Shooting Shoot Targets In The Back

[GordonB]

I say Jerry Barnhart do this in a video once. I believe it was "Picket Fences" at an open nationals.

Basically it is where you shoot a valid target in the back --- from the white face instead of the brown face of the target.

I've shot a couple of stages where I could have shot the targets in the back and IMHO gotten a faster time. At one of those stages I asked the squad RO if I could do it. He said no.

I'm looking for a second opinion. As long as it is safe... Is this legal?

If it isn't legal, could someone point out where in the USPSA book it says no?

(I tried searching but no valid results with the keywords "shoot" & "back".)

[Vince Pinto]

GordonB,

I must begin my reply by stating that any course of fire which allows you to shoot at targets from the rear is a poorly designed and/or constructed course of fire.

To answer your question, no, the rulebook does not specifically state that you must shoot targets from the front, although Rule 4.2.2 does refer to "the scoring surface", which is invariably on one side of a target.

[Flexmoney]

Sounds like it is legal then (and, as Vince said, poor course design).

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first response but, no, I do not consider shooting at targets from the rear to be legal.

The fact that the rulebook is silent on the issue is neither here nor there - it's a matter of common sense, and I really hope I don't need to write a rule to deal with such a preposterous notion.

Consider this - the rulebook also doesn't state the maximum time a competitor can take to complete a COF so, in theory, you could take 2 hours (or longer) to shoot an 8 round COF. However if you tried that stunt on my stage, I would DQ you for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

Let's keep it real folks, otherwise we'll soon need to carry our rulebook around in a wheelbarrow!

[vluc]

If both sides of a target are scoring surfaces and the bullet entered the white no shoot side and exited on the brown, it would have to be a no shoot hit.

Just looked at a target and there is no indicated A-B-C-D scoring on that white side...

have to note that in my course design notes....

[Skywalker]

Even if I will agree with most of you on the poor design of the stage, I'd dare to take exception on the fact that it is not allowed to shoot targets from the back.

First of all, we always have rule 1.1.5:

Freestyle – IPSC competition is freestyle. With the exception of Standard Exercises, a course of fire may not specify a shooting position or stance. However, conditions may be created and constructed to compel a competitor into positions or stances required by stage design...

thus it might be argued that, if I see a target (front or back, it is not specified, thus, since what is not explicitly forbidden shall be allowed...) I will be allowed to shoot it (provided safety angles are respected).

Besides, I would judge rule 9.1.5:

Impenetrable – All IPSC paper targets are deemed to be impenetrable.

as inapplicable to this specific case, because this relates only to shoot-through hits (e.g. penalty target partially overlapping a scoring target).

And, no, I won't consider the fact that the bullet struck the target on the opposite side of the scoring surface as a valid reason not to score it, or, worse, to have no-shoot penalties applied: if the shot hits the target, there you have a valid shot; if it was not your intention to have the target shot in its back, you'd better design a stage reflecting this.

There are no such targets in the whole rulebook that are deemed to be valid targets on the front, and penalty targets on the back: the target is one, and has to be clearly identified during the briefing as scoring or penalty target, and scored according. Or are there such targets that have a different behaviour (regarding to scoring) depending on which side you are looking at them?

In this case, I think that (without proper addressing from the rulebook, which indeed would be advisable, if this is the real interpretation of the rules committee), we need to trace it back to the roots of practical shooting: I'm pretty confident that the founders of this sport would have ruled in favour of scoring the back shot targets, because from a tactical/practical point of view, what you are looking for is the neutralization of the target, thus it doesn't matter if you shoot it front or back, it only matters if you actually hit it.

[Gary Stevens]

Folks, I ran that stage at the Nationals. Neither Jerry Barnhart or anyone else shot targets in the back. The targets could be engaged at extreme angles, but none were available to be shot in the back. There was an allegation, on the tape to that effect, but it was not true. I suggest if you don't believe me, you send Jerry Barnhart an e-mail and ask him. I can garuntee you that he will tell you the same thing.

You can take this one to the bank.

[GordonB]

Gary,

I don't have the video anymore, but I could have sworn that Barnhart admitted to shooting the targets in the back. Do you remember what year that was?

[Gary Stevens]

I want to say somewhere around 91-92, but that is just a guess. It is a fresh memory because after the video came out, which I never saw by the way, I received a call from Sedro about the alleged conduct. I adamantly denied it, since I always ran the Super Squad and called all the targets, this is something I would have remembered. I was told that Barnhart had also been questioned about it and was very irate that someone would have accused him of such conduct. As I remember it the producer of the tape made the comment. In any respect, it never happened.

I do think I saw someone who looked like Barnhart on the grassy knoll though.

[Nik Habicht]

Besides, I would judge rule 9.1.5:

Impenetrable – All IPSC paper targets are deemed to be impenetrable.

as inapplicable to this specific case, because this relates only to shoot-through hits (e.g. penalty target partially overlapping a scoring target).

I don't agree that this rule doesn't apply. If all paper targets are impenetrable, then for rules purposes it is impossible for a bullet to punch all the way through a paper target. Since a hit on the back side of a target would strike the penalty side, but according to the rule cited could not break through the scoring side, the call would have to be to score that target as the appropriate number of no-shoot hits. However, this mess is best avoided by proper stage design....

[Vince Pinto]

My dear Skywalker,

...... we need to trace it back to the roots of practical shooting: I'm pretty confident that the founders of this sport would have ruled in favour of scoring the back shot targets, because from a tactical/practical point of view, what you are looking for is the neutralization of the target, thus it doesn't matter if you shoot it front or back, it only matters if you actually hit it.

If you're going to apply a "neutralization" argument to a discussion of IPSC targets, then competitors should also be scored for stabbing targets with their trusty Benchmade knife or hitting them over the head with an enormous rock.

Can you imagine my Hit Factor if I fired only one shot then used a knife? All Alpha and 1.00 seconds displayed on the timer - not bad for a 32 round long course ..............

[Skywalker]

Vince,

unless a new 3-gun tournament (i.e. gun, bayonet and bare hands) is going to be sanctioned, I'd say that to score on a target you must use the gun the match was made for...

Not to mention that in your example you didn't shoot the minimum number of rounds for the COF, as well as didn't engage all targets at least with one round.

Nik,

as I already pointed out, rule 9.1.5 deals with possible shoot-throughs. We must remeber that we use 2 dimensional targets instead of 3D ones, thus we have a front and back, while a real target would be solid: but this is only a simplified representation.

Besides, if in the COF that target has been declared a scoring one, I cannot accept it to be considered a penalty target only because I looked at it from the wrong perspective (that someone less than proficient in course design allowed me to view). It is not acceptable to have the same target being scoring and penalizing at the same time depending on where it is engaged.

[skeeter]

a few years ago this came up at a match i was at. the FC was a shoot'em as you see'em with a lot of side to side movement at the back of the range the had a hall way with shoots down both sides and a door at the end . i thought you could save a boat load of time if you didn't go down the hallway but went to the side where you would shoot a target in the back then one in the front so you wouldn't have to zig zag. then around the door to get the last 2. ask if i could do this and was told not to shoot them in the back so i settled for running around the door. but i always thought that shooting in the back could add a new way of looking at stages. never really see much chance to do with out breaking the 180.

[GordonB]

Hell I think we should just add this to the list of "things in IPSC you do that can get you killed."

As Skywalker says, I think our tactical forefathers wouldn't have cared if we shot a shoot target in the back (as long as it was safe).

Shooting the target in the back could represent:

- a hostile target going for cover. (i.e. so he could shoot back at you from a covered position).

- a hostile target that made a tactical mistake.

- etc.

If I thought it was a valid tactic and Skywalker says it should be OK. There probably are a number of people who think the same. I don't think it is a "preposterous notion" at all.

A clarification should be added on to future rulebooks. It shouldn't take more than one or two sentences for the clarification. I just want a level playing field and an official clarification (either for or against) would help and would prevent any problems.

[Nik Habicht]

Nik,

as I already pointed out, rule 9.1.5 deals with possible shoot-throughs. We must remeber that we use 2 dimensional targets instead of 3D ones, thus we have a front and back, while a real target would be solid: but this is only a simplified representation.

Besides, if in the COF that target has been declared a scoring one, I cannot accept it to be considered a penalty target only because I looked at it from the wrong perspective (that someone less than proficient in course design allowed me to view). It is not acceptable to have the same target being scoring and penalizing at the same time depending on where it is engaged.

Luca,

While I will stipulate that this is bad stage design, I can't agree that it's o.k. to shoot a target on the penalty side and then score it as a shoot target. If this was the case, when you overrun a target, you could simply turn and engage it, rather than backing up..... assuming of course that the 180 is not a factor. I think impenetrable means just that ---- we have agreed in the rule book that a shot cannot pass through a target. If that holds for shoot targets that are partially covered by penalty targets, then surely it must hold for this scenario as well. If it's not acceptable to have the same target available as either scoring or penalizing, then why is it that our targets are made brown on one side and white on the other? It surely would be easier, and possibly cheaper to have separate shoot and penalty targets.

Even while using proper stage design, you may have a shooting position where after engaging the targets, you may be able to turn 90 or more degrees in either direction and see the back side of a target that you shot earlier. If you choose to re-engage this target now, you'll be breaking the 180 and possibly endangering others. I cannot think of a situation where I'd willingly pull the trigger on a white paper target....

[John Heiter]

Every IPSC paper target I've ever seen has been brown scoring on one side and a white no shoot on the other. If that's the sort of targets we're talking about then I think that all of you guys who want to shoot through the no shoot side and demand that your "hits" on the other side be counted are smoking crack.

9.1.5 Impenetrable – All IPSC paper targets are deemed to be impenetrable.

Who says this rule was only meant to apply to shoot throughs? It talks about shoot throughs but it doesn't say it ONLY applies to them. If you choose to ignore this rule when it benefits you on a stage I'm ro'ing to get a couple hits that you didn't deserve then I'm going to ignore it when I go through and score your run on the stage from the back. From the white side, all those A hits you thought you had look like two no shoot hits to me.

[Flexmoney]

A target is either a shoot target (as described in the stage briefing) or it is a no-shoot...not both. That much is clear to me.

What isn't clear is if we have a rule that covers this...since we are having this debate...obviously we don't.

[Nik Habicht]

Finally someone who points out the flaw in my line of reasoning to apply no-shoot penalties. However, since the target is ruled impenetrable, i maintain that the holes in the brown side don't exist, if the target was shot in the back. That means two mikes ---- but drats what about the dreaded FTE penalty? The shooter did shoot in the direction of the target..... I'm thinking about drop-turners....

[Flexmoney]

I don't read this as being covered under 4.2.2.

9.1.5's "Impenetrable" doesn't seem to apply either. If goes on to say (if you read the complete text ) that a bullet can't pass thru to score on an additional target.

[muser]

I don't read this as being covered under 4.2.2.

9.1.5's "Impenetrable" doesn't seem to apply either.  If goes on to say (if you read the complete text ) that a bullet can't pass thru to score on an additional target.

9.1.5 does say that a less than full diameter strike on a scoring target or penalty target can continue on to strike another target and incur either a score or a penalty.

It would be absurd to think that a hit on a scoring target as described above would also result in a penalty for "striking" the opposing no-shoot side of the same target. I think it is just as absurd to think it could happen with a full diameter hit. The same logic should apply if the bullet goes from the no-shoot side to the scoring side.

You are forgetting that there is a third "side" to the targets. It is the edge, which is neither the scoring or the penalty side, but by way of a little hocus pocus the shooter's bullets always seem to hit the scoring side, by way of support from 9.9.3.; the bullet enters the non-scoring border, discects the target, and by virtue of the target's movements, causes the bullet to exit either through the no-shoot or the A zone. With the magic bullet performing to perfection, I think the shooter should get more than 5 points for this wizardry.

[Flexmoney]

muser,

I think I agree with your post (had to read it twice).

But, I don't think it matters...as the back side of a target is not a no-shoot...it is just the back side of a target.

[Skywalker]

Finally someone who points out the flaw in my line of reasoning to apply no-shoot penalties.

Nik,

It is exactly what I stated twice in my posts:

There are no such targets in the whole rulebook that are deemed to be valid targets on the front, and penalty targets on the back: the target is one, and has to be clearly identified during the briefing as scoring or penalty target, and scored according.

and

Besides, if in the COF that target has been declared a scoring one, I cannot accept it to be considered a penalty target only because I looked at it from the wrong perspective.

Maybe I didn't express myself clear enough, but it is exactly what I meant.

Then, for the targets scoring front and penalty back, I'd like to point out that targets are built with a penalty back only to allow one only batch of targets to be provisioned: you don't need to have two (or more) different targets to run a match, you just need one and use the back side of it for penalties; they are not built this way to have a penalty surface on a scoring target.

[muser]

...as the back side of a target is not a no-shoot...it is just the back side of a target.

Where is that in the rule book?

[Skywalker]

Where is that in the rule book?

Muser,

it is not in the rulebook, it is in the written stage briefing that identifies that target (single target as a whole) as a scoring or penalty target.

[Nik Habicht]

Finally someone who points out the flaw in my line of reasoning to apply no-shoot penalties.

Nik,

It is exactly what I stated twice in my posts:

There are no such targets in the whole rulebook that are deemed to be valid targets on the front, and penalty targets on the back: the target is one, and has to be clearly identified during the briefing as scoring or penalty target, and scored according.

Luca,

I don't know how, but I missed that entire first quote. Maybe I was skipping, eh I mean speedreading again. That's the reading equivalent of not seeing the sights when shooting....

I don't think the rulebook will ever address every possible issue ---- unless we want it to look like the U.S. Tax code (famous for even confusing accountants and government auditors) so in some cases we're going to have to make rulings based on precedents. Here's my logic: The rule writers declared paper targets impenetrable to deprive the shooter of any hit on a shoot target where the round had already passed through a penalty target, and vice-versa. By the same extent, by defining one side of the target as the shoot side, and the other as the penalty side, the rule writers have suggested that we should be shooting at the brown side of the target. WHILE I STILL CONSIDER IT TO BE POOR STAGE DESIGN TO PLACE A TARGET SO THAT IT MIGHT BE SHOT IN THE BACK, I would still argue that rule designers never intended us to shoot a target in the back and that since (in the event of a shoot-through) targets have been declared to be impenetrable, then we shouldn't be scoring hits here either.....

You have convinced me though that I can't assess penalty target hits.....