Clarification on 9.5.7, "Shooting At"

[mreed911]

Had an interesting situation today.  Steel target directly behind a barrel, the full calibration zone is visible and there's a black no-shoot steel square in front of it such that only the full calibration zone is visible.  Intention on stage setup is the target is invisible from the start, requiring the shooter to move to another position to engage (it's arguable whether it was actually placed that way, so I'll present the question a couple of ways).

 

What counts as "shooting at" the target below (note: ignore whether it's a hit or a miss, this is all about FTSA):

1. Target is completely invisible from the shooting are the shooter is in
   1. Shooter shoots directly through the barrel in the direction of the target
   2. Shooter shoots directly through the barrel in the direction of the target and hears a "ping"
2. Shooter claims target is partially visible from the shooting are the shooter is in, makes no attempt to lean out and see the target while taking the shot
   1. Shooter shoots through the barrel in the direction of the target
   2. Shooter shoots through the barrel in the direction of the target, hears a "ping"
3. Shooter claims target is partially visible from the shooting are the shooter is in, shooter leans out to take the shot
   1. Shooter shoots through the barrel in the direction of the target
   2. Shooter shoots through the barrel in the direction of the target, hears a "ping"

 

My argument is that all six scenarios result in a shot "at" the target, no FTSA.

MD argument was that if you can't see a target behind hardcover, you can't engage it.

 

How things played out

I was told that "other shooters tried leaning out and couldn't see the target" - I'm 6'2" and I could see a small sliver of white.  I can't find anything in the rules about "what other shooters can see."  I shot directly through the barrel (without leaning out) and heard a "ping" but did not knock over the steel (which would have resulted in REF/reshoot).

 

My intent was to save time without incurring an FTSA.  I was willing to take the mike on steel to save the time of moving to another shooting area to engage the steel (and an additional disappearing target triggered by the steel) - my hit factor would have been higher dropping five points for the mike on steel than it would have been by moving and engaging because the other position had a visible shot, but narrow and moving required running to my offhand side AND reloading while doing so.

 

So, what's the definition of "shooting at," especially when it's "shot at" through hardcover?

Edited March 5, 2023 by mreed911
spelling

[RadarTech]

Interesting situation…..

 

1. at any time is the steel target closer than 23 ft in your scenarios? If yes, why did you try it?
2. Are the barrel(s) explicitly defined as soft cover? 

local match?

 

[mreed911]

8 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

Interesting situation…..

 

1. at any time is the steel target closer than 23 ft in your scenarios? If yes, why did you try it?
2. Are the barrel(s) explicitly defined as soft cover? 

local match?

 

1. No.  It was all about time, skipping an position in exchange for one miss.  The HF difference adding in the time to move and get the hit was worse.

 

2. barriers, making them hard cover per the rules

 

3. Yes, usually decently run by competent staff.  Today was a s#!t show all around, shooter included.

[BZ919]

Theoretically, a bullet cannot pass through hardcover, so it’s impossible to engage a target by shooting through hardcover. Yes, if the steel fell it’s an REF reshoot. Absent that, it’s FTSA and a Mike 

[RadarTech]

4 minutes ago, mreed911 said:

1. No.  It was all about time, skipping an position in exchange for one miss.  The HF difference adding in the time to move and get the hit was worse.

 

2. barriers, making them hard cover per the rules

 

3. Yes, usually decently run by competent staff.  Today was a s#!t show all around, shooter included.

Remember… the WSB can define barrels as soft cover.. hence my question…

I can see your argument, and I can see the MDs argument..

 

When you say the full cal zone was visible, was it visible due to your height?  And no one else is as tall? How tall was the barrel? Was it a single barrel? 
or 2? Was it a gap between the barrel and the hard cover steel plate?

could that plate and barrel be considered a plane?

 

 

[RadarTech]

5 minutes ago, BZ919 said:

Theoretically, a bullet cannot pass through hardcover, so it’s impossible to engage a target by shooting through hardcover. Yes, if the steel fell it’s an REF reshoot. Absent that, it’s FTSA and a Mike 

And that is supported by the definition of engaging per A3…

[Joe4d]

1 Mike, 1 FTSA,,, oh you claimed you shot at it through the prop.? Ok in that case since you admitted it, Match DQ under 10.6... for intentionally shooting up my range props...

[mreed911]

9 minutes ago, BZ919 said:

Theoretically, a bullet cannot pass through hardcover, so it’s impossible to engage a target by shooting through hardcover. Yes, if the steel fell it’s an REF reshoot. Absent that, it’s FTSA and a Mike 

citation, please, for “impossible to engage?”

 

A shooter takes two shots at a standard target and both shots impact a barrel, none hit the target.  That shooter gets an FTSA and two mikes?  They engaged/shot at and missed.  I’d argue no FTSA.

 

8 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

Remember… the WSB can define barrels as soft cover.. hence my question…

I can see your argument, and I can see the MDs argument..

 

When you say the full cal zone was visible, was it visible due to your height?  And no one else is as tall? How tall was the barrel? Was it a single barrel? 
or 2? Was it a gap between the barrel and the hard cover steel plate?

could that plate and barrel be considered a plane?

 

 

 

From the first position, nothing was supposed to be visible.  See the scenarios above though.  From position 2, the full cal zone was visible.
 

3 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

And that is supported by the definition of engaging per A3…

???

[RadarTech]

You can’t engage it if you can’t see it.. says that in the definition of engaging…. 

[mreed911]

3 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

1 Mike, 1 FTSA,,, oh you claimed you shot at it through the prop.? Ok in that case since you admitted it, Match DQ under 10.6... for intentionally shooting up my range props...

FTSA on what basis?  Which rule?

[Robertwil18]

IF it is engaged from a position in which it is not visible and the barrels are considered hard cover then it's an FTSA.  If you cannot legally engage the target, you cant just shoot through/at props to "game it".  If this person is intentionally shooting range props it's a match DQ.  They can take the FTSA and Mike, or the Match DQ, their choice.  

 

[mreed911]

2 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

You can’t engage it if you can’t see it.. says that in the definition of engaging…. 

Great.  So I say I can see it.  Shorter RM says he can’t.  I believe I have a view and engage the target, the only shot is into the hardcover.

 

FTSA?

[mreed911]

4 minutes ago, Robertwil18 said:

IF it is engaged from a position in which it is not visible and the barrels are considered hard cover then it's an FTSA.  If you cannot legally engage the target, you cant just shoot through/at props to "game it".  If this person is intentionally shooting range props it's a match DQ.  They can take the FTSA and Mike, or the Match DQ, their choice.  

 

Given how I shot today I probably should have taken the DQ.

[RadarTech]

7 minutes ago, mreed911 said:

Great.  So I say I can see it.  Shorter RM says he can’t.  I believe I have a view and engage the target, the only shot is into the hardcover.

 

FTSA?

If it went into the hard cover… then it was blocked.. if it was blocked, then engage definition includes 1 shot on target and specifically mentions thru hardcover… so therefore IMHO, the FTSA is tied to not being able to engage… FTSA— 

 

now the DQ— I would agree that purposefully shooting thru a prop to gain an advantage— 

as defined by Wikipedia…

 

 

Cheating generally describes various actions designed to subvert rules in order to obtain unfair advantages.

 

you specifically mentioned you did this to save time or rather to gain a scoring advantage….

[mreed911]

5 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

If it went into the hard cover… then it was blocked.. if it was blocked, then engage definition includes 1 shot on target and specifically mentions thru hardcover… so therefore IMHO, the FTSA is tied to not being able to engage… FTSA— 

 

now the DQ— I would agree that purposefully shooting thru a prop to gain an advantage— 

as defined by Wikipedia…

 

 

Cheating generally describes various actions designed to subvert rules in order to obtain unfair advantages.

 

you specifically mentioned you did this to save time or rather to gain a scoring advantage….

I personally think that’s a stretch. The definition of engage, however, does not require one shot “on” target.  It does require actively aiming at.

[RadarTech]

46 minutes ago, mreed911 said:

I personally think that’s a stretch. The definition of engage, however, does not require one shot “on” target.  It does require actively aiming at.

It says AT a target… so to your point.. FTSA… can’t shoot, or engage a target thru hard cover… if it goes thru hard cover you just proved the point of why you should get an FTSA…

[CClassForLife]

At the very minimum, you get an FTSA for not activating the target. So you got scored the most lenient way possible. See 9.9.2 in combo with 9.9.3. Specifically, "Activated scoring targets which do not comply with the above criteria are considered disappearing targets and will not incur failure to shoot at or miss penalties, unless they are not activated (Rule 9.9.3 applies). Activated appearing scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor does not activate the target movement either before or with the last shot fired in a course of fire."

 

In a funny turn of events, you got scored exactly how you intended. Although, it's -25 points not -5 as you calculated (-10 for miss, -10 for FTSA procedural for the disappearing target, -5 for potential hit).

 

As for your question, let's say there's a long wall perpendicular to your view. Also, let's say that there's a target behind this wall. If you "shoot at" this target, you should get disqualified on the spot. What you did was so strange that it probably didn't compute in the moment, and they gave you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Three possible results:

1. -25 points (-10 miss, -10 FTSA for disappearing, -5 potential hit)
2. -35 points (-10 miss, -10 FTSA for disappearing, -10 FTSA for steel, -5 potential hit)
3.  DQ

[RadarTech]

14 minutes ago, CClassForLife said:

At the very minimum, you get an FTSA for not activating the target. So you got scored the most lenient way possible. See 9.9.2 in combo with 9.9.3. Specifically, "Activated scoring targets which do not comply with the above criteria are considered disappearing targets and will not incur failure to shoot at or miss penalties, unless they are not activated (Rule 9.9.3 applies). Activated appearing scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor does not activate the target movement either before or with the last shot fired in a course of fire."

 

In a funny turn of events, you got scored exactly how you intended. Although, it's -25 points not -5 as you calculated (-10 for miss, -10 for FTSA procedural for the disappearing target, -5 for potential hit).

 

As for your question, let's say there's a long wall perpendicular to your view. Also, let's say that there's a target behind this wall. If you "shoot at" this target, you should get disqualified on the spot. What you did was so strange that it probably didn't compute in the moment, and they gave you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Three possible results:

1. -25 points (-10 miss, -10 FTSA for disappearing, -5 potential hit)
2. -35 points (-10 miss, -10 FTSA for disappearing, -10 FTSA for steel, -5 potential hit)
3.  DQ

It wasn’t a. Activating target… just a popper…. 

[CClassForLife]

12 minutes ago, RadarTech said:

It wasn’t a. Activating target… just a popper…. 

 

I'm assuming it's this stage.

 

[shred]

OP did say there was another disappearing target there, he just didn't know the must-activate-or-eat-2-mikes-and-a-FTSA rule.   I guess one too many MD's got mad at people ignoring their poorly-placed DTs.

 

 

[Blackstone45]

The definition of 'engaging a target' literally says the target has to be within view ,and not through walls or other barriers/obstacles except for soft cover.

 

Barrels are to be considered hard cover unless otherwise stipulated in the WSB. Therefore, hard to argue that that this wasn't a FTSA.

[RadarTech]

10 hours ago, CClassForLife said:

 

I'm assuming it's this stage.

 

Wow… shooting thru a barrel that close is not good.. and since it is a double.. it is likely over 5’9” making it to infinity… so that’s another issue..

and with stories of bullets coming BACK at the shooter in the last couple years… I would not have tried that.. 

 

[waktasz]

You lose 15 points for a miss, not 5. 

 

 

Also, this....

4 hours ago, Blackstone45 said:

The definition of 'engaging a target' literally says the target has to be within view ,and not through walls or other barriers/obstacles except for soft cover.

 

Barrels are to be considered hard cover unless otherwise stipulated in the WSB. Therefore, hard to argue that that this wasn't a FTSA.

 

[RJH]

So should have been One mike on steel, one failure to shoot at on steel, and minus five points on that same piece of steel so down 25 points there.

 

Plus one failure to shoot at on the drop Turner for down 10, two Mike's on the drop Turner for down 20 more (you get all that because you never activated it so no penalty mics need not apply LOL), and the 10 points you didn't get on the drop Turner for 40 points

 

 

So it looks like you should have been down about 65 points for doing that to me. Not sure it was worth the time savings. I could also see a DQ being issued, though I would probably just give you your s*** ton of penalties LOL

[shred]

-55 points on a 45 point stage, even ignoring the original FTSA on steel.  Tough to make that up with speed.