Scoring question

[Flexmoney]

Sorry...had to head out for a bit.

Flex, you're killing me . the scoring area becomes unavailable when it is directly covered by the no-shoot which is deemed impenetrable.

Who?

Who "deems" it???

What?

What makes it "unavailable"???

State a basis for that.

[George Jones]

Sorry...had to head out for a bit.

No doubt to reload on Bull Butter!

[Flexmoney]

George & Troy,

Address the stages that I posted earlier.

Tell me when and how we get to deeming a target (area) to not exist. On Big Wind, adjust the NS back, closer and closer to T1. When do things change? Why? What rule changes them?

Then look at the target array that I posted (Ike). The same rules apply, right? What part of T1 is "deemed" to not exist there?

Explore your basis. Apply it to different scenarios.

(And, know that none of us have EVER made it through a major with targets that were perfectly lined up time and time again...witness marks and bionic eyeballs be damned. )

[Flexmoney]

Sorry...had to head out for a bit.

No doubt to reload on Bull Butter!

I was running low on horse-puckey.

[HoMiE]

I didn't address the example of a shot taken at an angle with the NS leaning out from the target, because it shouldn't be set up that way. I know it happens, and when it does, it gets scored the way it looks, in all likelihood. I don't have a real problem with that, but we do make some effort to ensure that it doesn't happen at major matches.

The only way you can keep the NS from leaning out (i.e. no space between NS and scoring target) is to paint the NS onto the target. Otherwise there will always be a space and as you say - score it the way it looks, contradicting the instructor's interpretation and ruling.

Targets have no thickness, at least that is what is taught. When targets and noshoots are arranged together, they are considered to be on one plane. The scoring determination takes place at a single point on the surface of the target. You are not supposed to look at the edge with the example of stacking pennies. Another thing I cannot cite a rule for.

[George Jones]

I was running low on horse-puckey.

You must have misplaced some it. I thought you had a lifetime supply.

[Flexmoney]

I thought I paid you for that already ?

[George Jones]

I thought I paid you for that already ?

Your check bounced.

But hey, you're absolutely right about the "back room deal". It was easy to find something to get you all twisted up. But then we spent countless hours trying to figure out how to hide it from you.

I guess we failed, but we had nothing better to do.

[moverfive]

It is already official and written in the rule book.

I am not going to paste the rules over again, you can go back and look at them.

You people are confusing parts of rules and not the whole rule to make your point.

Go backwards for a second - we already have instructors admit that they had to get together and pick an interpretation on this situation because there is not a clear indication within the rules as to how this should be scored. Therefore, we do not have an official rule in place to cover this scenario but an agreed upon interpretation that hasn't been officially published.

But for people quoting rules - 4.1.4.1 may not be applicable since the rule clearly states paper targets cannot be used for hard cover, which is the basis for this question - a paper no-shoot. And rule 4.2.4.1 references 4.1.4.1......so there is conflict in using that rule to say the perferation on a no-shoot is impenetrable in the form of hard cover.

The question at hand is overlapping perferations. And I am not seeing where it says that the perferation on a no-shoot is impenetrable. I can only refer back to 9.5.2 where it says that if a bullet touches the scoring line, you get the highest score. And by definition in the example being debated, the perferation of the no-shoot and the A/C line are one and the same. Now if it is going to be determined by USPSA that the perferation on a no-shoot is impenetrable and thus the A/C line is not available AND there isn't a rule stating that, we have an opinion and not an official rule.

Edited September 20, 2008 by moverfive

[JThompson]

It is already official and written in the rule book.

I am not going to paste the rules over again, you can go back and look at them.

You people are confusing parts of rules and not the whole rule to make your point.

Go backwards for a second - we already have instructors admit that they had to get together and pick an interpretation on this situation because there is not a clear indication within the rules as to how this should be scored. Therefore, we do not have an official rule in place to cover this scenario but an agreed upon interpretation that hasn't been officially published.

But for people quoting rules - 4.1.4.1 may not be applicable since the rule clearly states paper targets cannot be used for hard cover, which is the basis for this question - a paper no-shoot. And rule 4.2.4.1 references 4.1.4.1......so there is conflict in using that rule to say the perferation on a no-shoot is impenetrable in the form of hard cover.

The question at hand is overlapping perferations. And I am not seeing where it says that the perferation on a no-shoot is impenetrable. I can only refer back to 9.5.2 where it says that if a bullet touches the scoring line, you get the highest score. And by definition in the example being debated, the perferation of the no-shoot and the A/C line are one and the same. Now if it is going to be determined by USPSA that the perferation on a no-shoot is impenetrable and thus the A/C line is not available AND there isn't a rule stating that, we have an opinion and not an official rule.

I'd say you just about have it right except:

"But for people quoting rules - 4.1.4.1 may not be applicable since the rule clearly states paper targets cannot be used for hard cover, which is the basis for this question - a paper no-shoot. And rule 4.2.4.1 references 4.1.4.1......so there is conflict in using that rule to say the perferation on a no-shoot is impenetrable in the form of hard cover."

We are not saying it's HC we are saying it can't be penetrated from the perf inward.... it is not used as HC. It is a scoring target albeit a - one. That HC part means you can't take a full paper target and paint it black and use it for HC.

Edited September 20, 2008 by JThompson

[shred]

"the perf" has to be part of both targets and available to score on.

Imagine for a second two overlapping shoot targets. A hit just barely touches the line on the top target. Both targets score. It doesn't matter if the 'barely hit' is on the inside or outside of the non-scoring border.

[Flexmoney]

I thought I paid you for that already ?

Your check bounced.

And yet, you keep sending me truck loads.

But hey, you're absolutely right about the "back room deal". It was easy to find something to get you all twisted up. But then we spent countless hours trying to figure out how to hide it from you.

I guess we failed, but we had nothing better to do.

George,

It isn't a backroom deal because you all were trying to hide it or anything. You realize that, right?

It's a backroom deal because you didn't go through the proper channels. You then started teaching it, yet it's not what is in the rule book.

A few decided. It is outside of our rule book (which governs EVERY match). And, the process to get an "official interpretation" posted on the USPSA website wasn't completed.

We can't call matches based on who got the word from George.

Our standard is the written word...through the official mechanism, which is the current edition of the USPSA rule book and the posted and Official Rules Interpretations.

I don't know that you have grasped how important that is. On many levels.

[moverfive]

JT and all - I am with you 100% that I want the score in this example to be a C-hit. That is why I want the rule to say that perforations are hard cover....unfortunately there isn't one that does say that. Let me use another example why I don't want the A-hit in the actual example being debated. I have a shoot target on top of a no-shoot where the outside perforations are lined up and thus one and the same. If I hit the perforation of the shoot-target, shouldn't I also get a no-shoot? My opinion is no, but if I say 'no,' then I cannot say 'yes' to an A-hit in the example being debated.

Based on the interpretation from Troy and George, their should be an official interpretation or an actual rule that says something to the effect - with overlapping targets that share a common perferation/scoring line, the perferatation/scoring line on the bottom target is deemed to not be available.

Because as the rules exist today and by Troy's and George's own admission, they had to come to an interpretation that this perforation is a hard cover. And the reason they had to come up with an interpretation is in part because of 9.5.2.....where the perforation and scoring lines of the bottom target are essentially one and the same.

I am just agreeing with Flex that when a rule or situation not properly or specifically covered by a rule requires such an interpretation and thus a change in the curriculum of the RO course, there should be an official posting of this new rule/interpretation and not - you should attend RO classes for a refresher.

[mactiger]

"the perf" has to be part of both targets and available to score on.

Imagine for a second two overlapping shoot targets. A hit just barely touches the line on the top target. Both targets score. It doesn't matter if the 'barely hit' is on the inside or outside of the non-scoring border.

True, but they score the same way. A shoot target overlapping another shoot target is just as impenetrable as a no-shoot overlapping a shoot target. (9.1.5) So, if the edges of the A/B zone on the upper shoot target overlap part of the center A zone on the lower shoot target, and the perfs align perfectly, then a hit on the right or left edge of the upper target will score a B and the lower will score a C. I don't have access to the fancy graphics right now, but George has posted a couple of good examples.

Troy

[mactiger]

here is 9.5.3

9.5.3 If a bullet diameter touches the scoring area of both a scoring target and

a no-shoot, it will earn the score and incur the penalty.

How does this rule back up what you are saying?

When I look at this situation I see the following rules applying:

9.1.5 Impenetrable – The scoring area of USPSA scoring targets and noshoots

is deemed to be impenetrable:

9.1.5.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target,

and continues on to strike the scoring area of another paper

target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will not count for

score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.1.5.2 If a bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target,

and continues on to hit a plate or strike down a popper; this

will be treated as range equipment failure. The competitor will

be required to reshoot the course of fire, after it has been

restored

9.1.5.3 If a bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or

metal target, and continues on to strike the scoring area of another

paper target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will also

count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.1.5.4 If a bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or

metal target, and continues on to strike down or hit the scoring

area of another metal target, the subsequent metal target will

also count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.5.2 If the bullet diameter of a hit on a scoring target touches the scoring line

between two scoring areas, or the line between the non-scoring border

and a scoring area, or if it crosses multiple scoring areas, it will be

scored the higher value.

9.5.3 If a bullet diameter touches the scoring area of both a scoring target and

a no-shoot, it will earn the score and incur the penalty.

This is not a full diameter hit, so the bullet continues on to score behind it, not just the shaved off part the whole diameter. It says so in the rule. Only a full diameter hit is impeneterable. Then I see a hit in the A zone of the scoring target behind it. So the call is an Alpha/NS. Plain and simple. No rule declares that the a zone is nonexsistent, or has dissapeared or anything else.

There are the RULES supporting the alpha. Show me the RULES showing that it's a Charlie. Not someone said so, but a ruling based on the actual rules.

You cited the rule yourself. The no-shoot is still impenetrable, up to the point that the part of the bullet that didn't pass through it hits something else. 9.1.5 covers that. So, the only part (the shaved off part) of a bullet strike that can score is the part that doesn't strike the no-shoot--in this case the radius from the perf out, not the whole thing. I think this is where the confusion arises--only the partial hole scores. Imagine the no-shoot is steel--only an edge hit that continues on can score on the target; it's the same principle. It's always been this way, too. Nothing has changed with those rules. The issue arises when you try to score the part of the target behind the impenetrable no-shoot. It can't be hit, therefore it doesn't exist for scoring, even though the perf may be there, the rest isn't.

Troy

Edited September 20, 2008 by mactiger

[shred]

"the perf" has to be part of both targets and available to score on.

Imagine for a second two overlapping shoot targets. A hit just barely touches the line on the top target. Both targets score. It doesn't matter if the 'barely hit' is on the inside or outside of the non-scoring border.

True, but they score the same way. A shoot target overlapping another shoot target is just as impenetrable as a no-shoot overlapping a shoot target. (9.1.5) So, if the edges of the A/B zone on the upper shoot target overlap part of the center A zone on the lower shoot target, and the perfs align perfectly, then a hit on the right or left edge of the upper target will score a B and the lower will score a C. I don't have access to the fancy graphics right now, but George has posted a couple of good examples.

Troy

Um, a hit just has to 'touch' the perf to score the highest zone touched still, right? If the targets were separated by a quarter of an inch, would the score change? why?

If we're effectively 'cutting-away' all the target that's behind two directly-layered targets, then shouldn't we provide a non-scoring border??

[George Jones]

George,

It isn't a backroom deal because you all were trying to hide it or anything. You realize that, right?

It's a backroom deal because you didn't go through the proper channels. You then started teaching it, yet it's not what is in the rule book.

A few decided. It is outside of our rule book (which governs EVERY match). And, the process to get an "official interpretation" posted on the USPSA website wasn't completed.

We can't call matches based on who got the word from George.

Our standard is the written word...through the official mechanism, which is the current edition of the USPSA rule book and the posted and Official Rules Interpretations.

I don't know that you have grasped how important that is. On many levels.

Kyle,

I honestly no longer care whether you agree with the interpretation or not. Troy and I have tried to explain it (slow enough for me to understand), but......

Yes, it's not specific enough in the rulebook. That's why it was addressed. DUH! Damned if we did, damned if we didn't, I guess.

Now you,ve swerved to attack the process. I do grant you that the process has not yet been completed, but interpretations don't happen overnight - you (the membership) usually only find out when it's a done deal. In this case, it was best to start teaching it right away since there was no prevailing reason to withhold it. Yes, there will be a transition period, but it's shorter because we were proactive in the seminars. I'm certain you would have done it better.

The End!

[HoMiE]

If we're effectively 'cutting-away' all the target that's behind two directly-layered targets, then shouldn't we provide a non-scoring border??

Yes, rules 4.2.2 and 4.2.4 cover that.

[kimel]

We really need to have these things listed in the official rulings so we can enforce them (or hear about them in the first place). Once explained, it makes sense.

I just checked the published NROI rulings and didn't see this one.

It is going to be very hard to convince folks at a match that haven't taken the new course materials that this is the right way to score without something written down and published as an official interpretation. No one is going to take "I read on a thread at Brian's that..."

And an awful lot of us don't get much chance to take Level I courses the first time let alone for every rule book. Without publishing the rulings we are sunk.

[shred]

If we're effectively 'cutting-away' all the target that's behind two directly-layered targets, then shouldn't we provide a non-scoring border??

Yes, rules 4.2.2 and 4.2.4 cover that.

Not anywhere I can see. The only reference to overlapping no-shoots is in 4.2.5

[Flexmoney]

If you can decide far enough out to teach it in classes...included in the course work...then it can be published as a rule interpretation.

We must score our game by the book. Not by the buddy system.

[Fireant]

Some of you don't realize even the NS being steel rational does not make sense. Lets say in this perfect world, where the perfs line up exactly, and the NS is steel and the bullet is traveling in the best perpendicular line to the perfectly lined up targets, is split perfectly and the partial bullet continues on in this perpendicular line.(hey it could happen) the partial bullet STILL touches the perf on the scoring target. That's all it has to do by the rule book nothing more. This perfectly sheared off bullet does touch the perf that is there. There is still no rule that clearly states that it is not available.

[Fireant]

If we're effectively 'cutting-away' all the target that's behind two directly-layered targets, then shouldn't we provide a non-scoring border??

Yes, rules 4.2.2 and 4.2.4 cover that.

Not anywhere I can see. The only reference to overlapping no-shoots is in 4.2.5

Yep and 4.2.5 says partialy hidden, not nonexsistent.

[Franklin D Wolverton]

For those of you that want a "rule" on this... geesh, come on.

Do you really expect the BOD to come up with a rule for every possible thing that could maybe happen (if the planets are aligned just right, the fat lady has sung, and your wife has offered it three times this week).

This is the reason for rules interpretation. Kind of the same reason why the American Legal System exists. The Congress (BOD) enacts the laws (rules), and the courts (NROI) interprets them.

Frank

[Flexmoney]

This is the reason for rules interpretation. Kind of the same reason why the American Legal System exists. The Congress (BOD) enacts the laws (rules), and the courts (NROI) interprets them.

Frank

That works better when you got the process right.

The NROI are the law professors. They are out teaching the law...ahead of the congress and courts.

The written rule is the law.

The court system is to bump the call up thru the RO > CRO > RM > and to Arbitration...all of which is based on the written law.

If a law needs amended, it goes back to the courts (BOD).

That is the process.