Shoot Them In The Back

[AikiDale]

If you shot it from the back, those holes on the scoring side would be a figment of your

imagination because the targets are IMPENETRABLE. USPSA Rule 9.1.5.

Now , if you did shoot a target from the back side how would it score? Let's say you

safely managed to engage a shoot target from the white side with 2 rounds.

I would score it:

2 no shoot penalty hits

2 mike

1 FTE---you never fired a round at the brown side. Those two holes don't count because

the white side is IMPENETRABLE.

Only impenetrable if the bullet continues on to strike another target:

9.1.5 says the targets are deemed impenetrable. Period. All the 9.1.5.x rules explain the consequences in various situations of the targets being impenetrable.

The original poster was actually asking about the situation of the bullet "continuing

on to strike another target"---the brown target behind the white one. (other side of the

cardboard).

Troy----You got anything to say about this one?

So you are saying if I shoot a target in the back and get a hit that divides the scoring/non-scoring border on the D or B scoring zone it is a good hit and if I shoot a target in the back it is not a hit if I get an A?

[Jim Norman]

OK, the $64,000.00 question is....

You are running downrange and see a white target, the otherside is visible to a different pathway and MAY be a shoot target, but the side you are looking at is WHITE, that means it is a No-Shoot. Or at least it could be. Why would you risk the penalty? Yes, a set-up like this is BAD COURSE DESIGN. But, if I stapled a N/S to the back of the shoot, would you then ask for the hits on the target the N/S backed up? No, you would not. Why? Because:

9.1.5 Impenetrable – The scoring area of all IPSC scoring and penalty

paper targets is deemed to be impenetrable. If a:

9.1.5.1 Bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target,

and continues on to strike the scoring area of another

paper target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will not

count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

The face of the target is what we score. Therefore the shots that penetrate the face DO NOT count on the opposite side. If they did then all shots fired at all shoot targets would have to be scored two hits and two N/S

You cannot have it both ways! If a shot fired through the back counts as a hit, then logically a shot fired at the front must count as the same number of penalties.

There is an answer, simply have two types of target, one that is brown on brown and one that is white on white, but that would add to our costs considerably as well as to logisitics. Lets just agree that only the face of a target is the scoring surface.

Isn't that simpler? And it fits in the rules.

We don't really need the IPSC added rule. All we need to do is read what is actually there already.

Jim

[open17]

If you shot it from the back, those holes on the scoring side would be a figment of your

imagination because the targets are IMPENETRABLE. USPSA Rule 9.1.5.

Now , if you did shoot a target from the back side how would it score? Let's say you

safely managed to engage a shoot target from the white side with 2 rounds.

I would score it:

2 no shoot penalty hits

2 mike

1 FTE---you never fired a round at the brown side. Those two holes don't count because

the white side is IMPENETRABLE.

Only impenetrable if the bullet continues on to strike another target:

9.1.5 says the targets are deemed impenetrable. Period. All the 9.1.5.x rules explain the consequences in various situations of the targets being impenetrable.

The original poster was actually asking about the situation of the bullet "continuing

on to strike another target"---the brown target behind the white one. (other side of the

cardboard).

Troy----You got anything to say about this one?

So you are saying if I shoot a target in the back and get a hit that divides the scoring/non-scoring border on the D or B scoring zone it is a good hit and if I shoot a target in the back it is not a hit if I get an A?

WOW. Guess I didn't think that one all the way through. A partial diameter hit on the

white side would of course "continue on to hit the brown side" as a partial diameter hit.

Hmmmm--That means that everytime we get a hit that is on the line between the scoring

area and non-scoring border, we also get a no-shoot penalty for the partial diameter

hit on the backside (white side) of the target?

Maybe we should just write " don't shoot the targets from the back" into the course description? Or would that violate the "as and when visible" part of 1.1.5?

[AikiDale]

I do not think so Jim. We designate targets as shoot or no shoot targets. That should suffice. We do not need to remove the convenience of being able to use the same piece of cardboard as either a shoot or no shoot target. But one target can not be both as you noted.

If a target is desginated as a shoot target we generally try to have the brown side facing the shooter and the white side facing the shooter as a penalty target. But the object we refer to as a target can only be one or the other and should be scored appropriately.

If a target has been deemed a shoot target I can not understand why anyone would care from which direction the bullet entered the legitimate target as long as the shots were all made in a safe direction. This is purely a cultural and emotional revulsion to back shooting and has no place in our sport.

In the situation Flexmoney mentioned above with a turning target he should have been awarded the points. The target was listed in the stage briefing as a shoot target. Had it disappeared from view after one exposure it would earn non penalty mikes if missed, but it did present, from another shooting position which afforded an opportunity for the shooter to pick up the points.

In a 'Practical' sense people, which our humanoid targets represent often stop bullets or slow them down sufficiently to preclude one shot from taking out multiple persons which, coupled with the sporting desire to require each target to be separately engaged leads quite logically to our impenetrable rule. But in a practcal sense we score the holes in the paper. Whether they represent entry or exit wounds is irrelevant.

[AikiDale]

WOW. Guess I didn't think that one all the way through. A partial diameter hit on the

white side would of course "continue on to hit the brown side" as a partial diameter hit.

Hmmmm--That means that everytime we get a hit that is on the line between the scoring

area and non-scoring border, we also get a no-shoot penalty for the partial diameter

hit on the backside (white side) of the target?

Maybe we should just write " don't shoot the targets from the back" into the course description? Or would that violate the "as and when visible" part of 1.1.5?

My solution is to just understand it is okay to back shoot legitimate targets. The latest IPSC response to this takes the opposite tact and is found in the 2006 rule book which adds:

IPSC 9.5.7 Hits visible on a scoring paper target or no-shoot, which are the result of shots fired through the rear of the target or no-shoot, will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

[Nik Habicht]

Is this even an issue? In five plus years of shooting USPSA, I've never seen the back side of a scoring target available to me, except possibly on a turner.......

Course design and set-up, folks ---- that's where we solve this......

[open17]

My solution is to just understand it is okay to back shoot legitimate targets. The latest IPSC response to this takes the opposite tact and is found in the 2006 rule book which adds:

IPSC 9.5.7 Hits visible on a scoring paper target or no-shoot, which are the result of shots fired through the rear of the target or no-shoot, will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

Until now I had not thought that this was a big deal. Have had a few instances where

a turner was visible from the back from a different shooting position, but never had anybody back-shoot one. Maybe it's just a "don't shoot the white ones" thing?

However, if IPSC actually felt that the situation is serious enough to require a RULE to deal with it, it must occur with some frequency.

How many of us have had this situation actually be an issue during a match?

[AikiDale]

Is this even an issue? In five plus years of shooting USPSA, I've never seen the back side of a scoring target available to me, except possibly on a turner.......

Course design and set-up, folks ---- that's where we solve this......

It happens rarely, but it does happen, usually with turners on long courses. I'd prefer to get the extra points. The problem is that our rule book does not address the issue and the response has been to award shooters penalties for taking what should be IMO properly scored shots.

Stage design and set up can always be improved but a simple rule clarification is much easier.

Either:

IPSC 9.5.7 Hits visible on a scoring paper target or no-shoot, which are the result of shots fired through the rear of the target or no-shoot, will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

or,

USPSA 9.5.7 Hits visible on a scoring paper target or no-shoot, which are the result of shots fired through the rear of the target or no-shoot, will count for score on paper targets or penalty on no-shoot, as the case may be.

[JFD]

I think I'd vote for IPSC 9.5.7.

There's always going to be 1 nutty shooter out there somewhere who would think USPSA 9.5.7 is a license to ignore the 180. There are other things I'd rather do than load up and return fire when waiting my turn to shoot

Other than the occasional drop turner, I've never seen this situation before. Of course if I did, it probably wouldn't "register" with me as a possible way to shoot any target.

[Kory]

This was brought up again yesterday because for the second time in a couple months I shot a stage where I could have gained advantage had I shot a scoring target in the back. (I did not, I figured I'd get penalties). Both times it was absolutley safe, nowhere near the 180.

I shoot in socal under USPSA rules, I couldn't find anything in the 04 green rule book about this.

[moverfive]

This actually came as a potential issue in the nationals about 8 or 10 years ago. I didn't shoot that year so I am being a parrot here - evidently on the 'fence' stage there were targets where it was possible to shoot them from the back - not a lot of target mind you, but something available.

When Lenny was doing his nationals videos back then, he actually made reference to this by supposedly quoting Barnhart as saying that he did engage the targets from the back. Later Barnhart denied making those comments.

With Barnhart's possible engagement bouncing around the match, there evidently wasn't any talk of penalties or him not getting the actual scores. Hopefully someone who was there that year can clarify/correct what I was told second-hand.

So while in 99% of the cases, this would indicate poor stage design. However, it also shows that it could happen. Would love to hear from someone who can provide an informed opinion as to how this would handled in a real match.

[Flexmoney]

We, of course, have an old thread about this. I didn't reference it earlier because there is no conclusion in it for us USPSA shooters.

But, you can hear the Barnhart story and also get some input from Vince on that old thread.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...024&hl=back

[Kory]

What about penatly targets that get shot in the back, do those count as penaties?

[ChuckS]

This was brought up again yesterday because for the second time in a couple months I shot a stage where I could have gained advantage had I shot a scoring target in the back. (I did not, I figured I'd get penalties). Both times it was absolutley safe, nowhere near the 180.

I shoot in socal under USPSA rules, I couldn't find anything in the 04 green rule book about this.

Kory,

What stage was this target on?

[Kory]

Stage 5

The far barracade on the right had three targets behind it. The leftmost target is the one in question. I would have liked to run up to the right side of the barricade to pick up the three targets and two plates.

Instead I shot the rightmost target on my way to the barricade and stopped on the left side to shoot the remaining, resulting in a few more steps and akward shooting angle on the middle target over the barricade.

[Flyin40]

I seen this happen yesterday at a match. A drop turner was engaged after it was activated through the backside. The shooter was given 2 no penalty mikes. It was a new shooter, might of been his first match.

Flyin40

Edited September 25, 2006 by Flyin40

[LPatterson]

This was brought up again yesterday because for the second time in a couple months I shot a stage where I could have gained advantage had I shot a scoring target in the back. (I did not, I figured I'd get penalties). Both times it was absolutley safe, nowhere near the 180.

I shoot in socal under USPSA rules, I couldn't find anything in the 04 green rule book about this.

Kory the next time you see a way to shoot a scoring target from the back I think you should do it. If you don't break the 90/180 whatever in Kalifornia then you can argue your point to the RO, CRO & RM but if they do not agree with you, suck it up & start shooting then from the front.

9.6.6 The Range Master's ruling will be final. No further appeals are allowed with respect to the scoring desision.

7.3.1 ..... snip For Level I and Level II matches a single person may be appointed to be both the Match Director and the Range Master.

[Jim Norman]

The scoring surface of a target is considered to be impenetrable. I would think then that the back side of a target, be it a N/S or a Scoring Target is impenetrable and the hits would not count on the other side. A round that passes through a target and strikes another target providing that the round is a full diameter hit on the first target will not be counted. If the hit is a partial, then it counts,

BUT!!!!

The portion of the target covered by a NS or Hard Cover is determined to be "NOT THERE" for the purposes of scoring. So the partial hit DID NOT touch the covered portion of the scoring surface. Since the perfs are essentially aligned front to back on a single target, there can be no score and there can be no penalty.

I can see how a target could be set so that the backside would be visible. It could be on a situation where you run left to right before turning to run down range. Sort of an either or type of COF. Some may choose to run left to right awhile others run right to left.

This is fine and is not a bad design, PROVIDING that only the backside of a SHOOT TARGET is ever visible. If the backside of a NS is visible in such a situation, it could cause a shooter to engage the backside of a N/S with potentially disastrous results. When such situations are present at our club, we put two N/S's back to back.

Also, if I were to shoot the backside of a Shoot Target (the white side) and expect to get the points on the other side, why wouldn't I also expect to get all the penalties from the N/S I shot at from the Shoot Side of a Shoot Target?

Jim Norman

[Bigbadaboom]

The scoring surface of a target is considered to be impenetrable. I would think then that the back side of a target, be it a N/S or a Scoring Target is impenetrable and the hits would not count on the other side. A round that passes through a target and strikes another target providing that the round is a full diameter hit on the first target will not be counted. If the hit is a partial, then it counts,

BUT!!!!

The portion of the target covered by a NS or Hard Cover is determined to be "NOT THERE" for the purposes of scoring. So the partial hit DID NOT touch the covered portion of the scoring surface. Since the perfs are essentially aligned front to back on a single target, there can be no score and there can be no penalty.

What if you shoot it through the back and it's an outside D hit touching the perf?

[Jim Norman]

We are starting to debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin here.

A target is somewhere between 1/16 and 3/32 inch thick. I was always under the belief that targets were ssentially one dimensional in their thickness.

You shoot at a target from the white side, you want the points on the brown side, I assume you have no problem with the penalty points? Or again, how about the penalty points on the back of a regular shoot?

This is gaming to a degree that is detrimental to our sport.

My opinion, but I don't think we need a rule, we just need to stop trying to invent points out of thin air.

Jim

[Bigbadaboom]

I e-mailed Amidon about this and will keep the members posted.

I do know this though; the whole "If you shoot it from the back then it's a no-shoot" doesn't fly. IPSC/USPSA targets are white on one side and tan on the other so that they can be used for either a no-shoot target or a shoot target, not so they can be used for both at the same time.

Edited September 26, 2006 by Bigbadaboom

[Genghis]

If you're going to issue a NS penalty for shooting the backside of a legit target, then logically you have to award points for shooting the good guy in the back. But this won't be a problem if the stage design states whether each target is a shoot or no-shoot.

If the rule in USPSA is "You can do it unless they tell you not to," then this should apply to this situation, too. The USPSA rules don't seem to clearly prohibit engaging targets from the back, so . . .

[open17]

Lets beat at this from another angle:

4.1.2.1 The scoring area of scoring paper targets must be of a typical cardboard color.

1.1.5 Targets to be engaged "as and when visible"

SO---if you can't see the brown part you can't shoot it.

[AikiDale]

Lets beat at this from another angle:

4.1.2.1 The scoring area of scoring paper targets must be of a typical cardboard color.

1.1.5 Targets to be engaged "as and when visible"

SO---if you can't see the brown part you can't shoot it.

Why should I be denied the points if I can shoot the target safely? The holes will show up on the scoring surface.

[Bigbadaboom]

Lets beat at this from another angle:

4.1.2.1 The scoring area of scoring paper targets must be of a typical cardboard color.

1.1.5 Targets to be engaged "as and when visible"

SO---if you can't see the brown part you can't shoot it.

No one said we were scoring the back of the target only shooting the back and scoring the front.