Flexmoney Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 The discussions on geometry and support form the rule book are off topic. We had a thread on that, and it was closed. This thread is specifically about the "Official Interpretation" issued by USPSA/NROI. I am opening this thread back up, because I believe that the "Official Interpretation" is unclear. Please stay on topic. - Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Hmmm... Checking the Rulings website, it appears there has been a change? This ruling is still not yet effective. Ruling In accordance with Rule 9.1.5, the scoring areas of scoring targets and no-shoots are impenetrable. Whenever two targets (scoring and/or no-shoots) are in direct contact where one target directly overlaps part of another target, the area of the "under" target which is directly covered by the scoring area of the "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent. Additionally, Rule 9.5.2 is clarified to apply only to the visible portions of targets. It specifically does not apply to any area of any target which is in direct contact with and overlapped by the scoring area of another target (scoring and/or no-shoots) or by hardcover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 (edited) Interesting... Yes Flex, the rule was not "pending" before or at least it wasn't marked as such. Edited October 16, 2008 by JThompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 The wording has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 The wording has changed. You're right it has... OLD 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. NEW In accordance with Rule 9.1.5, the scoring areas of scoring targets and no-shoots are impenetrable. Whenever two targets (scoring and/or no-shoots) are in direct contact where one target directly overlaps part of another target, the area of the "under" target which is directly covered by the scoring area of the "over" target and its perforations is deemed to be non-existent. Additionally, Rule 9.5.2 is clarified to apply only to the visible portions of targets. It specifically does not apply to any area of any target which is in direct contact with and overlapped by the scoring area of another target (scoring and/or no-shoots) or by hardcover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 So does that mean that we can now staple up overlapping shoot targets as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 So does that mean that we can now staple up overlapping shoot targets as well? We have always had the option of overlapping shoot targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 So does that mean that we can now staple up overlapping shoot targets as well? We have always had the option of overlapping shoot targets. Sure --- but a single hit in the right place could score on both targets --- pretty easily..... now --- it's a little harder..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 It's an improvement I think. Are there any consequences on shoots over no-shoots or multiple no-shoots over shoots? Presumably "two targets" is interpreted to mean "two or more targets"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 (edited) So does that mean that we can now staple up overlapping shoot targets as well? We have always had the option of overlapping shoot targets. Sure --- but a single hit in the right place could score on both targets --- pretty easily..... now --- it's a little harder..... Nik.. what's the difference you see here now? Edited October 17, 2008 by BerKim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ38super Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 So does that mean that we can now staple up overlapping shoot targets as well? We have always had the option of overlapping shoot targets. Sure --- but a single hit in the right place could score on both targets --- pretty easily..... now --- it's a little harder..... The only way to score a hit on both targets is to split the perf. Are you good enough to do that quickly and know you made the shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I'd be more interested in the logical thought process which allows us to 'deem' part of a target ceases to exist. Especially since our most favored target is 'deemed' to represent a person who needs shooting and our non-scoring border is 'deemed' to be touched on one and not the other target. But, that's just me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 With the new determination this can also save the shooter who only touches the perf of a no shoot target on the non scoring side. I think it is more of a gain for the shooter than it is a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted October 18, 2008 Author Share Posted October 18, 2008 With the new determination this can also save the shooter who only touches the perf of a no shoot target on the non scoring side. I think it is more of a gain for the shooter than it is a loss. I'm not following... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 (edited) The scoring perf of a penalty (no shoot) target has been deemed to be impenetrable so unless the shot breaks the perf and touches the penalty target on the inside of the perf then it can not be scored as a penalty. It the past all it had to do was touch the perf to score on the penalty target. Edit: Dropped a word. Edited October 18, 2008 by LPatterson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 The scoring perf of a penalty (no shoot) target has been deemed to be impenetrable so unless the shot breaks the perf and touches the penalty target on the inside of the perf then it can not be scored as a penalty. It the past all it had to do was touch the perf to score on the penalty target.Edit: Dropped a word. The latest version does not make the perf impenetrable, it makes the under scoring target cease to exist. If you can see the no shoot and touch the perf line you still get credit for it. I think. This was much simpler before it got so complicated.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 We have always deemed targets didn't exist. Most major matches leave a target stapled to the sticks, and put replacement targets directly on top, to insure consistent placement. Everybody understands that the underlying target can't be scored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted October 18, 2008 Author Share Posted October 18, 2008 The scoring perf of a penalty (no shoot) target has been deemed to be impenetrable so unless the shot breaks the perf and touches the penalty target on the inside of the perf then it can not be scored as a penalty. It the past all it had to do was touch the perf to score on the penalty target.Edit: Dropped a word. The latest version does not make the perf impenetrable, it makes the under scoring target cease to exist. If you can see the no shoot and touch the perf line you still get credit for it. I think. This was much simpler before it got so complicated.... The way I see it everything is the same, as before the rule was changed at all, with the only difference being under targets directly aligned with an over perf are deemed to be covered and therefore do not exist. Now that I can get my mind around... Did I miss anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I think that pretty well sums it up. Before, if your round touched the perforation you got credit for an A hit and a no shoot. Now that the under target magically ceases to exist you get a C hit and a no shoot. Hmmm...... Okay, now that poses another question: is it the targets touching which makes the cease to exist magic or is it the perfs touching? If it is the perf touching do you need two parallel perfs touching or just one set one on top of the other to make the target disappear? Whenever I look under the top no shoot to see if the bottom target is gone it is there again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted October 18, 2008 Author Share Posted October 18, 2008 I think that pretty well sums it up. Before, if your round touched the perforation you got credit for an A hit and a no shoot. Now that the under target magically ceases to exist you get a C hit and a no shoot. Hmmm...... Okay, now that poses another question: is it the targets touching which makes the cease to exist magic or is it the perfs touching? If it is the perf touching do you need two parallel perfs touching or just one set one on top of the other to make the target disappear? Whenever I look under the top no shoot to see if the bottom target is gone it is there again. Don't read in a bunch of stuff here bud... just look at it like anything covered by the upper target and it's perf is not scorable... If there is a scoring piece of under target on the other side of said perf you get that score. If the last scoring area ends in the perf aligned you get NS Mike. This one is pretty easy for me to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I haven't put the newest version of the clarification to the change of the interpretation under the microscope yet. (not really sure what to call it, sorry...not meet to stir the pot) A quick read tells me that they are at least near their goal...which is to deem portions of the under-target to not exist, when directly over-lapped by an over-target. - From my read, the only way to get there is through the interpretation. I don't see support for that from the current rules. In fact, I see lots to say to do it a different way. But, if that is where they want to go with that target presentation, then this ought to hold until... - It a picture is worth a thousand words, then check out the near end of this video clip (13-14 second mark). Here you will see a presentation at a Level III match that has a NS about 6 inches in front of a scoring target. From my recollection, there was no presentation other than how it was shot...around the left side of the wall at the end. So, the angle and options there were pretty much static. I've seen similar setups at many major matches, including the Nationals, so lets not venture into the stage design aspects...I just happen to notice I had this example of video and thought it would be good for the discussion. Consider that presentation compared to a presentation where the NS is physically lapped onto the shoot target (which is probably how they'd both look on paper in the stage diagram, btw). What we have there, with the interpretation, is inconsistency in the manner we would make the calls. In one case the under target would be deemed to be unavailable...while in the other case it would be available. The presentation hasn't changed to any extent. Nor has the shooting challenge. (if you think so, consider...moving it back to 35y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 We have always deemed targets didn't exist.Most major matches leave a target stapled to the sticks, and put replacement targets directly on top, to insure consistent placement. Everybody understands that the underlying target can't be scored. Eh, No! That's a totally different situation --- and at least in the case of movers you hopefully always started the match with two targets --- one as a placeholder, and one as the actual scoring target..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 We have always deemed targets didn't exist.Most major matches leave a target stapled to the sticks, and put replacement targets directly on top, to insure consistent placement. Everybody understands that the underlying target can't be scored. Point well taken; even if it is a totally different situation. Now please remind me of when we deemed part of a target does not exist when the rest of the target does exist? In the case we are discussing if there is half an inch between targets they both exist and if they touch part of the under target magically ceases to exist while the rest is still there. Maybe I should have taken Quantum Physics.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Eh, No! That's a totally different situation ... Might be different. Can you explain, how you were able to ignore the underlying target? Cite applicable rules for extra credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Eh, No! That's a totally different situation ... Might be different. Can you explain, how you were able to ignore the underlying target? Cite applicable rules for extra credit. The underlying target is not covered by a no shoot in this case. The underlying target has been so shot up as to be difficult to score. The overlaying target is a replacement for the underlying target, not an additional target. And, as I learned working my first nationals, the underlying target, with head removed, is left in place to insure the replacement target presents identically to subsequent shooters. There are no rules in the book to govern this. Do you want to ask your AD to bring it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts