Do you get a “reshoot” for untapped targets?

[Chuck Anderson]

As a general rule, I never stop unless the RO tells me to. I've seen more than one shooter stop due to a popper being down or something not being set, only to find out they already shot it. (Popper could be shot from more then one spot). Same thing with untaped targets. I've seen a lot of shooters with 4 or even 6 hits on targets that were all theirs. Keep going and sort it out at the end.

[joecichlid]

Chuck, then there are sick and twisted MDs like myself. I am well known for putting a target (or targets) where they can be seen from more than one place just to see how many extra holes they will wind up with during the match although not in a mean spirited way. Did that on Friday night, had one shooter swearing up and down he only shot a pair of targets once yet there were four holes in each of them. I know he shot it twice as I was the one that pasted it before he shot and I was ROing for him as he shot and watched him shoot them from both positions. After he was done shooting and the scoring was done he took a second look at the stage and laughed at himself for shooting those two targets from both positions. lol He was a new shooter in our club so he didn't know about my "style" of stage designs.

It was a fast, fun stage and when I say fast I shot it twice in less than 12 seconds each time and there were eight paper and eight steel (24 rounds). Start was anywhere inside the shoot area, gun loaded and holstered and hands at sur. T4 and T5 *center of the stage* were the ones that seemed to wind up with a LOT of extra holes during the match.

Joe W.

Edited July 26, 2009 by joecichlid

[LPatterson]

[drift] Cool stage, revo friendly. What did you use to draw the stage? [/drift]

[CSEMARTIN]

I am well known for putting a target (or targets) where they can be seen from more than one place just to see how many extra holes they will wind up with during the match although not in a mean spirited way.

Joe W.

My issue is targets that haven't been pasted that can only be engaged from one shooting position. There is no debate....the target didn't get pasted. I'm very happy if the SO can tell which holes came out of my gun....that's just wonderful!! But what about the extra time or confusion it causes? What do you do if it's not an isolated even?

The only thing I could find is rule 4.5.2.

4.5.2 The competitor may request that Match Officials take corrective actions to ensure consistency in respect of the range surface, the presentation of targets and/or any other matter. The Range Master will have final authority concerning all such requests.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Flexmoney
to add in the rule wording

[SA Friday]

LOL!!! I know I love messing with ya.

So if there is a difference in the caliber of the shooter prior it would be a reshoot?

Depends,

If the previous shooter was shooting a .40 or .45 and you were shooting a .355 and you had a miss on the untapped target and the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars. Then maybe you could get the reshoot.

Sorry Alan, but I disagree. You cannot determine if the miss was legitimate or if one .355 round went through one of those .40-.45 caliber holes. Pinman gets a reshoot (and owes me a beer.)

[George Jones]

When scoring a target which has (assumably) not been pasted, only evidence on the target is used to make that determination. The use of a previous scoresheet implies that you are certain the extra holes were not created by pasters falling off, and further implies that you are certain that it is the correct scoresheet and that the targets were without doubt scored and recorded in the very same order.

You either see it on the target or you don't.

[twodownzero]

When scoring a target which has (assumably) not been pasted, only evidence on the target is used to make that determination. The use of a previous scoresheet implies that you are certain the extra holes were not created by pasters falling off, and further implies that you are certain that it is the correct scoresheet and that the targets were without doubt scored and recorded in the very same order.

You either see it on the target or you don't.

I think this is important to note. Thanks for posting that.

[Flexmoney]

When scoring a target which has (assumably) not been pasted, only evidence on the target is used to make that determination. The use of a previous scoresheet implies that you are certain the extra holes were not created by pasters falling off, and further implies that you are certain that it is the correct scoresheet and that the targets were without doubt scored and recorded in the very same order.

You either see it on the target or you don't.

George, is there wording to support that point of view ? (only evidence "on the target"?)

[George Jones]

When scoring a target which has (assumably) not been pasted, only evidence on the target is used to make that determination. The use of a previous scoresheet implies that you are certain the extra holes were not created by pasters falling off, and further implies that you are certain that it is the correct scoresheet and that the targets were without doubt scored and recorded in the very same order.

You either see it on the target or you don't.

George, is there wording to support that point of view ? (only evidence "on the target"?)

I think you're pulling bait here, but here goes anyway.

Caveat - this is my opinion only and you know where to go for an official answer.

Rule 9.1.4 uses the word "obvious". As I've already mentioned, something fished out from the scoresheet bin, which has not been maintained to a strict standard of accountability does not (IMO) qualify as "obvious". Further, you cannot show me any irrefutable proof that the extra holes were not simply caused by pasters falling off prior to the shooter arriving at that shooting position.

All rules under 9.5 refer to various indications on the targets. Also, 9.6.4 and 9.6.7 refer quite clearly to evidence on the target.

Nowhere will you find any reference to something outside the target's borders. Way too many unrelated possibilities which prevent consideration of that information as foolproof.

It's about what the rules actually say (one of your own standard responses), not what each of us choose to infer or might like to have happen.

[spanky]

Troy told us the same thing at a recent RO class. He said you can only go by what's on the target and cannot use the previous scoresheet.

[Flexmoney]

It's about what the rules actually say (one of your own standard responses), not what each of us choose to infer or might like to have happen.

Right, that is why I asked if you had some wording that supported your point of view.

(Discussion is good...I am not baiting you.)

I will refute this:

something fished out from the scoresheet bin, which has not been maintained to a strict standard of accountability does not (IMO) qualify as "obvious".

I assume you are talking about a score sheet? Which is...in fact...a definitive document. I would think that it has been maintained properly. If it hasn't, then we are in real trouble and wasting our time, no ?

It would seem plain that the score sheet is an exact record of a shooter's run on a course of fire. I think that is given.

Therefore, the question becomes one of whether the definitive document is representative of a consistent scoring order. In other words... Is T4 the same for everybody? Are the RO's scoring the targets in the exact same order? Or, more precisely...

9.1.4...the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined.

That could go either way, IMO. Either you can make an accurate determination...or you can't.

[Alan Meek]

LOL!!! I know I love messing with ya.

So if there is a difference in the caliber of the shooter prior it would be a reshoot?

Depends,

If the previous shooter was shooting a .40 or .45 and you were shooting a .355 and you had a miss on the untapped target and the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars. Then maybe you could get the reshoot.

Sorry Alan, but I disagree. You cannot determine if the miss was legitimate or if one .355 round went through one of those .40-.45 caliber holes. Pinman gets a reshoot (and owes me a beer.)

I agree, I was pulling Pinmans leg.

Alan

[George Jones]

(Discussion is good...I am not baiting you.)

Agreed, I'm just never sure about you....

I will refute this:

something fished out from the scoresheet bin, which has not been maintained to a strict standard of accountability does not (IMO) qualify as "obvious".

I assume you are talking about a score sheet? Which is...in fact...a definitive document. I would think that it has been maintained properly. If it hasn't, then we are in real trouble and wasting our time, no ?

It would seem plain that the score sheet is an exact record of a shooter's run on a course of fire. I think that is given.

Therefore, the question becomes one of whether the definitive document is representative of a consistent scoring order. In other words... Is T4 the same for everybody? Are the RO's scoring the targets in the exact same order? Or, more precisely...

And there lies the rub. You "think it has been maintained properly". You take it as "a given". That is simply your assumption and in no way an assurance of reliable evidence.

As Rule 9.7.4 states: "..the time, scores and penalties...are accurate and unconstested". It is not evidence, nor is it required to be, of an exact record of the run, to include the exact order in which the targets were recorded. Granted, a proficient crew should make every effort to do that since it's simply good practice and reduces scoresheet errors. But if the targets are recorded out of sequence (such as is often the case on stages with disappearing targets) the score is still correct.

Would you really want to require every scoresheet to be absolutely exact in every detail? Can you imagine the time which would be spent initialing all the corrections during the scoring process everytime a hit is recorded on the "wrong" line? Or for that matter, the length of the line outside the arbitration shack?

So, no! A previous scoresheet is not evidence. It's what's on the target.

[mhs]

(Discussion is good...I am not baiting you.)

Agreed, I'm just never sure about you....

I will refute this:

something fished out from the scoresheet bin, which has not been maintained to a strict standard of accountability does not (IMO) qualify as "obvious".

I assume you are talking about a score sheet? Which is...in fact...a definitive document. I would think that it has been maintained properly. If it hasn't, then we are in real trouble and wasting our time, no ?

It would seem plain that the score sheet is an exact record of a shooter's run on a course of fire. I think that is given.

Therefore, the question becomes one of whether the definitive document is representative of a consistent scoring order. In other words... Is T4 the same for everybody? Are the RO's scoring the targets in the exact same order? Or, more precisely...

And there lies the rub. You "think it has been maintained properly". You take it as "a given". That is simply your assumption and in no way an assurance of reliable evidence.

As Rule 9.7.4 states: "..the time, scores and penalties...are accurate and unconstested". It is not evidence, nor is it required to be, of an exact record of the run, to include the exact order in which the targets were recorded. Granted, a proficient crew should make every effort to do that since it's simply good practice and reduces scoresheet errors. But if the targets are recorded out of sequence (such as is often the case on stages with disappearing targets) the score is still correct.

Would you really want to require every scoresheet to be absolutely exact in every detail? Can you imagine the time which would be spent initialing all the corrections during the scoring process everytime a hit is recorded on the "wrong" line? Or for that matter, the length of the line outside the arbitration shack?

So, no! A previous scoresheet is not evidence. It's what's on the target.

So how about if the previous scoresheet is all alphas?

[George Jones]

So how about if the previous scoresheet is all alphas?

Until we have a rule which says "If the previous shooter's scoresheet is all Alphas.....", I stand by my opinion.

[Flexmoney]

And there lies the rub. You "think it has been maintained properly". You take it as "a given". That is simply your assumption and in no way an assurance of reliable evidence.

George, I seriously don't understand your perspective. If the score sheets are "not reliable evidence" then what the heck are we doing with them? How can they be turned in for score?

Let me give an example (without getting into why the target wasn't taped...different story):

Let's say there is a CRO named Kyle, and working with him is an RO named Steve. Lets also say that Kyle and Steve have worked quite a few Major matches together and have (literally) ran thousands of shooters.

Now, Kyle is pretty meticulous about how he scores his stage. Steve understands this, completely, and is on the same page. They start their score of the stage at the exact same target each and every time and score the targets in the exact same order each and every time. You could set your watch by these guys.

Along comes shooter Jerry. Jerry shoots the stage, Kyle calls the scores and Steve records them. Kyle and Steve both remember that Jerry shot T4 with a dead-center Alpha and a Charlie that was about 1 inch out at about 3 o'clock. Steve, the RO, completes and signs the score sheet. Jerry, the shooter, signs the score sheet as well.

On the reset, T4 doesn't get taped for the next shooter.

Next shooter is Larry. Larry shoots his stage and Kyle and Steve are in their roles and doing their scoring. Kyle gets to T4 and it has 4 (same caliber) holes in it. 3 Alphas and 1 Charlie.

Kyle remembers the prior hits on the target. Steve independently confirms the same. Jerry does as well. But, not wanting to rely on "memory", Kyle asks Steve to pull out Jerry's score sheet to confirm. The score sheet agrees as well. Kyle asks Steve to confirm if these targets were scored in the same order..."Yup, exactly the same, every time".

14 paper targets on this stage x 2 hits per target x how ever many shooters were at this Area match...not one paster has fallen off.

This Range Office considers it obvious that an accurate score can be determined for Larry on T4.

[George Jones]

George, I seriously don't understand your perspective. If the score sheets are "not reliable evidence" then what the heck are we doing with them? How can they be turned in for score?

We use them so that the shooter's score can be transmitted to Stats.

It's not about you, or "Kyle", or "Steve", or "Jerry", or any conjured scenario where pasters have not fallen off. It's about everybody and every scoresheet and about what the rules say.

This is just like that "counting timer" you regularly bring up. You have your conviction and you want to present a very narrow situation as proof that your opinion is correct. That's not how the rules work. They need to work all the time for everyone, including those instances where humans are at work and make mistakes. None of us, except maybe for the imaginary ROs you mentioned, are perfect.

[Flexmoney]

Okkkaaay...

It's about what the rules actually say (one of your own standard responses), not what each of us choose to infer or might like to have happen.

Please feel free to quote your rule book source that is your basis. I quoted mine.

[edit to add...]

... you want to present a very narrow situation as proof that your opinion is correct.

Yeah... Of course mine actually happened. I'm not having pasters fall off to support my point of view.

Take care, George. I've got to go to dinner. It's been fun beating this around with you.

[George Jones]

Okkkaaay...

It's about what the rules actually say (one of your own standard responses), not what each of us choose to infer or might like to have happen.

Please feel free to quote your rule book source that is your basis. I quoted mine.

I hate to have to repeat myself so I will leave you to your convictions.

[mhs]

So how about if the previous scoresheet is all alphas?

Until we have a rule which says "If the previous shooter's scoresheet is all Alphas.....", I stand by my opinion.

As far as I can tell, your opinion is based on the fact that scoresheets, although presumed to have correct totals, may not have the targets scored in the same order each time.

I brought up a situation in which the order doesn't matter. What is your opinion based on now?

If I'm CRO of a stage and tell a competitor that he must reshoot, even though the previous shooter had all alphas, what rule should I quote?

[George Jones]

So how about if the previous scoresheet is all alphas?

Until we have a rule which says "If the previous shooter's scoresheet is all Alphas.....", I stand by my opinion.

As far as I can tell, your opinion is based on the fact that scoresheets, although presumed to have correct totals, may not have the targets scored in the same order each time.

I brought up a situation in which the order doesn't matter. What is your opinion based on now?

If I'm CRO of a stage and tell a competitor that he must reshoot, even though the previous shooter had all alphas, what rule should I quote?

You are correct as to why I say scoresheets are not useable evidence.

A rule has to apply to all situations, not just to a very narrow (and rare) profile. Most commonly, scoresheets are less than clean and legible, much less in the exact order that the targets were scored - assuming that the stage is even scored in the very same way everytime. A rule has to apply as correctly at Level I matches as it does at the Nationals where you would expect a more knowledgeable and disciplined staff.

You would need to quote a rule to allow you to use anything other than the target. There is none.

I don't think there's much more I can say on this one.

[CSEMARTIN]

If the stage is not set the same for all competitors, it is by definition not fair and equal for all the competitors.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a rule that also defines a range failure as one in which the targets weren't reset and/or pasted the same for every other competitor?

[Nik Habicht]

Kyle,

I started out not agreeing with George -- and then I read 9.1.4 again:

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.

I think you're hanging your argument on the part in bold --- and I wanted to go there with you. I cannot however ignore the underlined part -- which I think supports George's position, that we need to base the call on what we see on the target.

Consider for a moment that in your perfect scenario, T4 was actually taped between shooters. You watched Larry shoot it twice, and only twice, yet when you go to score it, the same four holes are there -- three alphas and a charlie. Now consider that I (or someone else you deem as trustworthy and reliable as Moneypenny or you)tell you that I taped the target? What's your call?

[mhs]

The confusing part of all this for me is that these parts of 9.1.4:

"the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined." and "For the purpose of this rule, B-zone and C-zone hits shall be considered one and the same."

Seem to mean that if an accurate score can be determined, even if you don't know which 2 of the 4 A hits were which shooter's, all is good.

While this part:

"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."

Explicitly states that you need to know who made which hole.

[Jake Di Vita]

I think you're hanging your argument on the part in bold --- and I wanted to go there with you. I cannot however ignore the underlined part -- which I think supports George's position, that we need to base the call on what we see on the target.

Consider for a moment that in your perfect scenario, T4 was actually taped between shooters. You watched Larry shoot it twice, and only twice, yet when you go to score it, the same four holes are there -- three alphas and a charlie. Now consider that I (or someone else you deem as trustworthy and reliable as Moneypenny or you)tell you that I taped the target? What's your call?

With the confirmation of both ROs and the previous shooter and the score sheet, it sure seems like the scoring hits were obvious which qualifies the underlined part.

Regardless, that rule directly labels this as a judgement call by the RO.