Shot in the back

[yar]

Shot in the back

If you missed the shooting them in the back post on brian enos there was discussion on the legality of shooting targets in the back if it could be done without breaking the 180.

Note the stage description designated 3 different shooting areas with 3 arrays of targets. Shooting area A was to be shot freestyle, shooting area b was to shot strong hand, and shooting area c was to be shot weakhand. Our squad and the squad behind us caredully read the stage description and determined that it did not specify you had to use all three shooting areas. Nor did you have to engage specific arrays from specific areas.

The two targets shot in the back were designated shoot targets in the stage description. An arguement made earlier in this thread is if a target is designated a shoot target it is a shoot target. Even if shot in the back. On the flip side a target designated as a no shoot if it presented it back scoring surface that could be engaged without breaking the 180 is still a no shoot target. You would not get points if you engaged the brown side of a designated no shoot target.

IPSC rules specificly specify that you cannot shoot the backs of targets but USPSA has not yet made this clarification.

[ipscjody]

My answer to this is that a no shoot target is inpenetrable, and the reverse side of an IPSC/USPSA target being a no-shoot, makes it a seperate entity altogether from the scoring target. Best 2 hits for score on the scoring surface of the target, thus the brown side. How did this one start?

[yar]

stage description:

18 rounds
Hands above shoulders gun loaded and holstered.
Start: In any box, but "A" you must shoot strong hand Box "B" freestyle and box "C" weak hand.
Procedure: engage as you see. A mandatory reload must be made between each box.

Thus you could start in any box with the stipulation that you had to engage targets either freestyle, strong hand, or weak hand from specidied boxes.

Again since the target was designated as a "shoot target" in the stage description you cannot call it a no shoot just because that is the side the shooter sees from a specific area of the stage (without breaking the 180 of course.) The reason being on the flip side. Say the stage description calls for a specific target as a designated no shoot. If you were able to see the brown side of that target from another area of the stage and engaged it would you get the points. The answer is no because you just shot a no shoot target in the back.

[ipscjody]

But is the no shoot side "NOT" the scoring area of the target?A piece of hardcover allowing the target to only to be available to be engaged on its scoring surface would have kept this from being an issue. I have never had this problem in my years of shooting IPSC. And never had anyone ask if it was alright to shoot a target in the "Back". There may be a need for pepper poppers that fall both ways?

[Southpawg26]

deleted

[yar]

In IPSC they do make the distinction of where you can only shoot one side of the target. USPSA does not yet make this distinction.

The rulebook lawyers have already gone through this. Word has it that USPSA will make this distinction in a future revision of the rules.

[ipscjody]

In 18 years of IPSC shooting, I have never run across it. I have never read the USPSA rulebook. Targets have always been placed so it was obvious what way they are to be engaged. Never shot through the white side. Too bad USPSA would just adopt the IPSC rulebook, as USPSA is the USA's region of IPSC.

[yar]

We here in the U.S. are fond of making our own rules