Target scoring ruling

[IHAVEGAS]

13 hours ago, ima45dv8 said:

I wouldn't be too concerned about somebody being able to game it. 

 

I'm not. I just wish there was a way for a range official to consistently call it (or not call it) and justify both decisions to the shooters.

 

Re-reading the initial write up, only one person got the reshoot because only one person was effected, the write up implies that the stage would have needed to be thrown out or reshot if many had shot it before someone decided there was a REF. 

 

For me personally I would be content with calling a Mike unless/until the written rules make it clear that it is not a Mike. The shooter can pursue the call with higher powers if they wish and they can figure out whether 1/4" error means REF or if it takes 3/8" or whatever.

[motosapiens]

meh...... sloppy RO work annoys me, but I don't see the necessity of trying to micromanage every situation with a new rule. I think a reasonable person can look at a target and decide whether it's a problem or not, and the same criteria might not work for every target distance or presentation. If the shooter doesn't like that, there is always arbitration. 

 

At any rate, it's probably a good idea if your turtle targets are bending forward to just put a couple staple in them at the top, like we usually do with uspsa targets when a no-shoot is in front of a scoring target.

[IHAVEGAS]

16 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

I think a reasonable person can look at a target and decide whether it's a problem or not,

 

Ok. In your reasonable persons opinion how much better would the overlap need to be in the picture in order to call a Mike instead of a reshoot (50% better?)? 

Not being snarky, honest question. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by IHAVEGAS

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Ok. In your reasonable persons opinion how much better would the overlap need to be in the picture in order to call a Mike instead of a reshoot (50% better?)? 

Not being snarky, honest question. 

 

 

my whole point is there is no exact measurement that would work for every situation.  If a reasonable person looks at a target and says 'wow, that's messed up', it should probably be fixed.

[vluc]

2 hours ago, motosapiens said:

meh...... sloppy RO work annoys me, but I don't see the necessity of trying to micromanage every situation with a new rule. I think a reasonable person can look at a target and decide whether it's a problem or not, and the same criteria might not work for every target distance or presentation. If the shooter doesn't like that, there is always arbitration. 

 

At any rate, it's probably a good idea if your turtle targets are bending forward to just put a couple staple in them at the top, like we usually do with uspsa targets when a no-shoot is in front of a scoring target.

Good point, they ran out of space on sticks to staple and that would not have done anything for the bend.  As a CRO, I'd either staple or cut the upper part off of the backing target to remove the offending peak a boo, re-adjust the front target or just put a whole new target on.

[broadside72]

I used this article to get a reshoot this weekend. I called a shot and verified the hole I saw as I moved to a position where I could see it (but not shoot it due to a wall blocking all but the shoulder D zone) and upon scoring noticed the top target was matching the left corner but the right side side was low to the point the perf on the bottom target was showing Would have been a mike instead of the C I thought it was. 

So I get the purpose of the article now even though my previous reply here said it's reaching. When the targets are far enough away to not discern the area of misalignment but you can call a shot then its a legit issue. 

[IHAVEGAS]

29 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

I used this article to get a reshoot this weekend. I called a shot and verified the hole I saw as I moved to a position where I could see it (but not shoot it due to a wall blocking all but the shoulder D zone) and upon scoring noticed the top target was matching the left corner but the right side side was low to the point the perf on the bottom target was showing Would have been a mike instead of the C I thought it was. 
 

 

And so it begins . . . . .   .

 

Was everyone who had shot the stage in the same condition required to re-shoot as well? 

[motosapiens]

3 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

And so it begins . . . . .   .

 

Was everyone who had shot the stage in the same condition required to re-shoot as well? 

not sure there's really a need for that. Unless someone got an edge hit, they wouldn't really be affected by it.

 

the more important point is to just staple the targets on correctly in the first place. it's not rocket surgery.

[broadside72]

6 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

And so it begins . . . . .   .

 

Was everyone who had shot the stage in the same condition required to re-shoot as well? 

I was the only one to have shot that edge to cause this issue. I did say we need to offer it to the squad (we were the first to shoot the replacements) but no one wanted it as everyone else made their good hits or missed entirely. 

[IHAVEGAS]

22 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

not sure there's really a need for that. Unless someone got an edge hit, they wouldn't really be affected by it.

 

If a REF is identified due to incorrect target placement isn't it mandatory for everyone to reshoot according to the rules? Else, if the target placement distorted my perception of an edge hit why would it not also distort my perception and aiming resulting in a D that was almost a C or a C that was almost and A?

 

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by IHAVEGAS

[motosapiens]

53 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

If a REF is identified due to incorrect target placement isn't it mandatory for everyone to reshoot according to the rules? Else, if the target placement distorted my perception of an edge hit why would it not also distort my perception and aiming resulting in a D that was almost a C or a C that was almost and A?

 

 

meh.... i can see where someone might argue it that way, but when we fix a popper after calibration we don't go back and offer the rest of the squad a reshoot because the popper was set differently for them.

 

It's never going to be perfect, so it makes reasonable sense to me to just do the best job you reasonably can do, while minimizing unnecessary reshoots. Trying to make specific rules to explicitly handle every potential situation never seems like a good idea to me.