Scoring targets with hard cover or noshoots overlaping

[JThompson]

NROI Rulings

Title: Scoring targets with hard cover or noshoots overlaping (attached)

Created: 9/19/08

Updated: 10/09/08

Effective: 10/09/08

Rule number: 9.1.5/9.5.2

Applies to: General

Ruling authority: John Amidon

Status: Released

Question

Target array is a no-shoot over a scoring target. The top of the NS head directly covers the bottom half of the lower A zone, with the lateral non-scoring lines of the NS *directly* over the A/C zone scoring lines of the scoring target. How is this scored?

Ruling

In accordance with Rule 9.1.5, targets and hard cover are impenetrable. Whenever two targets (scoring and/or no shoots) are in direct contact and overlap each other, the impenetrability also applies to any scoring line perforations of the "over" target. Further, the area of the "under" target which is directly covered by the "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent. Finally, for the purposes of this interpretation, Rule 9.5.2 is clarified to apply only to individual (single) scoring target presentations and inapplicable to the covered area of the "under" target in the type of multiple target array described above.

[JThompson]

No comments?

[Jake Di Vita]

I'm glad it's official.

[LChico]

No comments?

If you use the "search" function, you will find a HUGE thread with comments . . .

Back when it was not official yet and comments were appropriate.

But I can sum up my comments by agreeing with Flexmoney: see related thread

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

[JThompson]

I was on the thread... I wasn't under the impression it was inappropriate to comment on rules whether they are "official" or not.

Edited October 12, 2008 by JThompson

[LChico]

I was on the thread... I wasn't under the impression it was inappropriate to comment on rules whether they are "official" or not.

Sorry . . ."appropriate" was probably a poor choice of words. By commenting before an official ruling exists, I always assume that reasonable or logical comments might impact the interpretation of the rule. Perhaps I should have written "potentially useful" instead of "appropriate" in my earlier post.

It has been my experience that commenting after an official ruling exists is much like hitting my head against a wall.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

Edited October 12, 2008 by LChico

[HSMITH]

Alpha Charlie no shoot, got it.

[JThompson]

I was on the thread... I wasn't under the impression it was inappropriate to comment on rules whether they are "official" or not.

Sorry . . ."appropriate" was probably a poor choice of words. By commenting before an official ruling exists, I always assume that reasonable or logical comments might impact the interpretation of the rule. Perhaps I should have written "potentially useful" instead of "appropriate" in my earlier post.

It has been my experience that commenting after an official ruling exists is much like hitting my head against a wall.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

I was thinking about how it was written rather than the rule itself. I pretty much knew what was coming, but I was curious on the verbage that would be used and if those words would be clear for all parties. It seems pretty clear to me, but I haven't taken the time to relate it back to all the other rules and sub rules where it might tie in.

[XD Niner]

The last sentence is a bit confusing but the rest is very clear. This is one of those times where a picture (or set of pictures) would be worth a thousand words.

[lcs]

I was thinking about how it was written rather than the rule itself. I pretty much knew what was coming, but I was curious on the verbage that would be used and if those words would be clear for all parties. It seems pretty clear to me, but I haven't taken the time to relate it back to all the other rules and sub rules where it might tie in.

JT,

I see where your coming from. I understood the scoring before the official ruling. The last sentence is confusing to me.

[JThompson]

Read 9.5.2 and then reread it... it's takes a minute to get your mind around it, but makes sense once you do. The ruling had a senario attached, but for some reason it's not on the site with the ruling. I would think it's the same as the one we had in the other thread. If it's still unclear for you after reading 9.5.2... let me know and we can talk it out.

JT

[shred]

So a no-shoot that just touches the perf from the inside of the NS is now NS-Miss, but only if the targets are touching and overlapping?

[shooterbenedetto]

Can someone please post an example picture of targets?

[JThompson]

Can someone please post an example picture of targets?

Edited October 13, 2008 by JThompson

[JThompson]

So a no-shoot that just touches the perf from the inside of the NS is now NS-Miss, but only if the targets are touching and overlapping?

That is a great question Shred.

Here's how I read the new rule. If you are touching the over perf you get the highest scoring available on the target. Since the A zone is no longer available you would score the C zone hit as well as the NS. At least that's my take on it. In other words, the only change from the way we scored it before is that the A is not available... so what would have been an A is now a C.

I do see your point though... you are saying since the upper perf is also considered HC then if no part of the bullet is over the perf there will be no hit on the target below. The way this is written, you would think that the bullet would have to break the perf instead of just being in contact with it. It worked for the old way of scoring because if it touched the perf then it touched the under perf. When the upper perf becomes impenetrable, the bullet can no longer touch any scoring portion of the lower target unless it is slightly over the perf.

I do not think they want this as a gotcha, so I would bet it's a C, NS, but that is something we need to run up the pole. Since you brought it up, why don't you send the question to John. Have him make any changes, or additions to the rule to clarify if needed.

JT

Edited October 13, 2008 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

"...the impenetrability also applies to any scoring line perforations of the "over" target."

So a no-shoot [hit] that just touches the perf from the inside of the NS is now NS-Miss, but only if the targets are touching and overlapping?

From the diagram above, that would make #2, #4, #6, & #7 score as NS-Mike.

Ouch.

[Fireant]

Well, since I don't agree with the ruling and will let NROI know and send them MY reasons and hope for another ruling. This now means that there will offically not be any of that type of target array in my matches. But they could be 1 inch in front of the target. Easy fix for me just like making a MD put hard cover under the NS to make it dissappear as per the rule book as written not as interpreted by God I mean John.

[Singlestack]

I can not get my head around why he wants to change the way targets are scored just because they are touching.

[Fireant]

I can not get my head around why he wants to change the way targets are scored just because they are touching.

That and not following the written rule book. If you want it that way make a motion for a rewrite of the rulebook, not just pull the old I make the NROI decisions and so it is what I say it is card.

[mactiger]

"...the impenetrability also applies to any scoring line perforations of the "over" target."

So a no-shoot [hit] that just touches the perf from the inside of the NS is now NS-Miss, but only if the targets are touching and overlapping?

From the diagram above, that would make #2, #4, #6, & #7 score as NS-Mike.

Ouch.

No, they score just like the diagram shows. Again, if the perfs are lined up perfectly, then perf-to-perf, there is no scoring zone available under the covering no-shoot, and it's perforation. I don't want to (and won't) start another long argument over how this _does_ follow the rule book, but a NS is hard cover to the perf, any hit touching the perf scores the scoring zone available on the other side of the perf, as the diagram shows.

#'s 1 and 8 are scored as NS-Mike, because the perfs are aligned--no scorable target remains under the no shoot, only non-scoring border.

Troy

[JThompson]

Well, since I don't agree with the ruling and will let NROI know and send them MY reasons and hope for another ruling. This now means that there will offically not be any of that type of target array in my matches. But they could be 1 inch in front of the target. Easy fix for me just like making a MD put hard cover under the NS to make it dissappear as per the rule book as written not as interpreted by God I mean John.

I understand the thinking where the A zone is lined up, so it can't be shot, but this could be one of those times where the cure is worse than the disease. For the sake of consistency and simplicity, would it not been easier to either ignore, or rewrite the rule that the perfs are able to be penetrated? Therefore, for all intents, no target could be perfectly aligned, so there is no conflict of edge scoring. Say even if the targets are over/under they are deemed to be slighly out of alignment and the error in alignment always goes to the shooter therefore the A is available on all presentations.

Looking at all sides there is no perfect solution... what we have to ask ourselves is: Does this help or hinder consistency and ease of scoring? If we go with the new ruling do we now have to break the perf to score the next higher value? If we deem the over perf to be impenetrable, I would have to say yes. Otherwise, you would have to fudge the perf to say it has no width, which creates another set of problems. If not then the issue of the A hit has now become the issue of how can we score any hit unless the perf is broke? Also, this becomes a very intense issue on the range where guys are going to take a Mike and a NS instead of a NS and an A or C. So then you rule that you get the next highest if the A is not there. This is fudging as much as the old way imho. I know some would say there was no fudge, but I disagree with that, but it's another issue not germane here.

So we are left with some tuff choices... We fudge so the under hit is a C, somehow having the perf of the C being hit even though it's not really possible anymore than the under A, because it's outside of the hit if the perf is not broken. We go by the letter of the new ruling and you have a NS mike. For the health of the sport, RO, RMs and the shooters I do not think this should be the case. It's just such a major departure from what IS it will never be accepted and will only breed attitudes. It might also gain non compliance at anything other than a major. Lastly, we can go back to what we have been using and allow the A zone hit. There is a solid defensible position in that no two targets will ever be perfectly aligned.

Implementation and practice, could make the ruling Pyrrhic. This becomes a serious gotcha for the shooter and from the short time I've been in the USPSA, this is never the case with the NROI or the BOD.

The bottom line, for me, is that as long as there has to be some givens, or fudges in the ruling, why not have them benefit rather than hinder? I believe the "no two targets can be perfectly aligned" is the most solid and easy way to deal with the issue.

JT

Edited October 13, 2008 by JThompson

[Fireant]

Question

Target array is a no-shoot over a scoring target. The top of the NS head directly covers the bottom half of the lower A zone, with the lateral non-scoring lines of the NS *directly* over the A/C zone scoring lines of the scoring target. How is this scored?

Ruling

In accordance with Rule 9.1.5, targets and hard cover are impenetrable. Whenever two targets (scoring and/or no shoots) are in direct contact and overlap each other, the impenetrability also applies to any scoring line perforations of the "over" target. Further, the area of the "under" target which is directly covered by the "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent., Finally, for the purposes of this interpretationRule 9.5.2 is clarified to apply only to individual (single) scoring target presentations and inapplicable to the covered area of the "under" target in the type of multiple target array described above.

The problem with the red highlighted part is that 9.5.1 says they are impenetrable: 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.

The bullet continued on and even if the perf is considered impeneterable the sheared off part still touches the underlying perf for score as per 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.

And just where does it say in the written rule book that the underlying area is non-exsistent? Is that what the rule book writers wanted? Then they should have said so. Maybe they didn't care. Why read more into the rule than is actually there? Why are we trying to make the rule change based on the distance between targets? If this keeps up I might forget which game this actually is.

[George Jones]

And just where does it say in the written rule book that the underlying area is non-exsistent? Is that what the rule book writers wanted? Then they should have said so. Maybe they didn't care. Why read more into the rule than is actually there? Why are we trying to make the rule change based on the distance between targets? If this keeps up I might forget which game this actually is.

Like Troy, I've made my pertinent comments on the earlier threads and don't intend to repeat them. The rationale was clearly stated. The interpretation was necessary because those hits were being called differently. The ruling provides consistency, which was obviously lacking. Just like any other rule you may not like, you still apply it.

But I wonder.... Do you realize that the rulebook wiriters are the ones who reached this conclusion? USPSA has a process. All new rules and all rule amendments go through it. The instructors are involved, the BOD is involved. All of them have many years of experience at all levels of this sport. It doesn't happen "just because". Until another change goes through the process, this one is it.

Taking a Range Officer class is a good way to remember which game this is. [tongue firmly in cheek]

[Fireant]

And just where does it say in the written rule book that the underlying area is non-exsistent? Is that what the rule book writers wanted? Then they should have said so. Maybe they didn't care. Why read more into the rule than is actually there? Why are we trying to make the rule change based on the distance between targets? If this keeps up I might forget which game this actually is.

Like Troy, I've made my pertinent comments on the earlier threads and don't intend to repeat them. The rationale was clearly stated. The interpretation was necessary because those hits were being called differently. The ruling provides consistency, which was obviously lacking. Just like any other rule you may not like, you still apply it.

But I wonder.... Do you realize that the rulebook wiriters are the ones who reached this conclusion? USPSA has a process. All new rules and all rule amendments go through it. The instructors are involved, the BOD is involved. All of them have many years of experience at all levels of this sport. It doesn't happen "just because". Until another change goes through the process, this one is it.

Taking a Range Officer class is a good way to remember which game this is. [tongue firmly in cheek]

I used to agree with that last statement, but not so much any more.

[JThompson]

And just where does it say in the written rule book that the underlying area is non-exsistent? Is that what the rule book writers wanted? Then they should have said so. Maybe they didn't care. Why read more into the rule than is actually there? Why are we trying to make the rule change based on the distance between targets? If this keeps up I might forget which game this actually is.

Like Troy, I've made my pertinent comments on the earlier threads and don't intend to repeat them. The rationale was clearly stated. The interpretation was necessary because those hits were being called differently. The ruling provides consistency, which was obviously lacking. Just like any other rule you may not like, you still apply it.

But I wonder.... Do you realize that the rulebook wiriters are the ones who reached this conclusion? USPSA has a process. All new rules and all rule amendments go through it. The instructors are involved, the BOD is involved. All of them have many years of experience at all levels of this sport. It doesn't happen "just because". Until another change goes through the process, this one is it.

Taking a Range Officer class is a good way to remember which game this is. [tongue firmly in cheek]

Not to be argumentative George, but I have a thought here... I don't think you can get the kind of line-up you are looking for on a consistent basis. There are two many variables in all the different people that will be stapling these targets up, slightly diff size target from diff batches etc... So let's say shooter A comes through hit the perf and gets his C. Later on in the day another target has been stapled up, but the out edges are a bit off, and he didn't check the perf were dead on balls, so his perfs are slightly off. Now shooter B comes along and shoots it and protests that the perfs are not aligned and is granted a A because he must be if they are off. So now shooter B has an advantage that he should not have had if we had declared all targets to be slightly misaligned. It would be a drag to have a stage tossed because someone stapled a target up 1/16th off the mark. I just think by making this ruling you are going to resolve one issue and create another.... Also, the simple act of hanging a new targets gets even more sticky and time consuming.

Thanks to all that joined in the issue... you guys showed me issues on both sides I had not considered. Every new RO should be camped out here to learn from the wealth of knowledge you guys have.

I thank you I leave this topic to the rest of you.

JT

Edited October 13, 2008 by JThompson