Failure to engage

[DKorn]

11 hours ago, IVC said:

Did you fire two less shots than required?

 

The scenario would be that you had 4 targets, you fired 6 shots, ran dry and chose not to shoot the remaining 2 shots... You would claim that you chose to engage two of four targets with a single shot (for no apparent reason) AND that you missed one of them only to hit the other with the extra shot, so you ended up with 4A, 2M and no FTSA... If you fired 8 shots, then it's pretty clear. 

I probably wouldn’t argue against the FTSA because I would know that I skipped one and I would assume that the RO actually knew as well. 
 

I also wouldn’t assign the penalty if I were the RO unless I  (or other ROs on the stage) knew for sure that a target actually didn’t get shot at. 

[MemphisMechanic]

23 hours ago, -JCN- said:

Similar type question from a match last night:

 

1. If a shooter goes to engage a steel target and pulls the trigger... but is dry and no rounds sent. Failure to engage, right? Because no actual shot sent downrange?

 

The penalty is called a Failure to Shoot At. Not failure to point at.  

 

23 hours ago, -JCN- said:

 

2. Same scenario, but patient goes to engage and has a squib that doesn't leave the barrel and decides to be done with the COF. Is it a failure to engage? He "shot" at it... but no bullet left the muzzle.

That does not meet the definition of shoot, per the glossary. FTSA.

[MemphisMechanic]

<edit: double tapped>

Edited July 31, 2020 by MemphisMechanic

[MemphisMechanic]

20 hours ago, IVC said:

A quick add-on thought...

 

If he hit three targets with two rounds each and he only fired 6 shots, then it IS a FTSA on the last target. Saying that he engaged the last target, missed, and hit the A zone on the nearby target is not something he could try to sell at arbitration. At least not with a straight face. I guess it always comes down to the details of the particular situation...

For me, it comes down to this:

<continuing to assume we’re discussing some tightly packed targets, and not obvious things like wide transitions or sprinting past a single hidden target...>

 

What am I absolutely certain that I saw? If I’m positioned where I’m looking down the slide over his shoulder, and I can clearly see which target he’s aimed at? He’ll get an FTSA if I see him fire zero shots in it’s direction. I need to be able to see which target he is actually aimed at.

 

If I’m not paying attention because I’m looking for a foot fault, or the hallway is too narrow and I’m stuck looking at gun from the side, or whatever else?

 

The lack of ability to call the FTSA is on me at this point. Either I failed to position myself and pay attention, or an obstacle physically prevented it. Yes, we can all deduce what likely happened... but there is a small chance I might be wrong. So it’s time to default to the RO’s golden rule:

 

Don’t be a dick.

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by MemphisMechanic

[IHAVEGAS]

33 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

What am I absolutely certain that I saw? If I’m positioned where I’m looking down the slide over his shoulder, and I can clearly see which target he’s aimed at? He’ll get an FTSA if I see him fire zero shots in it’s direction. I need to be able to see which target he is actually aimed at.

 

 

 

In a tight array, particularly if there is a bit of distance involved, I don't think there has ever been a time when I could tell you I was absolutely certain that I knew which target the person was shooting at.

 

 

[DKorn]

14 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

In a tight array, particularly if there is a bit of distance involved, I don't think there has ever been a time when I could tell you I was absolutely certain that I knew which target the person was shooting at.

 

 

I might or might not be able to tell. It really depends on the array.
 

In a tight array (let’s say 2 stacks of targets shoulder to shoulder), I might observe 2 shots, then the gun move up, then 2 more, then the gun moves down and right, 2 more shots, then up for the final 2 shots. If you walked over and fired 2 rounds, I couldn’t tell you which target you fired at, but if you engaged multiple I might be able to determine which ones by watching the direction of the transitions. 

[IHAVEGAS]

4 minutes ago, DKorn said:

I might or might not be able to tell. It really depends on the array.

 

I get what you are saying. Depending on what the array distance/viewing position/array spread/tired old ass/other things needing looked at/shooters back and shoulder,  allows me to see I usually think I know. However, the level of absolute certainty that I would require for calling a safety dq (for example) is usually not possible for me. 

[MemphisMechanic]

@DKorn @IHAVEGAS I think you’re both in the right.

 

If you have three targets placed partially exposed around the same noshoot at 18yds, none of us could honesty say we were certain which one is being engaged.

 

In an el prez, it would be damed obvious even if you are standing off to the side looking straight at the ejection port, and don’t have the targets in your peripheral vision.

 

Like everything else, it’s situational and some common sense will sort out what you can honestly call, and cannot.

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by MemphisMechanic

[IHAVEGAS]

24 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:

Like everything else, it’s situational and some common sense will sort out what you can honestly call, and cannot.

 

And thank heavens we tend to be blessed with a big majority of honest shooters.

 

"Dammit I did it again" is something you hear pretty often. 

[IVC]

5 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

The lack of ability to call the FTSA is on me at this point.

Agreed. And we are discussing a bizarre scenario in the first place, where the person fires two less shots on the array for no obvious reason, which would be an unusual and stupid thing to do voluntarily because it guarantees at least two mikes. The extra FTSA is just the icing on that cake. 

 

But it's an interesting discussion because Murphy says weird things will happen, so having an idea about how to deal with it is a good thing...

[DKorn]

53 minutes ago, IVC said:

Agreed. And we are discussing a bizarre scenario in the first place, where the person fires two less shots on the array for no obvious reason, which would be an unusual and stupid thing to do voluntarily because it guarantees at least two mikes. The extra FTSA is just the icing on that cake. 

 

But it's an interesting discussion because Murphy says weird things will happen, so having an idea about how to deal with it is a good thing...

Yeah, it’s definitely a far fetched scenario. The only thing I could think of is if there are also steel from the same position, and the shooter takes enough makeups that they’ll run the gun empty if they actually shoot enough rounds, and they choose to leave it rather than do a reload, or if somehow they end up in this position at the end of the stage and run completely out of ammo. 

[pjb45]

On 7/30/2020 at 4:11 AM, DKorn said:

This is a great way to put it, even more so if you change “see” to “observe” since sometimes you can know without seeing which shots go towards which targets - for example, if there’s an array of 3 steel and the shooter only fires twice. 
 

Here’s one to ponder - what call would you make if a shooter moves to a position with 4 closely spaced paper targets and fires 6 shots? Let’s say that due to the close spacing, you are unable to tell from the angle of the shooter’s body or gun which target is being engaged on any given shot. I know what I would say but I’d like to hear what others would do. 

I would say I fired at each target with at least one shot.  I did not want to incur a FTSA and willingly took the mikes because:

excuse 1: blah blah blah

excuse 2: yada yada yada

excuse 3: i ran was running my mag dry......

 

This technique is used extensively in IMG 3 Gun where the penalty for FTSA is significantly higher than a miss.

 

[pjb45]

On 7/30/2020 at 4:11 AM, DKorn said:

This is a great way to put it, even more so if you change “see” to “observe” since sometimes you can know without seeing which shots go towards which targets - for example, if there’s an array of 3 steel and the shooter only fires twice. 
 

Here’s one to ponder - what call would you make if a shooter moves to a position with 4 closely spaced paper targets and fires 6 shots? Let’s say that due to the close spacing, you are unable to tell from the angle of the shooter’s body or gun which target is being engaged on any given shot. I know what I would say but I’d like to hear what others would do. 

I would say I fired at each target with at least one shot.  I did not want to incur a FTSA and willingly took the mikes because:

excuse 1: blah blah blah

excuse 2: yada yada yada

excuse 3: i ran was running my mag dry......

 

This technique is used extensively in IMG 3 Gun where the penalty for FTSA is significantly higher than a miss.

 

[pjb45]

On 7/30/2020 at 4:11 AM, DKorn said:

This is a great way to put it, even more so if you change “see” to “observe” since sometimes you can know without seeing which shots go towards which targets - for example, if there’s an array of 3 steel and the shooter only fires twice. 
 

Here’s one to ponder - what call would you make if a shooter moves to a position with 4 closely spaced paper targets and fires 6 shots? Let’s say that due to the close spacing, you are unable to tell from the angle of the shooter’s body or gun which target is being engaged on any given shot. I know what I would say but I’d like to hear what others would do. 

I would say I fired at each target with at least one shot.  I did not want to incur a FTSA and willingly took the mikes because:

excuse 1: blah blah blah

excuse 2: yada yada yada

excuse 3: i ran was running my mag dry......

 

This technique is used extensively in IMG 3 Gun where the penalty for FTSA is significantly higher than a miss.

 

[Joe4d]

Sooo we have established it is possible to shoot at.a target without hitting it.  You shot at it but missed cause you suck.
So if thats true, shouldnt it be perfectly possible to fail to shoot at a target but hit it ?  I mean who ever shoots at a no shoot ?

[238shooter]

Late to this topic but similar issue this past weekend. Any comments/rule guidance on shooting “at” a paper target not able to be hit from a further back location only to be guaranteed to miss so not get the FTSA penalty. This was done to keep from going through a cooper tunnel 4ft high. If shooting “at” is okay, then as long as you shoot more than COF stated rounds, getting a FTSA is tough to enforce. Shooting “at” seems very broad to debate but next time there will be more than 1 target to neutralize down range….

[Racinready300ex]

26 minutes ago, 238shooter said:

Late to this topic but similar issue this past weekend. Any comments/rule guidance on shooting “at” a paper target not able to be hit from a further back location only to be guaranteed to miss so not get the FTSA penalty. This was done to keep from going through a cooper tunnel 4ft high. If shooting “at” is okay, then as long as you shoot more than COF stated rounds, getting a FTSA is tough to enforce. Shooting “at” seems very broad to debate but next time there will be more than 1 target to neutralize down range….

 

It'll depend on the stage, you're right you don't have to hit it but you have to try. If the RO's are paying attention they can probably tell what you're shooting at. So just shooting more than required doesn't mean you shot at everything. Club matches you might get hosed, or you might even be able to cheat your way out of a PE too. At a major with 4 guys watching they'll probably know the instant you leave a position whether or not you engaged everything. 

 

 

[238shooter]

Thanks for your insight. As black and white as the rule book is at times, it would be nice to see something about shooting at a target from a position that is not possible to hit a target does not qualify as engaged. I get it that it is disputable if paper is close together and one is missed, but since some shooters did not take the effort to traverse to the final and only position to neutralize as it was hiding behind a barrel, makes it easy to confirm it should technically be a FTSA.

Oh the word AT…..

[PatJones]

1 hour ago, 238shooter said:

Thanks for your insight. As black and white as the rule book is at times, it would be nice to see something about shooting at a target from a position that is not possible to hit a target does not qualify as engaged. I get it that it is disputable if paper is close together and one is missed, but since some shooters did not take the effort to traverse to the final and only position to neutralize as it was hiding behind a barrel, makes it easy to confirm it should technically be a FTSA.

Oh the word AT…..

Was the target visible from where the shot was taken?

[AHI]

Part of the scoring ROs job is to watch for target engagement. Timer ROs job is gun movement /safety.

[238shooter]

Target was completely unable to be seen from where people were “engaging” it from as the plastic barrel was riddled with holes. Can’t find anything to back up giving FTSA penalty or even a little dig to support this was not in the spirit of the stage setup.  Level I match so the intent was to have fun and enjoy the elaborate stage (38 rounds) but the squad must have not liked moving around in 73f weather. 

[Barcode1337]

I'm all for gaming stages, but that sounds like an absurd interpretation to me. From my perspective, we could probably turn to the WSB to justify a FTSA call. I typically word my WSB's as "Engage all targets as they become visible from within the fault lines" or some such thing. If target did not become visible, from within the fault lines, could not be engaged. Therefore, FTSA. Or is my logic off?

[238shooter]

I am totally with you but the shooting “at” is in the rules. WSB was clear, and those that chose to engage a non visible target were towing the line here. 
My real issue is the club has a new shooter freshly out of the Corp trying to help expand the quality of the stage designs to only get torn down by a few GOB’s. The only thing we can fall back on is the rule book that we have almost memorized all 122 pages. Kinda takes the fun away from busting your but to provide a complex stage as the other 4 stages are usually under 20 rounds and no real “solving the problem”. 
My rant is done so many thanks for all the replies and we will continue to try and do the right thing. 

[238shooter]

This whole time we had been reading line by line and failed to catch the defined word of engaging. The key words, “in view” that was needed and was there the whole time but these conversations kept us digging.
Thanks Brian Enos forum!

[MHicks]

That makes sense.  The "facing uprange" definition is there too. Last weekend we shot a classifier that had a facing uprange start. The first shooter stood on an angle with both feet pointing to his right, feet and body about 45 degrees from facing squarely uprange.  I questioned whether that was legal but they said the instructions didn't say "facing uprange shoulders, face, feet etc square to th backstop" or anything similar. So it was allowed. According to the above defenition uprange covers all that by default.