"Mozambique" Scoring

[Shadow]

1. A local match had a stage where the stage description required the first three targets were to be engaged with "two rounds to the body and one to the upper A/B" (the basic Mozambique drill).

2. The scoring for these three targets was best three per target, but required 1 hit to the A/B zone and two to the "body". Some shooters had three in the body and none in the A/B (shot was low). These shooters received one miss penalty and one of the "body" hits was not scored. Similiarly, some shooters had two in the A/B zone and one on the "body" and were also given a miss and one of the A/B hits not scored.

I know the correct way to do this is with two targets, but is there anywhere in the new USPSA rule book or the IPSC rule book that would support:

1. Requiring a target to have to be engaged in the A/B zone (or any other specific location) if other areas of the target are available?

2. Scoring a target with three hits as only two and a miss because they weren't in the designated portion of the target area?

TIA

[George Jones]

The short answer is that it is not permitted under USPSA rules. It was an illegal stage. Mozambique is not permitted (for quite a few years now) for the very scoring problems you described.

You can only specify target (order) engagement in Classifiers and Standards, not in a Comstock (freestyle) stage. Nowhere in the rulebook is there an allowance for particular parts of the target(s).

Edited December 30, 2008 by George Jones

[AlamoShooter]

This would be rule 4.1.5 that sates "Declaring a single, intact target to represent two or more targets by use of tape , paint or any other means is prohibited.

Range Lawyer

[CDRODA396]

Range Lawyer

[AlamoShooter]

Range Lawyer

you could get a procedural for the use of a emotion with out the accompaniment of a sentence

[Flexmoney]

Range Lawyer

you could get a procedural for the use of a emotion with out the accompaniment of a sentence

HaHa... Forum Lawyer.

[Flexmoney]

We have a way to run a failure drill...Mozambique...2 to the body - 1 to the head...(whatever you want to call it)

We take the head off the paper target and use a "rubber" plate in it's place. Works good, if done right. Legal for Level 1 matches.

You really have 2 seperate and distinct targets. The paper "body" and the plate for the "head".

[George Jones]

We have a way to run a failure drill...Mozambique...2 to the body - 1 to the head...

We take the head off the paper target and use a "rubber" plate in it's place. Works good, if done right. Legal for Level 1 matches.

Creative and perfectly legal (since you are using two separate targets and not specifying the engagement).

And I assume that you are applying a non-scoring border to where the head was removed, right?

[carinab]

We have a way to run a failure drill...Mozambique...2 to the body - 1 to the head...(whatever you want to call it)

We take the head off the paper target and use a "rubber" plate in it's place. Works good, if done right. Legal for Level 1 matches.

You really have 2 seperate and distinct targets. The paper "body" and the plate for the "head".

Couldn't you simply use the cut off head? It has an A zone...?? There was a halloween match I recall that did exactly this. The stage was called "Headless Horseman" and the cut off target heads were randomly placed close to the target body. Isn't that legal?

[George Jones]

Couldn't you simply use the cut off head? It has an A zone...?? There was a halloween match I recall that did exactly this. The stage was called "Headless Horseman" and the cut off target heads were randomly placed close to the target body. Isn't that legal?

Sure, you could do that. You would be creating individual targets from all the "body parts".

The only problem would be the number of scored hits. You can't specify different scoring hits for different paper targets, so it would have to be two on each (or one on each) for all targets.

Flex's creation solves that problem since he is using a plate for the "head" and that can only take one hit.

[HoMiE]

We have a way to run a failure drill...Mozambique...2 to the body - 1 to the head...(whatever you want to call it)

We take the head off the paper target and use a "rubber" plate in it's place. Works good, if done right. Legal for Level 1 matches.

You really have 2 seperate and distinct targets. The paper "body" and the plate for the "head".

Is there a 'safe' distance that needs to be maintained when using the rubber plates or is it same as steel?

[ima45dv8]

Couldn't you simply use the cut off head? It has an A zone...?? There was a halloween match I recall that did exactly this. The stage was called "Headless Horseman" and the cut off target heads were randomly placed close to the target body. Isn't that legal?

Sure, you could do that. You would be creating individual targets from all the "body parts".

The only problem would be the number of scored hits. You can't specify different scoring hits for different paper targets, so it would have to be two on each (or one on each) for all targets.

Flex's creation solves that problem since he is using a plate for the "head" and that can only take one hit.

George or Gary (I see you lurking, Mr. Stevens!), I need your help with the part about not being allowed to require different scoring hits for different targets. I've been scouring the rulebook for the last 45 minutes and can't find a specific reference that prohibits doing so. In fact, there are at least three classifiers (99-02, 99-09, and 99-63) that require different hits for different targets.

[Jim Norman]

The biggest problem with the Mozambique is that you could arguably score three hits with two holes. (Oh and that pesky rulebook thingie)

Picture One A in the lower target and one that breaks the C/B line, this is the scoring problem that could occur

Now that said, I would like to see us have a "Special Case" where a Moz could be used.

Required that there be three holes in the target, that at least one be wholly within the upper A/B zone and that the particular target be allowed to be declared as two scoring zones separated by a 1/2 to 3/4 inch non scoring tape separator. Further that the order of engagement on this target be specified as 2-1 and other orders of engagement would receive a procedural.

Why Not? We had a silly ass rule that the Metric couldn't be displayed beyond 90 degrees, and that only two N/S hits were to be counted (Thankfully corrected in the USPSA rules) At least this rule would be a return towards the roots. It is as Flex said a "Failure Drill" or more specifically a "Make Darn Sure Cause He is Down For Good As I Sure Don't Want Him Sneaking Up Behind Me And Sticking A Sharp Pointy Thing In My Back Cause I Thought I Already Neutralized Him But Didn't" Drill.

Scoreable with the tape break and it is wide enough to alleviate the one hole counting as two.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

We have a way to run a failure drill...Mozambique...2 to the body - 1 to the head...

We take the head off the paper target and use a "rubber" plate in it's place. Works good, if done right. Legal for Level 1 matches.

Creative and perfectly legal (since you are using two separate targets and not specifying the engagement).

And I assume that you are applying a non-scoring border to where the head was removed, right?

Best setup is to paint hard cover from the top of the A-zone on up. You will need a cross member in that area to set the rubber "plate" on and the hard cover will serve to keep the cross-member from getting shot (plus lessen reshoot issues and take care of that non-scoring border).

As seen in the far left of this video (Though...that distance is a bit far for the setup and the hardcover might tend to catch some rounds...which can shake the cross member that the plate is on. Best to run them closer.

And, here is the thread on their legal history: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...=10633&st=0

[Flexmoney]

We have a way to run a failure drill...Mozambique...2 to the body - 1 to the head...(whatever you want to call it)

We take the head off the paper target and use a "rubber" plate in it's place. Works good, if done right. Legal for Level 1 matches.

You really have 2 seperate and distinct targets. The paper "body" and the plate for the "head".

Is there a 'safe' distance that needs to be maintained when using the rubber plates or is it same as steel?

2.1.3 covers the minimum distance for metal targets. These aren't metal, so they are good to go (from what I've read).

They are awesome fun/test to shoot up close.

[Flexmoney]

Couldn't you simply use the cut off head? It has an A zone...?? There was a halloween match I recall that did exactly this. The stage was called "Headless Horseman" and the cut off target heads were randomly placed close to the target body. Isn't that legal?

Sure, you could do that. You would be creating individual targets from all the "body parts".

The only problem would be the number of scored hits. You can't specify different scoring hits for different paper targets, so it would have to be two on each (or one on each) for all targets.

Flex's creation solves that problem since he is using a plate for the "head" and that can only take one hit.

George or Gary (I see you lurking, Mr. Stevens!), I need your help with the part about not being allowed to require different scoring hits for different targets. I've been scouring the rulebook for the last 45 minutes and can't find a specific reference that prohibits doing so. In fact, there are at least three classifiers (99-02, 99-09, and 99-63) that require different hits for different targets.

4.1.5 Declaring a single, intact target to represent two or more targets by use

of tape, paint or any other means is prohibited.

(But, that isn't what you are asking is it, Mark? Maybe we should start...or search for...another thread?)

[Nik Habicht]

Couldn't you simply use the cut off head? It has an A zone...?? There was a halloween match I recall that did exactly this. The stage was called "Headless Horseman" and the cut off target heads were randomly placed close to the target body. Isn't that legal?

Sure, you could do that. You would be creating individual targets from all the "body parts".

The only problem would be the number of scored hits. You can't specify different scoring hits for different paper targets, so it would have to be two on each (or one on each) for all targets.

Flex's creation solves that problem since he is using a plate for the "head" and that can only take one hit.

George or Gary (I see you lurking, Mr. Stevens!), I need your help with the part about not being allowed to require different scoring hits for different targets. I've been scouring the rulebook for the last 45 minutes and can't find a specific reference that prohibits doing so. In fact, there are at least three classifiers (99-02, 99-09, and 99-63) that require different hits for different targets.

I'm pretty sure --- after a quick perusal of the rule book --- that that rule does not exist, esp. since it would render CM99-02 illegal. (The other two classifiers are really different animals, in that the same number of rounds are fired at each target engaged during each string, though they do end up with different totals.) That said --- It's probably not great stage design to require different hits on different targets, but one could build stands to hold Mozambiques, and use them only on a standards type stage....

[George Jones]

George or Gary (I see you lurking, Mr. Stevens!), I need your help with the part about not being allowed to require different scoring hits for different targets. I've been scouring the rulebook for the last 45 minutes and can't find a specific reference that prohibits doing so. In fact, there are at least three classifiers (99-02, 99-09, and 99-63) that require different hits for different targets.

Gary's going to stay in lurk mode until I stick my neck out (as I should since I make the comment).

First the usual caveat - this is not official. You know where to go for an official opinion.

I should have been a little more clear. I was refering to (thinking about) a Comstock COF.

Rule 9.2.2 says "....stipulated number of hits per target...". The same "per target" verbiage is used in the definition of VC (9.2.3) and FT (9.2.4), so there is nothing there which supports my earlier comment. I could see reading it either way.

So, I may have been hasty in my comment (that will teach me to try multi-tasking), going more on "what feels right" rather than what is specifically prohibited in the rulebook.

Having said that, in a Comstock stage or a single-string classifier for example, telling a shooter that T1 will be scored best two, T2 will be scored best three, and T3 will be scored best one is the kind of memory stage which should not be allowed. I may have to bring that one up for NROI discussion.

Of the three classifiers you mention, only 99-63 works for me because none of the strings require different hits on different targets. The other two require different numbers of shots on different targets. Not particularly bad on a small array, but not something I would want to do on a 32-round long course.

Some classifers have become somewhat "elderly" and may need to be revisited as are some other classifiers which are still on the books but no longer legal.

[waktasz]

We have a way to run a failure drill...Mozambique...2 to the body - 1 to the head...(whatever you want to call it)

We take the head off the paper target and use a "rubber" plate in it's place. Works good, if done right. Legal for Level 1 matches.

You really have 2 seperate and distinct targets. The paper "body" and the plate for the "head".

Is there a 'safe' distance that needs to be maintained when using the rubber plates or is it same as steel?

Nope. A local IDPA club uses them from time to time in their indoor matches.

[Nik Habicht]

Having said that, in a Comstock stage or a single-string classifier for example, telling a shooter that T1 will be scored best two, T2 will be scored best three, and T3 will be scored best one is the kind of memory stage which should not be allowed. I may have to bring that one up for NROI discussion.

Agreed --- at least on medium and long courses.....

If it's short --- six rounds short or so, you should be able to count 1; 1,2; 1,2,3......

Seriously --- I'd either set-up a Mozambique situation where full targets get two, and head only targets get one, or it would need to be a short stage with an easily delineated and remembered difference, a la CM99-02....

[George Jones]

Agreed --- at least on medium and long courses.....

If it's short --- six rounds short or so, you should be able to count 1; 1,2; 1,2,3......

Seriously --- I'd either set-up a Mozambique situation where full targets get two, and head only targets get one, or it would need to be a short stage with an easily delineated and remembered difference, a la CM99-02....

Counting while shooting? Now you're pushing my luck.

I see your point, Nik.

I am suggesting "discussion" so that a reasonable limit can be set. Right now, there is no limit and that concerns me.

Comstock -32 rounds - On signal enegage all targets. Scoring: All targets leaning to the left-best single hit, all targets leaning to the right-best three hits, all targets standing straight up-best two hits.

It's enough to give me the chills.

[open17]

[Comstock -32 rounds - On signal enegage all targets. Scoring: All targets leaning to the left-best single hit, all targets leaning to the right-best three hits, all targets standing straight up-best two hits.

It's enough to give me the chills.

HAH! How about this?

7 targets, separated by vision barriers.

Engage T1 with 1 rd., T2 with 2 rds, T3 with 3 rds etc. etc.

VIRGINIA count, 28 rds.

The "scoresheet" function of EzWinScore allows setting the number of required

hit individually for each paper target.

[ima45dv8]

Counting while shooting? Now you're pushing my luck.

I see your point, Nik.

I am suggesting "discussion" so that a reasonable limit can be set. Right now, there is no limit and that concerns me.

Comstock -32 rounds - On signal enegage all targets. Scoring: All targets leaning to the left-best single hit, all targets leaning to the right-best three hits, all targets standing straight up-best two hits.

It's enough to give me the chills.

Just wrap yourself in a warm blanket and have some hot cocoa, George.

Sincerely, let's not legislate away this opportunity to present an off-beat challenge without some hard evidence that it's a problem, OK? Unless there's a significant groundswell making a fuss over it, I don't see the benefit of disallowing it. We've set up some small stages that required differing hits on different targets and there wasn't a single groan in the place.

[Jim Norman]

One question Open17 is:

WHY?

What type of "Practical" situation would require you to actually engage a row of targets with an escalating number of rounds?

This discussion started out with the problems surrounding the correct way to score a Moz, as well as the legality of that specific array.

Why can't we address that single very specific case in a manner that allows it to exist and then tweak the rules as needed to as well as is possible eliminate the totally weird, carnival crap that always seems to follow on to the why can't we or why shouldn't we do this or that.

To reiterate:

One target, specific exemption in the rules for a Mozambique, A piece or black tape placed along the separation line between the Upper A/B and the C zones, said tape to be located entirely BELOW said line and extending to the edges of the target and as needed across the D zone, Scoring to best two to the body and best single to the head (Upper A/B).

No more than two such targets will be allowed on any stage and these this array will be scored Virginia Count regardless of the balance of the stage. Penalties will be for Extra Hits and for misses. No penalty will be assessed for extra shots fired.

Yes, it would require a special line in the rule book to accommodate this, but SO WHAT! It is a simple and very specific case. And then we could also add the clarification to the rules that all targets not so exempted on a particular stage would be scored with the same number of hts (Classifier Stages are a SPECIAL CASE and not covered by this prohibition)

OK, So I need a rules writer to make this into the proper legalese so that the Range Lawyers won't make it into a disaster.

Done for now.

BTW, I think that this array will show up in some of our non-USPSA type matches in the near future.

Jim

[XRe]

What type of "Practical" situation would require you to actually engage a row of targets with an escalating number of rounds?

Who cares? But, its not hard at all to come up with scenarios where the "bad guys" happen to be tougher, wearing thicker clothes, whatever, that require more rounds to stop. In what type of practical situation is two rounds per target always the right answer?

One target, specific exemption in the rules for a Mozambique, A piece or black tape placed along the separation line between the Upper A/B and the C zones, said tape to be located entirely BELOW said line and extending to the edges of the target and as needed across the D zone, Scoring to best two to the body and best single to the head (Upper A/B).

If you create a specific rule to allow Moz targets only, you don't need the tape. They are, in effect, two targets that line up on their non-scoring borders - that border happens to be a common, shared piece of cardboard at the line between the B and C on the target. You then have a situation where the Moz target engagement is legal and supported and requires no hinky junk around having to place a tape line or anything like that. You could allow it to be scored as one target with three hits in the software (so no updates required there) and basically, it just specifies that for the particular case at hand, you can score a miss if you don't have the required hits as defined in the rule. Don't make it more complex than you have to

One can work around the situation now using two targets very easily, but it does require some doing in both the course description and in materials and in scoring the match. I suspect this is why we see very few (read: zero) of these sorts of engagements in courses of fire. So, the rule isn't "required", but it would make life a lot easier, and we might see more of these in practice...

Edited December 30, 2008 by XRe