Pair Lost

[Northampton.SG]

I'd say killed and lost.

If he didn't fire the second barrel for any reason that's down to him.

If he called a missfire but ref DISAGREED because the shooter opened the gun he can't claim it if you stick to the rules.

If he called misfire and the ref AREED (by checking the gun or not), it's refs decision then it's pair again nothing established

Why take the first kill away just because the second barrel didn't go off?? Its only if you RETAKE the pair that it really matters.

 

[Darkside]

The second FTF was a result of trigger freeze not a missfire. I think the shooter new this and the reason for breaking the Gun.

You are assuming he wasn't being very cynical by purposely 'trigger freezing' because he knew if he had fired, he would have missed...

If it was a genuine trigger freeze, the shooter should have stopped, explained to the ref that he had a trigger freeze, was not looking for pair again and would be happy with kill/loss.

If it was a FTF, the shooter should have followed the safety procedure, keeping the gun pointing down range and waited until the ref could check his weapon...as he didn't and just broke the barrels, pair lost.

You all say you want good strong refs, then when you get them loads of people cry!?!? If a ref does not punish a shooter who makes a genuine mistake, like not calling pair lost, when a shooter on a simo pair doesn't wait for the FTF to be checked before breaking the barrels, then that ref has made a rod for his own back. It says to the cheating minded amount us,

'If you miss the first bird on that simo or are about to mess up the second shot, feign a miss fire, break the barrels quick and reload while saying, "Woaw, that was lucky I had a misfire, pair again ref, nothin established as its a simo pair"

When they know the ref will say,

"Pair lost, first gun malfunction, you should have waited until I had checked your gun before breaking the barrels..."

There will be far fewer try it on!!!

 

[Northampton.SG]

See i would say opening the gun excepts blame and the result of first shot.

I don't see why you need to punish the mistake of opening the gun before its checked anymore than not giving pair again.

In theory there should be no giving 'benefit of the dought' so cheating can't take place he opened the gun so first shot counts second shot loss?

 

[Hamster]

See i would say opening the gun excepts blame and the result of first shot.

I don't see why you need to punish the mistake of opening the gun before its checked anymore than not giving pair again.

In theory there should be no giving 'benefit of the dought' so cheating can't take place he opened the gun so first shot counts second shot loss?

Pairs are judged in their (entirety) so his not firing and then opening the gun before the ref has had an opportunity to even request to examine the gun means he had forfeited the pair (as a whole). 

Harsh at times but it means people can't fake misfires if presented with a first shot of a pair they don't like the look of or don't manage to mount into well OR miss with the first barrel OR leave the second too long, etc, etc.

 

[PKB]

This could go on forever! Hamster you are right pairs are judged in their entirety. In this case the first target is a kill, the second is a loss because the shooter failed to shoot at target as per CPSA rules. The shooter did not claim or indicate a misfire or malfunction. He appears to have accepted he did not fire and its a loss and carried on as normal. If the shooter is not claiming a malfunction, why would he keep the gun closed for examination by ref. As I mentioned above its the ref who has misinterpreted what has happened and thought he was dealing with a malfunction. If it had been a malfunction, the ref's actions would have been correct but it was not! The ref should have clarified the situation before calling both lost.

 

[ips]

What happens if you have a miss fire on first bird but kill the second

 

[shootinguru]

You a genious and get both scored. :crazy:

 

[Rosso]

Really. You would not shoot at the second. But then you were having a joke were you not.

Also if you have got a recoil reset trigger the gun would not work so you would have a second malfunction.

TD the reason it's being discussed on here is because most on here were unaware of this rule. Yes it is in the book. Ok if you can read.

You know you win some - lose some. It will never change. I never argue with a ref. it's like Westley say,s without them we have no sport. You are right about birds only.

 

[leighH]

in the unlikely event (mechanical triggers) then if not attributable to the shooter, pair again nothing established

if the 3rd occurance on a stand,Loss/Kill.In FITASC Sporting or Compak only 1 malfunction per round.

Leigh

 

[ips]

Rosso

Yes

 

[Rosso]

Tink.

That's just started another 4 pages.

Rules are black an white. Life is not.

You really only need one rule. If the clay breaks it's a kill, if it does not break its a loss. How ever it's lost.

 

[Nimbusgb]

Tink.

That's just started another 4 pages.

Rules are black an white. Life is not.

Weeeeell. The problem is that the rules aren't always black and white.  

( Although in this case they seem to be! )

 

[Rosso]

So the original question / op should have been kill / lost according to the rules.

So if you fire at simo pair kill first bird don't bother shooting at second bird - no gun malfunction - it's out of range or something - trigger finger freeze - anything but a gun malfunction it should be scored kill / lost.

 

[PKB]

Yes, CPSA booklet number 5, para 3.14.

 

[Tebbsy]

Thanks for all of the info folks, it is what is i suspected.