Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Tex's opinion or rule change?


Straight Arrow Hombre

Recommended Posts

That may very well be the case but the RO committee has stated that a closed gun is treated the same no matter how it got closed after a shooting string. The written words say closed gun and not an accidentally closed long gun. The issue is how does the TO/RO determine if the shooter closed the gun accidentally or on purpose? You would be then trying to rule on intent and who can do that? If I read Tex's comments he demands the shooter to go back and open the gun no matter how it was closed, ie back to the old rule.

GCK... I can not argue with your statement, and would not attempt it. I can only say at this point in time it falls into the same "Subjective" area that many of the rules fall into. We all know of rules that require the TO to make a judgement call. Though we have tried to remove as many of these calls as possible, they still exist. Any call is suppose to be made with a clear understanding of the rule and what the rule means. It happens time after time, at every match that I have attended... the TO at some point must make the determination of one thing or another. It is a tough call, and if I am going to make a mistake... I hope to make it in favor of the shooter. A shooter who does it time after time is IMO not making an attempt. Having been in the position of trying to educate all shooters on the intent of a rule/s, I can attest to the fact that it is not easy. In this case, if I am not sure that the shooter made no attempt to open the action, I don't intend to call him back. I do however reserve the right to do my job at TO. If the shooter believes that I've made a bad call on him, then I advise the shooter to appeal that call, and be prepared to use the rule book to support his case to the appeals committee.

 

Snakebite

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

GCK... I can not argue with your statement, and would not attempt it. I can only say at this point in time it falls into the same "Subjective" area that many of the rules fall into. We all know of rules that require the TO to make a judgement call. Though we have tried to remove as many of these calls as possible, they still exist. Any call is suppose to be made with a clear understanding of the rule and what the rule means. It happens time after time, at every match that I have attended... the TO at some point must make the determination of one thing or another. It is a tough call, and if I am going to make a mistake... I hope to make it in favor of the shooter. A shooter who does it time after time is IMO not making an attempt. Having been in the position of trying to educate all shooters on the intent of a rule/s, I can attest to the fact that it is not easy. In this case, if I am not sure that the shooter made no attempt to open the action, I don't intend to call him back. I do however reserve the right to do my job at TO. If the shooter believes that I've made a bad call on him, then I advise the shooter to appeal that call, and be prepared to use the rule book to support his case to the appeals committee.

 

Snakebite

We have been living with the new rule now for almost 6 months. I have not seen it as a problem. I have not seen a safety issue. Have you? Why make another change, just as folks were learning about the new rule and it's implementation. Seems like a slap in the face of the TGs and RO committee not to mention all the shooters that voted for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been living with the new rule now for almost 6 months. I have not seen it as a problem. I have not seen a safety issue. Have you? Why make another change, just as folks were learning about the new rule and it's implementation. Seems like a slap in the face of the TGs and RO committee not to mention all the shooters that voted for it.

BINGO!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been living with the new rule now for almost 6 months. I have not seen it as a problem. I have not seen a safety issue. Have you? Why make another change, just as folks were learning about the new rule and it's implementation. Seems like a slap in the face of the TGs and RO committee not to mention all the shooters that voted for it.

 

 

We have a winner!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I can attest to the fact that it is not easy. In this case, if I am not sure that the shooter made no attempt to open the action"

 

Of course they made the attempt to open the action. If they did not, then the shell would still be in there.

 

The closing of the action after ejecting the last case is extra action. not an advantage.

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

Used to think it was a waste of paper....now it's just a waste of bandwidth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I can attest to the fact that it is not easy. In this case, if I am not sure that the shooter made no attempt to open the action"

 

Of course they made the attempt to open the action. If they did not, then the shell would still be in there.

 

The closing of the action after ejecting the last case is extra action. not an advantage.

I agree with Alan. In addition, the only times I have seen anyone "deliberately" closing an action after opening and ejecting the empties would be doubles shooters restaging their shotgun vertically. Anyone who has ever had to vertically restage a double with no box or board to keep the butt from sliding will see the wisdom and safety of permitting that practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Griz, anyone who would think you are anything but an original, never equaled, throwback to the old west, cowboy dont know a real cowboy when they see em. Good Shootin Pards.

2Gunz

 

"Honor To Whom Honor Due"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have to quit this thread....just the thought of Ol#4 in a dress is enough to make me think of shooting 2 handed.

I heard you shoot two handed when nobody is looking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard you shoot two handed when nobody is looking?

Okokok....I'll admit it! I tried it once, but I felt gay so....well...ya know not that there's anything wrong with that....
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless & until we make a determination on just who is the "Voice from The Burning Bush" on this closed action rule there will be

"Subjective Decisions" as observed by Snakebite. I have read & copied PWB's decision that a deliberately closed action on a empty long

gun is a no call & am planning on carrying this in my shooting cart to cite as the interpretation of the SASS closed action rule.

 

To me, PWB seems to be the voice of authority in this issue. However I could be wrong as there are those, including Tex, who opine

differently that this is a MS or even a SOG penalty in one opinion. Case in point a well respected & competent TG & RO2 with whom I

associate is of the same opinion as Tex & will levy a MS if in their opinion the action was closed on an empty long gun deliberately.

 

This rule needs to be applied in a uniform manner in all SASS venues including club matches to eliminate subjective rules interpretations.

 

This should not be allowed to fester & create ill feelings & confrontations due to questionable awarding of penalties.

 

In the meantime if this rule is to remain subject to local opinion, ignoring or being uninformed of PWB's decision, I would encourage

match directors & competitors to provide & seek clarification prior to shooting a stage involving the vertical re-staging of a empty double or replacing a empty double in a shooting horse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Griz, anyone who would think you are anything but an original, never equaled, throwback to the old west, cowboy dont know a real cowboy when they see em. Good Shootin Pards.

2Gunz

 

"Honor To Whom Honor Due"

 

Thanks ya kindly 2gunz

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am having a hard time understanding the role of the TGs after reading the CC editorial. I thought I understood the TGs role in rule making as defined here: (see SASS home page bottom item under SASS clubs, would not let me post the web address) but after reading the editorial, it appears to be much more limited in scope. The TGs have no role in Wild Bunch shooting. It appears the editorial severely limits the role of the TGs for ground shooters from what I understood, am I wrong? In the past the TGs gathered ideas from their club members and at shoots around the country during the year making suggestions on changes to be considered in the sport. These ideas for rule changes were discussed at some state matches and regionals through the year. These were then summarized and condensed toward the end of the year by the RO committee and an agenda for rule changes and discussion items presented to the Wild Bunch for approval of the TG summit agenda (some to be voted on and others to be discussed only). During this process the TGs polled their club members in some manner to recommend how their TG should vote. Why would the TGs continue this function on rules if they are over ruled by the Wild Bunch. I can certainly see Wild Bunch intervention on some rule/issues in the past that the TGs were unable to make a decision on like power factor and a couple of real safety issues (like pointed shotgun shells) but this open/closed rule got a whole lot of discussion through last year and again at the summit, Wild Bunch members were involved in the discussions (put it on the agenda), passed by a 2/3 vote of the TGs (and that is hard to achieve) and now it is being over turned, at least how I read the editorial. It looks to me like the TGs are becoming a feel good group the Wild Bunch can point at to show they are really looking out for members interests via the TGs. I hope the TG role gets looked at carefully as SASS moves to a non profit organizational structure. IMHO the TG role should be strengthened from how it is defined on the SASS home page in the new structure not how it is apparently viewed by the Wild Bunch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been living with the new rule now for almost 6 months. I have not seen it as a problem. I have not seen a safety issue. Have you? Why make another change, just as folks were learning about the new rule and it's implementation. Seems like a slap in the face of the TGs and RO committee not to mention all the shooters that voted for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Snakebite & GCK, The level of participation, dedication & love of the sport reflected by all the TG's commands my utmost respect and I believe the totality of the SASS community. This latest issue is a speed bump & I'd suggest that perhaps you & your fellow TG's address this on the TG wire & get some universal accord established, advise the Wild Bunch, & publish your conclusion, maybe as a sticky.

 

Nobody minds playing by the rules as long as all TG's know & agree what the rules are & keep us notified. If the TG's are fully on board or acknowledge receipt of the interpretations of the rule this will become a non issue regardless of the opinions expressed otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RC... I don't disagree with your statement at all. I thought that had already been done. Just goes to show that I'm getting too old to remember things.

 

Snakebite

Link to post
Share on other sites

My recollection is that PWB and BJZ distributed the RO interpretation and instructions to the TO/ROs for how to assist and or not assist the shooters on the closed long gun rule and the final rule widely to the SASS Wire, the TG Wire and in the RO Handbook when published but I could be wrong also. We were lead to believe this final wording was negotiated with all RO members (which I believe includes one or more Wild Bunch members).

Link to post
Share on other sites

SB & GCK, I did see the product of rule changes on the SASS wire, & thru the wire I was well aware of the rule change pertaining to closed actions on empty long guns as well as reading PWB's clarification & thought I understood the closed/empty rule. I think you folks did a great job of getting the info to the wire.

 

However I had it recently explained to me exactly the same as in the Tex editorial providing for a penalty for a deliberate closing of a long gun. I just thought I'd missed the caveat pertaining to deliberate closing & stood corrected. Speaking just for me I am certainly getting a match director opinion in any match I attend that requires re-staging a double barrel in a vertical position or on one of the wooden horses. These conflicting opinions are confusing to a non TG, RO1 match director so meantime I'm just going to give the benefit to the shooter until I hear different. Regards & please keep up the good work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue jean issue: ridiculous

 

Buddy posses: possible and probable

 

Walking and slam-firing a '97: that's covered by the existing rules.

 

Action closed while restaging...I've heard for years, "Tex doesn't go on the Wire." Balderdash!! I don't believe that anymore than I believe I'll win the next match I go to.

 

I contend that he followed the discussion we had here. If he wanted to be involved in the conversation, he should have done it then. I spend much too much time and effort to take all the nuances of the rules from here back to my club and I'll be damned if I'm going to go back and tell them Tex changed his mind. Most of them would ask, "Who the hell is Tex?" This is 2014. If he's so concerned about how the rules are interpreted, he should get involved at the time it is being discussed rather than sitting on Mt. Olympus and being amused by it all.

 

This is a hell of a way to run a business. It's time for Misty to get this all straightened out. She's the CEO for crissakes!

 

Fillmore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue jean issue: ridiculous Yep, I don't like em but .... Yep.

 

Buddy posses: possible and probable I've seen it first hand, even walked off from a major match where it was happening.

 

Walking and slam-firing a '97: that's covered by the existing rules. It can be done, but not everyone can do it.

 

Action closed while restaging...I've heard for years, "Tex doesn't go on the Wire." Balderdash!! I don't believe that anymore than I believe I'll win the next match I go to. How bout them Dodgers!

 

I contend that he followed the discussion we had here. If he wanted to be involved in the conversation, he should have done it then. I spend much too much time and effort to take all the nuances of the rules from here back to my club and I'll be damned if I'm going to go back and tell them Tex changed his mind. This is 2014. If he's so concerned about how the rules are interpreted, he should get involved at the time it is being discussed rather than sitting on Mt. Olympus and being amused by it all.

 

This is a hell of a way to run a business. It's time for Misty to get this all straightened out. She's the CEO for crissakes! I like Misty... she is Cool!

 

Fillmore

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is probably just the tip of the iceberg of the headaches that go on with those involved from match director roles, territorial governors, ROC, regulators, on up....let alone the SASS office.

 

Amazing what goes on behind the scenes and I have to give you all my sincere gratitude because what us average or below average involved shooters see at matches is nothing but a great time.... Coming from an acting background with some limited roles as director I certainly know what I'm talking about.

 

Thanking much for you folks...

 

G( under a rock) G

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue jean issue: ridiculous

 

Buddy posses: possible and probable

 

Walking and slam-firing a '97: that's covered by the existing rules.

 

Action closed while restaging...I've heard for years, "Tex doesn't go on the Wire." Balderdash!! I don't believe that anymore than I believe I'll win the next match I go to.

 

I contend that he followed the discussion we had here. If he wanted to be involved in the conversation, he should have done it then. I spend much too much time and effort to take all the nuances of the rules from here back to my club and I'll be damned if I'm going to go back and tell them Tex changed his mind. Most of them would ask, "Who the hell is Tex?" This is 2014. If he's so concerned about how the rules are interpreted, he should get involved at the time it is being discussed rather than sitting on Mt. Olympus and being amused by it all.

 

This is a hell of a way to run a business. It's time for Misty to get this all straightened out. She's the CEO for crissakes!

 

Fillmore

 

Couldn't agree more, great post.

 

One other thing, Match Directors are labeled (semi veiled) as cheaters? We've been through this one before also.

 

I really feel sorry for the TG's and folks who put so much into this game we call CAS.......just to get a slap in the face everytime.......depressing as hell.

 

CS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intent of shooter.......

 

Intent of stage writer.....

 

Intent of rule........

 

Operating on "intent" will ALWAYS cause confusion!

 

Make decisions on what the shooter actually did.....what the stage writer actually wrote......and what the rule actually states in black & white....

 

Adding intent or "invisible" words to rules to make the rule conform to what the reader personally wants it to mean will only keep confusion in this sport to a maximum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intent of shooter.......

 

Intent of stage writer.....

 

Intent of rule........

 

Operating on "intent" will ALWAYS cause confusion!

 

Make decisions on what the shooter actually did.....what the stage writer actually wrote......and what the rule actually states in black & white....

 

Adding intent or "invisible" words to rules to make the rule conform to what the reader personally wants it to mean will only keep confusion in this sport to a maximum.

 

And eventually destroy the sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basketball Traveling Rule. Does Tex mean the NBA rule that allows anywhere from 3 to 5 steps and then the double footed hop or the college rules that allow 2 to 3 steps and the double footed hop. Why not just simply state that once the gun has been been picked up that one of the shooters two feet cannot be moved, since we are using basketball as an example, one foot would act as the "pivot" foot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basketball Traveling Rule. Does Tex mean the NBA rule that allows anywhere from 3 to 5 steps and then the double footed hop or the college rules that allow 2 to 3 steps and the double footed hop. Why not just simply state that once the gun has been been picked up that one of the shooters two feet cannot be moved, since we are using basketball as an example, one foot would act as the "pivot" foot.

Because it would be a boring game...

 

Unless you're saying if there is a round in the chamber...

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basketball Traveling Rule. Does Tex mean the NBA rule that allows anywhere from 3 to 5 steps and then the double footed hop or the college rules that allow 2 to 3 steps and the double footed hop. Why not just simply state that once the gun has been been picked up that one of the shooters two feet cannot be moved, since we are using basketball as an example, one foot would act as the "pivot" foot.

 

So, are you proposing that we can no longer move with a long gun? That they have to be picked up, shot, and set down in the same location?

 

No more "take it with you"?

 

Removing the rules stating the conditions that a long gun must be in prior to moving with them?

 

Is that really where we are headed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Basketball Traveling rule – aka movement with a firearm. Once the firearm is cocked, one foot must remain in place on the ground until the firearm is made safe. This means, on revolvers, you may move, restage, or re-holster when the hammer is down on an empty chamber or expended case. You may move with a rifle or shotgun when the action is open or hammer(s) down on an empty chamber(s) or an expended case(s).

 

RO1 "Glossary of Terms" p.29

(for those commentators who obviously are unaware of the TEXt & application of the rule)
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

RO1 "Glossary of Terms" p.29

(for those commentators who obviously are unaware of the TEXt & application of the rule)

 

See PWB, I read that definition...and I have no problem understanding it...

 

And I've been called dumb, stoopid...even an A-hole...so if I can understand it...I would think ANYONE would be able to understand it.

 

:o

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.