Scoring question

[racerba]

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.

So questions need to be asked...

Is the perf on the NS also impenetrable? By your ruling, you are saying that it is. A perf does not exist, it is only there for the purpose of seeing your hits from a distance.

What happened to the scoring A zone? How does it not exist?

How about if you have 2 shoot targets overlap in similar fashion?

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.

It is still BEHIND the NS and still scored separately, independent of the target in front.

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.

If it was steel, in theory, half of the bullet would still hit the perf on the shoot target. Steel targets do not have the 0.5 cm border.

Edited September 18, 2008 by racerba

[Flexmoney]

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.

The impenetrable target is the no-shoot. (In our discussion)

Read the whole of 9.1.5 and it's sub-rules...in full context.

It says, Impenetrable...if. After the "if" are the conditions.

9.4.5.3 is the proper rule here.

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

metal target (YES, this has been meet), and continues on to strike the scoring area of another

paper target (YES, this has been meet), , the hit on the subsequent paper target will also

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

Nothing addresses the target behind it...whether that target is touching it, or 10y behind it. (unless somebody here can quote a rule as to such?) So, we look at that target, and score where the bullet touched.

That is what the book says.

There is no clause that I am aware of that makes part of a target unavailable? (unless it is painted with hardcover..which would be the fix here, I think)

[Flexmoney]

9.1.5 - Targets are impenetrable. Period.

No. not "period". They are impenetrable...semi-colon. The corresponding conditions of such are covered in the sub-rules that follow.

Rather clearly.

Scoring targets which are not in contact with the NS (the two are separated by some distance) are scored as stated in the subrules.

State the rule there of the distance between the target, please. I haven't found one.

When a scoring target is in direct contact with another...

Rule number ?

[George Jones]

Kyle,

I can't get into another extended discussion with you. It was discovered that these types of scenarios were being scored differently. Obviously, the rules are not sufficiently clear. Although they haven't changed in many years, we recently found another area where clarification was in order. The instructor group discussed it at length and a conclusion was reached. I've already given it to you and tried to explain some of the rationale.

That's the way it is now being taught in the RO seminars. That, and the many rules updates are a good reasons for everyone to consider taking a refresher next time a Level I class comes to a place near you.

Edited September 18, 2008 by George Jones

[Flexmoney]

George,

That is fine. But, we run matches from the rule book. We even state that at matches, "...per current edition of the USPSA rule book" .

What you come up with in a back room...or what you and I might talk about at a leadership conference...that can't be the standard. The standard must be the written word that is in the book.

If there is something that needs clarified and changed, then it needs to go through the channels...using the system we have in place for that. It needs an "official interpretation" posted on the USPSA website.

The wording HAS to be in place.

[Fireant]

George,

That is fine. But, we run matches from the rule book. We even state that at matches, "...per current edition of the USPSA rule book" .

What you come up with in a back room...or what you and I might talk about at a leadership conference...that can't be the standard. The standard must be the written word that is in the book.

If there is something that needs clarified and changed, then it needs to go through the channels...using the system we have in place for that. It needs an "official interpretation" posted on the USPSA website.

The wording HAS to be in place.

Amen, brother Flex

[EZ Bagger]

OK...Scoring area includes the perforations. Scoring area is impenetrable. A perforation directly below another perforation cannot be touched by the bullet, by definition.

Yes, it ends in a colon...

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

is deemed to be impenetrable:

But none of the rules sub this statement alter the initial statement in any way. They only provide examples of how to apply the rule.

No perf, no points.

[George Jones]

NROI interpretations have been used for years to clarify gray areas in the rules. They are usually later incorporated into the next version of the rulebook.

That's the way it's been.

[Flexmoney]

George, that is the good'ol boy system. We don't use that. We can't use that.

We have a better system in place.

[Sherwyn]

Maybe I missed something, but how does this not apply? Appears to be a scoring example exactly as discribed.

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.

[EZ Bagger]

The key to this is the "scoring area". Unless the A zone's scoring area is outside the scoring area of the no shoot, it is behind the impenetrable part of the no shoot and therefore the bullet cannot hit the A zone.

Edited September 19, 2008 by EZ Bagger

[Flexmoney]

The key to this is the "scoring area". Unless the A zone's scoring area is outside the scoring area of the no shoot, it is behind the impenetrable part of the no shoot and therefore the bullet cannot hit the A zone.

Sure it can. It's the basic definition of tangent.

This is real simple to test. Grab two pennies. Stack one on top of the other (flat). Now, you can still touch the edge of both pennies...even though one penny seems to completely cover the other...the edges (equates to our perfs) are still touchable.

[SDM]

For it to be a C, you have to assume that the path of the bullet was exactly perpendicular to the face of the targets. If this was the case the impenetrable perf of the NS blocked the perf on the target behind.

If I stand off to one side and shoot the perf on the NS, wouldn’t be possible for the penetrating portion of my bullet to get to the perf (or at an extreme angle hit wholly within the A) on the target behind?

ETA - Flex, is the perf penetrable?

Edited September 19, 2008 by SDM

[EZ Bagger]

The key to this is the "scoring area". Unless the A zone's scoring area is outside the scoring area of the no shoot, it is behind the impenetrable part of the no shoot and therefore the bullet cannot hit the A zone.

Sure it can. It's the basic definition of tangent.

This is real simple to test. Grab two pennies. Stack one on top of the other (flat). Now, you can still touch the edge of both pennies...even though one penny seems to completely cover the other...the edges (equates to our perfs) are still touchable.

Sure, if you cut the target at the perf you could touch the side of the perf. But, stacked on top of each other, you can never get to the top/leading edge of that second penny/perf...only behind it. That entire leading edge of the bottom penny is completely blocked by the penny on top because the scoring area of the bottom penny/target is completely behind the impenetrable area of the top penny/target.

It's pretty clear that even in your example, you would not be able to show contact with the scoring edge of the bottom penny.

[driver8M3]

If I stand off to one side and shoot the perf on the NS, wouldn’t be possible for the penetrating portion of my bullet to get to the perf (or at an extreme angle hit wholly within the A) on the target behind?

this becomes a real issue b/c it's very rare for the top target to remain completely flat. usually you can only staple the edges of the no-shot. the head will droop forward at least a bit in many cases (quite a lot in others), exposing part of the A zone of the brown target that is directly behind the white target (the zone that some here are saying does not exist).

so, you could have a case where the entire bullet misses the white target completely, and hits wholly in the "non-existing" part of the brown target (that which is directly behind the white target). who here is going to call that a mike?

[Fireant]

The key to this is the "scoring area". Unless the A zone's scoring area is outside the scoring area of the no shoot, it is behind the impenetrable part of the no shoot and therefore the bullet cannot hit the A zone.

Yes it can. Nothing in the rules states that the a zone has magically dissappeared. The perfs are still there and the bullet can touch them, so you get the higher score.

[Franklin D Wolverton]

Lets make this nice and simple. Follow the logic.

No shoots are "impenetrable"

To be scored a "no shoot" all you have to be doing is touching the perf (just like on a scoring target)

Therefore the perf of the no-shoot is part of the no-shoot and is considered impenetrable.

If the perf's are lined up, the impenetrable perf of the no-shoot makes the perf of the scoring target unavailable.

Therefore... the score is a C.

Frank

[HoMiE]

The key to this is the "scoring area". Unless the A zone's scoring area is outside the scoring area of the no shoot, it is behind the impenetrable part of the no shoot and therefore the bullet cannot hit the A zone.

Sure it can. It's the basic definition of tangent.

This is real simple to test. Grab two pennies. Stack one on top of the other (flat). Now, you can still touch the edge of both pennies...even though one penny seems to completely cover the other...the edges (equates to our perfs) are still touchable.

There is no rule for tangent hits in the rule book, but impenetrable is mentioned quite a few times. I can see where your coming from and agree it should be more clear. But I think the NROI instructors make it pretty clear in the recent seminar how to handle those situations.

How close do you have to be to get the hit, but not touch the noshoot? If you stand back from a wall and step half the distance, then half the distance, then half the distance, will you ever touch the wall?

[Nik Habicht]

Lets make this nice and simple. Follow the logic.

No shoots are "impenetrable"

To be scored a "no shoot" all you have to be doing is touching the perf (just like on a scoring target)

Therefore the perf of the no-shoot is part of the no-shoot and is considered impenetrable.

If the perf's are lined up, the impenetrable perf of the no-shoot makes the perf of the scoring target unavailable.

Therefore... the score is a C.

Frank

And that works perfectly if you're engaging the target(s) at a right angle. Change that to a 45-75 degree angle, and it's all of a sudden possible to that the portion of the bullet striking outside the perf on no-shoot strikes the perf or inside the perf on the shoot target --- in which case it should score as an Alpha......

Or, maybe I'm missing something?

[rvb]

9.1.5 seems too simple to even be having this debate, imo... never heard of not scoring the whole bullet hole when a NS is partially hit.

as I read it, wholly w/in the NS, the NS = Impenetrable. partly w/in the NS, the NS = softcover (no mention of "partial holes" on the scoring of the target, just that the "hit" counts for score).

Seems many are adding extra information that isn't there. Also seems many are ignoring the important "if" ... that they are Impenetrable "IF..." It's not an absolute that NS = Impenetrable.

From a grammar standpoint it could be worded better. 9.1.5.3/4 especially. The colon after "deemed to be impenetrable" in 9.1.5 implies the following is a list of conditions to make that case true when 9.1.5.3/4 are cases where which make the case false. But the idea gets across pretty easily regarless, imo.

-rvb

Edited September 19, 2008 by rvb

[EZ Bagger]

9.1.5 seems too simple to even be having this debate, imo... never heard of not scoring the whole bullet hole when a NS is partially hit.

as I read it, wholly w/in the NS, the NS = Impenetrable. partly w/in the NS, the NS = softcover (no mention of "partial holes" on the scoring of the target, just that the "hit" counts for score).

Seems many are adding extra information that isn't there. Also seems many are ignoring the important "if" ... that they are Impenetrable "IF..." It's not an absolute that NS = Impenetrable.

From a grammar standpoint it could be worded better. 9.1.5.3/4 especially. The colon after "deemed to be impenetrable" in 9.1.5 implies the following is a list of conditions to make that case true when 9.1.5.3/4 are cases where which make the case false. But the idea gets across pretty easily regarless, imo.

-rvb

You're placing the if in the wrong part of the rule book. There is no "if" in 9.1.5. There is nothing in the descriptive addendums that change the overriding definition of the scoring area as being impenetrable.

[Flexmoney]

The key to this is the "scoring area". Unless the A zone's scoring area is outside the scoring area of the no shoot, it is behind the impenetrable part of the no shoot and therefore the bullet cannot hit the A zone.

Sure it can. It's the basic definition of tangent.

This is real simple to test. Grab two pennies. Stack one on top of the other (flat). Now, you can still touch the edge of both pennies...even though one penny seems to completely cover the other...the edges (equates to our perfs) are still touchable.

There is no rule for tangent hits in the rule book, but impenetrable is mentioned quite a few times. I can see where your coming from and agree it should be more clear. But I think the NROI instructors make it pretty clear in the recent seminar how to handle those situations.

How close do you have to be to get the hit, but not touch the noshoot? If you stand back from a wall and step half the distance, then half the distance, then half the distance, will you ever touch the wall?

Tangent...it means TOUCHING at one point. It does not include halving the distance again and again. That is a limit, I believe....halve the distance n amount of times...n approaches infinity (you never touch the line).

Folks, this is real simple. If 9.1.5.3 is satisfied, then score the hit on the next target. Just like is says.

[rvb]

You're placing the if in the wrong part of the rule book. There is no "if" in 9.1.5. There is nothing in the descriptive addendums that change the overriding definition of the scoring area as being impenetrable.

Which is why I think the grammar sucks.

The end result of the 9.1.5.1-4 is that if the hit is "wholly within" the NS then "the hit on the subsequent paper target will not count for score or penalty." However if the hit "strikes partially within" then "the hit on the subsequent paper target will also count for score or penalty".

So the question becomes "what is a hit?" Can you cut a hole in half and just score half a hole? It JUST says "the hit ... will also count for score." Nothing about "the part that would not have passed through the NS" is in there. Maybe that's the crust of the question. Lets say the question is not that it's impenetrable, but how to SCORE. Again, IMO, adding words that are not there. It says to score the hit. Scoring will get VERY complicated VERY quickly if angle of engagement and distance from the target are required to call the score as mentioned above. I'm an engineer... I'll bring a protractor and calculator to matches from now on... hahaha!!

-rvb

ps. I love these threads, I learn a lot. If after all said and done you've changed my mind, COOL!

[mactiger]

I strongly disagree with the interpretation you guys have here and will score it as a C unless we have a ruling from John. We covered the specific example, in depth in class, and I was told it's a C.

That is what the Range Master told me too... that that is how it was first taught to him. But, after conference with the rest of the staff, he came back and said it should be called the other way.

FWIW, the CRO on that stage back then...is now a RMI...and he may be teaching it how to was taught to him.

Look first to the rule book. The one that teaches us...is just one.

It's a C. I didn't vote for it, but that's the consensus amongst the instructors, including John, and it makes sense. If the perfs are aligned, then the A zone isn't available, and can't be scored. A couple of years ago, it was an A, but no more. It's part of the new level one course material.

Troy

[EZ Bagger]

ps. I love these threads, I learn a lot. If after all said and done you've changed my mind, COOL!

Agree wholeheartedly!

Flex is the master at finding these things.