Shoot through - hard cover

[JThompson]

EDIT: Original topic had to do with soft cover as well as hard cover, but was deemed hard cover unless specified in writing.

Interesting topic... I learned a lot form reading your points of view. I have a question that occurred to me while reading this thread... Okay, you have a prop that is seen as hard cover and a target behind it. If the shooter hits the cover with one and gets a shoot through and a hit on the target, then he shoots another clean for his second shot, (not a makup shot); one is an A and the other a C. Which one is the Mike?

I see where

9.1.6.1 Bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to strike any scoring paper target or noshoot,

that shot will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.1.6.2 Bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to hit or strike down a metal target, this

will be treated as range equipment failure (see Section.4.6). The competitor will be required to

reshoot the course of fire, after it has been restored.

9.1.6.3 Bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to strike the scoring area of a paper

target, the hit on that paper target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

But I don't see how you determin which one is the Mike?

Edited May 9, 2007 by JThompson

[mactiger]

You look at the holes and try to find the one that A): lines up with the hole in the wall, and 2): doesn't have a "grease ring", although that isn't absolutely reliable.

Troy

Edited May 9, 2007 by mactiger

[JThompson]

You look at the holes and try to find the one that A): lines up with the hole in the wall, and 2): doesn't have a "grease ring", although that isn't absolutely reliable.

Troy

Thanks Troy. I was hoping there would be something more definative like the lowest or highest value is the Mike. If they were both very close it would be next to impossible to tell which one was which. Perhaps this is an area where the rules could be more clear. It's not as though it happens a lot, but it does happen and I think guessing is the wrong way to go.

[ipscbob]

As Troy has already stated, you as RO must make the judgement call based on what you see.

[mactiger]

You look at the holes and try to find the one that A): lines up with the hole in the wall, and 2): doesn't have a "grease ring", although that isn't absolutely reliable.

Troy

Thanks Troy. I was hoping there would be something more definative like the lowest or highest value is the Mike. If they were both very close it would be next to impossible to tell which one was which. Perhaps this is an area where the rules could be more clear. It's not as though it happens a lot, but it does happen and I think guessing is the wrong way to go.

I never said anything about guessing, and it's not that hard to do, really. Saying lowest or highest is the mike is purely arbitrary, and is definitely not scoring what the competitor actually shot. This is a case where the RO must use some judgement, and can call for help from the CRO and the RM.

Troy

[JThompson]

You look at the holes and try to find the one that A): lines up with the hole in the wall, and 2): doesn't have a "grease ring", although that isn't absolutely reliable.

Troy

Thanks Troy. I was hoping there would be something more definative like the lowest or highest value is the Mike. If they were both very close it would be next to impossible to tell which one was which. Perhaps this is an area where the rules could be more clear. It's not as though it happens a lot, but it does happen and I think guessing is the wrong way to go.

I never said anything about guessing, and it's not that hard to do, really. Saying lowest or highest is the mike is purely arbitrary, and is definitely not scoring what the competitor actually shot. This is a case where the RO must use some judgement, and can call for help from the CRO and the RM.

Troy

You're right it is arbitrary, but if the cover is a long way from the target, and were talking about two hits within say 2-3 inches.... the chances the RO could call that shot are next to nil. Besides, he/she is looking at the gun not the target. The RO might see what shot broke the cover, but the chances that he called the shot 50-75 feet downrange??? What I was suggesting is a consistant way to handle the fault. You break hard cover, and I didn't see... couldn't call the shot, then the lower or higher of the two is marked as the mike. In this way you would have a rule in place that was level for all in the case you weren't positive about the shot. This makes sense no?

Edited May 9, 2007 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

You break hard cover, and I didn't see... couldn't call the shot, then the lower or higher of the two is marked as the mike. In this way you would have a rule in place if you couldn't clearly tell what shot it was. This makes sense no?

The issue there is you may have given the shooter either a better or worse score than they earned.

We don't do that.

The RO needs to be able to clearly make a call on what the shooter scored. As Troy stated...no guessing. If the call can't be made, then you are looking at a reshoot.

[JThompson]

You break hard cover, and I didn't see... couldn't call the shot, then the lower or higher of the two is marked as the mike. In this way you would have a rule in place if you couldn't clearly tell what shot it was. This makes sense no?

The issue there is you may have given the shooter either a better or worse score than they earned.

We don't do that.

The RO needs to be able to clearly make a call on what the shooter scored. As Troy stated...no guessing. If the call can't be made, then you are looking at a reshoot.

Flex,

That's interesting and I think I understand what you are saying and why. Here is something else to ponder. Say you give the shooter a reshoot... he shoots it clean and now he has no mikes. He had a mike before, but now he doesn't. I fail to see that as a complete solution. In such a case the shooter rewarded instead of being penalized and we know for a fact he/she should have a penalty... it's not a course failure, so why would they be rewarded for making a mistake. There is the possiblity that she/he would do worse on the reshoot. What if the shooter doesn't want a reshoot? Do we force them as in a range failure?

I'm not trying to be an a$$... I'm just trying toi understand as best I can. You have been doing this a lot longer than I. Please don't think I'm trying to start some shtuff.

Edited May 9, 2007 by JThompson

[mactiger]

It has nothing to do with looking at the gun. You look at the target and at the hard cover and line up the shots. If the hard cover is next to the shooter and the target is 50-75 feet downrange, I'd have to question whether it was an AD, not a shot through hard cover. Also, it sounds like the course design could use some tweaking.

The point is that every situation is different, and the RO is going to have to use some judgement. As Flex pointed out, if the RO can't determine which hit is which, then it's a reshoot. This is consistent with the rules, and IMO is a better way of scoring this problem than just taking away a hit that may or may not be the right one. The course design is causing a problem here.

Troy

Edited May 9, 2007 by mactiger

[davidball]

It has nothing to do with looking at the gun. You look at the target and at the hard cover and line up the shots. If the hard cover is next to the shooter and the target is 50-75 feet downrange, I'd have to question whether it was an AD, not a shot through hard cover. Also, it sounds like the course design could use some tweaking.

The point is that every situation is different, and the RO is going to have to use some judgement. As Flex pointed out, if the RO can't determine which hit is which, then it's a reshoot. This is consistent with the rules, and IMO is a better way of scoring this problem than just taking away a hit that may or may not be the right one. The course design is causing a problem here.

Troy

+1

[Lee Bell]

You break hard cover, and I didn't see... couldn't call the shot, then the lower or higher of the two is marked as the mike. In this way you would have a rule in place if you couldn't clearly tell what shot it was. This makes sense no?

The issue there is you may have given the shooter either a better or worse score than they earned.

We don't do that.

The RO needs to be able to clearly make a call on what the shooter scored. As Troy stated...no guessing. If the call can't be made, then you are looking at a reshoot.

That's great in theory, but I'm not sure it's even close to easy to do. Correct me if I'm wrong, the the RO that accompanies the shooter, carries the timer and watches the shooter for procedural and safety issues. If he's looking to see where a shot went, he's not giving his full attention to his primary responsibilities, right?

I would think it would be relatively easy to tell, by lining up the holes, which shot does not get scored and which does. Rather than take the risk, assuming a comstock count, I think I'd make sure there were enough holes in that target to give me the score I want. One for the shoot though and three in the A zone. That way, no matter what the RO decides, teh score is the same.

Personally, I've never shot through hard cover, but I suppose one day, I will. I have shot through no shoots, which I suppose (I should check the rules, but am too lazy at the moment) sets up the same question.

Lee

[ima45dv8]

At the Area 6 match this weekend, I worked as an RO for the RO's on Friday, running a stage that provided multiple opportunities to see hits on targets that first impacted a no-shoot, and in a few cases, hard cover.

In all but one case, it was no problem determining which was which. As Troy said, the absence of a grease ring on the scoring target showed the shot that had first passed through the no-shoot(s). The one time I had a problem was for a shooter whose bullets didn't leave a grease ring on *any* target.

[SteveZ]

So just to complete this discussion...which rule would you state to warrant the reshoot?

[ima45dv8]

Given a scenario where there was one Alpha and one Charlie hit on a target, and one of them had passed through hard cover or a No-Shoot first, I would issue a reshoot if I couldn't determine which of the shots passed through the hard cover of No-Shoot in front of the scoring target. It looks like the two rules that apply would be 9.1.5 and 9.1.6.

If I couldn't determine a fair and accurate representation of the shooter's turn at the COF, I think a reshoot is in order.

Is there a different rule(s) you would apply?

(Steve always asks hard questions! )

[Flexmoney]

2.1.8 Target Placement – Care must be taken with the physical placement of a paper target to prevent a “shoot through”.

^^^ Stage design takes care of a lot of this...as Troy and the others stated.

Flex,

Say you give the shooter a reshoot... he shoots it clean and now he has no mikes. He had a mike before, but now he doesn't. I fail to see that as a complete solution. In such a case the shooter rewarded instead of being penalized and we know for a fact he/she should have a penalty... it's not a course failure, so why would they be rewarded for making a mistake. There is the possiblity that she/he would do worse on the reshoot. What if the shooter doesn't want a reshoot? Do we force them as in a range failure?

It certainly is a course failure. It's not the shooters fault that the proper score can't be clearly determined.

Reshoots aren't awarded...they are required. They are part of the game. And, no...the shooter doesn't get to choose*

Whether the shooter improves their score (or not) with the reshoot is of no consequence to making the initial call.

[JThompson]

2.1.8 Target Placement – Care must be taken with the physical placement of a paper target to prevent a “shoot through”.

^^^ Stage design takes care of a lot of this...as Troy and the others stated.

Stage design is a consideration for sure. I think many of the rules were written to help negate bad COF design. All I'm saying is, I feel, that there is room for clarification here and perhaps a rule interpretation is needed. May be that I'm just a little slow on the uptake because it seems a bit of a gray area in that there are too many ways in which it can be handled. The RO saw it, he didn't see it. She gets a reshoot, she doesn't get a reshoot. The shooter wants a reshoot or doesn't want a reshoot. They reshoot and the no longer have a mike they "earned."

To me this type of thing is perfect for IPSCs IROAs to deal with. They could do a rule interpretation and take a lot of the ambiguity out of it.

Perhaps there is no need and I’m the only one who feels there is some ambiguity. I love that we can all come here and discuss it. I have learned so much from you guys/gals. I have had a crash course in IPSC rules and have drawn on your years of experience to speed the learning curves. Some of the things I’ve come across here would have taken years to see on a COF. Now when I see something I can draw on the knowledge and interpretations from you all as well as the IPSC handgun rules book.

Thanks to you all for having patients in dealing with a new IPSC shooter.

[Flexmoney]

You are pretty hung up on what the shooter did or didn't "earn".

That is not the issue. The issue is if you can properly score the target or not.

Think about it from a different perspective. Say...basketball. There, the ref has to make calls based on a bit of judgement from time to time. And, lets say I am on defense and an offensive player gets free with the ball and is going to get an easy layup. If I foul that player...the play stops. Even though they "earned" there easy layup...that isn't a factor in making the call.

[ima45dv8]

James, maybe one thing that needs to be emphasized is that I (and most every RO I've ever met) do not practice or accept ambiguity in scoring. I can see where you maybe think it's just a "pick one hole and go with it" scenario, but that's not the case. The absence-of-a-grease-ring mehtod is very effective at identifying just exactly what occured. Failing that, if a valid score cannot be determined, for whatever reason, a reshoot is required.

I can see where this might sound like black magic, or flashbacks run rampant, but it really does work out quite well in the end.

[JThompson]

2.1.8 Target Placement – Care must be taken with the physical placement of a paper target to prevent a “shoot through”.

^^^ Stage design takes care of a lot of this...as Troy and the others stated.

Flex,

Say you give the shooter a reshoot... he shoots it clean and now he has no mikes. He had a mike before, but now he doesn't. I fail to see that as a complete solution. In such a case the shooter rewarded instead of being penalized and we know for a fact he/she should have a penalty... it's not a course failure, so why would they be rewarded for making a mistake. There is the possiblity that she/he would do worse on the reshoot. What if the shooter doesn't want a reshoot? Do we force them as in a range failure?

It certainly is a course failure. It's not the shooters fault that the proper score can't be clearly determined.

Reshoots aren't awarded...they are required. They are part of the game. And, no...the shooter doesn't get to choose*

Whether the shooter improves their score (or not) with the reshoot is of no consequence to making the initial call.

Good stuff here. Okay, the shooter has no choice in the matter. That's no off the table. But the shooter has an infraction for shooting through hard cover, or soft cover that was not specifically stated in the written. So this cover is obscuring the target, as it was meant too. The shooter breaks the shot and, in doing so, shoots through cover and hits the target too. Now since he was lucky, or skillful, enough to hit the target even though he should have a penalty for shooting through hard cover, he gets a reshoot. Let's go with the example of the a$$ that ran over the RO for a reshoot. Now he's having a bad run and thinks, "Hell, I can shoot through that wall/cover and hit the target." There's no way the RO will know which shot it was, so I can run the stage again. Granted this is an extreme case and not likely. However, I don't like the possibility of loopholes, or rewarding a noshoot with another go.

I will back off now because I think we have taken this about as far as it can go without beating a dead horse. Once again I thank you for your time and patients.

Best,

JT

James, maybe one thing that needs to be emphasized is that I (and most every RO I've ever met) do not practice or accept ambiguity in scoring. I can see where you maybe think it's just a "pick one hole and go with it" scenario, but that's not the case. The absence-of-a-grease-ring mehtod is very effective at identifying just exactly what occured. Failing that, if a valid score cannot be determined, for whatever reason, a reshoot is required.

I can see where this might sound like black magic, or flashbacks run rampant, but it really does work out quite well in the end.

Thanks Mark... it was a pleasure to discuss it with you guys.

Best,

JT

[ima45dv8]

The shooter breaks the shot and, in doing so, shoots through cover and hits the target too. Now since he was lucky, or skillful, enough to hit the target even though he should have a penalty for shooting through hard cover, he gets a reshoot.

The shooter gets a reshoot only if a valid score can't be determined, which truly isn't as hard as it sounds. The shooter then gets the penalty in the form of a Miss/Mike (if he didn't make up the shot); not a reshoot. The reshoot is only required when the RO can't determine a valid score.

Let me propose a way to help you see this for yourself.

If you have a chance sometime, put one target about a foot in front of another, only partially obscuring the back target (say, maybe half of the back target). Fire several shots through the front target, striking the back target. Fire a few more directly into the back target without striking the front target. Unless you're using a bullet that leaves no grease ring on any targets at all, I predict you'll quickly be able to tell the difference.

I hope this helps.

[Flexmoney]

Granted this is an extreme case and not likely. However, I don't like the possibility of loopholes, or rewarding a noshoot with another go.

I will back off now because I think we have taken this about as far as it can go without beating a dead horse. Once again I thank you for your time and patients.

Best,

JT

Maybe not a dead horse, but you might be beating on a horse that isn't in the race.

And, if...the shooter was to dilbertately shoot up the hard cover and look for a free reshoot...that could be grounds for a DQ under USLC...

[JThompson]

The shooter breaks the shot and, in doing so, shoots through cover and hits the target too. Now since he was lucky, or skillful, enough to hit the target even though he should have a penalty for shooting through hard cover, he gets a reshoot.

The shooter gets a reshoot only if a valid score can't be determined, which truly isn't as hard as it sounds. The shooter then gets the penalty in the form of a Miss/Mike (if he didn't make up the shot); not a reshoot. The reshoot is only required when the RO can't determine a valid score.

Let me propose a way to help you see this for yourself.

If you have a chance sometime, put one target about a foot in front of another, only partially obscuring the back target (say, maybe half of the back target). Fire several shots through the front target, striking the back target. Fire a few more directly into the back target without striking the front target. Unless you're using a bullet that leaves no grease ring on any targets at all, I predict you'll quickly be able to tell the difference.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for your input. I didn't know about the greese mark before this thread. You guys rock! (Suckup mode off) I did get it after it was said... the first obstruction wipes the greese off and the target gets no greese. I haven't seen this though and will be checking it at the range this afternoon, so I know what I'm looking for.

[JThompson]

And, if...the shooter was to dilbertately shoot up the hard cover and look for a free reshoot...that could be grounds for a DQ under USLC...

Comon bra... give me some credit... I'm a better actor than that.

Edited May 9, 2007 by JThompson

[Jaxshooter]

Shooter 1 gets a reshoot because his score cannot be determined and it wipes out any misses/penalties.

Shooter 2 shoots the COF and is down to the last few targets and the wind blows over a popper he has not engaged. He is also given a reshoot and any misses/penalties are wiped out.

That is the way our rules work. Like all sports sometimes luck enters the picture.

[JThompson]

Shooter 1 gets a reshoot because his score cannot be determined and it wipes out any misses/penalties.

Shooter 2 shoots the COF and is down to the last few targets and the wind blows over a popper he has not engaged. He is also given a reshoot and any misses/penalties are wiped out.

That is the way our rules work. Like all sports sometimes luck enters the picture.

I sent John an email earlier in the thread and asked if he would have a peek and see what he thought... he responded thusly:

Jim,

It appears that those answering you have given you how this is handled, I could not of stated it any better, it is a matter of working or shooting matches regularly, that in time, a better understanding of how different things are handled, most of these issues have occurred several times over since the inception of this sport and the rules we have now were formed by these occurrences, that is why the rule book is an on going process.

Regards,

John Amidon

I guess we can file this one under D for done. I like how he stated that the rules are "ongoing." There is room in that for change and that is alway nice to hear.

Thanks for the, obviously, excellent interp of the rules guys.

Best

JT