Failure to fires gets you another look at bird?

A shooter in a shoot-off at CC had several FF's. Each time he asked for another bird before shooting the next target? We had a large group watching. For very FF this guy only has to shoot the 3rd target? Family Guy said he would ask. No answer from him.

We had some knowledgeable people in our group and almost all said no extra target on the FF. It is another FF. Next one is LOSS. Your opinions.

 

No look birds, next one is lost ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

What Caused the FF problem, was it an Illeagal Target? If So another look is acceptable to me, to confirm problem was corrected. If not the 2nd bird he looked at was FF and Lost., any further looked at targets are LOST. That is my Opinion, Line Judge Watching Shoot Offs need to be familiar w/ ATA RULES or be replaced IMMEADITLY.

Gary Bryant..................................Dr.longshot

 

Does it not state that a shooter may see a bird for any break in the firing sequence? Does a failure to fire qualify as a legitimate reason? Was his gun misfiring or was he just passing on the birds? If his gun was the problem, he only gets two. If he was passing on good pulls he get none. Roger C.

 

Every "shoot-off" I have been in had a "line-referee" ..... IF that is the case here, that is the ONLY opinion that mattered.

The current "ATA rule-book" is in such a state of garbage, you could probably find a "rule" to do anything you want ..... including "mulligans" .....

 

You do not get to look at another bird on a FF. Next bird not shot at is loss.

 

Just curious. Why are mulligans allowed? Eight in a 100 target competition if I read the rule book right. Does any other shotgun sport allow do-overs?

 

Depends, if the reason was for a "gun malfunction" that caused a "delay" during a sub-event, then a target may be seen prior to continuing.

For your generic FTF (mulligan) you are correct.

6. During a sub-event, if there is a delay due to trap or gun malfunction, the contestant in turn may ask to see a target (or pair of Doubles as applicable) thrown before he/she resumes shooting."

 

The answer is simple, but not well received .....

The never-was/never-will-be people in charge felt the need to provide "rule-protection", for their "high profile" Idol's actions that were being questioned.

When people watching these "high-profile" shooters, started openly questioning some "calling for" MANY more targets than they were "shooting at", the "mulligan rules" started .....

Now everyone, not just the "high-profile" shooters, can "call for" as many targets as "needed" to "shoot" the ones they want .....

 

That "delay" would be a broken trigger where the shooter had to go get a new trigger. A "delay" is not a shooter flinching. The supervisor/scorer was in error. The second target the shooter did not shoot should have been LOSS!

 

A delay can be caused by a fast pull, slow pull, or by a voice call malfunction, or a broken target. If the timing of the squad is interrupted. it is a delay. Just not firing at a good pull is not a legit reason. Observers other than than line ref. can not make a judgement call as to a lost target or if a delay is in effect. Roger C.

 

A flinch is not a gun malfunction, so even if the flinch caused a delay (getting your bearings straight), which I bet some could argue, you would not be allowed (it seems) a look at another target. Do you think somehow I said a flinch would get to see another?

You're probably trying to say something I am not reading, but why would the second target the contestant did not shoot be LOSS? Is it possible to get 2 FTF in a row? If you dent a primer, then attempt it again (second target) and it fails, it still wouldn't be LOSS, would it? Or, if you fail to load then fail to take the safety off.

Of course we probably should look at how you defined gun malfunction (broke trigger). Could it be a shell that flipped in the receiver and won't come out? Could it be many other things, including any FTF event which caused a delay, no time given.

The situation in the OP sounds just wrong and since targets were taken away from a kid at the AR State Shoot (wrongly in my opinion) after the fact, I imagine if the person noted in the OP won the shoot off, targets should be taken away from that contestant and see if they now are on the losing end.

 

Not to drag the thread in a different direction ..... but do you know if this "kid" shot those targets at an increased yardage, or a decreased yardage ?????

"Over-handicapping" yourself, like shooting an increased "penalty" yardage, would be different than moving closer for an "advantage" .....

 

I do not. Though even if it was closer, rather than farther is mute by rule. If the contestant does not fire at the correct yardage for one post, regardless of closer or further, that post can be shot over.

9. A contestant that inadvertently shoots ONE post at the incorrect yardage shall be allowed to move to the correct yardage and reshoot only those targets scored “DEAD” on that post. Targets shot at the incorrect yardage and scored “LOST” shall remain “LOST”. Targets shot at the incorrect yardage on more than one post shall be LOST.

 

I wasn't making any reference to a "rule" ..... just trying to somewhat understand what "logic" was used, if any .....

Any person on a good score, regardless of "age", could very easily make a simple mistake from the adrenaline.

I doubt if this "kid" was trying to "cheat" ..... but some may try to make that point if the targets were shot closer.

Like everything that the "ATA book of hypothesis" is used for ..... it depends more on the "who" than the "what" .....

 

Yep.