Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

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

Straight Arrow Hombre

Tex's opinion or rule change?

Recommended Posts

I just read Tex's editorial in the June chronicle and I have to wonder if Tex is changing the rules or stating opinion. Seems some of what he wrote fully contradicts clarifications we've seen posted here by PaleWolf and Black Jack Zak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lemme get a bag of popcorn...this is gonna be fun to watch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn, I can't open any pdf files on my new computer...

Allie Meaux....didn't you get a Winders 8 computer? If so you just need to download Acrobat reader and you'll be able to read them. You can get it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably more opinion - but with some folks his word is 'authority'....."If Tex says....."

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of the highlights...

 

http://www.sopdigitaledition.com/thecowboychronicle/#/6/

 

If the shooter opens and clears the long gun and then closes it before discarding it, the shooter should be called back to open the action. If the action is not “open and empty” when discarded, the shooter is wrong, and left unopened, earns the appropriate penalty. It makes a difference how the gun ends up closed at the end of the stage.

 

When closely examined, the Basketball Travelling Rule would allow a shooter, for example, to “bunny hop” from one foot to another slam-firing their ’97 while they have one foot planted. Technically, this would be legal … however, it clearly violates the intent of the rule … and it is forbidden.

 

The Territorial Governors imposed a rule long ago disallowing both revolvers to be shot at the same time because it is very difficult to judge hits and misses. Once again, when the rule is parsed to the finest degree, it may, indeed, be impossible to actually pull both triggers at exactly the same time … and therefore violate the stated rule. However, IF it sounds like one shot, it is one shot! It’s up to the shooter to not create a “judgment call” situation for the spotters. There’s not a Gunfighter alive who hasn’t at one time or another fired both revolvers at basically the same time … and when it happens once in a Blue Moon, it’s normally handled as a “no call.” However, if the Gunfighter consistently (or nearly so) shoots both revolvers at once … they earn a penalty for “shooting out of category!”

 

Match Directors and top shooters who constantly shoot in blue jeans (we are not talking B-western here) set a very unfortunate example for new members coming in and for their own club members. Match Directors who habitually dress in blue jeans promote followers who also dress in blue jeans. Just as our educational system seems to be “running/dumbing down,” so does our adherence to good costuming. It’s one thing to occasionally wear jeans to a local club match … but when the folks on stage at a “big match” dress like they’re shopping at Wal-Mart, it’s an embarrassment and sends the wrong message to the newer and younger SASS members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of the highlights...

 

http://www.sopdigitaledition.com/thecowboychronicle/#/6/

 

If the shooter opens and clears the long gun and then closes it before discarding it, the shooter should be called back to open the action. If the action is not “open and empty” when discarded, the shooter is wrong, and left unopened, earns the appropriate penalty. It makes a difference how the gun ends up closed at the end of the stage.

 

When closely examined, the Basketball Travelling Rule would allow a shooter, for example, to “bunny hop” from one foot to another slam-firing their ’97 while they have one foot planted. Technically, this would be legal … however, it clearly violates the intent of the rule … and it is forbidden.

 

The Territorial Governors imposed a rule long ago disallowing both revolvers to be shot at the same time because it is very difficult to judge hits and misses. Once again, when the rule is parsed to the finest degree, it may, indeed, be impossible to actually pull both triggers at exactly the same time … and therefore violate the stated rule. However, IF it sounds like one shot, it is one shot! It’s up to the shooter to not create a “judgment call” situation for the spotters. There’s not a Gunfighter alive who hasn’t at one time or another fired both revolvers at basically the same time … and when it happens once in a Blue Moon, it’s normally handled as a “no call.” However, if the Gunfighter consistently (or nearly so) shoots both revolvers at once … they earn a penalty for “shooting out of category!”

 

Match Directors and top shooters who constantly shoot in blue jeans (we are not talking B-western here) set a very unfortunate example for new members coming in and for their own club members. Match Directors who habitually dress in blue jeans promote followers who also dress in blue jeans. Just as our educational system seems to be “running/dumbing down,” so does our adherence to good costuming. It’s one thing to occasionally wear jeans to a local club match … but when the folks on stage at a “big match” dress like they’re shopping at Wal-Mart, it’s an embarrassment and sends the wrong message to the newer and younger SASS members.

 

I am neither a match director nor a top shooter, but I do wear blue jeans to every match. I do however spend a fair amount of time promoting this game. If the owners of SASS feel that I am not a suitable example to promote the game, all they need do is send me a personal email to that effect and I will cease and desist. I am insulted and offended by the constant and continual harassment over something that is within the published rules.

 

DSCN1838.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You tell 'em Dave !!! :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I no longer read the chronicle I couldn’t care less what’s in it.

If I go to a match (and I don’t care; monthly, annual, state, or above) and they tell me I’m not dressed appropriately or my guns aren’t legal, then that’s my last SASS event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read Tex's column, I do read all of Grizzly Dave's posts. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never wore jeans at a SASS match until Tex started his assault on them.

 

I now wear them often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straight Arrow Hombre does have a valid point here, though...PWB and the ROC have made statements contradictory to the first two posts here.

 

So, now as a TO, if this happens next week, what do I call?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read Tex's column, I do read all of Grizzly Dave's posts. :D

The jeans issue is a side note. The meat of the article is about recent rules and the TG system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straight Arrow Hombre does have a valid point here, though...PWB and the ROC have made statements contradictory to the first two posts here.

 

So, now as a TO, if this happens next week, what do I call?

Stick with the RO committee of which Pale Wolf is a member.

12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say it once again, ALL we have is the written words in the rulebook and clarifications from the ROC and PWB. If Tex, or any other shooter wishes to argue a point they must use the same rulebook and/or clarifications without using the word "intent" during that discussion. Words have meaning - just ask any attorney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about black Jeans? I just put suspender buttons on my "BLACK" Wranglers ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never wore jeans until Tex started his assault on them.

 

I now wear them often.

Me too. Love my 501s.

 

Straight Arrow Hombre does have a valid point here, though...PWB and the ROC have made statements contradictory to the first two posts here.

 

So, now as a TO, if this happens next week, what do I call?

hmm............

 

Stick with the RO committee of which Pale Wolf is a member.

12

That's what I plan to do.

 

#1. Tex's Opinion

#2. Tex's Opinion

#3. Probably correct

#4. Tex's Opinion

+1

 

What bothers me about this article is that Tex is either willfully contradicting the rulings of the ROC, or he isn't aware of them. Neither is a good thing in my view.

 

Please let this one run a might Allie, I would like to see where it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure Tex is ON the ROC!

 

So guess the question is....." Is this Tex's Editor voice or his ROC voice?"

 

Maybe the ROC "voice on the wire" will let us know.

 

Stan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tex is talking about the INTENT of the rules.

 

What there intent is and how the rules read are/can be two different things.

 

If they want the wording to match the intent. They need to go back and reword/rework them.

 

Until them. All we can go by is what is written in the books.

 

 

 

P.S. Think the jeans thing has been put to bed.

BUT.

Tex just can't let go or get over it.

Which is why I started wearing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say it once again, ALL we have is the written words in the rulebook and clarifications from the ROC and PWB. If Tex, or any other shooter wishes to argue a point they must use the same rulebook and/or clarifications without using the word "intent" during that discussion. Words have meaning - just ask any attorney.

I typically read everything Tex writes as his opinion. My concern this time is how he starts his column. He claims to be speaking for the Wild Bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never wore jeans until Tex started his assault on them.

 

I now wear them often.

I don't even own a pair of jeans :huh: .........but a trip to Wal-Mart can fix that ;)

 

J :ph34r: R-E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too. Love my 501s.

 

I'm a Wrangler man myself :D Oops...gettin' off topic I may be... :ph34r:

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to post the entire article, but in the interest of brevity here's the beginning:

 

"SASS policy, practices, and procedures are the purview of the Wild Bunch, while the “SASS Rules” are determined by the Territorial Governors. The Range Operations Committee works as a guiding group to keep the Territorial Governors focused on the issues and to offer suggestions regarding which path the Territorial Governors should take. It’s one thing to vote “yea” or “nay” on any particular issue, but the really hard part of the job is to determine “want’s really best for the game we play.” More than once, the Range Operations Committee and the Territorial Governors have asked the Wild Bunch for guidance when the issue resolution and what was right or wrong were particularly difficult to determine. The Wild Bunch has been reticent to intervene in the discussions, but it’s finally time to do so. As a matter of policy, the Wild Bunch has articulated from time to time what kinds of activities we’d like to see … how we wish to see the membership operate. The Range Operations Committee and the Territorial Governors would then take up the challenge to draft rules that achieve those goals. However, as time goes by, questions and suggestions inevitably come up, and then the job of the Range Operations Committee and the Territorial Governors becomes one of “interpreting” the rules. What has come to light recently in several cases is the realization when the current rules are parsed into very fine parts, deviant behavior is, indeed, “legal” … but is at odds with the original intent of the rule put in place in the past. It’s time to step back, see where we’re apparently heading, and put the ship back on the desired course. "

 

 

So voting to pass rules is easy, but making sure those rules are appropriate is hard and the purview of the Wild Bunch.

 

The Wild Bunch decides what's appropriate for the game and it's the job of the ROC and the TGs to make it happen.

 

In this case the rules as passed and interpreted by the ROC do not meet with the Wild Bunch's expectations.

 

Those rules will now be 'reinterpreted' to come up with the desired outcome.

 

Why did we vote in the first place?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to post the entire article, but in the interest of brevity here's the beginning:

 

"SASS policy, practices, and procedures are the purview of the Wild Bunch, while the “SASS Rules” are determined by the Territorial Governors. The Range Operations Committee works as a guiding group to keep the Territorial Governors focused on the issues and to offer suggestions regarding which path the Territorial Governors should take. It’s one thing to vote “yea” or “nay” on any particular issue, but the really hard part of the job is to determine “want’s really best for the game we play.” More than once, the Range Operations Committee and the Territorial Governors have asked the Wild Bunch for guidance when the issue resolution and what was right or wrong were particularly difficult to determine. The Wild Bunch has been reticent to intervene in the discussions, but it’s finally time to do so. As a matter of policy, the Wild Bunch has articulated from time to time what kinds of activities we’d like to see … how we wish to see the membership operate. The Range Operations Committee and the Territorial Governors would then take up the challenge to draft rules that achieve those goals. However, as time goes by, questions and suggestions inevitably come up, and then the job of the Range Operations Committee and the Territorial Governors becomes one of “interpreting” the rules. What has come to light recently in several cases is the realization when the current rules are parsed into very fine parts, deviant behavior is, indeed, “legal” … but is at odds with the original intent of the rule put in place in the past. It’s time to step back, see where we’re apparently heading, and put the ship back on the desired course. "

 

 

So voting to pass rules is easy, but making sure those rules are appropriate is hard and the purview of the Wild Bunch.

 

The Wild Bunch decides what's appropriate for the game and it's the job of the ROC and the TGs to make it happen.

 

In this case the rules as passed and interpreted by the ROC do not meet with the Wild Bunch's expectations.

 

Those rules will now be 'reinterpreted' to come up with the desired outcome.

 

Why did we vote in the first place?

 

 

 

 

 

In this case the rules as passed and interpreted by the ROC do not meet with the Wild Bunch's expectations.

Those rules will now be 'reinterpreted' to come up with the desired outcome.

Why did we vote in the first place?

Don't meet the Wild Bunch's expectations, or Tex's expectations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even own a pair of jeans :huh: .........but a trip to Wal-Mart can fix that ;)

 

J :ph34r: R-E

 

 

I had to go back and change mine to.

 

Never wore jeans at a SASS match.

 

Wear them all the time at home.

 

Wranglers only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never wore jeans at a SASS match until Tex started his assault on them.

 

I now wear them often.

Yep me too.....and tan and black ones too for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually wear black jeans to matches, but if I were to go to a match with Tex in attendance, I could switch to blue. If it were cool enough, maybe even a blue jean jacket to match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first read this I thought I was reading the April edition and it was a joke. You have got to be kidding.

 

Let us take these items one at a time.

 

First of all nothing gets on the TG ballot without the Wild Bunch approving it so nothing should get there without their tacit approval before hand and be ready to accept an approval. The WB established the TGs as a body to create and modify rules and the RO committee to interpret the rules. That has happened on the closed long gun rule, a 2/3 vote of the membership voted to change the rules in this area, the RO committee did a lot of work to teach us all how to intrepret the new rule, the rule books have been revised, many RO classes have been taught with all this and now an editorial seems to strike out in a direction, sorry we were only kidding. I for one will use the rule book, and the RO interpretation until the rule is changed formally again. If I ever decide to RO again, I want Tex standing beside me instructing me whether a shooter had his long gun accidently close or whether he closed it on purpose after shucking out his last empty hull.

 

So if shortened stocks are now illegal per the Wild Bunch, where are the rules that tell how to determine the mininum length stocks can be?

 

Age based categories. So when will the change for Senior Dueist be changed to match the Wild Bunch definition?

 

So how are spotters/TOs to recognize if a Gunfighter when a shooter has reached his or her quota of firing both guns so fast they can not be determined as seperate shots. Let's see the rule change for this.

 

The blue jeans thing. First Tex leaned on shooters to stop wearing blue jeans and they did not. Then he added bllue jeans to the TG Summit agenda last Dec and the TGs decided no changes were in order fearing a shooter backlash and now we see tex slamming the match directors for wearing blue jeans. Since the Wild Bunch feels free to change rules elsewhere, why not here too.

 

Match Directors competing at their own matches. I have zero issue with match directors shooting their match. I do not like them shooting the match on different days then the rest of the shooters tho. I would have issues if match directors were actually practicing their own stages. I have seen way too many match directors get Ps and DQs at their own matches to ever believe we have a wide spread issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a rumor one whole posse at EOT will be wearing blue jeans and not shooting B Western. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're needin' a lawyer to 'splain the words..Y'all are into 'deviant behavior'!

 

Come on over to the one true, pure category- Classic Cowboy.

 

The rest are redundant anyway.....just sayin'...

 

Now as to those new rules....what was so hard to understand about "open ain't closed" that a change of empty hull/ case is a No Call wouldn't have fixed?

 

Maybe that Colorado wind is blowing hard out of the north this month? In which case we may be in for a high time at EOT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the TGs are intended to be a simple rubber stamp, why do we make the effort to meet and vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opening and reclosing the shotgun...

 

Sounds pretty common sense to me. Not sure why this needs to be brought up. You are done with the shotgun, you open the action and either move on to the next gun or the unloading table.

 

The Basketball Travelling Rule: Well, if you are gonna reference and define it as "The Basketball Travelling Rule" then this is a rule that should never be enforced. I have long thought that this is a very unfortunate way to explain a rule in our game. And I am not joking here. Basketball Travelling is for all intents and purposes a rule that is rarely if ever enforced. To say that we should enforce it is just silly. ESPECIALLY after explaining that the move he objects too is legal under the rule as written. In an even more serious comment, if something is legal in the rules as written, then it is legal. If we start saying "Well, the rules don't mean what they say" then we will inevitabley have arguments. Don't like a specific rule, advocate for its change, but don't say that something that is with the rules should not be done.

 

Fireing both guns at once in Gunfighter: More common sense and reality here. Why is this needing to be mentioned?

 

Blue Jeans: They are legal. Therefore if someone wants to wear them, they can. WHY does this keep coming up. This horse is dead, Tex, stop beating it. Don't like that they are legal? See above comments on Basketball Travelling.

 

Oy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come to think of Tex's column, as the COMICS---- ;)

He makes me laugh- :lol: And other than that, it's worthless <_<

LG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK the first part about the long guns being closed is clear but different than the way it was explained. Right now it was explained that you can lay the gun down closed, but are responsible for any penalties if they apply.

 

The Jean's thing is just screwy. OK jeans are legal, but there not on certain people with certain titles or roles of responsibility. Who's going to enforce that! Bat crap crazy is what we getting with all of the different people, rules interpretations and self applied opinions..

Ike

eg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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