You Be The Ro - II

[Flexmoney]

A No-Shoot (NS) target is setup such that the perforated edge on the NS lines up the the perf on the A-zone of the shoot target.

Shooter comes along and yanks one into the NS, such that the bullet is fully in the NS, but touches the perf.

Common knowledge tells us that the shooter gets scored with one NS, and...since the bullet touches the perf...the shooter also gets the hit on the shoot target.

But, when the RO goes to score the hit on the shoot target, the hole is not touching the A-zone...the hole is in the Charlie.

What's the call here?

[Shooter Grrl]

Huh? If it scores a C, it scores a C. There is nothing in the rule book that says a NS has to line up perfectly - that is just the preferred way to make it easier on the RO's. If tis not touching the Alpha line, then tis not an Alpha.

C'mon Flex, ya gotta come up with harder ones than this

[BDH]

Flex,

This is a little confusing as you said that the perfs were fully lined up, but then said that when scoring, the shot hit the perf on the NS, but was not touching the perf between the A and C zones. If the perfs were truly lined up, then touching the NS perf means you also touch the A zone perf below (1 Alpha, 1 NS).

If the perfs actually were NOT lined up (meaning the shot hit the NS perf, but did NOT touch the A zone perf, then Shooter Grrl is 100% correct on this one (1 Charlie, 1 NS).

[Wakal]

Call what is there...C is a C.

When I was playing CRO at the Texas State Limited, one target had overlapping no-shoots. You guessed it, over the course of the match I got to call a two no-shoots and one A from a single hole. Joked about it during the RO match, but didn't think anyone would be unlucky enough to pull it off.

Alex

[Flexmoney]

yikes...

The perfs are SUPPOSED to be lined up!

If the setup crew did their job the perfs would be lined up.

[Flexmoney]

As stated here (in the setup notes):

[Shooter Grrl]

2 choices, if only a few shooters have run the course, fix it and re-shoot 'em. If too many have gone through to finish all the re-shoots, stage gets thrown out. Got nothing to do with the poor sap that got the hit ;0

Now, if it wasn't a classifier, and it was set up that way, just call 'em as you see 'em.

If this was after a target change, you'll have to fix it and reshoot everyone that shot it after the change, or again, toss the stage.

[BDH]

Flex, well the 'perfs' were not lined up at MRP last weekend either. I walked all the stages and caught it before the first squad came through. However, even after the discussion, no change was made. Since there was no requirement that they be directly lined up, I just said 'okay, but I'm glad I am not working this stage as it will be difficult to score and moved on......'

[Flexmoney]

Now, if it wasn't a classifier, and it was set up that way, just call 'em as you see 'em.

The rule book applies to classifiers differently than other courses of fire???

-----

(now assuming it doesNOT specify in the stage setup notes)

OK...if the perfs don't line up...what happens when we have to change targets??? How can we "make it the same" for the shooters after the target change?

[Vince Pinto]

If the targets were improperly aligned from the very outset, the logical thing to do is to put the replacement targets on an identical misalignment, so everybody has the same presentation for that stage at that match.

However I think the point Kath is making is quite valid.

If CM99-7 at Range A is setup differently to the same classifier at Range B, then this can conceivably skew the results on a national level because, unlike a regular "non-classifier" stage, the results go into a common database.

The thot plickens .........

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

Now YOU are saying classifiers follow a different rule book???

[Vince Pinto]

No, I didn't say that (sigh). OK, let me try it another way .........

If you don't comply 100% with the requirements of CM99-7, then it's no longer CM99-7. It's just another stage in a match and the first paragraph of my last reply still applies.

Lions 1, Christians Nil.

[Flexmoney]

Ok...lets forget the classifer. I only used it as an example (that was readily available to post in the thread).

The point being...on stage CM 99-7 (lets forget it is a classifier)...the setup notes clearly state that the perfs are to line up.

If the perfs are lined up, then a shot that touches the line on the NS also should touch the line on the scoring target.

If the shot does NOT touch both lines, then that is evidence that the perf are NOT lined up...which they are required to be from the setup notes.

So, what I put forth is this...

It is either scored NS, Alpha...OR...it is something else (along the lines of a reshoot?).

[BDH]

First, I fully agree with VP that if a classifier is not set up EXACTLY as specified, then it is NOT a classifier.

Second, if the perfs ARE lined up, the shot WILL touch both lines.

Third, if the perfs are NOT lined up, then score it as it stands, and certainly, is no reason for a re-shoot.

The smart stage designer lines up the perfs to make it easier for the range staff to score the stage. Having to peel back a no-shoot to see if a shot was an A or a C is a really bad thing.....

[Nik Habicht]

Could the target have been shot from such an acute angle as to touch the perf on the front target and be just off on the rear target? Or are we assuming that the shooter shot head - on; muzzle aligned with the perf?

[shred]

Nik's got something there.. Remember way back when I posted a "how do you score a bullet crease across the face of a target?" quiz? Touching the front face of the scoring area counts as well as barely touching the side edge.

Now it's possible to hit a NS perf at such an angle that even if it were perfectly lined up, the hole may not be on the line on the next target down. Surely we can't be pretending overlapping targets are all on the same plane?

[Flexmoney]

Nik & shred,

Those are great points.

To keep this discussion on track...I am talking about head-on shots.

[Vince Pinto]

There are three separate issues here:

(1) Scoring Areas: "Touching the line" counts for score and/or penalty.

If a bullet hole is mostly in one scoring zone (e.g. C) but is also touching the line of a higher scoring zone (e.g. A), then the higher score is awarded.

If a bullet hole is mostly in a scoring zone but is also touching the line of penalty target then it scores both.

If a bullet hole is mostly in a penalty target but is also touching the line of scoring zone then it scores both.

For scoring purposes, the non-scoring border is irrelevant.

(2) Angle of the shot: This is irrelevant. We score by reference to each bullet hole.

(3) Misaligned perforations: If targets are not presented consistently for all competitors, this will most likely be cause for one or more reshoots. In a worst case scenario, the entire stage may be deleted from the match.

[toowide]

If the targets were properly set so the perfs were in line, then the shot should have cut the perf on the scoring target. Anything inside the perf on the no shoot doesn't exist since no shoots are inpenetrable 9.1.5.

[Flexmoney]

right...right, right.

OK... new question.

The SETUP NOTES on the stage briefing...what happens if they aren't followed?

[Vince Pinto]

If the "incorrect" stage set-up can be duplicated for all competitors in the match, the easiest solution would be to modify the set-up notes accordingly, in order to obviate reshoots. No harm, no foul.

If this is not posssible, then order reshoots for the affected competitors or, worst case, withdraw the stage (Rules 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 apply).

However if the "incorrect" stage set-up is also a Classifier, the scores for that stage should not be submitted as a bona-fide Classifier, because the "incorrect" set-up cannot be duplicated for competitors at other ranges.

[mcginnes]

Hum, I'd go a different direction: Range malfunction, so reshoot. It's a range malfunction because the shot that broke the perf on the Noshoot should have hit the A-Zone on the target behind it but didn't. The range malfunction should be fixed, but nobody who didn't protest the set-up/ range malfunction should get a reshoot.

Look at it this way, a popper should fall over when hit with a 125PF bullet above a certain line. Lets say there is a popper not properly calibrated, but after 100 shooters, nobody has called for a calibration because it fell when they shot it. They didn't notice that it wasn't properly calibrated. After 100 shooters, somebody shoots it, it doesn't fall, so they call for a calibration. The popper is found to need recalibration, and that is done. Then the complaining shooter gets a reshoot. But, nobody who didn't complain (ask for a calibration) gets a reshoot, even though the stage will not be exactly the same for the rest of the shooters, true?

It's the same situation for the misaligned targets. According to the stage description, A bullet that hits the outside perf on the Noshoot should also hit the A-Zone of the target behind it. Any and all of the other shooters could have protested the setup, but didn't because they didn't notice that if they had hit the perf (yada yada yada), true?

[Vince Pinto]

Huh? You've lost me. What "different direction"? I've already stated that a misaligned target which can affect scoring is grounds for a reshoot. Have you read the whole thread?

And if the RM decides that the misaligned target affected the equity of the stage for previous competitors, he can indeed order them all to reshoot or even cancel the stage. See Section 2.3 and 4.5.

How do you know the popper wasn't properly calibrated if it wasn't protested or verified? If it fell when it was shot by the first 100 competitors, then the correct assumption is that it was properly calibrated, not vice-versa. Your logic escapes me.

Have you ever done an RO course? If not, I highly recommend signing up, especially if the instructor is Troy McManus or Arnie Christianson. Tell 'em Vinny sent you.