OzFclass

We never make mistakes

A question: Do you think it plausible that an FOpen rifle, properly located and supported by a quality front rest and rear bag could fire a shot onto a target four targets away at 700m? Given 8’ target with 8’ spacing, that makes for 92 moa each way. If the rest was centrally aligned to aim at the centre of the correct target, that means the rest was capable of 180+ moa of movement. I call BS.

The NQRA Kings
This however was the response given for refusing a challenge to a “miss” at the recent NQRA Kings. Apparently the shot record was investigated and 'at about the same time an unexplained shot was recorded four targets away’. The shooter was shooting 6 and X before and after the incident. The shooter was not given a hearing.
I decided to test this at Belmont at the recent Kings at 900 yards. I could get exactly 2 targets each way with an identical rest (Rodzilla using full motion of joystick). This is a lot different to four targets.

For the information of STA’s and Clubs using electronic targets:
 a “miss” and an “undetected shot” are not the same thing.
 an “unexplained shot” on a target is not the same thing as a hit on that target that can be attributed to someone else, particularly if it is not possible to aim there.
 “at about the same time “is not the same thing as “at the exact same time” that a shot was fired. The timing of the “miss” and the “hit” would have to be within a second to have credibility.
 having one of the owners of the company that makes the ET’s evaluate for a hit or miss is a thing called “apprehended bias” because it could be seen to be in the interests of the company to be able to deny an undetected shot. I am not questioning anyone honesty, this is not me criticising anyone, it’s a decision of the High Court. Look it up.


The QRA Kings
At the recent QRA Kings, the following gem was posted in the “QRA App”
 If you get a miss mid string, first check with your scorer for any messages on their screen, as some are not visible on the shooter's monitor. Before taking another shot call either me or John Menzel; we may ask you to fire a provisional shot. If necessary, the Electronic Technician (ET) may examine the system and will determine the outcome of a disputed miss; this may take some time. The ET decision is final and cannot be appealed.
So this paragraph from the QRA seems to be based on the flawed reasoning that the ET is infallible.
It also appears to contravene the legal standard of “natural justice”, because at no stage of the decision making process does the shooter have a right to be heard. Look it up.

And obviously some other shooters agree and have been handed the raw prawn before. Two targets away from me during the QRA Kings, there was a loud discussion.
Scorer: that’s a miss
Shooter: call the range officer
Range Officer: you may fire provisional shot if you wish
Shooter: what the f… good would that do because you are never going to accept it anyway.
No hearing, no hope of appeal, no faith in the system to look after the interests of those who have stumped up the cash. A clear denial of natural justice.
……….. next shooter please……..


At Belmont I observed on the second day of the Kings, target seven and the targets each side (not sure of the numbers because Belmont has some reverse numbering). All failed to register a shot at the same time. Confusion reigned for a minute or so, RO was called and eventually a message popped onto the screen something like “re-establishing connection”. The shots were also eventually displayed. This tells me that the targets are not infallible, not instantaneous and dependent on a whole range of interconnected things which may not be 100% reliable.

Electronic targets are great things. They have probably more than any aid/invention kept the movement alive. They however are not God. They are human creation and last time I looked none of them were Gods either. Use them as a tool, not an umpire.

=======

So what’s the point of this rant? There are a few.
How about we use the rule book under which we are supposed to operate.
The SSR’s have a process for a disputed miss, it’s called Rule 4.5.1.15.2 Electronic Target- Misses on the Target.
The rule uses the ‘balance of probabilities” as the standard, not the infallibility of ET’s.

In my opinion, denying a fair hearing is unsportsmanlike and brings the movement into disrepute. Shooters are governed by Rules 2.2.6.3 or 8.2.1.6 to conduct themselves properly, not so the organising bodies.

Eventually the infallibility rule will be applied to the wrong person, one who has the resources to make a proper challenge. The organising body will be taken to court and they will lose, simply because of the denial of rights and the apprehended bias. This will be member’s money you’ll be playing with.

Pissing off your customers is always a bad move

Pete

Not much different to inattentive manual marking. Scoring for a shooter during a major meeting where I observed a counting shot penetrate the target, watched dust rise from the stop butt. Final result, a miss with a following an appeal dismissed. Wayward electronics=poor manual marking. Bisley marking could be a way of reducing errors during a major meeting. Shooters are reluctant to carry out marking duties and who blames them, especially in Australian weather conditions.

In my experience with Hexta targets, if there is a momentary connection issue with the target then upon re-establishing the connection the ‘missed shot’ will always show up.

And further to this, if the same shooter puts a shot down to ‘check the target’ and it immediately shows up, does that not prove that there was no issue with the target?

Rogue22 wrote:And further to this, if the same shooter puts a shot down to ‘check the target’ and it immediately shows up, does that not prove that there was no issue with the target?

No!
It just says that at the time of the second shot everything appeared to be working OK. It gives us no information about the first shot.

Your argument is similar to this:
Imagine a room where it is dark . The light switch is turned on but it stays dark. A short time later the light switch was again turned on but this time it lit up. This therefore proves that the light was always functioning but somehow the light switch was turned on wrong.

Your argument is not logical because it is based on a false premise that the target cannot have an error.

Rogue22 wrote:In my experience with Hexta targets, if there is a momentary connection issue with the target then upon re-establishing the connection the ‘missed shot’ will always show up.

All this proves is that you have not been present when the "missed shot" has failed to show up.

Rogue22 wrote:In my experience with Hexta targets, if there is a momentary connection issue with the target then upon re-establishing the connection the ‘missed shot’ will always show up.

And further to this, if the same shooter puts a shot down to ‘check the target’ and it immediately shows up, does that not prove that there was no issue with the target?

In short, no. It proves there is no issue with the target now, not that there was no issue back then, when it missed the shot.
I totally understand Pete's comments. Hextas are not infallable. Point in case target 23 at QRA Kings.
Unresolved shots for 3 consecutive shooters before it was shut down. Scores stand.
Apparently, if the target resolves the shot then it's position is accurate, despite being unable to resolve 20% of the shots going through it. In this case it was due to a big hole in the rear membrane, possibly exacerbated by wind noise.
I've had shots lost on manuals and ETs , there is no perfect solution but ETs are, by far, more convenient.
I do support the propersition that we use the rules, rather than the infallible fantacy to resolve missing shots though.
6XX6 MISS X,,,, really? Find the shot on another target of give the shooter the shot back.
Yes, I fully appreciate that the shooter may have put it next door and that shooter may be disinclined to speak up having just gained a 6/X/V but that's the organisers job to police. On manuals the target would drop. On ETs it up to the scorer.

I fully appreciate the recent issue at QRA with the membrane being blown out of the back, but NQRA targets were brand new so that doesn’t fly in this instance.

There were approx 60,000 shots put into the backstop at NQRA Kings this year, and on the first day of the TR teams event prior to the king’s there was a lot of connectivity issues due to a combination of the new system and inexperienced ET’s. But…. All shots showed up once the connection was restored.

And aside from literally one shot (where an extra shot was found 4 targets up) there was not a single other issue.

I don’t think ET’s are infallible, but as I was told early on in my shooting career.. there are those that have shot the wrong target, and those who just haven’t done it yet.

[quote="Rogue22"]I fully appreciate the recent issue at QRA with the membrane being blown out of the back, but NQRA targets were brand new so that doesn’t fly in this instance.

There were approx 60,000 shots put into the backstop at NQRA Kings this year, and on the first day of the TR teams event prior to the king’s there was a lot of connectivity issues due to a combination of the new system and inexperienced ET’s. But…. All shots showed up once the connection was restored.

And aside from literally one shot (where an extra shot was found 4 targets up) there was not a single other issue.

I don’t think ET’s are infallible, but the data logs don’t lie.

Rogue22 wrote:.
I don’t think ET’s are infallible, but the data logs don’t lie.

Yes but data logs don't record something which is not observed.

So if a shot doesn't trigger the target, then nothing is recorded. That is not data, it is an absence of data, with no evidence either way.

Logic tells me, on the balance of probabilities, a shooter with 6,X,X,6,XMISS, 6,X hasn't missed an 8x8' target.

It's only one of the possibilities. Another possibility is that the target malfunctioned. If there is no evidence to adjudicate between the two then this is where the benefit of the doubt comes in as per rule 4.5.1.15.2 Electronic Target- Misses on the Target.

Why is the rule not being applied?

I can think of these reasons:
1. challenges are inconvenient
2. there is a thing called confirmation bias - the system is perfect because we paid $$$ for it
3. there is apprehended bias in the ET staff who of course run a perfect system
4. the primacy of the organising body is being maintained, like the post title "we never make mistakes"

Pete

But the key piece of evidence we aren’t considering, is that an extra shot was found. 4 targets across at a time which was between the competitors last scoring shot and his next shot after the miss.

If that shot wasn’t found, then I’m pretty sure he would have been given benefit of the doubt as per the rules.

Four targets away?? you're kidding
You obviously haven't read the first post and don't understand the rules

At the time of the shot the R O checked all other targets and no shot was found ,only later supposedly a shot was found in the target file , the next day?
I WAS THE SHOOTER

If no shot is recorded but the scorer has seen dust come up from behind the target indicating a hit do we believe the target failed? If an attentive check scorer also sees that dust is the target still correct?
I think this shows the importance of having a check scorer and that both that person and the scorers observations carry some weight considering there is no marker in the butts to confirm anything.
ETs are not infallible and there are no standards set that they have to comply with. They are a convenience and a useful one but not infallible.
The best we can do is apply the rules as in the SSRs with and perhaps modify those rules if they are inadequate.
It costs a lot of time and money to complete in a major event and the competitors deserve to be treated fairly.

Steve N wrote:
ETs are not infallible and there are no standards set that they have to comply with. They are a convenience and a useful one but not infallible.
The best we can do is apply the rules as in the SSRs with and perhaps modify those rules if they are inadequate.
It costs a lot of time and money to complete in a major event and the competitors deserve to be treated fairly.

Excellent points Steve

The title of the post "We Never Make Mistakes" was used deliberately to point out the absurdity of the ruling Politburo(s) pronouncing rules that are without foundation and ultimately unsupportable as per the book of the same title (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), and are purely for the convenience of the organising bodies.

PeteFox wrote:Four targets away?? you're kidding
You obviously haven't read the first post and don't understand the rules

Well where did that shot come from then??