Impenetrable No Shoots

[lynn jones]

Flex,

you're correct this is a bad course design. or drawing

the designer appears to use the no shoots as a vision barrier.

lynn

[SRT Driver]

Flex,

OK, questionable course design. But the Match Director approved the COF and that does not solve the immediate problem.

and, maybe Steve was the only shooter in this situation all day. (but I've been there too)

So without the benefit of 9.5.1 giving guidlines for the RO to score which hit went through the no shoot ( I know there are "generally accepted practices" using the dark ring left by a bullet that has not passed through another target - I didn't use grease mark ) how would the RO score the target and not hold up the entire squad?

Since it is not spelled out in the rules, if I were the RO and the hits were A / C, ( not 2 Delta which is cut and dried) I'd score Alpha / Mike / No Shoot. And do the same for every other shooter in the same situation.

If the competitor does not like it, 9.6.4 then 9.6.5 and finally 9.6.6. period.

And if the RM gets hit in the forehead with a grasshopper tearing to the range in his top fuel golf cart, LOOK OUT!!!!

All of this is not worth a point or two since the no shoot is uncontested.

[Flexmoney]

Flex,

OK, questionable course design. But the Match Director approved the COF and that does not solve the immediate problem.

Right. And, those Match Diretors do some crazy things sometimes. (Like taking the job of match director. )

and, maybe Steve was the only shooter in this situation all day. (but I've been there too)

One shooter...or all shooters. The rules need to apply, right?

So without the benefit of 9.1.5 giving guidlines for the RO to score which hit went through the no shoot ( I know there are "generally accepted practices" using the dark ring left by a bullet that has not passed through another target - I didn't use grease mark  ) how would the RO score the target and not hold up the entire squad?

Well...first, 9.1.5 isn't a guideline. It is a rule.

Second, it is the RO's job to score the target(s) with absolute certainty. Doing anything other than that isn't fair to the shooter...nor, the other competitors.

And, if the squad is held up while the scoring is taking place...well, hopefully the stage designers & match directors will pick up on this...and fix it next time, before it becomes a problem. (But, the RO shouldn't feel pressured to run the squad through fast, at the cost of getting the scoring wrong.)

Since it is not spelled out in the rules, if I were the RO and the hits were A / C, ( not 2 Delta which is cut and dried) I'd score Alpha / Mike / No Shoot. And do the same for every other shooter in the same situation.

On what grounds (by the book)? One of those hits doesn't exist, right?

If you don't know which hit...then what is the call?

All of this is not worth a point or two since the no shoot is uncontested.

...a point or four (difference between an Alpha and a minor Delta) can decide the outcome of a match.

[SRT Driver]

We have established that the rule book does not address how determine which shot is the offending one.

I remember something about it in the Level 1 class (Grease and rings or so. ) but it is not defined in the 14th edition. At least, I cannot find it.

If the RO's, CRO's, and RM best effort and judgement is not acceptable then 11.8.2 applies, IMHO.

[Nik Habicht]

If we didn't have U.S. 9.1.4.2., I'd be inclined to argue for a re-shoot under 9.1.4.2. 9.1.4.2. says: If scoring or penalty paper targets have not been patched or taped after a previous competitor's attempt at the course of fire, and there are extra scoring or questionable penalty hits on one or more targets and it is not obvious to the range officer which hits were made by the immediate competitor, the range officer shall order the competitor to reshoot the course of fire.

I'd argue that this covers a situation where the R.O. cannot determine conclusively which round struck the no-shoot and continued on to strike the target.

However, we have U.S. 9.1.4.2 to contend with which says: It is the range officer's responsibility to see that all targets are taped after each competitor. In the event that a target is missed and not taped, if more hits are on the target than required and they are all of the same caliber, only the highest scoring specified number of shots may be scored. When the hits are of different calibers, only the hits of the competitor's caliber will be scored. If the competitor has a miss, and there are hits from a larger caliber on the target, then the benefit of doubt should go to the competitor and a reshoot issued.

And here, I think the last line is the one I'd use in my argument ---- if the R.O. can't tell conclusively which shot hit where, then a re-shoot should be issued. Maybe this is stretching things ---- I'm willing to learn if someone wants to school me. Mr. Ohio Section Coordinator? Vince? Kathy? BDH? Where are the imperial storm troopers when you need them?

[Loves2Shoot]

All hard cover should be hard cover, preferably steel, not no shoots.

[rant on]

If you KNOW you hit the no shoot and then you KNOW you shouldn't get a score also. I think this comes down to the character of the shooter. Some will try to take credit for a shot they never made, and some will own up to the fact that they didn't execute the shot and take the consequences and the penalties.

Some men are men, some are whiners, and seldom are whiners winnners.

I would HATE to win a match, any match, by getting credit for doing something I didn't do. This is a game, and it is sad some try to break the rules to win. IN my book only losers cheat to win.

[rant off]

The rules are clear, but if a designer screws up on a stage and overlooks an angle or doesn't have real hardcover, be a man and take the penalty, after all you are the one who broke the shot, not the RO.

[Steve Anderson]

BTW, what started this whole thing on my mind was an undiscovered no shoot on the other side that went unnoticed for a shooter or two. It got me wondering about mine...

I just want to understand the rules for the future.

I know I whacked the no-shoot, I'm just wondering whether a design flaw in the stage could get me a reshoot.

SA

[Flexmoney]

L2S,

Nice rant, but I thnk it is out of place.

We are just trying to figure out the rules.

[Loves2Shoot]

I try to always go through the stage before I shoot it and make sure that targets are taped, props set, because I hate reshots and I generally do it better the first time. I don't know where in the rules you can get a reshot for untaped targets is, I know it can be very distracting shooting targets that already have holes in them. I think it just means the RO didn't do his job and the shooter gets the shaft.

Flex,

I wasn't accusing Steve of that, I just HATE it when people pull that crap. I had to get it off my chest

[lynn jones]

SA

I know I whacked the no-shoot, I'm just wondering whether a design flaw in the stage could get me a reshoot.

i think they giver reshoots on tuesdays.

[Nik Habicht]

[rant on]

If you KNOW you hit the no shoot and then you KNOW you shouldn't get a score also. I think this comes down to the character of the shooter. Some will try to take credit for a shot they never made, and some will own up to the fact that they didn't execute the shot and take the consequences and the penalties.

I would HATE to win a match, any match, by getting credit for doing something I didn't do. This is a game, and it is sad some try to break the rules to win. IN my book only losers cheat to win.

[rant off]

L2S,

I don't think any of us disagree with you here. However, if it's an A-C split or a C-D split on the target, which hit do you take away as the one that passed thorugh the no-shoot? If the R.O. can't determine which hit had passed through the penalty target first, then I think you've got to allow a re-shoot. Would anyone like to convince me otherwise?

[Loves2Shoot]

It is VERY seldom you cant determine by lining up the two bullet holes which shot hit the no shoot. The angle generally makes one of the shots easy to identify, but in theory when in doubt give the shooter the higher scoring shot, not a reshoot. I may be wrong, but that is fairer then making them have to reshoot it, because you know they would do worse on the reshoot

[Flexmoney]

I disagree. (rather completely )

I think the shooter should get EXACTLY what they earned (good or bad).

If there is a reshoot required in a situation like this...it falls on the shoulders of the Match Director/Stage Designer. With proper stage design...this is non-issue. (Have I mentioned that lately. )

[SRT Driver]

Flex,

You be the RO:

Steve's hits are Alpha / Charlie and a no shoot on the array in question. It cannot be determined which full diameter hit on the no shoot also hit the scoring target.

COF was comstock 24 round minimum with 24 rounds fired.

Five squads have already fired the stage, five more have yet to fire and Steve is the first to hit this particular no shoot.

How would you score it or what would you do?

[Nik Habicht]

SRT,

While I realize that you asked Flex for his ruling, I'll offer mine anyway. I'd make Steve re-shoot the course, if I'm unable to score the target. Applying both what I know of the two versions of 9.1.4.2. and the rule (I'd have to look the number up now) that covers re-shoots for prematurely taped targets, (another situation where the R.O. cannot conclusively score the target in question) I don't know what else I could do. There's no wiggle room here about giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt ---- this is not me using overlays to determine whether something breaks the scoring line or is more than one bullet diameter wide....

[SRT Driver]

Nik,

Point taken. I think that 9.1.4.2 only applies if one of the two hits is of a larger caliber.

The prior discussion centers around 9.1.5 and how to score a target that is not in close proximity to the penalty target. If it is not readily apparent to the RO which hit passed through the penality target and there are two hits of different values (A/C for example) on the scoring target, what do you do? 9.1.5 does not specifially address this issue as 9.1.4.2 does with unpatched targets.

My interpretation of Flex's argument is that this problem should have been caught during setup and rectified. And since it was not, a fair ruling cannot be issued since the rules do not specifically address this issue. It should be addressed, hence 11.8.1 and 11.8.2, but that takes time and does not solve the immediate problem on match day.

If the no shoot was moved closer to the scoring target to make scoring more defined or removed all together, the stage may not be of equal difficulty for all competitors which might make it a prime candidate to get thrown out (2.3.4) if other squads had already shot it.

I'd just give the shooter the benefit of the doubt if the hits on the scoring target are the same caliber as the hit on the no shoot. One no shoot, one mike and the higher value of the two scoring hits. If the competitor does not like it, challenge it. (9.6.4) Then the RM can make the final decision.

And if it costs the shooter the match, don't hit the no shoot next time!!

[Garfield]

As an RO,

I would give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, not a reshoot (thus 1xNS, 1xM, 1xA (if A is highest hit)).

[Nik Habicht]

SRT,

I couldn't find anything in the rules that addressed the situation directly. I could find a couple of other situations that dealt with targets where the R.O. couldn't conclusively score them. I assumed that I should use that precedent and apply it to this situation. Time for Vince to come back from Italy; heck, it'll probably take him a month to sober up from the italian vino.....

[Bill Nesbitt]

Is there a rule in the USPSA/IPSC rule book that says the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt? Not trying to be a wise guy. Just asking.

Bill Nesbitt

[vluc]

Always the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. That's what I was taught in the RO classes I took, and has been the way I score and the way I have been scored.

We can carry this to the nth degree on perfs being hit as well. I'd not do a re-shoot, but give him the scores and the no-shoot.

[Garfield]

In my RO course I was taught to always give the shooter benefit of the doubt in cases as the one we are talking about, and when scoring in general. As long as you treat each shooter in the same way.

It is not in the rules specifically.

The only time the rules say something about benefit of the doubt is in 9.7.6.4, which handles scoresheets :

"If the overall total of scoring hits and misses recorded for a single target are excessive, the benefit

of doubt shall be given to the competitor."

[GvU]

Interesting but lets pull some things apart;

1. Stage designer/construction: Use steel PT (NS), paper = bad stage-design/-construction, period

2. Rangemaster: Should approve the stages before the first competitor starts the match, the idea is to prevent problems; Require steel, not available = PROBLEM

3. Range Officer: Apply rules as they are. Then a sound ruling is produced (we hope).

Don’t forget ideally there are supposed to be 2 RO’s, 1 for safety, 1 for “targets”. Not 1 RO and 1 “writer”.

One remark here; the RO may find problems as well, and must consult the Range Master before any changes are made to the stage.

4. Shooter: Check PT’s on a stage like this. Then shoot stage, have it scored. Not happy = go to Range Master (scoring problems, he will make the ruling and gets confronted with PROBLEM).

Supposing all targets were patched. (= no reshoot).

As it was scored was fine.

Supposing A/C hits. The range officer will look at the situation (as required by the rules as given before, those are the rules no need for further rules on this, the rulebook is thick enough). Suppose low A and high C on the target and you have to shoot over the PT. You get the C in my opinion. (see point 4 if you do not agree). Then the target hits can be looked at for black deposits around the holes, this is not always conclusive.

Shooting on the move, interesting, depends on the stageconstruction (layout). If it’s all that close I doubt its going to be shot “on the move”.

As the PT distance was 10m a steel PT should have been used (next year the minimum distance is 7m).

What I hate is benefit of doubt. This is used as a advantage to the shooter, but it may be disadvantage to all other competitors. Carefull determination is required here, not an easy way out!

John

[Garfield]

John,

By no means did I mean to use "botd" as an easy way out.

What I meant was, that if I really can't determine which shot went through the NS and which shot didn't, and there are no real advantages for the shooter by shooting through the NS, than he would get the "botd" and not a reshoot.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Firstly, a disclaimer: I just don't have the time right now to read through all the comments here carefully (I'm still in Bella Italia), so I'm essentially basing my comments on Steve's original post, which said he had "a noshoot at 10 yards is struck with a full bullet, and the target behind it has two full bullet holes, what's the call?".

Here's the thing - we make our scoring calls on hard evidence. In other words, at the end of the COF, the RO walks through and bases his decision on the evidence available (unless he actually saw the trajectory of the shot).

Since Steve had a hole in a Penalty Target and 2 x D on the target behind, there are two possible correct calls:

a. 1 x PT, 2 x D

or

b. 1 x PT, 1 x D, 1 x Miss.

The difference between "a" and "b" is whether or not Section 9.1.5 applies, and that determination is made by the RO in the first instance. Of course if the competitor is unhappy with the call, he can appeal to the CRO and the RM, but that's the end of the line (i.e no arbitration on scoring targets).

The rules do not state exactly how the RO (or more senior officials make their call). It could be a variety of ways, including the use of a Ouija board or, more often than not, the little voices in his head (this works for me!).

Apparently Junior Jedi (but Senior Huggie Bear) BDH determined Rule 9.1.5.1 does apply, and that's good enough for me.

Gotta go now .............. Skywalker is telling me it's time for another Double Espresso ................. O Sole Mio ............

[SRT Driver]

Nik,

Botd is specifically stated in 9.7.6.4, and us9.1.4.2.