Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

You Make the Call - Round Over the Berm


Taquila Tab, Sass #25048

Recommended Posts

...2. The two spotters were not the shooter's closest buddies. In fact, neither one of them even knew the shooter's alias at the time...

Hi Tab and others,

 

I'd been wondering about that; but didn't want to ask if "Team Counting" was a possibility.

 

My other question has not been answered. The other question is, ... was the TO, a relative, or friend in the same category as the shooter?

 

I apologize for thinking about this, especially at a monthly match.

 

BTW, :blush::blush::blush: As a TO, I saw a shooter's round impact the berm (a mountain) at a monthly match. Two counters thought it went over as they didn't see the impact. I told them exactly where I saw it hit. (IMO, it was very unlikely to have gone over such a tall mountian/berm.) Yeah, I know I should have been looking at the guns. Anyway, the two gents who run the club were on the posse and one of them said, BOD to the shooter. So, it never got to me overruling the counters.

 

Regards,

 

Alle Mo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

My other question has not been answered. The other question is, ... was the TO, a relative, or friend in the same category as the shooter?

The TO was NOT a relative, is a friend (it's a monthly shoot we're all friends), and was NOT in the same category as the shooter. One of the spotters who said the shooter did NOT go over the berm was in the same category though.

 

No one should be questioning the integrity of the TO. He's a fair and honest guy and was making the call as best he saw it.

 

It's simply two people were convinced they saw one thing and two people were just as convinced they saw something else. How do you break this tie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tab,

 

At a monthly, you let it go with the TO's call.

 

At an annual, the TO makes the call and the shooter appeals, if desired.

 

That said, I cannot see how someone can substantiate a round flying through air. The spotters saw something identifiable. If I were MD, I would rule with the counters. This is basically what happened in my scenario. I saw something. The counters were not looking in the right place to see it. The MD ruled with the person who saw impact and with the BOD to the shooter.

 

I would really like to hear from one of the counters though.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I'm the RO - I position myself at arms length from the shooter and WATCH the shooter;counting the rounds fired and making certain the shooter is engaging the stage in a safe manner. If there's a miss, I look to and rely on my 3 spotters.........with the advantage going to the shooter if need be. I'm not counting hits/misses. I am taking note of the number of shots fired so that no firearm is taken to the unloading table with a live round in it.

 

I don't understand why this thread has gone on for 4 pages. If two of the three spotters said a round went over the berm, what's the issue here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why this thread has gone on for 4 pages. If two of the three spotters said a round went over the berm, what's the issue here?

Two of the three spotters (plus an observer at the LT) said a round STRUCK the berm. The TO was "adamant" it did not.

 

Third spotter could not say either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Haaaaa Haaaaaaa Haaaaaaa ROFLMFAO!!!!! :lol:

I don't care who our President is or how badly some may hate him, including myself, to laugh at someone shooting at him is just sad and badly taints everything you have stated on the SASS Wire in the past and the future IMHO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why this thread has gone on for 4 pages. If two of the three spotters said a round went over the berm, what's the issue here?

Two of the three spotters said the round did NOT go over the berm. The third spotter didn't see anything either way. The TO was certain he did see the shot go over and the shooter thought he might have put one over. The on-deck shooter also said he saw the round did NOT go over. No one else on the posse was watching as most were getting ready to break for lunch.

 

So, in essence two people (the shooter and the TO) ultimately were convinced it went over and two spotters were convinced it didn't go over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care who our President is or how badly some may hate him, including myself, to laugh at someone shooting at him is just sad and badly taints everything you have stated on the SASS Wire in the past and the future IMHO!

Get a sense of humor, GCK. Who made you the SASS WAHR cop of good behavior?

 

He was laughing at the JOKE made of a ROUND OVER THE BERM finally being discovered.

 

If Leno told it you would have laughed. Now, go ahead and deny it.... it's funny. Learn how to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a sense of humor, GCK. Who made you the SASS WAHR cop of good behavior?

 

He was laughing at the JOKE made of a ROUND OVER THE BERM finally being discovered.

 

If Leno told it you would have laughed. Now, go ahead and deny it.... it's funny. Learn how to do it.

 

I admit - I got a chuckle out of it....:D

 

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a sense of humor, GCK. Who made you the SASS WAHR cop of good behavior?

 

He was laughing at the JOKE made of a ROUND OVER THE BERM finally being discovered.

 

If Leno told it you would have laughed. Now, go ahead and deny it.... it's funny. Learn how to do it.

I now see there are more that think it is funny when someone is shooing at the White House, I just don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now see there are more that think it is funny when someone is shooing at the White House, I just don't.

 

 

Shooting at the White House is NOT funny! The joke, in context to this thread, that BK posted was......

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of the three spotters said the round did NOT go over the berm.

The third spotter didn't see anything either way.

The TO was certain he did see the shot go over

and the shooter thought he might have put one over.

The on-deck shooter also said he saw the round did NOT go over. No one else on the posse was watching as most were getting ready to break for lunch.

 

So, in essence two people (the shooter and the TO) ultimately were convinced it went over and two spotters were convinced it didn't go over.

 

The T/O SHOULD HAVE taken into account the eyewitness observations of the two spotters who both said they are CERTAIN that they SAW & HEARD the impact of the bullet striking the berm.

 

It is apparent that the T/O's 'certainty' was unfounded questionable...the shooter's opinion should NOT be taken into account, as it seems (from the OP) that he was somewhat influenced by the T/O in that regard.

"...thinks...might have..."

 

That makes it 2 (spotters) to 1 (T/O)...it is ultimately the Timer Operator's call.

...which, IMO, was in error in this case.

 

If this had been brought to a higher level match official on appeal, the MDQ would have been overruled.

...again, IMO

 

EDIT: BUT, since the shooter was convinced that the MDQ call was legitimate (and the SHOOTER is the ONLY one who can appeal a call) that point is moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so fast.... we've only heard from (1) Spotter....(not that he'd be biased or anything)

 

Someone run tell the RO on this deal that there's a lynch mob forming and he needs to have a say in this before they find a new rope. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of the three spotters (plus an observer at the LT) said a round STRUCK the berm. The TO was "adamant" it did not.

 

Third spotter could not say either way.

 

Man....I guess the 4 pages confused me as well! Thanks for correcting me!!

 

Nevertheless........so now two of three spotters say the bullet hit he berm. End of discussion and if the RO overruled (as Palewolf said) it's his call, but he's in error as far as I'm concerned as well.

 

And now........on to page 5.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you listen here, Blastmaster... what do you know about diggin'? ;)

 

From the get-go I've smelled a rat on this deal. You've shot enough matches to know that there is almost no way that a RO could overrule 2 spotters at a monthly. Just imagine that where we shoot!

 

Hell, he wouldn't make it to the next stage before we'd have a rope and you know it. :ph34r:

 

Fair is fair... before we hang 'im let 'im have a say.... then we'll hang 'im. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the get-go I've smelled a rat on this deal. You've shot enough matches to know that there is almost no way that a RO could overrule 2 spotters at a monthly. Just imagine that where we shoot!

 

Hell, he wouldn't make it to the next stage before we'd have a rope and you know it. :ph34r:

 

Fair is fair... before we hang 'im let 'im have a say.... then we'll hang 'im. :o

I'd be real curious to find out why you think there's a rat that smells. It must be different where you shoot, because around here we just try to understand the basis for making a ruling so that next time something like this happens we know the correct call to make. No where did I ever say anything disparaging about the TO or the shooter. In fact, quite the opposite. I've been the one thinking the call was wrong and the shooter should NOT have been penalized. but I've been nothing but complimentary about those involved. Nobody needed any hanging. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not the only post on this almost 5 pages, TT. My suspicion is only that you (a spotter) are the only one reporting/describing the incident. "Smell a rat?", is obviously a euphemism for "I think we don't have the whole story here."

 

The circumstances are too simple, as BT Blade points out rather concisely, to deserve 5 pages. Yes, I'll admit that I've been diggin'.... but that's because having watched these WtC posts it's often not until the other side pipes up that we end up with enough information to actually make the call.

 

Then everyone in the lynch mob (admit it- there aren't many who don't think the RO made the wrong call) goes, "well, yeah!" or "gee if I'da knowedat".

 

As to where I shoot... let's see...starting in Jan in CO, then Feb in AZ, then March in OK, Apr in OK and TX, May in TX and CO, Jun in TX, CO, NM, AZ, Jul in WY HELL ON WHEELS!!TX, CO and IL, Aug in TX, CO and Sept in TX, CO, OK, NM, AZ and Oct UT and Nov TX...

 

I need to get out more! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not the only post on this almost 5 pages, TT. My suspicion is only that you (a spotter) are the only one reporting/describing the incident. "Smell a rat?", is obviously a euphemism for "I think we don't have the whole story here."

 

The circumstances are too simple, as BT Blade points out rather concisely, to deserve 5 pages. Yes, I'll admit that I've been diggin'.... but that's because having watched these WtC posts it's often not until the other side pipes up that we end up with enough information to actually make the call.

 

Then everyone in the lynch mob (admit it- there aren't many who don't think the RO made the wrong call) goes, "well, yeah!" or "gee if I'da knowedat".

 

As to where I shoot... let's see...starting in Jan in CO, then Feb in AZ, then March in OK, Apr in OK and TX, May in TX and CO, Jun in TX, CO, NM, AZ, Jul in WY HELL ON WHEELS!!TX, CO and IL, Aug in TX, CO and Sept in TX, CO, OK, NM, AZ and Oct UT and Nov TX...

 

I need to get out more! B)

 

 

Nothing in December? Shame on you!! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show us where it says this. Which RO manual, 1 or 2? What page? Under which section? What letter?

It has been clarified many times in this forum. In addition, from the RO1 Manual, pages, 7-10 & 15 (not quoted in order):

APPENDIX A - RANGE SAFETY RULES

All participants are Safety Officers; however, it is the ultimate responsibility of the Range Officers to assure the safety rules are consistently followed. The following outlines specific safety violations and their penalties.

Take a look at the various duties:

]

8. Spotters

A) Must never spot for a family member.

B Have the responsibility to count shots and misses and to verify the targets were engaged in the correct order for the required number of shots.

Spotters will assist the Timer Operator by watching for violations when the competitor retrieves staged firearms and draws revolvers since it is impossible for the Timer Operator to have an unobstructed view of both sides of the competitor's body. Spotters are obligated to stop a shooter from attempting an unsafe action if the Timer Operator is not in position to see it or react quickly enough.

C) Should always be in position to see all the targets in the course of fire. At least one spotter should be positioned on either side of the competitor.

D) Determine misses by both visual and audible means, if possible.

E) Always give the shooter the benefit of any doubt.

F) There should always be three Spottersthe majority (two out of three) breaks the tie.As mentioned before, bandanas or batons are a good idea.

G) Remember, the Timer Operator is not relied upon to count shots and misses. His main function is to assist the competitor through the course of fire, and his memory can easily be altered if something out of the ordinary happens or if he becomes occupied coaching a newer shooter through a stage.

H) It is up to the Timer Operator to verify at least two of the three Spotters agree on misses.

Note, it does not continue to say Procedurals, MSV, SDQ or MDQ, or any other violations.

5. Timer Operator

A) Is the Chief Range Officer for the stage and is in charge of the firing line, as long as he/she is running the timer.

B Is responsible for assigning and identifying three Spotters. It is a good idea to have bandanas or batons for the spotters to hold. This helps identify the spotters and keeps them on the line until they hand off the baton or bandana to the next spotter.

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.

D) The Timer Operator should be aware of the skill level of the competitors and very attentive to newer shooters, helping and coaching them through the course of fire, as needed, and always ready to control the newer shooter.

E) Give seasoned shooters a little more room since they tend to move very fast. Don't let them run over you because you're crowding them.

F) The Timer Operator never starts a competitor in a faulted position or location. It is not considered a faulted position or location for allowing a shooter to start without appropriately loaded guns or available ammunition on their person.

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.

H) The Timer Operator holds the timer in a manner ensuring the last shots fired in a stage are recorded. This is especially true if the last gun being used in a stage is a rifle, which is always considered poor course design, since rifle reports are often not loud enough to reliably record on a timer.

I) Don't fel you have to record every shot on the timer through the course of fire. Make sure the last one is recorded. It's the one that really counts, but it is always best to record as many shots as possible in the event of a gun malfunction.

J) 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.

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.

L) Only the Timer Operator or Expediter calls the next shooter to the firing line.

It is readily apparent to this reader, that if the spotters are watchin' the targets and the TO is watchin' the shooter, it is the TO that is likely the ONLY person to catch a safety infraction. Suffice? I ain't an authority on the rules, they've changed greatly over the years, but... I have been doing this a LONG time... like since before there was SASS. And I've made innumerable calls on procedurals and safeties w/o a consensus of the spotters. I'd sure hate to think I've been doing it wrong for the past 26 years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Griff, could you tell us, with all your 26 years of gathered wisdom, how 8.H and 5.K above are related? Looks as though they add another assignment to the operator. Procedural penalties are added to 5.K, as you mentioned above that "Note, it does not continue to say Procedurals',MSV, SDQ, or MDQ, or any other violations." Looks like "procedurals" are mentioned and to be taken into account by the TO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Griff, could you tell us, with all your 26 years of gathered wisdom, how 8.H and 5.K above are related? Looks as though they add another assignment to the operator. Procedural penalties are added to 5.K, as you mentioned above that "Note, it does not continue to say Procedurals',MSV, SDQ, or MDQ, or any other violations." Looks like "procedurals" are mentioned and to be taken into account by the TO.

And I don't believe that you'll find where I have said they shouldn't. Just that it doesn't require a consensus, and neither does it say that the TO can't overrule that input. The TO only can't overrule misses.

 

Although it doesn't require a consensus of spotters to call a procedural... as noted, they are watching the targets, whereas the TO is watching the shooter; so in many instances 1, 2 or all 3 spotters might observe a procedural on the part of the shooter as it relates to target order, vs. say, gun order... and should so advise the TO when polled for misses. This is an instance where the TO should take their input, but he alone makes both the call for the number of misses1 to be assessed, and any other penalty given the input from the spotters. I.e.: The shooter engages the left target first, vs. the right as dictated in the scenario... the TO is watching the shooter for safe gun handling and might not observe exactly which target was engaged, and without input from the spotters would fail to make the call. Likewise, say... the shooter fires the first gun, picks up the second gun and moves to an incorrect shooting position and fires before the TO can get the shooter's attention... the spotters are watching the targets and fail to note the "out-of-position" engagement... thereby not noting the "failure to shoot the stage as instructed. Without the TO making the call on his own, it may have gone unnoticed. The list could go on. But... just as 3 spotters can disagree on the number of misses, it is NOT unlikely that either spotters or TO may fail to note something that happens only in their peripheral vision, or completely out of their sight. Which is why, in the above quoted references, there is advice given that spotters should arrange themselves on either side of the shooter to give them the best vantage point to both observed the targets and, possibly, watch for any unsafe acts by the shooter that might be hidden from the TO.

 

While the TO doesn't need to have a consensus of the Spotters for calls other than misses, their input is invaluable for making proper, fair and hopefully unbiased calls. I know from that same experience, that I couldn't do the job of TO without spotters just for those reasons. And even with them... have infractions slipped by all four of us...? I'd be foolish if I thought they didn't, but with observant, thoughtful spotters it's far less likely.

 

1 As in the instance where the 3 spotters sound of with a 1, 2, & 3 misses respectively... the correct call being 2. As two of the three agree there were at least 2 misses.

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.