Whats the Call?

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

This happened today.

I will fess up - I wrote this match AND I set the targets.

And I am the shooter this situation happened to, so no secrets or hidden agendas.

 

When I wrote the match, I "thought" I could set a couple targets in such a way that there would be space between them.

When I got to the range and attempted to place the target array I had dreamed up, it turned out the targets would overlap.

And I chose not to change the stage or target array - so thats my fault.

 

I was using two large roundish targets (approx. 30") placed high on stands next to each other.

In front of these targets were two 16" squares placed low on stands next to each othter.

 

The idea was to have two large targets high and two smaller targets placed low.

Imagine 2 figure 8's with overlapping top and bottom plates.

But this placement did not create any space between the lower edge of the upper target and the upper edge of the lower target. There was an approx. 2" overlap. No separation to allow for a clean miss.

 

Stage called for 5 rounds alternating diagonally on one large plate and one small plate and then 5 rounds alternating diagonally on the remaining large plate and remaining small plate.

In shooting one of the 5 round strings - I engaged upper left - lower right - upper left - lower right - upper left. Except on my last round intended for upper left, the barrel didn't quite make it high enough and the shot caught the top of the LOWER LEFT plate.

If the LOWER LEFT plate had not been there - the shot would have struck the Upper Left plate as intended.

No question whatsoever about the sequence of events.

 

Whats the call?

Miss - P - No call?

 

 

Now to the 2nd part.

If the call is a "No Call" as I believe it should be.

Here is what concerns me - and this part is strictly Hypothetical.

If striking the lower left target - creates a no call condition, because there is no space for a clean miss.

 

Does this open the potential can of worms that a shooter "could" simply shoot the targets side to side and not even bother to attempt to move their guns diagonally - knowing a "P" can not be called because of the impossibility of a clean miss?

 

I understand the targets were set poorly - but does improper target set release the shooter from their liabilities as well?

[Griff]

If the TO feels the shooter shot it in that manner to gain an advantage... SOG. Although, if I were the TO, & I wasn't sure they were doin' it onpurpose, I would attempt to stop them mid stream and WARN them they were headed for the SOG, to unload the balance of their rounds/guns, and get in line to re-shoot.

 

Edited to add: "Short answer = NO."

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

This happened today.

I will fess up - I wrote this match AND I set the targets.

And I am the shooter this situation happened to, so no secrets or hidden agendas.

 

When I wrote the match, I "thought" I could set a couple targets in such a way that there would be space between them.

When I got to the range and attempted to place the target array I had dreamed up, it turned out the targets would overlap.

And I chose not to change the stage or target array - so thats my fault.

 

I was using two large roundish targets (approx. 30") placed high on stands next to each other.

In front of these targets were two 16" squares placed low on stands next to each othter.

 

The idea was to have two large targets high and two smaller targets placed low.

Imagine 2 figure 8's with overlapping top and bottom plates.

But this placement did not create any space between the lower edge of the upper target and the upper edge of the lower target. There was an approx. 2" overlap. No separation to allow for a clean miss.

 

Stage called for 5 rounds alternating diagonally on one large plate and one small plate and then 5 rounds alternating diagonally on the remaining large plate and remaining small plate.

In shooting one of the 5 round strings - I engaged upper left - lower right - upper left - lower right - upper left. Except on my last round intended for upper left, the barrel didn't quite make it high enough and the shot caught the top of the LOWER LEFT plate.

If the LOWER LEFT plate had not been there - the shot would have struck the Upper Left plate as intended.

No question whatsoever about the sequence of events.

 

Whats the call?

Miss - P - No call?

 

 

Now to the 2nd part.

If the call is a "No Call" as I believe it should be.

Here is what concerns me - and this part is strictly Hypothetical.

If striking the lower left target - creates a no call condition, because there is no space for a clean miss.

 

Does this open the potential can of worms that a shooter "could" simply shoot the targets side to side and not even bother to attempt to move their guns diagonally - knowing a "P" can not be called because of the impossibility of a clean miss?

 

I understand the targets were set poorly - but does improper target set release the shooter from their liabilities as well?

 

1) Would NOT be a "NO CALL"...if the targets are overlapping w/no "opportunity for a clean miss" on the targets; SOP would be to give the shooter generous "benefit of doubt" and assess a MISS on the intended target instead of a "P" for HITTING the targets "out of order".

 

FWIW - That was the whole point of contention regarding the addition of that statement to the RO1...previously, ANY HIT on the wrong target (of the correct target type for the firearm being used) was scored as a procedural.

 

2) Applying that method of scoring on a "poorly designed stage" with such a target array, a shooter alternating between the top two larger targets instead of alternating diagonally would get at least two misses in lieu of a "P"...(with each revolver)...for a net gain? of 20 seconds instead of one 10-second procedural for the stage

...no advantage; no SOG.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

...UNLESS the shooter actually argued for the one "P" instead of the 4 misses, thus revealing the INTENT to engage in that manner in order to GAIN a "perceived" but mistaken ADVANTAGE...then the shooter could be assessed the SOG penalty in addition to the 4 misses = 50 seconds in penalties.

 

[Black Tom]

wow very interesting, around here people always made it a no call. I never thought that was fair to the shooters who took the time to ensure they hit the right target. This makes no P fair.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Glad PWB explained this one well.

 

I was initially thinking a 'P' but can understand PWB explaination.

 

Hey JEDI Creeker, next time, don't try soooooo hard to have fun. Put alittle space between them 8's.

 

 

..........Widder

[Smokey Shayne]

sounds to me like there was only 1 target hit out of order. Seeing as how the round hit a pistol target, NO miss. Since there wasnt room for a clean miss, NO P.

I ran into this recently at a large match. I was the TO, pretty much the same thing happened. I had spotters calling a P, but I explained the situation to them. No P, no miss.

[Cowboy Junky]

I hate to say it.......and you already know this but the best solution was to not do it. Don't beat me up it's just you needed to re-write it OR fix it ....even if you had to hand write the fix in the stage sheet. IMO what you never want to set a satge up knowing it's wrong and go froward with it awayway.......because the only thing you can count on is it will always cause confusion.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

sounds to me like there was only 1 target hit out of order. Seeing as how the round hit a pistol target, NO miss. Since there wasnt room for a clean miss, NO P.

I ran into this recently at a large match. I was the TO, pretty much the same thing happened. I had spotters calling a P, but I explained the situation to them. No P, no miss.

 

As I noted in post #3...that USED TO BE a "P" (by definition of same)...if there wasn't room for a CLEAN miss, some ROs were, instead, giving the shooter the lesser penalty of a MISS.

...which lead to injecting the following phrase into the "Penalty Overview" (under MISSES):

 

Target placement should always allow a shooter the opportunity for a clean miss to be scored without argument. Overlapping targets of the same type should be avoided if at all possible and should not cause a Procedural "trap" by making it difficult to determine the shooter’s intent when engaging the targets.

RO1 p.23

 

...followed shortly by a convoluted rerouting of the "Miss Flow Chart".

 

[Black Tom]

So in the example given it should be scored as a miss and not a P correct?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

So in the example given it should be scored as a miss and not a P correct?

 

Under the RULES...yes...it is scored as MISS on the (apparently) intended target.

[Buck D. Law, SASS #62183]

Creeker, you have successfully presented a situation in which it appears to me that the Miss Flow Chart fails to identify the correct answer.

 

1) Did the shooter hit all the correct type targets with legally acquired ammo?

Answer: Yes, "Assess no misses."

 

2) Did the shooter engage the targets in the correct order?

If answered yes, "No further call."

If answered no, "Assess Procedural."

 

At no point on the left side does it call for misses. Of course it continues on in the event of someone seeking a competitive advantage toward SOG.

 

The problem is it is assumed a stage writer will always heed the directions on page 23 of RO1: "Target placement should always allow a shooter the opportunity for a clean miss to be scored without argument." I'm not chastising you as it is clear to me that you have presented this as a learning situation for all. I'm familiar with this, what I consider an open door to confusion, with the Miss Flow Chart because I have personally dealt with a situation in which a stage writer knew well in advance that a stage was designed without the opportunity for a clean miss and chose to disregard it.

 

It is my personal opinion that we would be well served to make changes in the Miss Flow Chart to cover this.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

Under the RULES...yes...it is scored as MISS on the (apparently) intended target.

 

By use of the RO 1 flow chart. I called a Procedural penalty on myself.

(I have no desire to have anyone question my ethics or integrity by making calls that benefit me)

 

But had this situation happened to someone else, I would have argued that the caveat of "clean miss" applied, but as the flow chart is currently formatted, your answer (and my sincere belief of "No call") - are not supported by the flow chart.

 

By use of the flow chart - hitting all of the CORRECT type targets with the CORRECT type firearm in the INCORRECT order - the only option is a Procedural.

The flow chart does not give any option for assessing why targets were HIT out fo order - if all the targets were hit.

 

I have read and understand the passage under 5 second penalties, but do not see any wording that would lead me to believe that anything allows us to bypass the flow chart and make judgement calls on shooters intention to determine if a shot is a miss or Procedural.

 

Perhaps I am being a little bit slow on the uptake?

[Rio Brazos Kid]

Creeker,

The correct answer has of course been determined. Procedural plus a miss. No problem there.

 

However, I have to wonder why you left the stage in that condition, knowing full well that it was a problem.

 

You generally are a stickler about such things, so it seems a bit out of character for you to have done so. Normally you would have insisted it be corrected from the start.

 

RBK

[Happy Jack, SASS #20451]

I remember a few years ago at the TG Summit PaleWolf made a statement :(NOT an exact quote) saying that unfortunately the Miss Flow Chart did NOT cover every circumstance. It was a great asset in making nearly all calls but there are some instances where other circumstances prevail. I realize that some improvements in the Flow Chart have been made over the years, but still not every call is clearly covered by it. This is one of those circumstances. At my match I would have definitely called it a miss. (Cleraly NOT supported by the normal rule)

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

Creeker,

The correct answer has of course been determined. Procedural plus a miss. No problem there.

 

However, I have to wonder why you left the stage in that condition, knowing full well that it was a problem.

 

You generally are a stickler about such things, so it seems a bit out of character for you to have done so. Normally you would have insisted it be corrected from the start.

 

RBK

go back to PWB's posts, miss only.

 

CC

[Rio Brazos Kid]

go back to PWB's posts, miss only.

 

CC

My Bad. I quoted the wrong post, which is also running. You are correct, miss only. I fixed it.

 

However, the question I had still stands. Why wasn't the target placing fixed???

 

RBK

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

Creeker,

The correct answer has of course been determined. Procedural plus a miss. No problem there.

 

However, I have to wonder why you left the stage in that condition, knowing full well that it was a problem.

 

You generally are a stickler about such things, so it seems a bit out of character for you to have done so. Normally you would have insisted it be corrected from the start.

 

RBK

Normally - I am more on top of these items (as noted I knew it "could" become an issue").

I will make no excuses except to say,

on our clubs website the stages are posted prior to the match and a fair number of shooters print them out, study and prepare for them before the match, so I am hesitant to change a stage the morning of the match after it has been posted and reviewed for a week.

 

I really liked the scenario and sequence and did not want to take that component out of the match.

 

We set the steel in the morning just prior to the monthly matches - the time constraint was such that I did not have the time

to figure out a different way to accomplish the same design and fix the flaw.

Tho in retrospect - simply changing out the large upper target for a smaller target might have fixed it, but would not have given me the look I wanted.

 

And honestly I was hoping that it would not become an issue. And other than the idiot match director (myself) no one else had any issue.

 

Lastly - I brought this up to get clarification on a situation (overlapping targets) that even tho it is recommended against, has happened before and will happen again (not necessarily at my matches).

Sometimes things happen and when they do - I want to make sure that what we call and how we call it is fair and consistent and within the rules for everyone.

 

And if karma exists - one of the large plates that caused the problem...

I dropped it on my ring finger at match teardown, so the ice and ibuprofen will remind me not to do it again.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Normally - I am more on top of these items (as noted I knew it "could" become an issue").

I will make no excuses except to say,

on our clubs website the stages are posted prior to the match and a fair number of shooters print them out, study and prepare for them before the match, so I am hesitant to change a stage the morning of the match after it has been posted and reviewed for a week.

 

I really liked the scenario and sequence and did not want to take that component out of the match.

Then I'd suggest that the stage writer/MD specify how to handle the situation in the stage directions next time.

 

We set the steel in the morning just prior to the monthly matches - the time constraint was such that I did not have the time

to figure out a different way to accomplish the same design and fix the flaw.

Tho in retrospect - simply changing out the large upper target for a smaller target might have fixed it, but would not have given me the look I wanted.

 

And honestly I was hoping that it would not become an issue. And other than the idiot match director (myself) no one else had any issue.

As it should be.

 

Lastly - I brought this up to get clarification on a situation (overlapping targets) that even tho it is recommended against, has happened before and will happen again (not necessarily at my matches).

Sometimes things happen and when they do - I want to make sure that what we call and how we call it is fair and consistent and within the rules for everyone.

 

And if karma exists - one of the large plates that caused the problem...

I dropped it on my ring finger at match teardown, so the ice and ibuprofen will remind me not to do it again.

 

In order for the "Miss Flow Chart" to work with this, the MISS for hitting an overlapping target (instead of the intended/correct one) must be assessed in response to the very first question ...even though the shooter "hit all the correct type of targets...".

 

From there, it "flows" down the right side of the chart to whether the shooter gets the (deserved, IMO) "P" for hitting the targets "out of order" (EXCEPT for the MISSes).

Plugging in the "miss" for hitting the wrong target (from the first box) calls for a "NO" answer to the "P"? question at that point in the chart.

 

It might be apparent from my responses re: which side I was on when this was being discussed and "resolved".

 

JUST SAY "NO" TO OVERLAPPING TARGETS THAT DO NOT ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A CLEAN MISS...problem solved.

[Buck D. Law, SASS #62183]

I remember a few years ago at the TG Summit PaleWolf made a statement :(NOT an exact quote) saying that unfortunately the Miss Flow Chart did NOT cover every circumstance. It was a great asset in making nearly all calls but there are some instances where other circumstances prevail. I realize that some improvements in the Flow Chart have been made over the years, but still not every call is clearly covered by it. This is one of those circumstances. At my match I would have definitely called it a miss. (Cleraly NOT supported by the normal rule)

If we "fixed" the Miss Flow Chart as these situations became apparent, eventually it would cover all situations. Thus far, the only situation I have encountered that has not been covered is when a stage does not allow for a clean miss. Of course there could be others as I had not realized this "missing link" until I encountered it in a match.

 

When I teach RO classes, I heavily empathize that the Miss Flow Chart and the Pocket RO Card are your best friend. In more recent times, I have added the clarification on the "missing link" regarding a stage that does not allow for a clean miss. It would be nice if we never encountered the situation, but then reality enters the picture.

 

Buck D. Law

Black Pin/Perpetual Student

[Chickamauga Charlie, SASS #47963]

As I noted in post #3...that USED TO BE a "P" (by definition of same)...if there wasn't room for a CLEAN miss, some ROs were, instead, giving the shooter the lesser penalty of a MISS.

...which lead to injecting the following phrase into the "Penalty Overview" (under MISSES):

RO1 p.23

 

...followed shortly by a convoluted rerouting of the "Miss Flow Chart".

 

it was a goooood rule. no intent arguments, no variation in application, no room for a clean miss discussion.

same field of play same application of the rules. all we had to do was teach people to give the proper penalty.

now i see 20 minute debates about target placement, intent, or location of impact,

ie; the barrel didn't quite make it high enough and the shot caught the top of the LOWER LEFT plate.

FWIW, nobody uses a bullet 1/2" wide, so isnt 1/2" far enough apart for a clean miss?

IMHO, this is one of the weakest rules we've implimented in many years. i follow it, but i dont like it.

cc

[Krazy Kajun]

it was a goooood rule. no intent arguments, no variation in application, no room for a clean miss discussion.

same field of play same application of the rules. all we had to do was teach people to give the proper penalty.

now i see 20 minute debates about target placement, intent, or location of impact,

ie; the barrel didn't quite make it high enough and the shot caught the top of the LOWER LEFT plate.

FWIW, nobody uses a bullet 1/2" wide, so isnt 1/2" far enough apart for a clean miss?

IMHO, this is one of the weakest rules we've implimented in many years. i follow it, but i dont like it.

cc

CC, you are just an outlaw!!

[Kulshan 20262]

it was a goooood rule. no intent arguments, no variation in application, no room for a clean miss discussion.

same field of play same application of the rules. all we had to do was teach people to give the proper penalty.

now i see 20 minute debates about target placement, intent, or location of impact,

ie; the barrel didn't quite make it high enough and the shot caught the top of the LOWER LEFT plate.

FWIW, nobody uses a bullet 1/2" wide, so isnt 1/2" far enough apart for a clean miss?

IMHO, this is one of the weakest rules we've implimented in many years. i follow it, but i dont like it.

cc

Have you ever heard of a .56 Spencer?

[Shooting Bull]

Shoot the Match Director

Hang the stage writer

Jail the shooter for life

 

I think that should about cover it.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

Shoot the Match Director Hang the stage writer Jail the shooter for life I think that should about cover it.

Hmm..........

It's nice to have friends. Sure wish I had one.

[Black Tom]

I appreciated the question and clarification, when the targets all used to be smaller it was easy to set up a match with no overlaps but as the targets have got larger this has gotten more difficult just because of the amount of room they take up sometimes 3 targets take up as much room as 5 used to. So thanks for the info on correct call I may print this one off and throw in the cart with my books.

[Chickamauga Charlie, SASS #47963]

Have you ever heard of a .56 Spencer?

have you ever seen one in a match?

[Kulshan 20262]

have you ever seen one in a match?

No, but they are main match leagle, and I don't claim to have seen it all.

[Fillmore Coffins, SASS #7884]

I read the OP and nothing else.

 

Using nothing but common sense, I call a miss. How'd I do?

 

Fillmore

[Fillmore Coffins, SASS #7884]

Nevermind and thanks, I couldn't wait.

 

Fillmore

[Missouri Marshal SASS #50682]

In order for the "Miss Flow Chart" to work with this, the MISS for hitting an overlapping target (instead of the intended/correct one) must be assessed in response to the very first question ...even though the shooter "hit all the correct type of targets...".

 

From there, it "flows" down the right side of the chart to whether the shooter gets the (deserved, IMO) "P" for hitting the targets "out of order" (EXCEPT for the MISSes).

Plugging in the "miss" for hitting the wrong target (from the first box) calls for a "NO" answer to the "P"? question at that point in the chart.

 

It might be apparent from my responses re: which side I was on when this was being discussed and "resolved".

 

JUST SAY "NO" TO OVERLAPPING TARGETS THAT DO NOT ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A CLEAN MISS...problem solved.

A slightly modified miss flow chart would help. Look at this one and go down the left side. http://www.missourimarshal.net/ROI/Miss%20Flow%20Chart%20Mod.pdf

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

A slightly modified miss flow chart would help. Look at this one and go down the left side. http://www.missourimarshal.net/ROI/Miss%20Flow%20Chart%20Mod.pdf

 

Looks like that might work...but is it really necessary??

 

IMO...there will NOT be any changes made to accomodate a situation that shouldn't be occurring in the first place.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

"Opportunity for a clean miss." That has always been a good one. Not only can you have a miss. But, you have to have the opportunity for a clean miss. Bad guys hid behind rocks, trees and wagons. If you hit the rock you missed the bad guy. Water under the bridge but isn't a shooting sport supposed to required some minimal degree of accuracy?

[Widder, SASS #59054]

just my thought (worth about as much as a coupon for a box of cereal)

 

 

when two targets are placed in a manner which allows the front target to slightly obscure the rear target, the rear target can become an optical problem for some particularly if its SLIGHTLY hidden by a tall shooter and MOSTLY hidden by a short shooter...or visaversa.

 

 

..........Widder

[Missouri Marshal SASS #50682]

Looks like that might work...but is it really necessary??

 

IMO...there will NOT be any changes made to accomodate a situation that shouldn't be occurring in the first place.

Your right, it probably doesn't come up enough to make it worth the effort to chang it. I'm just looking at minimizing conflict during a match with something that doesn't require a rule change