[Em Are Skeet]

I apparently have not saved my old rulebooks. I hope some of you have and can help me with this. As I recall, at one time Rule III-A-4 (reprinted below) did not include the last sentance (in bold). Something like that may have been included, as now, in I-C-4 or elsewhere, but it was not mentioned in the definition of Regular Target.

Are there any packrats out there than can help my memory?

III-A-4. Regular Target
A regular target is one that appears after the shooter's
call and within a period not to exceed one (1) second, and
which passes within a three-foot circle centered at a
point fi fteen (15) feet above the target-crossing point.
The target-crossing point shall be measured from the level
of Station 8. The target, in still air, must carry to a distance
equivalent, on level ground, to 60 yards from the skeet house
when passing through the center of the hoop, with an
allowance tolerance of plus or minus two yards.

 

[Guest]

The rule book for Section III A item 4 defining regular target has not changed in words, word sequence, punctuation or bold print since at least shooting year 2005 which is as far back as I have kept my books.

 

[Curly N]

Old rule books are exactly that!

 

[Em Are Skeet]

Thanks Mike. This would be before that, 80's or earlier. I remember a very experienced and well respected chief referee explaining that if a target went through the hoop is was regular target regardless of where it went or landed after that.

My memory in these matters is excellent . Like Mark Twain, it is so good I can even remember things that did not occur. It would be even better if I had a rulebook from that period.

 

[wshumard]

In the 1969 rulebook IIIA.5. Regular Target the wording was identical to current IIIA.4. except for the last sentence. The sentence which you 'bolded' above used to read "This target, in still air, must carry to a distance equivalent, on level ground, to fifty-five (55) yards from the traphouse, but under no conditions exceed sixty-five (65) yards."

Not a substantial change - allowance is now tightened up to plus or minus two yards with 60 yards still the desired no-wind distance.

I was told that the old single-stack Winchester traps needed the 5-yard tolerance on the low side when the main spring became old and lost some tension. In fact, some clubs set their distance markers at 55 yards to avoid excessive spring breakage. Over-tightening a weakened main spring to try to make the 60-yard distance could result in breakage which could be disastrous to the trap machine - sometimes the spring would fly apart with sufficient force to break the aluminum alloy 'nose cone' which formed the front anchor on the spring housing. Clubs often borrowed extra traps to keep on hand for quick replacement during tournaments. If your club still uses the Winchester trap you might note that the 'nose cone' on some of the machines have been repaired by welding.

 

[Em Are Skeet]

wshumard - Thank you very much for that. It was exactly what I was looking for.

all - It seems there has been no substanitive change in the definition of regular targets.

 

[Baron23]

Ahhhh, I'll now be able to sleep well tonight :lol: :wink:

 

[D L Marcum]

Ah Yes,
Isn't it nice when we can pick and choose which rule we want to use, when it suits the argument at that particular time.

Gentlemen, we cannot ignore rule I-F, which details setting of the targets and does specify the distance in calm air. Same as III-A-4 on distance.

However the last sentense of that rule puts it in perspective as to what is a legal target and what is not.

The last sentence states: The prevailing wind during a shoot may cause the targets to fall far short or long, but they are legal targets provided they pass through the setting hoop.

This plainly provides, that once the target has passed through the hoop, (or the area which would be the hoop), it matters not what the prevailing wind does to it. High, low, short or long, it makes no difference. It is still a legal target, and if you decline one that has passed through the hoop area and dies or does whatever, you are subject to a balk if the Referee feels it did in fact pass through the hoop area.

Windy conditions, (In most cases), cannot be construed as interfereance. I do agree that if the target passed far off the hoop area, then it is really an irregular, or illegal target, and should be no birded by the Referee, and if declined should not be scored as a balk, but in fact re-thrown.

DLM

 

[Bob_K]

DL... While windy conditions are not an interference per se, the bird hitting the ground before it is out of bounds in fact deprives a shooter the full oppotunity to shoot the bird. I would rule the ground was an interference if the shooter did not shoot at such a bird.

 

[Kensington]

DL... I would rule the ground was an interference if the shooter did not shoot at such a bird.

Here we go again...

On the old forum, Heiple proposed just that. It made sense to me but offended the sensibilities of others.

Perhaps we'll hear the arguments again.

Kensington

 

[Guest]

Update. Just in from King Heiple his e-mail discussion of regular target. He pretty thoroughly covers the NSSA position on wind and regularity. I would very much like to inform the readership what it is he maintains but if I told you the secrets which will be forthcoming in the January issue of SSR then I would...you know...have to kill you.

Thanks to Heiple for his graciousness under fire and for a timely reply. I take back what I was thinking about conspiracies and shots from the grassy knoll. He has discharged my paranoid tendencies and for now I feel calm and safe and untroubled. Pity that in some ways for the only thing I like more than two on eight for the fourth time is a good whine.

 

[Em Are Skeet]

Aha! Rule I-F. Thank you DLM. I was pretty sure there was another section of the Rulebook dealing with this. Not so much picking and choosing but that I just couldn't find it. And it uses the term legal target which is why I couldn't find it using the word search function for regular on the on-line book.

 

[D L Marcum]

Kensington,

You will get no argument out of me.

I can read plain English very well. Thank You.

Until they change that rule, that's what I will go by and I don't give a Rat's Behind what the nit pickers say.

There is no mistaking the meaning of this rule, and I will continue to abide by it as written untill it is changed or superceded by the Rules committee and properly voted on by the State Directors.

I'm outa here.

DLM

 

[Kensington]

Kensington,

You will get no argument out of me.

DLM

Or from me. Just looked as if a storm was brewing...

Since there seems to be more and different posters here than at the old site, it would be (IMHO) an interesting topic.

Kensington

 

[lowgun]

The reason the "ground" debate doesn't have good legs is that only doubles at station six would usually bring that rule change into effect. Low house targets rarely hit the ground on the field before being shot at and most shooters in windy conditions shoot at high seven doubles in plenty of time because they change their timing on the low bird to allow extra time on the second target. That only leaves the second bird of station six doubles to worry about. The law of averages would make a grounded high six doubles a rare event except in a tornado.

 

[Kensington]

The reason the "ground" debate doesn't have good legs is that only doubles at station six would usually bring that rule change into effect.

That's true Bill but no reason to leave any ambiguity about how it should be scored.

The law of averages would make a grounded high six doubles a rare event except in a tornado.

Gotta disagree with you there. When there's a strong wind blowing from behind the high house and it gusts at the right time, that high bird can be driven into the ground before the "out of bounds". I've had it happen to me and I've seen it happen to others.

Kensington

 

[lowgun]

I didn't imply that a high house couldn't and doesn't get driven into the ground on the field on occasion. I implied that under most circumstances, it gets shot at first. Of several dozen targets that would land on the field before the out of bounds line, most get broken, some more get shot at and missed, and only a very small percentage hit the ground without a shot being fired. This small percentage that would fall within the "new rule" is the reason why the rule change has weak legs. I never said it would be a bad rule, just that it is unlikely to get a life.

 

[Guest]

Lowgun, the bird hitting the ground is the canary in the mine. As a dramatic example it tests of issues on unfairness. Just like my original invented scenario about people huddled in the low house during the rain. Unfairness is taken up in the rule book but in today's climate of shoot it where it flies goes begging in an atmosphere of expediancy and testosterone.

It speaks to a need for referee equanimity and reasonable intervention during times when the birds are patenty irregular or significantly deviating. Try to extend the thinking. Guys like Clayton want the experienced referees but none that use good judgement. Guys like Steinkraus think they have an advantage shooting in crummy conditions with irregular targets they are unwilling to surrender. We call guys like him "mudders".

Look: The point is people are not using the rule book. Do I need to say that again? You can shuck and jive and toss sarcasm and ridicule all you want. Half the guys did not know what the words or intent were.

Referees are paid to get the shooters thru the 100 targets and not paid to call no bird. Face it. It is pervasive. Dink around trying to be reasonable and you do not get called back to ref. In the inimitable words of Glenn Carbonaceous "It ain't right" .

Some of the dudes on here have got to admit they are wandering around supporting what they THINK should be in the rule book and not what IS. I say they get off their denial admit they are wrong, and get to work making it like they think it should be using any effective vector they deem fitting. Or shut the ..... up and deal with "reality".

Mike, out.

 

[Kensington]

This small percentage that would fall within the "new rule" is the reason why the rule change has weak legs. I never said it would be a bad rule, just that it is unlikely to get a life.

Well, that's right. But, I wonder how many "interference" calls have been made since the cell phone issue was added (by recess appointment) to the rules.

Kensington

 

[MRPOWER]

Referees are paid to get the shooters thru the 100 targets and not paid to call no bird. Face it.

Actually, they are paid to call no bird. And the "reality" is we shoot an outdoor sport. There are variables and to insist/demand perfect consistency in target flight is impracticable, impractical, implausible, and just generally silly.

And Mr. Steinkraus is not the only one who thinks it's to his advantage to shoot in difficult conditions. I know from personal conversations that for one of the greatest shooters to shoot the game a windy locale is not a per se deterrent for him when choosing a shoot because it's ultimately not going to affect the truly good shooters that much anyways and it spreads the option money out better. He and Mr. Kraus are not alone.