[Old Cowboy]

As a follow-up to the "rule change" thread that's getting a little long and redundant;

I'm studying thru' section E. NO TARGET in the ATA rulebook. You'll note instances when abnormal targets/target flights occur that are ruled either "no target" or "illegal target". Ponder WHY.........in some of these instances that the target shall be ruled "no target" and another target be thrown regardless of whether or not the shooter fired and regardless of the result of any shot fired. OTOH, in other instances it shall be ruled "no target" and another target be thrown provided the shooter does not fire at it. If the contestant fires, the result must be scored. WHY the difference?

It occurs to me that those instances that provide for "if the contestant fires the result be scored" are cases where the target presented is more difficult than a legal target, where OTOH those instances that require a re-shoot regardless are cases where the target is or at least can be easier to hit that the normal legal target.

John C. Saubak

 

[MGeslock]

I hate to bring up the the bad word skeet... but how about this rule....

14. The referee shall be the SOLE judge of decision of fact.
For example, his/her decision as to whether a target
is dead or lost shall be irrevocable, regardless of the
opinion of spectators or other members of the squad.

 

[scott calhoun]

That would be great if we had referees in registered shooting, but we don't. We have people who sit in chairs that pay attention to what is going on to varying degrees, and also have knowledge of rules to a varying degree (and my personal experience is that the knowledge is at the lower end of the scale).

 

[Pocatello]

John, my take on it is that it is not a difficulty question. It's avoiding a chance of dispute where a claim could be made that the target was hit and broken. Think about it - "no target" when the bird is thrown broken, when there is target debris with a target, when two targets are thrown in a singles/handicap event. All are cases where there is more than one "piece" in the air when a contestant could shoot, and claim the shot broke a piece off the target. The "fire and you bought it" cases all have no such situation, they're one bird, no pieces.

 

[multifired]

Its been a slow day here in AZ so browsing TS it is obvious that we have not covered every conceivable circumstance that can occur so there is still potential to further expand the rule book. My 11/08 reprint is only 92 pages and with a little imagination and creativity I bet we could make it to 100 pages for the next reprint. We cannot allow any judgement or even worse, the application of "common sense". We need an expanded rule, a clarified rule or even better an entirely new rule. Tom S.

 

[miketmx]

E. NO TARGET The referee/scorer shall rule “NO TARGET” and allow another target(s) in the following instances:

1. When an allowable “Failure to Fire” as described above occurs.

2. In single target events when the target is thrown broken, regardless of the result of any shot fired.

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

The original thread called "Rule Change" was all about removing or changing item 3. target debris because it is not universally enforced. If item 3. target debris is quietly removed from the next printing of the rulebook, an explanation or interpretation should be given, otherwise the same problem with confusion and universal enforcement will occur.