Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

WTC - Shotgun targets


Null N. Void

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, MBFields said:

So 6 targets, 6+ shots if "needed". Shoots at first target and misses as has been stated.

This is conjecture. For example: When Widder misses, he misses by a mile and a half. Can't say he wasn't "shooting where the target was" which is what the conventions call for on a malfunctioned or downed target. It doesn't say to HIT the downed target. You can't assume he was shooting at the target that was not down, that is guessing intent.

47 minutes ago, MBFields said:

 

So target engaged but missed. So still needs to shoot at six targets to not have a miss.

6 shots called for, 6 shots fired.

47 minutes ago, MBFields said:

 Is the consensus that with the first  shot the "intent" applies to the already down target?

The engagement of the already downed target.

47 minutes ago, MBFields said:

According to description they were aiming at first target so not possible. The TO would have been able to see that hopefully. 

The description is null and irrelevant because the TO cannot say what he or she was aiming at. If we make that the TO's job then the next time I miss a pistol target in a set sequence and hit the wrong one, they would then be able to award me a miss instead of a procedural because the TO "could tell I was aiming" at the correct one. 

 

That is what will happen if we have to resort to guessing intent. The proof is in the nanner pudding. Did 6 shots go down range? Yes. Could one of those shots have been at the downed target? Yes. Is there proof without guessing otherwise? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

This is conjecture. For example: When Widder misses, he misses by a mile and a half. Can't say he wasn't "shooting where the target was" which is what the conventions call for on a malfunctioned or downed target. It doesn't say to HIT the downed target. You can't assume he was shooting at the target that was not down, that is guessing intent.

6 shots called for, 6 shots fired.

The engagement of the already downed target.

The description is null and irrelevant because the TO cannot say what he or she was aiming at. If we make that the TO's job then the next time I miss a pistol target in a set sequence and hit the wrong one, they would then be able to award me a miss instead of a procedural because the TO "could tell I was aiming" at the correct one. 

 

That is what will happen if we have to resort to guessing intent. The proof is in the nanner pudding. Did 6 shots go down range? Yes. Could one of those shots have been at the downed target? Yes. Is there proof without guessing otherwise? No.

Understood. But when have been a TO I do not call misses, up to spotters. But generally when shooter shoots at target and still standing will yell up and all spotters have done same when I have been a TO. Pretty obvious there was a miss at that point. So that is why hard to grasp the concept of different down target engaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MBFields said:

Understood. But when have been a TO I do not call misses, up to spotters. But generally when shooter shoots at target and still standing will yell up and all spotters have done same when I have been a TO. Pretty obvious there was a miss at that point. So that is why hard to grasp the concept of different down target engaged.

Why not make a decision without invoking "intent" into your decision...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MBFields said:

Understood. But when have been a TO I do not call misses, up to spotters. But generally when shooter shoots at target and still standing will yell up and all spotters have done same when I have been a TO. Pretty obvious there was a miss at that point.

Yes, and I yell "up" as well.

.   The difference in the above scenario is the "proof" is the target is still standing when we yell up.

 In the OP, there is no "proof" the shooter was not shooting where the target was because they missed all other targets. 

1 minute ago, MBFields said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not feel invoking intent when am behind shooter looking down barrel at where they are pointing it. You are correct about the OP and proof. Point taken. I see that. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PWB is saving his blue ink until the ROC put out a word..... or clarifies any misunderstanding

that some may have.

 

No need discussing anything with TN Williams right now because he's having Nanner Pudding and

Nanner Split redrawals..... :lol:

 

Ya'll have a good day while I watch it rain.  Think I'll go prime a few hundred pieces of brass.

...... after lunch.

 

 

..........Widder

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

PWB is saving his blue ink until the ROC put out a word..... or clarifies any misunderstanding

that some may have.

 

No need discussing anything with TN Williams right now because he's having Nanner Pudding and

Nanner Split redrawals..... :lol:

 

Ya'll have a good day while I watch it rain.  Think I'll go prime a few hundred pieces of brass.

...... after lunch.

 

 

..........Widder

 

Widder, if those primers you're fittintause have a smell of nanners I'd be a little suspicious! :P

 

Kajun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking the "shoot where it was" is because you shouldn't shoot at a down shotgun target. You don't know where the splatter will be heading, i.e. don't hit the pile of steel out there.

Not hitting it, either high or low, should not be a concern. There is no speed difference between a shot that hit on, low, or high, the time spent is the same.

The required number of shots were fired.

All the targets are down.

Merry Christmas.

Next shooter please.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on folks, if you shot where the target "was" please do not expect the downed target to get hit. If I hit a SG target high and it goes down, that same exact shot may not touch the downed target at all. I shot where it "was" not "is".... 6 shots fired, 6 targets down, done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MBFields said:

Do not feel invoking intent when am behind shooter looking down barrel at where they are pointing it. You are correct about the OP and proof. Point taken. I see that. Thanks.

Oh really...so you know he didn't have an AD????

 

whatever...glad some of you can do the Vulcan Mind Meld trick without all the touching of the face...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would depend on some more details, certainly which target is malfunctioning and where the miss was seen to be, in my opinion. Hits and misses are generally pretty easy to see with a scattergun especially at close range.  If you see it’s a hit, it’s a hit, if you see it’s a miss it’s a miss, when in doubt benefit goes to the shooter. If the shot pattern of the suspected miss was in the vicinity of the malfunctioning target ( targets side by side) than no call. If the shot pattern of the suspected miss is multiple targets away from the malfunctioning target than you still have to engage the malfunctioning target. 

 

Just my opinion, awaiting for the blue ink official ROC ruling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Renegade Plowboy said:

It would depend on some more details, certainly which target is malfunctioning and where the miss was seen to be, in my opinion. Hits and misses are generally pretty easy to see with a scattergun especially at close range.  If you see it’s a hit, it’s a hit, if you see it’s a miss it’s a miss, when in doubt benefit goes to the shooter. If the shot pattern of the suspected miss was in the vicinity of the malfunctioning target ( targets side by side) than no call. If the shot pattern of the suspected miss is multiple targets away from the malfunctioning target than you still have to engage the malfunctioning target. 

 

Just my opinion, awaiting for the blue ink official ROC ruling. 

Yer inserting intent into the call... 

 

Again, engaging a target and where the round hits are two entirely different things.

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

So...you measure the intent of the shooter...since engaging has nothing to do with where the shot goes.

 

Phantom

If engaging has nothing to do with shooting AT a target, then maybe you have a point.  If the shooter had intended to engage the KD, then the SG would have been pointed in that direction.

But, your arguments are usually just to argue or stir the pot.

 

BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Barry Sloe said:

If engaging has nothing to do with shooting AT a target, then maybe you have a point.  If the shooter had intended to engage the KD, then the SG would have been pointed in that direction.

But, your arguments are usually just to argue or stir the pot.

 

BS

First, knock off the silly personal attacks...if you want to counter my opinion, go for it! You might be right...

 

Not if the shot was an AD.

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

SHB of 43

 

Yep - and and AD is an engagement that may be way off target...having a SG "double" can put the intended shot way off...

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're trying to be pedantic, Who gets the call on if the shooter shot where it was? Is that the TO's job? Is it the spotters job? If it's the spotters who get the call, is it the best two out of three? And, how do we get that information to the shooter in a timely manner in the event that they decide that the shooter missed where it was, put it into the berm, or just generally didn't shoot where it was? How close must it be to where it was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

If we're trying to be pedantic, Who gets the call on if the shooter shot where it was? Is that the TO's job? Is it the spotters job? If it's the spotters who get the call, is it the best two out of three? And, how do we get that information to the shooter in a timely manner in the event that they decide that the shooter missed where it was, put it into the berm, or just generally didn't shoot where it was?

Eggzackly my point...or...at least one of them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Yep - and and AD is an engagement that may be way off target...having a SG "double" can put the intended shot way off...

 

Phantom

 

I'll bet some folks have not considered the situation where a SxS might "double"  on a shooter.

 

I surely wouldn't want to be held liable to make a judgement call based on 'intent' just because my angle of view was

misleading, etc.....

 

..........Widder

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

First, knock off the silly personal attacks...if you want to counter my opinion, go for it! You might be right...

 

Not if the shot was an AD.

 

Phantom

No silly personal attack.  Just stating the obvious. 

 

BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Barry Sloe said:

No silly personal attack.  Just stating the obvious. 

 

BS

Stating that I like to debate...rather than just sit around and agree with everything.

 

I'm sorry that you are so apathetic that you see others as "Pot Stirring"...if you have an argument, make it! Otherwise stop with the Personal Attacks.

 

I'll reserve my other comments for a time when perhaps we could meet.

 

And Hoss, same goes for you. 

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for all the long posts. Simply my answer was B.:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that there are instances where intent is rather easy to see.   Suppose two shotgun targets are 30 feet apart.  Both are standing,  The shooter shoots the one on the left and misses, he then turns and aims at the second shotgun target which in the meantime falls.  So does the shooter aim at the target (where it was) or can he then turn back to the one he missed and engage and hit it.   Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joe LaFives #5481 said:

I believe that there are instances where intent is rather easy to see.   Suppose two shotgun targets are 30 feet apart.  Both are standing,  The shooter shoots the one on the left and misses, he then turns and aims at the second shotgun target which in the meantime falls.  So does the shooter aim at the target (where it was) or can he then turn back to the one he missed and engage and hit it.   Thoughts?

My thoughts are that subjecting the "Game" to more subjective calls...just makes the matter worse.

 

Either we accept Intent as a determining component in making calls or we don't. God help us if we now have to decide if it's a acceptable Intent call.

 

Wouldn't it be easier and more consistent to simply fix the faulty target and give the shooter another run at the Stage?

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 Spotters calling misses is subjective.  It's been part of the game since the beginning.  We could use paper targets which would be less subjective but who wants to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Joe LaFives #5481 said:

3 Spotters calling misses is subjective.  It's been part of the game since the beginning.  We could use paper targets which would be less subjective but who wants to do that.

Just because one cannot eliminate all subjectivity doesn't mean we shouldn't eliminate all subjectivity possible...paper targets wouldn't work for many clubs since they don't have berms.

 

Painting targets is just as impractical since again, you have to go down range.

 

Western 3 Gun painted targets since movement was down range and it was wonderful at eliminating the spotter issue.

 

So some things are practical...some things are not. Or do we just leave things the way they are because that's the way we've always done it?

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either we judge the shooter’s intent or we don’t.

 

Otherwise we are in a place where “we don’t judge intent, unless it’s obvious which target the shooter is attempting to hit”.  
 

I think we make that “policy choice” and then live with the consequences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple scenario - Two shotgun targets - 1 is 10' right of center line of the stage the other is 10' to the left of the center line of the stage. Stage round count for shotgun is 2+

Before the shooter gets to the shotgun portion of the stage the wind blows one of them down.

Shooter engages the standing target and misses. The shooter then reengages the standing target and knocks it down.

 

1 - Shooter is done and clean?

2 - Shooter must engage the unengaged target where it was?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruling must be the same whether the two targets are 20' or 2' apart. Else, there had to be a critical (and in the SHB determined) distance where it changes.

 

Two shells shot, two targets down -> clean

 

Edit: I think it would make a difference if there are two different shooting positions for those two targets. Then shooter must change the position and engage the taget where it was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Equanimous Phil said:

Ruling must be the same whether the two targets are 20' or 2' apart. Else, there had to be a critical (and in the SHB determined) distance where it changes.

 

Two shells shot, two targets down -> clean

 

Edit: I think it would make a difference if there are two different shooting positions for those two targets. Then shooter must change the position and engage the taget where it was

It is very unlikely that someone could claim that the first shot could have hit the downed target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

It is very unlikely that someone could claim that the first shot could have hit the downed target.

 

Although it may look obvious in that case, the rules must also cover the "not so obvious" cases in a objective way. So, move those targets closer together step by step. Do you change your ruling at some point? When? And who judges whether the shot was placed where the target was or not, the spotters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is how I see it:

SHB STAGE CONVENTIONS

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

For safety reasons a target on the ground should never be engaged."

 

Doesn't say must shoot where it was or will shoot where it was.... so it really doesn't matter where the shooter put that shot, so long as it was safe to shoot there.

 

"All knockdown targets (shotgun, rifle, or revolver) must go down to count.

o  Any knockdown target still standing once the shooter has engaged the next

sequence of the stage will be counted as a miss."

 

Making the opposite also true. Any knockdown target not standing will be counted as a hit.

 

So spotters can't call a miss, since all knockdowns are down. TO can't call a P because their is no specific order the knockdowns are to be engaged. SOG penalty because the shooter didn't do what s/he "should" have done? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.