Scoring question

[HoMiE]

If a target is impenetrable, how does the bullet touch the scoring line?

Here is the rub. The target is impenetrable...only if...a bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target.

It is easy to say impentrable if the strike is fully within scoring area. It's the partial hits that cause the problem. I too had a hard time just accepting that scoring area of an underlying no-shoot does not exist.

[Flexmoney]

If a target is impenetrable, how does the bullet touch the scoring line?

Here is the rub. The target is impenetrable...only if...a bullet strikes wholly within the scoring area of a paper target.

It is easy to say impentrable if the strike is fully within scoring area.

Right, because that is how it is worded in the rule book.

It's the partial hits that cause the problem.

A partial hit can go on to score.

I too had a hard time just accepting that scoring area of an underlying no-shoot does not exist.

I don't believe there is anything within the rule book that says that "targets (nor areas) don't exist" because a no-shoot is in front of them?

Perhaps there should be.

[JThompson]

Are you getting upset over this JT ?

Hell no... I love a good rules debate...

[ima45dv8]

I was quizzed on this at the O/L10 awards banquet (I think Paul was trying to pass the time with some teasers). I said "Alpha", which I later came to see as incorrect.

After some thought and discussion the way it finally made sense to me was to imagine the NS as being made of steel, and the portions of the target it is covering as having been carefully removed with a razor knife. An edge hit along the perf of the NS would stop that portion of the bullet from continuing forward, and even so, there's nothing behind it (inside the perf) to touch anyway.

That portion of the bullet that hit outside of the perf (on the 0.5cm non-scoring border) could continue forward and strike whatever portion of the scoring target wasn't covered by the NS. In the example given, with the perfs perfectly aligned, that would score a Charlie.

I dread the next time I have to make this call.

[HoMiE]

I too had a hard time just accepting that scoring area of an underlying no-shoot does not exist.

I don't believe there is anything within the rule book that says that "targets (nor areas) don't exist" because a no-shoot is in front of them?

Perhaps there should be.

Yeah, it goes back to how NROI and the instructors define impentrable and how to handle the scoring in those instances where the perfs line up perfectly. The scoring issue is a big part of the RO class. I think we should just get rid of no-shoot targets to make things easier!

[JThompson]

I too had a hard time just accepting that scoring area of an underlying no-shoot does not exist.

I don't believe there is anything within the rule book that says that "targets (nor areas) don't exist" because a no-shoot is in front of them?

Perhaps there should be.

Yeah, it goes back to how NROI and the instructors define impentrable and how to handle the scoring in those instances where the perfs line up perfectly. The scoring issue is a big part of the RO class. I think we should just get rid of no-shoot targets to make things easier!

Here Here!!!

[Flexmoney]

I too had a hard time just accepting that scoring area of an underlying no-shoot does not exist.

I don't believe there is anything within the rule book that says that "targets (nor areas) don't exist" because a no-shoot is in front of them?

Perhaps there should be.

Yeah, it goes back to how NROI and the instructors define impentrable ...

Are you sure? I dunno...

The way I was taught (<<irony) is that we look at the rule book and see what it says.

I know that all the matches that I go to are called in accordance with the current rule book.

One of NROI's jobs, really, is to vet these issues and get them into the next version of the rule book...or press them forward for an "official ruling". If the rule book is not clear, or is lacking, then we need that fixed, I think. We can't just go around with the attitude that the books says X, but we really mean Y.

[Flexmoney]

After some thought and discussion the way it finally made sense to me was to imagine the NS as being made of steel...

Try this.

Instead of steel, lets get real...practical.

Imagine the NS is made of human flesh and blood. A true hostage. You let your perfect shot loose, but as you do, the bad guy that is hiding behind the hostage moves a bit in reaction to your muzzle flash. The bad guy ends up perfectly behind the hostage (all the perfs line up ).

Your 45 wadcutter grazes the neck of the hostage...travels on...and grazes the neck of the bad guy. Congratulations, you have hit the Carotid Artery of both the hostage and the bad guy.

[JThompson]

After some thought and discussion the way it finally made sense to me was to imagine the NS as being made of steel...

Try this.

Instead of steel, lets get real...practical.

Imagine the NS is made of human flesh and blood. A true hostage. You let your perfect shot loose, but as you do, the bad guy that is hiding behind the hostage moves a bit in reaction to your muzzle flash. The bad guy ends up perfectly behind the hostage (all the perfs line up ).

Your 45 wadcutter grazes the neck of the hostage...travels on...and grazes the neck of the bad guy. Congratulations, you have hit the Carotid Artery of both the hostage and the bad guy.

Go to your room!

[HoMiE]

Wasn't there an article in FrontSight by JA a few months back about this exact scoring issue?

Edited September 18, 2008 by HoMiE

[HoMiE]

After some thought and discussion the way it finally made sense to me was to imagine the NS as being made of steel...

Try this.

Instead of steel, lets get real...practical.

Imagine the NS is made of human flesh and blood. A true hostage. You let your perfect shot loose, but as you do, the bad guy that is hiding behind the hostage moves a bit in reaction to your muzzle flash. The bad guy ends up perfectly behind the hostage (all the perfs line up ).

Your 45 wadcutter grazes the neck of the hostage...travels on...and grazes the neck of the bad guy. Congratulations, you have hit the Carotid Artery of both the hostage and the bad guy.

That's why shoot throughs count in IDPA, targets are impentrable in USPSA.

[ima45dv8]

After some thought and discussion the way it finally made sense to me was to imagine the NS as being made of steel...

Try this.

Instead of steel, lets get real...practical.

Imagine the NS is made of human flesh and blood. A true hostage. You let your perfect shot loose, but as you do, the bad guy that is hiding behind the hostage moves a bit in reaction to your muzzle flash. The bad guy ends up perfectly behind the hostage (all the perfs line up ).

Your 45 wadcutter grazes the neck of the hostage...travels on...and grazes the neck of the bad guy. Congratulations, you have hit the Carotid Artery of both the hostage and the bad guy.

"While the occasional defensive shooting post is not prohibited, in general, defensive shooting discussions or debates are discouraged."

Seriously, taking your advice about reading the rulebook is how I came to my answer. 9.1.5 states, "The scoring area of USPSA scoring targets and no-shoots is deemed to be impenetrable." If we take that at face value, and read 9.1.5.1 through 9.1.5.4 simply as examples of how to score targets with a partial hit on the perf line, the impenatrable part in 9.1.5 means the A zone in the example doesn't exist (because of the perfectly aligned perfs).

My initial reaction to the question was to call it an Alpha because the bullet touched the perfectly-overlayed perf on the back target, thus also touching the A zone of the back target. But as that A zone is completely hidden (maybe 'protected" is a better word) by the no-shoot's scoring surface, there's no A zone to touch.

With no A zone available, it has to be a Charlie.

[Flexmoney]

Go to your room!

Hey man, you shot the hostage. I'm just trying to give you proper credit for getting the bad guy too.

[Flexmoney]

That's why shoot throughs count in IDPA, targets are impentrable in USPSA.

OK...let's get this right. You are leaving a part out. QUOTE the rule(s).

[Fireant]

You keep getting stuck on thinking the area covered up does not exsist. Please refer me to that rule.

[ima45dv8]

What if we agree it exists, but you can't get to it since the no-shoot in front is impenatrable?

[Flexmoney]

Seriously, taking your advice about reading the rulebook is how I came to my answer. 9.1.5 states, "The scoring area of USPSA scoring targets and no-shoots is deemed to be impenetrable."

How does that make the target behind it disappear?

Try this. Take your no-shoot and put it on a target stand that is two feet in front of the scoring target. Ignore 2.1.8 (shoot-throughs) for now...most stage designers do anyway.

If the bullet cuts the perf on the edge of the no-shoot...the bullet can go on to score. Correct?

It doesn't matter if the perf is cut 50/50...with half the bullet. It doesn't matter if 99.99% of the bullet is on the outside of the perf. It doesn't matter is 99.99% of the bullet is on the inside of the perf.

The bullet can go on to score...since it was not wholly within.

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.

[Fireant]

IMA,

Only a full diameter hit is impeneterable, if the scoring perf is there, the a zone is there the correct score is an alpha, and a NS.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Fireant

[sci]

What if we agree it exists, but you can't get to it since the no-shoot in front is impenatrable?

However you can get to the perf and a shot touching the perf scores the higher score

[Flexmoney]

Impenatrable only applies to shots that are WHOLLY WITHIN.

And, that does nothing to address anything behind it and make it disappear.

If you have a plastic wiffle ball bat and attack a steel pinata'...just because you can't penetrate the pinata' doesn't mean there is no candy inside it. (or, in our case...let call it a beer pinata')

[HoMiE]

That's why shoot throughs count in IDPA, targets are impentrable in USPSA.

OK...let's get this right. You are leaving a part out. QUOTE the rule(s).

But for the rules to be consistent and looking at all 9.1.6 sections, the only way to make the rules consistent is to apply the "what is perfectly lined up behind noshoot does not exist" interpretation.

[HoMiE]

Impenatrable only applies to shots that are WHOLLY WITHIN.

If the perfs are lined up perfectly, then the A-zone is wholly within the noshoot area and is consistent with being impenetrable. Noshoots are considered hardcovr, not scoring targets, so I think 9.1.6 is better than looking at 9.1.5.

[racerba]

But for the rules to be consistent and looking at all 9.1.6 sections, the only way to make the rules consistent is to apply the "what is perfectly lined up behind noshoot does not exist" interpretation.

We had this discussion 4 years ago when the Nats was at Barry. I believe the outcome was that it is an Alpha.

The rule is already consistent. A hit on a perf will score the highest score. You can't say a portion of the target "does not exist". Since when will there a target with a hole in the torso? For practical reasons, the NS in front of the scoring target is just that - a NS in front of a scoring target (regardless if it's 2 feet in front or 0.0001 inch in front). It does NOT magically make portions of the scoring target disappear.

Edited September 18, 2008 by racerba

[George Jones]

Impenatrable only applies to shots that are WHOLLY WITHIN.

Well, not really. You are mixing different parts of the rules.

9.1.5 - Targets are impenetrable. Period. Then, the subrules give examples on how to score certain scenarios.

Scoring targets which are not in contact with the NS (the two are seperated by some distance) are scored as stated in the subrules. It would be impossible to say "only this particular piece of the bullet was outside the NS outer perf and continued to hit T7 downrange", so we allow for the whole bullet to score on T7.

When a scoring target is in direct contact with another, the impenetrable rule can be more directly used. It can be determined which part of the bullet did not penetrate the underlying target, therefore, as in the case in the original scenario, the side head hit on the NS can only score a C.

P.S. NS are not hardcover, although they do share the impenetrability of hardcover (and scoring targets). They are defined under Rule 4.1 which covers "Targets - General Principles". They have scoring areas, albeit negative-scoring ones, as shown in Rule 9.4.2.

I earlier stated the current interpretation of the scoring scenario. Our rules evolve. We adapt as time passes and confronts us with new challenges.

[JThompson]

But for the rules to be consistent and looking at all 9.1.6 sections, the only way to make the rules consistent is to apply the "what is perfectly lined up behind noshoot does not exist" interpretation.

We had this discussion 4 years ago when the Nats was at Barry. I believe the outcome was that it is an Alpha.

The rule is already consistent. A hit on a perf will score the highest score. You can't say a portion of the target "does not exist". Since when will there a target with a hole in the torso? For practical reasons, the NS in front of the scoring target is just that - a NS in front of a scoring target (regardless if it's 2 feet in front or 0.0001 inch in front). It does NOT magically make portions of the scoring target disappear.

If you could just throw away the part about impenetrable that would work.... If there was a piece of steel covering the A zone...? These targets are really stand in, because we can't shoot steel all the time (close) nor is it cost effective to have that much steel around.

I'm not wedded to one idea or the other... If John rules it's the higher score then I'll be fine with that. I'm going by what I was taught in the new class some months back.

Edited September 18, 2008 by JThompson