Rules Question

[Dubious Don #56333]

Wow, some of ya are awful quick to jump on the DQ bandwagon, ain't ya?

 

Ever stop to think that mayhaps the shooter might know his gun? That the action release didn't work or doesn't and the only way to make the 97 open was to lower the hammer? As long as the thing is pointed in a safe direction, this shouldn't be an issue. Yes, he could have fired the round. The stage was "done" correct? I can see the reluctance to do that. Should the shooter have said something? But the RO was right there watching the shooter so I would say supervision was implied.

 

I would disagree with the call as made.

 

What’s the call? (This happened at today’s shoot) A shooter was completing a stage by shooting 4 shotgun knock-down targets. The last KD did not fall right away so the shooter loaded another round into his 97. Before he pulled the trigger, the target fell over. The shooter lowered the hammer of his shotgun and ejected the round.

 

The stage Timer Operator was still supervising the shooter and had not turned away to check with spotters or talk to the scorer. The Time Operator stated that the shooter should have gotten his OK to lower the hammer on the round and awarded the shooter a stage DQ.

 

The two questions open to interpretation are as follows:

 

1. Was the shooter still “under direct supervision of the Timer Operator” when he

lowered the hammer, or, did he need the verbal permission of the Timer

Operator before lowering the hammer?

 

2. Under #8 of the RO 1 Handbook: Were his actions OK by applying the

sentence? “Shotgun shells may be removed, if necessary, without penalty in

order to return the firearm to a safe condition.”

 

 

SAFETY PRACTICES FIRST, LAST, AND ALWAYS

Shooter’s Handbook P. 23

 

7. De-cocking may not be done to avoid a penalty if cocked at the wrong time, position

or location once a round has gone down range. NO gun may be de-cocked on the

firing line except by pointing it down range and pulling the trigger or while under the

direct supervision of a stage officer. The penalty for de-cocking is a Stage

Disqualification.

8. Once a revolver is cocked, the round under the hammer must be expended in order

for it to be returned to a safe condition. Once a rifle is cocked, either the round under

the hammer must be expended or the action opened in order for the rifle to be

returned to a safe condition. Shotgun shells may be removed, if necessary, without

penalty in order to return the firearm to a safe condition.

 

 

RO 1 Handbook P. 16 APPENDIX A - RANGE SAFETY RULES

 

7. De-cocking may not be done to avoid a penalty if cocked at the wrong time, position

Or location once a round has gone down range. NO gun may be de-cocked on the

firing line except by pointing it down range and pulling the trigger or while under the

direct supervision of the Timer Operator. The penalty for de-cocking is a Stage

Disqualification.

8. Once a revolver is cocked, the round under the hammer must be expended in order

for it to be returned to a safe condition. Once a rifle is cocked, either the round under

the hammer must be expended or the action opened in order for the rifle to be

returned to a safe condition. Shotgun shells may be removed without penalty to

return the firearm to a safe condition.

[Grizzly Dave]

Wow, some of ya are awful quick to jump on the DQ bandwagon, ain't ya?

 

Ever stop to think that mayhaps the shooter might know his gun? That the action release didn't work or doesn't and the only way to make the 97 open was to lower the hammer? As long as the thing is pointed in a safe direction, this shouldn't be an issue. Yes, he could have fired the round. The stage was "done" correct? I can see the reluctance to do that. Should the shooter have said something? But the RO was right there watching the shooter so I would say supervision was implied.

 

I would disagree with the call as made.

 

Don, I understand where you are coming from, but de-cocking is not a normal action on the firing line and not what the TO would be focusing on, or looking for, in that situation. In order to ensure that the TO is 'directly supervising' the decocking operation, they need to be made aware that it is going to happen.

[Jacknife]

Don, I understand where you are coming from, but de-cocking is not a normal action on the firing line and not what the TO would be focusing on, or looking for, in that situation. In order to ensure that the TO is 'directly supervising' the decocking operation, they need to be made aware that it is going to happen.

 

 

Dave, shouldn't the TO been focusing on the round the shooter loaded in his 97 and wondering what he was gonna do with it? Seems like he would have anyway. Seems that he woud have had his mind on the loaded gun till it was made empty. What ya think?

[Arizona Lefty]

1. The Shooter lowered the hammer on a live round, doesn't matter what type of gun it was or how he did it; SDQ!

2. The Shooter was under the Direct Supervision of the TO, since "Range Clear" had not been called.

 

If I am a shooter and "Range Clear has not been called, I will assume I am still under the Direct Supervision of the TO since I am still active on the Stage, if I have to ask then there is an issue and it is not me.

[Grizzly Dave]

Dave, shouldn't the TO been focusing on the round the shooter loaded in his 97 and wondering what he was gonna do with it? Seems like he would have anyway. Seems that he woud have had his mind on the loaded gun till it was made empty. What ya think?

 

Admittedly I am fairly new to running the timer, I would be watching muzzle direction, and expecting the shooter to push the button and rack the slide to eject, either that or to fire the round.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

OK...one more time.

 

OPTIONS TO VERIFY THAT THE SHOOTER IS "UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF A STAGE OFFICER":

 

1) ASK the T/O if it's OK to de-cock in order to clear the shotgun (if the action slide lock release is broken/inoperable or the shooter isn't aware of its function).

OR

2) TELL the T/O that you need to de-cock on a live round in order to operate the action (if ... etc)

OR

3) LOOK the T/O straight in the eye to make sure you have his undivided attention while you de-cock the hammer on an unfired round (if...etc)

 

IF you do ANY of these things, the T/O should have NO GROUNDS to assess a SDQ for de-cocking the shotgun without being under his DIRECT SUPERVISION.

[Beartrap SASS#57175]

If the TO wasn't watching the shotgun/shooter how would he know it was decocked and the button wasn't pushed? If you're being watched that closely I'd call it "under direct supervision". NO CALL IMHO.

[Blastmaster]

PW has spoken,

 

 

Folks reread the OP post, second paragraph.....

 

 

 

.."The stage Timer Operator was still supervising the shooter, and had not turned away to check with spotters or talk to the scorer. The Time Operator stated that the shooter should have gotten his OK to lower the hammer on the round and awarded the shooter a stage DQ."

 

 

Even though the RO was still supervising (keeping the stage save and all), the shooter did not get permission to do what he did,,,, (lower the hammer), which earned him the penalty.

 

 

Correct call by the TO.

 

 

Blastmaster

[Brother King, SASS #69031]

If I am a shooter and "Range Clear has not been called, I will assume I am still under the Direct Supervision of the TO since I am still active on the Stage, if I have to ask then there is an issue and it is not me.

That assumption and a $50 protest fee will most probably still end in the lesson "ASS U ME" and a SDQ award being upheld by the MD and/or committee.

 

The SASS WAHR head honcho answers the question and then there are two pages of 'well I don't see it that way'. Well, if you're feeling REAL lucky don't do it that way. Just have your $50 ready.

 

Feeling lucky, Dubious Don? or just dubious?

[Grizzly Dave]

Dave, shouldn't the TO been focusing on the round the shooter loaded in his 97 and wondering what he was gonna do with it? Seems like he would have anyway. Seems that he woud have had his mind on the loaded gun till it was made empty. What ya think?

 

 

Admittedly I am fairly new to running the timer, I would be watching muzzle direction, and expecting the shooter to push the button and rack the slide to eject, either that or to fire the round.

 

Jacknife - In addition to the above, since it's the last shot of the stage for that shooter, I'd also be trying to watch the timer to make sure it picked up the shot.

 

Myself, if I am going to do anything out of the norm while shooting a stage, I try to let the TO know about it.

[Keystone, SASS # 47578]

Well,

 

No disrespect, but I just don't believe a SDQ is correct.

 

The shooter was under the stage officers supervision. The rule states you may decock while under supervision. He wasn't trying to avoid a penalty, the firearm was safely pointed down range, the firearm was safely decocked without firing and the live round ejected.

 

If the shooter is "required" to obtain the Stage Officers verbal approval then add it to the regulation, "upon verbal approval". How often has it been said, don't read something into the rules that is not there?

 

Hasta Luego,

Keystone

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Dave, shouldn't the TO been focusing on the round the shooter loaded in his 97 and wondering what he was gonna do with it? Seems like he would have anyway. Seems that he woud have had his mind on the loaded gun till it was made empty. What ya think?

Hi Jacky,

 

I'm not Dave, but I think I can answer that question with information from page 8 of the ROI, "Once the stage begins, the Timer Operator stays within arm’s length of the competitor until the stage is finished. The Timer Operator then immediately announces the stage time to the shooter. Only after revolvers are holstered and long guns are action opened, muzzles pointed in a safe direction, and the shooter is heading towards the unloading table does the Timer Operator, declare “Range is Clear” and conveys the time to the Score Keeper in a loud, clear voice."

 

The following is from page 5, "Anticipate. Again, if you can anticipate what the shooter may do next, you may be able to stop an unsafe act from occurring. This is not to suggest you are expected to put yourself in danger in order to stop the unsafe act, but you might be able to prevent it from happening through verbal direction or physical action."

 

So, yep, TO let the shooter down. However, that doesn't stop the shooter from getting a penalty, which PWB said he earned. It just means the TO needs to learn a thing or two also.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[Granny Annie SASS #37063]

The way I have always understood "or while under the direct supervision of the Timer Operator. " it means that the TO tells you to do it, or at least knows what you are doing.

 

SDQ.

 

That is not so. I saw a fellow instructed by the RO at Winter Range to lower the hammer (i.e. de-cock) on a pistol and then he Stage DQ'd him. I was on the posse. Just cause the RO tells you to do it doesn't mean that you can!

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

That is not so. I saw a fellow instructed by the RO at Winter Range to lower the hammer (i.e. de-cock) on a pistol and then he Stage DQ'd him. I was on the posse. Just cause the RO tells you to do it doesn't mean that you can!

Hey Granny,

 

Wow! That stinks. I would not shoot with that TO (you do mean TO, don't you) again. I would encourage the shooter to take it to the MD and I would go with him as support. Also, I think I would want to change posses. Did I say that stinks?

 

 

Allie

[Granny Annie SASS #37063]

Hey Granny,

 

Wow! That stinks. I would not shoot with that TO (you do mean TO, don't you) again. I would encourage the shooter to take it to the MD and I would go with him as support. Also, I think I would want to change posses. Did I say that stinks?

 

 

Allie

 

Yes, I meant TO. I sent you a PM.

[Chief Rick]

So, yep, TO let the shooter down.

Mrs Allie, I can't agree with that statement based on this:

The last KD did not fall right away so the shooter loaded another round into his 97. Before he pulled the trigger, the target fell over.

 

If the shooter's 97 could not be opened safely using the button on the side to eject the live round, IMO it should not be used. But if it were used, and this happened, the only "safe" way to drop the hammer with a live round in the chamber is to "fire" the weapon downrange. Just the view form my saddle.

[Fillmore Coffins, SASS #7884]

SAFETY PRACTICES FIRST, LAST, AND ALWAYS

Shooter’s Handbook P. 23

 

7. De-cocking may not be done to avoid a penalty if cocked at the wrong time, position

or location once a round has gone down range. NO gun may be de-cocked on the

firing line except by pointing it down range and pulling the trigger or while under the

direct supervision of a stage officer. The penalty for de-cocking is a Stage

Disqualification

 

 

OK, let's really open this can of worms

 

 

NO gun may be de-cocked on the firing line except by pointing it down range and pulling the trigger or while under the direct supervision of a stage officer.

 

 

 

 

OK, the shooter has de-cocked his gun under the direct supervision of an officer. Is there a penalty?

 

 

 

The penalty for de-cocking is a Stage Disqualification.

 

 

It doesn't say there is no penalty for de-cocking under the supervision of a stage officer, nor does it say that de-cocking under the supervision of a safety officer is not de-cocking, it says the penalty for de-cocking is a SDQ. Therefore, de-cocking under ANY circumstances is grounds for a SDQ, (as it's written)

 

 

Fillmore

[Wimpy Hank Yoho]

That is not so. I saw a fellow instructed by the RO at Winter Range to lower the hammer (i.e. de-cock) on a pistol and then he Stage DQ'd him. I was on the posse. Just cause the RO (TO) tells you to do it doesn't mean that you can!

 

+1 Granny

[TN Mongo, SASS #61450]

Pale Wolf’s interpretation is about what I thought it would be.

 

It might be good during the next revision of the shooters’ handbook, and the RO 1 handbook, to change the language in Safety section number 8 to say “Once a shotgun with an exposed hammer/hammers is cocked –“ as it is stated for pistols and rifles. Also it would not be a bad idea to clarify in writing in number 7 that the direct supervision of a range officer specifically means getting a verbal OK before decocking a firearm.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Hello,

 

In Granny's example, again, if the TO tells you to decock, you are under his supervision. Decocking under TO supervision is okay according to the rules.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[Dubious Don #56333]

Don, I understand where you are coming from, but de-cocking is not a normal action on the firing line and not what the TO would be focusing on, or looking for, in that situation. In order to ensure that the TO is 'directly supervising' the decocking operation, they need to be made aware that it is going to happen.

 

De-cocking may not be normal but it is allowed under certain specific circumstances. A shooter should not have to "ask" (as in mother-may-I) the RO. The RO, upon seeing the shooter load another round AND, having saw the target fall should have been sharp enough to realize what was happening and even more importantly, what MAY happen and what his duties and responsibilities were. It should have been obvious what the shooter's intentions were but the RO made no effort to interfere. True, could have happened too fast , the OP doesn't address that. A good RO anticipates the actions of the shooters under his control. Sometimes you simply can't move/speak fast enough.

[Brother King, SASS #69031]

De-cocking may not be normal but it is allowed under certain specific circumstances. A shooter should not have to "ask" (as in mother-may-I) the RO. True, could have happened too fast , the OP doesn't address that. A good RO anticipates the actions of the shooters under his control. Sometimes you simply can't move/speak fast enough.

I wonder how long it takes to blow someone's brains all over the stage? It's not Mother May I... it's OFFICER MAY I? That's why they call the dude with the timer a RANGE OFFICER.

The "you simply can't move/speak fast enough" is exactly the reason for the rule.

 

I'm really wondering if there is a false sense of security in SASS that a rule about a live round under a cocked hammer needs this much explanation?

[Grizzly Dave]

De-cocking may not be normal but it is allowed under certain specific circumstances. A shooter should not have to "ask" (as in mother-may-I) the RO. The RO, upon seeing the shooter load another round AND, having saw the target fall should have been sharp enough to realize what was happening and even more importantly, what MAY happen and what his duties and responsibilities were. It should have been obvious what the shooter's intentions were but the RO made no effort to interfere. True, could have happened too fast , the OP doesn't address that. A good RO anticipates the actions of the shooters under his control. Sometimes you simply can't move/speak fast enough.

 

So, the RO, who is supposed to be watching the gun, and the shooter, and the timer, would see the target fall? Depending on where he was, maybe, maybe not. Even so, how can he be expected to supervise a decock he doesn't know is going to occur? Would you anticipate a decock under that circumstance? I wouldn't. I would anticipate the shooter pushing the slide release and racking the action to eject.

[Jacknife]

So, the RO, who is supposed to be watching the gun, and the shooter, and the timer, would see the target fall? Depending on where he was, maybe, maybe not. Even so, how can he be expected to supervise a decock he doesn't know is going to occur? Would you anticipate a decock under that circumstance? I wouldn't. I would anticipate the shooter pushing the slide release and racking the action to eject.

 

 

Dave, it seems to me that the first and only thing on the TO's mind at that time shoud be "what is he going to to with the live round that I saw him load and no longer needs". Looking at the timer is not going to help anything at all, time is already over. If he was looking at the target, which he is not supposed to be doing, he would know it fell and a round was in the chamber. So, what is he gonna do with it? That and only that should be on the TO's mind at that instant, and till he sees it removed.

[Marshal Too Tall, SASS #36690]

Maybe I am wrong but I always assumed that the shooter was always under the direct supervision of the TO. Does he not guide the shooter along the course of fire? If he is not, who is? At what point is he not under his supervision? I personal think the wording is bad and there was NEVER a safety issue. I also think that decocked a firearm with the barrel pointed downrange under the TO supervision does not warrant a SDQ but at the most a 10 second safety issue.

 

 

...Too Tall...

[Jacknife]

OK...one more time.

 

1) ASK the T/O if it's OK to de-cock in order to clear the shotgun (if the action slide lock release is broken/inoperable or the shooter isn't aware of its function).

OR

2) TELL the T/O that you need to de-cock on a live round in order to operate the action (if ... etc)

OR

3) LOOK the T/O straight in the eye to make sure you have his undivided attention while you de-cock the hammer on an unfired round (if...etc)

 

IF you do ANY of these things, the T/O should have NO GROUNDS to assess a SDQ for de-cocking the shotgun without being under his DIRECT SUPERVISION.

 

 

--------and if the TO was doing his job right, the shooter was always under his direct supervision until TO headed him toward the unloading table. The TO messed up and the shooter has to pay the price. What happened to "don't be a hardass"?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

TRUST, BUT VERIFY.

- Ronald Reagan

[Marshal Too Tall, SASS #36690]

Another thing I would like to add to this is that we all play by the rules. Right? So if we play by the written rules how are we going to have the luxury to interpret the rules like PWB? Where in the rules does it say we should "ask", "tell" or "look" at the TO for supervision? That right its not there because the rules have been interpreted because the language is too unclear as they are written. It should become clear that the shooter did not earn a SDQ because he was playing by the written rules that he knew and understood. Don't penialize a shooter for bad written rules. Change the language to made clearer in the next handbook. In my opinion, this ruling should be overturned in favor the shooter.

 

 

...Too Tall...

[Brother King, SASS #69031]

I also think that decocked a firearm with the barrel pointed downrange under the TO supervision does not warrant a SDQ but at the most a 10 second safety issue.

 

...Too Tall...

Penalty awards are an "IS YOU IS OR IS YOU AIN'T". Either call the infraction and award the penalty or don't call it at all.

 

You can't go changing the amount of the penalty.

[Grizzly Dave]

Dave, it seems to me that the first and only thing on the TO's mind at that time shoud be "what is he going to to with the live round that I saw him load and no longer needs". Looking at the timer is not going to help anything at all, time is already over. If he was looking at the target, which he is not supposed to be doing, he would know it fell and a round was in the chamber. So, what is he gonna do with it? That and only that should be on the TO's mind at that instant, and till he sees it removed.

 

Lots going on in a few seconds...

Shooter shoots at last shotgun target - TO is watching the gun and trying to watch the timer to make sure the shot is recorded.

Spotters yell 'again' or 'up"

Shooter reloads - TO tries to watch the shooter, gun, and timer in anticipation of the make up shot.

The target falls, the shooter evidently saw it fall, don't know about the TO, don't know if spotters called out that it fell.

TO anticipates either another shot being fired, or the shooter pressing the slide release, but the shooter decocks instead and then works the slide.

 

To me it all comes back to the fact that de-cocking on the line is a very uncommon occurrence, and not a desirable one, so much so that there is a rule against it except as noted in the rule. If you want to make sure you are living up to that exception, best to ask.

 

Now, it's been said that the shooter is/was under the 'direct supervision' of the TO just by the fact he was on the line. I would say that statement is true, to a point. And that point is that the shooter was under direct supervision, but the act of decocking may or may not have been. Again, the only way to be sure is to speak up.

 

As I've said before, when I am the shooter, the TO is there to try to keep me and the rest of the posse safe, I want him to be comfortable with my actions, so if I am going to do something a little out of the norm, I'll let the TO know about it. If it adds a few seconds to my time, I'm good with that.

 

That is about as clear as I can make it. You may agree, you may not, that's up to you. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what I think, or you think, PWB is the SASS Rules Committee representative to the wire, so what he says goes.

 

Grizz

[J.D.Ironsmith]

De-cocking may not be normal but it is allowed under certain specific circumstances. A shooter should not have to "ask" (as in mother-may-I) the RO. The RO, upon seeing the shooter load another round AND, having saw the target fall should have been sharp enough to realize what was happening and even more importantly, what MAY happen and what his duties and responsibilities were. It should have been obvious what the shooter's intentions were but the RO made no effort to interfere. True, could have happened too fast , the OP doesn't address that. A good RO anticipates the actions of the shooters under his control. Sometimes you simply can't move/speak fast enough.

 

Don,

 

Your asking the TO to read the shooter's mind...

 

The NORMAL thing to have happened, would have been for the shooter to hit the button, and ejected the live round.

 

I doubt most of us would be quick enough to recognize that what was “normal” was not happening, discern what was happening, and be fast enough to stop the shooter from doing it! (How long does it take to decock a shotgun, when it is being held in a firing position? A fraction of a second?)

 

There may be reasons to decock on the firing line... but they are not normal. Anytime a shooter does something that is NOT normal it is in their best interest to COMMUNICATE with the TO. This keeps the TO from having to guess what the shooter is going to do. When you supervise some one you don't guess what they are going to do; you tell them what to do, or give them permission what to do.

[Double Barrel, SASS 34765]

After reading some of the responses posted here, I propose SASS start a TO school to certify timer operators.

Then ONLY certified TOs can run the timer at ALL SASS matches across the world. To make this possible, in addition to the regular match fee, a $20 Certified TO Fee should be charged each shooter to pay for the expenses of the Certified TOs.

This would get rid of all those non-multi-tasking TOs that can't watch 10 things at one time.

 

Double Barrel

[Blastmaster]

After reading some of the responses posted here, I propose SASS start a TO school to certify timer operators.

Then ONLY certified TOs can run the timer at ALL SASS matches across the world. To make this possible, in addition to the regular match fee, a $20 Certified TO Fee should be charged each shooter to pay for the expenses of the Certified TOs.

This would get rid of all those non-multi-tasking TOs that can't watch 10 things at one time.

 

Double Barrel

 

 

Already a RO school and once complete ya get a ROI and or ROII Badge.

 

At least where I shoot, all TO's have the badge and schooling.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Bottom Line:

 

25-35,000 shooters were probably playing Cowboy on Saturday and this one incident occurred where some clarification was needed about the Rule on this particular circumstance. Even meowndangself was misunderstanding the Rule.

 

Anyhow, PWB settled it all.

 

Ifn PWB and the Rules committee decide to revisit this Rule and clarify its intent, I'm sure it will be done.

 

For now, this type situation on the firing line earned the shooter a SDQ.

 

Somedays we eat the bear and somedays that ole Grizzly takes a bite outa us.

 

 

..........Widder

[Black Angus McPherson]

Well,

 

No disrespect, but I just don't believe a SDQ is correct.

 

The shooter was under the stage officers supervision. The rule states you may decock while under supervision. He wasn't trying to avoid a penalty, the firearm was safely pointed down range, the firearm was safely decocked without firing and the live round ejected.

 

If the shooter is "required" to obtain the Stage Officers verbal approval then add it to the regulation, "upon verbal approval". How often has it been said, don't read something into the rules that is not there?

 

Hasta Luego,

Keystone

 

+1

 

Also the rule (best of my memory 'cause I can't figure out this "multi-quote" thing to include it in this post) reads:

 

Decocking is not allowed EXCEPT when pointing down-range and pulling the trigger... OR while under direct supervision... It does NOT say BOTH conditions must be met.

 

In other words you CAN decock when pointing down-range and pulling the trigger. OR you CAN decock under the supervision of the TO.

 

PWB, I disagree that pulling the trigger = firing the gun. Obviously if the hammer fall is impeded enough, by either a finger or dirt, etc. it won't fire. The rule DOES NOT say you must ask permission, nor does any rule say that you must ask permission if you want to unload an extra round by pushing the action release. What's the dif? It's either pointed in a safe direction or it's not. Oddly enough, it does seem to outlaw the use of any type of decocking lever, should any cowboy type gun actually have one.

 

PWB has spoken and that's the way it's going to be, but I disagree strongly with that interpretation of the rules as currently written. If that's the way it's supposed to be (and I don't care one way or the other) then they should be written so they can be clearly understood to mean just that. It remains a poorly written rule if that is to be the meaning of it.

 

Black Angus McPherson