Scoring question

[Fireant]

I had a hard time with this also when I first heard it in the RO class. From a shooter perspective, if I hit the NS, well I would want the A hit instead of the C hit. But then if I step back from, how is that fair. There is a noshoot which completly cover the available A zone. If I go from left to right the possible scoring options are C-NS-C. Just becasue the perfs of the noshoot are the exact same perfs of the A, targets are deemed impentrable, so how would it every hit the A perf to score? How is that fair, just becasue I hit the perf that now I earn an A hit? If the A scoring area is available, like #4 in the Scoring Targets above image, yeah you can still earn an A hit. Would you give D-NS hits to #1 & #8 in image? The target area not existing is the only logical reasoning thing that makes the rules work and be consistent.

But it is not consistent. It goes against what the rule book says. This is not a full diameter hit, so the impeneterable part does not come into play. The rules are specific here. This teaching from the new RO class does not seem to follow the rule book. Nowhere does it say or even imply that the scoring area is not available. You just have to get a penalty to get to it. No major reward there. I would also have to argue for that D hit also. And logic has nothing to do with it. We go by the rule book here right?

[racerba]

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.

[boz1911]

Bullbutter, sounds like a new gun lube.........put it in a black tube and call it tactical bullbutter......

[Flexmoney]

The rule needs to work...across the board.

Take a look at this simple stage.

Big_Wind.doc

[for those that can't open it. Shooter is in a box behind a barricade. T1 is at 12 yards. There is a NS at 6 yards. All on the center line. Draw and shoot 6 on T1 from the box behind the barricade.]

Any hit on the NS that touches the perf ? It can go on to score, right?

[AZ38super]

Any hit on the NS that touches the perf ? It can go on to score, right?

Not from inside the perf - any hit inside the perf whole or not stops right there.

[racerba]

Any hit on the NS that touches the perf ? It can go on to score, right?

So in essence, how you see the targets would be as pictured in th epicture from the RO class.

[Flexmoney]

How about this perfectly legal presentation?

Ike.doc

[racerba]

Any hit on the NS that touches the perf ? It can go on to score, right?

Not from inside the perf - any hit inside the perf whole or not stops right there.

OK - and the hits outside and ON the perf...does it not touch the perf on the scoring target?

[Fireant]

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.

We still don't have an offical ruling remember. The rule book also does not provide for painting a cardboard target white for a NS, only hard cover as long as it is not white. wouldn't 4.1.5 dissallow the painting of a NS on the scoring target?

[Flexmoney]

Any hit on the NS that touches the perf ? It can go on to score, right?

Not from inside the perf - any hit inside the perf whole or not stops right there.

That is flat wrong.

[boz1911]

The rule needs to work...across the board.

Take a look at this simple stage.

Big_Wind.doc

[for those that can't open it. Shooter is in a box behind a barricade. T1 is at 12 yards. There is a NS at 6 yards. All on the center line. Draw and shoot 6 on T1 from the box behind the barricade.]

Any hit on the NS that touches the perf ? It can go on to score, right?

I don't think that is representative of the original scoring question. Obviously these are not overlying targets, and perf hits will go on to score...I'm sure T-Boone had that in mind also....

[AZ38super]

How about this perfectly legal presentation?

While not a good presentation it would score different as the perfs are not lined up.

[Flexmoney]

The rule needs to work...across the board.

Take a look at this simple stage.

Big_Wind.doc

[for those that can't open it. Shooter is in a box behind a barricade. T1 is at 12 yards. There is a NS at 6 yards. All on the center line. Draw and shoot 6 on T1 from the box behind the barricade.]

Any hit on the NS that touches the perf ? It can go on to score, right?

I don't think that is representative of the original scoring question. Obviously these are not overlying targets, and perf hits will go on to score...I'm sure T-Boone had that in mind also....

Boz,

Now take the no-shoot and move it closer and closer to T1.

Tell me at what point things change? Then site the rule that supports the change?

[HoMiE]

The rule needs to work...across the board.

Take a look at this simple stage.

Big_Wind.doc

[for those that can't open it. Shooter is in a box behind a barricade. T1 is at 12 yards. There is a NS at 6 yards. All on the center line. Draw and shoot 6 on T1 from the box behind the barricade.]

Any hit on the NS that touches the perf ? It can go on to score, right?

Maybey legal stage, but poor stage design. I think this scoring issue only deals with targets that are immediately touching and perfs perfectly aligned.

[Fireant]

I'm dying here, it is the exact same thing. It does not matter that the perfs are or are not lined up. The rule book does not say anything about those perfectly allined perfs. That is what is throwing everyone off. The azone is there period. Only a full diameter hit stops right there. The partials keep going, look it up in the rule book. The rule book does not say that only part of the bullet continues on to score, it says the bullet continues on for a score or penalty. Don't read more than is there simply because someone said that is how it is. Look at it a think about it.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Fireant

[Flexmoney]

How about this perfectly legal presentation?

While not a good presentation it would score different as the perfs are not lined up.

You can't have it both ways.

It's not about the perfs lining up. Either the bullet can go on to score after the NS or it cannot?

Pick. Then support you pick with rules.

[Fireant]

I have to call more BS here again.

No, let's not.

A reminder that applies to ALL parties in this discussion:

No antagonistic tones will be tolerated.

Please post respectfully or don't post at all.

Please take a deep breath before hitting send and let's keep going after this without going after each other.

And for the record I was not meaning to be antagonistic, in college and in my unit when things were not kosher we called BS to get clarifications. Not to start arguments. Now I'll try to remember to call "TBB" * tactical bull butter

[HoMiE]

Here is your rule Flex.

4.2.4 When the scoring area of a paper target is to be partially hidden, course

designers must simulate hard cover in one of the following ways:

4.2.4.1 By actually hiding a portion of the target (see Rule 4.1.4.1).

4.2.4.2 By physically cutting targets to remove the portion deemed to be

hidden by hard cover. Such targets must be fitted with a

replacement non-scoring border, which must extend the full

width of the cut scoring area (see Rule 4.2.2).

4.2.4.3 By painting or taping the portion of the target deemed to be hidden

by hard cover a single and visibly contrasting color.

Now nobody usually does this and I have only been to one match where all the targets were properly setup.

Therefore, 9.1.5, 9.1.6 and with 4.2.4, the rule book is once again consistent and the intrepretation "scoring area not exsisting" makes sense, too me anyways.

Edited September 19, 2008 by HoMiE

[ima45dv8]

I have to call more BS here again.

No, let's not.

A reminder that applies to ALL parties in this discussion:

No antagonistic tones will be tolerated.

Please post respectfully or don't post at all.

Please take a deep breath before hitting send and let's keep going after this without going after each other.

And for the record I was not meaning to be antagonistic, in college and in my unit when things were not kosher we called BS to get clarifications. Not to start arguments. Now I'll try to remember to call "TBB" * tactical bull butter

"TBB"

Oh, I'll be using this often!

[George Jones]

[racerba]

I "see"! What's your point?

Is it touching the perf or is the perf covered?

Edited September 19, 2008 by racerba

[Flexmoney]

Homie,

You were great until the edit. I thought somebody from you side had found a legit rule to explore. But, the "therefore" doesn't hold water.

George, your example is covered under 4.2.4.3 - not applicable to this discussion.

[HoMiE]

Flex, you have to look at the rules in their entirety. You can't pick the rules that are going to benefit and say you get the hit. Noshoots covering a target, rule 4.2.4.2, without having to cut the hidden A-zone out of every target, it is just assumed it doesn't exist or treat it as if it were hardcover. Or else what a pain to go through and cut targets and fit them together like a jigzaw puzzle. If I cut the A zone out, how can I score if I hit the perf?

Edited September 19, 2008 by HoMiE

[Flexmoney]

Flex, you have to look at the rules in their entirety.

That is a real head-scratcher, as that is what many of us having been saying all along here.

[Flexmoney]

... rule 4.2.4.2, without having to cut the hidden A-zone out of every target, it is just assumed it doesn't exist or treat it as if it were hardcover.

OK...read the rules in their entirety.

4.2.4 says MUST

Come on.

...bring me something good and well thought out.

4.2.4 When the scoring area of a paper target is to be partially hidden, course designers must simulate hard cover in one of the following ways:

- 4.2.4.2 By physically cutting targets to remove the portion deemed to be hidden by hard cover.