Harman Hammer, SASS #20214 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 If you are the TO and you noted a procedural error by a shooter, but none of the three spotters did. Would you make the call, or go with the spotters (no call)? Qualify your answers with rule book page quote if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Hanger #3720LR Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Spotters count misses and or hits. The TO is the one who is watching the shooter for safety and procedural. If the counter calls it, they aren't doing their job of counting. Just like a TO who watches targets for misses instead of watching shooter for safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusta B. Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 A spotter calls what he/she sees. Miss, safety, or P. The TO sorts it out & notifies the scorekeeper. Nothing wrong with a spotter calling a P or safety. ROI pg 7 K) The Timer Operator polls the three Spotters to determine the number of misses and solicits their input regarding any penalties; and then calls those numbers to the Score Keeper and the competitor in a loud, clear voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 From p. 6-8 ROI "5G) The Timer Operator should not count misses, but watches the shooter for unsafe acts, correct target engagement, and stage procedures in addition to counting shots fired, if possible... 8. Spotters ... Have the responsibility to count shots and misses and to verify the targets were engaged in the correct order for the required number of shots." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widder, SASS #59054 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 The Spotters and TO have to call it as they see it.....period. Now as to any discrepency in their calls, good communication between the TO and Spotters is a necessity. The TO can make a 'P' call, even if the spotters don't see it. But the TO should make sure that what they saw was in fact what the shooter did. I've known TO's to have it wrong before. ..........Widder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder SASS #13056 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 R. O. I, version 19.8, June 2014. Page 7 L) It is up to the Timer Operator to verify at least two of the three Spotters agree on misses.The Timer Operator should consider input from the Spotters regarding procedurals and/or safety violations as well as personal observations during the stage. Final determination regarding assessment of penalties is made by the Timer Operator. I marked the pertinent sentence in bold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Oops, I forgot to answer the question and just quoted the rule. It would be a "best practice" for the TO to tell the Spotters what he/she saw. The light bulb could come on for them. However, if they were adamant that the shooter shot the scenario correctly, what I would do as a TO would be dependent on if I could be dissuaded from my view that there was a P. It is possible that the TO (or the spotters) misunderstood the scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anvil Al #59168 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Call it or they cheated every other shooter there. That is if the TO is 100% sure. Rules have already been pointed out. If you don't call it. Give up the timer and start picking brass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harman Hammer, SASS #20214 Posted October 11, 2014 Author Share Posted October 11, 2014 Further clarification... None of the spotters saw the "P" nor did they put up an argument/disagreement either way. The TO just said "did anybody see that?" He was sure of the "P". So again would you call it or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Okay, if you put it that way... If I was sure and no one disagreed, I'd call the P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korupt Karl Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Hammer; I assume as a TG you know the answer and are just putting us through an exercise. Page 6 or the RO 1 manual states: The Timer Operator should not count misses, but watches the shooter for unsafe acts, correct target engagement, and stage procedures in addition to counting shots fired, To answer the original question: I would call it......a procedural is what it is and to protect the field it must be called. The TO is often in the best position to observe. KK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 yes, If absolutely without a doubt stick a needle in your eye, sure! course I would do the same to override one too .... but not misses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anvil Al #59168 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Further clarification... None of the spotters saw the "P" nor did they put up an argument/disagreement either way. The TO just said "did anybody see that?" He was sure of the "P". So again would you call it or not? I would call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Okay, if you put it that way... If I was sure and no one disagreed, I'd call the P PS Also, if I was sure and couldn't be convinced otherwise, I'd call the P. I will never believe just because someone holds the timer, they are always correct or are wrong because someone disagrees. In other words, it depends on the specific circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harman Hammer, SASS #20214 Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 KK... Not an exercise... I know the answer, but some involved do not know the correct rule, or what is proper. Marauder... Yes that is the exact section I was reading from. I try not to be a rules Sheriff to penalize the shooter, but rather to protect the other shooters that are harmed by not making a call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother King, SASS #69031 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 It's darn hard to argue in favor of awarding someone a penalty, but that's why the TO makes the big bucks. "P"... long guns to the unloading table. Bummer, Cowboy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 a "it sucks to be you" kind of stage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widder, SASS #59054 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 YES, I would call it. YES, I have called it. YES, its been called on me by the TO only. YES, it was the correct call. AND YES.....I would welcome ANY of you Pards above to be my TO anytime. ..........Widder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Sadie Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 R. O. I, version 19.8, June 2014. Page 7 L) It is up to the Timer Operator to verify at least two of the three Spotters agree on misses. The Timer Operator should consider input from the Spotters regarding procedurals and/or safety violations as well as personal observations during the stage. Final determination regarding assessment of penalties is made by the Timer Operator. I marked the pertinent sentence in bold. The verbiage in this para. was changed earlier this year. It wasn't written clearly to resolve this debate though. A separate para. states clearly how misses and hits are called, but not procedures. It does not state the TO can overrule the spotter's call or make a call on their own. It says "consider input from the spotters" ...."Final determination regarding assessment of penalties". Interpreted by many shooters (including TGs) in different ways. 1) That the TO can overrule the call or make a call on their own; 2) That the TO assesses: gets input from the spotters regarding procedurals, safety, and personal observations, and makes the final call (reporting it to the scorekeeper). Of course, you have to have 1 person take a poll, then call it (report to scorekeeper). Well ... we have 3 spotters to break ties. Ex; 1 spotter could call 3 misses, another call 3, and another call 2. So the TO would assess and call 3, because 2 spotters called 3 misses. So let's step back for a second and look at the bigger picture. There is no perfect spotter out there and no perfect TO. TOs sometimes see things that the spotters don't see and spotters sometimes see things that the TO doesn't see. Then the debate begins. If there is doubt, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter. When you are a TO, you could be watching the guns and think you are watching the targets and be very sure of yourself that what you saw did happen, when it really didn't. But, you are the TO and if the TO can "overrule" the spotters, then you end up penalizing the shooter based on your one and only call...the way one person who saw it. It could be where no one saw it (not even folks that are watching and not spotting, but the TO "sees" it)....could be write or could be wrong. The TO's most important job is safety. If the ruling is that a TO could overrule the spotters, then you will have TOs start to watch multiple activities and lose focus of safety. I spoke to a local TG in June 2013, about this and his call was that a TO could not overrule spotters on misses or procedurals. That's why we have 3 spotters top break a tie. Remember, no one is perfect, not even the TO. Sometimes the spotters give Christmas presents and sometimes they take them away. So where is it written that the TO has the authority to call a procedural on their own (or overruling the 3 spotters, re a procedural)? It "may" elude to it (based on interpretation), but does not emphatically state it. This has been a grey area for quite some time and comes up on the wire often, with no resolution and clearly stated rule placed in the book. So...the debate continues. ...I pause...I hit the "Post" button: and wait for it......fire away...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 because I sed so!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Joe, SASS #60708 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 If the call is one based purely on what you see (not involving a tricky rules interpretation), then the TO has to call the P if he saw it. Remember to give benefit of doubt to shooter. If you are not SURE it was a P, don't call it. If you have a tricky rule interpretation, tell the shooter how you are interpreting the rules. Shooter can always disagree and take a rules interpretation to the MD. Remember that the TO is not perfect, but he or she typically has more training under his belt than do folks spotting. And often, more range time doing that job than the spotters have. And more range time for his fellow shooters to understand how well he handles the TO job, based on high visibility and responsibility he takes on when he picks up that timer (everyone is watching for his mistakes, almost as much as they watch the shooter). The TO is the person for the job. Let him do it. Good luck, GJ PS - And I don't find anything ambiguous about the new wording in the RO I manual. To me, it says the TO considers inputs from the spotters about penalties, but has to make the decision that he believes is correct. Meaning he can (with some degree of risk to his reputation for accuracy if he's wrong) totally ignore what the spotters have reported for penalties. So, another vote for Marauder's position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Sadie Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 because I sed so!!! Now that was funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 back in 07 or so the ROC, when I was on it, had a huge discussion about this, I was adamant the a P should be the same as a Miss as far as a majority calling it, without the TO. I was over ruled, big surprise! lol the decision then was the TO has the final say on Ps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Really......I don't remember shooting with all y'all today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Further clarification... None of the spotters saw the "P" nor did they put up an argument/disagreement either way. The TO just said "did anybody see that?" He was sure of the "P". So again would you call it or not? YES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 This may seem harsh but, GET A DA#@ rope and hand 'im Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Sadie Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 YES. Suggestion: Perhaps the RO I handbook should be updated with with more direct verbiage as to the authority of the TO (and some TG's / TO's notified). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Suggestion: Perhaps the RO I handbook should be updated with with more direct verbiage as to the authority of the TO (and some TG's / TO's notified). That was done on the last rewrite to further clarify the duties and responsibilities of the T/O, spotters and scorekeeper. It is up to TGs, TOs and Instructors to maintain current knowledge of the rules. Those clarifications were published as a notification after the Summit meeting at which they were announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Sadie Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 That was done on the last rewrite to further clarify the duties and responsibilities of the T/O, spotters and scorekeeper. nf It is up to TGs, TOs and Instructors to maintain current knowledge of the rules. Those clarifications were published as a notification after the Summit meeting at which they were announced. Thank you for helping out PaleWolf. Yes...saw this change a while back and the RO I handbook was updated with the info. "L) It is up to the Timer Operator to verify at least two of the three Spotters agree on misses. The Timer Operator should consider input from the Spotters regarding procedurals and/or safety violations as well as personal observations during the stage. Final determination regarding assessment of penalties is made by the Timer Operator." Suggestion: This has been brought up on other threads, so there is still a misinterpretation. Perhaps this section should be changed to be more specific, stating that the TO has the authority to call a procedural on their own or overrule the spotters. Thank you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 I thought that's what is says? ,,,which is why that section was recently rewritten. Failure of ROs, TOs and others to actually READ the rules and apply as needed (then come to the Wire with questions that have already been answered) is no reason, IMO, to continuously rewrite the manuals until they "get it"...as they're obviously not bothering to stay "up to date" on the published & posted changes & clarifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubious Don #56333 Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Okay, if you put it that way... If I was sure and no one disagreed, I'd call the P What do you call three spotters who all say "I didn't se no P" ?!?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 What do you call three spotters who all say "I didn't se no P" ?!?? ex-spotters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackey Cole Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 It is the to job to call procedurals as you are in the only position at times to see them per the roI pg 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Mushman Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Three blind mice? In my experience, the TO is in the best position and has the most experience and "engagement" with the shooter and the sequence, to call this. It requires more knowledge, experience, WILLINGNESS and engagement of the TO than it does a spotter/counter. NO denigration intended. Spotters are involved, but the TO is committed (think about a ham 'n egg breakfast, the chicken was involved, but the pig was committed). Many spotters are not RO/TO qualified and may not be as current and attentive as the TO (of course, there are frequently exceptions to this, but I think it is true, on average). I capitalized WILLINGNESS above for two reasons:: First, you have to be willing to take on a pretty big responsibility for the safety, score (penalty) and aiding in shooter assistance. Secondly, you have to be willing to make these kind of difficult calls - to do what is right in the name of fairness for all competiors - on your friends and not so friends, evenly. Beyond Responsibility, that is Accountability. I thought long and hard after taking the ROI and II courses before I picked up the timer. Harvey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harman Hammer, SASS #20214 Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 Thanks for all the qualified answers. Unfortunately some TO's (RO II certified) do not stay current with regards to new interpretations/re-writes. Pass the class then that's it for the learning other than hopefully listening to a well versed rules person on the range that is more qualified, or discussions here on the wire. PWB... I, and many others appreciate your commitment to explain/interpret the rules as the ROC have discussed behind closed doors, and openly reviewed opinions here on the wire. All rules are intended to be clear so everyone is held to the same expectations weather it be east or west of the Mississippi, north, or south of the Mason Dixon line. Unfortunately TO's of different levels of knowledge, and being American human natured, question rules they deem unclear. This is why it is good to have these type of discussions openly on the wire, with out fear of being beat down, or belittled for the questions asked. I think Cheyenne Culpepper, and Shamrock Sadie may have a point. That is it fair to have one TO be able to make a procedural call without further reinforcement by a single spotter, or a majority as has been suggested. And,or should this rule as written be reinforced with specific verbiage. Again I apply the rules as written as I interpret them (hopefully correctly, and fairly) by the ROC higher ups. That said I was highly frustrated when not one, but two calls were not made at a recent shoot. The first shooter left (I assume because they were not having a good day), and the other fully admitted after the match that he did deserve a penalty. I feel confident the TO in question is or will read these responses, and take them to heart in the future. Thus I believe this to be a fruitful thread that others may learn from. Harman "Off Soap Box Now" Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.