Friday, September 12, 2008

Texas Star behind No-Shoot Targets: A Bad Thing

Texas Star behind No-Shoot Targets

Generally speaking, this stage truly sucks.

(Sorry, I can't embed the video here ... the owner has forbidden it. And for good reason. Just ... click on the link to watch the video.)

Essentially, here is a stage where the Texas Star (rotating array with five small plates) is mostly obscured behind three No-Shoot Penalty Targets.

This is really, really Bad Stage Design.


Using no-shoot penalty targets to mask ANY moving target will inevitably, if enough competitors shoot at it, result in a mandatory reshoot ... at the competitor's option.

Because 'all stages must present the same shooting problem to every competitor', and because 'all targets are considered impenetrable', if you shoot at a target which disappears when hit (such as the plates on a Texas Star target array), it is possible to game the stage by knocking down a plate when it is obscured by the No-Shoot.

If this happens, the competitor is obliged to reshoot the stage, due to 'range equipment failure'. Specifically, you are legally (de jure) unable, but practically (de facto) able to do this thing, and there is nothing the Range Officer can do to stop you.

[There are considerations of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" here, but it is excruciatingly hard to prove in such a situation; if I was on the Arbitration Committee, I would find for the competitor and require the clueless Match Director to throw the stage out.]

Here's the point:

If you are a Match Director, responsible for vetting the stage designs used in a match, you should never EVER allow any kind of physically penetrable barrier to be positioned between the competitor and a moving target. Especially if the moving target is a steel target, which is not available for re-engagement after first being hit. It may lead to a controversial scoring call when the Range Officer judges that the steel has been knocked down by a shot which passes through and (impenetrable) target or prop, and is then not available for subsequent re-engagement in a 'legal' aspect.

I have deliberately avoided citing rules here, but if you care to research them you should first look at:

  • 4.1.4 - use of hard or soft cover
  • & 4.3.6 (especially "Range Equipment Failure"
  • 9.1.5 & 9.1.6 - "impenetrable"
  • 10.6.1 - Unsportsmanlike Conduct

UPDATE: 13-Sep-2008
I have removed some incomprehensible sentences and some more nonsensical paragraphs. I would have removed more, but I thought I should leave something behind to justify the existence of the title.

No comments: