Point deductions and inner tens - ISSF rule interpretation

[Joakim]

This weekend, I attended a national judges course. The opportunity to discuss rules, interpretations and situations is important, not to mention great fun, and should really be used more not only among aspiring judges and officials but also among shooters.

Anyway, amidst the more or less ordinary stuff there arose a tricky question. This is an improbable situation, but in several ISSF rifle and pistol events, it is at least perfectly possible. Let's say for instance a shooter loads his gun for an 8-second series in Rapid Fire Pistol. Accidentally, he fires a shot in the ground while doing a test lift (well before ATTENTION). This is a case where knowing the rules can save you 10 points! This shooter knows the rule (8.6.6.2.1), raises his free hand and waits for the series to finish. When later reshooting the series, he somehow miraculously pulls his nerves together, shooting five inner tens. How is this series scored?

Clearly it's a 48. But is it 48-4x, or the seemingly absurd 48-5x? Common sense dictates that there is no such thing as an "inner eight", and the hit from which two points have been deducted should be counted as an ordinary eight. But on the other hand, the spirit of rule 6.8.16 seems to be that the shooter should not be further penalized by lowering his tie-breaking criteria, so a case could certainly be made for his retaining of 5x. (This would probably be hard to do with most computer software?)

[Spencer]

In 8.6.6.2.1 the 2-points is deducted from the series, not from any target's value - 6.16.2.3, 6.16.4.3.5 and 6.11.7.1.1 could be more interesting

This question does not apply to 10m/50m rifle or pistol Qualification rounds (there is no LOAD command, only START) - 8.6.6.2.1 only applies to 25m pistol.

[David Levene]

In 8.6.6.2.1 the 2-points is deducted from the series, not from any target's value - 6.16.2.3, 6.16.4.3.5 and 6.11.7.1.1 could be more interesting

There's no longer any such rule number as 6.16.4.3.5

I presume it would have to be covered under 6.11.4.1

[Spencer]

In 8.6.6.2.1 the 2-points is deducted from the series, not from any target's value - 6.16.2.3, 6.16.4.3.5 and 6.11.7.1.1 could be more interesting

There's no longer any such rule number as 6.16.4.3.5

I presume it would have to be covered under 6.11.4.1

Bummer - cut and pasted from the wrong bit...

[David Levene]

Bummer - cut and pasted from the wrong bit...

I know the problem. If someone talks about finals it's instnctive to go straight to 6.16, but that whole section has been replaced by the combined errata.

The sooner we get an electronic 3rd printing the better.

It wouldn't surprise me if they will wait until after Sydney and Changwon, just to make sure they have picked up any "undocumented features" (but I could very easily be wrong).