Shoot through - hard cover

[mactiger]

You can email John, if you wish. You'll find that it is indeed that way--sticks don't exist, at least for scoring purposes. Call them soft cover, if it makes you feel better, but shooting through them does not consitute a miss.

Troy

[Lee Bell]

This discussion has been more useful than most. In fact, it proved useful just last Thursday night.

In one of our club matches, a shooter stood an open shooter stood a bit furhther back from a port and shot lower on the target than was good for him or his score. His bullet passed through the wood under the port and into the target's lower Charlie zone.

Nobody seemed to know what to do except . . . well, you know. Just as discussed in this thread, the lack of a grease ring made it easy to tell which shot had passed through the hard cover. Good thing, too. The other shot was in the A zone.

As the thread progressed, I learned even more. Had someone asked what happens if you shoot though a stick, I would not have had a clue. Now I do.

Thanks.

Lee

[Flexmoney]

Troy, you brought that up (about the sticks) here before. That is the only time I ever recalling hearing that. It looks like the IPSC rules (maybe the 2008 ed. rules?) support that, but I don't think we have anything in the current USPSA rules other than 9.1.6...which seems all encompassing.

If that is the practice that the top rule dogs support, then we gotta get that into the rule book, I'd think. Or, into the "official interpretations". ??

I don't have a dog in this...other than it kinda goes against "all props are hard cover"...given a bit of a double standard. (I guess I do like the consistency of 9.1.6)

If somebody (not me ) wanted to make a practical justification for the sticks...I guess they could point out that the sticks might represent arms and legs...worth zero points (Monty Python's "it's just a flesh wound" jokes may now commence).

[mactiger]

What, you didn't believe me the first time?

It is covered in the 2008 rules, which are the USPSA rules. 9.1.7

The reason it's in there is to clarify this situation. There is no practical justification for the sticks--soft cover is the best you can call them, not arms or legs, since we don't score them. And, if we did, uh, what position is a target with the sticks not cut off representing? Since sticks vary (sometimes greatly) in dimension, degree of "straight", etc., they can't be hardcover, because if you have to change one due to it's being shot up, it may not be the same shape, etc., therefore you've effectively changed the course of fire. The thing is, they aren't "props", they are just a means of hanging a target up, and should not be considered a part of the course of fire.

Having said all that, without a definitive, published interpretation from John, I'm kind of beating a dead horse here. And, even though I know it, I can't prove it without a doubt in the rules, so I'm gonna quit. My arm is getting tired, and besides, we've strayed from the original question. I will say that if you happen to shoot through a stick into another target at Nationals this year, it's not going to affect your score. If the RO calls something different, you better be asking for me, or Floyd, or John.

Troy

Edited May 12, 2007 by mactiger

[JThompson]

It's been a good topic for discussion. I learned a lot from it and others have said so too.

[Flexmoney]

I will say that if you happen to shoot through a stick into another target at Nationals this year, it's not going to affect your score. If the RO calls something different, you better be asking for me, or Floyd, or John.

Troy

Troy, how about getting on John and getting an "official interpretation" out on that?

You guys are talking about calling it a different way than it was just called at an Area match. A way that...isn't supported by the current rule book (9.1.6 seems to be the fitting rule).

I'm not looking to be obtuse or argumentative in any way here. I know that my CRO instructor would require that I put a rule number next to justification for a call. When I go to do that...no matter what you call those target sticks, they seem to clearly fall under 9.1.6

If you hadn't mentioned the sticks here on the forum...I'd never have know there was even another possible way of looking at them.

[SteveZ]

I know that my CRO instructor would require that I put a rule number next to justification for a call.

thread shift (back to the beginning)

...and yet we're all in agreement that the right thing to do in the situation of a shot through hard cover that continues downrange hitting a paper target that can't be resolved....would result in a reshoot of the COF....without a rule number to justify the call.

Somethings they tell you in RO/CRO courses aren't in the rulebooks. It would be nice if the rulebook covered every possible scenerio and spelled out every consequence...but we all know, its just not possible.

The problems arise in these gray areas...where some RO's rule differently than others.

[Flexmoney]

I know that my CRO instructor would require that I put a rule number next to justification for a call.

thread shift (back to the beginning)

...and yet we're all in agreement that the right thing to do in the situation of a shot through hard cover that continues downrange hitting a paper target that can't be resolved....would result in a reshoot of the COF....without a rule number to justify the call.

Somethings they tell you in RO/CRO courses aren't in the rulebooks. It would be nice if the rulebook covered every possible scenerio and spelled out every consequence...but we all know, its just not possible.

The problems arise in these gray areas...where some RO's rule differently than others.

Sounds like you ought to put pen to paper and write up the rule to handle that situation ?

(I've done that in the past.)

[SteveZ]

Sounds like you ought to put pen to paper and write up the rule to handle that situation ?

(I've done that in the past.)

I already tried...it turns out that this is a tricky little problem. I had this problem happen at a club match late last year and decided to bouce this problem off my favorite RM -- Floyd Shoemaker. Floyd explained to me the "problems" involved with this situation and asked that I discuss it with Bruce Gary (who is our "go to" guy involving proposed USPSA rule changes). After a few emails back and forth with Bruce, I realized that a "one size fits all" rule simply wasn't possible with this situation and understand why its delt with on an individual basis.

[Flexmoney]

Damn...you'd think...between us all...we'd have enough of whatever it is...to figure out how to write a rule to cover this.

[wide45]

You could go to 2.1.8

Note the word "must".

Evidence of a shoot through means the stage does not comply.

Fix the stage under the provisions of 2.3 , or toss the illegal stage.