9.1.4 Unrestored Target Clarification

[mattx]

Tried searching on this without a lot of luck. Background is target was not pasted after a previous run but calibers were different so the target was able to be scored.

 

Rule states that "If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire."

 

However if a score can be determined, is it the competitors option to take a reshoot or must the target be scored as is? 

[RadarTech]

44 minutes ago, mattx said:

Tried searching on this without a lot of luck. Background is target was not pasted after a previous run but calibers were different so the target was able to be scored.

 

Rule states that "If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire."

 

However if a score can be determined, is it the competitors option to take a reshoot or must the target be scored as is? 

If the score can be determined- no reshoot..

the only optional reshoot is for external or RO interference.  
and that is for the RO to offer.. 

 

[motosapiens]

^^ what he said.

 

competitors will sometimes argue this point, especially if they had a crappy run. Certainly it is a distraction for noob competitors to notice a target that already has holes in it when shooting, but that is not grounds for a reshoot.

[mattx]

Thanks for clarification. As a general point, I tend to tell shooters never to stop themselves and expect a reshoot.

 

Second question, can a specific rule be pointed to saying the target must be scored? I feel like I've seen one previously but couldn't find it last night. 

 

Also a finer point, in the case in question, competitor was shooting 40 and existing holes were 9mm. But, if the competitor was shooting 9mm and existing holes were 40 the argument is that a 9mm round could pass cleanly through 40 hole and a reshoot is required? Found that case by searching these forums. 

[Kraj]

1 hour ago, mattx said:

1 hour ago, mattx said:

 

 

Second question, can a specific rule be pointed to saying the target must be scored? I feel like I've seen one previously but couldn't find it last night. 

 

9.1.4 covers it. 

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets – If, following completion of a course of fire by a previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the target for the competitor being scored, the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

 

 

[IVC]

2 hours ago, mattx said:

Also a finer point, in the case in question, competitor was shooting 40 and existing holes were 9mm. But, if the competitor was shooting 9mm and existing holes were 40 the argument is that a 9mm round could pass cleanly through 40 hole and a reshoot is required? Found that case by searching these forums. 

It depends, but make sure you understand that it's not about the size of the holes, but about the ability to determine the score. 

 

Even if the holes were the same caliber, most of the time the score can be determined IF the RO notices in time and can tell how many holes were there to begin with. If you have 4A scores AND the RO sees that there were 2A holes from the previous competitor, THEN you can determine that the new score is 2A whether the same caliber or not. The other good example is when you have a different caliber, so the untaped holes are of different size and simply ignored. There is a possibility of what you ask, that there are two .40 holes and just one 9mm hole when the shooter is shooting 9mm. That would be a reshoot if the competitor claimed his bullet went through the unpatched hole, which is a possibility so the break goes to the shooter (unlike a "perfect double" which is scored as a miss). 

 

The point I brought in another thread still remains for same caliber - even if you have 4A on a target, the RO *must* know that there were *not more than two* shots from the previous shooter. Otherwise, it could've been the previous shooter hitting 3A and the current shooter getting A, M. Goes without saying that if you have 3A, C, then you also don't know who got the C. Since reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited in scoring, there are two problems with scoring same caliber: (1) you cannot use the previous score to assign shots on the target and thus, by elimination, figure out the current score, and (2) you must know/see the *number* of shots on the unpatched target (cannot say "the previous guy only shot it twice" as that would be using the previous score). 

 

In reality, lower level matches will use by far the most likely scenario of four shots, which is to assign two and two to the previous and current shooter. The higher level matches will resolve it based on the challenge by the shooter as the target is scored. 

[mattx]

That about covers it. Thanks all!

[Sarge]

45 minutes ago, IVC said:

you must know/see the *number* of shots on the unpatched target (cannot say "the previous guy only shot it twice" as that would be using the previous score). 

 

Disagree. Rule says score “sheet”. I have been able to remember how many shots a previous shooter fired at a target. I can often even remember the Previous hits on certain close targets. 

[MemphisMechanic]

@mattx if you’re the RO and you notice it in time? It has happend a few times where I was actually able to focus on the target in time to observe where the new holes got punched.

 

Breaking the rule down? This is a common sense one:

 

If you can accurately determine the score the shooter earned with certainty, you score it as shot. It doesn’t matter how that comes to pass: different sized holes, you remember where the previous hits were, or you saw the current shooter’s hits arrive.

 

If you have even a bit of doubt, you do the fair and decent thing, and order a reshoot.

 

However. We are on the interent. Common sense will always be split into 100 nonsensical hairs here. “Well, they used the word ‘as’ in the thirteenth paragraph so I believe that means...”

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by MemphisMechanic

[motosapiens]

2 hours ago, IVC said:

and (2) you must know/see the *number* of shots on the unpatched target (cannot say "the previous guy only shot it twice" as that would be using the previous score). 

 

 

is remembering the target the same as reviewing previous scoresheets?

[IVC]

4 hours ago, Sarge said:

Disagree. Rule says score “sheet”. I have been able to remember how many shots a previous shooter fired at a target. I can often even remember the Previous hits on certain close targets. 

 

2 hours ago, motosapiens said:

is remembering the target the same as reviewing previous scoresheets?

 

Hmm, the full wording at the end of 9.1.4 is:

     Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

 

If you use the "I remember previous competitor" (which is usually a euphemism for "the previous guy didn't have anything unusual in his score, so it must have been two hits"), are you scoring based on the actual target alone? My concern is just that some relatively simple scenarios can have multiple causes and if the shooter challenges it, how do you justify it? Specifically, what do you do if there are only 3A holes on the target and you claim the previous shooter didn't have a Mike, but the current shooter claims two of the three holes are his? 

[motosapiens]

5 hours ago, IVC said:

 

 

Hmm, the full wording at the end of 9.1.4 is:

     Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

 

If you use the "I remember previous competitor" (which is usually a euphemism for "the previous guy didn't have anything unusual in his score, so it must have been two hits"), are you scoring based on the actual target alone? My concern is just that some relatively simple scenarios can have multiple causes and if the shooter challenges it, how do you justify it? Specifically, what do you do if there are only 3A holes on the target and you claim the previous shooter didn't have a Mike, but the current shooter claims two of the three holes are his? 

 

remembering the exact hits on the target (not unusual, if you RO alot) is  not at all like 'the previous guy didn't have anything unusual in his score'. 

 

if the holes all look pretty similar and there only 3 hits on the target this go-round, a reshoot might be the best call, but it depends on what the RO saw. Sometimes you can clearly see one shot hit a target and the second shot hit the berm over the shoulder. In that case, i would stand my ground and call the mike.

 

In real life, this is rarely rocket surgery. No one likes reshoots, but people who screwed the pooch on their original run are the biggest advocates for scoring uncertainty. in my experience, the shooter is most likely to get the most beneficial interpretation. If there is a potential mike or other controversy on the target, it is most likely to end up being a reshoot. In the end, if the shooter doesn't like the CRO's call, he should politely ask for the RM.

Edited October 20, 2020 by motosapiens

[Sarge]

12 hours ago, IVC said:

 

 

Hmm, the full wording at the end of 9.1.4 is:

     Reviewing previous score sheets is prohibited; targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call.

 

If you use the "I remember previous competitor" (which is usually a euphemism for "the previous guy didn't have anything unusual in his score, so it must have been two hits"), are you scoring based on the actual target alone? My concern is just that some relatively simple scenarios can have multiple causes and if the shooter challenges it, how do you justify it? Specifically, what do you do if there are only 3A holes on the target and you claim the previous shooter didn't have a Mike, but the current shooter claims two of the three holes are his? 

This isn’t all that hard. If I KNOW the score that’s how I call it. If I’m in doubt it’s a reshoot, regardless of what the shooter thinks.

[PhilTerry]

I have a bit of a problem with some of these comments. The RO is supposed to be watching the shooter at all times during the course of fire, not looking at where the shots impact. If the RO can tell where the holes are, in my opinion, he is not doing his job properly.

[Sarge]

50 minutes ago, PhilTerry said:

I have a bit of a problem with some of these comments. The RO is supposed to be watching the shooter at all times during the course of fire, not looking at where the shots impact. If the RO can tell where the holes are, in my opinion, he is not doing his job properly.

Wrong sorry. An RO’s “primary” job is to watch the shooter. But it’s not his only job. When shooters run up to a fault line I glance down to see if they are faulting, when they are reloading, clearing a malfunction, when they are moving etc. But if they draw the gun and engage Close targets especially I watch for hits, mikes, no shoots etc while also keeping the gun in my line of site. 

[motosapiens]

3 hours ago, PhilTerry said:

I have a bit of a problem with some of these comments. The RO is supposed to be watching the shooter at all times during the course of fire, not looking at where the shots impact. If the RO can tell where the holes are, in my opinion, he is not doing his job properly.

I couldn't disagree with you more. A good RO is aware of most everything. I watch feet, timer, targets, gun, and background environment, and probably some other stuff too.

[IVC]

5 hours ago, Sarge said:

This isn’t all that hard. If I KNOW the score that’s how I call it. If I’m in doubt it’s a reshoot, regardless of what the shooter thinks.

What if the shooter challenges you? 

 

Say, there are only three holes and you gave him A, M because you know the previous shooter had 2A. The shooter says "I have 2A." How do you handle it, especially if the RM gets involved? (Not challenging you, just asking.) 

[Batmo]

25 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

I couldn't disagree with you more. A good RO is aware of most everything. I watch feet, timer, targets, gun, and background environment, and probably some other stuff too.

 

3 hours ago, Sarge said:

Wrong sorry. An RO’s “primary” job is to watch the shooter. But it’s not his only job. When shooters run up to a fault line I glance down to see if they are faulting, when they are reloading, clearing a malfunction, when they are moving etc. But if they draw the gun and engage Close targets especially I watch for hits, mikes, no shoots etc while also keeping the gun in my line of site. 

 

I agree with "motosapiens"and "Sarge".  An experienced RO will watch and see more than just the shooter.

[bishop414]

12 minutes ago, IVC said:

What if the shooter challenges you? 

 

Say, there are only three holes and you gave him A, M because you know the previous shooter had 2A. The shooter says "I have 2A." How do you handle it, especially if the RM gets involved? (Not challenging you, just asking.) 

 

Need to ask as RM, not as CRO.  As CRO, I make the call.  If shooter disagrees, I offer to call RM and pull target.  If target pulled not an issue, keep running the squad and let the RM score it.  In order for any CRO/RO to make a call, they need to be 100% certain and able to explain how they made the call.  If RM orders a reshoot, not an issue.  

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

What if the shooter challenges you? 

 

Say, there are only three holes and you gave him A, M because you know the previous shooter had 2A. The shooter says "I have 2A." How do you handle it, especially if the RM gets involved? (Not challenging you, just asking.) 

Stand my ground and clearly explain what I know. Not only did previous shooter have two alpha but I know it is those two holes right there. I saw current shooter Transition too soon and pull off target with his second shot. Or shoot high and put THAT hole in the target stick. Etc. 
 Challenge from the shooter means little if I know for a fact what I saw.

 I once saw a shooter take one shot at a target and he tried to argue for a double. He had no idea I was watching so closely

[71Commander]

On 10/19/2020 at 10:08 AM, mattx said:

Thanks for clarification. As a general point, I tend to tell shooters never to stop themselves and expect a reshoot.

 

If I stop you as an RO...maybe a reshoot. You stop yourself...nope. Sorry Charlie.

[Jim Watson]

Had that happen yesterday.  Fortunately it was a 9mm followed by a .40 and the holes were distinguishable.  

[broadside72]

As a target focused shooter I find unpatched targets highly distracting and they almost always impact my performance on that stage. 

 

I get not getting stopped when its one target that isn't patched, but once you get to 3 or 4 or more that are not done, I think it should be a valid reason for the RO to stop the shooter and give a reshoot. But there is no rule to support that, unless the RO just says stop and its an interference call. But then the RM/MD should be getting involved, etc. 

[DirkD]

On 10/20/2020 at 7:36 AM, PhilTerry said:

I have a bit of a problem with some of these comments. The RO is supposed to be watching the shooter at all times during the course of fire, not looking at where the shots impact. If the RO can tell where the holes are, in my opinion, he is not doing his job properly.

RO can watch the shooter and watch the targets, show me where it says an RO has to look at just the shooter and not watch where he is shooting.

You have more than 1 RO on the stage, they watch what the shooter is doing.

 

On 11/2/2020 at 2:09 PM, broadside72 said:

As a target focused shooter I find unpatched targets highly distracting and they almost always impact my performance on that stage. 

 

I get not getting stopped when its one target that isn't patched, but once you get to 3 or 4 or more that are not done, I think it should be a valid reason for the RO to stop the shooter and give a reshoot. But there is no rule to support that, unless the RO just says stop and its an interference call. But then the RM/MD should be getting involved, etc. 

I check before I shoot, have been given a NO Shoot that was missed on the previous shooter.

3 or 4 unrestored targets, you need new RO's.