 

There is nothing prohibitive about having targets arranged in the way you suggest, even though it's not a good idea and should be avoided. Also, a hit fully on hard cover doesn't count down range for anything (except for REF in case it knocks over steel). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ima45dv8 said:

The complete rule...

 

4.1.4.2         Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score. Shots that have passed through soft cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized. All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact. Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must be visible from around or over the soft cover.

 

I see nothing that changes the requirement to leave the zones intact, just because the target will be available from another location or view.

 

So in the scenario i described earlier - if a tuxedo target is fully obscured by soft cover barrels at one shooting position yet is fully visible from another - the stage would not be legal BUT if barrels are standard 'hard' cover - then the stage is perfectly fine?  We did shoot a stage like this at a local match a while ago - you could stand and shoot through soft cover barrels or move to another position (maybe a 1.5 second movement) where the target was available fully.   

Share this post


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

The legality of this stage is not about how the targets are set up, but about the number of rounds and requirements for various courses in rules 1.2. It requires 24 rounds, so it only satisfies rule 1.2.1.3 for long courses (and does not satisfy any of the Special Courses of Fire in 1.2.2; the closest would be "Standard Exercise," but it requires "two or more" strings). However, this is not a legal long course out of the gate as it is shot from a single location (among other things, such as rule 9.2.3.2). 

 

There is nothing prohibitive about having targets arranged in the way you suggest, even though it's not a good idea and should be avoided. Also, a hit fully on hard cover doesn't count down range for anything (except for REF in case it knocks over steel). 

with all shots being taken from one spot, that also makes the stage illegal as well as virginia count, mandatory reloads on a long course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nasty618 said:

 

So in the scenario i described earlier - if a tuxedo target is fully obscured by soft cover barrels at one shooting position yet is fully visible from another - the stage would not be legal BUT if barrels are standard 'hard' cover - then the stage is perfectly fine?  We did shoot a stage like this at a local match a while ago - you could stand and shoot through soft cover barrels or move to another position (maybe a 1.5 second movement) where the target was available fully.   

As long as the targets are whole and intact, shooting them through soft-cover barrels (or other barriers) is permitted.

 

Side story:  A guy we used to shoot with believed in 'train like you fight'. His match ammo was 210 PF .45ACP loads. He did well with it, too. At a state match once, there was a culvert you had to lean way up into to engage the targets on the other side. He innocently asked is the culvert was hard- or soft-cover. With a smirk, the RO said it was soft-cover, but don't expect to be able to shoot through it.

 

The targets, and his competition, didn't stand a chance. 

Share this post


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

with all shots being taken from one spot, that also makes the stage illegal as well as virginia count, mandatory reloads on a long course.

 

 

change it to one shot each, reload, one shot each and limit to 8 targets, and its a legal speed shoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, ima45dv8 said:

Can't really do this.

 

excerpt from 4.1.4.2:     All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact.

 

That's not what that rule is for. It's for stages where they cover the targets with a cheesecloth, or sheet or something you can't see through but are allowed to shoot through. In that case you can't put partial targets behind the sheet.  

 

You can certainly put barrels in front of targets, call them soft cover and have the targets be partials. You just have to leave enough of the target visible for it to be a legal target, or have another spot somewhere you can see them from if you want to totally obscure them. The key word in the rule is "hidden". If the target is available from somewhere on the stage, it's certainly not hidden

 

Edited by waktasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, I respectfully disagree.

 

You're making an argument that cheesecloth, and sheets, and screens, and barrels are somehow different when declared as soft-cover. That's not how it works. All of the above as well as plywood, cardboard, Grandma's Crazy Quilt, and other materials can be deemed soft-cover. The nature of the material is irrelevant. Its declaration as soft-cover is not. 

 

The rule is clear. If a target is obscured by soft-cover, it must be left whole and intact, regardless of whether it is available elsewhere.

 

 

 

***Lookit, I didn't come to know this by accident. While serving as RM at a very successful and rules compliant state championship, one I had served in the same capacity for a few years, I screwed a contender by making that same mistake. I damn well KNEW I was right in calling the target as shot. . .and not tossing the stage. . .until I learned I was wrong a few days later in an exchange with the then-DNROI John Amidon. Troy-Boy later agreed. 

 

I was and am heart stricken for screwing the guy through my ignorance. Thankfully, I later had the opportunity to profusely apologise to that competitor, and he graciously accepted my apology. It hasn't stopped me from feeling like dogsquat, but I know better now. Learn from my shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Nope. 

 

You're saying if any barrier at all is ever deemed soft cover then no target anywhere behind it from any angle can be a partial target in any way? 

 

I don't buy it. 

 

A target isn't HIDDEN behind soft cover if you just happen to not be able to see it from a certain spot on a stage. 

 

Edited by waktasz
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Seriously, are we reading the same rules?

 

4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. 
Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a 
scoring target will score.  Shots that have passed through soft 
cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized.  All scoring zones 
on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact.  Targets 
obscured by soft cover must either be visible through the soft 
cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must be visible from 
around or over the soft cover. 

Edited by waktasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ima45dv8 said:

***Lookit, I didn't come to know this by accident. While serving as RM at a very successful and rules compliant state championship, one I had served in the same capacity for a few years, I screwed a contender by making that same mistake. I damn well KNEW I was right in calling the target as shot. . .and not tossing the stage. . .until I learned I was wrong a few days later in an exchange with the then-DNROI John Amidon. Troy-Boy later agreed.

 

Can you describe the specific target arrangement that John and Troy commented on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tuxedo target near the ground behind a soft-cover barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ima45dv8 said:

A tuxedo target near the ground behind a soft-cover barrel.

Was it fully visible from another location on the stage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm as surprised as you apparently were. And I think it's a very odd interpretation.

 

And I've apparently shot a lot more illegal stages than I thought I had. That scenario is extremely common. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, driver8M3 said:

Well, I'm as surprised as you apparently were. And I think it's a very odd interpretation.

 

And I've apparently shot a lot more illegal stages than I thought I had. That scenario is extremely common. 


Absolutely completely common.  I've seen lots of matches that had a hard-cover partial target available next to a barrel that was designated soft cover, where it was also available from a different place.   It wasn't hidden.  It was obscured from one shooting position, but it wasn't hidden at all, nor was it even obscured from the other shooting position.

 

Waktasz even posted the rule:
4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. 
Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a 
scoring target will score.  Shots that have passed through soft 
cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized.  All scoring zones 
on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact.  Targets 
obscured by soft cover must either be visible through the soft 
cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must be visible from 
around or over the soft cover. 

 

This statement is false, even if Troy said it was correct:  "If a target is obscured by soft-cover, it must be left whole and intact, regardless of whether it is available elsewhere."

 

Obscured and hidden are two different things.  Sure, if you literally can't see a target at all (hidden), it has to be a full target, according to the rule. But if it is merely obscured, then it is a different situation.  If they meant for it to be the same thing, they'd have used the same term.  They didn't. 

 

I can't at all fathom why Amidon or Troy would say that half-a-target poking out from a barrel designated as soft cover, especially one that was completely available from elsewhere (not obscured by the barrel from that viewpoint) could only be a full target.  That doesn't match the rule at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for my understanding, If you don't want anyone to shoot through a barrel at a target you must state in the wsb that all barrels are hard cover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, egd5 said:

So for my understanding, If you don't want anyone to shoot through a barrel at a target you must state in the wsb that all barrels are hard cover?

Barrels,,walls etc are hard cover unless otherwise stated in the wsb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Thanks, that makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Thomas H said:


Absolutely completely common.  I've seen lots of matches that had a hard-cover partial target available next to a barrel that was designated soft cover, where it was also available from a different place.   It wasn't hidden.  It was obscured from one shooting position, but it wasn't hidden at all, nor was it even obscured from the other shooting position.

 

Waktasz even posted the rule:
4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. 
Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a 
scoring target will score.  Shots that have passed through soft 
cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized.  All scoring zones 
on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact.  Targets 
obscured by soft cover must either be visible through the soft 
cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must be visible from 
around or over the soft cover. 

 

This statement is false, even if Troy said it was correct:  "If a target is obscured by soft-cover, it must be left whole and intact, regardless of whether it is available elsewhere."

 

Obscured and hidden are two different things.  Sure, if you literally can't see a target at all (hidden), it has to be a full target, according to the rule. But if it is merely obscured, then it is a different situation.  If they meant for it to be the same thing, they'd have used the same term.  They didn't. 

 

I can't at all fathom why Amidon or Troy would say that half-a-target poking out from a barrel designated as soft cover, especially one that was completely available from elsewhere (not obscured by the barrel from that viewpoint) could only be a full target.  That doesn't match the rule at all.

 

 

This. 

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...