the three metre line

[johnske]

Here's one to get you looking up your rule books...

At an indoor event, an arrow misses the target, rebounds from a brick wall behind the target and slides back along the floor to come to rest gently just in front of the archer that shot it.

Now, the (undamaged) arrow is at rest well inside the three metre line, and because it's inside the three metre line, would you let this archer shoot it again? i.e. is it considered to be 'shot' or not?

(Believe it or not, this is exactly what happened up here at the last indoor nats, the archer concerned didn't even try to shoot it again so the answer to that question didn't need to be considered at that time)

[James Park]

Same as in golf: it does not matter how many trees, other golfers and dogs the ball bounces off, if it went in the hole from the tee shot it is a hole-in-one.

[johnske]

Same as in golf: it does not matter how many trees, other golfers and dogs the ball bounces off, if it went in the hole from the tee shot it is a hole-in-one.By which you mean you'd consider it 'not shot' and they could shoot again?

[Clout Master]

Maybe I.m wrong but the arrow has gone more than 3 metres so therefore the arrow can't be shot again.

[Archangel]

I agree with Jim. Doesn't matter how it got there, if it's within the 3m line you can reshoot it.

And I reckon that anyone that can do a trick shot like that deserves another try ;-)

[The One]

Under the current rules, I believe they should be able to shoot it again (if they choose to).

May not be the most sportsman-like, but the rules are the rules.

[johnske]

... anyone that can do a trick shot like that ...heh, I must admit we were all stunned, and when we found the arrow (carbon, from memory) undamaged we were amazed also.

Some interesting answers (one was close, but for the wrong reason) but not one correct one yet - keep going :thumb:

[James Park]

By which you mean you'd consider it 'not shot' and they could shoot again?
Absolutely. The rule is where it lies.

[shannonhearse]

In fact, I would say, that reguardless of the arrows condition, you may shoot another arrow, not necessaraly the one in front of you.

I will sometimes just shoot an arrow into the dirt 1 M infront of me rather then letting down, then pick it up as i walk off the shooting line.

[Ed]

Absolutely. The rule is where it lies.

Sorry, guys - we can kill this one fairly quickly. The arrow cannot be re-shot!
Rule 8.4.5.1 (dot point 1) states that the arrow can only be re-shot "provided the arrow has not rebounded."

[johnske]

Sorry, guys - we can kill this one fairly quickly. The arrow cannot be re-shot!
Rule 8.4.5.1 (dot point 1) states that the arrow can only be re-shot "provided the arrow has not rebounded."Exactly, if the archer had re-shot this, they'd then lose their highest scoring shot (cos they would've shot 4 arrows)

[James Park]

However, how could it be proved that it rebounded? I think it could not.
To say it rebounded would perhaps be subjective opinion. Much better to take it where it lies (as in golf).

[johnske]

That may work in some cases, unfortunately two judges witnessed it :D

[Jason.P]

I'm amazed the arrow was in one piece:o

[Ed]

That may work in some cases, unfortunately two judges witnessed it :D

Good point - because if no judges witnessed this and the archer shot another arrow, who would know??????????
There have been occasions at top level where Team Managers have witnessed supposed transgressions and put in appeals. These have usually been dismissed because there is no corroborating evidence from a judge. You can't give what you haven't seen!

[johnske]

But you're taking a risk - how can you be certain none of the judges saw it? :rofl:

[Brocky]

From what I have been told by taking the risk ;)

[Hannah]

How much do you wanna win ;)

Funny, I would have thought it would be as Jim said...apparently not.

[The One]

How much do you wanna win ;)

If you really want to win, I'd suggest shooting the tens, not the bricks!

[puddin]

i would say it wouldnt be shot again. the line judges should have witnessed it in some way. if not the instant of rebound, they would of atleast seen it go back over the line. but hey thats if the judge is onto it. and you have non shooting judges.really its up to the judge there on the day as to what they saw and what the archer is saying happened.

[noel mac]

so if your letting down in indoor and your release goes off and the arrow hits the floor inside the three metre line but deflects off half way down the range, how is the rule applied, deemed to be shot due to where it lies?

[johnske]

so if your letting down in indoor and your release goes off and the arrow hits the floor inside the three metre line but deflects off half way down the range, how is the rule applied, deemed to be shot due to where it lies?in that case it's shot, it doesn't lie inside the 3 metre region. here's the complete rule copied from the FITA rule book
[quote]8.4.5.1 An arrow may be considered to have been not shot if:

[bigfella]

so if your letting down in indoor and your release goes off and the arrow hits the floor inside the three metre line but deflects off half way down the range, how is the rule applied, deemed to be shot due to where it lies?

Ask 2Dogs that question.

I was shooting beside him in Adelaide a couple of years ago at the National Indoors when that exact situation happened to him. By the look on his face, he knew the instant it happened what the result would be. :(

Result: The arrow was correctly deemed to have been shot.

The unfortunate thing with his situation is that the venue was a basketball court and the arrow went miles after it hit the polished timber floor. Had it been on grass there would have been no problem.

[Jazza]

Doesn't really bother me, id let them shoot it. Anyone who is missing the target at 18m isnt really a threat to me. :)

[Bottom Dweller]

FITA rule:
"7.4.5.1 An arrow may be considered to have been not shot if:
- The arrow drops or is mis-shot and a part of the arrow shaft
lies within the zone between the shooting line and the 3-meter
line, and provided the arrow has not rebounded; ...."

So if the arrow in question had hit the back wall and imbedded in it but the force broke the arrow an a part of the broken shaft flew back to the 3m line then you might argue that the arrow did not rebound as it is still in the wall. Now if only the nock or a fletch or the nib is over the line then that doesn't count.

[johnske]

... So if the arrow in question had hit the back wall and imbedded in it but the force broke the arrow an a part of the broken shaft flew back to the 3m line then you might argue that the arrow did not rebound as it is still in the wall. Now if only the nock or a fletch or the nib is over the line then that doesn't count.that's really a judges call - me? I'd say it's been shot (appeal if you like, but i'm pretty sure most other judges would agree... it's best to shoot the target and not the wall) :D

[bigfella]

Doesn't really bother me, id let them shoot it. Anyone who is missing the target at 18m isnt really a threat to me. :)

Wont always work. :)

Zoran Singerov won the Aust National Indoors a few years ago in Adelaide and had a miss on his last arrow of the tournament. Might also add that he won quite comfortably

[Dr Phil]

is it considered to be 'shot' or not?



Not shot. Plus, the archer can pick it up and exchange it for another. Just like if you pull one out of the quiver and it has a damaged fletch or nock. This said, I did see a girl shoot herself at 10m at MPB on the old steel butts but I would be surpirised to see an arrow come back 18m. Can one of the engineers work out the energy possibilities of this? Fun for a hardcore Friday night I am sure.

[Dr Phil]

Can't edit. Never read the 'can't rebound clause before'. Seems I am mistaken.

[Jazza]

Wont always work. :)

Zoran Singerov won the Aust National Indoors a few years ago in Adelaide and had a miss on his last arrow of the tournament. Might also add that he won quite comfortably
But you see bigfella, im not shooting against Zoran Singerov, so he is no threat to me ;)