Swinging no-shoot question

[DBChaffin]

I have emailed John Amidon about these, but I thought I would see what the consensus here is.

These questions arose out of incidents at the Make a Wish Match this past weekend in Waco, TX.  Incidentally, it was a very well run match and the situations were handled very well by the match staff, but we discussed them on the way home and were curious as how to handle things such as these in the future.  

1.  The first incident involved a stage which had a popper that activated a swinging no-shoot in front of two static targets.  A competitor engaged the steel and heard it ring (as did we, it turned out to be an edge hit)and made his way forward.  He did not notice that the steel did not fall.  Of course the swinging no-shoot was not activated when he got to it.  After his run, he asked for the popper to be checked for calibration.  The popper was checked and it fell.  How should this be scored?  A miss for the popper since it did not fall, and then a procedure for each target (2 total) he engaged since he gained an advantage because the no-shoot was not swinging?  A procedure for each shot fired at those two targets (4 total)?   Just for argument's sake, what would be the ruling if the swinging target was a shoot target?  

2.   This question deals with an impenetrable hardcover wall sat at an angle to the shooters position.  A competitor engaged a target located behind the wall, and one round struck the wall.  The full bullet diameter was not present on the "face" of the wall since it went in near the wall's edge.  However, the rest of the full bullet diameter was visible in the "end" or end grain of the board used to make the wall.  The bullet did manage to strike the target.  Should it be scored as a miss?   If the full diameter was on the "face" of the wall, it would not be as gray of area for me, but I have trouble with the thickness of the wall.  For example, if this were a hardcover cardboard target rather than a wall, the bullet would have clipped the edge but not full diameter and I believe would have scored.  What do y'all think?  

[titandriver]

   DB --- I'd be interested to hear what John says, so post his answer please.

    Here's my take, for question #1, under section 9.9 of the current rulebook it says that "moving targets may be scoring and/or penalty targets". It then goes on to explain how they are scored (9.9.1, 9.9.2, 9.9.3). NO where does it mention "scoring" the penalty (???-ain't supposed to shoot penalty targets!)) target. In my opinion a miss penalty for not knocking down the steel would apply. No other penalties apply UNLESS you apply rule 9.9.2 (deals with failure to activate the mechanism that controls the target movement). Since these are NOT shoot targets that are activated, I can't see how it could apply. Chalk it up to great idea/poor production.

 If the activated targets were shoot targets then obiviously you would have misses and failure to engage penalties.

  Question #2, if the target were directly behind where the full bullet diameter was present in the wall, I'd score it as a miss (rule 9.1.5).

 Hope this helps,

[DBChaffin]

Rich, thanks for the reply and I will post John's reply when I receive it.

I think your response to #1 is well reasoned and makes sense.  I definitely see the answer to the second part of #1 answered in Rule 9.9.2 that you pointed out.  Thanks.  

I also think your answer to #2 is sound.  

[DBChaffin]

I received a response from John Amidon if anyone is interested:

#1.  "The answer depends largely on how the stage procedure is written, did it state you had to activate the penalty target before engaging the two scoring targets, or did it simply state PP1 activates swinging noshoot?

I may add that this is poor course design, because of the nature of the problem you state, the stage could have easily been the same without the headaches with just a slight adjustment.  

There is no failure to engage on a penalty target, nor miss penalities, depending on how the stage procedure was written, the least penalty would be a miss on the popper, the most would be a miss on the popper and four procedurals for not activating the swinger before engaging the scoring targets if the description required it."

#2.  "The wall should be hard cover, not the props that hold it up, therefore the edge of the face of the wall should be treated the same as the non-scoring border on a target, if it is only a partial hit on the face and the bullet strikes the target, it is a hit."

[titandriver]

     DB --- thanks for posting his answer, especially for question #2. I was not aware that "props that hold it up" was not part of the hardcover. Guessin' I'll be printing that one off & carrying it in my rulebook --- just in case!