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

Target scoring ruling


IHAVEGAS

Recommended Posts

https://nroi.org/q-of-month-results/target-presentation/

 

 

Does this one seem really weird to you folks? As I read the justification it reads to me like making the interpretations fit the desired outcome rather than how a reasonable and knowledgable person would typically interpret the rules as they are written. I get "competitive equity" as an ideal, but this is to the level of doing a re-shoot because a fly landed on one target or a slight breeze blew or maybe a cloud came over or the sun was in a better location in the sky an hour ago or the targets look different with paster here and there. I may be wrong, often am, but this seemed like another "because somebody said so" kind of thing. 

 

"We also have 4.6.1 which deals with Range Equipment Failure (REF) and mentions “displacement of cardboard targets”. In this case, the target was not displaced from its original position per se; in this case it was the replacement target that was displaced allowing a portion of the backer target to be revealed thus creating an inconsistency in target presentation.

If we combine this with 2.3.7 which states, in part, “The staff, cooperatively with the Range Master and Quartermaster are required to ensure competitive equity for all competitors.” Any time we lose consistency in how a stage is presented between shooters we run the risk of competitive inequity. Certainly there are inconsistencies caused by weather, among other things, that we cannot control but we do need to do our best with the things we can control."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is in this case the backer is a not a legally presented target so no one should be considering it to a target to shoot at. I guess the comment about calling that shot as a Delta and choosing to not make it up is valid but reaching IMO, but hell, tape and pasters that are not flat and cast shadows or the sun moving throughout the day causing "holes" to appear through the thinner pasters makes calling shots harder too.  Those are things that we can control. Making sure tape is flat and pasters are heavy enough to block the sun, or even putting up target shades. But you can't appease everyone I suppose. 

And what about poppers that are not hinged to the base? Those are never reset 100% the same every time. They are always shifted in the base changing the presentation and even their behavior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for reshoot. There's no way a shooter is going to perceive the difference between the front and backing target while on the clock. While moving and shooting from any reasonable distance, that hit appears to be a delta. 

 

I don't think it's the same as a fly on the target or whatever. First of all, that's not a setup issue. But the fly also is very unlikely to be at the exact point where the shooter called their shot and visually verified. Perfect competitive equity obviously isn't possible: targets will shift slightly in the wind, poppers can't be set up 100% the same way/calibration every single run, etc. But this is something that was under the control of the staff and because that was the cause of the failure/inequity, a reshoot is justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MHicks said:

It appears that cutting off the top of the back target solves most of this problem. You do need to be as precise as reasonably possiple when stapling a new target on top of the original. 

 

That's how I've always seen it done.  I usually vote on these but I hadn't seen this one.  I agree with the general ideas expressed throughout this thread.  The correct answer is to fix it and reshoot, but it really is unfortunate that it has to be that way because this could and should have been avoided with proper target management.  I feel the same way with steel being poorly managed.  As ROs, we need to do our best to avoid situations like this that cause reshoots that aren't the competitor's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

this could and should have been avoided with proper target management. 

 

I wonder how proper target management could be defined? If the picture shows a reshoot situation is it still a reshoot situation if the misalignment is reduced by 50%? 75%? 90%? 95% ? Seems like the way the rules are being interpreted reshoots could be requested on every stage with targets stapled to targets, perfection is unattainable. 

 

image.png.cffd9aabffc39051d96a878ed91784cb.png

Edited by IHAVEGAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted reshoot, dang I seem to be right on all these LOL. If you're working a major getting the targets lined up correctly is part of your job. I say a major because it most level ones I've shot I've almost never seen the Target   get replaced. It's really not that hard to do. This sort of thing goes hand in hand with keeping your steel in check

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RJH said:

If you're working a major getting the targets lined up correctly is part of your job. I say a major because it most level ones I've shot I've almost never seen the Target   get replaced. It's really not that hard to do. This sort of thing goes hand in hand with keeping your steel in check

 

+1

 

REF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RJH said:

You must have gotten the answer wrong 😂😂

 

I'm definitely among the 2/3 that got it differently :) .

 

Not important but I still can't draw any correlation between the written rules and the ruling. Which raises another question, can this be considered an official ruling or should I call it according to a best effort to follow the current written rules as I see them? 

 

If you are going to stretch 4.6.1 to include target backgrounds (even though typical strong guidance is never to stretch the rules) and add this under the heading of 'range equipment failure' then it seems like everyone who shot the stage while the target was not deemed to be correct (range was not set up properly) would be required to reshoot it, or the stage would need to be thrown out. I also don't see how backer alignment being 'right or wrong' could be consistently determined for the purpose of requiring reshoots without a written tolerance. 

 

Trying to learn, not wad undies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is this:

 

2.1.8.1Target placement should be clearly marked on the target stands for consistent target replacement. Target stands should be securely fixed,or their locations should be clearly marked on the range surface 

 

And this: 

 

4.5.2The competitor may request that Match Officials take corrective actions to ensure consistency in respect of the range surface, the presentation of targets and/or any other matter. The Range Master will have final authority concerning all such requests.

 

4.6Range Equipment Failure and Other Issues

 

4.6.1Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes the displacement of cardboard targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

 

 

Using 4.6.1 is not a stretch for a ref, displaced targets is an example written in the rule. As for everyone reshooting the stage, that is a good question....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RJH said:

Using 4.6.1 is not a stretch for a ref, displaced targets is an example written in the rule.

A more careful reading on my part (I got hung up on In this case, the target was not displaced from its original position per se) says you are correct. Thank you. 

 

Looking at it again ("the replacement target that was displaced") it seems like the question is 'what do you do when you find that a stage was not set up correctly'.  

Edited by IHAVEGAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real argument is about what is target displacement and being a quarter inch off would be stretching the term "displacement" beyond its breaking point. It was always my practice to mark the sticks then remove and replace the target to the marks but if anyone thinks even this could not result in the replacement target being off by a quarter inch they are not living in the real world. Just some wind could move a target more than that.

 

It is up to the shooter to engage the target as presented and not hit what may be behind or in front of it. What about shoot targets that appear edge to edge or a no shoot ahead but not overlapping or even a cardboard backer for the targets I have seen all of these.

 

This should be called a miss because if it is REF then we will have constant reshoots as competitors get out their tape measures and magnifying glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul B said:

This should be called a miss because if it is REF then we will have constant reshoots as competitors get out their tape measures and magnifying glasses.

 

Seems like it would be handy to define target displacement in the glossary (more than 3/8" horizontally or vertically - more than 10 degrees rotation of the target or the stand - something doable and practical and obvious).  As it is it seems like you are correct, Pandora's box. 

 

The other thing, if this is a special case where discovering REF only requires/allows the one person to reshoot rather than everyone who has shot the stage while the target was displaced, it would be good if the written rules spelled that out somehow. As is it seems like we are saying that the displacement could effect aiming by distorting target presentation, and in the name of equity we are giving only 1 of the effected persons an opportunity to shoot the stage with all targets in the right place. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The target that is the subject of this discussion clearly shows the scoring area of both targets.  If the scoring perforation of the rear target was not exposed, as it is in this case, I suggest that we would not be debating a need for measuring tapes, magnifying glasses and global positioning equipment.  How difficult is it to place one target over another without exposing perforations on the rear target?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 4:39 PM, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Seems like the way the rules are being interpreted reshoots could be requested on every stage with targets stapled to targets, perfection is unattainable. 

 

 

dude, that is a long long long long way from perfection. The picture is an embarassingly poor job of stapling a target. The goal isn't perfection imho, but to get it as good as a reasonable person can reasonably get it. It's not really that hard to get it to where no one has any reason to complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

dude, that is a long long long long way from perfection. The picture is an embarassingly poor job of stapling a target. The goal isn't perfection imho, but to get it as good as a reasonable person can reasonably get it. It's not really that hard to get it to where no one has any reason to complain.

 

the larger picture they posted when they explained the answer gives a better view...and even that picture isn't a straight on view. It's hard to say without seeing it in person, but it mostly looks like a slight misalignment along with the rear target pulling away from the front target.

 

 

target.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, motosapiens said:

dude, that is a long long long long way from perfection.

 

Yes indeed.

The point I was laboring at is that if it is a REF there needs to be something in the rules that allows an r.o. to justify the call - if a target with only xx% of the misalignment pictured means there is no longer a REF and I need to deny a persons request for reshoot the rules also need to justify why the second person gets the Mike instead of the bail out. 

 

The full photo does make things more interesting - was the front target placed correctly after all? 

 

7 hours ago, Rookie said:

How difficult is it to place one target over another without exposing perforations on the rear target?

 

Major match - say 130 targets - replace once on staff day Friday - once before the main match Sat.Sun - once at noon Sat.Sun. - hopefully no unplanned replacements of soggy stages. 

 

So that is 650 targets replaced (maybe only 520-staff always gets hosed), maybe on a nice sunny day or maybe a miserable wet and windy day. Staff is typically fighting against brain death by Sunday morning. 

 

Agree that replacing targets is not rocket surgery, but things happen. Perforations showing could be used as a rules criteria I suppose. 

 

Edited by IHAVEGAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...