Rules, knockdowns, targets fall on their own

[Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903]

22 hours ago, Doc Shapiro said:

 

Thanks Palewolf!  For this particular situation, the shooter was required to fire that 5th shot where the target was. 

 

Edge cases always provide for interesting learnings.

Thanks, I guess I was wrong on this.

 

Randy

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

On a more fun note....

 

I once encountered a stage of only two shotgun targets.  One was very stubborn.  It would not fall.   I was shooting my Parker with 18" barrels.  After 3 failures to fall, out of frustration, I gave it both barrels.   Both shotgun targets fell.   Everyone said, "Done!  Clean!"

 

My shoulder said, "You (explicative)!"

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

When did the rules change to require the "intent" of the shooter to be considered?

I thought we were adamant about only scoring results?

 

Even in the OP, even with Doc himself stating he was the shooter and stating his intentions on the sequence...

It doesn't matter. 

There is ZERO reasoning for him to fire a 5th round.

 

I'll explain.

Per Doc himself.

First shot - Hit on T1 - T1 falls.

Second shot - miss on T2 - T2 remains standing.

Third shot - Hit on T2 - T2 AND T3 fall.

Whether concurrently, subsequently or independently does not matter.

Fourth shot - Hit on T4 - T4 falls.

 

Four shots - four targets down.

Next shooter.

 

Why doesn't it matter how/ when target three falls?

 

As we already know, from his own admission, Doc is capable of missing.

(no offense to Doc, whom I have the deepest respect for).

Who is to say, he was not off target  AGAIN, when engaging T2 the second time? 

Maybe even enough off to strike T3?

Maybe striking T2 and T3 with the same shot?

Perhaps T2 was already slowly falling or at a balance point from the first shot and only a few pellets impact was enough to complete the process?

 

And it makes no difference where Doc says his intent was aiming, as missing is possible.

 

We don't score on shooters intent.

If a shooter gets a "P", we don't negate it because they had different intentions.

If a shooter misses - we don't negate it because they intended to aim.

If a shooter somehow skips a round off the ground and it hits the proper target in the proper order, we don't negate it and call it a miss because that was not their intent...

 

We score on results.

If the results at the end of the shooters run satisfy the round count; satisfy the target requirements (down or hit).

The shooters results are clean.

 

Requiring additional tasks (another shot) in the course of a stage when the required results have already been accomplished is unfair and will never be applied evenly.

[Ace_of_Hearts]

Not all shotgun targets are set together. Many times there is significant distance between targets. Such as 2 on the left of the firing line and two on the far right with rifle and pistol targets in between.

If the stage is written for 4+ shotgun rounds and the shooter shoots his 4 rounds at the first 2 targets, then shoots his rifle and pistols, picks up his shotgun and finds the second two targets are down........... Is he obligated to shoot 2 where they were or does he just smile and graciously accept his luck?

 

A COWBOY would shoot were they were....... But there are many that would say he has complied with the stage instructions.

 

Not all situations are as clear as the above. 

As a TO I would require the targets be shot. The shooter is then welcome to appeal my decision to the Match Director if they choose. A re-shoot can always be given if I am overruled.

 

 

[Barry Sloe]

Ace - I believe that would fall under the "engagement" part of the rules. The second pair of targets had not been engaged.  Shoot where they were.

 

BS

[Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129]

On ‎19‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 11:00 AM, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

You were shooting in 60mph winds?

A slight Breaze you mean .... We don't call it a wind up here till it hit 75 MPH . 90 MPH is windy  and 100+ MPH is real Windy ....

 

Jabez Cowboy

[Pat Riot]

8 minutes ago, Jabez Cowboy,SASS # 50129 said:

A slight Breaze you mean .... We don't call it a wind up here till it hit 75 MPH . 90 MPH is windy  and 100+ MPH is real Windy ....

 

Jabez Cowboy

[Doc Shapiro]

Creeker, that's exactly what I was thinking! 

[Sedalia Dave]

6 hours ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

Not all shotgun targets are set together. Many times there is significant distance between targets. Such as 2 on the left of the firing line and two on the far right with rifle and pistol targets in between.

If the stage is written for 4+ shotgun rounds and the shooter shoots his 4 rounds at the first 2 targets, then shoots his rifle and pistols, picks up his shotgun and finds the second two targets are down........... Is he obligated to shoot 2 where they were or does he just smile and graciously accept his luck?

 

A COWBOY would shoot were they were....... But there are many that would say he has complied with the stage instructions.

 

Not all situations are as clear as the above. 

As a TO I would require the targets be shot. The shooter is then welcome to appeal my decision to the Match Director if they choose. A re-shoot can always be given if I am overruled.

 

 

 

With the scenario you have posted my answer is yes he is obligated to shoot where they were. The stage had split SG targets and to comply with the stage instructions he would have to engage the targets and shoot where they were.

 

In a scenario where all the SG targets are engaged at the same time BUT from two or more separate locations the answer is yes for the same reason.

 

In a scenario where the SG targets are to be shot from a single location and not split by another activity or firearm then I am in 100% agreement with Creeker. 4 shots and 4 targets down.

[Cowboy Junky]

I'm still in for the answer as well.........we are doing exactly what Creeker said..........so I hope we aren't wrong. 

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 7:03 PM, Doc Shapiro said:

 

Because I was the shooter! 

Doc, this came up before and PaleWolf clarified 4 shots required, 4 targets down, done.

 

I emailed this clarification to my mailing list, which includes all DDCT, some HVC, and some RCR  members. The TO or some of the posse should have known better than to tell you to shoot another round.

[Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903]

5 minutes ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

Doc, this came up before and PaleWolf clarified 4 shots required, 4 targets down, done.

 

I emailed this clarification to my mailing list, which includes all DDCT, some HVC, and some RCR  members. The TO or some of the posse should have known better than to tell you to shoot another round.

 

On 2/19/2018 at 8:54 AM, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

RO2 pp.8-9

 

On 2/19/2018 at 8:58 AM, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

Given the additional information re the OP (i.e. that target #3 fell "on its own"...most likely due to the instability of the target setup} this would be a case of "target failure".

 

On 2/19/2018 at 9:23 AM, Doc Shapiro said:

 

Thanks Palewolf!  For this particular situation, the shooter was required to fire that 5th shot where the target was. 

 

Edge cases always provide for interesting learnings.

Now I'm really confused, 4 shots or 5?

 

Thanks

Randy

[Tennessee williams]

Anybody else had to shoot at a shotgun kd numerous times to get it to fall because a wad or something stuck in it? Hit one full on 5 rounds before it fell once. Sometimes it goes your way and sometimes it doesn't. 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

The reason for applying the "Target Failure" rule (i.e. shoot where it was) in this particular case was due to info rec'd via PM from Doc that target #3 had fallen on its own for other shooters at that match as well, most likely due to all of the targets being bolted to the same 2x4 base (which is why I mentioned that in an earlier post).

The fact that the target #3 fell after the "miss" & hit on #2 indicated that #3 had not been "engaged" until the 5th shot "where it was".

If #3 had fallen before the "miss", then that miss could be considered an engagement "where it was" for #3 (BOD to the shooter re which target had been engaged).

Same as if any target fell/blew down before or during the stage.

(e.g. four KDs, three blow/fall down before the shooter fires 4 shots (3 misses/1 hit) to take down the only remaining target standing.)

Throw in stage instructions requiring KDs to be engaged (or fall) in a specific order and it becomes a real mind bender (REF the second option in the "Target Failure" regs)

 

 

Another related "WtC?":

5-plate rack of 10" plates (or a "Texas Star" target) with a 3' x 3' stationary dump target 5' to the right.
With revolvers, KD all plates (misses don't count except for plates remaining after firing 10 rounds)

Engage the dump target with any rounds remaining after all plates are down (misses on dump target count).

 

Shooter's first shot hits the frame of the plate rack, causing all five plates to fall.

1) Shooter "shoots where they were" with 5 rounds in the general direction of the plate rack, then 4 rounds on the large dump target.

OR

2) Shooter engages/hits the dump target with the remaining 9 rounds.

 

???

[Big Rock, SASS #44055]

36 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

Shooter's first shot hits the frame of the plate rack, causing all five plates to fall.

1) Shooter "shoots where they were" with 5 rounds in the general direction of the plate rack, then 4 rounds on the large dump target.

OR

2) Shooter engages/hits the dump target with the remaining 9 rounds.

 

???

 

To be a "gamer" I would put 4 rounds where they were ... then 5 on the dump ...  Why, because misses on the Star are not counted, and misses on the dump are .......

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

20 minutes ago, Big Rock, SASS #44055 said:

 

To be a "gamer" I would put 4 rounds where they were ... then 5 on the dump ...  Why, because misses on the Star are not counted, and misses on the dump are .......

 

If choosing option "1", you get one more "free" shot for the plates and one less possible miss on the dump, though...tear a corner off your "gamer card".  

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

5 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

Another related "WtC?":

5-plate rack of 10" plates (or a "Texas Star" target) with a 3' x 3' stationary dump target 5' to the right.
With revolvers, KD all plates (misses don't count except for plates remaining after firing 10 rounds)

Engage the dump target with any rounds remaining after all plates are down (misses on dump target count).

 

Shooter's first shot hits the frame of the plate rack, causing all five plates to fall.

1) Shooter "shoots where they were" with 5 rounds in the general direction of the plate rack, then 4 rounds on the large dump target.

OR

2) Shooter engages/hits the dump target with the remaining 9 rounds.

 

???

For the purposes of REACTIVE targets; where there is a sequence to follow (shoot until, then do something different); there is NO such thing as shoot where they were... 

There are either plates standing to be shot at or there are not.

 

Directions state...After the plates are down; engage dump target.

Directions do not say after plates are down AND a minimal number of rounds have been expended; engage dump target.

 

Meaning that AFTER the plates are down; no matter why they are down, (wind, rack hit, luck) and no matter how many shots have occurred...

Any shot from that point forward that does not connect with the dump plate is a miss.

 

So any shooter choosing option 1 best be prepared for their 5 misses on the dump plate.

[Snakebite]

 

As for the falling shotgun target... I think that target placement ought to be considered in determining if the extra shot/s should be made. If the stage has two shotgun targets on the left side, and two targets on the right side of the stage, and the shooter takes four shots to get the first two targets on the left down, and the wind blows down the two targets on the right side of the stage, or someone forgot to reset the two targets on the right,  then IMO the shooter should engage the two targets on the right side (where they were) whether they are down or not down. The were meant to be engaged.  No doubt that some folks disagree with that, but I think that in this case, all four targets should be shot at.  If the targets are all tied together or very close, it makes things a little more difficult. Who knows if some of the shot might have hit the target or not. If it was possible, then I would tend to give it to the shooter. Shooter's intent requires "Mind Reading 101" course to have been completed on the part of the T.O., and I'm not in favor of trying to second guess what the shooter was trying to do. 

 

In regards to the plate rack. We usually say that you have 10 shots to get the 5 plates down. Any remaining rounds go on the Plate for a 1 sec bonus, up to a max of 5. Misses for plates left standing, and NO misses on dump. If the shooter hits the rack with his first Warthog round and all 5 plates fall down, he then moves to the dump target and can get up to 5 sec for hits on it.

 

I do not subscribe to the Blanket idea that 4 shots taken, 4 targets are down, so it's a done deal. That might be the case sometimes, but not all the time. In this game we judge ourselves, we don't have full time pros judging us. That does indeed tend to lead us to try and make everything Black and White.  It is the reason that we have so damned many rules... trying to cover everything from what shade of Red is required to what angle a damned bullet loop must be. It's supposedly done so that every shooter gets treated the same. BS, that doesn't happen. What we need is T.O.s that know the rules, understand the game and be able to assess the situation and make a decision. If the shooter doesn't like that decision, then he/she can appeal it. If the Judges agree with the T.O., then the call was most likely correct. IMO the T.O. should be charged with assessing the situation and making the call. Every possible situation can NOT be directly covered in the rules. The T.O. needs to be more than just a person that holds the timer.

 

JMNSHO 

Snakebite

 

 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 2:36 PM, Barry Sloe said:

Ace - I believe that would fall under the "engagement" part of the rules. The second pair of targets had not been engaged.  Shoot where they were.

 

BS

 

If I found myself in this situation (split location shotgun targets - expending stage required {or more} qty rounds at first position and then discovering second position shotgun targets already down) ; I would send the second position rounds downrange; regardless of how many I had expended at the first location.

 

But if we are going to mandate this action or penalize for its absence; then we have to add some verbiage or adjust stage conventions.

 

Something as simple as

"Shotgun reactive targets are (under most circumstances) expected to be engaged individually and with minimally one shot per target (Comstock rules still apply unless noted otherwise). 

 

Shotgun reactive targets that fall or take themselves out of play without an active engagement still require a minimum one shot per target to satisfy the engagement requirement - regardless of any round expenditures that may have occurred previously on the stage.

(stage specific instruction may over rule the one target - one shot requirement).

 

An active engagement is defined as rounds fired at THAT specific target array (grouping of reactive targets - an array may consist of any number of targets)

 

This settles the OP, as it clarifies that Docs engagement of a single target array (grouping) consisting of four targets with four rounds satisfies the stage requirement.

 

And also clarifies the requirement for engagement; negating the potential issue with split target arrays per Ace of Hearts post.

 

It would then be up to individual match directors to determine just how much spread between targets (or target groupings) designates a single target array versus multiple arrays.

[Griff]

I'm firmly in the "follow the intent of the rules" camp.  The totality of circumstances need to be assessed, and the TO's best judgement rendered.  That simply can't be written out in the rules... not without the rules rivaling the Encyclopedia Brittanica for size, including all annual updates!  I quit collecting them after my set reach 45 volumes!  

[Cowboy Junky]

I'm with Creeker again........lol. I know you can't make a rule for everything but we aren't getting it right here from the peace & comfort of our recliner's without 4 people (or more) asking & giving input all at the same time........so you know at the range different outcomes for the same circumstances are being handed out. 

 

Seems like down should be down and up should be up.........no grey area that way. 

[watab kid]

i agree with that - up is up and down is down , stage planners should set them right and there will be no issue , i used to do this with some friends at our club , we would pre-shoot to see that it worked , adjust as required , you cant fix changing physical conditions like rain , wind , earth quakes , but you can set a good stage , 

[Fireball #7709 Life]

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 3:21 PM, Cowboy Junky said:

Seems like down should be down and up should be up.........no grey area that way. 

 

Exactly.

[Westwood Willie]

On 2/19/2018 at 10:03 PM, Doc Shapiro said:

 

Because I was the shooter! 

I have been following this thread trying to learn. I am not an experienced shooter, yet. 

The way I read it  and my opinion is this. Did the shooter really miss, or did just enough pellets hit the target to to put it on top of the fulcrum and yet not go over. The vibration, wind or fate then put it over the top and it fell.  A hit to me.  If it happened to me I would be lucky to just say I got to shoot the stage and take the decision, in my favor or not.

Its all just, "Too Much Fun"

WW

[Big Rock, SASS #44055]

Split targets, as in two on left of pistol/rifle target, and two on right. Starting on left two and wind or earthquake or whatever knocks down the right set... need to shoot where they were when you get to them.

 

If all together and some fall...as long as four targets and four shot...good to go...just as the split set....

[Ace_of_Hearts]

8 minutes ago, Big Rock, SASS #44055 said:

Split targets, as in two on left of pistol/rifle target, and two on right. Starting on left two and wind or earthquake or whatever knocks down the right set... need to shoot where they were when you get to them.

 

If all together and some fall...as long as four targets and four shot...good to go...just as the split set....

So with your scenario....

4 targets in a row .......

You shoot target 1 on the left and hit it and in addition target 4 on the other end falls....

You shoot target 2 and miss. You reengage target 2 , hit it and shoot target 3 and hit it.....

You are done????????

 

[Big Rock, SASS #44055]

Yes, exact same scenario as discussed above.

[watab kid]

TARGETS UP IS A MISS - TARGETS DOWN IS A HIT ,  put it on the stage setter if they fail to set good targets , its a simple end concept in the stage design , it is not a shooter issue , 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

1 hour ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

So with your scenario....

4 targets in a row .......

You shoot target 1 on the left and hit it and in addition target 4 on the other end falls....

You shoot target 2 and miss. You reengage target 2 , hit it and shoot target 3 and hit it.....

You are done????????

 

The scenario as you describe it, is and has always been the accepted practice.  

4 targets down, 4 shots expended.  

Next shooter. 

 

Is there possibility for improvement?

 

Perhaps, but bear in mind, any time you increase a rules complexity; there will always be a corresponding decline in the consistency of the rules application.

 

Up is up; Down is down may not be perfect...  

But it is simple to apply and judge.

[Doc Shapiro]

2 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Up is up; Down is down may not be perfect...  

But it is simple to apply and judge.

 

I would love to see a simple declaration of this codified in the rules.  No grey area, no room for confusion.  4 knockdowns, 4 shots fired.  Are all targets down?  If yes, then DONE!  Keep it simple and take "intent" and "target malfunction" out of the issue altogether.  It would be so much simpler and remove all confusion.

[Ace_of_Hearts]

In the event a target fails or is downed, the shooter should “shoot where it was.”

 

It is the partly the spotters responsibility to determine if a target was engaged.

 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

46 minutes ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

In the event a target fails or is downed, the shooter should “shoot where it was.”

And 99 percent of the time; when encountering a downed target - that is EXACTLY what happens; we engage three targets, realize the 4th target is down - we then throw the 4th round downrange. 

 

No one is advocating that a shooter shoot less than the required rounds.

 

What we are discussing/ debating is the exact and approved process in the ONE percent of the time when a shooter encounters a downed target AND they have ALREADY expended the required number of rounds for the stage.

 

My contention is that if ALL the required conditions of the stage have been met...

Targets are down. 

Posted round count is expended.

Then the stage is complete.

No caveats, no subjective calls, no debate. 

[Ace_of_Hearts]

1 hour ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

And 99 percent of the time; when encountering a downed target - that is EXACTLY what happens; we engage three targets, realize the 4th target is down - we then throw the 4th round downrange. 

 

No one is advocating that a shooter shoot less than the required rounds.

 

What we are discussing/ debating is the exact and approved process in the ONE percent of the time when a shooter encounters a downed target AND they have ALREADY expended the required number of rounds for the stage.

 

My contention is that if ALL the required conditions of the stage have been met...

Targets are down. 

Posted round count is expended.

Then the stage is complete.

No caveats, no subjective calls, no debate. 

If they never shot at (engaged) the target, then the right to do is shoot where it was. 

Not shooting at (engaging) a target that falls on its own is a penalty for every other shooter that didn't have that advantage.

 

This is why I am a proponent of a "stage convention" that all shotgun targets in use must be engaged.

Stage writing with a specific shooting order removes most of the doubt that has been expressed here. 

 

 

[Sedalia Dave]

6 hours ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

If they never shot at (engaged) the target, then the right to do is shoot where it was. 

Not shooting at (engaging) a target that falls on its own is a penalty for every other shooter that didn't have that advantage.

 

This is why I am a proponent of a "stage convention" that all shotgun targets in use must be engaged.

Stage writing with a specific shooting order removes most of the doubt that has been expressed here. 

 

 

 

OK then what is your opinion on this. At the beginning of the scenario ALL 4 targets are up

 

Scenario calls for 4+ shots on 4 targets. Shooter shoots at a target. TO and spotters can easily tell a target was hit but does not go down. (NOT a target malfunction) Shooter shoots 2nd round and a target goes down. Shooter shoots 3rd round and a target it falls. Shooter shoots a 4th round and a target falls. After 4th round is expended all the targets are down. WTC???

 

Scenario calls for 4+ shots on 4 targets. Shooter shoots at a target it does not go down Neither TO nor spotters can tell if it was a clean miss or if a few pellets hit the target.. Shooter shoots again and a target goes down. Shooter shoots 3rd round and a target falls. Shooter shoots a 4th round and a falls. Shooter goes back to target that did not fall initially but it is now down. WTC???

[Barry Sloe]

Sometimes the rules won't exactly cover each and every "what if".  For those cases we'll need to draw on our experience and some common sense to come to a satisfactory conclusion. Will everyone be happy, no.  This thread is an example of that. 

 

We do need to have a nice and level playing field. We shouldn't need an Encyclopedia Britannica set of rules to get there.

 

Just my thoughts,

BS