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

question on broken target rule

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by scott calhoun, Mar 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott calhoun

    scott calhoun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,413
    Location:
    Chicago area
    You must reshoot any no target. I think "allow" is just gramatically correct and isn't meant to imply that there is some sort of decision required by the referee/scorer.
     
  2. tom berry

    tom berry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    760
    Location:
    Winterset, IA
    Doug, I understand your point. The word "allow" seems to imply there is an option. In the case of a missed target the option to be "allowed" another target is obviously reasonalbe. But in the case of a shooter hitting a target that is thrown broken, the word "allow" doesn't quite fit.

    Perhaps the word should be "require". Still grammtically correct and perhaps a bit more clear.
     
  3. Mr Newbius©

    Mr Newbius© TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,463
    Its a wishywashy word that leaves it up to the interpretation of the person making the decision.
     
  4. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    What you guys miss is the context of the rule. There are a number of instances in which a new target is not allowed. The word is perfectly appropriate since it is used to contrast this broken-bird situation with the others.

    Mr ®, what "interpretation" are you talking about? Give an example.

    Neil
     
  5. RogerNRA

    RogerNRA TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    428
    I think some of you are still looking for the meaning of "is"........Roger
     
  6. Mr Newbius©

    Mr Newbius© TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,463
    In the way it is used above as that it would be allowed the question is why it would not be allowed.

    Parents allow there children to do things as they see fit for them to do but we all know that what parents allowed us to do sometimes was not allowed at other times. You know like when you wanted to go out in the heat of the summer in your swimming trunks to play outside they would allow you to do that but when you wanted to go outside in the middle of a blizzard to play while wearing the same pair of swimming trunks they would not allow you to do that. When looked at with childish logic (same kind used by many shooters when iterpolacting the rules) it is the same thing, your just going outside to play but ... well ... without a solid definition of reasons to substantiate what is or is not allowed the word "allow" is just a wishywashy word up to the interpoculation of the allower.
     
  7. Mr Newbius©

    Mr Newbius© TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,463
    Neil - I almost forgot but lets just agree to disagree that it is all just Muskegon.
     
  8. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,226
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    I watched a squad mate have to shoot a smoked target over as another shooter claimed the target was broken on exit. He saw a butterfly and thought it was a broken piece of the clay! The man in question also smoked the next one but that would get old in a hurry! Hap
     
  9. Mr Newbius©

    Mr Newbius© TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,463
    Ahhh, no that will cost you far more than what it is worth knowing but if you really want to know please e-mail 3¢ to anyone of your choice and then I will tell you how to cut & paste the everyday common copyright symbol and I will even throw in the ® and a few others like ¿ £ ¥ § ? at no charge.
     
  10. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    If you have a Mac, push "option" and g and you get ©. If you have a PC, Bill Gates will mail you the symbols for three dollars apiece.

    Neil
     
  11. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    Mr ®, while that's an interesting if muddled exposition about your interpretation of the common English word "allow," what I was hoping for was an example of a case where the use of the word "allow" could lead to a problem. We are not kids wanting to go swimming in a blizzard; we are shooting trap.

    Neil
     
  12. Mr Newbius©

    Mr Newbius© TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,463
    They "allow" you to shoot another target and at the end of the event you are the winner by 1 single target and a long drawn out protest is filed with the ATA and it gets all drawn out and hashed all over 47 different times on TS.com just because they decided to "allow" the shooter to shot another target.

    BTW ... lets say it was allowed because the shooter had a failure to fire because of his own dumb stupid mistake which reality, at least my reality should be a lost target but the scorer decides to "allow" another target to be thrown again and interpolates it all as a failure to fire.
     
  13. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    I've been shooting twenty-five years and never heard a rumor of what is worrying you ever happening. The people running shoots, even running the ATA, Mr. ®, are not fools. Shoot management can make decisions and do all the time. They can throw protests out.

    OK, you are going to say "But then the shooter files a written complaint." Read that part in the rulebook. Imagine what would happen. The first thing you have to do is cite a broken rule (if you know it.) If you don't, the first gatekeeper at the ATA will simply send it back.

    BTW, your opinion of that should happen with the failure to fire situation is not what the rulebook says.

    Neil
     
  14. timb99

    timb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,331
    Location:
    Shawnee, Kansas, USA
    Neil,

    You're wrestling with a pig in the mud. Eventually you'll realize, the pig enjoys it.
     
  15. Mr Newbius©

    Mr Newbius© TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,463
    Neil ... as always lets just say Muskegon and be done with it instead of becoming a couple of a-holes arguing over who is and who is not interpreting reality or better yet let me just say that your right Neil in all you say and do and nobody has any thought or right to either disagree with you or your thoughts so please accept the apologies of one of the masses who are beneath you.
     
  16. tom berry

    tom berry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    760
    Location:
    Winterset, IA
    Neil,

    Perhaps a better example might be a situation caused by E.3 (target debris). If we agree that the word "allow" implies this is a desired thing, then this could happen.

    Shooter fires and breaks the target, someone says, "nope, target debris". Shooter says, 'naw, I'll just take the results cuz rule book says scorer shall "allow" and that implies I would want another target and I don't'.

    Now, if you inserted the wording as in E2 "regardless of the result of any shot fired" you would alleviate the above.

    Tom
     
  17. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    Mr. ®, I may not be right about "all I say and do" but I am generally right about what's in the rulebook. You have a right disagree with me. I have a similar right to set you straight.

    Neil
     
  18. Mr Newbius©

    Mr Newbius© TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,463
    Doug - there is room to argue over many things in the "rule" book.
     
  19. JerryP

    JerryP Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,753
    There is nothing wrong with the way it is written. The alternative to "allow another target" would be "not allow another target." To interpret allow as meaning optional is not correct usage.
     
  20. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    I do not see any problem with the word allow. It implies a shooter option to shoot the bird over or not shoot the bird over. If I shoot a broken bird, I am allowed to shoot another target or I am allowed to say I do not want to shoot another target and the scorer must then mark a lost for me. I am allowed to make either choice.

    Pat Ireland
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.