Fireant Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I just wonder how a ruling that does not fit the written rule will make things more consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 A quick scan through the classifier diagrams listed on USPSA.org shows a number of classifiers (24, if I didn't miss any) that, lacking this ruling, presumably have been scored incorrectly for years. They all have some form of mandated overlapping No-Shoot. Does this now invalidate the scores associated with those classifiers? Should they be thrown out? Could this be called an "Unintended Consequence"? 99-07, 99-14, 99-16, 99-21, 99-22, 99-24, 99-27, 99-36, 99-39, 99-43, 99-45, 99-48, 99-52, 99-55, 99-58, 03-02, 03-03, 3-04, 03-08, 03-09, 03-11, 06-01, 06-02, 06-04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 So it sounds like the best practice will be to either use free standing no-shoots --- which have issues of their own --- or to cut away or hard cover the portion of a shoot target underlying a no-shoot..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The ruling is not retroactive, therefore anything scored previously is good to go. It's more of a clarification than a real change in the rules, IMO. The problem arises when "impenetrable" is not understood. If a target is deemed impenetrable, then whatever is beneath it, is, by definition, "not there", because it can't be struck by a bullet. Our rules deem paper targets impenetrable, end of story. I think this is the last I'll have to say on this one. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 How then can you have a partial hit through an impenetrable target? If it could not go through it in the first place, you would not get a partial hit to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 How then can you have a partial hit through an impenetrable target? If it could not go through it in the first place, you would not get a partial hit to begin with. I think the position is, you didn't have a partial hit through an impenatrable target, you had a partial hit through the not-so-impenatrable scoring border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 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... I understand your concern, but in reality it applies to every single variation of overlapped targets, not just this one. It also applies to every target which is obscured by hardcover (whether real or simulated). I'm sure you've seen hardcover tape applied differently to targets. Similarly, slanted overlaps are no more preciuse (they may actually be worse) and they have just as many potential scoring inconsistencies, but we have accepted those for many years. As much as we may try, we are not such a precise sport as to reduce all these calls to infinite magnification. So what it comes down to is the stage staff's attention to detail. Do the best you can. Don't assume (for example) that all targets are the same - as you mentioned, there are occasional differences based on the manufacturer. Pay attention to detail so that all shooters are treated the same. If, for whatever reason, you can't have a reasonable assurance of consistency, then simplify the arrays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireant Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The ruling is not retroactive, therefore anything scored previously is good to go. It's more of a clarification than a real change in the rules, IMO. The problem arises when "impenetrable" is not understood. If a target is deemed impenetrable, then whatever is beneath it, is, by definition, "not there", because it can't be struck by a bullet. Our rules deem paper targets impenetrable, end of story.I think this is the last I'll have to say on this one. Troy Sorry, but not end of story. Let's put that same array on the 180 line and I blast a shot right where the perfs line up. I have just touched the A zone that some people want to say by definition is not there. My webster's does not list not there as a def. of impeneterable. But, you are correct in that some people want the def. to be something it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted October 13, 2008 Author Share Posted October 13, 2008 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... I understand your concern, but in reality it applies to every single variation of overlapped targets, not just this one. It also applies to every target which is obscured by hardcover (whether real or simulated). I'm sure you've seen hardcover tape applied differently to targets. Similarly, slanted overlaps are no more preciuse (they may actually be worse) and they have just as many potential scoring inconsistencies, but we have accepted those for many years. As much as we may try, we are not such a precise sport as to reduce all these calls to infinite magnification. So what it comes down to is the stage staff's attention to detail. Do the best you can. Don't assume (for example) that all targets are the same - as you mentioned, there are occasional differences based on the manufacturer. Pay attention to detail so that all shooters are treated the same. If, for whatever reason, you can't have a reasonable assurance of consistency, then simplify the arrays. Thanks George. I'm will now fade to read only mode.... Best, Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 So it sounds like the best practice will be to either use free standing no-shoots --- which have issues of their own --- or to cut away or hard cover the portion of a shoot target underlying a no-shoot..... Your option, but cutting away is unnecessary if you follow the scoring guidelines as presented in the earlier graphic. Of all the ways you can use noshoots, the freestanding ones are the most inconsitent, IMO. Unless you can assure that the target stands and lath cannot move at all, every shooter will have a somewhat different opportunity on the scoring target. All I can say (in closing) is that you need to look at the big picture. Apply your argument against every other possible target array scenario. The most consistent challenge (especially if you apply infinite magnification) is actually the noshoot which is smack against the scoring target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The ruling is not retroactive, therefore anything scored previously is good to go. It's more of a clarification than a real change in the rules, IMO. The problem arises when "impenetrable" is not understood. If a target is deemed impenetrable, then whatever is beneath it, is, by definition, "not there", because it can't be struck by a bullet. Our rules deem paper targets impenetrable, end of story.I think this is the last I'll have to say on this one. Troy Sorry, but not end of story. Let's put that same array on the 180 line and I blast a shot right where the perfs line up. I have just touched the A zone that some people want to say by definition is not there. My webster's does not list not there as a def. of impeneterable. But, you are correct in that some people want the def. to be something it is not. OK, maybe one more try. Here's what dictionary.com says: im·pen·e·tra·ble–adjective 1. not penetrable; that cannot be penetrated, pierced, entered, etc. Perhaps I should have said "for scoring purposes", the target beneath the impenetrable, covering no-shoot is considered to be "not there". If the NS is impenetrable, then the target beneath it can't be hit. Again, this is a clarification of scoring practice, not a change in the rules, and was made to try to ensure consistency in scoring targets arranged in overlapping fashion. Poor course design and setup will, of course, have different effects on target arrays. I don't think I understand your reference to a target on the 180, but it doesn't matter. I'm done. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Troy/George -- Thanks for raising your heads up into the line of fire again and offering your comments. I don't like the ruling, but it's now the law of the land and I'll just have to learn to live with it. I don't look forward to having to explain this to someone who hasn't seen the ruling or followed the various discussions we've had here. I've printed several copies of the graphic borrowed from the RO course book to put in my range bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireant Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Troy/George -- Thanks for raising your heads up into the line of fire again and offering your comments.I don't like the ruling, but it's now the law of the land and I'll just have to learn to live with it. I don't look forward to having to explain this to someone who hasn't seen the ruling or followed the various discussions we've had here. I've printed several copies of the graphic borrowed from the RO course book to put in my range bag. I've been following it and can not wrap my mind around it. So, we had a rule that was/is easy to follow(nothing dissapears magically, and the highest score counts), but because some people wanted it a different way we now have a ruling that will confuse several folks(because it adds things not in the rule book), but that will make things more consistent? I think I woke up in bazaro world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 How then can you have a partial hit through an impenetrable target? If it could not go through it in the first place, you would not get a partial hit to begin with. I think the position is, you didn't have a partial hit through an impenatrable target, you had a partial hit through the not-so-impenatrable scoring border. I understand what you are saying, but that pre-supposes that the behavior of the bullet on a paper target is the same as being instantly stopped by the impenetrable barrier. To me it would seem to be like a steel outline around a scoring area (which we all have seen at some matches). Edge hits don't give you a nice clearly defined bullet hole, you get a mess. I would say you end up with frags from the impenetrable barrier as opposed to a nice round hole with a grease ring. Frags don't score... Regardless, the ruling is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 "...the impenetrability also applies to any scoring line perforations of the "over" target." ...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. Troy Are we reading the same stuff ? I know how you want it called. I just can't figure out why the interpretation added the verbage in about the perf being impenetrable. It clearly is there in the wording. Are we looking at the same diagram? The hits I am speaking of are the ones that appear to be 100% in the NS, but do actually touch the NS perf (which was just deemed Impenetrable). ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 It's more of a clarification than a real change in the rules, IMO. Hmmm...then what about rules 9.1.5.1, 9.1.5.2, 9.1.5.3, & 9.1.5.4 ? What the interpretation is, effectively, saying is that those rules don't apply...with targets that are lapped together. That's a bit more than a clarification, IMO. Our friends at IPSC have a different take, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) ...The ruling provides consistency... How is that consistent when it clearly says to score one way for a single target and another way for multiple target array? 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. Unless this sentence is meant to state that ONE target with hardcover painted on it vs a target made out of two targets. This is how I read this interpretation. Edited October 13, 2008 by racerba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcs Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 It's more of a clarification than a real change in the rules, IMO. Hmmm...then what about rules 9.1.5.1, 9.1.5.2, 9.1.5.3, & 9.1.5.4 ? What the interpretation is, effectively, saying is that those rules don't apply...with targets that are lapped together. That's a bit more than a clarification, IMO. Our friends at IPSC have a different take, it seems. Flex, 9.1.5.1, 9.1.5.2 both have the word "wholly" within the scoring area..... How do these rules not support or contradict the ruling? I translate "wholly" as to mean "not touching the perf" Wrong or right? 9.1.5.3, 9.1.5.4 both have the word "partially" within the scoring area...... How do these rules not support or contradict the ruling? "Partially" translates to "must be at least touching the perf. Wrong or right? Just trying to see where you are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I doubt if there is any way to be clearer than our RM/Instructors have tried to be but for the overlapping no shoot that started the controversy, I'm thinking that the thought is the same as if it were a piece of steel i.e. impenetrable. A shot that would only touch the inside edge of the steel/no shoot could not touch the under laying target. However a shot that crosses the perf/edge of the steel no shoot would score on the underlaying target. I am not seeing this as a change to the rules anymore than when I was shown that I should be using the outside of the circle on my scoring overlay to determine the accurate diameter of a bullet hole. I'm betting that most people only care about using the overlay it when it is to their advantage and that no one asks for an overlay on a no shoot that might be touching the perf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcs Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I doubt if there is any way to be clearer than our RM/Instructors have tried to be but for the overlapping no shoot that started the controversy, I'm thinking that the thought is the same as if it were a piece of steel i.e. impenetrable. A shot that would only touch the inside edge of the steel/no shoot could not touch the under laying target. However a shot that crosses the perf/edge of the steel no shoot would score on the underlaying target.I am not seeing this as a change to the rules anymore than when I was shown that I should be using the outside of the circle on my scoring overlay to determine the accurate diameter of a bullet hole. I'm betting that most people only care about using the overlay it when it is to their advantage and that no one asks for an overlay on a no shoot that might be touching the perf. Well said! Not that my opinion matters much, but I agree on both your statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 The "pretend it's steel" argument is bogus. That way of thinking has us assuming the target is "hardcover". - We have rules on hardcover, one of them states that paper isn't to be used as such. (4.1.4.1...which we now have to read...creatively ) - The practical aspect (anybody recall practical?) is that our paper targets represent...humans/zombies/aleins...non of which are made of steel. (well, except for Superman ) ----------------------- To answer the question, 9.1.5.3 applies differently now...depending on if the targets are lapped (touching) or not. That is a change, not a clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) The word assume should be fully analyzed and broken down before it is used. I didn't say pretend it is steel, I used it illustrate impenetrability. Our targets don't look like "humans/zombies/aleins", they are just pieces of cardboard upon which are printed scoring zones. Last time I had my shirt off I didn't see any lines and I think I am still human. If you stapled a target to the back of a piece of wood you would only have hard cover, I think we can agree to that. If a bullet only gets up to the edge of the wood but does not make a mark on the underlaying target, then I hope you score that a Mike. Why does the clarification change 9.1.5.3 when that rule discusses "PARTIALLY". Without naming politicial candidates, this change is more of a refinement of position. The unintended consequences may be that it is no longer enought to touch the scoring perf but that a scoring perf must be broken to score. I'm easy tell me how you want me to do it & if I don't like it I will find some place else to play or something else to play with. Edited October 13, 2008 by LPatterson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 The unintended consequences may be that it is no longer enought to touch the scoring perf but that a scoring perf must be broken to score. Unintended or not, it changes the way scoring has been done for years. Basically chaging the rule, not just refining it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share Posted October 14, 2008 The unintended consequences may be that it is no longer enought to touch the scoring perf but that a scoring perf must be broken to score. Unintended or not, it changes the way scoring has been done for years. Basically chaging the rule, not just refining it. The perf does not need to be broken... I brought that point up in reference to another issue involving it being impenetrable. A touch on the line is scored as a C and not an A. You do not have to break the perf as it is now. Just wanted to clear that... back to reading. JT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireant Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 The unintended consequences may be that it is no longer enought to touch the scoring perf but that a scoring perf must be broken to score. Unintended or not, it changes the way scoring has been done for years. Basically chaging the rule, not just refining it. The perf does not need to be broken... I brought that point up in reference to another issue involving it being impenetrable. A touch on the line is scored as a C and not an A. You do not have to break the perf as it is now. Just wanted to clear that... back to reading. JT What?? Touching the perf gets the higher score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts