Grease ring or no score?

[Alleycatdad]

So at a recent local match, while scoring the RO noted that a full diameter hit on the target had no obvious grease ring and called it a hard-cover hit (Mike).  While there was indeed a barrel adjacent to the target, the barrel did not appear to be in front of the target from the location at which the shooter engaged that target.  There was quite a bit of insistence from a non-RO taper that the hit should not score because of the missing grease ring, and this did indeed end up being the call.  The shooter objected, noting that no hole in the (pretty shot up before we started) barrel aligned with the hole in the target from her shooting position, and asked the RO where, exactly, he felt she had hit the barrel?  His response was a vague wave at the barrel saying "it had to have been one of these", called the Mike call final, and moved on.  The RO (also the match director) did state that with a grease ring, the shot would have scored.  At no time did anyone claim to have witnessed a barrel hit or barrel motion while the target was engaged.  

 

So...where in the rules does it say that a hit must have a grease ring to score?  Would you, as the RO, at least have returned to the position from which she engaged the target to see if indeed the barrel could come between the target and the shooter?  If the RO is unable to say, "I saw it hit right here while she was shooting", is the lack of a grease ring sufficient to disallow the hit? If no one suspected a barrel hit other than the loudmouthed taper, and you as the RO were unable to align a barrel hole with the shot in question, ("must be one of those..."), how would you rule?  

 

Last--as the shooter, would you be out of line to suggest the taper let the RO do his job and STFU?  In this case, the 16-y/o girl would probably rather take the mike than tell the elderly loudmouth to back off (cause she was raised right), but what rule would be broken were she to back him off, in the absence of the RO doing so?  Would you as the shooter address the taper directly or ask the RO to back him off?

 

At the end of the day, it's one Mike at a local match and done and over with...had there been a clear barrel hit or a hole that lined up with the hit there'd have been no issue, but is the simple lack of a grease ring with adjacent hard cover sufficient to call it a Mike?

 

Your call?

[JD45]

If it was a bullet hole I don't care where the barrel or grease ring was or wasn't.  If pushed I'd tell the MD to read the rule book.

[Sarge]

Weak MD and RO’s get tripped up all the time by these:

2.2.3.4

All such barriers are considered to represent a

solid plane and are

considered hard cover

unless designated as soft cover.

4.1.4.1

Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be

consid

ered hard cover

WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THIS:

9.5.5

ENLARGED  holes in

cardboard

targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet

diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence

within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.)

 

  First, it’s a perfect hole correct? If it even nicked a barrel it wouldn’t be a perfect hole.

  Second, if the barrel isn’t maintained to show hits then we can’t really call them hard cover now can we? If the MD had any major match experience at all they would know if a barrel isn’t maintained you can’t say a competitor shot it.

  Third, An absent grease ring gives the RO cause to see if MAYBE something was hit prior but it doesn’t mean something was hit. A perfect hole with no grease ring is typically the result of passing through cardboard prior. So I would have looked for a NS hit or a shoot through on another scoring target.

 Fourth, the RO should not allow other shooters to interfere. It should not have been left to the shooter to feel like telling him to STFU. RO should have known better. It’s sad that he was also the MD.

[rowdyb]

1 hour ago, Alleycatdad said:

where in the rules does it say that a hit must have a grease ring to score?

if you pull up the current rule book and ctrl F and search "grease" you get two instances of the word being used in the Scoring section of the rule book. One is about competitors using a common firing line. Like when we used to all shoot a long range, fixed time, stage at the same time. The second is regarding large diameter holes and scoring.

 

No where will you find a rule that says "a bullet hole has to have a grease ring to be scored" as just a general, hole in cardboard type of hit.

 

But you're not talking about just shooting cardboard...... you've got a barrel. Section 9 of the rule book has you covered.

 

disclaimer-I am not an RO nor have I ever been.

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by rowdyb

[rowdyb]

8 minutes ago, Sarge said:

  Third, An absent grease ring gives the RO cause to see if MAYBE something was hit prior but it doesn’t mean something was hit. A perfect hole with no grease ring is typically the result of passing through cardboard prior. So I would have looked for a NS hit or a shoot through on another scoring target.

 Fourth, the RO should not allow other shooters to interfere.

So much this, in my opinion.

 

But that also doesn't mean I agree the shooter had a scoreable hit. Just from the narrative in the post I can't say anything to that.

Edited August 10, 2020 by rowdyb

[BentAero]

OK, I'll bite. What's a grease ring? I've never heard that term before...

[Alleycatdad]

Thanks, you guys.  This is where we ended up.  Nobody wants to go to war over a single mike in a local match, especially with the guy who's putting on the match for us to go shoot.   The odds of it happening again are minimal.  The lesson for the girl appears to be , "Hey can you show me the rule on that?"  

 

Much appreciated!

 

SA

A40822

[blasterboy]

 Hate barrels for this exact reason.  I've also been assed a "mike", with 2 perfect holes (each with grease rings), after a patcher pointed out a full diameter hard cover hit.  Asked for the CRO's opinion, then had target pulled for the RM.  RM said according to the rules, having or not having a grease ring means nothing, call stands.  I do love the sport, but I'd rather see all penalty targets used to obscure targets rather than barrels.

 

[Alleycatdad]

[Alleycatdad]

It's the black around the hole...

 

SA

[jwhittin]

44 minutes ago, blasterboy said:

I do love the sport, but I'd rather see all penalty targets used to obscure targets rather than barrels.

Nailed it! Made this mistake at our Local match. With no paint or way to identify shots, it just creates problems and potential for bad calls. 

[Kema]

Well it was a local match, RO has to make a decision, RO sees angle better than bystanders and mayby thay all learned smth.

 

Believe me when I say that I score local matches already with loose standars. Some shooters just try to get away with everything(cause they shot perfectly) and sometimes it becomes personal. I would rather not be RO cause it would be less work and whining. 

 

My call Mike, next shooter...

[usmc1974]

This may be a dumb question but do coated bullets have grease marks?

[Joe4d]

local match or Nationals make no difference. Or shouldnt. The "just a local;" excuse is lame.
I have always been taught you score what you KNOW...   Well in this case its pretty simple.  RO should KNOW there is a bullet hole in the paper.
There is no way he could know that it was a shoot through. Only suspect.

And yes I woulda told said loudmouth taper to STFU, and also asked said MD to pull out the rule book .  
Shooters should know the latest rules if they are gonna play. Often issues arise with blowhard old timers that are 4 or 5 updates behind in their rule knowledge.
However not much you can do when its the 3 hat RO/MD/RM who doesnt know the rules and refuses to look them up other than stop going there.  USPSA basically wont do anything.

[Sarge]

58 minutes ago, usmc1974 said:

This may be a dumb question but do coated bullets have grease marks?

Yes. And blue bullets leave blue/black rings. Once had a guy shoot through a NS onto a target. One nice blue ringed hole and one clean. I called it a mike. He argued. I showed him the NS with blue ring. He said it wasn’t his. I said you are the only guy on the squad shooting blue bullets. His buddy says, “he’s got you there”.

[IVC]

The RO got it wrong.

 

Grease ring has nothing to do with scoring, at least not in the context the RO used it. Rule 9.5.5 talks about grease ring, but in the context of determining that a hole was created by the bullet and not by the fragments (ricochet or splatter). There are several rules that provide "for example" sections where, for some reason, some ROs believe it's a complete and exclusive list. This would likely be in that category - believing that grease ring is required for scoring. 

 

But there is more wrong with the call. The first is that the RO has to see the hit on the barrel. Normally, barrel would be "patched" (painted or marked) for any hit on it, so the RO would have to determine there is a new hole in it. Alternatively, he would at least have to see the barrel move if it's not patched. However, there is a more important consideration - partial hits. A partial hit on any hard cover counts for score or penalty down range. Hitting a barrel doesn't necessarily mean that the hit won't count. It must be a full diameter hit through the barrel before the hit doesn't count. Without being able to point the exact hole in the barrel, the RO cannot determine whether it is a partial hit and the break would always go to the shooter. It's not even a break, it's how the scoring works. 

[IVC]

14 hours ago, Alleycatdad said:

There was quite a bit of insistence from a non-RO taper that the hit should not score because of the missing grease ring, and this did indeed end up being the call. 

At level 1 matches there is quite a bit of this, but it's expected and (sort of) allowed by the rules. Appendix A1 5-9 states that L1 matches do not have to have certified officials (only "recommended"), so you'll end up with everyone and their uncle being the acting RO. It doesn't excuse them from not knowing the rules or using wrong procedures (following the USPSA rules is mandatory at L1 matches), but it (sort of) explains why these things happen. 

 

Personally, I'm much more ticked off with "range is safe" or "shooter ready" than these more complicated scoring calls...

[IVC]

13 hours ago, BentAero said:

OK, I'll bite. What's a grease ring? I've never heard that term before...

It's the slight dirt mark going around the bullet hole.

 

I believe the term "grease ring" is an anachronism, from the time most bullets were greased lead and shot from the single action revolvers. Modern bullets will still leave a mark, but it's no longer grease. 

[Balakay]

51 minutes ago, IVC said:

The RO got it wrong.

 

Grease ring has nothing to do with scoring, at least not in the context the RO used it. Rule 9.5.5 talks about grease ring, but in the context of determining that a hole was created by the bullet and not by the fragments (ricochet or splatter). There are several rules that provide "for example" sections where, for some reason, some ROs believe it's a complete and exclusive list. This would likely be in that category - believing that grease ring is required for scoring. 

 

But there is more wrong with the call. The first is that the RO has to see the hit on the barrel. Normally, barrel would be "patched" (painted or marked) for any hit on it, so the RO would have to determine there is a new hole in it. Alternatively, he would at least have to see the barrel move if it's not patched. However, there is a more important consideration - partial hits. A partial hit on any hard cover counts for score or penalty down range. Hitting a barrel doesn't necessarily mean that the hit won't count. It must be a full diameter hit through the barrel before the hit doesn't count. Without being able to point the exact hole in the barrel, the RO cannot determine whether it is a partial hit and the break would always go to the shooter. It's not even a break, it's how the scoring works. 

This comes up a lot:

Local match, bullet presumed to partially go through a shot up  wall or  graze a barrel . Target has an enlarged hole without a grease ring or crown visible. How is this scored?

[pjb45]

Hit.  Full diameter hole in hard is required for a miss. IVC has a nice explanation. 

[StealthyBlagga]

1 hour ago, Balakay said:

This comes up a lot:

Local match, bullet presumed to partially go through a shot up  wall or  graze a barrel . Target has an enlarged hole without a grease ring or crown visible. How is this scored?

 

Rule 9.5.5 is clear and stands alone (not dependent on adjacent hard cover, no shoots etc.):

 

9.5.5 Enlarged holes in cardboard targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter.

 

The hole you describe should be scored a miss.

[Balakay]

30 minutes ago, pjb45 said:

Hit.  

 

20 minutes ago, StealthyBlagga said:

miss.

 

Thus, the confusion.  If a full diameter hole in the hard cover can't be proven, does the enlarged hole matter?  

 

[BiknSwans]

There should be no confusion.  It's a hit.  IVC's post explains it very well.

 

See the September/October 2019 article in Front Sight.  Here is part of that article:

 

Barrel hits

 

USPSA September/October 2019

 

9.5.5: The Misunderstood Rule

 

The second issue is how do I score barrel strikes.  At my last class I was informed any hit that was either elongated or had no grease ring or crown at their local club was scored as a mike.  I was also informed barrels were not repaired between shooters or matches and were shot up pretty good.  One class member was told if a bullet skipped off a barrel it was a miss even if it was not enlarged.  Hmmm.

 

So, here are two issues to resolve.  First, if you are using barrels as a hard cover props - and I strongly encourage their use only as hard cover - the need to be maintained.  Personally, I paint any hits between shooters and use duct tape between squads.  Otherwise, you as the RO are just guessing whether it was a full-bullet diameter shot into and then out of the barrel, it is scored as if the barrel was not there.  See 9.1.6.3.

 

Finally, the goal of this discussion is to make it clear that 9.5.5 is not an all-purpose rule.  It was written specifically to prevent splatter and ricochets from being improperly scored as hits.  It was not written to deal with elongated hits.  My general rule is if I would not have liked being struck by what went through the target, it should be scored appropriately.

[motosapiens]

16 hours ago, Alleycatdad said:

Thanks, you guys.  This is where we ended up.  Nobody wants to go to war over a single mike in a local match, especially with the guy who's putting on the match for us to go shoot.   The odds of it happening again are minimal.  The lesson for the girl appears to be , "Hey can you show me the rule on that?"  

 

Much appreciated!

 

SA

A40822

i disagree. I'm happy to go to war over fake rules being enforced by people that don't know what they are doing. As a CRO with many years of nationals and area match experience, i'm pretty likely to win those wars, but for folks with less experience, hopefully they can at least find a qualified RO that knows wth they are doing.

 

My opinion is if you can't show me (with certainty) my hole in the hardcover, you probably can't score it as a miss. 

[MikeBurgess]

6 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

i disagree. I'm happy to go to war over fake rules being enforced by people that don't know what they are doing. As a CRO with many years of nationals and area match experience, i'm pretty likely to win those wars, but for folks with less experience, hopefully they can at least find a qualified RO that knows wth they are doing.

 

My opinion is if you can't show me (with certainty) my hole in the hardcover, you probably can't score it as a miss. 

you even watch barrels when a shooter is shooting near them, I have the mikes to prove it.