Rule 9.1.5.1 question

[DIYguy]

This is a rule I've had some confusion over and how matches are scored.

 

9.1.5.1.1

In accordance with Rule 9.1.5, the scoring areas of scoring targets and no-shoots are impenetrable. Whenever two targets (scoring and/or no-shoots) are in direct contact where one target directly overlaps part of another target, the area of the "under" target which is directly covered by the scoring area of the "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent.

 

Seems pretty simple, ones shot can not go through the first target and score on the target behind the first target as the first target is "impenetrable". I've gone back in time and looked at my old rules books back to 2014 and this rule has not changed. At our local matches when a no-shot overlaps a scoring target hits incur the no-shot penalty plus get points for the target behind the no-shot. Rule books shows that hits do travel through the first target and score on the 2nd target (see attachment). 

Seems to contradict 9.1.5.1.

NS scoring rules pg 118.pdf

[ChuckS]

15 minutes ago, DIYguy said:

This is a rule I've had some confusion over and how matches are scored.

 

9.1.5.1.1

In accordance with Rule 9.1.5, the scoring areas of scoring targets and no-shoots are impenetrable. Whenever two targets (scoring and/or no-shoots) are in direct contact where one target directly overlaps part of another target, the area of the "under" target which is directly covered by the scoring area of the "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent.

 

Seems pretty simple, ones shot can not go through the first target and score on the target behind the first target as the first target is "impenetrable". I've gone back in time and looked at my old rules books back to 2014 and this rule has not changed. At our local matches when a no-shot overlaps a scoring target hits incur the no-shot penalty plus get points for the target behind the no-shot. Rule books shows that hits do travel through the first target and score on the 2nd target (see attachment). 

Seems to contradict 9.1.5.1.

NS scoring rules pg 118.pdf 142.91 kB · 1 download

Which shot(s) are you referring to on the drawing?

[DIYguy]

Essentially all of them except #5. Doesn't mater if the shot in the scoring area touches the perf, it's still scored as a NS and in this example they are scoring the target behind. If #1 and #3 were slightly left so they did not touch the perf they would not be scored as NS and I would score #1 as a Mike and #3 as a "C". This example seems to contradict the impenetrable rule by allowing the shot to pass through the NS and strike another target.

[Explosiveo]

the NS target doesnt "exist" past the perf. So if its touching the perf then its seen as hitting the target behind.

 

[DIYguy]

That's what I just said above regarding #1 and #3 if not touching the perf. Boarder outside the perf does not exist.

 

9.1.5

Impenetrable – The scoring areas of USPSA scoring targets and no-shoots are deemed to be impenetrable:

 

9.5.2

If the bullet diameter of a hit on a scoring target touches the scoring line between two scoring areas, or the line between the non-scoring border and a scoring area, or if it crosses multiple scoring areas, it will be scored the higher value.
9.5.2.1

Additionally, Rule 9.5.2 is clarified to apply only to the visible portions of targets. It specifically does not apply to any area of any target which is in direct contact with and overlapped by the scoring area of another target (scoring and/or no-shoots) or by hard cover. See illustration in Notes section.

 

The illustration I attached above is the one listed in the Notes section. This illustration is scoring the NS for penalty and giving points for the hit behind the impenetrable target.

 

I continue to have a problem with 9.1.5.1 as it used the term "impenetrable". If the front target was a steel plate it would be impenetrable and the round could not go through the steel plate to be able to go through the target behind. Round has to completely penetrate the cardboard target for score. Can't do that with an impenetrable target.

 

Still have a problem with this rule and the example as they contradict each other.

 

[Sarge]

You really need somebody to sit down with you and look at targets and discuss

 

ive been scoring that way since 2008 and it makes perfect sense to me.

 

EDIT. Looked at your profile. Are you an engineer? Seriously asking. We had a guy who used to RO who was an engineer with a major aviation company. Smartest guy I ever met but simple RO duty was a nightmare. 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Sarge

[DIYguy]

Project engineer for 32 years, now retired.

NROI RO since March 2017. Yes we've been scoring the targets behind also. About to take my annual certification renewal and this is the rule that bugs me. As mentioned, the term impenetrable seems to be a contradiction to the scoring method.

[shred]

The important part is the perf.  For some long-lost reason when it comes to overlapping no-shoots, USPSA considers everything up to and including the perf of the NS to be impenetrable-- its annoyingly inconsistent with how every other target is scored, but that's a separate rant.

 

Outside of the perf is non-scoring border which is not considered impenetrable and were it a steel target, would not be there since steel doesn't have non-scoring-borders.  Hits outside the perf on paper don't count as no-shoots or as hits to scoring targets either; it's just there to help the RO see edge hits.

 

  

[DIYguy]

My issue with the rule and scoring isn't about the perfs, it's about the impenetrable surface. In the attached example as I stated above if #1 and #3 we slightly left so they did NOT touch the perf I would score #1= Mike, #3= Charlie. The way these targets have been scored the two red circles would be scored (2) Alpha, (1) No-Shoot.

So....what happened to

9.1.5

Impenetrable – The scoring areas of USPSA scoring targets and no-shoots are deemed to be impenetrable:

 

9.1.5.1.1

In accordance with Rule 9.1.5, the scoring areas of scoring targets and no-shoots are impenetrable. Whenever two targets (scoring and/or no-shoots) are in direct contact where one target directly overlaps part of another target, the area of the "under" target which is directly covered by the scoring area of the "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent.

 

As I read this rule, the no-shoot target is impenetrable.

The area directly covered by the no-shoot is deemed to be non-existent.

So, why is the non-existent area behind the impenetrable no-shot able to achieve a score? I know they have been but it still doesn't make sense to me.

Inquiring minds want to know

 

Sccoring Targets_No-Shoots1.pdf

[Sarge]

7 minutes ago, DIYguy said:

My issue with the rule and scoring isn't about the perfs, it's about the impenetrable surface. In the attached example as I stated above if #1 and #3 we slightly left so they did NOT touch the perf I would score #1= Mike, #3= Charlie. The way these targets have been scored the two red circles would be scored (2) Alpha, (1) No-Shoot.

So....what happened to

9.1.5

Impenetrable – The scoring areas of USPSA scoring targets and no-shoots are deemed to be impenetrable:

 

9.1.5.1.1

In accordance with Rule 9.1.5, the scoring areas of scoring targets and no-shoots are impenetrable. Whenever two targets (scoring and/or no-shoots) are in direct contact where one target directly overlaps part of another target, the area of the "under" target which is directly covered by the scoring area of the "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent.

 

As I read this rule, the no-shoot target is impenetrable.

The area directly covered by the no-shoot is deemed to be non-existent.

So, why is the non-existent area behind the impenetrable no-shot able to achieve a score? I know they have been but it still doesn't make sense to me.

Inquiring minds want to know

 

Sccoring Targets_No-Shoots1.pdf 348.22 kB · 1 download

Huh?

[DIYguy]

8 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Huh?

Great answer

[Alleycatdad]

No, really, I see what he's saying.  If the perfs are aligned as noted in the diagram, and the area outside the perf, of course, doesn't exist, and the area up to and including the perf on the no-shoot are impenetrable, then what, exactly, is the shot that touches the perf of the overlying no-shoot scoring on?

 

I know it's not how it's done, but I can see his point.

 

SA

[BiknSwans]

1 hour ago, DIYguy said:

My issue with the rule and scoring isn't about the perfs, it's about the impenetrable surface. In the attached example as I stated above if #1 and #3 we slightly left so they did NOT touch the perf I would score #1= Mike, #3= Charlie. The way these targets have been scored the two red circles would be scored (2) Alpha, (1) No-Shoot.

So....what happened to

9.1.5

Impenetrable – The scoring areas of USPSA scoring targets and no-shoots are deemed to be impenetrable:

 

9.1.5.1.1

In accordance with Rule 9.1.5, the scoring areas of scoring targets and no-shoots are impenetrable. Whenever two targets (scoring and/or no-shoots) are in direct contact where one target directly overlaps part of another target, the area of the "under" target which is directly covered by the scoring area of the "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent.

 

As I read this rule, the no-shoot target is impenetrable.

The area directly covered by the no-shoot is deemed to be non-existent.

So, why is the non-existent area behind the impenetrable no-shot able to achieve a score? I know they have been but it still doesn't make sense to me.

Inquiring minds want to know

 

Sccoring Targets_No-Shoots1.pdf 348.22 kB · 8 downloads

 

The red circles in your picture should be scored 1 Alpha, 1 no-shoot, 1 Mike.  The lower red circle/hit should not score on the target covered up by the no-shoot.  The area under the no-shoot scoring area is deemed not to exist, so the lower hit only scores 1 no-shoot.  If I read your question correctly, your club is scoring incorrectly.

[Explosiveo]

If it’s touching the perf a tiny little section of bullet shears off and hits the target behind and scores. Seems like you understand how it works and just don’t like the wording.

if we’re going to pick apart weird s#!t in the rule book we will be here all day cough……Virgina count…..cough

[shred]

The NS perf mess is a goofy fiction USPSA made up because some DNROI long ago got annoyed people were getting A/NS on hits like #3 and #6 and thought they deserved C/NS.

 

It should have been left as 'touches the perf, gets the score' and we wouldn't need all this nonsense.

[Sarge]

2 hours ago, DIYguy said:

Great answer

Well I understand the rule. But the more you try to make sense of it the less sense it makes.

  If you think back to one of your posts I think you said you understood how an edge hit on NS steel worked because a piece of bullet missed and proceeded on. Same exact concept with paper NS. If the perf got touched that means a piece of bullet missed the NS to proceed on.

 

[DIYguy]

Nope. Never said anything about edge hits on steel or shearing off. The analogy I made was if the no-shoot was made of steel rather than cardboard the bullet could not pass through to hit the target behind as the steel is impenetrable. Based on the explanation of "a piece of the bullet proceeded on", #3 could possibly qualify as the majority of the hit is outside the line. #2, #4, #6, #7 and #8 are completely within the target. I would not score any hit by a "piece" of a bullet as a hit. Full circle with a grease mark. Splatter, tears and pieces are NOT hits.

 

BiknSwans:  That is a major part of my complaint, hits behind the no-shoot cover. Keep hearing" that's the way we've been doing it" when scoring hits behind the no-shoot. I just want a better understanding of the concept, if the cover target is impenetrable and the area under the target does not exist, why do any hits score on the target behind.

 

shred:  Also my point. It's like, "this is the rule except on Thursdays" I have not found anything in the rules anywhere where it states, target is impenetrable "unless it touches a perf line". As I stated in the very first line, "This is a rule I've had some confusion over and how matches are scored." 

Still hoping someone can cite where this scoring method is explained.

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, DIYguy said:

 I would not score any hit by a "piece" of a bullet as a hit. Full circle with a grease mark. 

 

it sounds like perhaps you are scoring incorrectly. if the bullet diameter is touching the perf, then obviously you don't have a full circle inside the target, but luckily you don't need one.

 

the 2 red circles in your diagram are 1A, 1NS, 1M.

 

all the black circles on the diagram are shown with the correct and easily understandable scores. If the bullet diameter touches the perf, then it also scores on the target behind in the area outside the perf.

 

In case I may have misunderstood you, please feel free to give me a specific example of where your interpretation differs with the posted diagram, and I'll be happy to explain my thoughts further.

Edited March 20, 2023 by motosapiens

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, DIYguy said:

Nope. Never said anything about edge hits on steel or shearing off. The analogy I made was if the no-shoot was made of steel rather than cardboard the bullet could not pass through to hit the target behind as the steel is impenetrable. Based on the explanation of "a piece of the bullet proceeded on", #3 could possibly qualify as the majority of the hit is outside the line. #2, #4, #6, #7 and #8 are completely within the target. I would not score any hit by a "piece" of a bullet as a hit. Full circle with a grease mark. Splatter, tears and pieces are NOT hits.

 

BiknSwans:  That is a major part of my complaint, hits behind the no-shoot cover. Keep hearing" that's the way we've been doing it" when scoring hits behind the no-shoot. I just want a better understanding of the concept, if the cover target is impenetrable and the area under the target does not exist, why do any hits score on the target behind.

 

shred:  Also my point. It's like, "this is the rule except on Thursdays" I have not found anything in the rules anywhere where it states, target is impenetrable "unless it touches a perf line". As I stated in the very first line, "This is a rule I've had some confusion over and how matches are scored." 

Still hoping someone can cite where this scoring method is explained.

Well I’m sorry it seems confusing and I’m even more sorry you seem to be scoring targets incorrectly.

  And FYI if a bullet hole touches the outer perf it is not “wholly “ within the NS. If it’s not wholly within then some got past for score. 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Sarge

[motosapiens]

15 hours ago, Alleycatdad said:

No, really, I see what he's saying.  If the perfs are aligned as noted in the diagram, and the area outside the perf, of course, doesn't exist, and the area up to and including the perf on the no-shoot are impenetrable, then what, exactly, is the shot that touches the perf of the overlying no-shoot scoring on?

 

I know it's not how it's done, but I can see his point.

 

SA

imho, the perf is considered penetrable, so a shot touching the perf is also touching that part of the target underneath.

[GigG]

It is really very simple the area outside the border perf doesn't exist. Whether you are shooting the white or the brown side doesn't matter.  It is there for one reason only. To make scoring easier.

[broadside72]

5 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

imho, the perf is considered penetrable, so a shot touching the perf is also touching that part of the target underneath.

 

But only where there is visible scoring target on the other side of the edge/perf, right? Otherwise example #1 would be D/NS

Personally I have no issue with the scoring method and perforations. There needs to be some amount of physical definition of the delineation between scoring zones otherwise we couldn't score at all.  

[motosapiens]

6 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

 

But only where there is visible scoring target on the other side of the edge/perf, right? Otherwise example #1 would be D/NS

 

correct. thanks for the clarification. As an applied math major, I understand the desire to express the rule with mathematical rigor in a few axioms, but the NROI diagram seems to demonstrate effectively how to apply the scoring to normal situations.

 

perhaps it would help to think that the perf only exists as an extension of an *available* scoring zone, so since the D is not available at #1 or #8, the perf of the D essentially doesn't exist.

 

Similarly at #6, since the A is not available, the perf of the A doesn't exist, whereas the perf *does* exist an extension of the available C.

Edited March 20, 2023 by motosapiens

[DIYguy]

Seeing lots of opinions.

In summary what is being relaid is: " If the shot touches the outer perf it is considered to have occurred outside the scoring area, inside the non existent boarder but still incurs the penalty." Even when the shot is 99.9% inside the target area. IE: #2, #4, #6, #7 and #8. If not touching perf, target is impenetrable.

 

Point of clarification, in the example attached previously with the two red circles, at our local club the red circle in the no-shoot area has been scored by many others as a hit behind for score. I do NOT agree with this scoring and is part of this whole discussion.

 

THE OUTER BOARDER DOES NOT EXIST. As stated multiple times, if #1 and #3 were just slightly left so they DID NOT TOUCH THE PERF #1=Mike, #3=Charlie. Any shot touching the perf or inside the perf incurs the NS penalty.

 

When taking the certification exam there are two parts, the ruling or opinion but that opinion has to have specific rules and number cited as evidence. All of the above opinions would cite NOTES-Scoring Targets to explain their opnion. 9.1.5.1 tends to contradict the target example and I have not be able to find a rule that states "unless it touches the perf line". Where is the written rule that explains the why. That has been and still is my question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shred]

Partial hits by bullets can count..  Rule 9.1.5.3,  9.1.5.4 (and 9.4.3 and some others)

9.1.5.1.1 is the special-case for overlapping rule.  "...and its perforations..."