3quartertime Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Please excuse a bit of endulgence. I'm putting on the biggest big match that I coud imagine this very weekend. I can't tell you how wonderful it is to have two of the RO's that have responded to this question in such a professional manner on my team. Thanks for all that are making my life much less complicated this week!!! James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 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. You, sir, are a genius. If you keep this up I will ask the powers that be to give you my recently-discarded title of "The Arbitrator". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 27, 2003 Author Share Posted March 27, 2003 Flex, I must disagree with your comment that the template created "additional hard cover", because the template target did not, in any way, conceal (or "cover") the target "in play". The issue at hand is that the template gave the illusion that the scoring area of the "in play" target was wider than what was actually available for score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 27, 2003 Author Share Posted March 27, 2003 One more thing, in response to Big Dave. There was only one competitor who shot the COF prior to the problem raising it's ugly head, and he scored two Alpha, so it wasn't an issue for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 That big round paster is on an alpha?? Anyway, where in the rulebook does it say you can't staple targets to a nice brown cardboard backer of whatever size? I'd give the miss, then let the competitor arb the changed target as a different shooting challenge, should he so desire. Just because you shot where the target _was_ or where you thought it was does not give you a hit based on where the target _is now_. Just ask Erik about swingers, or anybody that's shot with a gusty wind blowing targets back and forth. The only argument you could even try is 4.5.1.1 - Altered Target Position If, the Range Officer observes that the position of a paper or metal target has changed, presenting a different challenge than that presented to previous competitors, the competitor shall be required to reshoot the course of fire Unless the COF is very strangely set up, I'm not buying that 1/4" displacement presents a different challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 VP, okay, NOW I get it... this was a 'Classic Target'!! That was not clear from your original post, and no wonder this is screwed up (but I do agree with the range staff spanking!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 27, 2003 Author Share Posted March 27, 2003 Shred, In Hong Kong we have a very large Alpha zone .......... Duhhh, my bad. Sorry about that, Chief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 ( L2S...I was with ya on the teasing...I posted twice to seperate the issues. ) I agree 100% with shreds last post. Vince said: The issue at hand is that the template gave the illusion that the scoring area of the "in play" target was wider than what was actually available for score. I have experienced lots of illusions when shooting. Sometimes those targets get up and move completely out of the way of my bullets. I must disagree with your comment that the template created "additional hard cover", because the template target did not, in any way, conceal (or "cover") the target "in play". Vince, 3.2.4 makes that strip hard cover. Whether it has any bearing on the target in question is irrelevant. (Though that doesn't directly answer your original question, it is the right call.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Erik - thanks! I actually should persue the RO stuff, as it fits so well into what I do for a living, auditing others work products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 27, 2003 Author Share Posted March 27, 2003 Flex, The thing which irritates me the most are poppers which duck 'n' weave and go "Nyah, nyah" when I shoot at them! I see your argument why you describe the template as "hard cover". Despite actually being a "target", the template is not being used as a target. Of course the "shoot through" provisions don't apply to the case at hand, but its' a good example of why range crew must take special care when using targets as templates. And the best "target templates" I've seen are painted black. This way, they can't be confused as targets or no-shoots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muser Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 4.5.1.1 states...the position of a paper or metal target has been changed, presenting a different challenge... My understanding is that the target in the photo was set up that way for all that had shot the stage to that point. No change occurred. I'd score it a mike and make sure all target changes from that point matched the original off set position for that particular target. If the standard that has to be met is a positional change of .5 cm, the width of the scoring border, to be considered an unfair target presentation, we are in big trouble. I have seen targets changed out at big matches that didn't use a template, and I am certain the new targets were not replaced with an accuracy of .5 cm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Right, this is a great example or why the set up crew needs to take special care. Good thread Vince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muser Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 I agree that the set up crew should have been more careful in stapling this target to the template, but it did not create a displacement issue, but a misplacement issue that presented the same challenge to each competitor, therefore, 4.5.1 should not have been considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 27, 2003 Author Share Posted March 27, 2003 Rule 4.5.1 also states "Range equipment failure includes but is not limited to ......", so whether you call it displacement, misplacement or misalignment, the competitor was presented with a target view which was different to the target view presented to competitors who shot previous targets. It's also an elementary tenet of IPSC shooting that we don't penalise competitors for errors which are wholly and solely the responsibility of the range crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muser Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Rule 4.5.1 also states "Range equipment failure includes but is not limited to ......", so whether you call it displacement, misplacement or misalignment, the competitor was presented with a target view which was different to the target view presented to competitors who shot previous targets.It's also an elementary tenet of IPSC shooting that we don't penalise competitors for errors which are wholly and solely the responsibility of the range crew. My understanding from the posts is that only one competitor had shot that stage when the protest was lodged. Had a target change been made that resulted in the misalignment, or was the stage set up incorrectly at the start of the match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 27, 2003 Author Share Posted March 27, 2003 A number of squads shot the COF with the "original" target. After the subject target was replaced, the second competitor created the hole visible in the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Although I'm not a "rules man," when I first looked the target, by brain said - reshoot, because the target presentation is retarded. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 And the best "target templates" I've seen are painted black. This way, they can't be confused as targets or no-shoots. Vince, I've never seen a "target template" painted black, but it seems like a great idea. Maybe I just have not paid attention, or do they use this format overseas, or at things like the World Shoot (which I have never attended)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muser Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 A number of squads shot the COF with the "original" target. After the subject target was replaced, the second competitor created the hole visible in the image. That's a horse of a different color. I'm changing my call to a reshoot, with that being the case. I would have made both shooters who shot the stage after the target change reshoot the course, also. 4.5.1.1 says that the competitors who were presented with a different challenge shall be required to reshoot the course of fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 28, 2003 Author Share Posted March 28, 2003 I don't mean to be pedantic but, while I'm happy you agree it's a reshoot, I want to clarify my view that the reshoot would not be offered by me because of a "different challenge". The misaligned target was not more difficult or challenging to shoot; it wasn't smaller, it wasn't concealed and it wasn't further away. The target itself was not "different" - the supporting range equipment was inequitably different. My reason for the reshoot is because the competitor could be forgiven for believing the "dicky" hole was a valid Delta. In other words, the target offered an identical "challenge" but it gave a "false" view after the shot was made. If, for argument's sake, the template target was painted black, I would've scored the hole as a Miss. I want to emphasise my thought process to hopefully help you guys think outside the box but within the provisions (or leeway) afforded to you by the rules. Here endeth the lesson. Give generously to the collection plate ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Vince, I agree with your last post. However...I would ask that you point out in the rulebook were the color of stage props makes a difference...and how it applies to this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 28, 2003 Author Share Posted March 28, 2003 For starters, I doubt anyone would consider a target template to be a "prop". In any case, while not specifically mentioning "targets used as templates", Rule 4.1.4. gives you a clue about the spirit of the rules by requiring penalty targets to be clearly distinguishable from scoring targets. Of course now that yet another COF construction issue has been identified, we'll deal with it on the Rules Committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muser Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 I would question the use of a target as a template. It presumes that all targets are dimensionally exact and that the two targets will remain perfectly aligned throughout the match in order to avoid the situation that led to this thread. Why take the chance? 2.1.8.1 already addresses the proper way to maintain target placement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 For starters, I doubt anyone would consider a target template to be a "prop". Well...I would consider it a prop. At the least, it falls under the unbrella of, "All props, walls, barriers, screens, and vision barriers..." . Not that that means anything special, but a template is certainly NOT a penalty target (nor, a scoring target). I'm not trying to be a hard-azz here...just pointing out that color, as far as I can see, is only a factor with scoring targets and penalty targets. I agree that having the template a different color would be the smart thing to do. That is good stage management. Makes it less likely for the crew to make this mistake (and have it be a factor). Again Vince, good thread. This hammers home the point that we need to be careful on stage setup. Every shooter should get the same challenge...(whatever that may end up meaning ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 muser brings up a good question. This may (in genereal) be covered under 2.1.8.1. What is the appropriate action to take if 2.1.8.1 is not followed? Is Section 2 simple a "guideline"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now