JerryDGeek Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 There's no need to use 'logic' (ie: the way you think things ought to be) or to make new rules. All we need to do is look at the way the rules are actually written. 9.1.5 - Impenetrable The scoring area of all IPSC scoring and penalty paper targets is deemed to be impenetrable. Remember the scoring surface is on the FRONT of the target. If it's an impenetrable target, and you shoot it from the back ... the shot isn't 'deemed' to have cut the scoring surface. The back of a scoring targets isn't a no-shoot target. These penalty targets are defined in the stage procedure, and scoring targets are not commonly defined as penalty targets. Shoot 'em in the front, you get the score. Shot 'em in the back and there is no scoring surface. BTW, drop-turners are where we usually see this phenomenon. They are typically positioned so you can't see the scoring surface before it is activated, or when it comes to rest. It's not bad stage design, it's just the way things are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 BTW, drop-turners are where we usually see this phenomenon. They are typically positioned so you can't see the scoring surface before it is activated, or when it comes to rest. It's not bad stage design, it's just the way things are. The problem in this specific instance, is that you could see the rear of the target when the drop turner was at rest..... .....and that's a mistake in design or construction.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Hi folks, Proposed 9.5.7: Hits visible on a scoring or penalty paper target, which are the result of shots fired through the rear of the target, will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be. The above proposal was considered by the IPSC Rules Committee meeting in Bali two weeks ago, but it was rejected, hence should such an incident arise, Range Officials will be obliged to make a call based on the wording of the existing rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Hi folks,Proposed 9.5.7: Hits visible on a scoring or penalty paper target, which are the result of shots fired through the rear of the target, will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be. The above proposal was considered by the IPSC Rules Committee meeting in Bali two weeks ago, but it was rejected, hence should such an incident arise, Range Officials will be obliged to make a call based on the wording of the existing rulebook. Not rejected by me I might add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 To shoot targets in the back and argue that they should/should not score is just as stupid as shooting PT's in the back and saying they should/should not score. This is supposed to be common sense and to be a non-question. If we ever sink to allowing lunacy like back-shots I think I'll find a new game to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Vince, Neil, Can you share some insight? Was there a belief that the current wording was good enough to prevent...? Or, was the practice thought to be allowable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I just don't get it. What is wrong with shooting 'em in the back if they need killin'? 'Practical' is still part of game's name. A humanoid target represents a lethal threat. Perhaps we should allow shooting Metric targets from the back and not Classics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 What I really don't understand about this whole "shoot in the back" fuss & cuss is the following: rule 4.1.5 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. prevents a single target from being at the same time a scoring target and a penalty one (note that the rule generically says target, not specifically scoring or penalty target). Now, if a single scoring target is a single scoring target, it is such on its front and on its back (unless you live in a 2-dimensional world, here everything has 3 dimensions...). Yes, I agree that whenever you can shoot a scoring target on the back without breaking the 180 (if you can see and shoot a target actually breaking the 180 the whole stage is illegal according to 2.1.4) is poo( r ) stage design, but nonetheless there isn't specifically anything prohibiting it. You don't want to score a target shot in the back? Fine, I will accept it. But, please, put it in the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 There's no need to use 'logic' (ie: the way you think things ought to be) or to make new rules. All we need to do is look at the way the rules are actually written. 9.1.5 - Impenetrable The scoring area of all IPSC scoring and penalty paper targets is deemed to be impenetrable. Remember the scoring surface is on the FRONT of the target. If it's an impenetrable target, and you shoot it from the back ... the shot isn't 'deemed' to have cut the scoring surface. Sorry Jerry, but I don't but this too. Impenetrable means you can't get completely through it (i.e. to strike a second target), it doesn't mean untouchable. If we stretch the meaning you're giving to 9.1.5 to its maximum extent, it would mean that even a frontal shoot shouldn't count, because the scoring surface is impenetrable, and the shot can't pass through it...thus there should be no perforation of the scoring surface to score the hit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Sky, 1 Q: Why would you want to shoot a target in the back? Forgetting bad CoF design and construction, the only way you can shoot a target in the back without DQ is on a twister, dropper, flipper, etc which means that most of these now don't serve any purpose anymore. "Damn, I missed the drop-twister, but don't worry, I'll shoot it in the back from that window over there...." Nail a clam target/PT array in the back. Since targets are impenetrable I'm not gonna get the PT (if its standing at ±5deg)... It might not be too clear in the rules, but like our rules master once said "We don't want to carry the rule book in a wheelbarrow". ----------- And on the "practical" side...you must be very rich and have the best lawyer (thats why you need to be rich) to get off from shooting someone in the back....have him turn around first and nail him twice.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 There's no need to use 'logic' (ie: the way you think things ought to be) or to make new rules. All we need to do is look at the way the rules are actually written. 9.1.5 - Impenetrable The scoring area of all IPSC scoring and penalty paper targets is deemed to be impenetrable. Remember the scoring surface is on the FRONT of the target. If it's an impenetrable target, and you shoot it from the back ... the shot isn't 'deemed' to have cut the scoring surface. Sorry Jerry, but I don't but this too. Impenetrable means you can't get completely through it (i.e. to strike a second target), it doesn't mean untouchable. If we stretch the meaning you're giving to 9.1.5 to its maximum extent, it would mean that even a frontal shoot shouldn't count, because the scoring surface is impenetrable, and the shot can't pass through it...thus there should be no perforation of the scoring surface to score the hit... I might be with Jerry here ---- if the target's impenetrable, then we're actually scoring the hole in the front most layer of the card board, and we're assuming by using the word impenetrable that the back of the target is intact. So it only goes to follow, that if you shoot the target in the back, the whole can't exist on the front (scoring) side because the round can't (by the rules) penetrate the back of the target. While we can discuss this all day though --- the reality is that we should put up vision barriers in such a way, that we never have the back of the target available.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 DB, I'm not advocating I'd shoot a target in the back the way you suggest it (e.g. the drop turner to make up a bad shot while moving). But in the past I have seen quite a few very bad courses where (without breaking the 180) you could have shot static targets from the back. I'll make an example: on this stage you can see targets 1 & 3 front and targets 2 & 4 back from right window, viceversa from left window. This is obviously poor stage design, I know. At present, since I still don't see anything in the rules that prevents shooting targets from the back, I'd say it could be theoretically possible to shoot all targets from a single window. If this is the case, a stage builder would be compelled to put a vision barrier behind the existing one, and placing targets better, to have everybody using both windows. If the rules specifically disallow shooting targets in the back, a stage builder might be tempted to leave the stage as it is (poor). The same will apply to a drop-twister. The only real good stage design for a drop twister is to have hard-cover hiding it in its final position. If you rule shooting its back illegal, you'll never see stage building improvements. Nik, the rules say the scoring surface of a target is impenetrable, not it's back, and since it's back doesn't have a scoring surface, the bullet will travel until the front (scoring surface). Now, if it can't perforate the front scoring surface, it can't both when shot from the front and from the back... Anyway, I agree 100% with you that we need better stage design, and I believe this would be achieved (as in the example above) by forcing stage designers to take into account that the back of the target can be shot, thus if they want to avoid it, they have to design a better stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Not suggesting that you would shoot targets in the back Sky, but the gamers standing on a banana peel on the rules side with 1 foot and on the cheaters side with the other will do it if we give them less than half a chance. If you want to force better CoF construction then allowing back-shot targets is not the way, and disallowing it in the rules won't help either. We'll need a better way to force this than playing with targeting rules. Talking bigger matches (not the no-money local shoots where CoF construction by words is allowed "You may not...., even though you see it....etc) vision barricades etc should not be a problem.... BTW: Thanx for the CoF above....just what I need to fill our first 2005 shoot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Nik,the rules say the scoring surface of a target is impenetrable, not it's back, and since it's back doesn't have a scoring surface, the bullet will travel until the front (scoring surface). Now, if it can't perforate the front scoring surface, it can't both when shot from the front and from the back... Anyway, I agree 100% with you that we need better stage design, and I believe this would be achieved (as in the example above) by forcing stage designers to take into account that the back of the target can be shot, thus if they want to avoid it, they have to design a better stage. Sky, assuming the rules say that the scoring surface is impenetrable ---- then we're not scoring holes, we're scoring hits. Hits would have to be marks on the target, that look suspiciously like holes, but aren't --- because we've decided that the scoring surface of a target is impenetrable, it's impossible to have a hit on the front of the target, while shooting it from the rear. Solid stage design, i.e. getting the bugs out is up to the match director/Range Master. With education, and help all is possible..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Cool, so from now on I get to shoot the drop turners in the back whenever I can see the back, either at rest or before activated, and I can shoot the activator at my leisure either before or after I back shoot the targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Ron, I would hope that there is something to prevent this from happening. We should not be able to score on a moving target from the backside. It issupposed to present a challenge of shooting at a quickly moving disappearing target. As to the comment that you should never be able to see targets from the rear. I say really? If I have a stage that i move forward in as I pass targets I can see the back of them if I turn around. Now If I actually turned and shot at them, i would be breaking the 180 (Iknow I actually don't have to take the shot of course, simply pointing my gun is enough!) Are you all saying that being able to see the back of a target in a stage should be illegal? I surely hope not! We'd have to build cities to preven ever being able to see the back of a target. Currently we do trun targets and insert multiple NS tagets to act as vsion barriers, we even use walls, but there are limitations due to time, weather and available material. This is why we use the NS in a freestanding position to block a target. Sometimes we want to leave just a bit of the head available so a NS serves better than a Barrier. Also, since the back of a target is generally white, it would seem to be very bad to form tha habit of shooting at white targets that just might turn out to have been a NS rather than the back of a scoring target. We have been known to double up a NS so that it presents a fullwhite to both views. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 No we are not saying being able to see the back of a target should be illegal. What we ARE saying is being able to shoot at the back of a target should be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Jake and others, I agree that no shot fired at a target that enters through the opposite side of the side presented for score or penalty should count. In other words, if a shot on a scoring target enters from the white side, then it is not to be counted any more than all the holes in the white side of a target that result from scoring hits on the opposite side are counted. One caution to designer/builders is to be sure that the penalty N/S targets are not visible as shoot targets from another position. You don't want to have people taking shots at what appear to be scoring targets that ar in reality the backlside of a N/S. If the backside will be visible from a position that would otherwise be a legal point of engagement, it should be doubled to present a White side to both views. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 We had one guy put a shot through the stick on the stage 18 turner and out the front of the target with a big tear (it can be seen briefly on the Squad 30 DVD). The RO said no hit in that case. If they gave other people hits from shots going the other way, there's some serious inconsistency there. That's because it went through the stick - full diameter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 We had one guy put a shot through the stick on the stage 18 turner and out the front of the target with a big tear (it can be seen briefly on the Squad 30 DVD). The RO said no hit in that case. If they gave other people hits from shots going the other way, there's some serious inconsistency there. That's because it went through the stick - full diameter. Target sticks aren't hard-cover. There are plenty of reasons to disallow the hit, but I don't think that's one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Shred is absolutely correct--target sticks are treated as if they don't exist at all. Definitely not hard cover. Don't know why the hit wasn't scored, but the hole in the stick should not have been the reason. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Roy and Troy, ? 3.2.4 of the Red Book... All props...hard cover. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Yep, but target sticks are merely there to support the target, and are not considered a prop. The target, of course, is considered impenetrable, but the sticks theoretically don't exist--the targets are to be treated as if they are floating unsupported. I'm not sure that this is spelled out in the rules, but it's what we teach and the way I've always treated target sticks. This is one reason that the book recommends cutting off the tops, which are the parts which would normally interfere with sight lines to other targets, and which take the most hits. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Au contraire Flex... target holders are "stakes". See Appendix B. and 2.1.9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 No sale. Anything I gotta carry from the prop shed has got to be a prop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now