1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

another ATA "no target" rule ?

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Old Cowboy, Dec 29, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Old Cowboy

    Old Cowboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,988
    another ATA

    Section VII Official Scoring, E. No Target----"The referee/scorer shall rule "NO TARGET" and allow another target(s) in the following instances:

    3. When a whole target appears on the call of the shooter along with target debris."

    Has anyone here ever seen a scorer call "NO TARGET" when a whole target appears on the call of the shooter along with target debris and-------the shooter fires at and BREAKS the target?

    John C. Saubak
     
  2. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,226
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    another ATA

    I've only seen this called once in this situation, ever. It was at the Marietta GC in Ohio in a singles event. Broken pieces flew out of the house along with a whole bird and the experienced scorer called it immediately! The shooter broke both targets and continued on with a good score. Hap
     
  3. X Trap 2

    X Trap 2 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,125
    another ATA

    Seems as it happened to me once but I never saw the debri. I had broke the target but had to shoot again. Ray.......
     
  4. tomk2

    tomk2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    320
    another ATA

    From what I can tell, the orange target debris flying around makes the scorer or a squadmate think that the apparently whole flying target was in fact broken upon launch (hence the other pieces), and it is ruled a no target wether or not it was hit or missed. In essence, a whole target launched with target debris is treated as if a broken target was thrown.
     
  5. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    another ATA

    I still score frequently and I have called this. I have also been shooting with squads that will call this if the scorer does not call it.

    I have been told by ranking authorities in the ATA that the target debris rule is intended to be applied when larger pieces of a broken target are in the air along with a whole target. It is not intended to be applied when a very small piece comes out of the side of the house and only travels a foot or so. I would like to see this rule clarified.

    Pat Ireland
     
  6. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,226
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    another ATA

    "It is not intended to be applied when a very small piece comes out of the side of the house and only travels a foot or so. I would like to see this rule clarified.

    Pat Ireland"

    At the WV state shoot a couple years back, a shooter on post 1 or 2 had to shoot another target over. Post 4 shooter said he saw a broken piece out the side. I was on 5 and what the guy saw was a frightened orange butterfly flutter to the ground beside the house!!

    I agree with Pat, if it's flying as a whole bird and you shoot, it belongs to you. That should clarify it a tad? :) Hap
     
  7. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    another ATA

    Hap- To extend your comment, butterflies should be banned from all ATA shoots. They can cause multiple problems. Monarch Butterflies winter in South America and each Spring they fly across the Gulf of Mexico just to flutter around in front of my gun as I call pull.

    Pat Ireland
     
  8. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,841
    another ATA

    Pat, while you would like the rule clarified, I'd like to see it gone. It was made when people didn't have much experience with automatic traps and didn't realize that you get more broken pieces after a bad bird. Now you can see a whole bird after a broken one and the rule is just abused.

    Old Cowboy has it right. It's used to get another bird when one is missed, keep it when it's hit.

    Neil
     
  9. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,226
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    another ATA

    There's another way this rule may be abused by a slight few. Claiming to see broken pieces just to make another shooter shoot over to mess with his routine. Bad rule when it can be abused in such ways. Hap
     
  10. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,841
    another ATA

    Yes, Hap, I think it's a rule whose usefulness has been eclipsed by its several "downsides" and should go into retirement. Maybe at the BOD meeting this summer I'll try to get it done.

    Neil
     
  11. Old Cowboy

    Old Cowboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,988
    another ATA

    One day a couple of years ago I was squad leader & one of my squadmates called for his target-----which emerged on his call, along with quite a large piece of target debris that followed it out far enuf' so that it first appeared to be a broken target but when the "piece" dropped away it became obvious the target was good. That was how I saw it and I s'pect thats also how the shooter saw it as he fired much slower than he normally does. Like----"it's a broken target-----~~~~~~~-------oh no! Shit it's a good one", BANG and he missed!! Scorer called "LOST". I stopped the squad while I requested the scorer reconsider the call in consideration of the "whole target---along with target debris" rule. Scorer reconsidered as requested and gave the shooter another target which he hit, squad resumed shooting.

    I thought about that later; No doubt that was within the rules. But I ask myself-----If the shooter had fired and HIT the target? Would I have said anything? In all honesty, I doubt it? I s'pect I would'a just smiled and kept right on shootin'. ------& that ain't right.

    I'm thinking it would be more fair to delete para. 3 and incorporate the "whole target appears on the call of the shooter along with target debris" language in a para. similar to #8 or #9. "illegal" target-----shooter gets a new target if he doesn't fire (and the scorer agrees that there was target debris). But if the contestant fires the results must be scored.

    just a thought,

    John C. Saubak
     
  12. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    another ATA

    Neil,

    If my memory serves me right...didn't this _very_ rule help decide the outcome of a shootoff for the Grand American Doubles Championship in Vandalia, a few years back?

    You know...the one where Grizzly Adams _missed_ a target on his last pair to lose the trophy to Carl Chadwell, then got to shoot the pair over by "calling" a chip out of the house...and he broke that "do-over" pair and went on to get a share of the championship ring, because the officials on the scene weren't sure how to handle the ensuing ruckus, and thus declared them co-champions?

    Yes, I agree...it is a well-intentioned rule that can be abused in the hands of knowledgeable and experienced hucksters, relegating it to the status of a B.S. rule that should be scrapped.

    Flame away haters...
     
  13. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    another ATA

    Buzz Gun- My memory of the shoot off incident is very different than yours. Wasn't that the one involving missing the first target and then refusing to shoot a second irregular target and the referee inaccurately tried to apply the F to F rule?

    The problem, in my opinion, is that the debris rule requires distinction between a little bit of debris and a lot of debris.

    Pat Ireland
     
  14. hmb

    hmb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,408
    another ATA

    Pat,
    Is the size of the debris calculated in relation to the size of the shooter? Is the size of the debris determined by volume or weight? In order to properly train scorers this clarification of the rule is reguired. HMB
     
  15. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    another ATA

    HMB- It is determined by surface area only. How far the debris travels is also a secondary consideration. I suggest we wait a year of so and this rule will be very clear or eliminated. It is now confusing but seems to cause very few problems. If I were asked to train scorers on this rule now, I would tell them if a big hunk comes out, call no target. If a little hunk comes out and the target appears typical, mark the results. If questioned, I would say that a big hunk is larger than a little hunk and a little hunk is smaller than a big hunk. That's the best I can do.

    Pat Ireland
     
  16. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    another ATA

    As to debris quantity, it should be the same ratio as to applied to dust and chips, only more.
     
  17. Old Cowboy

    Old Cowboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,988
    another ATA

    I agree that application of the rule as it stands now requires a judgment call by the scorer on the size of the "debris" and if the debris piece traveled out with the target far enuf' to cause an unfair distraction. I'm thinking it might be expecting too much of the typical 13 year old girl keeping score to make such a call?

    John C. Saubak
     
  18. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,226
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    another ATA

    A question we should ask ourselves is, how many times does the shooter calling for the target see those pieces? Not many is my best guess. Leave it up to the shooter himself whether or not he wants to fire at a target and live with "his" decisions. First, we have to honest with ourselves and almost to the person, shooters can tell a good from bad target. Give the shooter the ability to turn down the obvious, and, that same ability to break a whole flying target. Allowing the shooters on station 4 and 5 claim they saw pieces whether or not they did, should be done away with. Just because they saw "something" shouldn't warrant punishing the shooter shooting a whole legal target. JMHO Hap
     
  19. NintyT

    NintyT Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    260
    another ATA

    This could only happen to me. While shooting singles, post 3, a straight away only went about 2/3 it's normal height. I fired, but of course I shot over it. Shooter on station 1 said a large piece of debris came out with the target, and the debris landed only a few feet in front of the trap house. An official was called, and I was allowed to shoot over. Later, when talking to the setter (this was a hand set machine) he gave this version: He ran out of targets, and was moving a new box into position. A target was called, and the arm caught the corner of the box. A piece of the box was torn away, and that was what came out of the trap.

    I've long felt guilty about that target, and in retrospect, the rule should be changed. If it's a whole target, and you fire at it, the result should be scored. BTW, I did not win anything that day, which was only right.

    Steve J
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.