Equanimous Phil

Yes, SOG. But what if the shooter's answer to the TO's 'why' was different, kind like: 'I completely forget the sequence and once upon a time a TO told me I could dump the rest on one target. When I got the P, I was very stressed and sweat was suddenly running in my palms and for safety reasons I had shoot two-handed'. Would that still be an SOG without the provable intention to gain andvantage? Agree, the SOG issue is of very low priority and it's more important to address things that are of more impact to the game like bad spotter or TO calls. But someone came up with the SOG topic and it seems that such incidents are handled inconsistently. The SHB has been and will be revised all the time as it's a continuous improvement process to allow a safest and fairest game possible (knowing that it never will be completely fair and safe). I think every rule change that facilitates some rule consistency is enough benefit. The current situation where you have to ask the shooter why s/he acted like that is just not satisfying, so I posted an approach that came to my mind. But I'm sure there are other and probably better solutions, such as rewording the SOG. And while it's very unlikely (but still possible) to win your category with a P on your score sheet, it still matters, imho. There are shooters who are happier than the winner when their Alias is not on the very bottom of the score board. Btw, my goal is not that are more P applied. Rather, shooters avoid Ps because of unmistakable rules instead of 'gaming' and provoking discussions.

I estimate that there are a couple of infractions that occur not very often which are already covered in the SHB. Shouldn't be the decision criteria, imho.

I fully second Creeker's statement. There needs to be an objective (as possible) call for every action without hearing the shooter's story afterwards. I understand the hesitation to assign multiple Ps on one stage. But what about only one possble P per shooting string caused by error in shooting sequence? If your first pistol shot hits the wrong target by all means dump the rest on the same target and get one P. But if you do it two-handed while supposed to shoot one-handend get a second P. If you then don't follow the rifle shooting sweep get your third P etc. Imho, this would provide a lot more objectivity and would prevent the discussions above. It would also be easier and clear for every shooter because s/he knows what's allowed after getting a P and how to proceed without getting an SOG.

Yes, according commonsense, that could and maybe should be viewed as 'intentional' and result in a SOG, but as only the shooter KNOWS his/her intentions the shooter's statement is the only basis for a conviction. Brain fades can happen everytime you get a P. It's rather unlikely that one wins a category when earned a P, but nevertheless it's kind of frustrating for every shooter ranked below.

I guess in every other sport the referee would get a lot of laughter if (s)he'd ask players who commited unsportslike behaviour if they've done it willfully or not and if they would prefer to get away with it. In the scenario above, shooter A probably just wasn't aware that his answer will get him an SOG. So, next time shooter A's answer might also be "oh..., just brain fade, completely lost track". A lot of rules in every rule book are originated by just a few participants who want to outsmart the game. Offering loopholes to those black sheep (such as inluding intent) doesn't help the game.

Just a thought: product placement ?? BTW

Thanks for the info. But honestly, that souns sounds like just their official marketing blabla story. Arguing with economic points while the market is willing to pay unreasonable prices for this powder doesn't make sense to me. During a time period when primer manufacturers more than doubled their prize tags, what had they could have charged for a unique special application powder that no other competitors has in their portfolio? IMHO, they just weren't technically able to produce it (keyword: REACH compliance). Maybe I'm wrong, but don't ever trust a marketing guy without double-checking. But for whatever reason it disappeared from the shelves, I hope for everyone who waits for TB that it will be back on soon!! Equanimous Phil

Maybe, I should also have my lead levels checked as I did a lot of indoor shooting last year. P.S.: Don't google that:

I once was on vacation in Ireland. The answer is yes. I noticed when I crossed an other tourist on a camp site trail and while we both stepped to one's own right she said "oh, you must be from the continent, too"

And for those who don't know: Sterling used to be a famous goal keeper

"They can't get me if I break 4th wall and step out of frame"

Note to myself: Add to EDC items

It's still less than eleven!!

Ahhhhhhhh, thanks!

Someone mind to explain that one for me..?

The funny thing is that we still call it a 1/2 inch pipe etc. despite it's not correct anymore. The inner diameter used to be an exact inch measure. Over the decades the wall thickness got thinner but the outer diameter was kept constant as that's where the threads are.

Angus with this Tesla and Edison T-shirt is hilarious!!!

Well, everything I "know" that I haven't seen with my own eyes comes from some kind of media. Everything around us is media. The Wire is media. People referring to "the media" often mean the other/untrue/fake/wrong/untrusted media, from their point of view of course. Trustworthy sources (magazines, youtube channels etc.) aren't seen as media. Myself: Definitely influenced and therefore manipulated by different kind of media.