Should video be used to call a penalty on shooter.

[Ned Buckshot, SASS #2901]

TOTAL BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can everyone say colusion!

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

Get a rope

[SGT. ELI 35882 GUNFIGHTER]

Good thing we wear tall boots because the BS is off the scale in this situation.

Video should not be used for any calls in our sport, per the rule and even if it was not a rule we don't want to start down that path.

Shooter got screwed over, but apparently took it like a cowboy. I would keep my eye on the other party involved at any match I saw them at. If they pulled a stunt like this, who knows what else they would be capable of.

[Chili Pepper Pete 11917]

Deuce,

 

Why don't you just tell us who it was and that in itself should take care of the issue. Thats the one thing in this sport... People who get caught cheating or otherwise cause serious problems, Dont hang around to long. (Well mostley it works, Some people you just can't reach)

 

 

Best regards,

 

Chili

[Brother King, SASS #69031]

Should have called it then. I had a stage DQ called on me for a cocked hammer on my rifle coming from the loading table, however no one called it till I was done shooting so there was no way to prove different.

Sorry that happened to you. That's a bad call. A cocked hammer call MUST be called when the shooter first stages the guns. IT CAN NOT BE CALLED AFTER THE SHOOTER HAS PICKED UP THE GUN for the very reason you cite.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Wow! How did I miss this thread...

 

It reminds me of a state match with a long series of windows you were to shoot through. A huge number of shooters DQed on that stage for moving with a cocked gun. One shooter's husband had a video of her shooting and presented it as proof she did not move both feet. It wasn't "admissable as evidence." As, you can't give the "kinder, gentler" call based on a video, you should not be able to penalize someone for a video either!

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[Wyatt Earp SASS#1628L]

Before you all start hanging people without hearing the other side of the story, I was on this posse and witnessed parts of the “incident”. I did not see the alleged violation. When I took over counting misses, I noticed the posse marshal, the accuser (a local top shooter), and the accusee having a discussion near the unloading table, which was just a few feet behind me. I do not know how long after the accusse shot his stage that this conversation occurred, but there was still about half of the posse (about 12) in line to shoot. In a couple of minutes, one of the match officials appeared and joined the conversation. I heard something about watching a video, but before it was shown to the match official, the posse marshal approached where I was standing (to the left of the shooting position) and said, ‘this is where the cameraman was standing’, so you can see the relationship of the shooters position to where his gun was pointed’. Notice he said “camerman”, not accusing shooter. It should be noted that there was a camera crew taking pictures (and video?) at most of the stages.

 

After watching the video, I heard overheard part of the discussion between the posse marshal and the match official wherein the match official decided to give the accusee a 10 second safety violation and a warning rather than a DQ. So yes, a match official was called to the stage and rendered a decision.

 

I never saw the accuser taking video at any of the stages, he was usually too busy working the stage as a counter, brass picker, or timer operator. He is a long time member of the host club and a top shooter as well.

 

And as far as the allegation that he was out to get the accusee because they were shooting in the same category, BS. The accusee was shooting Wrangler and the acussor was shooting 49’r.

 

As far as the ‘victim’ taking it like a cowboy, again BS. He had to call his friend in Michigan to complain? And the accusee doesn’t even live in Michigan! And friend has to make post on the Wire about it? Give me a break. Two other shooters on our posse had a stage DQ for 170 violations. Neither of them complained. They took the call and went on with the match.

 

It’s amazing to me that so many people will take a “top shooter’s” word (and hearsay at best) about something and then run with it, including a renowned “rule book expert”, without waiting to hear the other side. Sadly, in this case I doubt you ever will, because the accusor and posse marshal do not post on the wire.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Before you all start hanging people without hearing the other side of the story, I was on this posse and witnessed parts of the “incident”. I did not see the alleged violation. When I took over counting misses, I noticed the posse marshal, the accuser (a local top shooter), and the accusee having a discussion near the unloading table, which was just a few feet behind me. I do not know how long after the accusse shot his stage that this conversation occurred, but there was still about half of the posse (about 12) in line to shoot. In a couple of minutes, one of the match officials appeared and joined the conversation. I heard something about watching a video, but before it was shown to the match official, the posse marshal approached where I was standing (to the left of the shooting position) and said, ‘this is where the cameraman was standing’, so you can see the relationship of the shooters position to where his gun was pointed’. Notice he said “camerman”, not accusing shooter. It should be noted that there was a camera crew taking pictures (and video?) at most of the stages.

 

After watching the video, I heard overheard part of the discussion between the posse marshal and the match official wherein the match official decided to give the accusee a 10 second safety violation and a warning rather than a DQ. So yes, a match official was called to the stage and rendered a decision.

 

I never saw the accuser taking video at any of the stages, he was usually too busy working the stage as a counter, brass picker, or timer operator. He is a long time member of the host club and a top shooter as well.

 

And as far as the allegation that he was out to get the accusee because they were shooting in the same category, BS. The accusee was shooting Wrangler and the acussor was shooting 49’r.

 

As far as the ‘victim’ taking it like a cowboy, again BS. He had to call his friend in Michigan to complain? And the accusee doesn’t even live in Michigan! And friend has to make post on the Wire about it? Give me a break. Two other shooters on our posse had a stage DQ for 170 violations. Neither of them complained. They took the call and went on with the match.

 

It’s amazing to me that so many people will take a “top shooter’s” word (and hearsay at best) about something and then run with it, including a renowned “rule book expert”, without waiting to hear the other side. Sadly, in this case I doubt you ever will, because the accusor and posse marshal do not post on the wire.

Doesn't really matter, no rule decision can be made or even biased by anyone's video or still photo to make a rule decision and that was the original complaint. Everyone in decision chain was wrong. Shooter got screwed.

[Jacknife]

Wonder why the match official "decided to give the accusee a 10 second safety violation". If he had known the rules he would have known that what he was doing was ILLEGAL. MO cant make up rules as ya go along,

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Had this happen to a friend today. Shooter was approached by a fellow competitor and showed a video of him apparently breaking the 170. The video taker/shooter then called over the posse marshal. The video was unclear as to whether or not the shooter broke the 170. They assigned him a 10 second safety as a result. This was 10-20 minutes after the fact as well. What do you guys think ? When shooter asked why nothing was done at the time he was told it was because was not very approachable. My BS meter is going off.

 

...

It’s amazing to me that so many people will take a “top shooter’s” word (and hearsay at best) about something and then run with it, including a renowned “rule book expert”, without waiting to hear the other side. Sadly, in this case I doubt you ever will, because the accusor and posse marshal do not post on the wire.

 

Regardless of the "other side" of the story...

SASS rules PROHIBIT the use of video to make or dispute a call. It is apparent from your version of the "other side" that it WAS:

After watching the video, I heard overheard part of the discussion between the posse marshal and the match official wherein the match official decided to give the accusee a 10 second safety violation and a warning rather than a DQ. So yes, a match official was called to the stage and rendered a decision.

 

There is NO provision for a "lesser penalty" (i.e. 10-second MSV + warning VS a SDQ) if there is a questionable call...the shooter either committed a rules violation or not...if he DID, then there is a specific assigned penalty for that violation.

REPEAT:

The use of recorded audio, video, or still photography cannot be used to make or challenge the call of Posse or Match Officials. Remember, the benefit of the doubt ALWAYS goes to the shooter.

...

Any challenge must be taken directly to the Range Master for assistance in the resolution. The Range Master should politely conduct interviews with the individual challenging the decision as well as any and all of the assigned Posse Officials or individuals involved in the initial call being questioned.

No video, recorded audio, still photography, or other persons should be included in these interviews.

RO2 p.12

 

I stand by my initial OPINION based on the OP.

[Deuce Stevens SASS#55996]

Well, here's the good news. 10 minutes before awards the match officials amended the call and removed the 10 sec. penalty. Here are a couple of more details. The accused shooter wears a standard strong side double rig. The holsters are straight up and down. He wears them forward of his body but still maintains the two fists between guns. The shooter making the complaint was insisting that he was breaking the 170 everytime he drew his guns. Accused shooter tried to explain that he needs to actually watch the muzzle (much like someone insisting that a shooter must swivel his hips while using a crossdraw). Of course none of this had been mentioned on the previous other 7 stages. Accused shooter was told by several locals that the individual with the camera is notorious for this behavior and several others said they refuse to shoot with him on the same posse. The good thing is after much pressure and heat from a LOT of people the match director made the correct call. I had to pretty much brow beat my friend to get him to pursue getting this taken care of because he did not want to seem like a poor sportsman,which in the fact that he tolerated that treatment makes him a excellent sportsman. Thanks for all the replies.

[Deuce Stevens SASS#55996]

Before you all start hanging people without hearing the other side of the story, I was on this posse and witnessed parts of the incident. I did not see the alleged violation. When I took over counting misses, I noticed the posse marshal, the accuser (a local top shooter), and the accusee having a discussion near the unloading table, which was just a few feet behind me. I do not know how long after the accusse shot his stage that this conversation occurred, but there was still about half of the posse (about 12) in line to shoot. In a couple of minutes, one of the match officials appeared and joined the conversation. I heard something about watching a video, but before it was shown to the match official, the posse marshal approached where I was standing (to the left of the shooting position) and said, this is where the cameraman was standing, so you can see the relationship of the shooters position to where his gun was pointed. Notice he said camerman, not accusing shooter. It should be noted that there was a camera crew taking pictures (and video?) at most of the stages.

 

After watching the video, I heard overheard part of the discussion between the posse marshal and the match official wherein the match official decided to give the accusee a 10 second safety violation and a warning rather than a DQ. So yes, a match official was called to the stage and rendered a decision.

 

I never saw the accuser taking video at any of the stages, he was usually too busy working the stage as a counter, brass picker, or timer operator. He is a long time member of the host club and a top shooter as well.

 

And as far as the allegation that he was out to get the accusee because they were shooting in the same category, BS. The accusee was shooting Wrangler and the acussor was shooting 49r.

 

As far as the victim taking it like a cowboy, again BS. He had to call his friend in Michigan to complain? And the accusee doesnt even live in Michigan! And friend has to make post on the Wire about it? Give me a break. Two other shooters on our posse had a stage DQ for 170 violations. Neither of them complained. They took the call and went on with the match.

 

Its amazing to me that so many people will take a top shooters word (and hearsay at best) about something and then run with it, including a renowned rule book expert, without waiting to hear the other side. Sadly, in this case I doubt you ever will, because the accusor and posse marshal do not post on the wire.

 

None of that matters, none of the proper steps were taken. You CANNOT make calls after the fact. I called my friend to see how his weekend was going, he didn't call me. So get that straight chief. I have not nor will I mention location or names. But you seem to want to get pretty personal. I would trust the accused shooter with my wife and childs safety so I cannot give any stronger recommendation of his character than that. You also failed to mentioned that one of the other DQ's was also called by the accuser. Pretty busy weekend for him.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Well, here's the good news. 10 minutes before awards the match officials amended the call and removed the 10 sec. penalty. Here are a couple of more details. The accused shooter wears a standard strong side double rig. The holsters are straight up and down. He wears them forward of his body but still maintains the two fists between guns. The shooter making the complaint was insisting that he was breaking the 170 everytime he drew his guns. Accused shooter tried to explain that he needs to actually watch the muzzle (much like someone insisting that a shooter must swivel his hips while using a crossdraw). Of course none of this had been mentioned on the previous other 7 stages. Accused shooter was told by several locals that the individual with the camera is notorious for this behavior and several others said they refuse to shoot with him on the same posse. The good thing is after much pressure and heat from a LOT of people the match director made the correct call. I had to pretty much brow beat my friend to get him to pursue getting this taken care of because he did not want to seem like a poor sportsman,which in the fact that he tolerated that treatment makes him a excellent sportsman. Thanks for all the replies.

 

Glad to hear that the right thing was done (eventually)!!

 

Thanks for the update.

[Wyatt Earp SASS#1628L]

You folks ain't gettin' the point. You don't know if the video is the basis of the violation, or was just used by the PM to show the match official what happended. (You are taking Deuce's word for that, as relayed by the accused shooter). If the match official said no to the video (as he should have, per the rules), then it would have been up to the PM to make the decision, based on the observation made at the line. As I stated above, two other shooters were stage DQ'd for the 170. Nothing was made of it and no match official had to be called.

And you are all overlooking the main part of the OP's insinuation that the accusor was operating under nefarious means to "get" to the accusee because they were in the same class.

 

ETA: Deuce, I wasn't making anything personal, you made the original post. You insinuated the assusor was after your friend because they were in the same category. They weren't. Get your fact straight. I don't give a damn about the video and it's admissability or not, obviously it's against the rules, so that part stands. I'm pissed about all the negative posts about the accusor, without knowing the other side of the story. And again, you post another negative comment about him being involved in one of the DQ's. I guess when you work the timer and the stage you are gonna be involved with sme of those calls.

 

ETA: Oh, and one more thing, Deuce, his strong side holster is canted forward, not hanging straight down, as you have stated. How do I know this, he showed it to me and another shooter when complaining about the "bullshit" call.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

You folks ain't gettin' the point. You don't know if the video is the basis of the violation, or was just used by the PM to show the match official what happended. (You are taking Deuce's word for that, as relayed by the accused shooter). If the match official said no to the video (as he should have, per the rules), then it would have been up to the PM to make the decision, based on the observation made at the line. As I stated above, two other shooters were stage DQ'd for the 170. Nothing was made of it and no match official had to be called.

And you are all overlooking the main part of the OP's insinuation that the accusor was operating under nefarious means to "get" to the accusee because they were in the same class.

The point is no match official can look at a video or photo to make a call or explain a call. What other shooters got in way of penalties on posse and whether they protested is not any consideration. You seem to have missed these key points totally.

[Deuce Stevens SASS#55996]

You folks ain't gettin' the point. You don't know if the video is the basis of the violation, or was just used by the PM to show the match official what happended. (You are taking Deuce's word for that, as relayed by the accused shooter). If the match official said no to the video (as he should have, per the rules), then it would have been up to the PM to make the decision, based on the observation made at the line. As I stated above, two other shooters were stage DQ'd for the 170. Nothing was made of it and no match official had to be called.

And you are all overlooking the main part of the OP's insinuation that the accusor was operating under nefarious means to "get" to the accusee because they were in the same class.

 

ETA: Deuce, I wasn't making anything personal, you made the original post. You insinuated the assusor was after your friend because they were in the same category. They weren't. Get your fact straight. I don't give a damn about the video and it's admissability or not, obviously it's against the rules, so that part stands. I'm pissed about all the negative posts about the accusor, without knowing the other side of the story. And again, you post another negative comment about him being involved in one of the DQ's. I guess when you work the timer and the stage you are gonna be involved with sme of those calls.

 

ETA: Oh, and one more thing, Deuce, his strong side holster is canted forward, not hanging straight down, as you have stated. How do I know this, he showed it to me and another shooter when complaining about the "bullshit" call.

 

So a shooter didn't try to use video to DQ another shooter? I'll dismiss the continuing personal attacks because it's not about me. It's about things being done the correct way. If a infraction occured it should have been called on the spot.

[Concho Billy]

yep, if it wasn't called at the time he shot the stage, then it didn't happen.......total bull.

[Mad Monte McCrae SASS #61622]

A score correct is the only correct answer here for the shooter, and I concur a Spirit of the Game penalty for the videographer...

 

 

+1

[Anvil Al #59168]

You folks ain't gettin' the point. You don't know if the video is the basis of the violation, or was just used by the PM to show the match official what happended. (You are taking Deuce's word for that, as relayed by the accused shooter). If the match official said no to the video (as he should have, per the rules), then it would have been up to the PM to make the decision, based on the observation made at the line. As I stated above, two other shooters were stage DQ'd for the 170. Nothing was made of it and no match official had to be called.

And you are all overlooking the main part of the OP's insinuation that the accusor was operating under nefarious means to "get" to the accusee because they were in the same class.

 

ETA: Deuce, I wasn't making anything personal, you made the original post. You insinuated the assusor was after your friend because they were in the same category. They weren't. Get your fact straight. I don't give a damn about the video and it's admissability or not, obviously it's against the rules, so that part stands. I'm pissed about all the negative posts about the accusor, without knowing the other side of the story. And again, you post another negative comment about him being involved in one of the DQ's. I guess when you work the timer and the stage you are gonna be involved with sme of those calls.

 

ETA: Oh, and one more thing, Deuce, his strong side holster is canted forward, not hanging straight down, as you have stated. How do I know this, he showed it to me and another shooter when complaining about the "bullshit" call.

 

 

Don't matter to me. Just the fact that he even TRIED this camera call video stuff is all I need to know.

That alone tells me a lot. And all I would care to know.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Perhaps the accuser does not understand the consideration given to a straight hang holster user. He can break the 170 drawing and holstering as long as he does not break the 180. Could that explain other 170 degree rule violations on the posse?

[Grizzly Dave]

As one who takes a fair amount of video at matches I can tell you this....

 

I make a point of trying never to be a spotter if I can taking video.

 

In the rare occasions where I am, I point the camera and then watch around it to give the shooter a fair an accurate job of spotting.

 

Looking thru a view finder, or even the little screen on the back of many cameras does not give you a fair and accurate view of what is going on.

 

If someone wants to call a 170, they should do it right, per the rules, call a cease fire.

 

RO II

BREAKING THE 170º SAFETY RULE

A Range Officer shall make an immediate “Cease-Fire” call if any gun breaks the 170º safety rule. This call will result in a Stage or Match Disqualification to the shooter. The Chief Range Officer shall make a good faith effort to prevent the shooter from breaking the safety rule by verbal command or physical contact, if necessary.

It is also necessary to note that during the course of fire, the shooter must be given the ability to draw and holster revolvers from “straight hang” holsters and the ability to retrieve and return vertically staged double-barreled shotguns without penalty

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

If you really want to have some fun, buy one of those lesser expensive hat cams. My son has one and takes some fun videos of himself. He posts many of them and other camera videos he takes on the web.

[Wyatt Earp SASS#1628L]

Jeez Deuce, you're making the comments, who else should I direct my comments to? Please address your insuiantion that the accusor was trying to discredit your friend that they were in the same class? Not true. Everyone seems to be going after the video aspect of the post, without adressing the real issue.

[Mockingbird, SASS #22893]

Jeez Deuce, you're making the comments, who else should I direct my comments to? Please address your insuiantion that the accusor was trying to discredit your friend that they were in the same class? Not true. Everyone seems to be going after the video aspect of the post, without adressing the real issue.

 

 

The "real issue" isn't the implication that there was a competitive motive to the accusation--which, by the way, could easily have been the mistake of the accused, if he didn't know the category of the accuser, since 49er and Wrangler are indistinguishable and we all know shooters (even local top shooters, I bet) have been known to category jump and cherry pick at annual matches--it is the questionable (at best) means of accusation (which you admit you don't have firsthand information about either, despite being on the posse) and the complete mis-handling of this situation until 10 minutes before the results were announced.

 

Seems to me you're awful defensive about this and yet, the record you think you're setting straight is not a good one. That this accuser called two 170 degree violations in one match (even a two day event) is pretty extraordinary, whether he's on the timer or spotting a lot, or not. That there were 3 (well, two plus this video fiasco) on one posse is pretty amazing. How many for the entire match, I wonder? And, unless you pointing out that the holsters cant forward was solely to try to discredit Deuce as the OP, you are hurting the accuser's argument, if he ever had one, since that makes it even less likely there was a 170 violation involving holstering or drawing the handguns.

 

The "real issue"--a posse marshal and a match official, goaded into action by a competitor with inappropriate video footage, made some bad decisions. Everyone can learn from their mistakes, but it seems like you want to get behind the character of the character who set this all in motion. Let's see if anyone else does.

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

Was the accuser a range officer at the time of the call? ie, TO, spotter, loading officer, or unloading officer.....

 

yes, we are all safety officers, however if not a Range Officer of some sort you may only suggest an infraction has occured that needs to be watched for in future instances....at least that is my understanding...I was wrong once or twice before.

 

the "accuser" may need to speak to someone on the RO committee about this type of call, btw I am no longer on the ROC, it is still on my avatar, I've tried to have it removed by to no avail.

 

anyway, if someone needed to convince the TO to make the call,,,,a phrase comes to mind,,,"benefit of doubt goes to the shooter"...

 

Oh, and one way to insure this type of situation doesn't happen in your presense, LEARN THE BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!! And have it with you!!!

Earn the priviledge of being a "go to guy" for calls by being right when a call is made...by LEARNING THE BOOK!

 

JUST my 2cents........

 

remember,,,it's only a game.....I know, we put a lot into it,,,,but it's still a game....

 

Cheyenne

[Cholla Bob]

NOPE!

 

Don't care for it in football either

[Mockingbird, SASS #22893]

As one who takes a fair amount of video at matches I can tell you this....

 

I make a point of trying never to be a spotter if I can taking video.

 

In the rare occasions where I am, I point the camera and then watch around it to give the shooter a fair an accurate job of spotting.

 

Looking thru a view finder, or even the little screen on the back of many cameras does not give you a fair and accurate view of what is going on.

 

 

 

I'm glad you take video at matches, I think it's a great way to share and promote the sport--but please, don't try to take video and spot. You're doing the shooter a disservice.

[Korupt Karl]

I have enough problems with shootin as it is.....I don't need to have an instant replay of every screw up I do. I can't believe someone would stoop to this level....

 

This is just wrong in so many ways.

 

KK

[Colt McAllister]

You folks ain't gettin' the point. You don't know if the video is the basis of the violation, or was just used by the PM to show the match official what happended. (You are taking Deuce's word for that, as relayed by the accused shooter). If the match official said no to the video (as he should have, per the rules), then it would have been up to the PM to make the decision, based on the observation made at the line. As I stated above, two other shooters were stage DQ'd for the 170. Nothing was made of it and no match official had to be called.

And you are all overlooking the main part of the OP's insinuation that the accusor was operating under nefarious means to "get" to the accusee because they were in the same class.

 

ETA: Deuce, I wasn't making anything personal, you made the original post. You insinuated the assusor was after your friend because they were in the same category. They weren't. Get your fact straight. I don't give a damn about the video and it's admissability or not, obviously it's against the rules, so that part stands. I'm pissed about all the negative posts about the accusor, without knowing the other side of the story. And again, you post another negative comment about him being involved in one of the DQ's. I guess when you work the timer and the stage you are gonna be involved with sme of those calls.

 

ETA: Oh, and one more thing, Deuce, his strong side holster is canted forward, not hanging straight down, as you have stated. How do I know this, he showed it to me and another shooter when complaining about the "bullshit" call.

 

So if the video wasn't used, and the MD was involved why would it be up to the PM? Was there a protest and that is why the MD was called down to the stage. If the TO or the PM new it was a violation for that stage and others why wasn't the call made? Wouldn't that have made the situation cut and dry?

 

I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time, but it just don't make sense what went on.

 

BTW, hat's off to the Match Director for making the right call. I think. So if video wasn't used to make the call was the right call made?

[Grizzly Dave]

I'm glad you take video at matches, I think it's a great way to share and promote the sport--but please, don't try to take video and spot. You're doing the shooter a disservice.

 

I agree, and that's why I try never to do such. But in honesty I have to admit that I have done it. When that happens, before the timer, I line up the video shot and hold the camera at shoulder's width to my side, it I get the video great, if not that's fine as long as I was giving my attention to the task of spotting. I will do my best not to put myself in the situation to try to do both again.

 

Just a side note to anyone on my posse while I am taking video, if you are spotting, picking brass, or whatever and need to move in front of me, please do it! Your duties are far more important that getting a video. I am serious about that. While a shooter is shooting a stage taking video is the least important thing going on.

[Max Montana, SASS #23907]

Of course video can't be used. But, it isn't even clear if it was used. There seems to be only one account by one person that was actually in attendance. The only proper way that anyone could make a proper call would have been to been there and seen what occurred. I know that if I were standing there watching it would be a simple matter of what the right call would be. But, getting information second and third hand obscures what really occurred to make any discussion pretty worthless. Taking action based on what one person tells another that they were told by a third person isn't very sound evidence to justify using a rope ...or calling a person's reputation into question. Lastly, were I to observe 1st hand an action taking place, I would have no hesitation in telling whom I saw do what and what I saw them do. I would believe that by naming the range, the club, and the offender I would be helping fellow shooters be forewarned what to expect. Then again, if I wasn't 100% dead sure....I wouldn't bring it up at all.

 

Just the view from my saddle.

[Cholla Bob]

I have enough problems with shootin as it is.....I don't need to have an instant replay of every screw up I do. I can't believe someone would stoop to this level....

 

This is just wrong in so many ways.

 

KK

 

 

 

 

Totally Agree!

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Have also seen the "video replay gambit" attempted at a MAJOR match, to try to avoid a miss call. Was glad the MD denied the challenge.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Irish Red OToole, #48939]

I was at the match in question and was one of the people "behind the scenes" inquiring about this incident. I was not on the posse involved. I was approached by Frederick Jackson Turner and the accused shooter with a question since I'm a TG and try to keep current on all rules SASS, FJT sought me out to ask the question. All of the above previously posted is the same information told to me by the accused.

 

I talked to the club president and Match Director and said something didn't sound right. The MD insisted that he didn't use the video to make a ruling and that his 10 sec MSV was for "unsafe gun handling". I reminded the MD that the MSV penalty on the books for "unsafe gun handling" was related to fannig the revlover and not sweeping someone witha loaded gun. I explained that if there was sufficient reason to think the accused had swept anyone with his loaded gun that the only penalty available was a Match DQ. If that call couldn't be made, there was no provision for a lesser penalty. The club president wasn't ready to override the MD so I asked that he talk to the accused again. I figured that at the very least the club owed the accused an apology. Well, 10 minutes before the awards started, the president came over and told me he had the 10 sec. MSV removed. I told him that it was not only the correct call but the right thing to do.

 

I found out from a member of the scoring committee that the MSV did not cost the shooter a match win or cause him to lose any ground in his catagory. By removing it, the only thing that happened was the accused moved up one place in the overall standings. The bottom line is that even though mistakes were made, the club rose to the occassion and corrected them.

 

And that's the view from my saddle......

[Ghost Dancer,SASS #17672]

Absolutely NO! This isn't the NFL, and we do not need technocrats running SASS matches!