In no way am I trying to sell a rule change or am I an authority that can make changes. I think that there is much more involved with the original question as stated by 21st century than the exact meaning of the written word. It is necessary for any organization to have rules to act as guide lines for unforseeable problems that a group may not be able to agree on. Such rules should not be made to regulate peersonalities but to guide groups in making decisions that will be fair to everyone within that group. It may not be possible to make a rule that will cover every situatation that may arise during a competitive event involving different contestants competing for the same prize. Within a group that has two score keepers and at least one other contestant mistakes must be explained by the person making the error. If it is unclear which party made the mistake then the score of the person in question should be the higher score. IMHO. A rule that penalises a shooter for a mistake over which they have no control is not a fair rule. In a group of four shooters or more the majority, (not including the shooters score in question) should be able to make a decision as to what score is appropriate. If the contestant in question is not satisifiedthey may ask for a ruling from range officials at the end of theround or prior to signing the card. A number of circumstances can be involved with each group and the group should be the first to attempt to find a logical solution agreeable to the group in question. A rule should be made to guide all contestants when there is a question of being fair to all. Changing rules should be done when a precedant has been set that clearly demonstrates a need for such. The persons making or changing rules must have qualifications for doing such based on organizational history and involvement in practices that address the majority well being and not their personal opinions alone.