Do you get a “reshoot” for untapped targets?

[Flexmoney]

Flex, what happens in your scenario from the last page if the pasters just fell off when the shooter shot the target? If you apply the logic you outlined and the previous shooter had 2 A's but when the next shooter shot and a C paster blew/fell/or other wise became unstuck he would be given a C instead of 2 A's.

I'm not sure which scenario you are referencing. There are a couple.

But, logic changes as the situation changes. If you have a situation with pasters falling off, then that is a different set of circumstances, and should be dealt with as such.

It's the guy (regardless of situation) that just looks at the target and orders up a reshoot that is going to get it wrong. He might be requiring the shooter to do a reshoot that may not be necessary. (because an accurate score can be determined)

[Strick]

I'm not sure which scenario you are referencing. There are a couple.

But, logic changes as the situation changes. If you have a situation with pasters falling off, then that is a different set of circumstances, and should be dealt with as such.

It's the guy (regardless of situation) that just looks at the target and orders up a reshoot that is going to get it wrong. He might be requiring the shooter to do a reshoot that may not be necessary. (because an accurate score can be determined)

I was referencing the scenario about the RO's always scoring the targets the same way every time and remembering the shots ( this post....http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=87686&view=findpost&p=1232390 ). You stated that it could be clearly shown which were the previous shooters hits since everything is always the same and you could go back to the score to determine it. That only works if you know for a fact the targets were not taped but it does not work if tape fell off during the COF without being noticed. If you follow your example and you have to base the whole thing on an assumption and you just wrongly scored the shooter.

[Nik Habicht]

If I'm the RM, that might very well be a question you'd get: Do you remember the previous competitor's hits for the entire stage? How about the guy before that? Memory's a funny thing -- not always reliable....

Beyond that you'd get questions like this: Are you positive the target wasn't taped? How do you know? Has someone owned up to not taping that? How about the rest of the squad? Could one or more pasters have flown or fallen off the target?

At that point as a RM, all you are doing is questioning my ability as an RO. If I tell you I'm sure of something, and you still question me - well that just doesn't sound quite right does it.

Trust but verify. Are you really going to be offended if an RM does his job -- asking a couple of questions to ascertain whether your surety has some basis in reality? 'Cause I meet plenty of people in my line of work who are sure of something, until I probe with a couple of questions....

Bottom line -- all competitors in the match deserve an accurate score

We are in agreement. In Kyle's example, did that shooter not receive his accurate score? Was it not done as a judgement call by the RO because the scores were obvious to him?

That particular shooter certainly did -- I trust Kyle implicitly. I'm less sure that a single anecdote is grounds for adopting that particular approach as a best practice....

[ima45dv8]

Our local Level I matches generally have the squads RO themselves. There's a lot of rotating with the timer and the clipboard. No way would I want to make a call based on the assumption that every shooter had every target scored and recorded in the exact same sequential order on every squad.

But at Level II and above matches I work, I finally learned the benefit of scoring the stage the exact same way in the exact same order for every shooter. I didn't always know it, but it did finally 'Click'. Whenever possible, and rarely it isn't because of the layout of a certain stage. . . . .be methodical. Make a hard, fast routine for every shooter and don't deviate.

Like Kyle I've been able to work some matches with like-minded individuals who also saw the benefit. Because of that teaming I could tell anyone to an absolute certainty what the target scores were for the previous shooter from their scoresheet, and in most cases that is powerful knowledge to have.

The rules of this game require me to determine a score that accurately reflects the competitor's attempt at the course of fire. I don't think it's wrong to use whatever iron clad tools are available.

=================

*I still support the idea that an unrestored range, including paper targets, should be considered Range Equipment Failure and a Re-shoot. The CRO/RO is as much a piece of Range Equipment as a Texas Star or a Swinger. If he doesn't present the exact same ch allege to each shooter, that's REF whether the rules acknowledge that or not.

[aztecdriver]

Our local Level I matches generally have the squads RO themselves. There's a lot of rotating with the timer and the clipboard. No way would I want to make a call based on the assumption that every shooter had every target scored and recorded in the exact same sequential order on every squad.

But at Level II and above matches I work, I finally learned the benefit of scoring the stage the exact same way in the exact same order for every shooter. I didn't always know it, but it did finally 'Click'. Whenever possible, and rarely it isn't because of the layout of a certain stage. . . . .be methodical. Make a hard, fast routine for every shooter and don't deviate.

Like Kyle I've been able to work some matches with like-minded individuals who also saw the benefit. Because of that teaming I could tell anyone to an absolute certainty what the target scores were for the previous shooter from their scoresheet, and in most cases that is powerful knowledge to have.

The rules of this game require me to determine a score that accurately reflects the competitor's attempt at the course of fire. I don't think it's wrong to use whatever iron clad tools are available.

=================

*I still support the idea that an unrestored range, including paper targets, should be considered Range Equipment Failure and a Re-shoot. The CRO/RO is as much a piece of Range Equipment as a Texas Star or a Swinger. If he doesn't present the exact same ch allege to each shooter, that's REF whether the rules acknowledge that or not.

I hate +1s, but I agree. When I've done this at level IIs - it's been methodical and the same every time, and I could go back at the previous score sheets and determine what the last scoring hits were - whether I was the guy holding the timer - or the guy resetting the swinger. I've also see the havoc, first hand, that an unrestored target can do to a guys run - even when he shoots the target 5 times. Duh - the score is 2 A - I can determine that - and he can't argue it. What he can argue was the two holes I saw in the hardcover portion of the target distracted me and I came BACK to it and shot it 3 more times. My time - eh, not going to make THAT much difference, but it will - GMs and Ms (this guy was an M) yeah - it makes a difference.

We failed him - I felt BAD but it's not in the rulebook for me to help him. It should be.

[George Jones]

The rules of this game require me to determine a score that accurately reflects the competitor's attempt at the course of fire. I don't think it's wrong to use whatever iron clad tools are available.

Without an absolute guarantee that the evidence is iron clad, it is not evidence at all. What is iron clad, regardless of the relative quality of the staff, is what you see on the targets - the stuff that happened during that run.

The rules need to work with the "average" as well as the "exceptional". I think it's unrelalistic to consider designing a rule for exceptional staff (who can still make mistakes) and yet expect it to work equitably everywhere else.

*I still support the idea that an unrestored range, including paper targets, should be considered Range Equipment Failure and a Re-shoot. The CRO/RO is as much a piece of Range Equipment as a Texas Star or a Swinger. If he doesn't present the exact same ch allege to each shooter, that's REF whether the rules acknowledge that or not.

The problem is that not all "unpasted holes" are the result of "staff malfunction". We should not make that assumption when there are a number of other possibilities.

The best we can do is to work our stages in an organized and professional manner. A good CRO knows what that means and we all need to share that knowledge and those skills with our co-workers.

This rule has been scrutinized many times before, yet it remains. Like you, until it's changed (and I don't believe it should be) I'll stick with what the rulebook allows.

[ima45dv8]

The rules of this game require me to determine a score that accurately reflects the competitor's attempt at the course of fire. I don't think it's wrong to use whatever iron clad tools are available.

Without an absolute guarantee that the evidence is iron clad, it is not evidence at all. What is iron clad, regardless of the relative quality of the staff, is what you see on the targets - the stuff that happened during that run.

The rules need to work with the "average" as well as the "exceptional". I think it's unrelalistic to consider designing a rule for exceptional staff (who can still make mistakes) and yet expect it to work equitably everywhere else.

I don't recall advocating a rule change or design to apply in the instance of determining an accurate score. There's no real reason to. We're already required to consider all available meaningful data. If anyone else elects not to use a previous competitor's scoresheet for any reason, that's up to them and I would defend whatever decision they made. And I'd trust you to know what you can or can't believe at that moment, be it a scoresheet, or your vantage point, or your scorekeeper.

*I still support the idea that an unrestored range, including paper targets, should be considered Range Equipment Failure and a Re-shoot. The CRO/RO is as much a piece of Range Equipment as a Texas Star or a Swinger. If he doesn't present the exact same ch allege to each shooter, that's REF whether the rules acknowledge that or not.

The problem is that not all "unpasted holes" are the result of "staff malfunction". We should not make that assumption when there are a number of other possibilities.

The best we can do is to work our stages in an organized and professional manner. A good CRO knows what that means and we all need to share that knowledge and those skills with our co-workers.

This rule has been scrutinized many times before, yet it remains. Like you, until it's changed (and I don't believe it should be) I'll stick with what the rulebook allows.

I agree that not all unpasted holes are the fault of range staff, but enough clearly are that I'd be willing to err on the side of the shooter if the rules allowed it. They don't, so I don't.

[Jake Di Vita]

George

in your own example you say the only thing iron clad is the score on the targets. Is a signed scoresheet not a picture of that iron clad event? If so, how can it be questionable a minute after it is considered iron clad?

If score sheets are not evidence, I don't understand how we can use them to compute score.

[Singlestack]

George

in your own example you say the only thing iron clad is the score on the targets. Is a signed scoresheet not a picture of that iron clad event? If so, how can it be questionable a minute after it is considered iron clad?

If score sheets are not evidence, I don't understand how we can use them to compute score.

Because there is no way to absolutely 100% guarantee that the score sheet was scored in the order you think it might have been.

[Jake Di Vita]

So if I'm the RO and I do it the same every single time, I can't guarantee that it was done the same?

[Nik Habicht]

So if I'm the RO and I do it the same every single time, I can't guarantee that it was done the same?

Sure you might be able to --- but what George is really asking is"How can you be certain that you were dealing with an untaped target?" If you were certain the target was untaped prior to the competitor's attempt at the stage (e.g. you know that the pasters didn't unstick, get knocked off by a prior shot fired, blown off by the breeze,etc) then why didn't you see to it that the target was pasted in the first place?

You're assuming that a target was left untaped. That's not the only way that a target can have excess holes in it....

[Strick]

George

in your own example you say the only thing iron clad is the score on the targets. Is a signed scoresheet not a picture of that iron clad event? If so, how can it be questionable a minute after it is considered iron clad?

If score sheets are not evidence, I don't understand how we can use them to compute score.

The only thing the score sheet is evidence of is how the previous shooter shot. It should not be considered evidence as to how the current shooter performed.

[Singlestack]

So if I'm the RO and I do it the same every single time, I can't guarantee that it was done the same?

How? IMO, there is no evidence other than your memory and I can't see that. We are also dealing with two people. One calling and one writing. How do I know the one writing wrote it down the same way?

[George Jones]

So if I'm the RO and I do it the same every single time, I can't guarantee that it was done the same?

The three posts which replied to your question list the problems with "certainty".

The only way that I could support a rule which would allow use of the previous scoresheet as evidence is if it was absolutely, no doubt, unpasted holes and that every scoresheet in the match (all levels of match) were absolutely, no doubt, exactly correct in the order every single hit was recorded.

That's simply not possible and therefore unreasonable to do so.

[Jake Di Vita]

Well a pretty easy way to make sure that every score sheet scores the targets in the same order is to number each target stand and instruct all your ROs to do that from the beginning. If we can't trust our ROs to do something this simple, maybe we shouldn't be using those people as ROs.

You guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Flexmoney]

The rules need to work with the "average" as well as the "exceptional".

Umm...this rules says to use judgement and determine if you can get an accurate score, or not. So, it applies to the average and the exception...by design of the rule.

I think it's unrelalistic to consider designing a rule for exceptional staff (who can still make mistakes) and yet expect it to work equitably everywhere else.

It's not an "everywhere else" thing. It's a determination...in any effort to give the shooter the score they earned on their first run...if that score reflects an accurate representation of their run. If it doesn't, then you gotta order up the reshoot.

[Flexmoney]

That particular shooter certainly did -- I trust Kyle implicitly. I'm less sure that a single anecdote is grounds for adopting that particular approach as a best practice....

As I said, it not an anecdote. It's an actuality.

And, it's not a best practice. The more fundamental, best practice part...heck, the rule...says use judgement to figure out if an accurate score can be determine.

It't not a steadfast one-size-fits-all...all the time. I know that there have been many times where a accurate score couldn't be determined. There, you are stuck with ordering up a reshoot.

Our local Level I matches generally have the squads RO themselves. There's a lot of rotating with the timer and the clipboard. No way would I want to make a call based on the assumption that every shooter had every target scored and recorded in the exact same sequential order on every squad.

Right...and, why would you? Clearly that is a case where an accurate score cannot likely be determined by the RO.

You'd be following the rule by using your judgement to order a reshoot in that situation.

But at Level II and above matches I work, I finally learned the benefit of scoring the stage the exact same way in the exact same order for every shooter. I didn't always know it, but it did finally 'Click'. Whenever possible, and rarely it isn't because of the layout of a certain stage. . . . .be methodical. Make a hard, fast routine for every shooter and don't deviate.

Egg-zachary right.

[Flexmoney]

* Straw Man Argument ALERT* - Absolutes and pasters falling off

I was hoping that line of thinking would shrivel up and go away...out of it's own weakness.

So, I guess I have to kill the straw man. Here is the thing on absolutes...

Walk up to the very next paper target you score...at any match...anywhere. Look at the (assumed) two holes in that target and tell me...with iron clad absolute surety...that the shooter didn't miss that target, twice, and that the holes shown are not from pasters falling off.

[Strick]

Please tell me that you were laughing the whole time you were typing that.

[Flexmoney]

I find the whole argument of "how do you KNOW paster didn't fall off"... humorous .

[JThompson]

* Straw Man Argument ALERT* - Absolutes and pasters falling off

I was hoping that line of thinking would shrivel up and go away...out of it's own weakness.

So, I guess I have to kill the straw man. Here is the thing on absolutes...

Walk up to the very next paper target you score...at any match...anywhere. Look at the (assumed) two holes in that target and tell me...with iron clad absolute surety...that the shooter didn't miss that target, twice, and that the holes shown are not from pasters falling off.

Here's to having heavy wind and sub standard pasters when I mike one.

[Strick]

I find the whole argument of "how do you KNOW paster didn't fall off"... humorous .

Which is why the benefit of doubt should always go to the shooter, no the RO or the previous shooters score.

[Flexmoney]

I find the whole argument of "how do you KNOW paster didn't fall off"... humorous .

Which is why the benefit of doubt should always go to the shooter, no the RO or the previous shooters score.

Yeah...sure... just order up reshoots every single time you cannot prove with "absolute iron clad certainty" that the holes in a target are not from pasters falling off. Give the shooters that "benefit" of your doubt. Walk up to T1, look at the 2 holes, and instead of calling the hits...call for a reshoot...cause ya just aren't sure, now are ya?

(Silly argument, huh? Most straw man arguments are.)

[Flexmoney]

The rule here says to determine IF you can record an accurate score of the shooter's run.

It doesn't say to figure out if there are possibilities where you might not be able to determine a score...and then use that as the litmus test to throw everything out.

In most case, you are likely going to be stuck with ordering up a reshoot. In other cases, you can determine an accurate score. So, the shooter doesn't have to reshoot.

[George Jones]

I find the whole argument of "how do you KNOW paster didn't fall off"... humorous .

I find the whole argument of "RO infallibility".... wishful thinking.

Back at ya!