Partial hits on plates through wooden plateguards (IPSC)

[Rasmilling]

At a local lvl. III match this weekend, we had a stage with a lot of steel plates. In the front of the plates were wooden plateguards, as shown on my illustration. The plate is mounted 1-2 cm's lower than the guard. 

Some shooters hit the plates and shot through or partial through the plate guards. With clear ''hits'' on the plate, but without them falling.

4.3.1.4 says ''scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score''

A shot directly through i would call a miss, but how about a shot edging the guard and clearly hitting the plate? Does 4.3.1.4 still apply?

 

[Sdlrodeo]

We’re the plate guards designated as hard or soft cover?

[ChuckS]

It would be either a miss or a range equipment failure depending on how rules 4.1.4. and 9.1.6 affect the situation. 

[Schutzenmeister]

Not to stir anything up, but this would appear to have been an IPSC match and not a USPSA match, correct?

 

Just want to make sure I'm looking in the right set of rules before I comment.

 

[ChuckS]

21 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Not to stir anything up, but this would appear to have been an IPSC match and not a USPSA match, correct?

 

Just want to make sure I'm looking in the right set of rules before I comment.

 

The title says IPSC and the OP is from Denmark, so I went with IPSC  

[Schutzenmeister]

Understood, Chuck ... But occasionally, when I start quoting IPSC Rules, there can be some blowback.

 

Ticklish question ... Let me start with some history.

 

In previous version of the rules (a couple of decades ago) it was common to show the proper setup for plates as the OP describes ... i.e., with a wooden trip plate in front of the base to prevent it from turning when struck.  As I recall, these were always treated as sacrificial.  If a round went through it and took down the plate, so what … score it and replace the wood.  Not infrequently, the round passing through the wood would destroy the wood making it difficult to determine where it was hit anyway.

 

Potentially supporting this would be current rule 9.1.7 where it states target sticks are neither hard cover nor soft cover … It’s like they don’t exist and anything that gets hit behind them counts for score or penalty as the case may be.  I would be inclined to treat the wood in question as no different.  Its sole purpose is to hold the target in place while the shooter shoots at it, just like sticks for a paper target.

 

Clearly, the partial hit on the wood which knocks the plate over must count for score. (9.1.6.4)  The full diameter hit on the wood which takes down the plate only becomes REF and a reshoot (4.6.1) IF the wood is considered to be hard cover.  (9.1.6.2)  As stated above, I’m not inclined to treat it that way.  Unfortunately, the rules are not crystal clear on this particular point.

 

I should note that the current rules also include the following:

 

From Appendix C3:  For Handgun matches plates should be mounted on hard cover or on metal stakes at least 1 m high.

 

One could infer that that means the wood in front should be treated as hardcover.  I’m not inclined to look at it that way.  The plate is mounted ON hardcover … The wood in front of the base is solely to prevent it from turning.  Hence, my inclination is to treat it the same as a target stick.

 

One final note … Several years ago IPSC rules removed the RO’s discretion to declare REF when a plate is adequately struck but fails to fall.  If it’s hit it must fall.  If it doesn’t fall you must shoot it until it does.  (This is admittedly problematic … I wish there were better guidance, but it has been this way since at least 2016.)  If it turns sideways or edge-on when hit it is clearly a REF, or more properly, an illegal setup in the first place.  Fix it (make it legal) and reshoot.

 

I did a search on the IROA Academy to see if I could find anything on point with this question.  While I found several references to plates, I could not find anything on point.  Hence, what I give you here is just one IROA RM’s opinion.

 

That should make this at least as clear as mud!  (LOL)

 

Edited to add - If I'm the shooter and the plate has NOT fallen when hit, I would keep shooting until I knocked it down.  Otherwise it WILL be scored as a miss per the rules!

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Schutzenmeister

[waktasz]

How much of the plate is covered by the wood? Plates have minimum sizes to be legal, and if they are hardcover then the presentation of the plate isn't likely legal at all. 

[Schutzenmeister]

59 minutes ago, waktasz said:

How much of the plate is covered by the wood? Plates have minimum sizes to be legal, and if they are hardcover then the presentation of the plate isn't likely legal at all. 

 

There is nothing under IPSC rules which specifies a minimum amount of any target that must be available to the shooter during a CoF (other than the A Zone must be available).  The closest rule is under scoring disappearing moving targets:

 

9.9.3 Stationary targets which present at least a portion of the A zone, either before or after activation of a moving and/or concealing no-shoot or vision barrier, are not disappearing and will incur failure to engage and/or miss penalties.

 

As the entire plate, for scoring purposes, constitutes an A Zone when the plate is shot and falls, your point is arguably moot.  Additionally, it has been my experience that rounds passing through the wood block and knocking the plate over still count for score.  Hence you may either consider them soft cover (I wouldn't), or treat them as target sticks for scoring purposes.

 

The shooters either shot through or partially through the wood block and, apparently, the plate did not fall.  There is no provision uner IPSC rules to declare a REF here, hence, it is scored as a miss.  Had the plate fallen two things come to mind:

 

1 - The shooter is not going to challenge the RO's call when he scores it as hit ... Question goes away.

 

2 - A challenge to declare REF due to a hit behind hard cover (9.1.6.2) should fail as the wood block is more akin to a target stick than a prop or barrier.

 

I could seek to get a higher level clarification from IROA, but I'm reasonably confident it will say substantially what I have said here.

[Rasmilling]

16 hours ago, Sdlrodeo said:

We’re the plate guards designated as hard or soft cover?

Not sure. But i would think hardcover. 

The purpose of the guards was to protect the plate holders. But i don't recall them as deemed either soft- or hard covers (nobody questioned it).
 

 

15 hours ago, ChuckS said:

It would be either a miss or a range equipment failure depending on how rules 4.1.4. and 9.1.6 affect the situation. 

Exactly! I thought it would be a REF? If hit - the plate must fall. But the CRO said shots like that were missed, so i wouldn't question him. I was working as a helper at that stage (resetting and painting steel).
 

[Schutzenmeister]

9 hours ago, Rasmilling said:

The purpose of the guards was to protect the plate holders.
 

 

Rasmilling

 

I promise you, the purpose of the wooden blocks at the front of the plates is not now, nor has it ever been to protect the plate holders.  They are, and always have been to prevent the plates from turning edgewise or sideways when hit.  Nothing more ... nothing less.

 

I suggest you contact one of the following three individuals, if you wish, to confirm what I am saying and to explain this to you.  All three are IROA certified Range Masters and all three are from Denmark.  If you don't already know one of them they should not be very hard for you to find.

 

Tim Andersen

Steen Hofman Nitschke

Mark Weisinger

 

I am quite confident they will tell you substantially the same thing I have.  IPSC rules do not allow for calling REF in a situation such as you describe.  It is up to the shooter to hit the plate again - probably higher - and knock it down or accept the score as a miss.

 

Respectfully

 

Mike Carraher (USA)

IROA Range Master

[Rasmilling]

6 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

Rasmilling

 

I promise you, the purpose of the wooden blocks at the front of the plates is not now, nor has it ever been to protect the plate holders.  They are, and always have been to prevent the plates from turning edgewise or sideways when hit.  Nothing more ... nothing less.

 

I suggest you contact one of the following three individuals, if you wish, to confirm what I am saying and to explain this to you.  All three are IROA certified Range Masters and all three are from Denmark.  If you don't already know one of them they should not be very hard for you to find.

 

Tim Andersen

Steen Hofman Nitschke

Mark Weisinger

 

I am quite confident they will tell you substantially the same thing I have.  IPSC rules do not allow for calling REF in a situation such as you describe.  It is up to the shooter to hit the plate again - probably higher - and knock it down or accept the score as a miss.

 

Respectfully

 

Mike Carraher (USA)

IROA Range Master

Yeah i know all tree of them 

 

But the plate cant turn sideways on this design. Plates are sitting in a “fork” (which is why they wont fall, if you hit them too low). 
 

 

 

 

[Schutzenmeister]

Wonderful way to bury the lead ...

 

The problem is apparently not with the wooden block.  It's with the poorly thought out and designed plate holder.  Based on this information I might consider what happened REF ... by design.

 

Try running this information by your three RMs in Denmark.  See if they consider this a faulty design, prone to REF, that should not be used.  Again, the problem is not the wood block in front.

[Janskis]

On 8/12/2021 at 10:51 PM, Schutzenmeister said:

One final note … Several years ago IPSC rules removed the RO’s discretion to declare REF when a plate is adequately struck but fails to fall.  If it’s hit it must fall.  If it doesn’t fall you must shoot it until it does.  (This is admittedly problematic … I wish there were better guidance, but it has been this way since at least 2016.)  If it turns sideways or edge-on when hit it is clearly a REF, or more properly, an illegal setup in the first place.  Fix it (make it legal) and reshoot.

 

Could you please quote the rule? I've been under the impression that it should be a REF and a reshoot if the plate doesn't fall, but as a competitor in the rare event a plate won't fall on hti I've just shot it until it falls because I can't care for the hassle...

[terrydoc]

4.3.1.1 Metal targets and no-shoots which can accidentally turn edge-on or sideways when hit are expressly prohibited. Using them may result in withdrawal of IPSC sanction

 

4.3.1.4 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score.

 

4.6.2 A competitor who is unable to complete a course of fire due to range equipment failure, or if a metal or moving target was not reset prior to his attempt at a course of fire, must be required to reshoot the course of fire after corrective actions have been taken.

[Schutzenmeister]

Thanks Terry.

 

Janskis:

 

Under USPSA rules it would be REF and a reshoot.  Under IPSC rules it is not.  There is no direct rule in IPSC that makes a plate not falling when hit REF.  That said, if I can find some external issue that is interfering with the plate I will consider REF.  But absent some external factor, there is no provision that would support a call of REF.  If you still think it is REF please tell us the rule YOU would quote in support of the call.

 

 

[terrydoc]

Its all about how you set up your plates. If your plates have a flat bottom foot put some form of 'barrier' in front of the foot to stop the plate from turning, we usually have a stand that has the same size plate as the foot, when hit they just fall off and not turn, since we've used this type of stand I cant recall ever seeing a plate not fall if the PF is right. If you have a look at the plates in appendix C3 you will see what I mean by flat plate. 

[Janskis]

On 9/27/2021 at 3:38 PM, Schutzenmeister said:

Thanks Terry.

 

Janskis:

 

Under USPSA rules it would be REF and a reshoot.  Under IPSC rules it is not.  There is no direct rule in IPSC that makes a plate not falling when hit REF.  That said, if I can find some external issue that is interfering with the plate I will consider REF.  But absent some external factor, there is no provision that would support a call of REF.  If you still think it is REF please tell us the rule YOU would quote in support of the call.

 

 

I wasn't trying to claim you weren't right, I was willing to learn. After re-reading the rule, I can confirm that nothing there says it should be a reshoot.