Shoot through - hard cover

[SteveZ]

I had this same discussion with a well known RM a few months ago and got the same answer (reshoot). The reason I asked in my earlier post to "state a rule" was a bit rhetorical...because you can't state a rule..there is no rule in the book that covers this. There is no benefit of the doubt either. When I asked this particular RM about someone ARBing this ruling (reshoot) based on no specific rule cited....I found that someone ARBing this would have to come up with a valid way of scoring the target given the present set of rules (which again don't give any guidence on how to score this situation).

Here are a couple of other interesting scenerios:

1) Shooter puts a round through the hard cover...realizes it and shoots a make up shot on the target (total of 3 rounds fired at the target). Target has 2 holes in it. Did the round fired through the hardcover hit the target or not? Were the two holes in the target the result of shots after the shooter realized they hit the hard cover and are real hits?

2) Shooter puts a round through hard cover...realizes it and shoots a make up shot. Target has three hits (A/C/D). One of them didn't happen (9.1.6.1). 9.5.1 says best two hits score...but one of those hits didn't happen....there is no benefit of the doubt.

I think in all these cases, the only thing you can do is mandate a reshoot (even though there's nothing in the rule book that says so)...but I'd be bouncing it off the RM before making that decision.

Hi Floyd...and Bruce!

[JThompson]

I had this same discussion with a well known RM a few months ago and got the same answer (reshoot). The reason I asked in my earlier post to "state a rule" was a bit rhetorical...because you can't state a rule..there is no rule in the book that covers this. There is no benefit of the doubt either. When I asked this particular RM about someone ARBing this ruling (reshoot) based on no specific rule cited....I found that someone ARBing this would have to come up with a valid way of scoring the target given the present set of rules (which again don't give any guidence on how to score this situation).

Here are a couple of other interesting scenerios:

1) Shooter puts a round through the hard cover...realizes it and shoots a make up shot on the target (total of 3 rounds fired at the target). Target has 2 holes in it. Did the round fired through the hardcover hit the target or not? Were the two holes in the target the result of shots after the shooter realized they hit the hard cover and are real hits?

2) Shooter puts a round through hard cover...realizes it and shoots a make up shot. Target has three hits (A/C/D). One of them didn't happen (9.1.6.1). 9.5.1 says best two hits score...but one of those hits didn't happen....there is no benefit of the doubt.

I think in all these cases, the only thing you can do is mandate a reshoot (even though there's nothing in the rule book that says so)...but I'd be bouncing it off the RM before making that decision.

Hi Floyd...and Bruce!

You're preaching to the choir my man. I still think there should be some addition to what's there, but I said I would let it go. It will get revived if it happens to me or someone at a match I attend. I might not even say anything... just wait and see how it's handled.

Thanks for your input Steve.

Best,

Jim

Edited May 10, 2007 by JThompson

[SteveZ]

... just wait and see how it's handled.

So did I, thats why a I asked a similar question to my RM. I've played RO at major matches before and wanted to know what the right answer was.....more importantly a right answer that would hold up under arbitration.

[JThompson]

... just wait and see how it's handled.

So did I, thats why a I asked a similar question to my RM. I've played RO at major matches before and wanted to know what the right answer was.....more importantly a right answer that would hold up under arbitration.

Agreed.

[wide45]

How could it get to arbitration?

If the RO can't score the target, the score can't be written on the score sheet. Incomplete score sheet is a reshoot.

You can't arb the scoring of the target. The RM has the last word.

[SteveZ]

How could it get to arbitration?

If the RO can't score the target, the score can't be written on the score sheet. Incomplete score sheet is a reshoot.

You can't arb the scoring of the target. The RM has the last word.

Incomplete score is a different problem....not related to this.

The RO will issue a reshoot....but there is no rule in the rule book that legally grants a reshoot....and further, there is no rule in the rule book that gives guidence on how to score this problem. We're basically faced with a delima here! No rule that grants a reshoot, no rule that defines how to score the target. The only fair thing to do is grant a reshoot and hope no one 3rd party arbitrates it.

Suppose for a moment that Shooter A happens to have 7 no shoots just before he pops another one and that round happens to hit a target down range. The RO can't score it.....and orders a rehoot! Shooter B is in a close race with Shooter A. Shooter B isn't really happy that Shooter A just got a reshoot after having a crappy run! Guess what might happen next!

Edited May 10, 2007 by SteveZ

[wide45]

The RO required a reshoot, because he could not score the target.

Competitor disagrees, and asks the RM be called.

RM states the target can not be properly scored. Agrees with the reshoot.

What rule is the basis for your Arb?

Complete score was not recorded for the original run. If you could win the Arb, you would still have to reshoot the stage.

[SteveZ]

The RO required a reshoot, because he could not score the target.

Competitor disagrees, and asks the RM be called.

RM states the target can not be properly scored. Agrees with the reshoot.

What rule is the basis for your Arb?

Complete score was not recorded for the original run. If you could win the Arb, you would still have to reshoot the stage.

I guess you're not seeing my point. What rule is the basis for a RESHOOT? (please state the exact rule number....I'll save you the effort, there isn't one.)

Second point....3rd party arbitration for awarding a reshoot for a rule that doesn't exist.

And thats all I have to say on that...this issue is impossible to debate because there are no rules for this situation.

[wide45]

I guess you're not seeing my point. What rule is the basis for a RESHOOT? (please state the exact rule number....I'll save you the effort, there isn't one.)

Second point....3rd party arbitration for awarding a reshoot for a rule that doesn't exist.

And thats all I have to say on that...this issue is impossible to debate because there are no rules for this situation.

No rule needed. There is no other reasonable option.

If you win the arbitration, what should happen? No reshoot allowed? We don't have a score for the original run.

There is no debate, because there is only one thing you can do.

[mactiger]

Actually, in this case, if the competitor challenges the RO and CRO's call on the target, once the RM scores the target, it can't be arbitrated. See 9.6.6.

Example: Bullet passes through hard cover, hits a paper target. Other bullet hits target, too.

RO scores the target by lining up the holes and looking for a grease ring, and scores one alpha, one mike. Competitor challenges the scoring, CRO looks, same result: one alpha, one mike. RM is then called, and yep, one alpha, one mike. End of story, no arbitration.

If at any point in the scoring someone would say, "I can't tell which is which", it's a reshoot. And, like Steve said, there isn't a specific rule for this, it's just the only right thing to do. I suppose you could base it on REF, since the "hardcover" failed to be impenetrable, but it's still a reshoot.

Troy

[driver8M3]

speaking of hardcover shoot-throughs...this happened at area 6. one of the no-shoot targets had a piece of the stick that was not cut flush with the target. my friend, a relatively new uspsa shooter, first major match, etc., put a round through the stick and into the C zone of the brown target behind it (2nd shot was a clean alpha on the brown target).

the call on this target? alpha/mike. and they had to leave that piece of stick for the rest of the match.

one other point: whenever no-shoots are placed far in front of shoot targets, it's pretty easy for the RO to score all of the shoot targets and forget to look at the no-shoots. if you're ROing a stage like this, look at the no-shoots first...then score the rest of the stage. also at area 6, on 2 separate occassions i saw ROs overlook no-shoot hits on set-ups like this.

[Flexmoney]

i saw ROs overlook no-shoot hits on set-ups like this.

RO's need to remember that NS targets are targets too. They need to be scored like any other.

[Nik Habicht]

speaking of hardcover shoot-throughs...this happened at area 6. one of the no-shoot targets had a piece of the stick that was not cut flush with the target. my friend, a relatively new uspsa shooter, first major match, etc., put a round through the stick and into the C zone of the brown target behind it (2nd shot was a clean alpha on the brown target).

the call on this target? alpha/mike. and they had to leave that piece of stick for the rest of the match.

Did that get kicked up to the RM? What rule did they cite?

[JThompson]

speaking of hardcover shoot-throughs...this happened at area 6. one of the no-shoot targets had a piece of the stick that was not cut flush with the target. my friend, a relatively new uspsa shooter, first major match, etc., put a round through the stick and into the C zone of the brown target behind it (2nd shot was a clean alpha on the brown target).

the call on this target? alpha/mike. and they had to leave that piece of stick for the rest of the match.

one other point: whenever no-shoots are placed far in front of shoot targets, it's pretty easy for the RO to score all of the shoot targets and forget to look at the no-shoots. if you're ROing a stage like this, look at the no-shoots first...then score the rest of the stage. also at area 6, on 2 separate occassions i saw ROs overlook no-shoot hits on set-ups like this.

That's strange because target sticks are not considered hard cover. EDIT: I was reading the IPSC Pistol book 2006 not the USPSA book.

Per 9.1.7 Target sticks are neither Hard Cover nor Soft Cover. Shots which have passed wholly or partially through

target sticks and which hit a paper or metal target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

Edited May 11, 2007 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

Per 9.1.7 Target sticks are neither Hard Cover nor Soft Cover. Shots which have passed wholly or partially through

target sticks and which hit a paper or metal target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

What rule book did you pull that from ?

I don't think it is in the current USPSA book ?

That leaves us with:

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.5.2) in

the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision

screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard

cover”. If a:

I wouldn't mind seeing 9.1.7 make it into the USPSA book, but it's not there yet.

[JThompson]

Per 9.1.7 Target sticks are neither Hard Cover nor Soft Cover. Shots which have passed wholly or partially through

target sticks and which hit a paper or metal target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

What rule book did you pull that from ?

I don't think it is in the current USPSA book ?

That leaves us with:

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.5.2) in

the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision

screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard

cover”. If a:

I wouldn't mind seeing 9.1.7 make it into the USPSA book, but it's not there yet.

The IPSC 2006 Pistol... My mistake I was not in the tourney book.... However, it's more of a course design failure in my opinion. It should have been cut down before the natch started. It's hard to make that a penalty. Just doesn't feel right that.

Edited May 11, 2007 by JThompson

[driver8M3]

Did that get kicked up to the RM? What rule did they cite?

yes, the RM was called in. i believe they cited the same rule flex cited.

Edited May 11, 2007 by driver8M3

[Flexmoney]

However, it's more of a course design failure in my opinion. It should have been cut down before the match started.

I agree.

But, it's near impossible to get it all right...all the time. Once it's out there...we gotta go by the book.

[AZ38super]

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.5.2) in

the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision

screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard

cover”. If a:

9.1.6.1 Bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

strike any scoring or penalty paper target, that shot will not

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

9.5.4 Radial tears radiating outwards from the diameter of a bullet hole

will not count for score or penalty.

At this point in the rules the stick becomes hard cover, also if the hole was no longer round after the bullet went through the stick then it does not score as well. It appears to have been scored correctly to me.

[JThompson]

However, it's more of a course design failure in my opinion. It should have been cut down before the match started.

I agree.

But, it's near impossible to get it all right...all the time. Once it's out there...we gotta go by the book.

Agree. You would hope with at least two pair of eyes they would catch it though.

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.5.2) in

the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision

screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard

cover”. If a:

9.1.6.1 Bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

strike any scoring or penalty paper target, that shot will not

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

9.5.4 Radial tears radiating outwards from the diameter of a bullet hole

will not count for score or penalty.

At this point in the rules the stick becomes hard cover, also if the hole was no longer round after the bullet went through the stick then it does not score as well. It appears to have been scored correctly to me.

I had just read the pistol rules and got them backwards in my head. I agree, the way they are written now, it was the right call.

Edited May 11, 2007 by JThompson

[folsoml]

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.

All the shooter's A's are also wiped out. Can't really call a reshoot being "awarded" anything. A guy I shoot with has the worst luck with reshoots. He usually does much worse.

[mactiger]

speaking of hardcover shoot-throughs...this happened at area 6. one of the no-shoot targets had a piece of the stick that was not cut flush with the target. my friend, a relatively new uspsa shooter, first major match, etc., put a round through the stick and into the C zone of the brown target behind it (2nd shot was a clean alpha on the brown target).

the call on this target? alpha/mike. and they had to leave that piece of stick for the rest of the match.

Did that get kicked up to the RM? What rule did they cite?

This was absolutely the wrong call to make. Target sticks don't count as either soft or hard cover. I think that's been debated here before. They are treated as if they don't exist--their sole purpose is to support the target, but are not part of the target nor a "prop". The 9.1.7 rule probably comes from the new, 2008 rules, but the NROI instructors have been teaching this for a couple of years now. You can't get a shoot-through on a target stick, because the stick doesn't exist. The thing to do in this example would have been to score the target, patch the stick, and move on. Cutting it off would have changed the course, but since it's technically not there, it's, well, not there.

Troy

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.5.2) in

the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision

screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard

cover”. If a:

9.1.6.1 Bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

strike any scoring or penalty paper target, that shot will not

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

9.5.4 Radial tears radiating outwards from the diameter of a bullet hole

will not count for score or penalty.

At this point in the rules the stick becomes hard cover, also if the hole was no longer round after the bullet went through the stick then it does not score as well. It appears to have been scored correctly to me.

Huh? A bullet hole, whether round or elongated, is still a bullet hole. A radial tear is a tear in the paper which radiates outward from the diameter of the hole. It's typically no more than a hairline, although at times it can be a rectangular notch. It's not a long or oblong hole.

And, as I said before, the stick doesn't exist, therefore it's not hard cover.

Troy

[driver8M3]

troy,

there seems to be support in the rulebook for the call that was made (9.1.6). what support from the rulebook do you have that they made the wrong call? as you know, things discussed here don't really count as rules or NROI decisions.

[mactiger]

I thought that John had issued an interpretation on that, but I don't see it on the USPSA page. However, he agrees, as do the rest of the instructors, that sticks don't exist, and we've taught it that way ever since I started teaching. But, there isn't a rule specific to sticks. There will be in the new rules. If you think about it, they should never be treated as anything, because they tend to get replaced, not cut off right, etc. However, I can't back my statement with a rule at this point. While I know that debates here aren't binding, I was sure John had made some kind of statement to that effect at some point.

I'll restate my position: I'd never call that a miss.

Troy

[JThompson]

Troy. I agree it should be that way, but if you follow the letter of what's written, right now, that's not the case. per 1.6.

It's foolish in any case... humans don't have sticks coming from their shoulders.