Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

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

Misty Moonshine

Rule "change" - Open & Empty

Recommended Posts

Uh OhI put it in the sink not quite empty and soaked it with water!!! Is that a SDQ or MDQ??? :lol:

 

It was Orville Redenbachers, if that makes a difference! :P

 

Depends on whether there were live kernels in it at the time it was discarded......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on whether there were live kernels in it at the time it was discarded......

 

Now you'll have to define "live kernels". Technically they are actually dead kernels as they were discarded by the corncob but on the other hand, they still will pop.

 

So Rye, did you discard the affore mentioned bown by dropping the bowl in the sink or did you carefully lay it in the sink? At what point was the kernel dead?

 

Only PWB could possibly answer this enigma. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole conversation reminds me of a conversation I overheard between Walter and Leroy, those 2 wild and crazy ducks.

 

Walter ask Leroy:

"How much duck poop does it take in a pond to have 'poopy water'.

 

Leroy said:

 

"I don't know. What do you think I am, some Quaaack".

 

;):lol::lol:

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now you'll have to define "live kernels". Technically they are actually dead kernels as they were discarded by the corncob but on the other hand, they still will pop.

 

So Rye, did you discard the affore mentioned bown by dropping the bowl in the sink or did you carefully lay it in the sink? At what point was the kernel dead?

 

Only PWB could possibly answer this enigma. :huh:

What happens if there were kernels in the bowl when Rye dropped....er uh...carefully staged the bowl in the sink but on the way down the bowl turned upside down and all the kernels fell out....MSV or a no call? :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KK, you know that depends on whether he tried to retrieve them or just let them lay there. And did he just touch one or did he actually move it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing reminds me of the time when my son was scared to death that the dog was going to die after it ate one of his socks.

 

"Son," I told him. "This too shall pass."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing reminds me of the time when my son was scared to death that the dog was going to die after it ate one of his socks.

 

"Son," I told him. "This too shall pass."

 

Did everything come out alright Jack? 😁😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if my intention is too Always discard my long gun with action open

Just sayin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, one way to solve this is to have a Board of Directors made up of Territorial Governors that represent each Region we have now and NOT every club. That would cut this down to what?....six or seven Regional Governors? Under those guys, you would have State Governors who would report the concerns of each state but that would NOT vote. So the BOD would consider rule changes and undertake the business of the organization based on the information they get from each state they have in their respective Region AND listen to special bodies like the ROC. The whole thing can be done with Skype once a year, once a quarter or for special meetings.

 

This is very much like what USPSA does now. Yes, it insulates "Joe Average" shooter a bit by adding one more layer of bureaucracy but you have a much more manageable and usually committed group of individuals to deal with.

I like the way you think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btt so no one else will have to look for et!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way you think!

I come from Nevada

I am not sure I like that approach, having to deal with dingie harry as a (greater / higher up) type representative

 

but mileage will often times vary depending on model years and environmental conditions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a long gun closes whether intentional or not and it is empty there is no safety issue. If there are empties or live rounds left in the gun then there are penalties for that. At a recent state match several shooters shucked the empties out of their double and closed it to stage it vertical rather than going back to a table to lay it down. This was safer than trying to stage it vertically open. I don't see why we are now trying to prevent this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to understand the safety issue created if a double shooter shucks his empties, lays it down either closed or open. I think a case can be made that there is a larger safety issue for a double shooter staging his double open vertically versus closed vertically. Over the years I have seen double shooters have all kinds of issues staging a double open vertically including knocking their loaded rifle off the same prop. The Feb rule I think is a safer rule than the new new new rule at least for doubles. Closing a double before vertically staging after shooting it allows the shooter a much easier time getting it safety into the prop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because of the s x s prejudiced in the world today

I carry both a s x s and 97 on my gun cart and use what is appropriate for the stage design

 

closing a empty s x s would rock for staging opportunities and one less gun to pack around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a long gun closes whether intentional or not and it is empty there is no safety issue. If there are empties or live rounds left in the gun then there are penalties for that. At a recent state match several shooters shucked the empties out of their double and closed it to stage it vertical rather than going back to a table to lay it down. This was safer than trying to stage it vertically open. I don't see why we are now trying to prevent this.

We are discussing this because the NEW Shooters Handbook forbids this very thing.

Read the NEW June Shooters Handbook page #17

So NOW you will receive a 10 sec MSV if you don't discard the gun open and empty.

Safety doesn't appear to be the driving force behind the new edict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it may be more than we realize, from what I understood the rule change voted on did not allow for purposeful closing of a long gun. if that is correct, then somewhere along the line it changed to purposeful closing wud be ok,,,

 

if I am right, to keep the sanctity of having things voted on protected, it does need to go back to only inadvertent closing as ok.

 

and it needs to stand on as was voted on, not what someone may have wanted it to say... we all know intent doesn't mean squat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a long gun closes whether intentional or not and it is empty there is no safety issue. If there are empties or live rounds left in the gun then there are penalties for that. At a recent state match

 

several shooters shucked the empties out of their double and closed it to stage it vertical rather than going back to a table to lay it down. This was safer than trying to stage it vertically open. I don't see why we are now trying to prevent this.

 

See post #1 (this thread).

Also comments on the TG Wire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it may be more than we realize, from what I understood the rule change voted on did not allow for purposeful closing of a long gun. if that is correct, then somewhere along the line it changed to purposeful closing wud be ok,,,

 

if I am right, to keep the sanctity of having things voted on protected, it does need to go back to only inadvertent closing as ok.

 

and it needs to stand on as was voted on, not what someone may have wanted it to say... we all know intent doesn't mean squat!

Now, I don't know because I wasn't there...but this is what I keep seeing quoted as what was voted on and passed

 

1) If the action of a long gun closes after being opened and emptied, should there be a "no call" if in fact, the firearm is empty, or a penalty if a spent case or live round is ejected? If the gun closes, the shooter will be the ONLY one to touch the gun until it is shown clear or otherwise, at the end of the stage.

For 80.08% Against 19.11% Abstain 0.81% PASS

 

 

I don't see anything about on purpose or accident...

 

So, what was actually voted on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That IS the actual agenda item from the ballot as I understand from the meeting minutes and reports...along with the % .

So...it appears (to me) that the MAJORITY voted in favor of the item "as written" ... without any added verbiage or clarifying amendments.

 

The current rule edits are based on the INTENT of the rule as discussed (but on which there was no vote).

 

That's what the OP indicates as well...the way I read it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That IS the actual agenda item from the ballot as I understand from the meeting minutes and reports...along with the % .

So...it appears (to me) that the MAJORITY voted in favor of the item "as written" ... without any added verbiage or clarifying amendments.

 

The current rule edits are based on the INTENT of the rule as discussed (but on which there was no vote).

 

That's what the OP indicates as well...the way I read it.

 

 

I wonder what the vote would have been if the current verbiage was on the agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are we saying that either people didn't know what they were really voting on, or we had to pass the item to know what was the intent of the item...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone could make a few bucks using their cell to video record the EOT TG and shooters safety meeting for those not attending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That IS the actual agenda item from the ballot as I understand from the meeting minutes and reports...along with the % .

So...it appears (to me) that the MAJORITY voted in favor of the item "as written" ... without any added verbiage or clarifying amendments.

 

The current rule edits are based on the INTENT of the rule as discussed (but on which there was no vote).

 

That's what the OP indicates as well...the way I read it.

 

 

Actually, I think the edits reflect the intent of those that made the edits not the intent of those that voted for the rule. The old pre-summit rule was clear and unambiguous. The rule voted for at the summit and implemented after the summit was clear and unambiguous. Now that we have injected the notions of "intentional" or "accidental" we have a rule full of ambiguities and very difficult to apply. Let's just shelve the new rule and go back to the rule as it existed pre-summit. That would address the concerns of the WB and still leave us with a clear and unambiguous rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello SAH,

 

As someone who was there, I think <OPINION MODE ON ALERT> it would not have passed, as it was not the original intent of the change to add a penalty, or to require a TO's judgment of the shooter's intent about a closed gun.

 

I agree that open and empty is a good thing. However, if the gun closes somehow, after the fact, penalties should be determined by whether the gun is empty or not. If it is not empty, either the shooter did not open it after firing the last round or the shooter overloaded or the shooter did not shoot the required number of rounds. It doesn't matter as we have not changed those penalties. If it is closed and empty, it should be a no call. BOD to the shooter should cause us to assume it was accidental.

 

Getting into whether we think the shooter intentionally closed the gun is too subjective.

 

Regards,

 

AM :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello SAH,

 

As someone who was there, I think <OPINION MODE ON ALERT> it would not have passed, as it was not the original intent of the change to add a penalty, or to require a TO's judgment of the shooter's intent about a closed gun.

 

I agree that open and empty is a good thing. However, if the gun closes somehow, after the fact, penalties should be determined by whether the gun is empty or not. If it is not empty, either the shooter did not open it after firing the last round or the shooter overloaded or the shooter did not shoot the required number of rounds. It doesn't matter as we have not changed those penalties. If it is closed and empty, it should be a no call. BOD to the shooter should cause us to assume it was accidental.

 

Getting into whether we think the shooter intentionally closed the gun is too subjective.

 

Regards,

 

AM :ph34r:

+1,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Allie !

 

We are going to write stages that do not allow vertical staging or discarding of a long gun and simply get on with our CAS lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now you'll have to define "live kernels". Technically they are actually dead kernels as they were discarded by the corncob but on the other hand, they still will pop.

 

So Rye, did you discard the affore mentioned bown by dropping the bowl in the sink or did you carefully lay it in the sink? At what point was the kernel dead?

 

Only PWB could possibly answer this enigma. :huh:

They were dead kernels and Yes I put the bowl in the sink gently. :o

 

What happens if there were kernels in the bowl when Rye dropped....er uh...carefully staged the bowl in the sink but on the way down the bowl turned upside down and all the kernels fell out....MSV or a no call? :o

Just a couple of dead kernels, Orville Redenbacher usually pops 'em all off! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think the edits reflect the intent of those that made the edits not the intent of those that voted for the rule. The old pre-summit rule was clear and unambiguous. The rule voted for at the summit and implemented after the summit was clear and unambiguous. Now that we have injected the notions of "intentional" or "accidental" we have a rule full of ambiguities and very difficult to apply. Let's just shelve the new rule and go back to the rule as it existed pre-summit. That would address the concerns of the WB and still leave us with a clear and unambiguous rule.

Agree, but I believe you, Allie Mo, and many others will agree that the post-summit rule was a big plus for TOs, and in some case good for shooter if he/she was ever called back for closed action that was found to be legally open. Just nonsense two weeks before a match with magnitude of a World Championship such as EOT.

 

Besides, do all TOs follow the SASS wire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will get it straightened out, I have full faith in the ROC and the WB to get er dun!! once it is ironed out, it will be ok, after all, in all reality this is a really small thing, considering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think the edits reflect the intent of those that made the edits not the intent of those that voted for the rule. The old pre-summit rule was clear and unambiguous. The rule voted for at the summit and implemented after the summit was clear and unambiguous. Now that we have injected the notions of "intentional" or "accidental" we have a rule full of ambiguities and very difficult to apply. Let's just shelve the new rule and go back to the rule as it existed pre-summit. That would address the concerns of the WB and still leave us with a clear and unambiguous rule.

I agree with most of what you said but with the new rule edit you do not have to figure out if it was intentional or accidental . They got around that by stating that the gun has to be open when discarded . So no matter how it closes you have to open it before you discard it . Soooo the question really is when is it considered discarded .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will get it straightened out, I have full faith in the ROC and the WB to get er dun!! once it is ironed out, it will be ok, after all, in all reality this is a really small thing, considering...

 

Cheyenne, you're probably right.

 

But you know what knaws on me the most about this item..... the way it was handled from the beginning.

 

Why didn't Tex just get on the TG forum with the ROC and address this concern and allow them to work out this NEW definition? Then, they could have made the correction in the RO manuals, posted the new and correct definition on the Wire, and saved alot of this stuff.

 

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..... he had to show himself in the CC with some big editorial to get it all stirred up.

 

It could have been handled much more appropriately and in my opinion, professionally.

 

Correcting the rule and its meaning is a small thing. But the manner in which this started seemed to have a goal of 'struting ones prominence' at the expense of discrediting some VERY honorable, hard working Pards.

 

My hats off to Misty and PaleWolf. And all the TG's and ROC members.

 

Hopefully, I'll get to meet some of you someday.

 

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cheyenne, you're probably right.

 

But you know what knaws on me the most about this item..... the way it was handled from the beginning.

 

Why didn't Tex just get on the TG forum with the ROC and address this concern and allow them to work out this NEW definition? Then, they could have made the correction in the RO manuals, posted the new and correct definition on the Wire, and saved alot of this stuff.

 

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..... he had to show himself in the CC with some big editorial to get it all stirred up.

 

It could have been handled must more appropriately and in my opinion, professionally.

 

Correcting the rule and its meaning is a small thing. But the manner in which this started seemed to have a goal of 'struting ones prominence' at the expense of discrediting some VERY honorable, hard working Pards.

 

My hats off to Misty and PaleWolf. And all the TG's and ROC members.

 

Hopefully, I'll get to meet some of you someday.

 

 

..........Widder

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many times it is more difficult to explain what is....... than what should have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you said but with the new rule edit you do not have to figure out if it was intentional or accidental . They got around that by stating that the gun has to be open when discarded . So no matter how it closes you have to open it before you discard it . Soooo the question really is when is it considered discarded .

I suggest you re-read all the posts in this thread and in http://sassnet.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=223207 as your statement makes no sense and is incorrect.

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.