4xa And Some P's Or What ?

[Garfield]

Hi,

Below is a literal translation I made of a post a member of the NPSA (dutch IPSC) forum made and which is now being discussed at that forum. I am interested to see what you guys come up with.

***** CASE STARTS *****

At the end of a long course (without penalty targets) there is a position with another 2 classic targets at 7 meters, that can must shot through an opening in a barricade.

The barricade is 1,5 meters high and the opening is made at 1 meter height, and is app. 20 by 20 centimeters wide. Through the hole it could be possible to view a pepper popper which had to be shot from another position.

In the briefing the RO tells the shooters that all used props in the stage are hardcover. Furthermore the RO says that at the mentioned position the barricade must be thought of to reach the ceiling of the range.

The reason why the barricade is not made higher could be because the RO needs to be able to see the Pepper Popper because shooting the PP at 7 meters will result in a DQ and/or there simply was no higher barricade available.

So far nothing unusual. This is a situation that occurs regularly (of course in slightly modified shapes) at national but also international matches.

And by this I specifically mean the fact that the RO says that part of the barricade must be thought of reaching the ceiling.

But here it is:

Shooter X starts the stage perefectly, all the steel has been shot down and he/she only punches holes in the A-zones of the targets presented, buuuuut .....,

at the last position of the long course mentioned above shooter X does not shoot through the opening in the barricade, but shoots 4x over the barricade, and again 4 perfect A's.

Although shooter X is of the "sneaky" type he has an impeccable reputation from several years of shooting IPSC. He/she therefore has not paid attention at the briefing and/or went blank upon reaching the position. The shooter has an obvious advantage by shooting over the barricade, but he/she has done so unintentionally.

What happens with his/her score ?

How must the score of the last two targets for shooter x be written down on the score-sheet ?

Of course taking into account the fact that the shooter has shot through hardcover 4 times.

Will that be:

a. 4xA and 2xP

b. 4xA and 4xP

c. 4xM

d. 4xM and 2xP

e. 4xM and 4xP

f. 4xM and 6xP

g. DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct ?

***** CASE ENDS *****

What do you guys think ?

I myself thought of 4xM because no hits could have been made through the hardcover and possibly 2xP because of not following procedure, but I tend to stick with 4xM and nothing more. What about FTE ? I think not because even though the shots were "stopped by hardcover" the targets have been fired upon.

[Vince Pinto]

Arvid,

If the competitor achieved 4 Alpha while shooting over the top of the subject "barricade", he gets 4 Alpha plus 4 Procedural Penalties (see Rule 10.1.4.1).

Having said that, I think a "barricade" only 1.5 metres high is evidence of poor course construction. If you want to give the RO a clearer view of the COF, the hard cover should be constructed of see-through netting, and it should rise at least 2 metres high, to avoid "temptation".

The "barricade" was effectively nothing more than a 1.5 metre high charge line! Hence, the competitor did not "shoot through" (imaginary) hard cover. However if the competitor shot through netting, then his score would be 4 Miss and 1 Procedural for failing to shoot through the port.

Also, if you can see the Popper through the hole in the hard cover, you should be able to shoot it. If the Popper is too close, then the Popper should not be visible through the port.

Hope this answers your question.

[Garfield]

Hi Vince,

Thanks for your reaction. So It cannot be briefed that the barricade is imagined hard-cover all the way to the ceiling ? Interesting.

With your permission I am cutting-and-pasting your reaction onto our NPSA forum, the discussion there is still going on !

[Vince Pinto]

Arvid,

Feel free to put me into more deep doo-doo

It's unfair and unresonable to expect a competitor to "imagine" the presence of hard cover. The course builder should either physically create the hard cover (ideally out of cheap see-through materials such as netting), or redesign the COF so that competitors can shoot at targets on a "as an when visible" basis.

With netting, a competitor has a well defined "no shooting" zone and the RO has a clear view of the COF. The "barricade" you mentioned should only be used to prevent a competitor from approaching metal targets too closely.

It's very clear to competitors if the written course briefing says "All netting is deemed to be hard cover" and you can easily tell if a shot passes through it, but it's really vague to say "The empty space above this chunk of wood is hard cover".

[Flexmoney]

Ditto. Especially the stage design stuff.

Vince, a question just popped into my head. What if a shooter fails to engage a target from a position where that target is visable. But, knowing where the target is, they throw a shot into the hardcover that is hiding/guarding that target.

(I don't know that I explained that very well?)

Of course, the shooter will get the Mike's, would they also get the FTE?

[sincityshooter]

This would be a horrible stage design, but what if you had a course of fire with a 10+ HF 20 rounds and then there was a target 30 yards down range hidden behind a wall or barrel making the shooter run 30 yards to engage. I think what Flex was saying was if you wing a shot down towards the target, 2 misses would probably be better than 2 A's with 5 seconds added. If the target wasn't visible, would there be a failure to engage? Hmmmm.... bad course design.

[Flexmoney]

Sin,

I am sure we could think up a course where the situation could arise.

The more I think about it, it sounds like a FTE...since the target is not "visable". But, we would be walking the line a bit...perhaps a shooter simply missed while shooting thru a port (around a wall, etc.) and hit hardcover?

I might have to dig the rule book out and "explain" the procedural.

[Vince Pinto]

Flex,

What if a shooter fails to engage a target from a position where that target is visable. But, knowing where the target is, they throw a shot into the hardcover that is hiding/guarding that target.

Tough call to make here - I'd need to see it happen.

If the shot into the hard cover looked like it arose from a genuine attempt at the actual target, I obviously won't give him the procedural. However if it was blatantly a wild shot, I probably would give him the procedural. The test question is "Did the competitor make a reasonable attempt to shoot at the target?".

Of course if the shot was waaaaaaay off target then, hell, he might even get a match DQ for having a discharge on the move while not actually shooting at a target.

SSC,

Yes, if the target was not visible, there's no way you can shoot at it, so a "shot in the dark" will definitely get you a procedural and two misses. Obviously you cannot claim to have shot at a target if you can't see it.

[wide45]

You can't get a failure to engage. Now its failure to shoot at.

Assuming plywood, mesh, or other "soft" hard cover

You can't engage a target through hard cover. Engaging the target implies an attemp to score on it. You can shoot at a target through hard cover. Shooting at the target does not require that the hole might score.

Obviously you cannot claim to have shot at a target if you can't see it.

Not following this. If there are holes in the target, how could you claim I did not shoot at it? If the RO observes the competitor firing in the direction of a target, he has shot at the target, regardless of what score he attained on that target.

I've shot at targets I could not see, behind soft cover. Are you saying that those shots should have been scored as misses? Failure to shoot at?

Nothing personal Vince. I get a little upset when I see changes in the rules, instead of improvements.

[Vince Pinto]

Rich,

Nothing personal Vince. I get a little upset when I see changes in the rules, instead of improvements.

Not taken personally, but I have no idea what you mean, because the rules have not changed. If anything, we've improved the language for the January 2004 Edition, so that the rules (established long ago) are easier to understand.

I've shot at targets I could not see, behind soft cover. Are you saying that those shots should have been scored as misses? Failure to shoot at?

No, but there's a whole world of difference between shooting at targets through hard cover and soft cover, and you're confusing the two. This thread has nothing to do with soft cover (it essentially deals with "imaginary" cover), but I'll explain anyway.

Cover designated as "hard" (whether it's transparent or not) means that shots which pass through it and which hit a scoring or penalty target of any description, do not count for score or for penalty, as the case may be. Hard cover represents a target behind a brick wall, and that's why you must be able to see the target from around the hard cover in order for you to achieve a score on it.

Cover designated as "soft" must, by definition, be transparent, and the whole target must be available intact (i.e. partial targets are not permitted behind soft cover). Soft cover represents a target behind a curtain or tinted glass, so you have no choice but to shoot at it through the soft cover, even if you don't have a clear shot.

FYI, the relevant rules in the January 2004 Edition of the IPSC rulebook are:

4.1.4 Targets used in a course of fire may be partially or wholly hidden through the use of hard or soft cover, as follows:

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered hard cover. When possible hard cover should not be simulated but constructed using impenetrable materials.

4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure the view of targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score. Shots that have passed through soft cover before hitting a penalty target will be penalized. All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact.

Hope this helps.

[Vince Pinto]

Arvid,

So, what did the guys in The Netherlands say in response to my comments?

What about the guys in Holland?

And what about the Dutch ?

[wide45]

Some of the other replies on this thread mentioned failure to engage penalties. I pointed out that they no longer exist.

This was in context of deliberately shooting through hard cover, accepting that no hits would score, but there would be no penalties other than misses.