Carlos Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 The stage in question appeared at the 1st ever monthly match at Shooters Paradise (Phil Strader's place in VA). There was a port approx. 14"x14" and 3 USPSA targets along w/ 3 pieces of steel that had to be engaged through the port. To complicate things, there was a no-shoot on a swinger just behind the port (like 6" behind it). An activator had to be shot from the start box before advancing to the port. When the swinger eventually came to rest (which took quite a while), it did indeed cover all targets such that they could not be engaged. However, there was ample opportunity to shoot all targets. One shooter questioned whether all the targets through the port were optional disappearing targets that would not incur a FTE or miss penalty if the shooter decided not to shoot them since they eventually disappeared. Others (me included) thought that the multiple exposures of the targets meant that they had to be engaged and misses counted. All 48 shooters attempted to engage the targets though some people (ok, me) taged the swinging no shoot in the process. What do you think? Optional or required? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Carlos, If I understand you correctly, the penalty target was the swinger, and it provided "multiple exposures" to the paper and metal scoring targets behind it. However when it came to a complete rest, the penalty target totally blocked the scoring targets. If so, then the paper and metal targets will incur misses (and failure to shoot at penalties, if applicable) under USPSA rules but not under IPSC rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L9X25 Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Carlos, Needless to say, Vince is right. We had a stage at the Florida State match a while back that had several people run the legality question all the up to Amidon. It was basically two moving targets (on a wire) that were activated with your strong hand prior to drawing the gun. The targets were pretty fast and traveled about 16' before they were completely hidden behind hard cover. To make the course legal the RM/MD had a vision barrier about 1' wide placed in the center of the opening where the targets were to be shot. This created the illusion that the target appeared twice (once from each window). The rule was intended to cover a situation where a target was available numerous times (although not infinite) but they accidentally used the word "multiple exposures" to define the number of appearances of the target. Amidon claims that two exposures met the "letter of the rule" while defeating the "intent of the rule" but the stage was deemed legal. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Someone smack me if need be, but having moving no-shoots in front of scoring targets creates a scoring nightmare for both staff and the competitor. Remember, no shoots are 'impenetrable' under 9.1.5 so how do you score hits on the scoring targets behind them? That's right, try your best to line up the shots through the no shoot to determine which scoring hit is to be denied, and then argue the call with the shooter. I hate these stages, but will shut up now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L9X25 Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 BDH, I believe I encountered a similar situation at the Fl. State match. I was not totally happy with their solution, because it was not supported by the rule book, but I must admit that it was interesting. Because a series of targets were available from several locations, the RO's could not attempt to "line up" the holes in the shoot targets with any holes in the no-shoots or hardcover. The RO's looked at (or for) the "grease ring" on the shoot target. If the bullet passed through the no-shoot or hard cover, the first target removes the powder foulings or "grease" from the projectile and the hole in the second target is clean of dirt or "grease". I know that jacketed bullets don't have a grease ring, or "grease", but they do carry the fouling from the previous shot and place it on the first target that they penetrate. Their solution was simple and consistent. You can test it for yourself and you will see a clear difference in the coloration around the holes in the target. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Someone smack me if need be, but having moving no-shoots in front of scoring targets creates a scoring nightmare for both staff and the competitor. Remember, no shoots are 'impenetrable' under 9.1.5 so how do you score hits on the scoring targets behind them? That's right, try your best to line up the shots through the no shoot to determine which scoring hit is to be denied, and then argue the call with the shooter. I hate these stages, but will shut up now.... Well Brian, then you would have loved me at last year's Area 8 Factory Gun. Had four shoot targets through a port with a swinging no-shoot. I shot 8 alphas and tagged an A-zone no-shoot with eight rounds fired. No lining up required ----- one of the targets got scored the dreaded Alpha-Mike-NoShoot. Grrrrrrrr! It was otherwise a great run for me..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Leo, I agree that their solution was "interesting", and I also agree with your comment that I'm not sure their solution is supported by the rulebook. Still a pain in the ass to score, and I'm not sure that this method would stand up at a Nationals or big IPSC match. Nik, I'm not saying that these stages can't be run or shot well, just that they are a pain to score. Your situation was simple because you only shot eight times, had eight holes in the shoot targets, and since you had one in the no shoot, one of the scoring hits had to be deleted. Your situation also was straightforward because all the scoring hits were A's. Now if even one of targets had an Alpha Delta combination, which hit gets negated (this is hypothetical since I'm sure that you would NEVER shoot a Delta )? I'd try my best to line em up, and if I wasn't 100% sure, then I'd delete the Delta and give you Alpha Mike on that target. I'd be willing to bet that some of you out here in BE land ended up arguing your shots last year at the FGN. If I remember correctly Jay W. had a stage up on the hill with no shoots that came up over the shoot targets. Since the NS swung up over the shoot target, unless the NS was hit when it completed it's movement, the two holes did not line up. That led to some interesting discussions about which hit on the shoot target was the one that penetrated the NS. I'm sure that Jay handled every discussion professionally, but I would bet that there were probably some unhappy shooters leaving the stage, and if nothing else, this slows the stage down (don't anyone take that comment wrong, as I am NOT saying that you shouldn't argue for your hits if you believe they are not being scored correctly). Uncle Vinnie, do you have any comments on this? Would the solution Leo mentioned be accepted at a Level III or above match? Am I just whining, and need to just 'suck it up'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Brian, in Italy, even if the grease mark (or the lack of it) around a hole, on a target or no-shoot, can be a clue of what happened, it is not admissibile as "proof of evidence". Since it cannot be said for sure that the lack of any marking around a target shot always implies a shoot-through, to be fair with everybody, it is not considered as evidence. 10 days ago I attended a match where a couple of bobbers were hidden behind a fence covered by no-shoots. I thought to myself "good grief, I'm lucky I'm not the RO or CRO in this stage", because they had a lot of controversy with competitors shooting bobbers through no-shoots, and then questioning the calls on shots to be negated. IMO, this is always a poor demonstration of stage design and construction. If you are hiding targets, better have real HARD covers, or resort to cutting the targets, unless no shoots and targets are fixed and real near. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L9X25 Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 At the last Florida Open, there was a stage that had 2 targets that were partially visible through windows that were around 25 yards away (both the targets and windows were 25 yds away). There was a distance of 3 feet between the targets and the "hardcover" (actually plastic sheeting) and the ROs attempted to keep the hardcover taped to determine if any new shots had passed through. Jarrett finished shooting the stage and they claimed that one of his hits passed through the hardcover. He attempted to use the "grease ring" defense but the ROs would not listen. The ROs had basically stopped listening when Strader yelled that he could clearly see the hole, through the window, from the shooting box. It was impossible that the hole in the target could have been caused by the same bullet that created the hole in the hardcover. The ROs then gave him the hit without protest. I believe that hardcover needs to be HARD or reclassified as soft cover to simplify scoring. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted May 30, 2003 Author Share Posted May 30, 2003 Thanks for the clarification Vince! To make matters more complicated, there were both paper and steel targets behind the swinging no-shoot. Thus, if a competitor shot through the no-shoot (personally managed that twice, sorry to say) and hit the steel, it would be up to the RO & scorekeeper to make the call on the steel and negate the hit since there was little to accurately "line up" & no tell tale lack of grease ring. This stage was busy enough (requiring min. 3 reloads) that when I was scorekeeping, my attention was focused primarily on the shooter and not on the hits downrange. Despite the issues this stage raised, it was still a fun and challenging stage - as was the entire match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Carlos, sorry to disagree with you but... 9.1.5.2 In the event of a full bullet diameter hit on a scoring or penalty paper target where the shot continues on and strikes down a metal target, this is range equipment failure and the competitor shall be required to re-shoot the course of fire after it has been properly reset. Thus, the only option left to the poor RO, in your case, is a re-shoot. BTW, according to rule 3.2.4, the same applies to a shot through hard-cover knocking down steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Thus, the only option left to the poor RO, in your case, is a re-shoot. Skywalker, well you beat me to this one, and you are absolutely correct! Also, thanks for the clarification on the grease mark not being considered 'proof of evidence'. I fully agree with that call and sure would not want to have to debate this on a stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted May 31, 2003 Share Posted May 31, 2003 Hi guys, Leo is right on the money when he says hard cover should, dangit, be hard cover and therefore truly impenetrable. At major IPSC matches, if there's a chance you can shoot a scoring or penalty target through another scoring or penalty target and/or through "hard" cover, impenetrable materials will be used, and IPSC Philippines are Masters of getting it right. This is especially important with movers behind hard cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted May 31, 2003 Share Posted May 31, 2003 Leo is right on the money when he says hard cover should, dangit, be hard cover and therefore truly impenetrable.At major IPSC matches, if there's a chance you can shoot a scoring or penalty target through another scoring or penalty target and/or through "hard" cover, impenetrable materials will be used, and IPSC Philippines are Masters of getting it right. Vince, I agree that hard cover should be hard cover, and I support the idea of using 'impenetrable materials' to take away the whole problem of shooting one target through another target. Okay, so in several examples quoted above, we have a no shoot swinger in front of scoring targets. Also, it sounds like the no shoot swinger was right behind a port, and most likely, right in front of the shooter. In this instance, we can't replace the paper no shoot with a steel no shoot to take away the shoot through because it would be too close from a safety perspective (besides, it would probably take some mongo swinger to swing a steel no shoot). That said, we get back to one of the original issues about designing a COF the deliberately sets up the shoot thru scenario that we are trying to avoid. I agree with Skywalker that this is an example of poor stage design. What is your take on this issue specifically? Also, I don't think that there is anything in the rules that would make this design illegal, but I sure as hell would discourage them because of the scoring problems/issues/reshoot potentials, etc. Your take oh wise one...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted May 31, 2003 Share Posted May 31, 2003 Brian, The stage designs mentioned above sound legal but they're a nightmare, which will cause considerable grief to competitors and ROs alike. The secret to good course design is minimising (or totally avoiding) complicated mechanisms and procedures. There's also nothing preventing a course designer placing, say, 10 fully exposed, static targets at 100 metres either, but that's gonna be one helluva slow stage, possibly with more misses than hits recorded during the day ............. no fun at all for anyone. As you say, you'd need the Mother Of All Swinger Stands to handle a swinging penalty target made of metal, and having just a paper swinging penalty target is asking for trouble and grief, so why bother? If you want to make a swinger tough, either paint hard cover on part of it to reduce the scoring area or attach a penalty target to and in front of the shoot target, which makes it a "unitised" swinger with clear scoring borders and no possibility of having shoot throughs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 31, 2003 Share Posted May 31, 2003 If you want to make a swinger tough, either paint hard cover on part of it to reduce the scoring area or attach a penalty target to and in front of the shoot target, which makes it a "unitised" swinger with clear scoring borders and no possibility of having shoot throughs. That the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted June 1, 2003 Share Posted June 1, 2003 I once designed a stage with a swinging penalty target behind the plates. There were no shoot thru problems. It did get the shooters agitated all out of proportion to the difficulty of the shots. 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