ihmsa forums

Boomer wrote:...The 1st turkey was in the shade & I didn't see it, consequently I started on the 2nd Turkey & didnt realize my error until I got to the last turkey & had a round left over. Not sure what to do I went back to the 1st turkey saw it & shot it.

Steve, I think this statement is very clear. He shot 4 animals out of order when he realized that he did it. If he had realized it after the first animal, I would agree with you. Here's my (very unfortunate for Boomer) interpretation of what happened:

On Shot 1, Boomer shoots Target 2 instead of 1 - Misses on both targets.
(This is where the clarification comes in. If he identified the wrong target here, he could shoot the last 3 but he doesn't.)
On Shot 2, Boomer shoots Target 3 instead of 2 - Miss on target 3 because it's not available for the third shot
On Shot 3, Boomer shoots Target 4 instead of 3 - Miss on target 4 because it's not available for the fourth shot
On Shot 4, Boomer shoots Target 5 instead of 4 - Miss on target 5 because it's not available for the fifth shot

The question now becomes, "does the previously mentioned rule penalty stand for the entire bank or the individual target that the shooter is knocking down?" With the way it is worded, I'm interpreting it as individual shots. Here's a scenario to explain it. Shooter is on Turkey #3, but hits the foot of #4. #4 and #5 fall. In this case, the shooter would only lose targets #3 & #4 requesting an alibi for #5.

The above is exactly the way this rule was explained to me.

Now, with all of this said... I really hate this rule. If you hit the target you were aiming at, it should be a hit (as long as it is your own).


Chris

Consider the following: We are supposed to engage each target left-to-right in order. If he has a spotter the spotter will inform the shooter of the error, declare two misses, and advise to engage target 3. Are we to penalize for not having the advantage of a spotter ? It's easy to not locate a shaded target. I agree with awarding 3 4 and 5 as hits.
What would happen if a shooter engages #2, hits it, loses 1 and 2-----then shoots #4, hits it---losing 3 and 4 ? Four misses in the same string. If he/she hits #5 he/she gets credit for 1 target. And, I've never hit #2 first; nor shot on the wrong bank. (Lightning may strike soon). RP

He only shot one target out of order and that was #2. He did not shoot at #1 and shot #2 out of sequence. So, he is counted as missing two targets. 3-5 were shot in order.


Mike

See??? This is exactly why I hate this rule. Scenario #2... Shooter misses Target 1, scored as a miss. Shooter aims at target #2 but hits target #1. This is scored as a SINGLE miss. So missing to the left is ok, but missing to the right is not... FML


Chris

Chris, ........and if you shoot at #2 as the first shot----and miss it-----you may or may not realize what you have done. You only have one miss. So....if you are going to shoot the wrong target, or shoot at the wrong target, it is better to miss it.
Chris.....as to your Scenario #2, if you are shooting at #2 and have already missed #1----you already have a miss. Now if you are on target 2, miss it and hit #1, you have two misses. rp

And we WONDER why IHMSA can't grow. This has always seemed a rather pointless rule to me as well as about 20 others.

So, as long as we hit five targets with five shots-------does it matter in which order they are shot ?

It does, but it doesn't. If you INTENTIONALLY hit 5 targets with 5 shots, you should be able to score 5 hits.

Chris

There has been a couple times that I wished that the rule does not exist. But, it does. So two misses it was. I just need to pay more attention, that's all. Nobody's fault but my own.

BUT------it makes for an interesting analysis. It also gives us a basis for examining why a rule exists and whether it still has relevance and validity. So......in light of the analysis-----should we keep it as written, clarify it, or abolish it ? rp