You Be The Ro

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

How would you, as the RO, deal with the bullet hole shown below during the scoring process?

Please cite the relevant rules in support of your action or decision.

FYI, the rear target is a "template" to be used when replacing the target "in play".

[Shooter Grrl]

Range Equipment failure. Applicable rules are 4.5.1 and 4.5.1.1

Fix the targets and give him a re-shoot.

[Wakal]

Doesn't cut the perf, so no score.

Although I really don't like letting targets overlap that much...

Alex

[ErikW]

Nothing to score on the front-most target.

Nothing to score on the rear piece of cardboard if it was not indicated as a target in the course description.

[tightloop]

No score on either, but he did get a "woodie".

[3quartertime]

My vote is that Shooter Grrl nailed it. It seems to specifically call this out in, 4.5.1.1. Thats assuming that the 'alignment target' was meant to be completely covered thus meaning that the scoring target was not in the same position that other competitors shot it at. It does say that a reasonable attempt should be made to make the targets consistantly challenging to all competitors, but that seems like pretty bad placement.

My .02

[xcount]

Is that a Classic target?

If so, this is a trick question. My spies tell me this issue was discussed at the Orlando meeting (just before the State Police broke it up) where it was decided that the shooter would receive one procedural penalty for having a larger than normal target to work with and still damn near missing it. Not sure what the exact wording of this rule will be. Probably won't include the word "damn".

[BDH]

I agree with Shooter Grrl (and 3QT) under 4.5.1.1 (different challenge than presented to previous competitors).... and I also agree with nearly everyone else under 9.5.4 that since it did not touch the scoring area, it is a mike.

I've also worked enough matches to know that targets are not always the same size, so what say you 'oh wise one'??

[SmittyFL]

Simple.........MIKE!!!

4.5.1.1 If RO observes that the position of a paper target has changed, presenting a "DIFFERENT CHALLENGE" than the previous competitors, he gets a reshoot.

The above picture does not present a different challenge, therefore.......MIKE!!

Maybe give the shooter an "A" for effort if they complained though.

Smitty

[Loves2Shoot]

Hard to judge without an overlay. Round nose 45 might make it with the overlay. Just being nit picky but Wakal said it doesn't break the perf no score. I think he is mistaken. The overlay has to "touch" the perf, and most overlays are a ton bigger than the hole the bullets make. So, without the overlay, I don't have enough visual info to make a call, but if they whined hard enough I would reset the target properly and reshoot due to range failure and let the reshoot gods deall with the shooter.

[kaiserb]

Too make it more interesting they should have had the "template" target as a no shoot.

I would say you scored a mike from looking at the picture.

[Flexmoney]

(assuming the bullet does NOT touch the perf...for the sake on debate )

A template is not a target. A template is a guide. As the RO (and 4.5.1.1 makes it my call) I would not say that the target has moved and that it presents a different challenge. (The wind moves targets more than that.)

The only way to ensure exact target position would be to start using tools with lasers, set on tripods.

There is one other --super gamer-- option that I might pull out...if I were a shooter looking for a chicken-shite call.

[Skywalker]

At first glance, I would agree with Shooter Grrl, this is an incorrectly positioned target, thus 4.5.1 and 4.5.1.1 could be applicable.

But I stress the point of "could" be applicable, because if the target is unobscured, in clear sight from every sighting angle, this is not "different challenge than that presented to previous competitors", thus it shall be scored as a Mike, and no re-shoot can be invoked by the competitor.

On the other hand, if this target is heavily obscured by a barricade, window, narrow opening or penalty target (we only can see the lower right portion of the D-zone, no clue on what is on the left or in front of this target), and I, as the range officer, can rule that it presented "different challenge than that presented to previous competitors", at this point I think 4.5.1 and 4.5.1.1 shall be invoked, and a re-shoot shall be ordered to the competitor.

So, which is the lottery prize?

[Vince Pinto]

Thank you one and all for your comments. Here are my thoughts:

The ".... presenting a different challenge ...." provision of Rule 4.5.1.1 does not apply because the target "in play" (the top one) is not obscured, so it's not a "different" challenge.

Sure, the range crew should be spanked (and not in a fun way), for not going the extra mile to properly align the two (identically sized Classic!) targets, but the competitor does not have a lesser shooting area than previous competitors.

On the other hand, "master" Rule 4.5.1 requires that "Range equipment shall present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors".

I think it's reasonable to assume that a competitor, travelling at typical pace during the COF, could understandably believe his "stray" shot was on the target "in play", and there was no need for a backup shot. Under these circumstances, would scoring the hole as a Miss be "fair and equitable"? No, I don't think so.

Bottom line: I would order a reshoot once the targets had been correctly aligned.

BTW, those of you who said "It's a Miss" should not feel bad. Before posing the question here, I asked 16 fellow Range Masters for their opinion. All of them said "The range crew sucks" but 6 of them said "But no reshoot - it's a miss".

Anyway, you'll also be happy to know that the Rules Committee (who did not discuss this specific issue in Orlando), will shortly be addressing it, in an effort to remove one more area of doubt in the next rulebook.

Thanks again to everyone for their input.

[Skywalker]

Touchè . You got me.

Given that, just for speculation sake, I dare to say that wouldn't feel very comfortable in applying your call Vince (even if I think that it would be fair to the shooter), because with this call you are leaving the "facts" ground for the "shooter feelings" one.

I mean, the objective reality is the shooter missed.

You are supposing that the incorrect placement of the target over the template may have driven the shooter to a wrong conclusion (no backup shot needed). On the other hand, the shooter may have not noticed at all this shot, and simply use the target misplacement at his/her advantage to gain a second chance.

You are now entering the "subjective reality" case, that is what the shooter perceived of his/her action.

If you let the (shooter's) supposed subjective perception drive your calls, instead of the objective reality, this may lead to different application of the same rules.

Don't misunderstand me: I too think that the shooter might have been misled, and that it would have been fair to order a re-shoot, but I wouldn't be sure everybody would have applied rules the same way, or have perceived this situation as a violation of rule 4.5.1

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

As I said, there were some experienced Range Masters who did not agree with the reshoot, and this is the reason why we must clarify the matter in the rulebook, one way or the other, so that we have global consistency with such rulings.

Perhaps it's not very clear from the image but the hole is a Delta on the rear "template" target (I can say this with certainty because it's from our last Hong Kong Regional Championship held in February!). However we cannot score it as a Delta because it's a Miss on the actual target "in play". Quite a conundrum!

And no, we cannot be certain the competitor realised the problem during the COF but, as you know, it is very likely the competitor will protest (and he did by claiming that since he saw two holes on his target, he continued on with the COF).

Sadly we don't have rules to cover "Range Crew Brain Fade", but it's my considered opinion that we should treat such incidents under the provisions of 4.5.1., and I hope my colleagues will agree.

[Shooter Grrl]

Call me logical, but I've always considered "range crew brain fade" as range equipment failure

And, since usually the initial set up is done right, and the screw up happens when the targets get replaced... so again, Miss Logical drew the conclusion that it HAD been set up right and therefore really is range equipment failure.

I don't understand how people can ignore 4.5.1 - it clearly states that if a target is displaced, it's range equipment failure.

[schoonie]

Hey Vince,

Great thread, very helpful and informative. Please offer more of the same.

[Loves2Shoot]

Skywalker,

"I mean, the objective reality is the shooter missed."

Sorry to say that you are wrong. Unless the shooter knew that that target was applied wrong he would have seen that his hit was on the paper, enough to score, thus in his mind no need for a make-up shot. This is no fault of his own, thus the reshoot. It is unrealistic that the shooter could have know that the hit he saw was on a target behind the target he was trying shoot. I agree that he missed in reality, but in the reality of what he saw during the COF he hit, range failure, reshoot. Turn the guide targets around next time so you see white if you don't properly apply the target.

[Flexmoney]

Ok...a couple of quick house-keeping issues, then on to my ultimate gamer call.

I don't understand how people can ignore 4.5.1 - it clearly states that if a target is displaced, it's range equipment failure.

True, but how do you judge if a target is "displaced". We don't have the practical means to make such measurements. I submit that a 5-10mph wind will displace a target. Even the impact of the first bullet into the target can whip the target around a bit. Unless we go with steel target stand, embedded in concrete, then there will be a certain amount of "displacement" due to various factors.

In light of that, I consider a "displaced target" as a target which, for example, has come off the target stand (say the staples gave way, or the support post was shot away).

On to the "templete"...

The template in this case happens to be in the configuration of a target. Though, it is not designated as a target in the stage description and diagram.

Imagine that the target was to be stapled to the center of a 4x8 foot wall. Imagine that the "template" was painted onto the wall, as opposed to being a piece of cardboard.

It doesn't matter if you hit the template...you get scored for hitting the target. Those are the holes that count!

[edit] Oh...how does it matter that the shooter "saw two holes so didn't shoot again"??? We can't score perception, nor intention. We score holes in stuff!

[Flexmoney]

O.K.,

Here is your re-shoot...clearly under current rules.

Since the template's edge creates an area that is larger than the bullets diameter (actually since it is larger than our smallest bullet diameter (9mm)), then we have effectively created MORE HARD COVER. This is what makes the COF different for this shooter (and any other shooters that shot the stage when it was set up in this way).

The fact that it is (about) a 15mm strip doesn't matter...it is the same as if you added a barrel. Hard Cover has been added to this course. Hard cover that wasn't there for previous shooters.

[Loves2Shoot]

Glad you finally got it Flex

[Flexmoney]

Finally??

[BigDave]

is the "in play" target in the photo a (1) replacement target or (2) the first target that the first squad who shot the COF saw? IMO, the "in play" target does not "present a different challenge than that presented to previous competitors". Through the course of the match, the competitors surely would have known about the control targets behind the others. Based on the photo, the 5mm difference does not pose a different challenge to this competitor. Mike.

However...

Since all targets are not created equally, perhaps it would be better to place only the "in play" target on the sticks where needed and then mark the sticks with a marker or pen to show the target in relation to the stick. That would have nix'd this problem, but hindsight...

4.4.2 "The competitor may request that the officials take certain actions to ensure consistency and may refer the matter to the CRO on th estage or the Range Master. The Range Master shall have final authority in matters concerning the range surface."

Another question might be, did the shooter get to do a walk through on this stage? Does not the CRO have absolute responsibility to insure that all targets are placed and reset properly and pasted as well? Another thing is I see a paster already in place on the "in play" target. How many shooters shot the stage with this target presented in this manner? If more than 5 competitors shot that stage in that matter, I believe that would qualify as Chronic Range Equipment Failure and the stage should be thrown out.

I'll add a twist. I use target sticks that are made of red cedar, that blends very well with the USPSA target. If I get a perimeter hit on that target, and I can't confirm if that hit has touched the perf during the COF and ultimately find out that it has not, is that Range Equipment Failure since I cannot clearly see the where the target begins and the stick begins?

Based only on the photo, it is a large assumption that the target was placed improperly, resulting in a Range Equipment Failure, IMO. As I believe others have stated, painting the control target, in this case, the same color as hardcover on that stage or other areas of the range would have eliminated it.

[Loves2Shoot]

Flex,

Just teasing you for your back to back posts.