Waaaah!!! Sounds like my Wife!!! Log on and call someone a Jerk or something!! Sure been a long winter!! Even Snowed in Tucson Sat night but Trick Ricky broke all but 3!! Good shootin!! Targets must have been set jussst Right!!
Wow-I was not looking for advice on any illegal targets. I see targets where all EC members shoot as well as all State delegates--If these targets are illegal then would these people in the know and in power with the ATA make the necessary corrections? One would imagine so. I suppose I should have shot "wobble"/
Glad to see you're back, suggest you check with a transit to make sure the launching plate is at the same level as the shooting pads. If you removed an old handset and mounted the new Pat Trap on the same platform without lowering it you can assume it'll be mounted too high which will throw targets like you describe.
Dennis, I do apologize to you if I offended you with my response to your legitimate query. Like the OldCowboy, I too would like to know the circumstances that brought about your question also.
If a trap is set according to ATAs guideline's within reasonable tolerances, it's impossible to set such targets without violating what's written in our rule book.
You mention all the ATA officers shooting these targets at the Grand and elsewhere and they certainly do. Most of our officials are standing at the max yardage, some but certainly not all, and they follow along with the wants of the best 27 yard shooters in the game! Higher thrown targets with more face may be best for the max shooters that have mastered the game but it truly hurts the average joe shooter more. I have a problem with making a rule then violate that rule because a few want that presentation. As I mentioned way up above, some of those same officials didn't have too much of a problem violating the old 44 degree plus angle setting either. We adopted the 34 degree setting we use today as a result of that violation so higher target settings today is nil in comparison? Maybe nil, yet, this is a violation of their own written words? I'm certainly glad you choose shoot ATA targets as we need every shooter we can muster!
Hap, its pretty simple and reasoning is twofold.
"First, the ATA fears some sort of a legal battle I've been told and who knows by todays standards of lawsuits."
One can be sued for practically anything today as you said but if I were to make a wager, I'd bet a judge would throw out any suit regarding a non-profit org. abiding by their own written rules and guidelines?
"Second, I fear many will leave the game whom have started using present practices. Many are barely holding an interest due to their scoring under present presentations. If we went back to the day of old and some of the presentations we've seen and where expected to shoot, can you imagine the squealing, complaining and simply whining that would occur?"
The only ones I think would yell a bit is the long yardage shooters that know it's to their advantage to shoot targets with lots more face? Didn't that begin in El Paso,TX, and lots of people went there for attaining bragging rights? If those into wanting to cheat the rules of the game leave, what have we lost? Not much in my opinion. I also know you wouldn't complain any more than usual if we followed the rule as written and everyone else did so too!!
DC, your are correct, Ricky Marshall shot well at the SG missing only three targets in the main handicaps. So too did Scotty McClelland and in the shoot-out, he beat Ricky 23 to 21 or so standing beside him. The targets were high, just like some long yardage shooters like.
Thank you all-I learned a lot from all of the responses.I had initially asked about the targets because the club where I shoot in FL. has a hard time setting the targets and we had complaints regarding them.I believe now that the "plate" is not properly in line with the "pad" and this may be the issue. Again-many thanks to all. You too Monty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where is Nelson? He would have fixed this in ten seconds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Set the target plate at 16.7 degrees (3.6" rise in 12" run) and the speed at 42 MPH.
The target will rise 9' in 30'. Set the plate at 18.5 degrees (4" rise in 12" run) and the target will rise 10' in 30'. Do the math.
The only way to cheat at the 27 is to claim targets you didn't hit. You still have to point the gun in the right spot. Was there 25 years when I was beat by someone on the 27. They shot better that day.
Here's a brief synopsis of how rule violations such as this not only hurt the shooters but the organization itself in the long term.
ATA's bread and butter clubs are the two to eight trap clubs spread across the country. The greater majority of these clubs DO follow ATA's rules and suggested guidelines to the letter for their registered shoots. That includes setting targets between 8 and 10 foot elevations 10 yards in front as per the rules. The local guys, gals and kids shoot practice at the home clubs preparing for their big day, whether it's their state shoot or attending one of the many Grands spread across the country. They build confidence at the home clubs and surrounding registered events and venture out to the biggie with excited expectations. Once there, they are subjected to these higher than normal target presentations (rule violations 101) and are disappointed in their ability to shoot a decent score! That my friends is bad for business regardless of the excuses put forth by those who influence clubs with their presence! Why would shooters put in all the extra expense at home and waste their money at another venue? News, numbers are dwindling and no one can figure out what's going on? That also hurts our organization as a whole in growing our sport in my opinion. Does our ATA officials really care about actually growing our ranks within the working class of shooters? The picture they paint for me is dim in that area. Scared of lawsuits, scared of losing even more members, scared of enforcing their own written rules of the game?
One more point, be extremely careful when electing a state delegate to represent your sport at the highest level, at the Grand American. How your delegate is influenced prior to that yearly meeting determines the health of our organization and our history proves the point. It's time the shooters demand we follow our own rules or change them so that all targets registered are set accordingly, everywhere! Are there so few shooters that believe in following the rule as written that we allow any and everything a select few demand? Reminds me of the rule violations in recent years that became law as being best. I'm ashamed of the weakness portrayed by those endowed with power within our great sport of trapshooting! As members, demand the rules be followed because we have no idea what the game changers will come up with next!
Man this thing sure took a twist. You guys are making a claim that just about every large shoot is throwing illegal targets, and I doubt that is true. The original post was answered - pointing out that trap placement in the house was most likely the problem.
The problem with target presentation, from the ATA rule standpoint, is that the ATA finds itself stuck with hundreds of clubs with varying degrees of quality as far as trap house and trap machine installation go. A rigid ten foot limit rule works fine if every single field has the target getting launched from the same height in relation to the shooter; the problem is that in the real world that is an impossibility. If the targets are thrown from differnt heights, they will have different trajectories even though they are thrown to hit the T-Bar at say 9.5 feet.
Many many clubs will even have this situation varying from house to house. What do you want ATA to do - mandate that hundreds of fields at small clubs get torn apart and corrected? That would go over great. Well, ATA decided that consistency from trap to trap was the most important, so they left enough wiggle room in the room for clubs to try to get all their fields consistent instead of locking them into a rigid measurement scheme which would result in differing trajectories depending on trap placement. ATA doesn't set the targets, it is up to us to do the best we can.
Now the larger facilities, I expect will have overall done a better job of building the fields and placing the traps within the houses. Certainly not perfect, but better. The fact that targets are higher than you like does not mean they are illegal. To me, a ten foot target seems way too high and I don't like them, but they are not illegal.
I also don't think it would take as much as one thinks to adapt the machines at alot of clubs to be sitting at the right angle and height. I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule however. I also do not interpret this as an accusation against club wrong doing, its more simply lack of knowledge in most cases.
870, I for one appreciate your thoughts and feel your one of the better posters here on TS and a long time poster also. The wiggle room of which you speak is at the target hight at 10 yards in front of the traps. Close to the rule is acceptable, even 10 foot high targets. I must ask you another question, if you know, why did we change the hight rule of 8 to 12 foot to an 8 to 10 foot rule? Wasn't the thinking behind that rule change for more consistency from club to club?
When Dennis Mastrolia asked his initial question in the first post, the answer to his question is obvious and was answered. I highly suspect if the trap in question was measured out, it was throwing a legal target also! Pat traps being much higher in the carousel require at least one of two options. Raise the roof to accommodate that extra hight or lower the pedestal on which was probably built for an old Winchester handset trap? Dennis made this statement regarding what he assumed to be the problem that brought about his question in the first place.
"I believe now that the "plate" is not properly in line with the "pad" and this may be the issue."
That certainly isn't the answer to the question posed prior. That club either raised the roof which will give flatter targets due to exiting the house higher, OR, lowered the old pedestal to make room for the Pat trap? Either way the tolerances mentioned for registering targets on that trap even if it's off somewhat!
Did you shoot targets at last years Grand American? I did and shot all the handicap events! Every target I shot there last August was high targets! I'da been tickled to shoot 10 foot targets but the ones others and myself are referring too were way above that mark! I've also shot several regional Grands with the same type of target presentations in the last few years also.
Don't you and others find it odd that none of the top shooters or ATA officials have scolded those of us mentioning these discrepancy's? I certainly don't and it's because it's tough as hell to defend a violation of our written rule unless you happen to be a Philadelphia lawyer or a great word smith. Both of which can cloud the issue with BS and or personal attacks? 870, there's a change in the air.
I wasn't at the Grand last year, so I can't say you are incorrect about the targets, and I do understand that you know what you are talking about. It's just my view, or maybe it's a hope really, that at the Grand I'd be surprised to find many fields that were consistently, illegally high. I'll admit, using the angle method of setting height with no T-Bar, who knows?
I'm not really sure about the 12 foot change, but I'd agree it was to try to make things more consistent, especially since 12 foot is crazy high in my opinion. I believe ATA really is trying to get more consistent targets thrown and that is why the rules are not as rigid as at one time. They realize some fields are not built the same and they are giving us the leeway to try to make each of our fields look as consistent as we can, even if that means one house throws a target to a differnet height at 10 yds than the other. At least that way we can keep roughly the same "face" on them if machine placement varies. The wiggle room I had in mind was the ability to measure height from the trap arm instead of the level of post 3's pad, combined with the 8 to 10 foot range, which can help with some situations. Note, I am saying we have the go-ahead to do this, although I'm sure it is rarely done.
My last post above was mainly because I, rightly or wrongly, was getting the feeling that some posters were getting the idea that high targets were illegal, which is not necessarily the case, and that if you really think about what is involved with building a field and placing a machine in a house, you have to accept that there will be variance not only from club to club, but trap to trap in some cases. There is more to presentation than most shooters realize. I know I am preaching to the choir when talking to you, but others don't think about all the factors involved and don't realize that every 9 foot target won't look the same as another 9 foot target, even when both are perfectly legal.
870, you are absolutely correct we should allow some variences because of differences across the country and we do. What we're talking about here is bordering on the ridiculous extremes. If you feel a 10 foot high target makes you uncomfortable, try a few at 16 to 18 feet high!! As Dennis mentioned above concerning ATA officials shooting targets at the biggest shoots would surely set things right? Wrong! I know because I've shot beside them on super high target presentations!
What I have a problem with is the fact we're playing by two seperate target presentations across the country. Smaller clubs adhering to the written rule for setting targets, then those who've mastered the game playing by their own settings for more face targets! That includes any variences we allow plus, for discrepencies all across the spectrum of organised trapshooting all over the lands! It's time our (leaders) lead by example enforcing existing rules (guidelines within reason) and grow a pair to put a halt to what will surely become another rule admendment down the road TCTA once again?
If we don't take care of our baby now, who will down the road? Portraying a sense of fairness to everyone is paramount to grow the sport or a business? It's like we're playing two entirely different games of registered trap and confusing the masses on what's the correct standard!
Maybe I'll video a few shoots just so there's no confusion on what game we're discussing here?
870 just to clear a point you said you weren't really clear about the 12 foot change. Here is the before and after rules, The following is the 2002 rulebook
"N. FLIGHTS AND ANGLES
Singles targets shall be thrown not less than 48 yards (44m) nor
more ffran 52 yards (a7m), and doubles targets shall be thrown not
less than 44 yards (40m) nor more than 52 yards (47m). Distance
measurements are on level ground in still air. Targets, whether single or doubles, shall be between 8 feet (2.4m) and 12 feet (3.7m) high, when ten yards from Point B. THE RECOMMENDED HETGHT lS NINE FEET. The height at a point ten yards (9m) from Point B
This next one is from the 2003 Rulebook
"E. FLIGHTS AND ANGLES
Singles targets shall be thrown not less than 49 yards nor more than
b1 yards. Distance measurements are on level ground in still air.
Targets shall be between 8 feet (2.4m) and 10 feet (3.07m) high, when 10 yards from Point B. Point B is defined as the intersection of a line measured 2 feet 6 inches (.76m) from the outside vertical surface of the traphouse the farthest away from the shooting point and the centerline of the trap (see Diagram "1" on page 62) f rom which the trap field layout radius is determined. The recommended height is 9 feet. The height at a point 10 yards (9m) from Point B
No criticism just a clarification of this point.
A couple of small points of my own I have frequently shot a club that has field 1 with flat ground until the fifty yard stake. Then the ground rises rather sharply 9 foot targets look extremely low on this field. The second field has the opposite topography the gradually breaks down hill to the fifty yard stake. Nine foot targets on this field appear quite high especially after shooting the first field. That is one reason that I personally don't feel resets should be done with out a re-measure. JMO
Also just curious but could the fact that a lot of the bigger shoots set higher targets account for the low classes shoot more scores that become controversial??? Something to think about.
Ok, in retrospect is 2 feet reallyh that big of a deal? It would seem to me the older measurement would be more prudent for the longer yardage shooters. If you adjusted the trap for a 12 foot rise then more of the face of the target would be exposed. So, the newer regulation appears to be better?
Actually its the reverse. The way the targets are set now showing more face benefits the long yardage shooter. The true target set would make it much harder for the longer yardage shooter. At least this is how i gather and interpret the info. I'm certainly not say'n the Big Dogs would fall out of contention.