To Reshoot or Not to Reshoot

[Jake Di Vita]

I don't really see what 9.4.1 has to do with this at all?

edit: figured out you meant 9.1.4 - although section 9 is strictly about scoring.

Throw a target at 20 yards...chances are the shooter won't even see the holes in the target to get distracted in the first place.

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.

Also, 8.6.4 specifically states may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. This isn't hard and fast. This is subjective to the scenario - as it should be.

[Flexmoney]

I don't really see what 9.4.1 has to do with this at all?

You are right. It doesn't having anything to do with it.

Section 9 is about scoring.

Section 8.6 is about a shooter's run. Section 4 (and 4.6) is about proper range setup.

[kgunz11]

So if I am running through a COF and I come up on a target already shot that wasn't pasted, I can fumble on that target, look at IMA45DV8 or SingleStack and ask for a reshoot?

Ha!

I'd like to hear what they have to say about it. Smartest thing is to go through the stage and shoot it like you own it, even if a target has holes in it when you get to it. Then you wont have to worry rather or not the RO will see things your way. I can see the basis for the argument from both sides, but I have to agree with David Re. I'll make sure to address this question when I get to attend an RO seminar.

[Skizeks]

I wouldn't say that I would give this shooter a re-shoot because I didn't see it. But I do now know how I would handle it and have handled this on my stage at the Nats.

If I know the shooter did something unusual, reacted wierd to the targets, stoped and looked like "hey WTF", and I see that the targets have not been restored (very important part, I saw the targets un-restored) I am going to give the shooter a re-shoot. I'm not offering them a re-shoot, they will re-shoot the stage.

WHY

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all

competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of

paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the

failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of

mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of

props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

To say that 4.6.1 does not apply is to overlook a very important part of this rule,

"Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors".

I have a couple examples for you that happened at the Nats. I gave both shooters re-shoots

First one++The shooter is shooting the stage doing really well, when a couple walls fell over on the front of the stage. The shooter looked at them, looked at me and kept on shooting. This all happened in back of the shooter and whould have no effect on the rest of the stage. I stoped the shooter and gave them a re-shoot.

Second++This was at Tulsa. I was running a shooter through my stage. Four or five targets into it a Helicopter comes flying over the range. I mean right at the top of the berms. The shooter had no idea what to do, stoped and started a few times and could't hear me trying to stop them. I did get the shooter to stop and gave them a re-shoot.

Both re-shoots under 4.6.1

Was I wrong then?

Some are saying the stage in the first post, (you know the one that started this topic) could be scored correctly. I agree the points on the targets could be scored correctly, but not the time. The time for the stage was influenced by things outside the shooters control. Unrestored targets. The argument is there that the shooter should KNOW not to stop. But when do you start to know that. I have seen M & GM shooters do the same thing.

I have found that what the rule bood says and what it means are not the same for everyone. So you must use your best judgement and hope the RM agrees with you.

Have you ever had the chance to sit and listen to some of the RMIs talking about the rules. WOW They do not all agree.

FWIW I did not post this for an argument, but to say how I run my stages at matches. Weather it be a small local match, Area match or the Nationals.

Nor is this to say that my view on this won't change. but I havn't heard anything to cahnge it yet!

[Flatland Shooter]

I used to assume this wasn't a reshoot. I then watched a member of my squad...at the Nationals...open a door to some targets that weren't pasted. He paused and pointed this out to the RO during his run. The RO didn't stop him, so the shooter then continued. After the cof, the Range Master was called. Troy granted a reshoot.

It is crystal clear that the cof was not presented to the shooter in the same manner as everyone else. It is also crystal clear that the presentation disrupted how the shooter shot. This wasn't an act of Mother Nature, it was a failure to ensure an equitable presentation of the cof to the shooter. That isn't under the shooter's influence.

Reshoot.

But was the reshoot due to the shooter's hesitation or was it a case where the RO could not determine which hits were fired by this competitor?

If the shooter hesitates, its because in the heat of competition he has forgotten the rules. The RO did not stop him and he was following the rules.

The RM was called, all within the shooter's rights.

If Troy asked the RO "which hits are his?" and the response was "I don't know", then Troy followed the rules. Reshoot granted. If the RO was able to point out which hits were the shooters, no reshoot.

I speak from experience. Three solid hits on a popper without it failing, I stopped and asked for a reshoot. Before the RM made it to our stage I had time to mentally review the rules and knew I had screwed up. What my major loads did not do the RM's minor gun was more than enough for the job. With the popper going down, so did my score for the day. Stage 2 a big fat zero.

Bill

Edited January 20, 2009 by Flatland Shooter

[Nik Habicht]

You don't go back to the previous shooter's card. The RO must determine the score by what's on the target/s. If he can not do that, it's a reshoot and it's not offered it's mandatory.

You could --- but I'd only be willing to if I was running a stage at a large match, where the entire stage staff always scored the targets in the exact same order.....

Club match --- no way to know, especially with embedded ROs....

[kgunz11]

I always try to score in the same order, no targets get missed and I can tell a shooter what they shot on any given target. I'm just an OCD disaster sometimes.

[Flatland Shooter]

I always try to score in the same order, no targets get missed and I can tell a shooter what they shot on any given target. I'm just an OCD disaster sometimes.

Like Nik, at a big match all targets scored in the same order.

Local match, we start scoring from where the shooter finished. And its not always on the same target array.

Bill

[Nik Habicht]

I always try to score in the same order, no targets get missed and I can tell a shooter what they shot on any given target. I'm just an OCD disaster sometimes.

That process only works when the RO KNOWS that the targets were scored and recorded in the exact same order on the scoresheet for every shooter. The only place I have seen that happen consistently is at the Nationals --- and even there I couldn't swear that it happens on every stage....

[driver8M3]

I don't really see what 9.4.1 has to do with this at all?

You are right. It doesn't having anything to do with it.

Section 9 is about scoring.

Section 8.6 is about a shooter's run. Section 4 (and 4.6) is about proper range setup.

that's a pretty good point. section 9 indeed covers scoring, and the wording of 9.4.1 indicates that it is discussing the scoring of a completed run:

9.1.4 Unrestored Targets – If, following completion of a course of fire by a

previous competitor, one or more targets have not been properly

patched or taped or if previously applied pasters have fallen off the target

for the competitor being scored, the Range Officer must judge

whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If there are extra

scoring hits or questionable penalty hits thereon, and it is not obvious

which hits were made by the competitor being scored, the affected

competitor must be ordered to reshoot the course of fire. For the purpose

of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and

the same.

here's another situation that might be worth considering: what if the stage is a difficult memory stage...and the shooter gets to an unrestored target and thinks he's already shot it (since it has 2 holes in it)...so he skips it (or maybe he really did engage it earlier in the stage, but missed). let's say he's shooting .40, and the holes from the previous shooter are 9mm, and you can easily determine that the current shooter had no hits on that target. do you really give him 2 mikes (and potentially an fte) instead of a reshoot?

[Flatland Shooter]

here's another situation that might be worth considering: what if the stage is a difficult memory stage...and the shooter gets to an unrestored target and thinks he's already shot it (since it has 2 holes in it)...so he skips it (or maybe he really did engage it earlier in the stage, but missed). let's say he's shooting .40, and the holes from the previous shooter are 9mm, and you can easily determine that the current shooter had no hits on that target. do you really give him 2 mikes (and potentially an fte) instead of a reshoot?

I guess that's what makes it a memory stage. You gotta remember where the targets are, when you are planning to engage them, and then remember to actually shoot them.

One of the things Troy pointed out during our RO course is the RO should be keeping track of the shots fired. If he bypassed a target the RO should be aware of this. The shooter has earned two mikes and a FTE. Doesn't always happen, but it should.

On the other hand if the RO knows the target was engaged but does not have any .40 holes in it, the shooter has earned two mikes.

[driver8M3]

I guess that's what makes it a memory stage. You gotta remember where the targets are, when you are planning to engage them, and then remember to actually shoot them.

of course. i get that.

but i bet everyone on this board has seen someone get confused on such a stage and walk through it looking at the targets making sure they've all been shot.

[George Jones]

but i bet everyone on this board has seen someone get confused on such a stage and walk through it looking at the targets making sure they've all been shot.

Heck, I do that on a two string Standards.

[XRe]

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire.

8.6.4 clearly does not apply to this situation, and your use of it is effectively a matter of "making stuff up on the fly". "Other external influences" are things like the afore mentioned helicopter buzzing the range, a deer running onto the stage during a shooters run (happened several times at the '07 Open Nats), a kid running over the berm, etc. Poppers and moving targets are reset by ROs or other shooters, just like targets are pasted by them. Unreset poppers or movers are not considered to be external influences, and those are things that are in the direct control of other humans on the range, and are involved in returning the course of fire to the "ready" state for the competitor - they're considered to be REF's. Range equipment is range equipment (anything that falls under section 4). At best, your 4.6.1 argument is the only one that applies.

(note - I am not in any way suggesting that I think that unpasted targets should be considered an REF - I'll speak about that below)

How much money you wanna put on getting a decision out of Amidon?

I'll bet you a full set of bumpers and a bar.

Can't afford that on my end - and neither can you. I'm dead serious. I'll put up $20.

Go back and read Flex's post closely...that counts as "another external influence."

Read above. It does not. That's a disingenuous use of 8.6.4.

I can't look myself in the mirror and call it your way. ... If we don't have a rulebook that allows them to reshoot, then I don't wanna play. ... It's the right thing to do.

Oh joy... The implied "if you don't do it my way, then you're out to screw the shooter" ad hominem, followed up with the old "my way or the highway, I'll take my ball and go home" stance. Very nice. So, if this turns out that you're wrong, you're going to quit shooting, then? Or are you just posting BS for dramatic effect?

I don't really see what 9.4.1 has to do with this at all?

edit: figured out you meant 9.1.4 - although section 9 is strictly about scoring.

Yes, I meant 9.1.4. Typing fast, trying to get out the door...

Throw a target at 20 yards...chances are the shooter won't even see the holes in the target to get distracted in the first place.

I can see holes in 50 yard targets. "Chances are" doesn't count for squat - if the shooter tells you he was distracted, how are you going to prove he wasn't? At the upper levels, distractions don't necessarily appear as hesitations - you both know that as well as I do. An unpasted hole in a target is a free ticket to blow the stage out, and get a free reshoot out of it, if you allow the shooter to tell you he was distracted (or wasn't), and base your reshoot on that. I watched this happen time and time again on older rulebooks.

As to 4.6 and associated rules, you still haven't answered my question. 9.1.4 does live in the scoring section, true. Most times, the situation will be noticed upon completion of the course of fire, during scoring. However, you can't make 9.1.4 go away with a simple wave of the hand. 8.6.4 clearly and simply does not apply - so there's no "may" to the reshoot. Failed range equipment is a mandatory reshoot.

If, as you both assert, an unpasted target is an REF (under 4.6), you will never score a course of fire with unpasted targets - its a mandatory reshoot (per 4.6.2), and it doesn't matter what size any of the holes are, or if you can determine a valid score or not. So, again, why is there a rule that covers the scenario of how to score unrestored targets, if you're never going to score them in the first place?

[ChuckS]

If, as you both assert, an unpasted target is an REF (under 4.6), you will never score a course of fire with unpasted targets - its a mandatory reshoot (per 4.6.2), and it doesn't matter what size any of the holes are, or if you can determine a valid score or not. So, again, why is there a rule that covers the scenario of how to score unrestored targets, if you're never going to score them in the first place?

Bingo.

[uscbigdawg]

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors.

Was the course of fire equitably presented to the shooter?

9.1.4 addresses untaped targets specifically. 4.6.1 does not apply. I'm not certain why you can't seem to grasp that exceptionally simple concept

Okay...3 pages of this and very few have it right. This is one of the few.

Rule 4.6.1 does not apply as the stage (i.e. targets, props, etc.) were presented to all competitors fairly. So that's out.

Rule 9.1.4 specifically discusses untaped targets and leaves it open to the RO to interpret which hits were the competitor on the stage and which were the previous competitors. By the previously mentioned caliber difference, that's enough to distinguish that the targets are distinguishable between the 2 competitors. It is THE RO'S DECISION as to whether or not that distinction can be made, NOT THE COMPETITOR'S. So...sorry if someone doesn't like it, but that's the rules.

Rich

[Fireant]

I think that stopping to look at unpasted targets is a mental mistake on the shooters part. No reshoot needed or granted. Train youself to just keep shooting unless ot is a saftey issue. I've learned the hard way I'm not stopping unless someone yells stop. The challenge presented was the same, the holes should not matter. I guess one way to fix it is to bag all targets regardless of the weather. That way you caouldn't see the holes anyway. Hey, that gives me an idea for a match.....

[SA Friday]

Kinda happy I wasn't there for this one, Hoofy. Seems you started a very debated scenario. Still the trouble maker...

I would have granted the reshoot. I know everyone is quoting letter of the rules, but there is also spirit in every rule or law that's made. Without it, the rule or law is hollow. In the spirit of the rules quoted, it's apparent one should lean to the shooter having a clean run equitable to every other shooter. In that spirit, one would have to grant a reshoot.

Personally, I want to win or lose based on the measurement of my best against anothers best. Winning because a piece of tape threw someone off of their run is not the above.

[Hoofy]

Just received an email from John.

He agrees that I should not have given a reshoot.

However, he did not revoke my CRO or place me on probation.

So I got that going for me.

Thanks for all of the input.

My biggest lesson in all of this: put a time limit on how long the shooter can make his/her case.

In the future I'm going to cut it off at 5 minutes, then, go talk to the RO and witnesses.

[kgunz11]

Everyone quotes 4.6.1

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all

competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of

paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the

failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of

mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of

props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

I say the target is presented, and the challenge IS still there. It's not like a popper or plate that was missing or not reset, it's not like a drop turner that wasn't reset. The target was there, and it was there to be shot, thus presented to the shooter equitably to engage. It wasn't flapping in the wind because it become unattached to the target stand or dangling. It was presented. It is up to the shooter to know rather or not he engaged the target, and if he hasn't then he should without hesitation.

Does a shooter get a reshoot if his comp blows a paster off a target? Does he get a reshoot if a bad run of pasters is used and they barely stick to the target? NO. He only gets a reshoot if the RO cannot determine the score. It is up to the RO individually, so if you think he should get a reshoot LIE about rather or not you can determine the score and then look yourself in the mirror.

REF are specifically outlined in 4.6.1 and a target not be pasted is not mentioned anywhere.

There is no reshoot IMO.

[Jake Di Vita]

Just received an email from John.

He agrees that I should not have given a reshoot.

However, he did not revoke my CRO or place me on probation.

So I got that going for me.

Thanks for all of the input.

My biggest lesson in all of this: put a time limit on how long the shooter can make his/her case.

In the future I'm going to cut it off at 5 minutes, then, go talk to the RO and witnesses.

Can you post how you worded the question to him?

[rvb]

If, as you both assert, an unpasted target is an REF (under 4.6), you will never score a course of fire with unpasted targets - its a mandatory reshoot (per 4.6.2), and it doesn't matter what size any of the holes are, or if you can determine a valid score or not. So, again, why is there a rule that covers the scenario of how to score unrestored targets, if you're never going to score them in the first place?

I've been on the fence on this issue, not sure what the right answer was. I think you make a very solid point here. If the ability to determine score was an exception to the reshoots under 4.6 or 8.6 I would think 9.1.4 could simply be listed under those sections as an exception? Under 8.6.4 as 'another external influence,' would you really want to leave the reshoot up to the shooter?

Definately agree as a competitor you have to keep going strong no matter what happens on the stage so long as it's safe, and RO doesn't say 'Stop'.

[XRe]

Can you post how you worded the question to him?

Cough up the barbells, baby!!!!

[JThompson]

I think we would all like to rule in favor of the shooter, but I'm not willing to ignore a rule to do so. If you don't like it change it otherwise you are bound to followall the rules, not just the ones you agree with. If you aren't able to do that you are not being fair to all the shooters who have ROs applying the rules as written.

At the beginning of this thread I said I was bitten in the ass by this very thing, but the second time it happened, I did not hesitate a tick... I put two more on that sucker and moved on. We often talk about the "mental game" here... this is just another part of it and we need to train ourselves to ignore what we may or may not see on a target. Hell. I've seen big ass bugs on a target that looked like holes. I've also seen pasters cast a shadow and appear like a hole. In all cases I put two holes in that sucker and move on.

Best,

JT

Edited January 20, 2009 by JThompson

[XRe]

I've also seen pasters cast a shadow and appear like a hole.

Hell, what about when someone gets sloppy and half-pastes a hole? Is that half a REF? How much of a partial hole is required to have a REF? What if the hole was pasted, but the paster has come slightly loose and is blowing in the wind, sometimes exposing the hole and other times not?