No penalty mike on dissapearing targets

[ChuckS]

Hi all,

The thread on Skipping Targets got me wondering on where this no-penalty mike thing came from. I did a little snooping around the forum and found some discussion back in 2003 but no hint as to the origin. This whole thing always seemed a bit "T-ball, no shooter left behind, good for self-esteem" sort of thing. I can't imagine that Cooper and the boys would of dreamed this up? In any case, anybody know where this came from? I am not asking what you all think about NPM and the like, I am just wondering about the history.

Later,

Chuck

[GentlemanJim]

USPSA rules on dissapering targets

Jim

[Loves2Shoot]

I was once told (I think in RO school) that it was put into place because if you have mechanical failure, you may never have a chance to shoot the target, but that could be an urban legand.

[L9X25]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for but the disappearing target is a target that has retreated, is no longer available to shoot, and therefore no longer poses a threat. Because of these facts, there is no penalty for not shooting, or missing, it. A target must be available multiple times or remain available to incurr a miss penalty.

[Nik Habicht]

A target must be available multiple times or remain available to incurr a miss penalty.

Not Quite --- under current rules it must remain available to incur a miss penalty......

[HSMITH]

I figure he is the smart target that has seen me shoot. He turns sideways and hold still, that way he is pretty safe LOL :goof:

[bgary]

the idea was that, when it has disappeared, it is deemed to "no longer represent a threat".

B

[ChuckS]

Thanks for the feedback! I should of made myself more clear. I understand the rules and such, I just wanted to know when and why were the rules first brought into IPSC/USPSA? The red 2001 book is the oldest one that I and the bye for dissapearing targets is in there under US 10.1.4.8 and 9.9. Come on you old guys, try and remember!

Thanks again,

Chuck

[open17]

A target must be available multiple times or remain available to incurr a miss penalty.

Not Quite --- under current rules it must remain available to incur a miss penalty......

Yup---When I started in 2001 (Red Book) if a target presented itself 2 or more times and then

disappeared Miss and FTE penalties applied. If it only presented itself once, then disappeared,

it was no FTE and a NPM. Personally I kind of liked it better that way. We have several

2 and 4 exposure R&R turners. I've blocked most of them so they are visible at rest, but we dom't

use them nearly as much since the Green Book came out.

Bill

[L9X25]

Not Quite --- under current rules it must remain available to incur a miss penalty......

I'm glad that has been fixed. The rules now states that they must (at least partially) be visible at rest or appear and disappear continuously to not be a disappearing target.

We had a State match, a few years back, where there was a target that appeared twice and then disappeared forvever. It was deemed NOT to be a disappearting target because it appeared more than once. The wording in the rule book, at that time, used the word "multiple" to describe a non-disappearing target and the textbook definition for "multiple" is more than one.

The intent of the rule was to exclude swingers from being disappearing since they appeared indefinitely (or were visible at rest) but there was a poor choice in wording.

[wide45]

The disappearing target is deemed to have retreated, and is offering no further challange to the competitor.

It's in the 1995 blue rule book. I no longer have an older version.

[Neil Beverley]

From the 1986 IPSC Rulebook (7th Edition):

• 11.01 RETREATING TARGETS - Targets that turn, move, rise or fall by mechanical means to limit the time exposed shall by their disappearance, be deemed to have retreated, offering no further challenge to the competitor and shall not incur penalties for missed shots.
  

Edited July 14, 2007 by Neil Beverley

[Blockhead]

This discussion reminds me of the "Roller Coaster" stage at last year's Area 2 match. What happens (under the current rulebook) when the targets become unavailable due to forced movement of the shooter through the stage? Don't get me wrong, I thought the stage was cool and I have no problem with the "Failure to shoot at" penalties. However, I still kinda feel the miss penalties were a bit much.

I've not said much since, having zeroed the stage myself. The one thing I learned from the stage was how important it is to really study the timing of range equipment and to determine a plan that works with my skill set at the time. Useing the brake would have added a lot of time. However, I could have picked up serious stage points just by shooting it clean with 15% of the competitors carrying a zero.

[johnhurd]

Been that way since I started in '81

[ipscbob]

This discussion reminds me of the "Roller Coaster" stage at last year's Area 2 match. What happens (under the current rulebook) when the targets become unavailable due to forced movement of the shooter through the stage? Don't get me wrong, I thought the stage was cool and I have no problem with the "Failure to shoot at" penalties. However, I still kinda feel the miss penalties were a bit much.

I've not said much since, having zeroed the stage myself. The one thing I learned from the stage was how important it is to really study the timing of range equipment and to determine a plan that works with my skill set at the time. Useing the brake would have added a lot of time. However, I could have picked up serious stage points just by shooting it clean with 15% of the competitors carrying a zero.

These were not disapearing because you could have pulled the cart back up the ramp using the ropes on the sides of the track.

[shred]

This discussion reminds me of the "Roller Coaster" stage at last year's Area 2 match. What happens (under the current rulebook) when the targets become unavailable due to forced movement of the shooter through the stage? Don't get me wrong, I thought the stage was cool and I have no problem with the "Failure to shoot at" penalties. However, I still kinda feel the miss penalties were a bit much.

These were not disapearing because you could have pulled the cart back up the ramp using the ropes on the sides of the track.

I've never seen the stage in question (and usually Area 2 is good about not doing this sort of thing), but in my experience "You could have done [some pretty unreasonable thing like run an extra 50 yards and/or shoot it through a 1" diameter hole surrounded by no-shoots at 20 yards], so they aren't disappearing targets" in most cases is pretty poor stage design by a stage designer that just has to make people do things their way.

Although.. what if in this example, a shooter with no upper-body strength, or say missing one arm were to shoot the stage and be unable to move back up range should they so desire? You can't challenge a shooting problem as unreasonable but physical challenges that prevent you from shooting are fair game, and it would be difficult to use the 20% rule in a case like this.

[SmittyFL]

You could have pulled yourself back for a few of the targets, but not for the first two banks. It was too steep at the beginning and if I remember correctly the rope didn't go all the way to the top. They should have been disappearing.

[wide45]

In the video of the stage that I saw, the first targets were scored, and taped by the time the competitor finished.

If ever there was a Carnival stage...