Scoring targets with hard cover or noshoots overlaping

[shred]

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.

Unless it's an 'impentrable' perf

Which would be, by this interpretation, any perf on overlapping targets. So, any hit inside a NS merely touching the perf is now a miss, not a scoring hit.

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.

Troy said it wasn't, but I didn't follow the reasoning. Can somebody explain again why hits 2,4 & 6 are scored as they are (assuming they just touch the perf, as they appear to)? That's the part I'm not sure about.

[HoMiE]

In the picture above, regarding #2, the bullet is touching C-D-NS. Shooter gets the higher score, so that is why the call is C-NS.

In hit #4, there is A-zone hit available adjacent to the bullet touching the perf on over target, so A-NS.

In hit #6, the scoring area adjacent to the perf is C. The A-zone is under the over target (NS) so it does not count or cannot in theory be hit by definition of impenetrable. Score it C-NS.

Another thing that was taught in the RO class is that targets have no thickness, the overlays either touch or they do not.

[shred]

In the picture above, regarding #2, the bullet is touching C-D-NS. Shooter gets the higher score, so that is why the call is C-NS.

In hit #4, there is A-zone hit available adjacent to the bullet touching the perf on over target, so A-NS.

In hit #6, the scoring area adjacent to the perf is C. The A-zone is under the over target (NS) so it does not count or cannot in theory be hit by definition of impenetrable. Score it C-NS.

Another thing that was taught in the RO class is that targets have no thickness, the overlays either touch or they do not.

Ah, but with the new ruling, perfs-on-overlapping-targets are now impenetrable on the top target. So, those shots don't actually touch the underlying target anymore, right?

[HoMiE]

In the picture above, regarding #2, the bullet is touching C-D-NS. Shooter gets the higher score, so that is why the call is C-NS.

In hit #4, there is A-zone hit available adjacent to the bullet touching the perf on over target, so A-NS.

In hit #6, the scoring area adjacent to the perf is C. The A-zone is under the over target (NS) so it does not count or cannot in theory be hit by definition of impenetrable. Score it C-NS.

Another thing that was taught in the RO class is that targets have no thickness, the overlays either touch or they do not.

Ah, but with the new ruling, perfs-on-overlapping-targets are now impenetrable on the top target. So, those shots don't actually touch the underlying target anymore, right?

Underlying target doesn't get touched, the adjacent target area is the only one that can get touched and count for score. That is why #3 & #6 is called C-NS, not A-NS.

[shred]

In the picture above, regarding #2, the bullet is touching C-D-NS. Shooter gets the higher score, so that is why the call is C-NS.

In hit #4, there is A-zone hit available adjacent to the bullet touching the perf on over target, so A-NS.

In hit #6, the scoring area adjacent to the perf is C. The A-zone is under the over target (NS) so it does not count or cannot in theory be hit by definition of impenetrable. Score it C-NS.

Another thing that was taught in the RO class is that targets have no thickness, the overlays either touch or they do not.

Ah, but with the new ruling, perfs-on-overlapping-targets are now impenetrable on the top target. So, those shots don't actually touch the underlying target anymore, right?

Underlying target doesn't get touched, the adjacent target area is the only one that can get touched and count for score. That is why #3 & #6 is called C-NS, not A-NS.

Sorry, I still don't get it... the perfs of the top target, all of them, are now 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

So how does the hit that just touches the perf on the inside of the NS touch the adjacent exposed area on the 'underneath' target without going through the perf to get there?

[HoMiE]

In the picture above, regarding #2, the bullet is touching C-D-NS. Shooter gets the higher score, so that is why the call is C-NS.

In hit #4, there is A-zone hit available adjacent to the bullet touching the perf on over target, so A-NS.

In hit #6, the scoring area adjacent to the perf is C. The A-zone is under the over target (NS) so it does not count or cannot in theory be hit by definition of impenetrable. Score it C-NS.

Another thing that was taught in the RO class is that targets have no thickness, the overlays either touch or they do not.

Ah, but with the new ruling, perfs-on-overlapping-targets are now impenetrable on the top target. So, those shots don't actually touch the underlying target anymore, right?

Underlying target doesn't get touched, the adjacent target area is the only one that can get touched and count for score. That is why #3 & #6 is called C-NS, not A-NS.

Sorry, I still don't get it... the perfs of the top target, all of them, are now 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

So how does the hit that just touches the perf on the inside of the NS touch the adjacent exposed area on the 'underneath' target without going through the perf to get there?

I know it doesn't make sense on some levels and I didn't accept the intrepretation at first either. The bullet can't go through by the very definition on impenetrable, however it can touch the adjcent area like has been mentioned in other threads like a tangent line. The A-zone "underneath" cannot be touched by the same definiton.

[JThompson]

In the picture above, regarding #2, the bullet is touching C-D-NS. Shooter gets the higher score, so that is why the call is C-NS.

In hit #4, there is A-zone hit available adjacent to the bullet touching the perf on over target, so A-NS.

In hit #6, the scoring area adjacent to the perf is C. The A-zone is under the over target (NS) so it does not count or cannot in theory be hit by definition of impenetrable. Score it C-NS.

Another thing that was taught in the RO class is that targets have no thickness, the overlays either touch or they do not.

Ah, but with the new ruling, perfs-on-overlapping-targets are now impenetrable on the top target. So, those shots don't actually touch the underlying target anymore, right?

Underlying target doesn't get touched, the adjacent target area is the only one that can get touched and count for score. That is why #3 & #6 is called C-NS, not A-NS.

Sorry, I still don't get it... the perfs of the top target, all of them, are now 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

So how does the hit that just touches the perf on the inside of the NS touch the adjacent exposed area on the 'underneath' target without going through the perf to get there?

I know it doesn't make sense on some levels and I didn't accept the intrepretation at first either. The bullet can't go through by the very definition on impenetrable, however it can touch the adjcent area like has been mentioned in other threads like a tangent line. The A-zone "underneath" cannot be touched by the same definiton.

This is correct... any area where perfs line up perfectly, the under target is covered by the over target and perf, so only scoring zones adjacent/adjoining score. If you look at example 1 on the figure, you will see you get a NS Mike. This is because the perfs line up perfectly and there is no adjoining scoring area available. So from here on, any perfs, lined up perfectly, the underlying scoring zone is deemed to be covered and not available for scoring. (See #3) The C is also touched by the bullet, so the C is scored.

Hence my theory that perfs can't be penetrated, and to help get your mind around it, have no width at all. If you accept that the perfs have no width, then the bullet can touch the adjoining scoring zone while not scoring the under zone because it is covered by a target that can not be penetrated.

Perfs having no width isn't really a stretch, because their only purpose is to aid in scoring.

Edited October 14, 2008 by JThompson

[Fireant]

Hence my theory that upper perf can't be penetrated, and to help get your mind around it, has no width at all. If you accept that the perfs have no width, then the bullet can touch the adjoining scoring zone while not scoring the under zone because it is covered by a target that can not be penetrated.

No width? Come on now. I buy the no thickness, but come on now no width! Um, which edge of the perf do we use? Is it the inside for overlapping targets and the outside for all others? That would make as much sense as this ruling.........I know Mods please move this thread to the humor section. Maybe I can get mine back that way.

[shred]

If we now assume perfs have zero width, then any shot that touches them breaks them. That seems kinda contrary to the real world, a whole lot of history (witness the people that still think a shot has to 'break' the perf to score) and would merit an additional official explanation.

The need for an impenetrable line of zero width is an interesting concept as well. Seems like a whole lot of wrangling just to avoid giving out a very few extra points.

[Fireant]

Now we have a ruling that sems to take away what was a hit (in some cases if the line is now impeneterable) just to avoid giving 1 or 2 points to a shooter that has already earned a 10 point penalty.

[Flexmoney]

A couple of recent posts were pulled.

We are already pushing the limits here. Please don't post at/about another member. Keep your comments on the topic of discussion.

- Admin.

[Jim Norman]

Tempest in a teapot

Mountains out of molehills

Do we really care which way the targets are scored just so long as they are ALWAYS HENCEFORTH scored the same way?

Give me an Alpha-NS or an Charlie-NS, Make a decision, put a drawing of the methodology to be used on the USPSA Website AND in the next available issue of Frontsight. From that point in time forward that is how we do it.

I do admit that I hate BECAUSE as an answer to any question. Always have and always will, BUT, in this case I think that arguments with equal weight can be made to support both sides of htis one so we need to decide what we will do and how we will read the rules and move on.

I was at the Nationals in Barry when this was brought up and the explanation makes sense, just as the opposing views do. Personally I think I will solve future arrangements of targets at our matches by NOT matching the perfs. That seems to be the easiest and best solution, just don't line the little buggers up.

A not on geometry, A line is defined as a series of points connecting two points in a plane. Points have no dimensions and lines have have only one, Length. No Width and No depth. Planes have only two dimensions, Width and Length. Only a solid shape has a third dimension; Depth. Of physical necessity our targets represent a plane, but cannot actually exist as one, the same with a the scoring perf line, they represent a line, but in truth have to have width, depth and length or we would not be able to perceive them.

Been a LONG LONG time since my last geometry class and I didn't look this up, It is how I remember it. Maybe my teachers did a better job than they thought, or maybe I am full of ----.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

Let me see if I can get us back on track here.

I have a legit question.

I think that everybody...regardless of whether they thought this interpretation had merit or not...gets that the goal of the interpretation was to make the scoring area that is under the NS unavailable.

In the case of the presentation that had the head of the NS covering up the lower half of the A-zone on the scoring target underneath... The old debate was scoring a NS-Alpha versus a NS-Charlie.

With the wording of the interpretation...with the cover perf being impenetrable...then, a hit that appears 100% inside the NS, but does touch the perf, that would have to be called a Mike? NS-Mike (which is an additional -15).

I don't think that is where those in the NS-Charlie camp were wanting to go. I don't know why the bit in the interpretation about the perf on the cover target being impenetrable was added...if not to make that call a Mike ?

[AZ38super]

Your answer was already given.

You keep thinking of a no-shoot laying on top of a scoring target as two targets because visually that is what you see.

They are treated as ONE FLAT target and not two seperate ones with one on top of another, thus the reason for touching the perf can still get you a scoring hit.

It is like you cut each one like a puzzle piece and glued the edges together.

[Flexmoney]

Your answer was already given.

You keep thinking of a no-shoot laying on top of a scoring target as two targets because visually that is what you see.

They are treated as ONE FLAT target and not two seperate ones with one on top of another, thus the reason for touching the perf can still get you a scoring hit.

It is like you cut each one like a puzzle piece and glued the edges together.

Well...visually, physically, technically, representationally (<<is that a word? lol)...any way you look at it, they are a scoring target and a penalty target. They are two seperate targets. Heck, even the silly rule book defines them as such.

How am I supposed to explian the idea behind a jigsaw puzzle to a new shooter? Where I come from, they likely hit me upside the head with a 2x4...and I'd deserve it.

Please don't tell me I have to pretend...to make the clarification make sense. I hope that is not the answer.

[AikiDale]

...an impenetrable line of zero width is an interesting concept...

[racerba]

Can I reiterate the following:

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.

So the interpretation means nothing.

[wide45]

...an impenetrable line of zero width is an interesting concept...

The perfs have always been zero width...

[Fireant]

Can I reiterate the following:

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.

So the interpretation means nothing.

I would like the ruling to be based on the written rules as they are. What part of the rule book is this based on? Please do not site the ruling, I want the where it came from based on the rules please.

OK if the perfs have no width how are they even there. To even exsist they must have some width. Where do they start? Outside or inside. I've seen some hits touch the outside part of the perf, but if the inside part is the beggining/ending then that would not be touching then right?

[AZ38super]

Wow, some people just want this to go on forever.

The perf is still as it has been, nothing has changed in the rule or interpretation.

It has zero width because it does not matter.

just touching the edge

1/4 the way in the perf

1/2 way in the perf

or all the way thru the perf mean the same thing so it is like it has zero width.

Flex, I was just trying to put it in words that some could understand as they seem to not grasp the concept so far.

Yes they are defined as two seperate targets in the rule book as it explains each target but when placed together they are treated as one flat surface and not two individual targets.

[AikiDale]

...an impenetrable line of zero width is an interesting concept...

The perfs have always been zero width...

If the perf has zero width how can it be touched? And if it can be touched how can that touching be perceived?

[Fireant]

Wow, some people just want this to go on forever.

The perf is still as it has been, nothing has changed in the rule or interpretation.

It has zero width because it does not matter.

just touching the edge

1/4 the way in the perf

1/2 way in the perf

or all the way thru the perf mean the same thing so it is like it has zero width.

Flex, I was just trying to put it in words that some could understand as they seem to not grasp the concept so far.

Yes they are defined as two seperate targets in the rule book as it explains each target but when placed together they are treated as one flat surface and not two individual targets.

And I say again, show me the rule that supports this. Not the interpretation, but the written rule.

[jhgtyre]

...an impenetrable line of zero width is an interesting concept...

The perfs have always been zero width...

If the perf has zero width how can it be touched? And if it can be touched how can that touching be perceived?

So the perf is multi-dimensional. If you touch one side of it you touch the other which is in turn the same as touching every part of it. I didn't know the rule book was so Escher-esque!

-ld

[Jim Norman]

To make any of this argument make any sense, one must have at least the basics of plane geometry.

OR

One must accept BECAUSE as the reason.

Otherwise we have to deal with targets that have varying degrees of thickness as well as scoring perfs that have not only width, but also varying degrees of width. When one assumes anything other than basic plane geometry applies, one is left with all of the arguments that we are currently seeing. When one is asked to deal with targets as solid objects as opposed to plane surfaces, then one opens up an entirely different set of rules and an near infinite number of possibilities.

Two planes superimposed upon each other still have no thickness. Only the plane on top of the stack is visible and has existence to our frame of reference.

To state other simply cannot be made to work.

Simple solution looking forward is to either deliberately miss-align the perfs to avoid this issue, OR to place a thin strip of "HardCover" (AKA BLACK TAPE) along the perf. Said tape should be laid against the perf on the shoot target and on the surface to be hidden by the NS. Having so "Masked" the scoring zone with Hard Cover, the edge hit will no longer score since the scoring area has been rendered as covered by hard cover which is defined clearly as an area of the target that will not count for score.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

Flex, I was just trying to put it in words that some could understand as they seem to not grasp the concept so far.

You are right. I certainly didn't grasp that concept. It doesn't resemble anything that I have seen before.

Yes they are defined as two seperate targets in the rule book as it explains each target but when placed together they are treated as one flat surface and not two individual targets.

How do you get there? Not from reading anything in the rule book. It's a leap of faith.

I gotta assume you took your Level I RO class in the past year? (that isn't meant as derogatory)