This is correct. That is the ‘new rule’, III-E-2, implemented last winter. In attempting a pair, if you shoot at and apparently miss the first target, then get lucky enough that have the targets collide at midfield, it is a complete redo as if it never occurred.

However there is an additional twist to the situation that the OP presented.

Agreed, given the first scenario, and believing all of the details of what the OP indicated happened, the first target should be scored: established lost on the high house.

Apologies if I was abrupt in previous posts, I don’t intend to be a D-Bag. Sometimes in typing a reply things just come out different then intended.

In the situation that the OP describes, we have conflicting rules. So which rule has precedence?

First: the shooter shot at and missed the first target, and also the two targets collided. Does the new rule implemented last winter, III-E-2, prevail? Should the shooter get a complete Mulligan with no penalties?

Second: the shooter shot/hit the second target out of turn. There is a rule, III-E-5(f), which dictates a one target penalty for that – first bird established lost. It could further be argued that the targets (as in whole targets) did not collide. It was fragments of the second target, which was shot out of turn, that collided with the first.

So which rule prevails?

Since rule changes are no longer announced in the association magazine, how are members to know about them?

Well, unfortunately that is probably the situation for many and should be rectified. But comments from me on that one would definately take this thread off topic.

What some fail to realize is that under the new rule, a target CANNOT be declared lost UNTIL it hits the ground. Nothing covers what happens in an instance were both targets are lost so watching both is impossible, or if the target is not viable by the ref when it hits the ground.

So what does a referee do when a two-barrel loader calls for his low-house target before the referee can watch an apparent high house miss until it hits the ground?

Specifically what section and paragraph in the rule book states this?

Not specifically the new rule, but:

"13. Dead Target
A target from which, in the sole judgment of the referee, a
visible piece is observed before the target hits the ground
as a result of having been legally fired upon."

The contention and crux of the new rule is that since the referee couldn't watch the first target to the ground due to the targets having collided before the firs target could be observed all the way to the ground, a determination could not be made either way, and nothing is established.

For 40 years, I thought the target had to "BREAK" before it crossed the "Out of bounds marker". Oh well, Let just pull up those unnecessary markers.

BTW: I have never seen a skeet field on which the referee could see every target hit the ground. Perhaps we should get rid of the referees and let the shooters call lost and dead. Seems that is what it's coming to.

That's not what the rulebook says... it says it has to be fired upon in bounds... it doesn't say it has to break.

III-C-3
One lost target shall be scored on:
d. Target fired upon after it is outside the shooting bounds

If you fire at it within bounds and it is a "Slow break" it could break after the marker.

The correct ruling in the OP is that the pair should be shot over, nothing established.

I have been a part of, and witnessed multiple "Correct" calls since the new rule, where the targets were shot at (no breaks visible) and then collide at the center stake. "Repeat pair, nothing established"

If there is "no break" and someone gets a repeat pair with nothing established... Then the same should apply if the person breaks the wrong target which then collides at the center stake.

With the exception of target collision, before a shot was fired, the new rule was thrown out almost as fast as it was implemented.

Also, I don't know of any referee, who can see a low 1, low 2 and quite possibly low 3, fly to the distance marker. If they run out onto the field to be able to view this action, they should be written up for a safety violation.

Bad rule as now written and interpreted. It should be changed. That would be easy to do. A rule change like that could be considered an administrative change and could be accomplished without sending it to the Directors for a vote.

That's a fair statement, and I think the "spirit" or "intent" of the rule, was to make sure the referee watched the target as far as he/she could to see if a visible piece comes off.

I remember one shoot, a gal on my squad shot Low 8, and it appeared she missed it. The referee never even turned her head to watch the bird. Simply called, "Lost!"

As the bird crossed the field, it simply broke perfectly in half, before reaching the far side out of bounds marker. (Of course, on L8, the center post is the out of bounds marker...) This bird, as witnessed by several of us on the squad, should have been called DEAD. We made our case, but the ref refused to hear it. So the shooter was penalized with a target she rightfully broke.

Skeet is a dynamic game. Trying to take every rule literally verbatim, will just drive you nuts. I believe most people understand the spirit of most rules.

I've seen targets past the boundary stakes broken by shots from the next field. Are they scored dead?