[J.Fred_Muggs]

"What's Your Call?", Clay Target Nation, June 2022, page 29 is wrong.

The call and the referee were correct, but not for the reason cited in the article.

A proof double was required because it was an Irregular Double per Rule III-E-5-

e. Both targets are broken with the first shot. (Rulebook, p.35).

 

[oldskeetshooter]

I pay little attention to what the rules committee comes up with. Concerning doubles, 2-3 years they revamped the "Colliding targets" issue and made all sorts of new rules. Although these changes were made and folks were informed, later nothing ever came to fruition. Folks went back to the way it was and nothing was said. UNLESS, the incorrect bird was broken, first, and fragged the other bird. Then the protests commenced. The shooter either wanted, "Nothing established, reshoot the pair" or "That was a bad call, The first target did break. First target dead. Proof doubles to establish the SECOND target".

Oh well. Let's just forget the referees and let the squads call their own targets. Folks can just make up the rules as they go.

IMHO: That is what things are coming to. Eliminate any judgement call by the referee. The squad votes and the majority rules.

 

[J.Fred_Muggs]

I pay little attention to what the rules committee comes up with. Concerning doubles, 2-3 years they revamped the "Colliding targets" issue and made all sorts of new rules. Although these changes were made and folks were informed, later nothing ever came to fruition. Folks went back to the way it was and nothing was said. UNLESS, the incorrect bird was broken, first, and fragged the other bird. Then the protests commenced. The shooter either wanted, "Nothing established, reshoot the pair" or "That was a bad call, The first target did break. First target dead. Proof doubles to establish the SECOND target".

Oh well. Let's just forget the referees and let the squads call their own targets. Folks can just make up the rules as they go.

IMHO: That is what things are coming to. Eliminate any judgement call by the referee. The squad votes and the majority rules.

ty - To refresh memories -

Rule III-E-2. If a double is thrown but the targets collide, it shall be
declared no bird, and the result of a proof double shall
determine the score of both shots. (page 34)

 

[Rooster booster]

Go shooting!

 

[xsshooter]

In 2021 at our State shoot the club was desperate for pullers and scorekeepers/refs.

I shoot only about 200 registered skeet targets, but agreed to help out.

Twice in a round on station 4 a shooter missed the first bird, and then the targets collided. I called lost, proof double to establish second bird. On that squad there was a certified ref, that informed me that the rule was nothing established pair over. No one else on the squad as aware of that rule.

I asked about a dozen shooters at the event, and no one else knew that rule either.

I have never seen that happen since.

BTW, everyone should be required to pull and score an event. you gain a whole new respect for those that do it. Having to pull, score and ref all by yourself is really, really hard, especially in doubles with a fast squad.

 

[D McMillen]

In 2021 at our State shoot the club was desperate for pullers and scorekeepers/refs.

I shoot only about 200 registered skeet targets, but agreed to help out.

Twice in a round on station 4 a shooter missed the first bird, and then the targets collided. I called lost, proof double to establish second bird. On that squad there was a certified ref, that informed me that the rule was nothing established pair over. No one else on the squad as aware of that rule.

I asked about a dozen shooters at the event, and no one else knew that rule either.

I have never seen that happen since.

BTW, everyone should be required to pull and score an event. you gain a whole new respect for those that do it. Having to pull, score and ref all by yourself is really, really hard, especially in doubles with a fast squad.

This has been a problem since the rule was changed and either clubs/shooters aren't aware or poor notification from NSSA.

 

[oldskeetshooter]

ty - To refresh memories -

Rule III-E-2. If a double is thrown but the targets collide, it shall be
declared no bird, and the result of a proof double shall
determine the score of both shots. (page 34)

Yes, I read that. Typical rules committee junk... Funny...There is no mention of whether the shooter fired or not. If the shooter fired AFTER the collision that would be a safety violation.

KInd of like.

G. USE OF A RADAR GUN The use of a radar gun by shoot management for setting targets is permitted so long as the height and distance requirements specified under Rule III-A-4, Definition of a Regular Target, are complied with.

Does one put up the hoop during or after setting with the radar gun?

 

[claybreaker]

Actually, I think the OP misunderstood the protest. The shooter didn’t say he broke both targets with both shots. The shooter “fired at and hit both targets.” I think he fired at both and broke both as a regular pair but the ref called second target irregular after the shot had already been taken. That would make NSSA & protest committee correct with both targets dead. If both broken by one shot, they collided, etc, proof doubles tor second target as the OP stated

 

[Sleipnir]

BTW, everyone should be required to pull and score an event. you gain a whole new respect for those that do it. Having to pull, score and ref all by yourself is really, really hard, especially in doubles with a fast squad.

I agree. I ran a monthly IPSC match for 2-3 years including a few state championships. I advocated this same philosophy which was not popular. The most frequent objection was "I paid my money. I don't expect to work."

 

[Crimson_Guy]

BTW, everyone should be required to pull and score an event. you gain a whole new respect for those that do it. Having to pull, score and ref all by yourself is really, really hard, especially in doubles with a fast squad.

I agree. I ran a monthly IPSC match for 2-3 years including a few state championships. I advocated this same philosophy which was not popular. The most frequent objection was "I paid my money. I don't expect to work."

I had this philosophy when I was on our Little League BOD. We always have had regular full time umpires, but up until a few years ago, managers were required to umpire at least two games a season in other divisions as part of the "price" of getting selected. Then somewhere along the way, that requirement got dropped and managers were allowed to buy their way out of their obligation by hiring an approved replacement.

The very next season after the requirement was dropped, we started having issues in the bottom division from the newest coaches and managers being abusive and unsportsmanlike to the umpires and not understanding certain rules situations as well as they should have. Within 3-4 years after most of the older guys had aged out, we were having problems in all of the divisions because none of the managers had ever umpired a game themselves. They were cocky and abusive and just plain "ugly" as we would say here in the south.

In any activity, acting as an official gives you a whole new appreciation of how hard it is to do and it requires you to have a better understanding of the rules.

 

[J.Fred_Muggs]

Actually, I think the OP misunderstood the protest. The shooter didn’t say he broke both targets with both shots. The shooter “fired at and hit both targets.” I think he fired at both and broke both as a regular pair but the ref called second target irregular after the shot had already been taken. That would make NSSA & protest committee correct with both targets dead. If both broken by one shot, they collided, etc, proof doubles tor second target as the OP stated

Hmmmm? I read it as the shooter broke both targets with one shot. But if he fired at both individually and broke both, then the RC was correct.

 

[oldskeetshooter]

Most folks, here, seem to be familiar with the rules. The thing is, if none of us were there to witness the incident, accurate rule application is impossible.

If you want to see some real whining, go back to "Pair in the Air" rule. Of course, this would slow down the shooting process, add anxiety and frustration, use considerably more ammo and targets.

Consider this. Pull, explode first target, no second target came out or was broken. Pull doubles again. Explode frist target, no second target emerges. Pull doubles again, both targets come out, but first target missed and second target hit.

First bird lost, second bird dead.

 

[D McMillen]

Most folks, here, seem to be familiar with the rules. The thing is, if none of us were there to witness the incident, accurate rule application is impossible.

If you want to see some real whining, go back to "Pair in the Air" rule. Of course, this would slow down the shooting process, add anxiety and frustration, use considerably more ammo and targets.

Consider this. Pull, explode first target, no second target came out or was broken. Pull doubles again. Explode frist target, no second target emerges. Pull doubles again, both targets come out, but first target missed and second target hit.

First bird lost, second bird dead.

I hate the "Fair pair in the air". Shooter is penalized from skeet machine breaking targets.

 

[oldskeetshooter]

I hate the "Fair pair in the air". Shooter is penalized from skeet machine breaking targets.

Yes, shooters CAN BE penalized, from frustration, by machines throwing bad or broken targets. In a sense, it can be a positive thing.

1. It raises the shooter's awareness to his/her ability to focus.
2. In a number of circumstances, it eliminates referee judgement. However, the referee should be quick to call NO BIRD.
3. (the reason some host clubs don't want to talk about) After a few shoots with shooters complaining about targets, the club may, acutally, have to start keeping the machines in proper working condition. By this I mean, some clubs don't care until the morning of the shoot.

 

[dubob]

Hmmmm? I read it as the shooter broke both targets with one shot. But if he fired at both individually and broke both, then the RC was correct.

Now you got it J. Fred! 😁
Darold would not intentially try to hit both targets with one shot. While his wording COULD lead one to believe he did that, I don't believe that was the case. I believe he fired at each target individually and broke both of them individually. And since the under educated referee did NOT declare 'NO BIRD' before the second shot was fired, then it is, in fact, a dead pair and no proof doubles is required.

 

[scooter123]

My timing on the station 2 pair is such that it's a bit common for me to break both targets with one shot. When it happens it's always the same, I hit the high target and the debris is thrown into the path of the low target. So, first is established and you shoot the pair over. At one shoot I had to shoot the pair 3 times before I managed to break both separately. BTW, when the first is established all you have to do on the re-shoot is make sure you hit the second target.

 

[dubob]

My timing on the station 2 pair is such that it's a bit common for me to break both targets with one shot. When it happens it's always the same, I hit the high target and the debris is thrown into the path of the low target. So, first is established and you shoot the pair over. At one shoot I had to shoot the pair 3 times before I managed to break both separately. BTW, when the first is established all you have to do on the re-shoot is make sure you hit the second target.

With the second shot - of course.

 

[J.Fred_Muggs]

BTW, when the first is established all you have to do on the re-shoot is make sure you hit the second target.

Or just air mail the first shot and work on the second target.

 

[John Henry]

I hate the "Fair pair in the air". Shooter is penalized from skeet machine breaking targets.

…..and yet……there are one or two shooters who I can almost count on to have a”gun malfunction” during a shootoff at a big shoot, with their autoloaders…..seems like they’ve figured out a way to turn doubles in to two singles…..