Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BJT

What is the call and how do you make it?

Recommended Posts

So, if the scenerio calls for two seperate sweeps starting on the left for total of 10 with rifle, and the shooter shoots a Nevada Sweep starting on the left but says awe sh$t after shot 6 hits R4 by mistake and continues with the Nevada to finish out, he should get a P for not starting shot 6-10 from the left 'plus' a SOG for continuing the nevada sweep for an unfair advantage? The awe sh$t tells everyone he was aware of his mistake after 6rounds and elected to continue, rather than stop, aim at R2 and finish up the original sweep from the left. Let us add a miss some where within the sequence. Nice, that is what the RC has clarified to do.

 

Just my opinion, but the shooter is still shooting a "simple" sweep that is similar to the required. And they continue. They already got the P with the middle of the Nevada sweep and there is not further advantage to continuing a "sweep." So there is a rather minor advantage to the mistake which is more than taken away with the P. To me, the big difference is continuing a "sweep" versus dumping on a single target. It will be intersting to see what the official ruling would be, but I would hope that "common sense" could rule here as it would be nearly impossible to cover all the variables of stage design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good project would be to merge the existing rule books into a single book, with annotations for the "OFFICIAL rulings" of the ROC. Right now the set of books is growing like a city without zoning. And before someone gripes about having to do it--it isn't that hard. If nobody is willing to do it but they want it done, I would do it for them.

 

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass Mockingbird but you say it would be a good project and you say you would do it for them so go ahead and do it then submit it to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion, but the shooter is still shooting a "simple" sweep that is similar to the required. And they continue. They already got the P with the middle of the Nevada sweep and there is not further advantage to continuing a "sweep." So there is a rather minor advantage to the mistake which is more than taken away with the P. To me, the big difference is continuing a "sweep" versus dumping on a single target. It will be intersting to see what the official ruling would be, but I would hope that "common sense" could rule here as it would be nearly impossible to cover all the variables of stage design.

 

 

I agree. Given the option to dump on a standard size target at typical distances vs continuing on with a sweep, I would say I would feel better taking my chances with continuing the sweep vs taking the chance of walking a shot off the target in a dump. Of course there are other circumstances that would say different.

 

Tell you what folks, when the stage calls for a sweep of some kind, I will be subconsiously programed to sweep and not to dump. To switch modes mid stream isn't normal for most folks to do. So no advantage IMNOHO, but if there was, then if the shooter can do it, then I want to see it and hats off to him.

 

If my competion wants to give me a ten second advantage per stage by getting a P, I think I would allow him to dump and I will shoot it the regular way.. Hmmmm, If I can not beat my competion with a 120sec head start in a 12 stage match, he deserves the title and buckle. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but your take on this is completely out of touch with reality.

May be; but, it does represent the "party line," which I am expected to "support and defend." In the past, I have stated that I do not agree with some rulings and rules. That does not stop me from conducting myself according to the role that I have been elected to perform or applying those rules at a match.

 

That you think the "rule" booklet is a poor substitute for having someone monitor the SASS TG Wire constantly ignores the fact that a very small portion of cowboy shooters (and, I bet, TGs) actually use the Wire.

Where did I write that? :unsure::rolleyes: If the TGs do not read the TG Wire or network with other TGs to keep current, they are not doing their stated duties.

 

You can quote the entire explanation of what a TG is and never get to the part you think you've found, nor should you. The TGs, like the vast majority of the infrastructure of cowboy action shooting, are volunteers. They are not obligated (or in many cases even capable, if not on the internet daily which, believe it or not, is true of many people) to be a conduit of rulings to their clubs, although I'm sure some serve that role willingly.

If they do not feel obligated to keep current on the rules and clarifications or are not capable of using the internet, they are not fulfilling their duties and are doing a disservice to their club(s).

 

That some ROC determination (even an "OFFICIAL ruling") was posted somewhere on one of the SASS wire bulletin boards, or even re-posted by you on this thread, is nowhere close to a reliable way of issuing rule interpretations that SASS or the ROC want to be followed uniformly. There are hundreds (thousands, I suppose, if you're willing to go enough pages deep) of topics on the Wire and the notion that everyone is aware of the content of all of them is silly.

Sheesh, let's carry things to the extreme. TGs should read the TG Wire and either attend the Summit or send a proxy AND find out what was discussed there and communicate that to their constituants.

 

There are pinned topics, but none of them these rulings--that would be a good start. And, once a ruling is "OFFICIAL"--is it just sitting on the secret TG Wire? If so, why?

Again, the TG Wire is not secret! Your elected TG is expected to read it and communicate any rule-related information to their constituants. Also, I have no problem with pinning clarifications and rulings.

 

The picture you keep linking is cute, and we get your point, but it would not be that bad. A good project would be to merge the existing rule books into a single book, with annotations for the "OFFICIAL rulings" of the ROC. Right now the set of books is growing like a city without zoning. And before someone gripes about having to do it--it isn't that hard. If nobody is willing to do it but they want it done, I would do it for them.

My first year as a naive :unsure: TG, I volunteered to a member of the WB to help condense the rule books. I did not receive a response. I don't call the shots. So, that is okay.

 

It obviously isn't limited to this particular, apparently somewhat controversial, example of interpeting the SOG--it is about a better process and foundation for uniformity.

Okay! Now you're talking! What do you suggest? Pinning clarifications on the public Wire is a great idea!

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks.. are we done yet? :wacko:

 

 

 

 

 

I believe the horse is dead.... :blink:

 

Thanks to all that participated :):)

 

Geez I hope it's done :mellow:

 

 

Rance <_<

Like they said in last nights debate... Geez.. ya gotta have a sense of humor :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be a smartass Mockingbird but you say it would be a good project and you say you would do it for them so go ahead and do it then submit it to them

 

Shoer--I do not have the ROC rulings to prepare the annotations and, as Allie just pointed out as well, this is a product that may not be wanted by SASS. I will do it, or someone else will/should, but not if it won't be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allie Mo,

 

I do read the wire regularly.

But there are occasions when it does not happen.

At any rate, my point is that if I am at a match I MUST be able to reference the information from any material that I could have downloaded easily.

This means the Shooters Handbook and the RO1 and RO11 training materials.

References posted during a discussion are not necessarily going to be read by all shooters.

Nor are shooters going to in contact with their TG.

 

Using the threads posted on the SASS Wire and word of mouth by TGs may be the party line; BUT the party line represents a serious weakness in the spread of rules and rulings to the SASS shooting public.

The weakness is that not all threads are read by all.

And not all shooters are able to be at all matches particularly the one where a ruling is announced by a TG.

 

 

Why can't this list of rulings be collected as a separate document.

"ROC rulings."

Or why can't each ruling be sent out by email to all registered SASS members (if they have an email).

 

Another solution is to have both the TG wire and the ROC wire open for reading to the SASS members.

 

If we cannot print it out and take it with us to the range as a rule or ruling it isn't really enforceable !!

Anything else is SECRET !

 

 

The other big weakness in the spread of rules that the rule book is no longer printed out and sent to members.

How are we supposed to get these rules ?

Word of mouth or is this a sport with no written PUBLIC rules.

And only SECRET rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

If my competion wants to give me a ten second advantage per stage by getting a P, I think I would allow him to dump and I will shoot it the regular way.. Hmmmm, If I can not beat my competion with a 120sec head start in a 12 stage match, he deserves the title and buckle. :rolleyes:

 

Blastmaster, I think you are completely missing my point.

 

The shooter in the examples I mentioned did not intentionally get the P. It is how he finished the stage that is relevant to the SOG. Did he try to get back on track? Or did he say to himself "F*&% it, I can only get one P, I'm gonna dump all the rest of my rounds on one target to gain back some of the time I lost with the P"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHOOPS!!!

 

Thought it was dead.. :wacko:

Musta had that last breath that he aired out... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blastmaster, I think you are completely missing my point.

 

The shooter in the examples I mentioned did not intentionally get the P. It is how he finished the stage that is relevant to the SOG. Did he try to get back on track? Or did he say to himself "F*&% it, I can only get one P, I'm gonna dump all the rest of my rounds on one target to gain back some of the time I lost with the P"

 

 

Grizz,

 

Na, I am not responding to your post,,,, I am now way off topic and stirring the pot to show how silly this all is.. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grizz,

 

Na, I am not responding to your post,,,, I am now way off topic and stirring the pot to show how silly this all is.. :rolleyes:

 

Okee Dokee. Fair enough,

 

Live long and prosper.

Grizz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marauder...

 

I vote #2...

you know... another.. :lol::lol::lol:

 

Rance <_<

Thinkin' that's funny right ther'...

 

Stir the pot :lol::lol:

 

 

And people still come back to see how the dead horse stew is brewing. :lol:

 

One more post in the books......9,900 more to go to break the record. :) I furget, what was the topic? This is going to be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new Icon?

Stir the Pot

 

AnotherI like this one first

 

Brewthen this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc came closest to answering my question. If you assign a target to each round count then you can return to the procedure after a mistake. If the shooter fails to stop, determine the current round count and then shoot from that round count on assigned targets, is he subject to an SOG? If so there should be hundreds more SOGs. If not, how DO make an objective call?

 

BJT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH MY GOSH :wacko: ....

 

THE OL' HORSE OPENED IT'S EYES :blink: ...

GOT UP ON IT'S HIND LEGS AND WAS A REARIN' TO GO :blink: ...

 

 

 

 

Rance <_<

Thought it was dead.. but ther' I go thinkin' agin' :blush:

 

Go for it BJT ;)

 

It really did lay there dead fer about 2 1/2 hours :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am having a hard time creating a post without the word 'dumb' in it. Unfortunately, that is exactly what this is. It is dumb to throw a spirit of the game on top of a P just because the shooter (who, keep in kind has already failed to execute the correct order) couldn't place the next shot after the P on the next Target in the order. If this is really the rule now, any time I'm on the clock and I see someone get a P, I'm gonna tell them to shoot Target X even if Target Y is correct. Then, I'm going to give them a re-shoot because I gave them incorrect instructions. I consider this to be more correct than being forced to give them unreasonable and undeserved penalties.

 

The spirit of the game, and the absence thereof, is something that all of us can see. The day it is legislated down to us from on high is the day I quit this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well said Bud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RO II Page 5

...Coaching is not considered RO interference and, therefore, will never be grounds for a re-shoot.

 

Wait, don't jump on me yet

Page 22 says

Proper coaching or no coaching at all is not considered RO Interference and therefore will never be grounds for a reshoot/restart.

So I guess that leaves the door open for improper coaching to be grounds for a restart. Don't mind me, I'm just trying to figure this stuff out as I go, Sorry for the confusion.

 

Just FYI.

 

I am certainly not maintaining that the very next shot needs to be put on the correct target to continue the correct order. But, I think the shooter does have a responsibility to try to get back to the order if there are more than a couple shots left in the string or the stage.

 

Shooter may not get back to the exact target for that round count, but if the string is a double tap sweep and he picks a target and double taps sweeps, that show he tried. If he just dumps a bunch on one target, especially if it's on a gun after the one the P was committed with, then he ain't trying and deserves an SOG IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RO II Page 5

...Coaching is not considered RO interference and, therefore, will never be grounds for a re-shoot.

 

Wait, don't jump on me yet

Page 22 says

Proper coaching or no coaching at all is not considered RO Interference and therefore will never be grounds for a reshoot/restart.

So I guess that leaves the door open for improper coaching to be grounds for a restart. Don't mind me, I'm just trying to figure this stuff out as I go, Sorry for the confusion.

 

Just FYI.

 

I am certainly not maintaining that the very next shot needs to be put on the correct target to continue the correct order. But, I think the shooter does have a responsibility to try to get back to the order if there are more than a couple shots left in the string or the stage.

 

Shooter may not get back to the exact target for that round count, but if the string is a double tap sweep and he picks a target and double taps sweeps, that show he tried. If he just dumps a bunch on one target, especially if it's on a gun after the one the P was committed with, then he ain't trying and deserves an SOG IMO.

[/quote

 

Consider, how much time must a shooter spend considering the best way to get on track before he can justify that he is not trying to save time............

 

BJT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye are thinkin' wrongheadedly Grizz. One more time, after a P all bets are off. Ye are already down 10 seconds and ye want the poor shooter to waste even more time trying to figure out an acceptable way to finish off the stage in your eyes. Can't fly. One more time, it is absotively posilutely impossible to get back on track. So why waste time trying to figure out the way to finish shooting the stage to satisfy the angst of you and mizmo?

 

You must admit yourownself that your CAS experience is limited. I guarantee that free style or shoot it anyway you want after a P is more common nationwide than whatever that is called y'all do there. That said, it is just not much of a problem. I haven't seen any epidemic of "dumpers". Most folks just don't do it or even think that way.

 

It is so rare for a person to just dump after a P that I have never seen it. Ever. In 16.5 years. So I do not anticipate any change to the SOG rule. Never seen a SOG handed out either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Proper coaching or no coaching at all is not considered RO Interference and therefore will never be grounds for a reshoot/restart.

So I guess that leaves the door open for improper coaching to be grounds for a restart...

Hi Grizz,

 

Not jumping on ya! Just thought I'd clarify for the newbies.

 

Restarts are only granted before a shot has gone down range. Reshoots are what might be given in the situation being discussed, after a shot has gone down range.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mea culpa! My Bad! ;)

 

Got a correction, from a respected friend, to my post.

 

"... RESTART may sometimes be given even AFTER a shot has gone downrange.

E.g. major prop malfunction, timer malfunction mid-stage, general cease fire...&tc.

 

The difference is whether the shooter completed the stage & a score was recorded:

 

Reshoot – score recorded, the competitor starts over clean, carrying accrued safety penalties.

 

Both scores turned in.

 

Restart – no recorded score, shooter is given a clean restart"

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Comin' in late, I ain't readin' 3 pages of posts (ok, I saw "the hairy one's" and read it), but my first reaction is; SOG penalties are really, really easy to give here on the Wire, not quite so cut 'n dry on the firing line. Communication is a diffucult endeavor, depending on the TO, what verbal directions were given the shooter once the "P" was earned? Therein lies the key to whether ANY additional penalty is earned.

 

If a TO stands there as useful as a fencepost, saying NOTHING, then frankly, drive a REAL post in the ground and set the timer atop it. Let the shooter press the button to self-start. The TO is there to safely direct the shooter thru the course of fire! Since after the second shot it should be obvious the shooter is off the rails, if the TO fails to at least attempt to get the shooter back on track, maybe the TO was as confused as the shooter!

 

I'd just stick w/the "P" as earned in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Griff,

 

In my experience, once the shooter has earned a P, a good TO will keep his/her mouth shut. Acknowledging the error just serves to confuse the shooter more. If they finish on the track they started, it is usually obvious that it was a "brain fade" or failure to understand the scenario correctly.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo :ph34r:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Griff,

In my experience, once the shooter has earned a P, a good TO will keep his/her mouth shut. Acknowledging the error just serves to confuse the shooter more. If they finish on the track they started, it is usually obvious that it was a "brain fade" or failure to understand the scenario correctly.

Regards,

Allie Mo :ph34r:;)

My personal goal as a shooter, once a "P" is earned is to receive AS MUCH RO interference as possible! There are as many ways to be a good TO as there are good TOs. Depends more on the individual shooter, some need a quiet word, others a lot of yelling (like me), and yes, some it's best to leave 'em alone in their own little world! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember as a kid being afraid of the dark. Somewhere along the line, someone, probably more than one someone, told me that the boogey man was out there…in the dark…waiting for me. This memory came back to me one night this week as I walked in the dark from my house to the building where I have my ultrasonic cleaner. I found myself smiling thinking about how life experience had taught me the foolishness of being afraid of the dark and the boogey man.

 

To me, worrying about someone dumping after a procedural in order to gain an advantage is like worrying about the boogey man, pure foolishness. The life experience of playing this game has shown me that there is not a shooter alive who can hope to make up the lost 10 seconds by dumping. If dumping could save 1-2 seconds, the time spent to ponder dumping in order to "gain an advantage" would likely exceed any time saved. After all, you could only dump that type of gun without it being misses as well. Beyond that, thinking "dump" would probably be accompanied with the thought "go fast" and result in misses, jacked out rounds and the like.

 

The ONLY times that a procedural has cost me only 10 seconds is when I've shot one without realizing it. The times I've shot one and realized it, I've lost more than the initial 10 seconds kicking myself and trying to figure out what to do now.

 

There's no boogey man…at my house…or at the range. Stop worrying about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal goal as a shooter, once a "P" is earned is to receive AS MUCH RO interference as possible! There are as many ways to be a good TO as there are good TOs. Depends more on the individual shooter, some need a quiet word, others a lot of yelling (like me), and yes, some it's best to leave 'em alone in their own little world! :ph34r:

 

 

As a TO, I will try like everything to keep you from getting a "P".

But once you have earned a "P", as long as you are SAFELY continuing to shoot, I aint saying a word.

 

What's the point?

All that running my mouth is going to do, is confuse you further.

 

IF YOU HESITATE, I will call out the next gun, I will call out next position, I will call out target sequence.

(because some are confused if you direct them to dump instead of getting them back on track)

But only if you hesitate, if you can continue without me talking, I think that is best.

 

And YES, if I believe the shooter will benefit from the direction, I will direct the shooter to dump their remaining rounds to safely ASSIST them thru the stage.

Because they DID NOT willfully and intentionally shoot the stage wrong to gain an advantage, there is no possible SoG.

Dumping is simply attempting to minimize the damage already done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It never ceases to amaze me, those that are so quick to issue penalty after penalty or probably more accurately, to say they would or someone else should. Usually in the name of "being fair" or some similar argument. Really?! This, in a game purposely kept "amateur" and highly billed as NOT being a competition. :rolleyes:

 

Those that know me, or of me, will tell you I'm known for Freestyle. Most would say its fun to watch the wheels fall off as I finish a stage where I've had brain fade. Never once, while shooting with a portion of the "top ten" shooters at a big match, has anyone ever suggested I needed a SOG after having an opportunity to display my prowess with acquiring a procedural. It is, and was, always clear the the "P" was sufficient to wrestle the top title from my grasp. We're talking years of examples here folks. :blush: Now we add in the possibility for more to be added, nice. :lol:

 

More likely this "rule" simply has the potential to add unnecessary conflict to the shooting line and to an "event" where people are paying money to have fun.....

 

It continues to elude me why we can't have one rule book. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creeker,

 

I'm skeered, you should be, and by his own admission, Buck is... We actually agree, I just tried use fewer words than usual. The direction or lack thereof a TO gives a shooter should depend on the shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

There's no boogey man…at my house…or at the range. Stop worrying about him.

 

But Buck, I AM THE BOOGIE MAN!!!!

 

I'm looking forward to seeing Sugah :blush: in November, and you too I guess :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RO I page 3

FAILURE TO ENGAGE

A “failure to engage” occurs when a competitor willfully or intentionally disregards the stage instructions in order to obtain a competitive advantage and is not assessed simply because a competitor “makes a mistake.” A Failure to Engage applies only to non-shooting situations such as refusing to rope a steer, throw a stick of dynamite or otherwise make an attempt to complete any other non-shooting procedure written within the stage instructions. In such a case, in addition to any penalties for misses, a 30-second failure to engage/Spirit of the Game penalty is assessed.

 

 

willfully or intentionally - on purpose

disregards the stage instructions - does something OTHER than what the instructions said to do

in order to obtain a competitive advantage - to get a faster time and or fewer misses than if they had followed the instructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add one further thought to the term competitive advantage; The results are better than or similar to the shooter's competition.

After all if the time/score advantage gained does not change the shooters ranking it is NOT a competitive advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That FTE reference is archaic if not obsolete.

 

We don't rope steers on the clock anymore. Or throw dynamite.

 

Unfortunately. More's the pity.

 

There wuz a few Ps handed out today. May have gotten one meowndangself. Nobody dumped. Cuz we is cowboys and that just wouldn't be cowboy. I got wooled around by Steeldust Dan for being a Free Styler but a bunch of others chimed in that they wuz too and I think ole Dan may be a closet FSer. Wouldn't matter anyhoo in my case, I have sunk to the bottom of the heap these days, but at least I didn't DNF, first time since May.

 

Nobody came close to a SOG. Other than the heat and humidity we all had a high ole time. Gonna do it agin next Satiddy by gum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.