broadside72 Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 I am 6'4" tall and I can see things many people can't on hard leans, over barrels, etc. If the OP can lean out and see any fraction of the popper then he can try to shoot at it and thus he has engaged it. There is no definition of what seeing a target entails, only the minimum legal presentation from some point in the shooting area. If that minimum was met in another location then if he can see it, he can shoot it. Same thing applies to gaps between a wall and barrel, or in my case most often seeing the top few inches of a mini popper behind a barrel. If shooting at it goes through the barrel then its a REF if the steel falls, but I did see it and engage it per the definition of engaging, which does not say anything about everyone must be able to see it, just that it "is in view" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Climbhard Posted March 8, 2023 Share Posted March 8, 2023 Putting a popper behind a barrel is bad stage design all around. Recipe for reshoots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted March 8, 2023 Share Posted March 8, 2023 Barrel or barricade, makes no difference. Shooting through hardcover 3 feet in front of you is not a winning stage plan. It's not like the barrel was way down range blocking the popper from view...and even if it was, nothing wrong with that, you see it every weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GigG Posted March 8, 2023 Share Posted March 8, 2023 3 hours ago, Climbhard said: Putting a popper behind a barrel is bad stage design all around. Recipe for reshoots I don't know the last match I shot was that DIDN'T have a popper behind a barrel someplace in the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H Posted March 8, 2023 Share Posted March 8, 2023 As an aside, I am heartened to see how many people are completely getting it right regarding the "shooting a target through HC is a FTSA" question. (As a comment on that, a good way to explain it to people is to say "if a wall was in front of the popper and you couldn't see the popper at all behind the wall, could you engage it? Obviously not, right?") I'll note that I also agree with the "deliberately shooting stage props in order to obtain a competitive advantage" comment regarding the OP situation in which they literally said that was what they did. So yeah, don't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted March 9, 2023 Share Posted March 9, 2023 7 hours ago, Climbhard said: Putting a popper behind a barrel is bad stage design all around. Recipe for reshoots put a no shoot between the barrel and the popper. hahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 then declare the barrel soft-cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lroy Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 On 3/5/2023 at 7:16 PM, 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. DQ under what rule? Unsportsmanlike conduct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 8 hours ago, lroy said: DQ under what rule? Unsportsmanlike conduct? Pick one, unsportman like or depending on how close the barrel is, unsafe gun handling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreed911 Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 3 hours ago, Joe4d said: Pick one, unsportman like or depending on how close the barrel is, unsafe gun handling. How, exactly, would you get to unsafe gun handling from that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 put a gun an inch away from a barrel and shoot it sending shrapnel flying,, Id call that unsafe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreed911 Posted March 13, 2023 Author Share Posted March 13, 2023 51 minutes ago, Joe4d said: put a gun an inch away from a barrel and shoot it sending shrapnel flying,, Id call that unsafe. An inch? 7+ yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 58 minutes ago, mreed911 said: An inch? 7+ yards. pretty sure I clearly said "depending on how close the barrel is" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampleworks Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 It just blows my mind at the ones telling us to pick one FTSA or DQ -- well no where in the rulebook gives them this determination. You either have a DQ or you don't, it's not a decision to be made, it's clearly defined in the rulebook. You can't claim unsportsmanlike DQ for shooting a prop, whether intentional or not. Does it get into unsafe gun handling? Well, guess what, the rulebook also spells that our clearly. Gaming the heck of of the stage? Absolutely. Being able to point to a rulebook entry on where the DQ is allowed, yeah that's not going to happen because it doesn't exist. In IT, we call this a HR matter trying to be fixed by an IT policy. In this case, it's a poorly designed stage that should've been fixed before the first shot is fired rather than trying to armchair quarterback it with the rulebook the following day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 the pick one thing, was based on earlier based on shooters comments. .,, as we arnt allowed to read minds we have to take the shooters comments at face value. If he shot through the barrel intentionally he was trying to cheat,, DQ,,, if he claims he didnt mean to hit the target, then he didnt shoot at it,, so FTSA,, Also folks commenting on this thread wernt at the location or RO'ing the shooter or have even seen the exact stage,, Soooo depending on exact circumstances it would be a couple different things. Same reason I said,, depending on distance could be a 10.5 DQ. And guess what.. 10.5 says "Not limited to" so an unsafe act doesnt need to be spelled out in the rule book for it to apply. Those thread started it made no mention of barrel distance,, Which is why I said, depending on distance , it could be. If I am holding a timer up by your ear so you can hear it, and you draw and intentionally shoot a prop at point blank range and spray me with shrapnel,,, you darn skippy you getting a stop and a trip to dairy king at minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadside72 Posted March 14, 2023 Share Posted March 14, 2023 16 hours ago, Joe4d said: And guess what.. 10.5 says "Not limited to" so an unsafe act doesnt need to be spelled out in the rule book for it to apply. I have tried using that same argument and it was shot down here by some RMs and even an RMI. Not sure why that is even in the rulebook still if the words don't mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreed911 Posted March 14, 2023 Author Share Posted March 14, 2023 16 hours ago, Joe4d said: If he shot through the barrel intentionally he was trying to cheat How, exactly, is intentionally placing a shot into hardcover trying to cheat? Extreme end of this - shooter intentionally shoots one shot into part of a cardboard target painted black and moves on. He takes two mikes to avoid an FTSA. Dumb idea, but is he cheating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadside72 Posted March 14, 2023 Share Posted March 14, 2023 On 3/12/2023 at 8:16 PM, lroy said: DQ under what rule? Unsportsmanlike conduct? In the original context of this thread it was shooting through a barrel to knock down a popper. If that popper was not visible to the shooter at all from that location, then that is purposefully causing a REF and can be considered cheating. No hit to the popper then it's just a mike and FTSA, plus a stern talking to about purposely damaging range equipment and to not do do that again. Do it again and DQ for not following reasonable direction of a range official. And probably a ban from the range/club to top it off. But since the OP said he could see the popper then that is not cheating, just a REF if its knocked down through the barrel. I don't think the scenarios mentioned in the last few posts qualify as unsafe gun handling though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lroy Posted March 14, 2023 Share Posted March 14, 2023 Yeah the original scenario is just poor stage design. There should be no question of visibility if your intent is to force a position. Use a wall or more barrels. Problem solved. Purposefully shooting through a wall at steel for a reshoot is similar to purposefully knocking off your ear/eye pro for a reshoot, but that's not what the OP was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GigG Posted March 14, 2023 Share Posted March 14, 2023 2 hours ago, mreed911 said: How, exactly, is intentionally placing a shot into hardcover trying to cheat? It would if the shot will knock down steel intentionally triggering a reshoot. It is no different than doing something to intentionally knock off your ear or eye protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now