Popper Rules & Presentation

[JThompson]

And there in lies the problem... what one RM considers to be acceptable might not be for another. Also, we don't have true RMs at a lot of matches. What we have now is arbitrary.

But whatever percentage of a popper is presented, it is an equal challenge for all the shooters.

Same could be said about 1 inch of A on paper.

You're right in that it's all A if it falls, but that's only if it falls.

If it is going to fall from a hit to the calibration ring, it will fall from a hit above the calibration ring as well.

But what if it's only the lower ring and below?

For the sake of discussion I would say the calibration zone is the A on a popper.

Why? If a mini popper with 50% of calibration zone visible is a valid presentation then why wouldn't be a full size popper with only an inch or two of the calibration ring exposed? Both presentations have a roughly equivalent area of steel visible. Both will fall if hit in the exposed area.

But what about a mini with 1%? How much is enough, where will the consistency be...?

We can go around and around all night about it, and I don't want to argue with you... I think I have a valid point here, so I'll leave it there. Besides, there is a beer and some food with my name on it.

CYAS

JT

Edited April 2, 2009 by JThompson

[Singlestack]

What if,

There was a popper behind a barrel. You can see the top of the popper from a lot further away than you can the calibration zone. Shooter takes the popper from a position where the calibration zone is not available and the popper does not fall. How is calibration performed by the RM?

I had completely forgotten about the RM having to hit the calibration zone requiring a reshoot if it hits above it. I had a RM shoot the very top of a popper last year and I took the mike. The calibration zone was completely available too.

[wide45]

Definitely a solution in search of a problem. I've never seen poppers blocked to a ridiculous degree. Don't expect I ever will.

Did see creative use of hard cover at a nationals several years ago. Area of the poppers left available was the same as the legal plate sizes.

Does bring up a possible problem where the calibration zone may be available from one shooting area, but not from different area where a calibration shot must be made. Likely we will have to change a rule to fix this.

[Flexmoney]

We don't need regulation in this case. Stage design will suffice.

There are plenty of bad stage design ideas...stuff that shouldn't be done...that is perfectly legal.

[Flexmoney]

If we have to have a minimum part of an A zone available for a paper target, then we should have a minimum percentage available for both poppers and steel.

That is making a correlation that isn't necessarily there.

First, ask yourself why we'd need to have a minimum part of the A-zone on paper showing in the first place?

Then, see if the rational for that would carry over to steel targets.

[kimel]

Interesting discussion.

I like the "if it can be calibrated, it is legal" concept. I dislike percentage showing rules in the case of round objects or round areas of irregularly shaped objects. I really don't want to have to require folks doing setup to do a lot of math to determine what is and isn't correct/legal. Most of us probably recall how to calculate the area of a circle from grade school but what about a semi-circle that isn't just "halved"? What if the area covered is not a defined by a straight line but is itself a curve? And sure as heck if you make a rule that says 30% showing and it is "close", someone will file an arbitration and someone is going to have to go fishing for a better calculator.

Not to hijack things entirely in a different direction...But what about falling steel that is not calibrated steel in the first place...e.g. plates?

I once had this evil idea wherein a round disk was welded to the front of the plate stand and a round plate (larger than the front disk) was placed behind it. Front disk was hard cover. I determined that tar and feathers would be in my future if I did this so I never built it.

[shred]

Any rule on 'how much popper has to be visible' (and, btw I think there should be a guideline for MD's just to avoid pissing people off some Saturday morning at a club match) has to account for the 'stacked poppers' shot with one behind the other. If it can't be shot from the COF without knocking down the popper in front of it, is it 'visible'? If not, how are misses scored on it if the first one isn't knocked down?

[VegasOPM]

More rules.... meh.....

[mactiger]

We don't need regulation in this case. Stage design will suffice.

There are plenty of bad stage design ideas...stuff that shouldn't be done...that is perfectly legal.

+1. I've seen a lot of them, too.

Troy

[LPatterson]

We don't need regulation in this case. Stage design will suffice.

There are plenty of bad stage design ideas...stuff that shouldn't be done...that is perfectly legal.

This country and the world at large is in a big hurt because of a lack of regulation so does that mean that we throw out the rule book because we don't want to write a rule that sets a value on how much of a calibration area is used. This is the same as a shooter who hits a popper at the bottom of the circle (used to be above a line drawn where the circle bisected the base of the popper) and the RM who hits at the very top of the calibration circle.

At local matches there are seldom RM's and I have seen cases of MD's in training who have set up some really bad stages not because of stage design but because they were in charge. If there isn't a clear rule that says I can't then I might try to get away with something. Isn't that why there was something called a "Forbidden Action 4.4" written into the 2008 rule book?

If and when I have the opportunity to calibrate poppers, if I can't hit below the middle of the calibration circle then I repaint and try again. Do I think this should be a rule, no but I do believe there should be a rule requiring at least 50% of the calibration area be available to the shooter. As I recall poppers are not to test the accuracy part of DVC but the power factor.

[JThompson]

I'm not married to the idea that any percentage be mandated on paper or steel... it's the same shot for everyone no? What I'm talking about here is consistency, if there is a % on paper there should be one on steel. If not, then why not dump them all and let the designer do whatever they like. Frankly, I think you could have some real fun not having any percentages.

JT

Edited April 3, 2009 by JThompson

[sslav]

if there is a % on paper there should be one on steel. If not, then why not dump them all and let the designer do whatever they like. Frankly, I think you could have some real fun not having any percentages.

It is only a guess on my part, but I have always assumed that a % of the A-zone rule for paper was needed because of major/minor scoring. For example if you do not show some reasonable portion of the A-zone then the best aimed shot for someone shooting minor is 3 points while someone shooting major it is 4 points.

[JThompson]

if there is a % on paper there should be one on steel. If not, then why not dump them all and let the designer do whatever they like. Frankly, I think you could have some real fun not having any percentages.

It is only a guess on my part, but I have always assumed that a % of the A-zone rule for paper was needed because of major/minor scoring. For example if you do not show some reasonable portion of the A-zone then the best aimed shot for someone shooting minor is 3 points while someone shooting major it is 4 points.

That is true and valid. With the caveat that if you are shooting minor against major you are pretty much screwed anyway. Mostly it's minor against minor so it's less an issue.

[Flexmoney]

... if there is a % on paper there should be one on steel.

Why? Just because that "ought" to be that way because consistency sounds good?

Go back and explore the question I asked. Why do we do it for paper? And, does it make sense for paper? Then, once you understand those reasons...see if those reasons apply to steel of not.

[Flexmoney]

That is true and valid. With the caveat that if you are shooting minor against major you are pretty much screwed anyway. Mostly it's minor against minor so it's less an issue.

While I am happy to say that "minor sucks", the top 3 places in Limited division at our last local match were shooters that were running Limited Minor.

"pretty much screwed anyway" isn't a good argument really. Especially if all you get to shoot at on brown with a Minor gun is going to be a point down from major...no matter what. You are looking at a best case of 8pts on a target for Major vs. 6pts for Minor.

Granted, there can be a strong point made about that being "tough love" for choosing to shoot minor in a game of DVC (and I might be one to make such an argument), but...

Anyway, as Slav mentioned, that can be one issue. There is another that comes to mind for me. There may be more that I'm not aware of...

[JThompson]

... if there is a % on paper there should be one on steel.

Why? Just because that "ought" to be that way because consistency sounds good?

Go back and explore the question I asked. Why do we do it for paper? And, does it make sense for paper? Then, once you understand those reasons...see if those reasons apply to steel of not.

I have thought this out Flex... You imply that I haven't thought it out because I don't agree with you... And if I were would go back and read your post I would see the error in my thinking. If you take all the rules in the book, I would imagine very few people would agree on a lot of them, but that doesn't mean they are wrong one way or the other. What it means is they don't agree a rule is needed, or possibly they don't like the way a rule is written. I think that's what we have here. I think there should be a minimum amount of the calibration surface available to the shooter, I have a valid point and nobody will change my mind on the matter. I don't expect to change yours either. That's okay... we can agree to disagree.

It would be a terribly boring place if we all agreed all the time.

JT

Edited April 3, 2009 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

I was hoping to get you to understand there were reasons that you haven't thought of yet.

[JThompson]

I was hoping to get you to understand there were reasons that you haven't thought of yet.

There was also Shed's point of how to deal with a popper in front of another... These are all good thoughts and worth consideration, but I don't feel there is anything here that couldn't be incorporated. I always try and look at other's points of view... sometimes I see the logic and decide I was going down the wrong road. If I was worried about being disagreed with, I wouldn't post in the rules forum.

I wanted you guys to vet my line of thought and draw on the knowledge base here to see if there was a big hole I didn't think of. I've heard a couple things I hadn't thought of, but nothing that would put the kibosh on the idea.

Does this happen enough to need a new ruling...? That decision is above my pay grade, but I think it is worth consideration.

Best

JT

Edited April 3, 2009 by JThompson

[Nik Habicht]

I wanted you guys to vet my line of thought and draw on the knowledge base here to see if there was a big hole I didn't think of. I've heard a couple things I hadn't thought of, but nothing that would put the kibosh on the idea.

Does this happen enough to need a new ruling...? That decision is above my pay grade, but I think it is worth consideration.

Best

JT

Hmmm, let's see: Troy doesn't see a problem that needs to be addressed --- and he's one of the most knowledgeable members of NROI. Gary Stevens doesn't see a problem that should be addressed by the rules; then later sees one non-specified situation that might occur, but doesn't mention whether or not he's changed his mind on a rules change. Flex doesn't see a problem to be addressed. There's a few years of Stage design/building/ROing/RMing experience accumulated by those three gentlemen....

I don't see this a rules issue --- I see it as a stage design issue, to be addressed by the RM, in respect to bigger matches; and by shooters, stage designers, other match directors, Section Coordinators, Area Directors, and NROI Instructors in respect to club matches.....

In an ideal world we'd get perfect stages at every match --- in reality, we sometimes get efforts that fall short of the mark, by well intentioned people, who sometimes need to actually see the stage shot, to realize there's a better way. That's generally not fixable by changing the rule book --- it's usually only fixable by calmly talking about the issue and offering to help teach or mentor others......

[JThompson]

I wanted you guys to vet my line of thought and draw on the knowledge base here to see if there was a big hole I didn't think of. I've heard a couple things I hadn't thought of, but nothing that would put the kibosh on the idea.

Does this happen enough to need a new ruling...? That decision is above my pay grade, but I think it is worth consideration.

Best

JT

Hmmm, let's see: Troy doesn't see a problem that needs to be addressed --- and he's one of the most knowledgeable members of NROI. Gary Stevens doesn't see a problem that should be addressed by the rules; then later sees one non-specified situation that might occur, but doesn't mention whether or not he's changed his mind on a rules change. Flex doesn't see a problem to be addressed. There's a few years of Stage design/building/ROing/RMing experience accumulated by those three gentlemen....

I don't see this a rules issue --- I see it as a stage design issue, to be addressed by the RM, in respect to bigger matches; and by shooters, stage designers, other match directors, Section Coordinators, Area Directors, and NROI Instructors in respect to club matches.....

In an ideal world we'd get perfect stages at every match --- in reality, we sometimes get efforts that fall short of the mark, by well intentioned people, who sometimes need to actually see the stage shot, to realize there's a better way. That's generally not fixable by changing the rule book --- it's usually only fixable by calmly talking about the issue and offering to help teach or mentor others......

Well hell... everything is a stage design issue Nik.... We don't need rules on paper either... it would just be bad stage design to not have a good portion of the A zone available. That's cool... then we can toss out the whole multi-page rules of what to do when you get a shoot through situation from paper to paper, paper to steel, frags etc... Since we can limit all that stuff by stage design why have rules for when it actually happens?

Edited April 3, 2009 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

Define a disappearing target.

Now consider the out-and-back target setup that came about a few years ago.

[LPatterson]

Define a disappearing target.

Now consider the out-and-back target setup that came about a few years ago.

Do you want the one from the glossary (Appendix A3) that says " A target which when activated and after completing its movement is no longer available for engagement."

Or did you mean the Note at the bottom of Appendix B3 "At least 25% of the lower A-zone, or the entire upper A-zone, must remain visible around hardcover or overlapping no-shoots."

Or should we be looking at 9.9.1 "Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designated movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties."

I don't understand how this post relates to the original question dealing with popper rules? Perhaps we should be questioning Appendix B4 (Popper Calibration Zones) and Appendix C1 (Calibration of Poppers). B4 is dealing with the area within which a shot must land when calibrating a popper. C1-5 explains how the calibration is to be performed, however C1-2 lists a completely different problem if a shooter wishes to challenge a calibration. It says the designated calibration ammo SHOULD (my emphasis) achieve a power factor between 115.0 and 125.0 to qualify. So if the RM/MD whomever, grabs a box of 9MM (RECOMMENDED) (my emphasis) +P+ 165 Power factor ammo, are they in violation of the rules? Common sense says yes because a popper should fall, if hit within the calibration zone, by someone whose ammo exceeds the minimum 125 power factor. But are they because Appendix A3 (Glossary) Should ... Optional but highly recommended.

This in no way meant to reflect upon the people who toiled mightily to establish the rules we have but to point out areas which might require clafiration in the future.

Edited because I forgot to ask what is an out and back target and how it relates to a popper question.

Edited April 4, 2009 by LPatterson

[John Baier]

What if,

There was a popper behind a barrel. You can see the top of the popper from a lot further away than you can the calibration zone. Shooter takes the popper from a position where the calibration zone is not available and the popper does not fall. How is calibration performed by the RM?

A RM worth their salt would not "vet" a stage that was set up like you describe.

I had completely forgotten about the RM having to hit the calibration zone requiring a reshoot if it hits above it. I had a RM shoot the very top of a popper last year and I took the mike. The calibration zone was completely available too.

You should have been awarded a reshoot. In the US, the RM must shoot either in or under the calibration zone to count. Thats why I plan on using a dot on my gun

[Gary Stevens]

What if,

There was a popper behind a barrel. You can see the top of the popper from a lot further away than you can the calibration zone. Shooter takes the popper from a position where the calibration zone is not available and the popper does not fall. How is calibration performed by the RM?

A RM worth their salt would not "vet" a stage that was set up like you describe.

I had completely forgotten about the RM having to hit the calibration zone requiring a reshoot if it hits above it. I had a RM shoot the very top of a popper last year and I took the mike. The calibration zone was completely available too.

You should have been awarded a reshoot. In the US, the RM must shoot either in or under the calibration zone to count. Thats why I plan on using a dot on my gun

Singlestack, gee I love that name, hit on the exact scenario I was thinking about. The popper is available to be calibrated initially, but due to hardcover the calibration zone is not available from another position. If the shooter dings the top of the popper (above the calibration zone) and it doesn't go down, the RM is screwed because the rule calls for it to be check from as close as possible to where the shooter took the shot.

Since Level 1 and 2 stages are approved by NROI, I would hope this situation would not be approved. However at a level 1 match it could show up, and we say the rule book applies regardless of the level of the match.

[Singlestack]

What if,

There was a popper behind a barrel. You can see the top of the popper from a lot further away than you can the calibration zone. Shooter takes the popper from a position where the calibration zone is not available and the popper does not fall. How is calibration performed by the RM?

A RM worth their salt would not "vet" a stage that was set up like you describe.

RM's don't always have a chance to "vet" all of the stages at local matches. That and even if they do look at them its hard to catch everything the morning of the match. This has nothing to do with the RM's salt IMO.

Singlestack, gee I love that name, hit on the exact scenario I was thinking about. The popper is available to be calibrated initially, but due to hardcover the calibration zone is not available from another position. If the shooter dings the top of the popper (above the calibration zone) and it doesn't go down, the RM is screwed because the rule calls for it to be check from as close as possible to where the shooter took the shot.

Since Level 1 and 2 stages are approved by NROI, I would hope this situation would not be approved. However at a level 1 match it could show up, and we say the rule book applies regardless of the level of the match.

I have seen this more than once. We all have seen poppers with the head peeking over something. There is no rule to prevent it from being approved. Common sense should prevent it but stuff happens.