You make the call.......

[Dakota Brown]

Let me present this another way. . .

 

If I was the shooter, I would shoot it R1,R2,R1,R2,R3,R4,R3,R5,R4,R5, a sequence well within the stage description. But I missed on shot 8 and accidentally hit R4 cause I pulled the trigger too soon and then completely missed on shot 9. Despite the unintended mishaps the result is still well within the stage instructions. Do I warrant a "P"? . . . and then there's that proverbial "A miss cannot cause a P" thing!

 

DB

[Lone Dog, SASS #20401]

Actually I just had an RO I refresher course last year. What I probably need to do is just go ahead and turn in my RO II pin. I freely and readily admit to not being as smart as all the esteemed pards arrayed against me. Howsomever, the rules do not cover every situation. I would humbly submit this is one. The flow chart has been shown to be fallible before.

 

Two shooters.

Shooter A shoots it as in BJT's example. 9 hits and one miss. No P because he is lucky enuff or smart enuff to to miss with shot 9. I am neither smart enuff to figger out to throw one off as I glacially negotiate the stage. Nor will I ever be that lucky to have a miss save me from a P.

 

Shooter B has ten hits NO misses. Too bad for him the double tap on R5 legitimately earns him a P. So he gets TWICE the penalty with NO misses that the other guy gets with his one miss. Neither completed the stage as it was supposed to be done.

 

Am I the only one who sees how incongruous this is? If this be our rules there is a loophole and a revision is in order. You should not be able to throw off a miss and get a lesser penalty than someone with no misses. I am not ever gonna buy that as being right and correct and perfectly fine and hunky dory.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Poorly written stage. You should not present a stage that requires a shooter to "figure out how to shoot it" that may result in a procedral error.

That is maybe one of the worst comments on the thread to date. The movement the last several years is to give the shooter more flexibility in how he shoots a stage. Makes the spotters job harder tho.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Actually I just had an RO I refresher course last year. What I probably need to do is just go ahead and turn in my RO II pin. I freely and readily admit to not being as smart as all the esteemed pards arrayed against me. Howsomever, the rules do not cover every situation. I would humbly submit this is one. The flow chart has been shown to be fallible before.

 

Two shooters.

Shooter A shoots it as in BJT's example. 9 hits and one miss. No P because he is lucky enuff or smart enuff to to miss with shot 9. I am neither smart enuff to figger out to throw one off as I glacially negotiate the stage. Nor will I ever be that lucky to have a miss save me from a P.

 

Shooter B has ten hits NO misses. Too bad for him the double tap on R5 legitimately earns him a P. So he gets TWICE the penalty with NO misses that the other guy gets with his one miss. Neither completed the stage as it was supposed to be done.

 

Am I the only one who sees how incongruous this is? If this be our rules there is a loophole and a revision is in order. You should not be able to throw off a miss and get a lesser penalty than someone with no misses. I am not ever gonna buy that as being right and correct and perfectly fine and hunky dory.

If you took the RO courses you should have learned sometimes the shooter gets screwed by the rules and sometimes he gets a break. Certainly he gets the benefit of the doubt always. No rule revision is needed. The reason for the two shooters getting two different penalties, is because they shot the stage differently.

[Lone Dog, SASS #20401]

Like I said, I took a refreser last year. Made a 100 on the test. But, just one of the many reasons I never TO is that we have too many rules and they are too complicated.

 

some of you may be familiar with the old saying, "the law is an ass".

 

This right here is a perfect example. Yes the shooters both shot it different. That the one that had 10 hits while shooting it wrong is dinged twice as hard as the one that had 9 hits and a miss and also shot it wrong is just not right. And it ain't never gonna be right in my peabrain no matter how many Wire denizens assure me that it is perfectly acceptable. Cause it just flat plain ain't.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Like I said, I took a refreser last year. Made a 100 on the test. But, just one of the many reasons I never TO is that we have too many rules and they are too complicated.

 

some of you may be familiar with the old saying, "the law is an ass".

 

This right here is a perfect example. Yes the shooters both shot it different. That the one that had 10 hits while shooting it wrong is dinged twice as hard as the one that had 9 hits and a miss and also shot it wrong is just not right. And it ain't never gonna be right in my peabrain no matter how many Wire denizens assure me that it is perfectly acceptable. Cause it just flat plain ain't.

So if you were the RO would you follow the rules or use your own rule to penalize the shooters?

[Cowboy Rick, SASS #49739L]

Interesting scenario, but a miss cannot cause a "P". Bad stage planning by the shooter, confusion in the heat of battle, luck or presence of mind, no targets were hit incorrectly. At best it's a stalemate, and benefit goes to the shooter, ALWAYS

 

CR

[Noz]

Way too much thinking going on here!.

[Santa Fe River Stan,36999L]

Like I said, I took a refreser last year. Made a 100 on the test. But, just one of the many reasons I never TO is that we have too many rules and they are too complicated.

 

some of you may be familiar with the old saying, "the law is an ass".

 

This right here is a perfect example. Yes the shooters both shot it different. That the one that had 10 hits while shooting it wrong is dinged twice as hard as the one that had 9 hits and a miss and also shot it wrong is just not right. And it ain't never gonna be right in my peabrain no matter how many Wire denizens assure me that it is perfectly acceptable. Cause it just flat plain ain't.

Your confusing "common sense" with the rules. One has nothing to do with the other in some cases. This is just such a case. Instead of continuing to argue about it why not try to understand the rules as written so you can help insure that matches you attend have consistent calls according to the rules as written.

 

Then if it bothers you that much work to have the rules changed. I will support it along with changing the definition of a miss. How you can aim at a target and then hit that target and it be considered a miss escapes me. Other then it is the way the rule is written.

 

Stan

[Doc Shapiro]

Lone Dog, that may be the case. However, it ain't the rule. We play this game by the rules that are published. As I said before (and backed up by the flow chart), there is no 'P' earned until the targets are struck out of order. Miss a target and it didn't get struck.

 

The shooter that missed got lucky. The one that didn't and double tapped the 5'th target didn't. That's the breaks. It's how the rule pans out and it MUST be applied as written. Otherwise there will be issues with the competition at a big match where a stage like this shows up and 2 different RO's handle the same call differently. That don't cut it.

 

Regardless of what you think of the rule, it is what it is. You know the procedure, lobby your TG to see about making a change. Or let it go and resolve to apply the rules as written.

[Buck D. Law, SASS #62183]

When shooting with a clock running, eventually the train will come off the tracks. Sometimes doing your best involves dealing with the train once it's off the tracks. When this shooter's engine derailed, the cars remained on the tracks. Unlike us, the shooter only had a split second to make the best decision. I'd say the shooter did an excellent job...if there really was a shooter...because with BJT's mind, this could simply be a "what if."

[BJT]

The stage is from Sunday's match. Many shot it in two sweeps. I shot 1-2-1-2-3-4-5-3-4-5. There were other variations. The posse got to talking about the poor guy who might do as described and if after 8 shots you knew he had a P. The discussion was interesting enough that I thought I would share it here.

 

Very Best Regards,

BJT

[Mockingbird, SASS #22893]

I think the vast majority of responses on here which call for enforcing the rules "as written" are missing something--there is a rule that would call for a procedural here (it is quoted on page 2 of thread, in definition of procedural), and then there is the flowchart, which at one time did not even contain procedural as an option (current version does).

 

And among the various sources, we are left with "hit" "engage" "shoot" used seemingly interchangeably, but not really depending on who is interpreting the rule.

 

Nowhere is there a rule that says the flowchart trumps all other rules, and the SASS rulebooks, collectively, have developed like a city without zoning.

 

So, you are left with choosing one rule or definition over another.

 

I favor as few penalties as possible, but you could enforce the rules "as written" and come up with either result in this situation. And before someone types "miss can't cause procedural" for the eleventybillionth time, in this scenario, it was not a miss that would justify the P, it was the first 8 hits, by which the shooter did not "engage" the stage as "it was supposed to be shot." That is inarguable and has nothing to do with assuming any intent by the shooter, or speculating on what he or she might have done.

 

As written, the rules are in conflict. Simple enough to fix, and should be done soon--like this week--since the national championship is about to begin.

[Buck D. Law, SASS #62183]

The stage is from Sunday's match. Many shot it in two sweeps. I shot 1-2-1-2-3-4-5-3-4-5. There were other variations. The posse got to talking about the poor guy who might do as described and if after 8 shots you knew he had a P. The discussion was interesting enough that I thought I would share it here.

 

Very Best Regards,

BJT

 

I have found it equally interesting, but now I'm disappointed to find that there is no hero train engineer who died while using his quick thinking to save the passengers.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Hi Folks,

 

Been thinking about this one for some time.

 

I agree with those who say it's a miss because that is the only possible call according to the Miss Flow Chart. Had I been a counter or TO, that would be the call.

 

However, it does seem rather odd (not sure that is the right word) to have someone intentionally (how can we know that for sure) miss to avoid a P. We can't really know if it was a "lucky miss" or an "intentional miss" to avoid the consequences of a poorly thought out action. An intentional miss seems to be a bit unsportsman-like. However, if something is not prohibited by a specific rule, benefit of the doubt would favor the shooter.

 

Would you think any other call appropriate if the shooter said they missed intentionally?

 

A brain fade almost caused the shooter to get a P; "smart" thinking enabled the shooter to avoid the P.

 

I'd probably still go with a miss. Do any of you, other than Lone Dog, have other thoughts.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

PS In hindsight, I'd like to shoot it 1-2-1-2-3-4-5-3-4-5; but, in reality, would have probably chosen two sweeps to be safe.

[Lone Dog, SASS #20401]

Me too, Allie. 12345,12345. That is my second favorite sweep after the Nevada sweep.

 

I want to thank all the pards for remaining civil during this debate. After all, it IS just a game. Nothing to really worry all that much about as the "we now know" hypothetical situation is pretty rare. I expecially am gratified that Doc hisownself agreed with me philosophically just not legal - easily (2bit word I just made up). Y'all hit 'em square and always remember - even the devil's advocate serves a purpose in this ole world. At least ole BJT made us put our thinkin' caps on and consider some things.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

...one more thing.

 

I've heard of the following being given as a classic case in which to award a 30 second SOG/FTE. The shooter gets a P on one gun sequence so does a one-target dump with another gun to make up time and somewhat negate the P. Is an intentional miss the same type of thing as the shooter negated an additional five seconds by missing?

 

All I know for sure is this seems somewhat unseemly.

[Marauder SASS #13056]

As I said in another post, it really helps to understand how we got here.

 

Before 2001,

• 
   
  
• A hit was a hit
  
• A miss was a miss - ie if you didn't hit a target, you got a miss.
  
• If you hit the wrong target, it was a P.
  

 

Then some folks that had longer range rifle targets.

You know the ones that often take over a second to line up and you had a higher probability to miss.

They got worried that someone would someone would just shoot the pistol targets instead and get only a P. So they campaigned on counting both a P and misses. That way, they had the pleasure of giving that person 60 seconds in penalties. Yes, they could do a Spirit of the Game, but they argued that folks didn't want to give such a penalty, but would be willing to give one twice as bad.

 

I remember even my TG supported this foolishness and strongly encourage everyone to vote for this change.

 

So for a year, we had that situation. But the new rule was inconsistently applied. And folks realized that it was not the best rule.

 

So they had to figure out how to fix it.

So they defined a miss as not hitting the correct type of target. And said a miss could not cause a procedure.

Since they know folks would read the basic rules and give both as Lone Dog and others have suggested, they added a flow chart to properly INTERPRET the new rules.

So it generally modified the APPLICATION of a procedure penalty.

 

Now isn't that more simple? :D Of course not!

But I think we went in a bad direction and have never recovered,

 

We got here, in part, because folks want the rules to clearly cover every situation - which is generally an impossible task.

 

But that is where we are.

 

If we truly want to fix this and make it simple, go back to the original rules where a miss was counted when you did not hit any target and a P was when you hit the targets in an incorrect sequence (including hitting the wrong target).

 

Or we can add a few more paragraphs to the rules,

which will have additional unintended consequences,

which will later require a few more paragraphs,

which will have a few more unintended consequences which...

 

 

So Lone Dog and others, please read this carefully.

 

As I and many others have said, we truly understand your point, but we have followed this path and believe that we must apply the rules as written, including the required method of interpretation. Otherwise, we may lack consistency in scoring.

[Mockingbird, SASS #22893]

So Lone Dog and others, please read this carefully.

 

As I and many others have said, we truly understand your point, but we have followed this path and believe that we must apply the rules as written, including the required method of interpretation. Otherwise, we may lack consistency in scoring.

 

So where does one look to see the hierarchy of rules, and where does one find the "required method of interpretation" in a set of rules that is internally inconsistent? How do we choose which rule to ignore?

 

Even this hypothetical rifle sequence, with shooter's choice, has a finite set of ways it can be "engaged" as it "was supposed to be shot." The hypothetical presented by BJT is not one of them (1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4 cannot be the first 8 shots and still meet the stage instructions, no matter where the final two shots go).

[Doc Shapiro]

So where does one look to see the hierarchy of rules, and where does one find the "required method of interpretation" in a set of rules that is internally inconsistent? How do we choose which rule to ignore?

 

Even this hypothetical rifle sequence, with shooter's choice, has a finite set of ways it can be "engaged" as it "was supposed to be shot." The hypothetical presented by BJT is not one of them (1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4 cannot be the first 8 shots and still meet the stage instructions, no matter where the final two shots go).

 

IMO, the word "engage" ought to be completely removed from the rulebooks. We can't (or shouldn't) issue penalties for what people are thinking, only for what they do. 'Engage' requires that we know what was in the shooters head, which is always going to be an unknown, sometimes even for the shooter.

 

 

 

[Jefro, SASS#69420]

IMO, the word "engage" ought to be completely removed from the rulebooks. We can't (or shouldn't) issue penalties for what people are thinking, only for what they do. 'Engage' requires that we know what was in the shooters head, which is always going to be an unknown, sometimes even for the shooter.

I agree, I never use the word when writing stages, unless say the popper "must engage". I always use "shoot" instead. "Shoot the three pistol targets with two 2-1-2 sweeps starting on either end"......"with rifle shoot a Lawrance Welk sweep starting on either end"

 

Jefro Relax-Enjoy

[Cowboy Rick, SASS #49739L]

So where does one look to see the hierarchy of rules, and where does one find the "required method of interpretation" in a set of rules that is internally inconsistent? How do we choose which rule to ignore?

 

Even this hypothetical rifle sequence, with shooter's choice, has a finite set of ways it can be "engaged" as it "was supposed to be shot." The hypothetical presented by BJT is not one of them (1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4 cannot be the first 8 shots and still meet the stage instructions, no matter where the final two shots go).

 

Mockingbird,

 

Good point, but I believe that the rules conflict points to a miss only. Any ambiguity give the shooter the edge. "Benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter" Even though the only way to avaoid the miss was to incur a P, the target was not struck. You can't arrest me for not robbing the bank, no matter how much I wanted to.

 

CR

[Lethal Larry, SASS #58429]

Stage: 5 targets

 

Procedure: with rifle, hit each target twice with no double taps

 

Shooter hits r1-r2-r1-r2-r3-r4-r3-r4 then misses and then hits r5 with the last round.

 

Counters show 1 miss. What penalty or penalies do you give the shooter?

 

Thanks,

BJT

 

1 miss. A miss cannot cause a "P"

[Widder, SASS #59054]

There is a thread on the Wire right now about 'Wardrobe Malfunction'.

 

Its interesting. It speaks of someones hat coming off during the stage. The shooter is in one of those clothing requirment categories (BW or Classic, I think).

 

Anyhow, for the record, I'm in the camp where ya let the rules speak for itself and we are not suppose to make personal interpretations.

 

BUT, if I maintain my attitude of 'rules speak for themselves', I would have to penalize this particular shooter because the rules require him/her to wear their hat ALL the time.

 

Just thought I would mention that.

 

BJT, be proud my friend. You've managed to get alittle excitement on the Wire that had otherwise been alittle boring lately.

 

Best regards

 

 

..........Widder

[Guest Tennessee Stud, SASS# 43634 Life]

Here's my call...

 

Cock-a-doodle-doooo!!... I only missed one!

 

ts

[Dang It Dan 13202]

-And, if we turn around real fast, we will bump into ouselves.....

 

This stuff is amazing sometimes - ain't it?

 

Wow.