A couple of quick things to advance the conversation (not trying to stir anything up, just trying to get some perspective).
If you PREFER to shoot with your eye 10 inches above the ground but you are forced to elevate your eye to 20 inches above the ground for 1 or 2 targets in a match, is that considered unfair to you? My favorite springer does not allow me to use an adjustable hamster for shooting WFTF, making elevated targets more difficult for me. Should we get rid of elevated targets so that I can have a fair and "level" playing field? Or should I figure it out for myself?
I get that some people struggle more than others to see targets in difficult light conditions. For the sake of clarity, the target in the barrel at this year's ROT on lane 5 of day 1 was painted grey (because it was an elephant, so it had to be grey). The hit percentage for the target (43 yards with a 1.5 inch kill zone) was 74.42 %. Lane 10 had a Vulture at 43 yards with a 1.5 inch kill zone sitting out in the open. The hit percentage on that target was 73.26 %. Lane 11 had a cardinal at 44 yards with a 1.5 inch kill zone with a hit percentage of 74.42%, same as the elephant. I guess my point is that just because a target is easier to see doesn't mean it's easier to hit. The highest hit percentage of the day was a black bat at 27 yards with a 3/4 inch kill zone in the shade, 90.7%.
So here are some perspectives to help:
If you PREFER to shoot with your eye 10 inches above the ground but you are forced to elevate your eye to 20 inches above the ground for 1 or 2 targets in a match, is that considered unfair to you?
Imagine if we were forced to
decrease the elevation of what you are "used" to. For example, if we had a Hunter shooter who is used to shooting on a bucket, then the lane opportunity necessitates them not to
not be on a bucket seated about ten or twenty inches
lower to visualize the target. How would that be perceived? I believe there would be a Hunter mutiny! I believe there is a difference between an elevated target and an obscured target that should be visible "from all positions," as the rules state.
The reality is that we have three general positions in FT: Standing, Kneeling, and Sitting. Now, the sitting position, that ranges from about 15" off the deck to about 36", depending on what class you are in.
My favorite springer does not allow me to use an adjustable hamster for shooting WFTF, making elevated targets more difficult for me. Should we get rid of elevated targets so that I can have a fair and "level" playing field? Or should I figure it out for myself?
This is an equipment choice circumstance and not a positional-form circumstance.
targets in difficult light conditions
And low contrast targets. These situations cause deteriorating circumstances as the match progresses. When shooting KZs where the entire KZ becomes paint-free and the surrounding faceplate shares no differentiation with the paddle, it becomes difficult to identify the KZ
at all if there are no contrasting features or lighting.
Another Perspective:
The biggest problem with obscured targets (terrain or foliage) that are not visible when in the sitting position is that the responsibility falls on the first shooter when the match starts to identify this issue. If that shooter sits high (bucket) and the next shooter can't see the target (bumbag shooter), the match "has already started" and it becomes too late to correct. This situation creates a bad undertone for a competitive event, where these circumstances should have been corrected well beforehand or at the very least, on the first shot of the match. In an event where everyone is in the same class, this issue resolves itself quickly.
Personally, I'm all about challenging circumstances, not obscurity that falls outside the rules.
Oh, and this is not attacking any one particular event. This seems to be a recurring theme at many events that becomes "overlooked"
