Steve is correct, COF #8 refers to threat targets behind threat targets. One does not want "shoot throughs" so the required number of shots is
reduced by "twofers". Non threat targets behind threat targets is the manifestation of the 3rd rule of guns safety. "Always be sure of your
target and what is behind it". This is also confirmed on Page 47, Appendix 4E, "rule of thumb, all shoot throughs count (except on hardcover).
Placing a non threat behind a threat with no way to engage it without incurring the penalty would be illegal. Forcing the shooter to change the "angle
of attack" is certainly acceptable.
The major issue here was the SO. There was a "blind" stage at the match. It was reviewed at the shooter's meeting. This stage was not. The "one" SO took it upon himself to make this "semi-blind". Hence my earlier statement of inexperience and ignorance was the issue. There was one other issue with this stage, it required different number of hits on targets. 6 targets required one hit, three targets required two hits. (see page #50 paragraph 2). The COF should not have been approved based upon the mixed round count, not the angle of the NT's.
Larry
The major issue here was the SO. There was a "blind" stage at the match. It was reviewed at the shooter's meeting. This stage was not. The "one" SO took it upon himself to make this "semi-blind". Hence my earlier statement of inexperience and ignorance was the issue. There was one other issue with this stage, it required different number of hits on targets. 6 targets required one hit, three targets required two hits. (see page #50 paragraph 2). The COF should not have been approved based upon the mixed round count, not the angle of the NT's.
Larry
