Great answer although I am not sure about the reshoot part. You mentioned the official scorer felt a certain way. If so why wasn't his decision used?
There were four targets showing the same problem. The scorer did make a decision on two of them. One decision the scorer made was that there were five shots. Another the scorer made was there were NOT 5 shots and the target was a DQ. That was protested for a jury ruling and the DQ upheld.
On two more the scorer could not make a decision. That scorer called for the judging group to make the decision and is the scorers' option. They were done at scorers' request. The scorer could not make a decision.
One decision was not unanimous but went 2-1 in favor of the shooter. I seem to remember ( man I hope I am right here) that I was the one voted against there being the required number of impacts. Not important as 2-1 was the decision and the target was scored and allowed.
The target pictured here was also the same thing. I thought I remembered the vote but am not sure now. Either way it was another DQ.
Later I spoke with the scorer on his opinion after the rulings. He thought the rulings matched his opinion. It was just that he had doubt and asked for the judging group to make two decisions. This revelation was made to me after the second day of the match when all was over and decided.
Personally if I find it hard to say that evidence exists when it is not clearly visible. Decades of scoring targets in competition always had me dealing with "tangent" looks at scoring hits. This scoring does have that scoring factor where "tangent" goes to the shooter. There's nothing tangent in this scoring issue. You need to see something that is conclusive that there are multiple shots in a hole. Seeing things cut differently on an angle due to bullet yaw adds to the problem.
The shooters getting the DQ were both offered the opportunity for us to send the targets to the IBS for scoring. Both declined. Maybe both were nice enough to realize something else? If no decision can be made until the IBS rules, then if that shooter might be involved in the overall win, the prize table, all awards etc. would have to be delayed for weeks until the process played out. Think about that mess. I cannot speak for the others making decisions but for me the DQ decisions were disappointing personally but were following the rules. Same but opposite feelings can be said by me for those targets approved. That is why I have spent so much time and effort to deal with the issue - including right now. I want a better way.
Scoring would be different if we were dealing with a world record group or agg. size. Send the targets to the IBS. That probably would not affect final awards and prizes, delaying everything an indeterminate time. For this issue of shots on target, I think we need a ruling that allows a way to address the issue in a more prompt manner. There is nothing like that in the rulebook at this time. There is also no backing target to deal with it. All I can think of is the possibility of a re-shoot option, like is done with the unknown extra shot in a target. That is not an option right now.
You have a better idea? Contact the IBS.
It would be if I was shooting.
