I am relatively new to skeet and dont understand this rule. Why does a shooter get a “no bird” call if he misses the first bird of a doubles when the whole birds subsequently collide? I assumed it was bc the referee wouldnt be afforded the entire fleld of flight to ascertain whether the first bird that was “apparently” missed, would separate late in the field. But this could also be argued if the “apparently” missed first bird collided with pieces of the second bird….. Why not make it consistent? If anything happens that prevents the referee from seeing a target reach the opposing out of bounds stske…..it is a “no bird”. it is quite odd that 1 scenario of missing the first bird in doubles would result in a pair over, but another scenario would be ruled loss first bird with a proof doubles to establish the second. if you are not afforded the entire field of flight to watch the first bird, it is possible that it was indeed hit, just not hard enough to break apart instantaneously. please help me understand
This is the logic. It would be virtually impossible for most people to shoot a pair in the manner that would be necessary for this to ever occur. Where ever the 1st target is when you fire on it, the 2nd target is in the same spot on the opposite side of the center stake. For this to even be possible, you'd have to be shooting your 1st target before 1/2 way to the center stake, then immediately spot shooting your 2nd target over the center stake. It is technically possible to shoot a pair that way as a trick shot, but nobody intentionally shoots their targets this way in competition. You're talking about something that is substantially rarer than a 1 in a million chance. And in that instance, the likely most fair ruling would be 2nd bird established, reshoot to establish the 1st.
If the birds can collide in the middle of the field, then slower or more inexperienced shooters seem to shoot high 2 later than ideal. So if the colliding doubles occurs frequently enough to make it a rule, it seems that a slower or more inexperienced shooter could break low 2 accidentally and for a debris field to be established for high 2 to go through. So it may be rare, but why not allow for it to happen in the rules for the pair to be reshot. and I was not aware that the birds could be scored in reverse order. Could I really have scored low 2 as a hit and had the shooter reshoot the pair to establish high 2? As I said, I am new to skeet, but was under the impression, maybe incorrectly, that the birds could not be shot in reverse order….thank you for taking the time to try to help me through this
This simply isn't physically possible. For Hi 2 to hit pieces of low 2, low 2 would have to be shot well before the center stake. Think of the direction the targets are flying in, and where a target would have to be broken for there to be said debris. If the low house is shot late, the high house has already passed the center stake and is no where near the high house. A slower or inexperienced shooter isn't going to be shooting their low house (2nd shot) before the center stake... What I THINK you're trying to describe is a case where a shoot breaks the 2nd target with their 1st shot. If this is the case, the 1st target is established lost, and the pair is reshot to establish the 2nd. They aren't. But in the EXCEPTIONALLY rare circumstance where pieces from the 2nd target impacted an apparently missed 1st target, it would be the fairest option and the one I'd argue for.
Ok. Thank you. I help to coach a youth SCTP team and we primarily shoot sporting clays. I have laminated Todd Benders “cheat sheet” on break points, hold points and look points for esch station…and our coaching staff does our best to teach all of our athletes off of that sheet……but we still see a lot if our youngsters having trouble getting on high 2 as early as we woukd like……so breaking low 2, either simultaneously or apparently before the catastrophic failure of high 2…. Happens often enough for me to try to get ahead of it. SCTP skeet is governed by NSSA rules, but not all of the young volunteer trappers/referees at these events knows as much as I do…..which admittedly isn’t enough. So at least now, should it happen again, I have an educated/experienced opinion on which to lean on to suggest a solution. Thanks again for your input and help.
