Hi,
In a recent competition, a shooter (men's 50m prone) shot his 58th shot on his 58th target and also the 59th and 60th shot on the same target. Which means he has a total of 3 shots on the 58th target. The 3 men jury deducted 2 points from that target according to the ISSF rules stated below.
7.6.6.2.1.2 Too many shots per paper target
7.6.6.2.1.2.1 If a shooter fires more shots at one of his match targets than are provided for in the program of the event, he must not be penalized for the first two (2) such occurrences. For the third and all succeeding such misplaced shots he must be penalized by a deduction of two (2) points for each one in the event from the series in which the occurrence happens. He must also fire a fewer number of shots at the remaining targets so that the number of shots in the competition program remain the same.
The team manager eventually lodged a protest and stated that the rule above allows for a third shot on the same target without being penalized. His point is that the 58th shot is a legal shot and the 59th and 60th are the 2 shots mentioned in bold. Therefore the shooter should not be penalized. He even quoted that this had happened in the Milan WC this year and the shooter was not penalized.
1. What does 'the first two' means, the 58th and 59th shot or the 59th and 60th shot?
2. Should the shooter be penalized?
3. Does this mean that a shooter can always shoot 2 shots on one target, leave the next blank and carry the same process till 60 shots are fired without being penalized (which means 30 tagets with 60 shots and 30 blank targets? Although no shooter in his right sense of mind would do this, it may happen if the shooter runs out of time for the last series and shoot the entire last series on 5 targets).
Who is right, the jury (obviously) or the team manager?
Any differing opinion from anybody?
All comments welcomed.
Thanks
TimTam
Interpretation of Scoring Rule
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Perhaps...
certainly if the shooter had already fired one shot too many on a previous target, the penalty would apply
in other words not nough information for there to be a clear black-and-white answer.
1. What does 'the first two' means, the 58th and 59th shot or the 59th and 60th shot?
the first two times the shooter fires too many shots on a target
2. Should the shooter be penalized?
if he has exceeded the two extra shots (in total) per target allowed
3. Does this mean that a shooter can always shoot 2 shots on one target, leave the next blank and carry the same process till 60 shots are fired without being penalized (which means 30 tagets with 60 shots and 30 blank targets? Although no shooter in his right sense of mind would do this, it may happen if the shooter runs out of time for the last series and shoot the entire last series on 5 targets).
No (he can do it, but not without penalty (-56 points in this case))
certainly if the shooter had already fired one shot too many on a previous target, the penalty would apply
in other words not nough information for there to be a clear black-and-white answer.
1. What does 'the first two' means, the 58th and 59th shot or the 59th and 60th shot?
the first two times the shooter fires too many shots on a target
2. Should the shooter be penalized?
if he has exceeded the two extra shots (in total) per target allowed
3. Does this mean that a shooter can always shoot 2 shots on one target, leave the next blank and carry the same process till 60 shots are fired without being penalized (which means 30 tagets with 60 shots and 30 blank targets? Although no shooter in his right sense of mind would do this, it may happen if the shooter runs out of time for the last series and shoot the entire last series on 5 targets).
No (he can do it, but not without penalty (-56 points in this case))
-
Visitor
Interpretation of scoring rule
The team leader was correct.IMHO no iterpretation is required how can you interpret the obvious?
The first two means the first two illegal shots. Shot 58 was legal and hence the two illegal ones were 59 and 60. The shooter should not therefore have been deducted any points as that is alloweable within the rules - assuming no previous, unmentioned illegal shots were fired. I would suggest the team manager lodge a formal complaint against the jury as they failed to follow the rules.
Rob.
Rob.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
As Spencer said, if he had already shot a "double" earlier in the match then the Jury would have been correct to give a 2 point penalty.
In that case shot 58 would have been a normal shot, shot 59 would have been his second allowable "excess shot" and he would have been penalised for shot 60.
We need to know what has happened earlier in the match. You cannot just look at the last 3 shots in isolation.
In that case shot 58 would have been a normal shot, shot 59 would have been his second allowable "excess shot" and he would have been penalised for shot 60.
We need to know what has happened earlier in the match. You cannot just look at the last 3 shots in isolation.
David and Spencer,David Levene wrote:As Spencer said, if he had already shot a "double" earlier in the match then the Jury would have been correct to give a 2 point penalty.
In that case shot 58 would have been a normal shot, shot 59 would have been his second allowable "excess shot" and he would have been penalised for shot 60.
We need to know what has happened earlier in the match. You cannot just look at the last 3 shots in isolation.
The guy shot his 58th shot on his 58th target so it's reasonable to assume no other illegal shots were fired - at least that's my assumption, although I did state that proviso in my response. Taking those assumptions would you agree that if he only fired 2 illegal shots (59 and 60) then no points deduction should have been made ?
Rob.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
Sorry Rob but IMHO it's not reasonable to assume that. If for example he had previously fired both shots 1 and 2 on target 1 then I can't find any rule that says he would not have needed to fire any shots at target 2. The score for the excess shot would be carried forward. He would therefore arrive at shot 58 on target 58 having already had 1 excess shot. As you know, I am a pistol shooter, not rifle, so I may be wrong. I'd be interested to hear a rule number to say my interpretation is incorrect.RobStubbs wrote:The guy shot his 58th shot on his 58th target so it's reasonable to assume no other illegal shots were fired
Edit note:It is interesting that under the 2001 rules (1st & 2nd printing) he would have had to leave target 2 blank. That requirement had been removed in the 2001 4th printing (not sure about the 3rd) and 2005 rules but it has not been reversed.
YesRobStubbs wrote:........would you agree that if he only fired 2 illegal shots (59 and 60) then no points deduction should have been made ?
cannot readily lay my hands on 2001/1st printing; the 2001/3rd printing said "...This should be the next target", not 'must'.
'Should', 'may' and 'must' are interesting words in the ISSF rules. Certainly the next target makes things much easier for the Classification Office personnel.
one advantage of EST is that this problem does not exist with electronics.
I still think that there is not enough information in the original question to give a definitive answer - I have been caught more than once on a Jury when giving a decision without all the information.
Spencer
'Should', 'may' and 'must' are interesting words in the ISSF rules. Certainly the next target makes things much easier for the Classification Office personnel.
one advantage of EST is that this problem does not exist with electronics.
I still think that there is not enough information in the original question to give a definitive answer - I have been caught more than once on a Jury when giving a decision without all the information.
Spencer
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
The 2001 1st & 2nd printings also use the word "should".
We then run into the old problem of defining such words. In this context the Oxford English Dictionary defines "should" as "a duty or obligation". I do appreciate that other standard dictionaries around the world may have different definitions.
I think we can take it however that, unless someone can find a 2005 rule to the contrary, a shooter firing 2 shots on his first target would not be penalised for not shooting any at his second target.
We need more information about the case being discussed.
We then run into the old problem of defining such words. In this context the Oxford English Dictionary defines "should" as "a duty or obligation". I do appreciate that other standard dictionaries around the world may have different definitions.
I think we can take it however that, unless someone can find a 2005 rule to the contrary, a shooter firing 2 shots on his first target would not be penalised for not shooting any at his second target.
We need more information about the case being discussed.
-
Guest
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
Yes he would if he had not fired any shots at the next target after an earlier double. As previously stated, under the old rules he "should" not have fired at that target and I can find nothing in the new rules to say he cannot leave that target blank in accordance with the last sentance of rule 7.6.6.2.1.2.1 "He must also fire a fewer number of shots at the remaining targets so that the number of shots in the competition program remain the same."Anonymous wrote:If he had previously fired two shots at an earlier target he would not have had three bullets left when he got to the 58th target.
We have nowhere near enough evidence so far to support that.Anonymous wrote:So, the jury were wrong in this case
The point David made was if he had fired two shots on card one, he would have shot none on card two and so he would have been shooting the right shot on the right card therafter all the way up to 58.Anonymous wrote:If he had previously fired two shots at an earlier target he would not have had three bullets left when he got to the 58th target.
So, the jury were wrong in this case (not the first time I've sen it, even at World Cup level).
Rob.
Here's a clearer picture.
The range is a carrier system. He had shot his 1st to 57th shot on each respective target. Why he did it on the 58th target was because he was running out of time and decided to shoot the 59th and 60th shot on the 58th target.
Is the jury right that the 60th shot is illegal?
7.6.6.2.1.2.1 If a shooter fires more shots at one of his match targets than are provided for in the program of the event, he must not be penalized for the first two (2) such occurrences. For the third and all succeeding such misplaced shots he must be penalized by a deduction of two (2) points for each one in the event from the series in which the occurrence happens. He must also fire a fewer number of shots at the remaining targets so that the number of shots in the competition program remain the same.
What does 'the first two' means, the 58th and 59th shot or the 59th and 60th shot?
If 'the first two' means the former, then the 60th shot is illegal and he should be penalized but if it means the latter, the team manager is right and the 3 Class A jury is wrong.
Interesting discussion. Comments please.
Thanks.
TimTam
The range is a carrier system. He had shot his 1st to 57th shot on each respective target. Why he did it on the 58th target was because he was running out of time and decided to shoot the 59th and 60th shot on the 58th target.
Is the jury right that the 60th shot is illegal?
7.6.6.2.1.2.1 If a shooter fires more shots at one of his match targets than are provided for in the program of the event, he must not be penalized for the first two (2) such occurrences. For the third and all succeeding such misplaced shots he must be penalized by a deduction of two (2) points for each one in the event from the series in which the occurrence happens. He must also fire a fewer number of shots at the remaining targets so that the number of shots in the competition program remain the same.
What does 'the first two' means, the 58th and 59th shot or the 59th and 60th shot?
If 'the first two' means the former, then the 60th shot is illegal and he should be penalized but if it means the latter, the team manager is right and the 3 Class A jury is wrong.
Interesting discussion. Comments please.
Thanks.
TimTam
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
TimTam
There is no doubt about the rule. You are allowed a total of 2 misplaced shots in the competition without penalty.
If you were to fire shots 1, 2 & 3 on the same target you should receive no penalty (it would not be possible that you had fired an earlier "misplaced" shot).
I would be very unhappy about saying that the Jury was wrong in this case. The rule in question is not one that you can just apply over 3 shots, it has to be applied over the complete match.
I presume that the results sheet showed the penalty and the rule number. Was the penalty applied for the 2 misplaced shots or for some other infringement.
Was the decision of the Jury appealed to the Jury of Appeal.
There is no doubt about the rule. You are allowed a total of 2 misplaced shots in the competition without penalty.
If you were to fire shots 1, 2 & 3 on the same target you should receive no penalty (it would not be possible that you had fired an earlier "misplaced" shot).
I would be very unhappy about saying that the Jury was wrong in this case. The rule in question is not one that you can just apply over 3 shots, it has to be applied over the complete match.
I presume that the results sheet showed the penalty and the rule number. Was the penalty applied for the 2 misplaced shots or for some other infringement.
Was the decision of the Jury appealed to the Jury of Appeal.
Hi,
I am new to the shooting scene so please forgive me if I am totally off tangent here but I guess being new, I have the advantage of interpreting the rule, purely from the language itself.
7.6.6.2.1.2.1 states "If a shooter fires more shots at one of his match targets than are provided for in the program of the event, he must not be penalized for the first two (2) such occurrences.".
The keyword here is occurrences Is this interpreted for each additional shot or for each target that has more than one shot? What counts as an occurence? To me, the English (note that is not my mother tongue) means each time a target has more than 1 shot, it counts as 1 occurence, not the number of shots. Therefore, one need not argue if the 58th shot was legal and the 59th and 60th are counted as illegal and so on and forth.
The second sentence in that para states: "For the third and all succeeding such misplaced shots he must be penalized by a deduction of two (2) points for each one in the event".
Again, it implies for 3rd occurences (i.e. 3rd time a target has more than 1 shot), each misplaced shot should have a 2 point penalty.
However, by my interpretation, shooters can abuse this rule and land as many shots as possible when they are short of time in the last series, so long as it is not a 3rd occurence. I assume that when ISSF drew up this rule, it had assumed that a shooter would not make the same mistake twice, consecutively, landing 3 shots on one target. Therefore, this paragraph is, in my opinion, is ambiguous and not catered for an occurence whereby 3 or more shots are fired at a target. ISSF should rephrase that paragraph and use this as an example to interpret the para to avoid any future confusion.
In this case, neither the Jury nor the team manager was wrong and ISSF should reword that paragraph, if possible with examples to make it clear.
I am new to the shooting scene so please forgive me if I am totally off tangent here but I guess being new, I have the advantage of interpreting the rule, purely from the language itself.
7.6.6.2.1.2.1 states "If a shooter fires more shots at one of his match targets than are provided for in the program of the event, he must not be penalized for the first two (2) such occurrences.".
The keyword here is occurrences Is this interpreted for each additional shot or for each target that has more than one shot? What counts as an occurence? To me, the English (note that is not my mother tongue) means each time a target has more than 1 shot, it counts as 1 occurence, not the number of shots. Therefore, one need not argue if the 58th shot was legal and the 59th and 60th are counted as illegal and so on and forth.
The second sentence in that para states: "For the third and all succeeding such misplaced shots he must be penalized by a deduction of two (2) points for each one in the event".
Again, it implies for 3rd occurences (i.e. 3rd time a target has more than 1 shot), each misplaced shot should have a 2 point penalty.
However, by my interpretation, shooters can abuse this rule and land as many shots as possible when they are short of time in the last series, so long as it is not a 3rd occurence. I assume that when ISSF drew up this rule, it had assumed that a shooter would not make the same mistake twice, consecutively, landing 3 shots on one target. Therefore, this paragraph is, in my opinion, is ambiguous and not catered for an occurence whereby 3 or more shots are fired at a target. ISSF should rephrase that paragraph and use this as an example to interpret the para to avoid any future confusion.
In this case, neither the Jury nor the team manager was wrong and ISSF should reword that paragraph, if possible with examples to make it clear.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
I'm sorry but I think you are mis-reading the rule BangBang.
It is clear that the "occurrence" refers to the misplaced shots rather than the number of targets with misplaced shots on them.
By stretching the imagination somewhat it is just about possible to have some doubt over the first sentance of 7.6.6.2.1.2.1:-
"If a shooter fires more shots at one of his match targets than are provided for in the program of the event, he must not be penalized for the first two (2) such occurrences."
That doubt is however totally removed by the second sentance:-
"For the third and all succeeding such misplaced shots he must be penalized by a deduction of two (2) points for each one in the event"
It is clear that the "occurrence" refers to the misplaced shots rather than the number of targets with misplaced shots on them.
By stretching the imagination somewhat it is just about possible to have some doubt over the first sentance of 7.6.6.2.1.2.1:-
"If a shooter fires more shots at one of his match targets than are provided for in the program of the event, he must not be penalized for the first two (2) such occurrences."
That doubt is however totally removed by the second sentance:-
"For the third and all succeeding such misplaced shots he must be penalized by a deduction of two (2) points for each one in the event"
-
Guest
It is also my understanding of this rule that the shooter in question should not have received those penalty points if he had not done this during the rest of his match. (Though he should have appealed in the appeal time. That's what it's there for!) I have seen a number of match results that back up this interpretation of this rule. I know personally someone who shot five shots on each target because that is what he was used to, only to find out at the end of the match that he should have been putting two shots on each target. What would have been the winning score became last place from the sheer weight of all those penalty points. I believe that he discussed this matter at some length with the jury, judges, and his team manager during the appeal time, but still finished up with all penalty points intact. He was not a happy bunny!
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
-
Martin H
Hi all,
As to the event that TimTam is referring to, I am reasonably sure which event that this happened at (last Friday ?). The shooter told me he was having time problems due to the target changer going slowly on occasions.
Since he had not overloaded on any of his targets beforehand, he chose to shoot the 59th and 60th shots into the 58th target (along with the 58th shot). Since he is allowed to have two overloads without penalty then he should not have had any deductions.
I think the jury read the rules incorrectly.
Cheers
Martin
As to the event that TimTam is referring to, I am reasonably sure which event that this happened at (last Friday ?). The shooter told me he was having time problems due to the target changer going slowly on occasions.
Since he had not overloaded on any of his targets beforehand, he chose to shoot the 59th and 60th shots into the 58th target (along with the 58th shot). Since he is allowed to have two overloads without penalty then he should not have had any deductions.
I think the jury read the rules incorrectly.
Cheers
Martin