Scoring targets with hard cover or noshoots overlaping

[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?

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

At first read I thought this thread was about the whining of those who really miss not getting credit for an A hit when they hit a no-shoot. But now that it has become a discussion of Escher-esque Ontological Angst it seems appropriate to mention Goedel's incompleteness theorem: "The consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system."

[Jim Norman]

At first read I thought this thread was about the whining of those who really miss not getting credit for an A hit when they hit a no-shoot. But now that it has become a discussion of Escher-esque Ontological Angst it seems appropriate to mention Goedel's incompleteness theorem: "The consistency of the axioms cannot be proven within the system."

And I though that a reference to basic plane geometry was a bit 'out there'

"Escher-esque Ontological Angst" and "Goedel's incompleteness theorem" both in one post.

[AikiDale]

And I though that a reference to basic plane geometry was a bit 'out there'

"Escher-esque Ontological Angst" and "Goedel's incompleteness theorem" both in one post.

The most amazing thing about that to me is not only does it roll trippingly off the tongue, it actually makes sense and is applicable!

[shred]

And here I was thinking "if a shot touches a scoring line, it scores the highest scoring area touched and/or the penalty, as case may be" was a nice simple rule. No need for IF-THEN-ELSE statements or anything complicated with impenetrable non-existant overlapping whatevers.

[AikiDale]

And here I was thinking "if a shot touches a scoring line, it scores the highest scoring area touched and/or the penalty, as case may be" was a nice simple rule. No need for IF-THEN-ELSE statements or anything complicated with impenetrable non-existant overlapping whatevers.

I'll drink to that.

[Singlestack]

And here I was thinking "if a shot touches a scoring line, it scores the highest scoring area touched and/or the penalty, as case may be" was a nice simple rule. No need for IF-THEN-ELSE statements or anything complicated with impenetrable non-existant overlapping whatevers.

+1

[Fireant]

And here I was thinking "if a shot touches a scoring line, it scores the highest scoring area touched and/or the penalty, as case may be" was a nice simple rule. No need for IF-THEN-ELSE statements or anything complicated with impenetrable non-existant overlapping whatevers.

+1,000,000 that's what I was thinking with the original question in the closed down thread. There is no need for an official ruling that way. Go figure

[ima45dv8]

And here I was thinking "if a shot touches a scoring line, it scores the highest scoring area touched and/or the penalty, as case may be" was a nice simple rule. No need for IF-THEN-ELSE statements or anything complicated with impenetrable non-existant overlapping whatevers.

Well said.

[AikiDale]

Maybe the target under the no-shoot is like Schrödinger's cat. You just don't know if it is there until you look....

[racerba]

And here I was thinking "if a shot touches a scoring line, it scores the highest scoring area touched and/or the penalty, as case may be" was a nice simple rule. No need for IF-THEN-ELSE statements or anything complicated with impenetrable non-existant overlapping whatevers.

That's the way it was ruled a few years back. OK - I wondered who challenged that ruling and caused all this fuss!

[Fireant]

It seems it was changed somewhere in the last year or so and was brought up at the nationals.

[LPatterson]

I guess I am an example of a block headed kraut. The reason I can't find a rule that says what we are arguing about is because the rule is being changed or redefined. There are a lot of the new rules that I don't understand the reasoning of but they were changed and my RO class told me how I should apply them. I think this is one of those cases were a ruling/decision has been made that is going to have to be looked at by the suprene court i.e, board of directors. This problem is easily corrected - Don't shoot the no-shoot. I don't remember there being this much rassle with the change from a max of two hits on a no shoot counting to you hit it so count everything.

If the redefination as approved by the BOD can be written pointedly enough to only apply to an overlaying target then is that something that can be accepted?

My analogy would be, is that if you were shooting at someone and only tore their shirt should that be counted as a hit or do you have to break the skin for it to count as a hit. I am just a piece of clay with a timer that is shaped by a ruling body.

[Fireant]

I guess I am an example of a block headed kraut. The reason I can't find a rule that says what we are arguing about is because the rule is being changed or redefined. There are a lot of the new rules that I don't understand the reasoning of but they were changed and my RO class told me how I should apply them. I think this is one of those cases were a ruling/decision has been made that is going to have to be looked at by the suprene court i.e, board of directors. This problem is easily corrected - Don't shoot the no-shoot. I don't remember there being this much rassle with the change from a max of two hits on a no shoot counting to you hit it so count everything.

If the redefination as approved by the BOD can be written pointedly enough to only apply to an overlaying target then is that something that can be accepted?

My analogy would be, is that if you were shooting at someone and only tore their shirt should that be counted as a hit or do you have to break the skin for it to count as a hit. I am just a piece of clay with a timer that is shaped by a ruling body.

I can and will accept anything that is inthe rule book. I just have a hard time following something that can not be supported in the written rules. That is the whole point of this discussion, what is it based on that can be supported by the current rule book. Not by a ruling, but the actual rule.

The two NS thing was a non issue because it basically put things back to how they should have stayed 2 rulebooks back. When I started this if you shot them you earned them, then we went to the 2 max, now back to how it should be. The issue also never had a ruling that made the enforcement different than the book, so no big debate there.

[JThompson]

The bottom line is it is now a rule and we have to apply it as best we can. You don't have to like it, but you do have to abide by it. All I was trying to do here was to try and find a rationale that we could explain to the shooters when we had to tell them about the new rule. Since there are so many RO, CROs, RMs etc... here, I thought we should all be on the same page whether we like the ruling or not. We want to be consistant in our rulings and I thought this thread would be a good place to firm up our process for making these calls.

I did not start this thread to further argue the point about if this rule should have been changed or why it works or doesn't work. That point is moot and I did not want to argue about it any longer. I just want to find a way to apply it consitantly... and maybe along the way help some get their minds around the change.

JT

Edited October 15, 2008 by JThompson

[Fireant]

We could agree as MD's that we simply will not use this type of an array. Maybe that could help NROI to realize that the ruling made things worse and we can get a clearer rule in a future writting of the rule book. Just a thought.

[JThompson]

We could agree as MD's that we simply will not use this type of an array. Maybe that could help NROI to realize that the ruling made things worse and we can get a clearer rule in a future writting of the rule book. Just a thought.

That is certainly an option you have as an MD. Would you exclude the classifiers that use this setup as well?

[Fireant]

We could agree as MD's that we simply will not use this type of an array. Maybe that could help NROI to realize that the ruling made things worse and we can get a clearer rule in a future writting of the rule book. Just a thought.

That is certainly an option you have as an MD. Would you exclude the classifiers that use this setup as well?

Yes I will, since in my opinion an accurate score might not be obtained.

[JThompson]

We could agree as MD's that we simply will not use this type of an array. Maybe that could help NROI to realize that the ruling made things worse and we can get a clearer rule in a future writting of the rule book. Just a thought.

That is certainly an option you have as an MD. Would you exclude the classifiers that use this setup as well?

Yes I will, since in my opinion an accurate score might not be obtained.

Interesting, and completely within the rules…

[LPatterson]

Comments removed becase they were inflammatory about one persons judgement.

Edited October 15, 2008 by LPatterson

[Fireant]

I see it as I could teach students all day long that 2+2=5 I can't base this on any math rules, but because I'm teaching it that way it's true, right?

[AZ38super]

The rules are there in your 2008 rulebook that support the clarification and point many have tried to make.

Just read them correctly and not try and take them apart to fit your needs.

4.1.4 Targets used in a course of fire may be partially or wholly hidden

through the use of hard or soft cover:

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered

hard cover. When possible hard cover should not be simulated

but constructed using impenetrable materials (see Rule

2.1.3). Whole paper targets must not be used solely as hard

cover.

4.2 Approved Handgun Targets – Paper

4.2.1 There are two types of paper targets approved for use in USPSA

Handgun matches ( see Appendix B ). These types must not be included

together in any stage.

4.2.2 Paper targets must have scoring lines and non-scoring borders clearly

marked on the face of the target, however, scoring lines and non-scoring

borders should not be visible beyond a distance of 33 feet. The

scoring zones reward power in USPSA matches.

4.2.2.1 The face of paper no-shoots must include a sufficiently distinguishable

non-scoring border. In the absence of perforations or

other suitable markings, the Range Master must order that all

affected targets have a replacement non-scoring border drawn or

fitted thereon.

4.2.3 Paper targets must never be required to receive more than 12 hits

before being scored and patched.

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.

4.2.5 Hard Cover (and overlapping no-shoots) must not completely hide the

highest scoring zone on a partially hidden paper target. The minimum

requirements are specified in Appendix B.

4.3

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.

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

metal target, and continues on to strike down or hit the scoring

area of another metal target, the subsequent metal target will

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

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the

written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and

other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”:

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not

USPSA Handgun Rules, January 2008 Edition • 35

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

9.1.6.2 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to

hit a plate or strike down a popper; this will be treated as range

equipment failure (see Section.4.6). The competitor will be

required to reshoot the course of fire, after it has been restored.

9.1.6.3 If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to

strike the scoring area of a paper target, the hit on that paper target

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

9.1.6.4 If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to

strike down a scoring metal target, the fallen target will count for

score. If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues

on to strike down or hit a metal no-shoot, the fallen no-shoot

or hit thereon will count for penalty.

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.

9.5.3 If a bullet diameter touches the scoring area of both a scoring target and

a no-shoot, it will earn the score and incur the penalty.

9.5.4 Radial tears will not count for score or penalty.

9.5.5 Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet

diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence

within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown”

etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet

or splatter.

11.8 Interpretation of Rules

11.8.1 Interpretation of these rules and regulations is the responsibility of the

USPSA Director of NROI.

11.8.2 Persons seeking clarification of any rule are required to submit their

questions in writing, either by fax, letter or email to NROI headquarters.

52 • USPSA Handgun Rules, January 2008 Edition

11.8.3 All official USPSA interpretations of the rulebook published on the

USPSA website (www.uspsa.org) will be deemed to be precedents and

will be applied to all USPSA matches commencing on or after 7 days

from the date of publication. All such interpretations are subject to ratification

or modification at a regular or special meeting of the USPSA

Board of Directors.

Target(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A term that can include both scoring target(s) and noshoot(s) differentiates between them.

Edited October 15, 2008 by AZ38super

[Fireant]

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

is deemed to be impenetrable:

This tells me that the Non scoring boarder is not impeneterable.

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.

This tells me that I can still get the highest hit my bullet touches.

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered

hard cover. When possible hard cover should not be simulated

but constructed using impenetrable materials (see Rule

2.1.3). Whole paper targets must not be used solely as hard

cover.

This tells me that trying to use a NS to make the area dissapear is a no no.

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).

This explains how to do it by the rules.

[AZ38super]

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

is deemed to be impenetrable:

This tells me that the Non scoring boarder is not impeneterable. Correct

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.

This tells me that I can still get the highest hit my bullet touches. Somewhat correct, see 9.1.5 above, target below scoring area is no longer reachable.

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered

hard cover. When possible hard cover should not be simulated

but constructed using impenetrable materials (see Rule

2.1.3). Whole paper targets must not be used solely as hard

cover.

This tells me that trying to use a NS to make the area dissapear is a no no. Incorrect, note bolded text. It is suggested.

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).

This explains how to do it by the rules. It suggest the best way to do it but not the required way. 4.2.4.1 is what placing a no-shoot on top does.

Your getting close.

[Fireant]

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.

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

metal target, and continues on to strike down or hit the scoring

area of another metal target, the subsequent metal target will

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

No where does it say that it does not exsist.

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered

hard cover. When possible hard cover should not be simulated

but constructed using impenetrable materials (see Rule

2.1.3). Whole paper targets must not be used solely as hard

cover.

This tells me that trying to use a NS to make the area dissapear is a no no. Incorrect, note bolded text. It is suggested.

This tells me that I should use steel for hard cover, but I can use paint to simulate it. It also says that whole paper targets MUST not be used soley as hard cover. Hard cover is one thing a NS is a different thing. One does not score, the other scores a penalty. They are treated differently. We have positive scoring targets, negative scoring targets and those that are neither(hard cover) We can't call one the other and vice versa. If it's hard cover the underlying azone is gone, but a hit there can not be a NS penalty. If it is a NS then the bullet can continue on to score.

It suggest the best way to do it but not the required way. 4.2.4.1 is what placing a no-shoot on top does.

Nope see above.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Fireant

[Flexmoney]

Off topic.

Closed for cool down.

- Admin.