OzFclass

I have been trying to get clarification from the NRAA regarding the ruling for Chapter 4 ‘Shooting Procedures’ Section 1.3.17, page 26 of the ‘Standard Shooting Rules’, version 7.1 published July 2021. However, no one seems to be available to respond so am putting this question to 'knowledgeable' F-Class shooters on this forum.

My fellow F-Class shooters are telling me that if I decide to convert only one sighter, I cannot choose the higher value sighter and that only the seconder sighter can be converted.

I believe that I am being given incorrect information as the wording of 4.1.3.17 (page 26) clearly states the following:
‘If a competitor decides to convert one or both sighting shots,……’.

Anyone have an opinion on this ruling they would like to share?

They are correct

You cannot convert your 1st sighter if it is the higher value, without also converting the 2nd sighter even if it is a lower value

Therefore your options are:
convert both sighters
convert 2nd sighter only
convert none

I appreciate you responding. Can you show where in NRAA's Shooting Procedures it says this?

It's called string shooting because shots are recorded in a string - no gaps.

Your mates are right and you are reading the rules wrong. I've been doing this since 1985 and it's never been any different. You can convert both sighters or the second sighter or none, that's it.
Pete

The way to remedy the problem you are having is not to shoot lower scores with your second sighting shot.

Rule 4.1.3.17 shows your only options
And
11.1.3.1 spells it out
Pete

Chapter 11,
11.1.3.1
Could I say that the whole of the SSR’S need to be referred to when making decisions regarding the conduct of Rifle shooting.
Mike.

Having studied law (as many of our fellow shooters have), a ruling must be clearly worded so as to avoid misinterpretation. It is not sufficient to presume that because the practice of doing something the same way for years, that it is correct.
The wording in NRAA's Shooting Procedures (4.1.3.17) does not make it clear, only that 'If a competitor decides to convert one or both sighting shots,……’.
I accept that Chapter 11 'Miscellaneous' 11.1.3.1 makes the ruling for sighers clearer, and I thank you and others on this forum for the discussion.
Cheers,
TS

Copy that.

Target Sighted wrote:Having studied law (as many of our fellow shooters have), a ruling must be clearly worded so as to avoid misinterpretation. It is not sufficient to presume that because the practice of doing something the same way for years, that it is correct.

Funny that the entire 1996 firearms act is based solely on interpretations and assumptions as the rest of the law .
if the law was written the way you surmise above there would be no need for a lawyer as it would be truly black and white , the is law is nothing but a whole lot of Grey.

dazza284 wrote:

Target Sighted wrote:Having studied law (as many of our fellow shooters have), a ruling must be clearly worded so as to avoid misinterpretation. It is not sufficient to presume that because the practice of doing something the same way for years, that it is correct.

Funny that the entire 1996 firearms act is based solely on interpretations and assumptions as the rest of the law .
if the law was written the way you surmise above there would be no need for a lawyer as it would be truly black and white , the is law is nothing but a whole lot of Grey.

The Law is in fact so well written there is an Act on how to interpret other Acts.
Each State, and the Commonwealth have their own Act Interpretation Act. They are all different, of course, because otherwise we would indeed not need lawyers!

When I posted my question concerning the NRAA's rules governing the conversion of sighter shots, I did not expect to be immersed in a general debate about 'Acts'.
For anyone who is interested, the term ‘Act’ refers to a bill which has been passed through various legislative steps to become law. Whereas 'Rules' refer to procedures for performing a task in a particular way.

Im sure the NRAA would be more then happy to accept you volunteering your time and effort to clarify and amend the SSR's to ensure that no rule can be misinterpreted. But if you could keep it up 500 pages, just easier to print out

Mr Target Sighted,

Our rules have generally been drafted by people who are experienced in the sport but with limited legal expertise. While legal expertise if applied appropriately (e.g. using layman's terms) would help avoid the threat of challenges, its a matter of cost - we're an amateur sport with limited membership and resources. Our competition rules have grey areas but the system definitely ain't broke. I'm not aware any competition rule disagreements that have gone to a courtroom. At events, most of us accept the ruling of the Range Officer at the time, and if not there is usually an opportunity to appeal RO rulings with a Committee. The last thing we need for the rules in those situations is reams of "legal-speak" documents.