"Mozambique" Scoring

[Jim Norman]

Granted that you could see a situation where you'd shoot more than two rounds, MGM makes a target for just that situation called a Triple-Drop, you have to generally hit it three times to make it fall all the way down. So OK, I don;t see a stage where T1 is 1 round T2 is 2 and so on up to 7 targets with an escalating round count. OR a different array of 9 targets counting up to 5 hits and back to 1 for a count of 25. But that is a different argument and this thread did start out as a question about the Mozambique.

That said, the "Non-Scoring Border" between the two areas IS the problem. A round is in the head and the body, it is bisected by the perf, there is an additional round in the lower A zone and only this bisected round on the target, the shooter engaged with sufficient rounds to score, so no FTE, he has a scorable hit in the lower A and one in the C which is also in the B. Which one don't you score to give him a miss, or do you give him three hits with two holes (Similar to breaking the perf and getting an A and a NS)

A rule would also be required for "Order of Engagement" so put them both into one rule specifically to allow for a Moz and be done with it.

Jim

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Dave,

if you're going to require 2 to the lower scoring zones, one to the upper A/B --- you really do need tape, wide tape to be specific to separate the two scoring zones. Otherwise you run into problems with shots breaking the perf.....

[XRe]

if you're going to require 2 to the lower scoring zones, one to the upper A/B --- you really do need tape, wide tape to be specific to separate the two scoring zones. Otherwise you run into problems with shots breaking the perf.....

No, you actually don't. Remember, you're writing the rule to be usable as one target, right? All you're saying is that at least one scoring hit must be in the upper A/B zone. If, on a normal target, you have a hit that bisects the B/C line, you have a B zone hit. Same applies here. You effectively lose a little less target than you do with a hard tape line. If a shooter puts three rounds on that line, they have 3 B, which constitutes two misses for that target.

Again, remember, we're discussing setting up what amounts to a slightly hokey rule in the first place. Might as well go full tilt hokey. If you're going to require tape and all that, you might as well leave things as they are now and just use two targets...

[Jim Norman]

Dave,

I'll stick my oar in here again. You are correct, BUT (Isn't there always a BUT) IF we are going to try and make this as bulletproof as we can, adding the piece of tape eliminates all the Range Lawyering.

Yes, you would score three B hits in your scenario, but IF the lower portion of the target were covered with a NS, wouldn't you also score the three NS hits? and someone will argue that point as well as if there was only one hit bisecting the line and only two holes in the target, that they had hit both the head and the body of the target. Why give them the room to argue for the cost of a piece of tape?

That said, IF we are able to get a rule written, we could I suppose write it so that your scenario would be scored as you say. I would just want a picture of that in the rules so I could point to it when the discussion starts.

Jim

[Nik Habicht]

if you're going to require 2 to the lower scoring zones, one to the upper A/B --- you really do need tape, wide tape to be specific to separate the two scoring zones. Otherwise you run into problems with shots breaking the perf.....

No, you actually don't. Remember, you're writing the rule to be usable as one target, right? All you're saying is that at least one scoring hit must be in the upper A/B zone. If, on a normal target, you have a hit that bisects the B/C line, you have a B zone hit. Same applies here. You effectively lose a little less target than you do with a hard tape line. If a shooter puts three rounds on that line, they have 3 B, which constitutes two misses for that target.

I'd love to hear the argument for three hits bisecting the line all scoring as Bs.....

From the Rules:

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.

and:

Scoring:

Major Zone Minor

5 A 5

4 B 3

4 C 3

2 D 1

Since Bravo and Charlie zones score the same number of points in all divisions 9.5.2 is moot.....

You really NEED two targets to do this correctly.....

[wide45]

Just say no.

No Mozambique.

No special rules for Mozambique.

There is really no place for it in modern USPSA.

If that is a problem for you, start a new thread on what USPSA should be.

Edited December 30, 2008 by wide45

[XRe]

You really NEED two targets to do this correctly.....

I agree re: needing two targets to do it correctly, especially by the current rule set. I think you and Jim are both missing my point, though. I'm not suggesting that a rule be concocted that tries to treat one piece of cardboard as two targets. I'm saying treat it as one target, and allow one specific case that permits Mozambique scoring using one target - including rules that apply to scoring that one target as one target, not trying to get silly and score it as two targets. Otherwise, the current rules are quite adequate for this situation already - you simply use two targets (there are provisions to either remove the head of the front target, leaving a non-scoring border, or you can "stack" the targets so that the head of the rear-most target is above the head of the front target), and declare that only one scoring shot counts on the "head" target.

Remember, I'm not even advocating that we need such a rule (cause I feel the current rules cover the situation adequately) - I'm just saying that, if you're going to go so far as to write it, you might as well make it work in the fashion that it was originally intended to work, as one target that required a hit in the upper A/B... And since you're writing a rule to cover a new case, you can basically make it work whatever way you want it to...

[Nik Habicht]

There is really no place for it (Mozambique) in modern USPSA.

If that is a problem for you, start a new thread on what USPSA should be.

Huh? Can you expand on that Rich?

[Nik Habicht]

Remember, I'm not even advocating that we need such a rule (cause I feel the current rules cover the situation adequately) - I'm just saying that, if you're going to go so far as to write it, you might as well make it work in the fashion that it was originally intended to work, as one target that required a hit in the upper A/B... And since you're writing a rule to cover a new case, you can basically make it work whatever way you want it to...

O.K. --- got it now.....

[Jim Norman]

Dave,

I am not suggesting that we use two targets, That actually creates more problems. The ONLY way to so a Moz correctly is to specify the order of engagement and also shot placement. Two to the body, one to the head. I get what you are asking. But we will need a rule change to make it work. As it stands you cannot specify other than by simulating hardcover (or providing real HC where the shots need to be placed. Also, in other than a Classifier, I believe you can't specify different round counts on different targets.

We are left with a new rule and we can debate the tape as a separator or not, but the arguments that will ensue without a picture in the rulebook if we elected to not use the tape would be legend.

As Nik pointed out, there is not a "Higher" scoring area impacted, this is not like a C/D hit where the C is scored as the higher point value. In point of fact, we no longer really need a B-zone, we could do away with the B and the perf and simply have an A, C & D. with the smaller A surrounded by more C. The ONLY reason remaining for the B-zone is for this particular presentation.

Jim

[XRe]

I am not suggesting that we use two targets, That actually creates more problems.

Why? Because of trying to force order of engagement?

The ONLY way to so a Moz correctly is to specify the order of engagement and also shot placement. Two to the body, one to the head.

To do it as the original "failure drill" required, this is true. In this game, you're simply not going to be able to force order of engagement. Even with a rule allowing it, that will cause all kinds of issues in officiating. The only thing that can be reliably and empirically scored is the holes in the target. Recognizing that, the rules as they are today allow you to essentially have the same challenge using two targets.

I get what you are asking. But we will need a rule change to make it work. As it stands you cannot specify other than by simulating hardcover (or providing real HC where the shots need to be placed.

You can't do it at all on one target today, with or without any hardcover involved. With two targets, you can - also with or without hardcover, but preferably with hardcover on the parts of the rear target that are visible and aren't upper A/B (easier than trying to cut parts off of targets, etc).

Also, in other than a Classifier, I believe you can't specify different round counts on different targets.

This was discussed above. There is no rule that stipulates how many hits you can require on a given paper target - in any type of course of fire, Classifier or not. It would be exceptionally undesirable to get stupid with it, obviously, as George was saying above. But, there's no rule preventing me from setting up a field course with 20 targets set up in 10 2-target Moz arrays, number the lower targets odd numbers and the upper targets even numbers, and saying that the odd number targets will score the two highest scoring hits and the even numbered targets will score the single highest scoring hit. I probably wouldn't be popular if I did that, but...

In point of fact, we no longer really need a B-zone, we could do away with the B and the perf and simply have an A, C & D. with the smaller A surrounded by more C. The ONLY reason remaining for the B-zone is for this particular presentation.

I can't recall far enough back to know if B and C ever scored differently in the first place. B was used to break ties, if one were to potentially occur, but that was about it. Its effectively been vestigial for a long, long time. The only reason it remains is that changing target dies is expensive - having the B zone there isn't actually hurting anything, so why force target makers to re-die everything? So, it stays...

Presence of the B zone allows us to consider this using one target, true, but I wouldn't say that the potential to shoot Mozambique is the only reason its still around. Of course, IDPA went the other way, and got rid of the upper "-1", and made the whole head box effectively an A zone.

[Jim Norman]

Dave,

If we say that we don't care about the order of engagement, then the only remaining hurdle really is to be allowed to use one target and specify engagement zones. As you correctly point out, removing the Upper A/B from T1 and placing T2 directly behind it with a proper nonscoring border in place effectively make the array legal.

OK, If we agree on that, then what really is all this chatter about?????

Specify T1 as 2 hits, T2 as one hit and be done with it.

And to think, I could have done some work today instead of this!

Happy New Year

Jim

[ima45dv8]

Also, in other than a Classifier, I believe you can't specify different round counts on different targets.

Just as a point of order, it was agreed by an RMI several posts back that no such prohibition exists.

And I hope a new restriction isn't suddenly deemed necessary just because some might not care for such a stage requirement. I wouldn't expect you to support such a move, either, Jim. I recall you being quite adamant about new rules, and how they should be very carefully considered and based on 'real' problems. So far few (if any) people other than myself have chimed in and said they've ever shot a stage requiring differing hits on different targets (other than the classifiers I mentioned before). I can tell you from my personal experience it has not been a problem for any of the shooters involved. So until there's an overwhelming uprising by people who have actually suffered the indignity as described, there isn't a 'real' problem to address.

[XRe]

OK, If we agree on that, then what really is all this chatter about?????

There was a new rule being proposed, and it was going to require some relatively hokiness about it. I just pointed out that you don't have to get that hokey if you're going to write a new rule - just make the rule do as was essentially intended (that is, allow you to score a miss when there's not a hit in the required scoring zone(s) for this case only).

And to think, I could have done some work today instead of this!

I didn't make you come here and post... you did that on your own

[SharonAnne9x23]

the Mozambique is a good practice drill. It is not a USPSA stage.

[George Jones]

As some have already pointed out, there are several rules problems with a Mozambique.

1. Target engagement order:

"Two to the body, then one to the head" or "Two to the body and one to the head". I've seen it both ways. They would have different scoring solutions. I've also seen them aroung the side of a barricade where the RO would have no way to see how that target(s) was engaged. Kinda like FTEs - you can't penalize what you can't see.

2. Hits straddling the B/C line. You could theoretically put two shots on that line and get three valid hits for it. Trying to amend the rules to deal with such a scenario is not something I would want to consider.

You can "mimic" a Moz legally now by using two targets. Why go wrenching on the rules? Ultimately, it's just not worth it, IMO.

[Jim Norman]

For the record, I only will support a rule that make sense. Sometimes I have to be beat over the head but usually I see the light. I would not support a rule that would not allow for a different number of hits to be scored on different targets if does not already exist. We apparently do not have a problem that that rule would remedy.

I do support a "Special Case" rule that would allow for a very specific target rule to allow for a traditional Mozambique. Yes, I know we can do a 'sort of' Moz now but cutting a target and placing it in front of a second target. We still can't do Order of Engagement within the current rules. George points out certain potential problems with targets placed so the RO might not be able to see the way an array was shot. Understood. I'd NOT support a rule such as a MOZ must be placed in an unobstructed location so the RO can properly score the array. Rather I'd hope we are all smart enough not to design a disaster, or if we did, that we'd man up and do better next time while taking our licks on the current stage.

Anyway, I think that I just might insert a couple of the Pseudo Mozs into our next indoor match and see the reaction.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

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

It hasn't proven to be an issue at all...so I doubt we need to regulate it.

Anytime a MD/stage designer tries running a stage like that...we remind him he is being as a dork. If he actually runs a stage like that...then he soon realizes it himself. It usually hits him while he is standing there, by himself...since nobody else will stand next to him.

{edit to add}... Unless he comes up with something cool...then we all stand close and bask in the greatness.

[Flexmoney]

I've skip some of this (gotta run) but we talked this one up (Mozambique) on the USPSA forum when the last rule book was going around. Link to thread

And, I even did some grunt work on the verbage of the rules:

Link to post

You really don't need to worry about shooting order. You will get a few that go to the head first, but most shooters will draw/reload/transition to the body of the target.

- A piece of black masking tape to seperate the head from the body takes care of the borderline hits between those two areas. All that is is simulated hardcover. It doesn't have to mean it is two seperate targets. (wouldn't really matter either way, right?)

It wouldn't be too hard to write this up, if one was so inclined...

Rule Mozambique: A target designated in the WSB, and clearly identifiable as a "Mozambique" target, will require two hits to the body of the target and one hit to the head of the target (3 hits total). The target will score the best two hits on the body and the best one hit on the head.

Mozambique.1: A Mozambique target must have a hardcover border between the body and the head...of a size which will prevent a borderline hit from touching the scoring areas of both the body and the head at the same time.

Mozambique.2: There will be no shooting order required on a Mozambique target.

Mozambique.3: A Mozambique target is considered as being engaged when at least one shot has been fired at the target (body or head).

[George Jones]

Anytime a MD/stage designer tries running a stage like that...we remind him he is being as a dork. If he actually runs a stage like that...then he soon realizes it himself. It usually hits him while he is standing there, by himself...since nobody else will stand next to him.

So you're saying that "we don't need no stinkin' dork rule"?

I can go along with that.

[coldchar]

Anytime a MD/stage designer tries running a stage like that...we remind him he is being as a dork. If he actually runs a stage like that...then he soon realizes it himself. It usually hits him while he is standing there, by himself...since nobody else will stand next to him.

So you're saying that "we don't need no stinkin' dork rule"?

I can go along with that.

First time I have seen you be caught shooting from the hip, none the less for a while I thought we were going to have the rules read like the tax code, i.e. this is the rule and this is the exception(s).

If we are going to do that we need an exception for the senior and super senior category, all paper targets on a stage must be engaged by the same number of rounds.

Jim Gross

[coldchar]

Edited to not come across wrong.

Creating a special rule to deal with any one stage ,including the Mozambique, will be releasing the genie from the bottle. Eventually our rule book could look like the IRS rules, which takes a book case to hold. When I get nailed about too many rules or are interpreted by frustrated shooters as arbritrary, I wanted to be able to explain the why behind each rule without having to deal with exceptions any more than absolutely necessary.

I won't even mention about continuing to disconnect from IPSC rules which going this route would certainly make worse.

If they ever make special rules for Seniors and Super Seniors, I will totally reverse my position.

Jim G

Edited April 5, 2010 by coldchar

[gino_aki]

Okay, so I got bit by the rules (again) this past weekend with "Tuxedo Junction" so after perusing this thread (hey! search actually works!) I came up with "Tuxedo Mozambique."

4 IPSC Tuxedo Junction-Virginia.DOC

6 IPSC-NO SHOOT Tuxedo Mozambique-Virginia.DOC

Mods feel free to move to appropriate section, just listed here since this is where I confirmed my going awry of the rules.

Edited to include spanky's very good point. Sheesh, I have two more matches to design this month. Oh well, back to the Powerpoint and Word.

Edited July 21, 2011 by gino_aki

[spanky]

Wouldn't be legal either. More than 8 rounds without a reload.

You could cut the heads off of t1-t3, put t4-t6 directly behind them with hard cover below the "head box" and do 2 EA on1-3, reload, 1 EA on 4-6.

[LT45]

Not quite a Mozambique... but this one is legal.