Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

You Make the Call - Round Over the Berm


Taquila Tab, Sass #25048

Recommended Posts

At this range, a round over the berm is a match DQ. The shooter fires a round out of their rifle which the TO is adamant went over the 35-foot tall berm. The shooter isn’t quite as sure, but thinks they might have shot over the berm.

 

Two spotters standing on opposite sides of the shooter (and the stage) are both certain they saw the bullet impact on the berm and heard a “thud” from it hitting the berm. The 3rd spotter wasn’t in a position to see clearly either way.

 

The on-deck shooter standing at the loading table was watching the shooter (so they could understand the scenario) and says they also saw the round hit the berm and heard the impact of the round.

 

Does the TO over-rule the two spotters and stick with their judgment call or should the benefit of the doubt go to the shooter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Roundabout way of answering your question... I was RO'ing at a major match this past week. A shooter triggered his pistol prematurely, (and way too fast for me to stop him). At the angle he was holding the pistol, it had to have gone over the berm. But, I'm supposed to be watching the shooter and the guns, not the targets. After the run I turned to the spotters and asked them. I kinda hoped they had seen a berm impact. But no, they agreed it was a Match DQ... If two of them had said they saw a berm hit, I would have deferred to them. After all, they are watching for where the rounds hit, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the TO's duty to call this one like he sees it. An over-the-berm is just as serious as a dropped gun. It only takes one line RO (TO,3Spotters) to call a major infraction. Of course, it can be appealed.

 

He may want to scratch his eyes (and his memories) if two others saw it hit the berm and make a thud, though. If it was me then I'd give the BoD to the 2 spotters and shooter.

 

Must have been a heck of an AD to miss a 35 ft berm~! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What benefit of the doubt? Two spotters (and the on deck shooter) witnessed it impact the berm. In my mind, the "doubt" has been removed. The fact that the TO did not hear or see it impact the berm means simply that he/she did not hear it or see it. I'd hope that the TO would be open to the possibility that he/she was wrong. Of course, I could be....uh, wrong. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What benefit of the doubt? Two spotters (and the on deck shooter) witnessed it impact the berm. In my mind, the "doubt" has been removed. The fact that the TO did not hear or see it impact the berm means simply that he/she did not hear it or see it. I'd hope that the TO would be open to the possibility that he/she was wrong.

 

Of course, I could be....uh, wrong. :)

 

...or NOT!

;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a shooter in which the TO and 2 spotters said a shot went over the berm. Standing completely oppositte from the other 2 spotters, I seen the shot hit below the berm and into a pine tree trunk. I showed the TO the freshly bark off the trunk and were I was standing would have been the only one to see it. Shooter was not MDQd. It only took one person to nullify a MDQ. MT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

majority rules in this case.It's the same reason we have 3 spotters,no one person can watch and see everything that happens on the line. Well.,with the exception of Pale Wofl of course. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the "end-call" on this?

The end call was match DQ. While I disagreed with this call, I respect and admire the TO for having the courage to stick with what he believed to be true and calling it like he saw it. The TO was not being a HA and I'd posse with him any day. I would also add the shooter was very gracious in accepting the call and while disappointed, was not mad or angry toward anyone other than maybe themselves.

 

And for the record, I was NOT the TO or the shooter. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end call was match DQ. While I disagreed with this call, I respect and admire the TO for having the courage to stick with what he believed to be true and calling it like he saw it. The TO was not being a HA and I'd posse with him any day. I would also add the shooter was very gracious in accepting the call and while disappointed, was not mad or angry toward anyone other than maybe themselves.

 

And for the record, I was NOT the TO or the shooter. ;)

 

Th TO may be a fine pard but he screwed this'n up imho.

He should have deferred to the spotters instead of stubbornly sticking to his guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll start off by saying I agree that the spotter's call SHOULD have been the one made. But some of the replies to this thread have raised a question in my mind.

 

It's been stated that the duty of the TO is to watch the shooter's guns, not the hits or misses. I know this is to help ensure they remain pointed in a safe direction and not break the 170. To that end, if I'm watching the shooters guns, wouldn't I be in a pretty good position to see if they're pointed so high as to shoot over a berm? I know that's one of the things I watch for when I'm running the timer at our monthly matches since we have berms that are a MDQ if shot over.

 

Am I understanding my duties as a TO wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end call was match DQ. While I disagreed with this call, I respect and admire the TO for having the courage to stick with what he believed to be true and calling it like he saw it. The TO was not being a HA and I'd posse with him any day. I would also add the shooter was very gracious in accepting the call and while disappointed, was not mad or angry toward anyone other than maybe themselves.

 

And for the record, I was NOT the TO or the shooter. ;)

Respect for the TO sticking to his convictions is fine, but he was WRONG!! Two spotters saw what he didn't and he still Match DQ'd a cowboy. That's not having the courage of one's convictions. That's plain stubbon bullheadedness and he should rethink being a TO in the future.

 

A bit harsh, but I hate to see someone get screwed by someone making it up as they go along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll start off by saying I agree that the spotter's call SHOULD have been the one made. But some of the replies to this thread have raised a question in my mind.

It's been stated that the duty of the TO is to watch the shooter's guns, not the hits or misses. I know this is to help ensure they remain pointed in a safe direction and not break the 170. To that end, if I'm watching the shooters guns, wouldn't I be in a pretty good position to see if they're pointed so high as to shoot over a berm? I know that's one of the things I watch for when I'm running the timer at our monthly matches since we have berms that are a MDQ if shot over.

Am I understanding my duties as a TO wrong?

I think your understanding of the duties of a TO as correct. However, what you think the trajectory of a bullet would be, vs what the spotters saw as an impact can easily be two very different things. When you have two spotters and a third party testifying to one fact, and you believing another fact... it really doesn't need a huge stretch of the imagination to conclude you might be wrong. Ergo, go with the three eye-witnesses vs. the one "I think". (I ain't using "you" as personally directed, other'n just as a general "you" referring to any reader). Just as when two spotters tell me the shooter shot the sequence out of order, and while I was watchin' the guns, didn't see the exact targets as shot, I'd go with the spotters. Other times, I've been watchin' from a different angle and been able to see the targets, (fast shooter, I tend to stand farther behind, with a view over their strong shoulder), and watched an edger get called as a miss... polled the spotters, and pointed out the impact I saw, and they changed their call. So too, should I be willing to change mine when they've had a better angle.

 

A 600fps bullet will have a very different trajectory than the same bullet at 900. Enough to drop it into the berm? Draw your own conclusions. The fact that the TO didn't see an impact doesn't overly concern me... his willingness to over-ride two spotters that say they did, that's a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end call was match DQ. While I disagreed with this call, I respect and admire the TO for having the courage to stick with what he believed to be true and calling it like he saw it. The TO was not being a HA and I'd posse with him any day. I would also add the shooter was very gracious in accepting the call and while disappointed, was not mad or angry toward anyone other than maybe themselves.

 

And for the record, I was NOT the TO or the shooter. ;)

 

SO, that T/O would not accept any input from others(3 people)whose JOB is to spot hits. Is that correct?? :rolleyes:

Sounds like his mind was made up, and he WAS being a HA.......

When I'm the T/O, the only way I might know of a hit is because I may hear it.

BUT as the T/O, I'm watching the shooter and the guns.........I got 3 others to spot hits. ;)

I sure hope that call was protested :excl:

Respectfully,

LG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll start off by saying I agree that the spotter's call SHOULD have been the one made. But some of the replies to this thread have raised a question in my mind.

 

It's been stated that the duty of the TO is to watch the shooter's guns, not the hits or misses. I know this is to help ensure they remain pointed in a safe direction and not break the 170. To that end, if I'm watching the shooters guns, wouldn't I be in a pretty good position to see if they're pointed so high as to shoot over a berm? I know that's one of the things I watch for when I'm running the timer at our monthly matches since we have berms that are a MDQ if shot over.

 

Am I understanding my duties as a TO wrong?

No, but if two spotters see impact in the dirt how can the TO over ride that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What benefit of the doubt? Two spotters (and the on deck shooter) witnessed it impact the berm. In my mind, the "doubt" has been removed. The fact that the TO did not hear or see it impact the berm means simply that he/she did not hear it or see it.

Ta Daaa!! :blink:

 

Jefro :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your understanding of the duties of a TO as correct. However, what you think the trajectory of a bullet would be, vs what the spotters saw as an impact can easily be two very different things. When you have two spotters and a third party testifying to one fact, and you believing another fact... it really doesn't need a huge stretch of the imagination to conclude you might be wrong. Ergo, go with the three eye-witnesses vs. the one "I think". (I ain't using "you" as personally directed, other'n just as a general "you" referring to any reader). Just as when two spotters tell me the shooter shot the sequence out of order, and while I was watchin' the guns, didn't see the exact targets as shot, I'd go with the spotters. Other times, I've been watchin' from a different angle and been able to see the targets, (fast shooter, I tend to stand farther behind, with a view over their strong shoulder), and watched an edger get called as a miss... polled the spotters, and pointed out the impact I saw, and they changed their call. So too, should I be willing to change mine when they've had a better angle.

 

A 600fps bullet will have a very different trajectory than the same bullet at 900. Enough to drop it into the berm? Draw your own conclusions. The fact that the TO didn't see an impact doesn't overly concern me... his willingness to over-ride two spotters that say they did, that's a concern.

 

100% agree with all of the above and IROT's post. Just making sure I wasn't over or underthinking anything.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all spotters are supposed to be counting misses and hits, and other penalties as they see em. On the other penalties it is the ROs final decision to make the call no matter how many spotters see what, or even make the call if no spotter saw the penalty. In this case the RO can take the spotters 2 of 3 vote or round over the berm or ignore it. If I were ROing, I would have not have given the MDQ because of what the two spotters saw. None of the rest of the posse votes count or should be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

 

Sometimes "edgers" impact the berm. So, please rethink that.

 

:wub:

 

Allie

 

Since we are talking about a round over the berm, I don't know that an edger has anything to do with it. I was trying to make the point that part of my clarification process were I the TO, would be to make sure that we were all talking about the same round as it was fired. In a typical SASS stage there are 24 rounds fired, but the purpose of a round over the berm we can narrow that down to 20. Further, we would narrow it down by firearm, which brings us to 10. If not clarified, TO and spotters could be talking about different rounds within those ten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are talking about a round over the berm, I don't know that an edger has anything to do with it. I was trying to make the point that part of my clarification process were I the TO, would be to make sure that we were all talking about the same round as it was fired. In a typical SASS stage there are 24 rounds fired, but the purpose of a round over the berm we can narrow that down to 20. Further, we would narrow it down by firearm, which brings us to 10. If not clarified, TO and spotters could be talking about different rounds within those ten.

In the specific case that I'm discussing, the rifle was the first gun and it was the first shot out of the rifle that was in question. The shot was clearly placed above the target. The berms on that range are around 35 feet tall (at least they were before erosion) and the shot impacted about 15-20 feet up on the berm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shooter fires a round out of their rifle which the TO is adamant went over the 35-foot tall berm.

I guess my question is, based upon what? One normally cannot see a bullet in flight (sometimes, yes, but not normally) so there is no direct proof that it did, only circumstantial evidence: no bullet strike was observed, and/or the bore was angled too steeply when the round discharged. I would suggest that visual confirmation of the bullet striking something would outweigh the circumstantial evidence.

 

Yes, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question is, based upon what? One normally cannot see a bullet in flight (sometimes, yes, but not normally) so there is no direct proof that it did, only circumstantial evidence: no bullet strike was observed, and/or the bore was angled too steeply when the round discharged. I would suggest that visual confirmation of the bullet striking something would outweigh the circumstantial evidence.

 

Yes, no?

 

If you SEE it's a hit...it's a hit

If you THINK it's a hit...it's a hit

If you THINK it's a miss...it's a hit

If you SEE it's a miss...it's a miss

 

Yep, seems your thinking is 100% in line with the hit/miss flow chart. Two spotters SAW it hit the berm vs. TO who THINKS it missed the berm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO way should this have been a match DQ !! the TO has no more 'authority' than the rest of the possee,doesn't 'the book' say that we are ALL safety officers? And besides,the majority rule should have taken precdent over the TO's observation of the shot.If the spotters say it hit,then it hit. The Pard is owed an apology by the MD,and that TO needs a little talking to on the side as to his responsiblities when running the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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