Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

You Make the Call - Round Over the Berm


Taquila Tab, Sass #25048

Recommended Posts

The T/O should be watching the shooter and their guns.....NOT bullet impact :excl:

That's what you have THREE(3) spotters for.

Get another T/O.......

What was the "end-call" on this?

Respectfully,

LG

 

Agreed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It should not have been a Match DQ for another reason.

The RO is supposed to STOP the shooter immediatly for a Stage DQ or a Match DQ.

Since he didn't, there is no DQ.

It's in the book, you just need to look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should not have been a Match DQ for another reason.

The RO is supposed to STOP the shooter immediatly for a Stage DQ or a Match DQ.

Since he didn't, there is no DQ.

It's in the book, you just need to look it up.

I don't understand your point? What makes you think the shooter wasn't stopped?

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. ;)

 

Not necessarily...see below, under the OP's quoted.

 

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?

 

 

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. ;)

 

 

The TO has a DUTY, yes, a duty to make the best call he can. It is certainly possible, depending on where one stands, to watch the shooter AND see downrange enough to see this particular ocurrence. Is he in the BEST position? Mebbe not. Does he have a duty (there's that D word again) to make his decision based on what HE saw and what the spotters saw, and the shooter said? Sure does. So lets not be so hard on this here TO, he did his job and I think, a tough one very well.

 

It is not simply majority rules in this case. If I see a shooter break the 170 with a loaded gun, and are POSITIVE, I would make that call in a New York second, even with three spotters saying "no he didn't"...why? Cuz I saw what I saw and I gots to make the call even if I don't like doing it. I, speaking fer myself here, would also inform said shooter that I would encourage him to protest the call, not because I ain't sure mind you, but because he deserves every possible benefit of doubt! Perhaps that happened in this case, and in ANY case, sounds like a very tough call was made well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your point? What makes you think the shooter wasn't stopped?

 

You are correct. The OP does not state whether the shooter continued the course of fire or was stopped after the subject round.

 

The TO is the only one who can hand out penalties. That being said, if the TO doesn't listen to his spotters in a case where the TO doesn't see, or is not sure, the TO does a discredit to the spotters.

 

Was the shooter stopped or did the shooter continue the course of fire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. The OP does not state whether the shooter continued the course of fire or was stopped after the subject round.

 

The TO is the only one who can hand out penalties. That being said, if the TO doesn't listen to his spotters in a case where the TO doesn't see, or is not sure, the TO does a discredit to the spotters.

 

Was the shooter stopped or did the shooter continue the course of fire?

1. The TO said he was sure the round went over the berm. He didn't say he thought the round might have went over the berm (it was the Shooter who said that). The TO believed he saw the round go over the berm. The spotters also believed what they saw and heard. Both the TO and the spotter each believed what they saw to be correct.

2. The shooter was stopped by the TO. After a long discussion with the shooter and the spotters the DQ call stood. At that point, the only other option would have been a reshoot.

 

Both sides were sure of what they saw, so the primary question being does the TO have the authority to over-rule the spotters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The TO has a DUTY, yes, a duty to make the best call he can. It is certainly possible, depending on where one stands, to watch the shooter AND see downrange enough to see this particular ocurrence. Is he in the BEST position? Mebbe not. Does he have a duty (there's that D word again) to make his decision based on what HE saw and what the spotters saw, and the shooter said? Sure does. So lets not be so hard on this here TO, he did his job and I think, a tough one very well.

 

It is not simply majority rules in this case. If I see a shooter break the 170 with a loaded gun, and are POSITIVE, I would make that call in a New York second, even with three spotters saying "no he didn't"...why? Cuz I saw what I saw and I gots to make the call even if I don't like doing it. I, speaking fer myself here, would also inform said shooter that I would encourage him to protest the call, not because I ain't sure mind you, but because he deserves every possible benefit of doubt! Perhaps that happened in this case, and in ANY case, sounds like a very tough call was made well.

The TO may very well see the shooter violate the 170 rule while the spotters don't, because the TO is (supposed to be) watching the shooter while the spotters are (supposed to be) looking downrange. It would not make sense for a spotter to say, "No, I specifically saw him NOT violate the 170." Likewise it doesn't make sense for the TO to say he saw the round NOT impact the berm. One does not see something NOT happen; one simply fails to see whether it DID happen. It is comparable to trying to prove a negative.

 

So, again my question is, what made the TO adamant that the round went over the berm? How did he arrive at that conclusion?

 

 

1. The TO said he was sure the round went over the berm. He didn't say he thought the round might have went over the berm (it was the Shooter who said that). The TO believed he saw the round go over the berm.

Are you saying he literally saw the bullet sail over the berm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, again my question is, what made the TO adamant that the round went over the berm? How did he arrive at that conclusion? Are you saying he literally saw the bullet sail over the berm?

I'm saying the TO said he was certain the round went over the berm. I don't know if he actually saw the round exit the bay or if he was going by the angle of the rifle or that he didn't see any impact, etc. I don't know why he was certain of what he saw but for whatever reason, in his mind the round went over the berm. Again, he called it like he saw it.

 

It's possible he saw it wrong, but its also possible the spotters saw it wrong. Without benefit of instant replay and the high speed cameras like they have on Top Shot neither side can prove they were 100% right or wrong. So the question remains, two people (TO and Shooter) are convinced the round went over and two people (spotters) are convinced it didn't. Which side prevails in the ruling? The on-deck shooter doesn't truly have a vote and no one else on the posse spoke up on seeing anything one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying he literally saw the bullet sail over the berm?

Is that the requirement? That someone, anyone see a bullet to make the call? Have you ever seen spotters call clean when you KNOW the shooter had a miss? Not maybe... flat out missed?

 

Who knows why/ how people see what they see. It only takes one to call a major infraction. The TO is certainly one. And by the rules the ONLY one to assess the penalty.

 

Absolutely no one likes to call infractions--especially potentially match ending infractions. Good for him for sticking to his guns if that's what he KNOWS happened.

I'm saying the TO said he was certain the round went over the berm. So the question remains, two people (TO and Shooter) are convinced the round went over and two people (spotters) are convinced it didn't. Which side prevails in the ruling?

Is this new? The SHOOTER is also sure the round went over the berm?

 

So if the SHOOTER and the TO are both sure the round went over the berm then where is the argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this new? The SHOOTER is also sure the round went over the berm?

 

So if the SHOOTER and the TO are both sure the round went over the berm then where is the argument?

As I stated in post #1, the shooter wasn't quite as sure as the TO about the round going over. I think he was more convinced that it did by how adamant the TO was. I don't remember his exact words but it was something like, "Yeah, I thought it might have gone over too" which in essence was agreeing with the TO.

 

This is an important issue because of the safety, but it fundamentally comes down to when can the TO over-rule the majority of spotters?

 

What if the question was simply two spotters saying they saw a miss and the TO and Shooter being convinced they saw a hit? In other words, the shooter (while the one in the best position to see what happens) doesn't really have vote does he? The miss call would stand would it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember rounds over the berm are more important depending on location. Sometimes the bullet goes into an unpopulated area but not owned by the range. In other cases there are houses in a row at top of hill above the berm. In others there is no hill but an entire neighborhood over the berm. Such is the case of my house a mile over the berm from the local range. I take rounds there over the berm quite seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is SASS a rule- by- majority standard? Or does it really come down to "SAFETY". On misses the RO polls the spotters. But, a safety violation doesn't need ANY of the spotters to agree or for the RO to have seen it either for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is SASS a rule- by- majority standard? Or does it really come down to "SAFETY". On misses the RO polls the spotters. But, a safety violation doesn't need ANY of the spotters to agree or for the RO to have seen it either for that matter.

Yes, but in this case we don't know for sure if a safety violation occurred. The TO says it did but the spotters say it didn't. Who is right?

I believe safety is paramount, but whether it's ruled a DQ or miss it won't bring the bullet back. The only thing that the call affects is what happens to the shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW!!!

 

The T.O. made a big call...based on evidence that was weak and contradicted by strong evidence...yeah...good call Mr. T.O.

 

Why should anyone respect this kind of call?

 

Bad T.O...Bad...

 

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is SASS a rule- by- majority standard? Or does it really come down to "SAFETY". On misses the RO polls the spotters. But, a safety violation doesn't need ANY of the spotters to agree or for the RO to have seen it either for that matter.

That makes no sense. A violation must be observed in order to be called. One cannot simply "decide" that the shooter probably committed a safety violation.

 

 

Is that the requirement? That someone, anyone see a bullet to make the call?

I obviously wasn't suggesting that be a requirement. As I said earlier, it is exceedingly rare that one can observe abullet in flight.

 

Have you ever seen spotters call clean when you KNOW the shooter had a miss? Not maybe... flat out missed?

I can only KNOW he missed based on the lack of evidence of a hit. If someone else clearly saw a hit, I cannot say "No, you're wrong because I saw him NOT hit the target." I can, of course, see the round hit the ground, or a prop, or the berm, but that is different from "seeing a miss".

 

Who knows why/ how people see what they see.

Well, hopefully, they do. They must have seen, heard, smelled SOMETHING that led them to the conclusion.

 

Absolutely no one likes to call infractions--especially potentially match ending infractions. Good for him for sticking to his guns if that's what he KNOWS happened.

Again, knows HOW? The default is that the round did not go over the berm. What happened to make him deviate from that?

 

Your hardline stance on this seems inconsistent with your comments in the dropped cylinder thread.

 

Hi Folks,

 

I still stand by my post (no. 2). However, I want to add that I find it much harder to comprehend seeing a bullet sailing through air than one that hits something.

That is precisely the point I have been trying to make. Rarely can one see a bullet in flight. So, to determine the bullet went over the berm, one must rely on the lack of evidence that it struck the berm/target/prop/ground/whatever. If others can attest that it did, in fact, hit something...

 

 

Allie "BoD to the shooter" Mo

I agree completely.

 

I see that Taquila Tab's original question is pertaining to the authority of the TO, while I am more interested in the mechanics of the decision. I apologize if I have helped steer this thread off into the underbrush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, if the TO knew the round went over the berm, he is correct in the MDQ. He has the timer and therefore in charge. Granted the spotters saw what they saw but the TO is the one who issues penalties.

MDQ was seen MDQ was awarded.

Next shooter please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a shooter, if you want to remove all doubt from the TO, spotters, people on the LT and in the gallery, about shooting over a 35ft berm, then don't shoot near the top of the 35ft berm. :blush: If you insist, then be prepared for a questionable call that may not go your way. Simple.

 

Edit: SASS does have an appeals process if the shooter feels he has been done wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always hated the argument of "benefit of the doubt" goes to the shooter when it comes to a safety violation. If a shooter swept omeone with a loaded gun and two spotters saw it but the TO and the other spotter (who wasn't watching at all) is unsure, is that not a safety violation? Why do I object to this? I've see it happen when all three spotters said the same thing, but the TO didn't want to make the call.

 

In this case the TO was wrong. The angle of the gun is in constant movement. Thinking the angle is wrong is a whole lot different than two people saying it hit the berm. It was the wrong call. It was his to make but I believe he should have lost on appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I shoot at this Range. Tab, increase your number to 3. I match DQ'ed a guy there for firing a handgun right over the berm. New shooter, new guns, had just want to get into cowboy shooting and had never did it. He did shoot IPSC, if I remember what he told me after. I did not like doing it, but the guy was unsafe. If I remember correctly, had an AD with his second revolver at about 45-to 75 degree angle up in the air. He was trying to shoot gunfighter and was rolling his guns up in to the air to cock them. After the call, I handed the timer off and spent some time talking to him and had the match director talk to him, he was upset with the call and I tried to find somebody that could take him out and practice shooting. I don't shoot there every month so I don't know if he ever came back or not.

 

Have I put a round over a berm? Yes, but not there. I did it when my Marlin decided it want to slam fire and I jacked the gun as I was bringing it to my shoulder. ( broken trigger return spring).

 

If I was there and called a round over the berm when I was timing, I would be have to be sure of what I saw. I would call it as I saw it, and I would argue my point with those that did not agree. The Match Director could reverse the call, but understand I would rather make a mistake in favor of safety that not do my job to the best of my ability.

 

You can call me a hard-ass or any other things you want, but if nobody ever takes a stand to enforce the rules as they see it, then why have the rules. That is why you can protest a call and since I have seen a round go over the berms there, I know it can happen. I alway give people the benifit of the doubt, but I will alway make the hard call when I need to do it.

 

Flame away.

 

 

Maddog McCoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've DQ'd guys but... are saying that if two good spotters told you they saw the round hit the berm you would have still DQ's him?

 

Yes, I know there are less than watchful spotters at local matches, but what is your call if two good spotters say it hit the berm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A miss is called because there is absolutely no evidence observed by 2 or more spotters that there was a hit. Although we would like it if we could really SEE a miss, we don't. We just see that it was certainly not a hit.

 

Same with over the berm. We can't SEE a shot over the berm. We may see approximately where the gun was pointed when fire, but because NO ONE other than the shooter will be looking right down the sights or barrel on a gun that is positioned to shoot over a tall berm, no one but the shooter can really see what the gun was pointed at at the time it fired. So, again, we have to take "no evidence that the shot hit a target or berm or prop" as "proof" that it launched over the berm. And, think about soft berms that may not show a bullet hit, especially at 500 or so FPS. Becomes a tough call, and one that as a TO I would not want to make alone. Two spotters had a strong indication that the bulet hit the berm. As a TO, you are a lot better taking those two opinions, than your own, which happens to be at odds with the two spotters who were in position to see.

 

No call and let the shooter know that "that was a close call, pard."

 

Good luck, GJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Thanks.

 

You were thinking........ Oh my...... That's scary!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

That makes no sense. A violation must be observed in order to be called. One cannot simply "decide" that the shooter probably committed a safety violation.

 

Well, of course "one" can. If "one" observed that "one" round didn't hit anything out of "one" gun that was angled such that "one" AD went launched into orbit.

I obviously wasn't suggesting that be a requirement. As I said earlier, it is exceedingly rare that one can observe abullet in flight.

So you have "decided" that your assertion was specious. We agree.

 

I can only KNOW he missed based on the lack of evidence of a hit. If someone else clearly saw a hit, I cannot say "No, you're wrong because I saw him NOT hit the target." I can, of course, see the round hit the ground, or a prop, or the berm, but that is different from "seeing a miss". The TO either 1) saw the angle and the berm and therefore the miss. OR 2) OP's ass u m tion that the spotters ACTUALLY SAW it hit the berm is an error.

 

 

Well, hopefully, they do. They must have seen, heard, smelled SOMETHING that led them to the conclusion.OR seeing nothing they ASS U ME'd that it hit SOMETHING and didn't want to be bad guys.

 

 

Again, knows HOW? The default is that the round did not go over the berm. What happened to make him deviate from that?

 

Your hardline stance on this seems inconsistent with your comments in the dropped cylinder thread. You mean the one where I admitted to having been wrong? :lol:

 

 

That is precisely the point I have been trying to make. Rarely can one see a bullet in flight. So, to determine the bullet went over the berm, one must rely on the lack of evidence that it struck the berm/target/prop/ground/whatever. If others can attest that it did, in fact, hit something... Once again, you and we are all ASS U M'ing that the spotters actually saw it hit something. The TO is sure it DID NOT hit anything or he wouldn't have made the call.

 

 

 

I agree completely.

 

I see that Taquila Tab's original question is pertaining to the authority of the TO, while I am more interested in the mechanics of the decision. I apologize if I have helped steer this thread off into the underbrush.It might be good manners to actually register with the forum before hijacking a post. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another senseless rambling-on thread.....:D

 

"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." - Bingo!

 

and then the OP writes "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." - not that he/she has a say in the matter....but....

Just because the shooter wasn't 'sure' doesn't mean that he's guilty of the round going over the berm. The TO is the ONLY one who is adament about the round over the berm. It looks like (3) folks total are SURE that the round did not go over the berm.

 

It's a miss and the shooter can keep playing....

 

Case closed.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh!

 

What is the problem here?

 

Two spotters saw the bullet hit the berm, and so did another shooter who was waiting to shoot. What is the question? Why is the RO so sure the bullet went over the berm?

 

Yes, in some places, like everywhere I shoot, a round over the berm is a BIG DEAL. But so is a match DQ. I don't understand how the RO can be certain the round went over the berm when three people saw it hit.

 

Match DQ is a big deal.

 

Bad Call.

 

Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spotters are there to count hits/misses, the T.O. should be watching the shooter, everyone is a safety officer regardless of their particular job at the moment of the infraction. Therefore, anyone from the posse should have input to where they saw the bullet impact. The T.O. should have talked with all those that were watching, then he/she could have made a better decision.

 

 

LL'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes no sense. A violation must be observed in order to be called. One cannot simply "decide" that the shooter probably committed a safety violation.

Well, of course "one" can. If "one" observed that "one" round didn't hit anything out of "one" gun that was angled such that "one" AD went launched into orbit.

So we agree that decisions must be based on actual information, not arbitrarily. We disagree that failure to see something NOT happen means that it did happen.

 

I obviously wasn't suggesting that be a requirement. As I said earlier, it is exceedingly rare that one can observe abullet in flight.

So you have "decided" that your assertion was specious. We agree.

I made no such assertion. Reading comprehension. Go back and actually read what I wrote: I very clearly said that it is normally impossible to see a bullet in flight. If you somehow are interpreting that to mean that one CAN easily see a bullet in flight, then either you have a comprehension problem, or you're just looking to argue. I pass.

 

I can only KNOW he missed based on the lack of evidence of a hit. If someone else clearly saw a hit, I cannot say "No, you're wrong because I saw him NOT hit the target." I can, of course, see the round hit the ground, or a prop, or the berm, but that is different from "seeing a miss". The TO either 1) saw the angle and the berm and therefore the miss. OR 2) OP's ass u m tion that the spotters ACTUALLY SAW it hit the berm is an error.

So, the guy that didn't see something is right, and the two who DID see something are in error?

 

Your hardline stance on this seems inconsistent with your comments in the dropped cylinder thread. You mean the one where I admitted to having been wrong?

Fair enough.

 

That is precisely the point I have been trying to make. Rarely can one see a bullet in flight. So, to determine the bullet went over the berm, one must rely on the lack of evidence that it struck the berm/target/prop/ground/whatever. If others can attest that it did, in fact, hit something... Once again, you and we are all ASS U M'ing that the spotters actually saw it hit something. The TO is sure it DID NOT hit anything or he wouldn't have made the call.

We aren't assuming anything. The spotters specifically stated they saw it strike the berm. It is the TO who is assuming it DIDN'T strike, based on the fact that he didn't see it do so.

 

"I know you ate the last cookie, because I didn't see you NOT eat it." :wacko:

 

It might be good manners to actually register with the forum before hijacking a post.

Typical. Rather than make a logical argument you dispute whether I should even be allowed to participate. Besides, disagreeing with someone does not constitute hijacking the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEY! I got no dog in this fight! In fact, as I first stated, and reassert now: I'm sure that NO ONE with the timer wants to make this call. In practice, let me also say that there is NO WAY that I wouldn't turn to the spotters and be RELIEVED that they saw it actually hit the berm.

 

What I'm saying, also, is that given that... the RO would have to be DARN SURE that they (spotters) were in error in order to proceed in calling the infraction and awarding the penalty.

 

So, as devil's advocate (and not hearing the devil's side) the entire thread is making an assumption that the RO was just wrong. When it could be that he was in the best position to make the call and did so in spite of and in the face of being called wrong and overturned.

 

To me, that's just as possible (since I've seen it happen) as the spotters not being willing to make a call and covering their butts with a 'heard a thud'....yeah, right. :lol:

 

Again, i'm not saying that's what happened. Just sayin'....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The T.O. was doing his job the best he could... that said, can he be sureof the exact angle the barrel was when fired, or was it the angle the barrel was at when his mind comprehended the firing, in which case it was lifting under recoil. Did his eye blink sometime in there... Just like misidentified eyewitness testimony in court, sometimes the brain and the eye can be mistaken. I have no doubt that the T.O. is conscientious, trying his hardest to keep everyone safe, and to follow the rules...

But, if he has two spotters who saw and heard the round hit, (and the corroborating word of a posse member), doesn't that put a little doubt in his mind??

 

I am not arguing for one side or the other in this, I truly want to learn

 

If an appeal is made, the same holds true. What is the M.D. to do? He has the T.O. saying he believes the round must have gone over the berm, two spotters saying it most certainly did not, they saw and heard the impact... If you want to consider it, there is even a third party saying the round impacted the berm. You are the Match Director. What's your call?

 

 

I would like to hear from those who have actually been Match Directors. If this appeal was brought to you, what would be your thought process, what would be your judgement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went through something similar to this myself several months ago although it did NOT result in a MDQ the TO over-ruled the spotters on a call which did cost me first place in my category at a major tri-state match.

 

The official SASS RO1 handbook SASS Range Operations Basic Safety Course

Copyright © Single Action Shooting Society, Inc 2011 Version “L” pages 7 and 8 under Timer Operator description states:

 

C) The Timer Operator does not have the authority to overrule the spotters but can

question spotters as to location of misses. The Timer Operator does have the best

advantage to see the direction the muzzle is pointed, which is helpful in edge hits.

 

G) The Timer Operator should not count misses, but watches the shooter for unsafe acts,

correct target engagement, and stage procedures in addition to counting shots fired if

possible. However, the Timer Operator is often times in the best position to evaluate

hits or misses if in question.

 

K) The Timer Operator polls the three Spotters to determine the number of misses and/or

procedural penalties input, and then calls those numbers to the Score Keeper and the

competitor in a loud, clear voice.

 

It's pretty clear to me that the intent of these rules is for the TO to run the timer and accept a majority rule of the spotters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's pretty clear to me that the intent of these rules is for the TO to run the timer and accept a majority rule of the spotters.

 

With a closer look at the rules you quoted, item "G" explains that the TO IS responsible for watching for unsafe acts - the round over the berm is just that. Spotters get the responsibility for misses. TO gets the responsibility for the rest. But, a good TO should accept input on the unsafe acts calls whenever he can.

 

Good luck, GJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a closer look at the rules you quoted, item "G" explains that the TO IS responsible for watching for unsafe acts - the round over the berm is just that. Spotters get the responsibility for misses. TO gets the responsibility for the rest. But, a good TO should accept input on the unsafe acts calls whenever he can.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

I agree that the TO is responsible for watching for unsafe acts but these rules specifically say that the T.O. can not over-rule the spotters. I called SASS and pointed the contradictions in these rules in this section of the RO1 handbook out to several different people and suggested that the "rules committee" go over these rules and eliminate the contradictions and make them more definitive. Nothing was done. Apparently they think they are fine the way they are written. Apparently not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went through something similar to this myself several months ago although it did NOT result in a MDQ the TO over-ruled the spotters on a call which did cost me first place in my category at a major tri-state match.

 

The official SASS RO1 handbook SASS Range Operations Basic Safety Course

Copyright © Single Action Shooting Society, Inc 2011 Version “L” pages 7 and 8 under Timer Operator description states:

 

C) The Timer Operator does not have the authority to overrule the spotters but can

question spotters as to location of misses. The Timer Operator does have the best

advantage to see the direction the muzzle is pointed, which is helpful in edge hits.

 

G) The Timer Operator should not count misses, but watches the shooter for unsafe acts,

correct target engagement, and stage procedures in addition to counting shots fired if

possible. However, the Timer Operator is often times in the best position to evaluate

hits or misses if in question.

 

K) The Timer Operator polls the three Spotters to determine the number of misses and/or

procedural penalties input, and then calls those numbers to the Score Keeper and the

competitor in a loud, clear voice.

 

It's pretty clear to me that the intent of these rules is for the TO to run the timer and accept a majority rule of the spotters.

You are incorrect. Spotters rule on misses. Any other penalty is the TO call. He takes what he sees and what other range officials tell him (i.e. spotters. unloading table officer, etc.) and makes the decisions himself. He can be over rulled by posse marshal, match director, etc. If you do not believe this, take an RO course.

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.