Rule 9.1.5 "Targets Deemed Impenetrable"

[DogmaDog]

So when a bullet passes through a no-shoot, then has to travel another two yards or so before it hits the scoring target, how is it legitimately determined WHICH HIT, if any, on the scoring target is to be taken away because it passed through the no-shoot already?  

I had this happen in my last match, and the RO sort of looked through the hole in the no-shoot at the scoring target, and picked a hole to discard.  He kinda strong-armed any complaint by saying "would you rather I take away an 'A' hit?"

This rule seems ill-advised since it postulates something that simply isn't true (targets AREN'T impenetrable), requires a judgement call by an RO without any solid empirical evidence to back it up--I had plenty of space in the shooting box, and I was moving around in it a lot (there were several no-shoots in front of a target array) so there isn't much constraint on the path of that bullet--can the RO really say where the bullet went after it passed through the no-shoot?

It seems a rather unprecedented denial of benefit of the doubt to the shooter...I've seen nothing like it in other shooting disciplines.

What are your thoughts?

[vluc]

oooh...grease marks is how it was explained to me.  The bullet that passes thru the no shoot first will have it's "dirt" removed so the hole in the second target will show "clean".

[ErikW]

Sometimes the RO will try to line up the shot from where the shooter was, and trace the bullet path through the "impenetrable" to the target. Sometimes the RO will just give the benefit of doubt to the shooter and take away the worst hit on the target, which is my preferred method.

At A2DC Julie G. shot one of her two shots at a target through a no-shoot and had only an Alpha on the target. The RO tried to line things up, thought about it for a while, and finally did the right thing, scored it Alpha-Mike No-Shoot.

[TheOtherErik]

This situation should never have to come up with proper course desgin.

[omnia1911]

Rule 2.1.8  Target Placement * Care must be taken with the physical placement of paper targets to prevent "shoot throughs".

I don't know how we manage to get away with course design that includes "clam shell" target stands, "pop up no shoots", and other devices that violate this rule.

(Edited by omnia1911 at 12:27 pm on Nov. 12, 2002)

[DogmaDog]

Hmmm.  The grease thing didn't come up.  That actually might be persuasive, though.  In my case, there were supposed to be 4 hits on each scoring target.  This one had 3 A and B hits, and a No-shoot in front of it had 1 hit.  I was scored "A, B, 2M, no-shoot", and not "A, 2B, M, no-shoot".

Anyway, It would be nice if course design could eliminate the problem, but it seems like adding depth to the field by placing no-shoots far in front of "shoot" targets does make the course interesting, in that you can change the available target area by moving, which you can't do if the no-shoots are stapled to the shoots.

I'm starting to think IDPA handled it correctly by just scoring the holes in the paper.

Semper Fi,

DogmaDog

[vluc]

At the Tri-State Championship there was a stage where a car made of wood was hard cover with a swinger behind it.  i put two into the paper but according to the RO, it went through the hard cover first...that's where the 'grease mark" mention came from.

When you see a target hole with the grease and a target without...hard to not agree.

[Vince Pinto]

Sadly the only answer is good course construction and good target placement to avoid shoot-throughs.

The "grease mark" idea doesn't always hold true so it's much better to avoid the problem in the first place.

We manage to conduct 35 stage World Shoots with no shoot throughs, so I think it's not too difficult for clubs to do likewise on a much smaller scale.

[Detlef]

you're right Vince, no shoot-throughs when all targets are positioned where earth and sky intersect....

(can you tell I still have nightmares about those far targets???)

--detlef