A question for the referees out there

[rmca]

Here´s the situation:

A P10 match, paper targets, two shots per card.
A shooter realizes that, when changing is target, that there was a second target stuck to the back of it.
The result was two targets with the exact same shots.
As soon as he found this, he raises his hand to call the referee.
He was apologetic and the whole thing was an honest mistake on his part.

How should the referee act?

[David Levene]

1) Make sure that the targets can be easily identified, either by noting the serial number or by writing on them.
2) Issue him with another (identified) target and instruct him to shoot it at the end.
3) Complete an IR (incident report) form.

Leave it to the Jury to sort out after the match.

I would then expect the Jury to make a common sense decision based on rule 6.8.12 and all of the circumstances.

[jackh]

Why not just dispose of the second target?

[Marc Orvin]

David Levene is right.

Jackh - NEVER dispose of a target.

[jackh]

What use is the target stuck behind the record target?

Are the international rules that anal?

[j-team]

What use is the target stuck behind the record target?

Are the international rules that anal?

Because keeping the target will confirm what happened. If the shooter throws it away, how do you know that he/she didn't just shoot 2 crap shots on in and then lie?

[jackh]

I still do not understand what would be wrong with just the top target of the two stacked.

[Spencer]

I still do not understand what would be wrong with just the top target of the two stacked.

So, you want the shooter to fire two less shots in the competition?

[David M]

1) Make sure that the targets can be easily identified, either by noting the serial number or by writing on them.
2) Issue him with another (identified) target and instruct him to shoot it at the end.
3) Complete an IR (incident report) form.

Leave it to the Jury to sort out after the match.

I would then expect the Jury to make a common sense decision based on rule 6.8.12 and all of the circumstances.

I think David has made it too complicated, if notified as it occurred the RO or line Ref (depending on the level of match) should
mark the second target, keep it and replace it with a marked target to be shot in sequence.
It will only need a jury if not found until the end of the match.

[David Levene]

I think David has made it too complicated, if notified as it occurred the RO or line Ref (depending on the level of match) should mark the second target, keep it and replace it with a marked target to be shot in sequence.
It will only need a jury if not found until the end of the match.

I prefer to work on the principle that if something isn't covered by the rules, and has to be judged on "spirit of the rules", then it should be done by more than one person.

[Spencer]

...I think David has made it too complicated, if notified as it occurred the RO or line Ref (depending on the level of match) should
mark the second target, keep it and replace it with a marked target to be shot in sequence.
It will only need a jury if not found until the end of the match.

The only bit that David Levene added was the Incident Report - if David M's wife was operating the Control Room, then woe betide him if he was the official that did not provide the IR (she can be quite forceful (and I love her dearly)).

[David M]

Sorry, forgot to add the Range Report
" Match completed, coffee cold, biscuits stale..."

[rmca]

Leave it to the Jury to sort out after the match.
I would then expect the Jury to make a common sense decision based on rule 6.8.12 and all of the circumstances.

Just to put this thread to bed, what decision would you guys defend if you were a member of the jury.

Disregard the second target and count the extra target instead?
Would there be a place for any penalties?

Thanks!

[David Levene]

It would be difficult to double-guess the Jury without being there, and I've seen too many cases of things not being as they first appear.

As I suggested, this is not covered by any ISSF rule (that I can think of), so common sense would need to be applied.

[Spencer]

depends on how the Jury Members interpret/apply 6.11.3 b