Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

You Make the Call


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Excuse me, but you are needed here...afterall, there has to be a bit of reality and common sense interjected on occassion.

 

;)

:D Yeah, we missed ya, BJT!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro. King, from what you have said, the call was overturned without interviewing the shooter that made the call. Only the testimony of the protestor was heard.

This leads me to think that whomever made the decision to overturn the call had no respect for the shooter that made the original call and that they believed his/her testimony wouldnt have changed their minds even if interviewed.

This being the case whomever made the decision to overturn the call without all the facts, just destroyed the creditability of the one that made the original call. In my opinion, the shooter that made the call can no longer be trusted to serve in any capacity in a SASS match except to pull targets and pick up brass because he/she probably wouldnt be believed if he/she had to make a call on a shooter at a later date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the RO said it was closed and he saw that before the "helpful but maybe not thinking too far ahead expeditor handled it, I'm sorry, but as MD I gotta back his play. This is doubly so since the protest came late (which does cloud memory when and if ya run 125 other folk's stages before ya hear the MD asking "whaddup?")

 

ANY OTHER CALL undermines EVERY "single man's sight" call ever made by the RO. It is well to remember often we call dynamic things there is no record of, 170, etc......

 

As to the shooter, of course he thought it was open. Ever change lanes on the highway, have a car "right there" blow the horn, and think "I just looked, where the heck did he come from?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro. King, from what you have said, the call was overturned without interviewing the shooter that made the call. Only the testimony of the protestor was heard.

This leads me to think that whomever made the decision to overturn the call had no respect for the shooter that made the original call and that they believed his/her testimony wouldnt have changed their minds even if interviewed.

This being the case whomever made the decision to overturn the call without all the facts, just destroyed the creditability of the one that made the original call. In my opinion, the shooter that made the call can no longer be trusted to serve in any capacity in a SASS match except to pull targets and pick up brass because he/she probably wouldnt be believed if he/she had to make a call on a shooter at a later date.

 

 

The shooter that made the call was the 'TO/RO' of that posse and was on the heels/elbow/back-pocket of the shooter thats gun action open/empty is being discussed. You are correct, BK said the TO/RO was not interviewed.

 

I believe only the MD can ultimately over rule.

 

I don't know about destroying the creditability of that particular TO/RO, but sure does throw mud on him. BTW, I don't know who that RO/TO was, so his creditability is still good for me.

 

Edit: I would not run the timer for that MD again. But since it is out of this world..... perhaps.... I am not going to worry about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the RO said it was closed and he saw that before the "helpful but maybe not thinking too far ahead expeditor handled it, I'm sorry, but as MD I gotta back his play.

 

 

...the shooter, of course he thought it was open.

 

 

AJ, ya wouldn't take into consideration the integrity of the shooter at all? TO said that "Yep, I saw it before he picked it up." The shooter didn't "thought it was open", He maintains "that lever was open." If both stand by their line of thought, after the rifle had been moved and no way to prove one way or the other, so the MD has to make a decision on whom to believe, correct? MD can't please everyone but he did what he thought was right. That is all you can ask of him, whether or not people agree with the decision. After that rifle was moved, the call should not have been attempted, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AJ, ya wouldn't take into consideration the integrity of the shooter at all? TO said that "Yep, I saw it before he picked it up." The shooter didn't "thought it was open", He maintains "that lever was open." If both stand by their line of thought, after the rifle had been moved and no way to prove one way or the other, so the MD has to make a decision on whom to believe, correct? MD can't please everyone but he did what he thought was right. That is all you can ask of him, whether or not people agree with the decision. After that rifle was moved, the call should not have been attempted, in my opinion.

 

So, Jackknife, that would at best make their word even. Would you give zero weight to the expeditor's call?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AJ, ya wouldn't take into consideration the integrity of the shooter at all? TO said that "Yep, I saw it before he picked it up." The shooter didn't "thought it was open", He maintains "that lever was open." If both stand by their line of thought, after the rifle had been moved and no way to prove one way or the other, so the MD has to make a decision on whom to believe, correct? MD can't please everyone but he did what he thought was right. That is all you can ask of him, whether or not people agree with the decision. After that rifle was moved, the call should not have been attempted, in my opinion.

Since gun runner is not a posse officer, his vote should not count, not unlike peanut gallery helping spotters. That leaves RO versus shooter. Since gun was moved, no evidence of closed bolt, therefore no call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet a dollar to a donut that if a popular, respected and well liked top Cowboy was the shooter and a newbie was the XO, the shooter would get the BOD.

 

AND ALSO, if the XO was an experienced, well respected Cowboy and the shooter was a Newbie, the XO would win the issue.

 

Sometimes, other things come into play when a MD has to make a tough decision.

 

Its not about believing or disbelieving.....and its not about credibility.

 

But in this situation, it 'might' have been about 'credible evidence'.

 

Just my late night thinking.....and I think I'll go to bed now.

 

 

..........Widder

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since gun runner is not a posse officer, his vote should not count, not unlike peanut gallery helping spotters. That leaves RO versus shooter. Since gun was moved, no evidence of closed bolt, therefore no call.

So in your view, GCK, a shooter's best buddy could quickly XO the gun to the ULT and the call is NO CALL on a closed lever that the RO plainly saw?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in your view, GCK, a shooter's best buddy could quickly XO the gun to the ULT and the call is NO CALL on a closed lever that the RO plainly saw?

 

I'm not GCK...but the answered would probably be yes. Of course that's CHEATING...but hey, cheating happens.

 

There was a guy at EOT in 2010 that bragged about how he picked up gun and destroyed the evidence of a closed lever. He thought he was cool...of course he's a cheat and an a-hole...but it happens.

 

There's no perfect answer here obviously. As a rule, I think it's prudent to leave a gun that's in violation of a rule so that it can be viewed by the shooter...unless of course there is a true safety concern if it were to be left alone.

 

Having a tizzy fit is rather unbecoming...but that hurts the shooter more then anyone else. Don't think anyone is questioning the integrity of the RO/TO, but it's really hard to truly see the exact condition of a closed lever when you have to keep within arms reach of the shooter that's also moving rapidly to the next shooting position.

 

I'd swallow my pride and say that while I believe the lever to be closed, I would have LIKED to have seen it TOO once the stage was completed by the shooter.

 

Cheers!

Phantom

:FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since gun runner is not a posse officer, his vote should not count, not unlike peanut gallery helping spotters. That leaves RO versus shooter. Since gun was moved, no evidence of closed bolt, therefore no call.

-1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not GCK...but the answered would probably be yes. Of course that's CHEATING...but hey, cheating happens.

 

There was a guy at EOT in 2010 that bragged about how he picked up gun and destroyed the evidence of a closed lever. He thought he was cool...of course he's a cheat and an a-hole...but it happens.

 

There's no perfect answer here obviously. As a rule, I think it's prudent to leave a gun that's in violation of a rule so that it can be viewed by the shooter...unless of course there is a true safety concern if it were to be left alone.

 

Having a tizzy fit is rather unbecoming...but that hurts the shooter more then anyone else. Don't think anyone is questioning the integrity of the RO/TO, but it's really hard to truly see the exact condition of a closed lever when you have to keep within arms reach of the shooter that's also moving rapidly to the next shooting position.

 

I'd swallow my pride and say that while I believe the lever to be closed, I would have LIKED to have seen it TOO once the stage was completed by the shooter.

 

Cheers!

Phantom

:FlagAm:

Not much reason to have an RO then who is charged with making the call. AND if you're not going to even interview the RO on the protest then really might as well just admit that the shoot is just a popularity contest and award ribbons based on who gets the most applause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much reason to have an RO then who is charged with making the call. AND if you're not going to even interview the RO on the protest then really might as well just admit that the shoot is just a popularity contest and award ribbons based on who gets the most applause.

 

How do you arrive at that conclusion? The RO is in charge of making calls...but that doesn't mean that they can't consider the fact that they are human too and can make mistakes...and should be open to the idea that in this case, it would have been prudent to view the condition of the rifle just to make sure that in the heat of the moment he/she didn't make a mistake in viewing the condition of the lever.

 

I see zero evidence that the call by the MD was a Popularity issue...what do you know that I don't?

 

Phantom

:FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much reason to have an RO then who is charged with making the call. AND if you're not going to even interview the RO on the protest then really might as well just admit that the shoot is just a popularity contest and award ribbons based on who gets the most applause.

 

 

Yep!

 

A person that throws a major tizzy isn't a person of character either.

 

Edit: If RO had double and wanted a second look, but gun was moved, then a No Call. The RO called it, which indicates he 'knew' it was closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep!

 

The RO called it, which indicates he 'knew' it was closed.

 

 

Yep. And the shooter called it too, which indicates he 'knew' it was open.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that I know what the stage was like...it was fast...and if I was the RO and believed the lever was closed, I would have called it a No Call since the gun was moved.

 

Why?

 

Cuz I want to eliminate any doubt...for both the shooter and myself.

 

But...I'm just weird...

 

Phantom

:FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet a dollar to a donut that if a popular, respected and well liked top Cowboy was the shooter and a newbie was the XO, the shooter would get the BOD.

 

AND ALSO, if the XO was an experienced, well respected Cowboy and the shooter was a Newbie, the XO would win the issue.

 

Sometimes, other things come into play when a MD has to make a tough decision.

 

Its not about believing or disbelieving.....and its not about credibility.

 

But in this situation, it 'might' have been about 'credible evidence'.

 

Just my late night thinking.....and I think I'll go to bed now.

 

 

..........Widder

 

Widder, I agree a hennert percent there. A few years ago I was running the timer at an annual shoot and something happened with the shooter that did not fit into the stage description. I forget now what it was, but it need the attention of a "higher up". When I brought it to the attention of the "higher up" official, the first words out of his mouth was, "who was it?" My reply was "does it matter who it was, everyone is supposed to be treated the same arent they".

 

At times, and some places, it matters "who" ya are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. And the shooter called it too, which indicates he 'knew' it was open.

 

The shooter is welcome to his option but did not follow the normal and customary appeals process and the MD didn't either by not interviewing all parties associated with that case.

 

 

Then refer back to Brother King's post #118

 

If you, as the RO had doubt, then make it a No Call. The RO in this case made the call as he saw it.

 

If you as the RO 'knew' the penalty occured and did not call it, then you penalized all the other shooters at the match.

 

Would you dismiss the penalty of a shooter putting a round over the berm (presuming the club has that policy)if the counters didn't mention it but you saw it and 'knew it'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that I know what the stage was like...it was fast...and if I was the RO and believed the lever was closed, I would have called it a No Call since the gun was moved.

 

Why?

 

Cuz I want to eliminate any doubt...for both the shooter and myself.

 

But...I'm just weird...

 

Phantom

:FlagAm:

 

Phantom, you're doing two injustices here. The first is to the shooter by not giving him an honest call, based on your belief in what you saw. The second injustice is to yourself for the same reason.

 

This is a sore point because I had it happen to me. I'm on the way to the ULT after the last stage of the match. A spotter comes up to me and says, "I don't know what I'm going to do about you - you swept me twice in the last two stages, once with an unloaded gun and once with a loaded one. I didn't call it because I know you didn't mean to do it." And he walked away.

 

I was flabbergasted! I had no info on my violations to help me prevent it from happening again. I did the only thing I could do and went to the club secretary and told him to give me an SDQ on stage four and an MDQ on stage five.

 

I guess my point is, if you want to "eliminate any doubt", you have to call what you know you saw. According to the OP, the RO/TO saw the closed lever before the expediter picked up the rifle. Unless we want to go to videotape and instant replays, that's what he has to call. Doubt is eliminated when folks know that you're always going to call what you saw and and can depend on your consistency.

 

I guess we'll be weird together - like to shoot with ya sometime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There must not be much going on for this post to continue this long. I think that most folks would prefer that the gun be left so that it could be properly inspected before making the call. But in this case, it was not left undisturbed. The T.O. stated that he saw that the lever was closed. OK.. if he saw it, then that is all that matters. He made the call. I must believe that when he made that call, that he was sure that the lever was closed. There is NOT a requirement to prove to the shooter that the lever was closed. It is only necessary for the T.O. to be convinced that it was closed. It is a courtesy to the shooter to show him (when possible), and it also puts and end to any doubt that the shooter may have. If there is any doubt on the part of the T.O., then he should NOT call for a penalty. The Spotters are there to assist the T.O. in making the call. If they saw the lever closed, and the T.O. did NOT see the lever open, then he should accept their input. If they reported that the lever was closed and the T.O. saw that it was open, then again... he would not award a penalty. The person expediting the gun has no say in it (unless he is an R.O.). The ONLY thing that MUST happen, is that the T.O. MUST be convinced that the lever was closed (no doubt). How that conviction takes place is another matter... IMO, the best way for it to happen is to not touch the gun in question until the stage is completed and the T.O. can inspect it.... and secondary, show it to the shooter.

 

Snakebite

Link to post
Share on other sites

There must not be much going on for this post to continue this long. I think that most folks would prefer that the gun be left so that it could be properly inspected before making the call. But in this case, it was not left undisturbed. The T.O. stated that he saw that the lever was closed. OK.. if he saw it, then that is all that matters. He made the call. I must believe that when he made that call, that he was sure that the lever was closed. There is NOT a requirement to prove to the shooter that the lever was closed. It is only necessary for the T.O. to be convinced that it was closed. It is a courtesy to the shooter to show him (when possible), and it also puts and end to any doubt that the shooter may have. If there is any doubt on the part of the T.O., then he should NOT call for a penalty. The Spotters are there to assist the T.O. in making the call. If they saw the lever closed, and the T.O. did NOT see the lever open, then he should accept their input. If they reported that the lever was closed and the T.O. saw that it was open, then again... he would not award a penalty. The person expediting the gun has no say in it (unless he is an R.O.). The ONLY thing that MUST happen, is that the T.O. MUST be convinced that the lever was closed (no doubt). How that conviction takes place is another matter... IMO, the best way for it to happen is to not touch the gun in question until the stage is completed and the T.O. can inspect it.... and secondary, show it to the shooter.

 

Snakebite

 

 

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. And the shooter called it too, which indicates he 'knew' it was open.

Except that the shooter is not a line official but the RO is charged with making the call. Otherwise, we'll just let you count your own hits and misses, award your own penalties and declare your own times.

 

And this is about as good as it gets said:

There must not be much going on for this post to continue this long. I think that most folks would prefer that the gun be left so that it could be properly inspected before making the call. But in this case, it was not left undisturbed. The T.O. stated that he saw that the lever was closed. OK.. if he saw it, then that is all that matters. He made the call. I must believe that when he made that call, that he was sure that the lever was closed. There is NOT a requirement to prove to the shooter that the lever was closed. It is only necessary for the T.O. to be convinced that it was closed. It is a courtesy to the shooter to show him (when possible), and it also puts and end to any doubt that the shooter may have. If there is any doubt on the part of the T.O., then he should NOT call for a penalty. The Spotters are there to assist the T.O. in making the call. If they saw the lever closed, and the T.O. did NOT see the lever open, then he should accept their input. If they reported that the lever was closed and the T.O. saw that it was open, then again... he would not award a penalty. The person expediting the gun has no say in it (unless he is an R.O.). The ONLY thing that MUST happen, is that the T.O. MUST be convinced that the lever was closed (no doubt). How that conviction takes place is another matter... IMO, the best way for it to happen is to not touch the gun in question until the stage is completed and the T.O. can inspect it.... and secondary, show it to the shooter.

 

Snakebite

Thanks, Snakebite. To me this affirms the responsibility AND THE AUTHORITY of the RO making the call. Therefore, on this planet as Gunslinger observed in a previous post, the TG appeals committee had a definite requirement to interview the RO before reversing the call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except thatthe shooter is not a line official but the RO is charged with making the call.

 

Correct, making a call for which there is no proof. Kinda like holding an empty hull in one hand and 97 in other hand and telling the shooter, "lookie here what I found." Leave the dang gun alone till the shooter can see it, it's that simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, making a call for which there is no proof. Kinda like holding an empty hull in one hand and 97 in other hand and telling the shooter, "lookie here what I found." Leave the dang gun alone till the shooter can see it, it's that simple.

Did ya read Snakebite's post? The RO IS THE PROOF. He saw it and he called it. While it is better to show the lever to the shooter, the rules DO NOT require it. The RO's witness or any other line officer is evidence enough. It's that simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that the shooter is not a line official but the RO is charged with making the call. Otherwise, we'll just let you count your own hits and misses, award your own penalties and declare your own times.

 

And this is about as good as it gets said:

 

Thanks, Snakebite. To me this affirms the responsibility AND THE AUTHORITY of the RO making the call. Therefore, on this planet as Gunslinger observed in a previous post, the TG appeals committee had a definite requirement to interview the RO before reversing the call.

 

 

Absolutely. The call was made by the T.O. If his call was overturned without even getting his input, then someone was totally wrong. The MD has the power/authority to do what ever he wants, but that power should be used judiciously.

 

Snakebite

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phantom, you're doing two injustices here. The first is to the shooter by not giving him an honest call, based on your belief in what you saw. The second injustice is to yourself for the same reason.

 

This is a sore point because I had it happen to me. I'm on the way to the ULT after the last stage of the match. A spotter comes up to me and says, "I don't know what I'm going to do about you - you swept me twice in the last two stages, once with an unloaded gun and once with a loaded one. I didn't call it because I know you didn't mean to do it." And he walked away.

 

I was flabbergasted! I had no info on my violations to help me prevent it from happening again. I did the only thing I could do and went to the club secretary and told him to give me an SDQ on stage four and an MDQ on stage five.

 

I guess my point is, if you want to "eliminate any doubt", you have to call what you know you saw. According to the OP, the RO/TO saw the closed lever before the expediter picked up the rifle. Unless we want to go to videotape and instant replays, that's what he has to call. Doubt is eliminated when folks know that you're always going to call what you saw and and can depend on your consistency.

 

I guess we'll be weird together - like to shoot with ya sometime.

 

Actually, I'm not providing any injustices.

 

I never said to not call a penalty...don't know where you arrived at that conclusion. I did take into consideration the fact that these stages that were run at this match were extrodinarily FAST. Therefore it was very difficult for a TO/RO to clearly see a lever completely closed while at the same time keeping within arms length of the shooter. Therefore, it would have been important to ME if I were the TO/RO to verify the condition of the lever BEFORE I assested the penalty.

 

No where did I mention that a penalty should not be handed out to a shooter that earned a penalty.

 

Folks can depend on my consistancy...which is to do my best to make sure that a call is correct. I do agree with you that consistancy is vital...particularly from one posse to another.

 

And yes, if the RO/TO was absolutely sure...then he/she was absolutely sure. I've been taking into consideration the environment of this particular stage where this particular issue happened.

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, if the RO/TO was absolutely sure...then he/she was absolutely sure. I've been taking into consideration the environment of this particular stage where this particular issue happened.

 

;)

oh crap... I didn't have any idea that you were on my planet! :wacko::rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh crap... I didn't have any idea that you were on my planet! :wacko::rolleyes:

 

 

The Phantom is everywhere. Borgs are everywhere.

 

Phantom is a Borg..... :o

 

 

..........Widder

Link to post
Share on other sites
...A person that throws a major tizzy isn't a person of character either...

 

...At times, and some places, it matters "who" ya are.

 

There were several things in the initial post that I and some others didn't address. Our focus was that the gun should have been left alone be to show the shooter.

 

The other things in the OP that were worthy of discussion follow.

 

MD should have talked to the TO.

 

Maybe the protest was too late.

 

Maybe shooter really earned a MDQ for belligerent behavior.

 

Now, my thoughts on the two preceding quotes. The MD wanting to know who it was may have validity. I knew a shooter who argued every call or miss. I've heard stories of "team counting" resulting in the shooter never missing or making a mistake. If it were someone known to behave like that, the call could have been weighted against the shooter. On the other hand, maybe the shooter was someone known for his/her integrity (barring belligerence in the situation) who had even made calls against himself/herself.

 

My point is that there are many nuances to some situations that should be considered before a final call. This is one reason the MD should have talked to the TO. For example, if the shooters behavior was such that a MDQ should have been given, it would make the showing of the gun a moot point.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm not providing any injustices.

 

I never said to not call a penalty...don't know where you arrived at that conclusion. I did take into consideration the fact that these stages that were run at this match were extrodinarily FAST. Therefore it was very difficult for a TO/RO to clearly see a lever completely closed while at the same time keeping within arms length of the shooter. Therefore, it would have been important to ME if I were the TO/RO to verify the condition of the lever BEFORE I assested the penalty.

 

No where did I mention that a penalty should not be handed out to a shooter that earned a penalty.

 

Folks can depend on my consistancy...which is to do my best to make sure that a call is correct. I do agree with you that consistancy is vital...particularly from one posse to another.

 

And yes, if the RO/TO was absolutely sure...then he/she was absolutely sure. I've been taking into consideration the environment of this particular stage where this particular issue happened.

 

;)

 

 

YES!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

the longer I am in CAS (the ever changing SASS / cAS)

.......the more, this stuff seems to come up..........

 

that would be why in Wild Bunch "no one but the shooter handles the guns on the line"

guud call

 

 

you make the calls on the wire, dont really know all the facts / politics / etc......

 

I sah

 

hang em all :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were several things in the initial post that I and some others didn't address. Our focus was that the gun should have been left alone be to show the shooter.

 

The other things in the OP that were worthy of discussion follow.

 

MD should have talked to the TO.

 

Maybe the protest was too late.

 

Maybe shooter really earned a MDQ for belligerent behavior.

 

Now, my thoughts on the two preceding quotes. The MD wanting to know who it was may have validity. I knew a shooter who argued every call or miss. I've heard stories of "team counting" resulting in the shooter never missing or making a mistake. If it were someone known to behave like that, the call could have been weighted against the shooter. On the other hand, maybe the shooter was someone known for his/her integrity (barring belligerence in the situation) who had even made calls against himself/herself.

 

My point is that there are many nuances to some situations that should be considered before a final call. This is one reason the MD should have talked to the TO. For example, if the shooters behavior was such that a MDQ should have been given, it would make the showing of the gun a moot point.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

Brother King asked in the last sentence:

 

"You're the Match Director and get the information as presented. What's your call and what is your procedure for making the call? "

 

People had a hard time staying on that question (see above) and drifted off rather frequently to the whata-shoulda-coulda of the rifle should not have been touched speal.

Yep! Interesting side topic, of which no one ever disagreed with the idea of not touching a gun in a questionable state of action being open or not. Equally interesting that so many folks did not realize the level of authority that the TO & MD carried. Nor the process of appealing a call. Was an educational, YMTC topic.

 

Gold star to BK for sharing the topic and leading a lively discussion.

 

Blastmaster

Link to post
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.