Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 CAT and others who want this rule to remain: Have you ever seen someone break the 170 while retrieving a dropped round????? No... But my previous post explains why I'm for leaving it the way it is. Just my opinion.... No rope needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Somebody get me some used stretchy rope!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston CAS Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 RO 1 page 24 under MSVs Doh, I assumed the RO handbooks were for... ROs. Got some reading to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fillmore Coffins, SASS #7884 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Doh, I assumed the RO handbooks were for... ROs. Got some reading to do. "RO" does not stand for Range Officer but, Range Operations. Fillmore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 There are many more CAS shooters than WBAS shooters, most WBAS shooters are seasoned shooters. Therefore, they make fewer mistakes ; breaking the 170. Comparing CAS to WBAS probably not the best example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston CAS Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 "RO" does not stand for Range Officer but, Range Operations. Fillmore Yeah I see that now. It's true what they say about when you "assume" something. It's too bad I'm busy when my club is doing their RO training next month. I would have loved to have been able to go to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 There are many more CAS shooters than WBAS shooters, most WBAS shooters are seasoned shooters. Therefore, they make fewer mistakes ; breaking the 170. Comparing CAS to WBAS probably not the best example. Just an example of a SIMPLE rule that hasn't had the dire consequences that are predicted if we dispense with the MSV for picking up dropped ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Canyon Kid #43974 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 So a shooter loading a shotgun from staged rounds on a prop drops one round back on the prop while attempting to use it. He picks it up and uses it, currently no penalty. If he picks the round from his shotgun belt and drops it on same prop. Picks it up and fires it for a big penalty. How is one action safe and the other is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Somebody get me some used stretchy rope!!!!! GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Somebody get me some used stretchy rope!!!!! That way Gunner wunt die, he kan still reech tha ground with hiz toes till he sees the error of his ways!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Possum Skinner, SASS#60697 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I agree with Pale Wolf and others. Get rid of this needless rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nawlins Kid SASS #36107 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Here is a couple questions for all the folks who are against the rule change. 1. In the shooters HB " Staged ammunition dropped back where it was staged is not considered “dead.” Now why is there no movement to change that part of the rule!!!! Is it really lest safe if the ammo is dropped back where it was staged, or dropped from an ammo belt??? 2. As we all know the penalty for breaking the 170 would be the same for either action. So let's say a stage instructions say stage ammo. Now a shooter decides for some reason he wants to stage the ammo in lower spot on a prop where he may have to bend a little are you going to tell him he can't or just make sure he doesn't break the 170?? Nawlins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa Fe River Stan,36999L Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 "SAFELY" would be without breaking the 170º rule (for which there is an existing penalty) or dropping a firearm (for which there are existing penalties) Breaking an EXISTING safety rule would be penalized. Retrieving a dropped/ejected round without breaking an existing SAFETY rule would be allowed under the rule. As mentioned previously, there is often confusion regarding actual application and enforcement of the rule as it stands now. The MSV is for RETRIEVAL of a dropped round, which involves physical manual movement...whether the shooter USES the round or not...but IF used, hits with that ammo still count. FWIW - Has ANYONE read the text of the proposal?...particularly the section that points out that, under current rules, dropped ammunition MAY be retrieved by a shooter once s/he completes the stage WITHOUT any restrictions as to location of the dropped ammo (including from the GROUND) or whether the shooter happens to have firearms in hand while doing so? Why not allow it during the stage engagement? Any shooter (new or experienced) will likely NOT attempt retrieval from "boot sole" level...unless that is the last round available and the shooter is going for a clean match. Most of us can't (won't) bend over that far with a gunbelt and SG ammo belt on anyway. Practical application of the allowance will NOT cause a proliferation of muzzle breaks and dropped revolvers, IMO. (as demonstrated by the lack of such restriction in WBAS regs) + a billionjillion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 That way Gunner wunt die, he kan still reech tha ground with hiz toes till he sees the error of his ways!!! You're a hoot Amigo! LOL GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fillmore Coffins, SASS #7884 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 So a shooter loading a shotgun from staged rounds on a prop drops one round back on the prop while attempting to use it. He picks it up and uses it, currently no penalty. If he picks the round from his shotgun belt and drops it on same prop. Picks it up and fires it for a big penalty. How is one action safe and the other is not? It's worse than that Kid. The penalty occurs when the shooter touches the round. It need not be fired, but you probably know that. Fillmore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 It's worse than that Kid. The penalty occurs when the shooter touches the round. It need not be fired, but you probably know that. Fillmore close, not touches,,,, retrieves,,,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrel Cody Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Define retrieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Personally, I believe the rule should go away. However, if shooters start picking up rounds off the ground and are charged with breaking the 170 and it becomes a frequent penalty, then I see it as a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 It's worse than that Kid. The penalty occurs when the shooter touches the round. It need not be fired, but you probably know that. Fillmore Actually, there MUST be some actual movement of the round to constitute "retrieval". Simply touching it or reaching for it is not subject to the MSV penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston CAS Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 So what exactly is the purpose of the rule? To keep people from crawling on the floor with a weapon drawn? If so, why not change the rule so that it applies if it hits the ground/floor instead of simply dropping the round. That way it can be picked up off a table safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 So what exactly is the purpose of the rule? To keep people from crawling on the floor with a weapon drawn? If so, why not change the rule so that it applies if it hits the ground/floor instead of simply dropping the round. That way it can be picked up off a table safely. BINGO!!!!! the rule was put into effect to keep you from breaking a rule!!! so now you git a penalty to keep you from getting a penalty or something like that!! AGAIN, has anyone ever seen someone breaking the 170 while retrieving a dropped round??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Rick, SASS #49739L Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 My fear is that, should the TGs vote this in, any unclear language with be clarified with a nullification by the WB, as we saw in the closed lever issue. Common sense tells us that this is not a huge safety issue, so let's let it go away peacefully. CR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 So what exactly is the purpose of the rule? To keep people from crawling on the floor with a weapon drawn? If so, why not change the rule so that it applies if it hits the ground/floor instead of simply dropping the round. That way it can be picked up off a table safely. Why not remove the penalty for ANY retrieval. When the current rule was initially discussed, there was a proposal to allow retrieval from the height of a "standard hay bale" or higher. This was back in the days when some clubs were still writing stages that had shooters engaging targets while kneeling behind bales/boxes/&tc. The intent here is to dispense with a preemptive rule without adding more verbiage to the rulebooks by requiring more definitions of terms and restrictions. IIRC (I wasn't there) the proposal stalled out last year due to trying to limit from where a round could be retrieved. To reiterate: If such retrieval can be done SAFELY (without incurring a SDQ or MDQ), why not allow it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 then the ROC wud need to make sure the WB is on board, which from my prior experience with them says they are in agreement with doing away with it. although, the ROC isn't in charge of what comes up for a vote.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 My fear is that, should the TGs vote this in, any unclear language with be clarified with a nullification by the WB, as we saw in the closed lever issue. Common sense tells us that this is not a huge safety issue, so let's let it go away peacefully. CR The language of the proposal has already been "pre-approved" by the Wild Bunch. MY fear is that the TGs will attempt to "amend" the verbiage beyond what is intended and kill it by beating it to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Rick, SASS #49739L Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 The language of the proposal has already been "pre-approved" by the Wild Bunch. MY fear is that the TGs will attempt to "amend" the verbiage beyond what is intended and kill it by beating it to death. Arrrgh Matey - Make 'em walk the plank then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The language of the proposal has already been "pre-approved" by the Wild Bunch. MY fear is that the TGs will attempt to "amend" the verbiage beyond what is intended and kill it by beating it to death. + a billion zillion ba zillion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echeconnee Drifter Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 the proposal stalled out last year due to trying to limit from where a round could be retrieved That's a good point to keep in mind here. Instead of taking some half-measure of defining safe places and ways to retrieve a dropped round, the rule should either be abolished in its entirety, or kept in place as is. Attempting to craft a rule to handle every possible safe and unsafe way of retrieving a round is doomed to failure. No matter what you do, people are gonna be upset. So to the TGs, I say vote on it as it stands rather than attempting to write a new rule to clarify everything ('cause your clarification will only muddy things up even worse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elk Creek LeMieux Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The hardest thing in the world for me, starting this game, was not reaching for dropped/ejected rounds. On the other hand, I have no issues keeping a gun down range. Plus a million for this one going away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cinch, SASS#29433 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 BINGO!!!!! the rule was put into effect to keep you from breaking a rule!!! so now you git a penalty to keep you from getting a penalty or something like that!! AGAIN, has anyone ever seen someone breaking the 170 while retrieving a dropped round??????? Exactly! At first glance I was kinda against the change without specifying "on a prop" or the like. But now I am good with it and without any additional language or explanation that could be lawyered beyond common sense. With the types of matches that have developed without straw bales, kneeling, and a premium on transitions and the like it almost makes sense to mandate that shooters must retrieve dropped ammo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nawlins Kid SASS #36107 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 My fear is that, should the TGs vote this in, any unclear language with be clarified with a nullification by the WB, as we saw in the closed lever issue. Common sense tells us that this is not a huge safety issue, so let's let it go away peacefully. CR At the last Summit some TG's beat this rule down with sooooo many revisions I thought it would never end. Why they could not even agree on what the definition of the ground should be. The WB approved the verbiage so we know their intent. There should not be a long dragged out discussion on it. Nawlins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Why not remove the penalty for ANY retrieval. When the current rule was initially discussed, there was a proposal to allow retrieval from the height of a "standard hay bale" or higher. This was back in the days when some clubs were still writing stages that had shooters engaging targets while kneeling behind bales/boxes/&tc. The intent here is to dispense with a preemptive rule without adding more verbiage to the rulebooks by requiring more definitions of terms and restrictions. IIRC (I wasn't there) the proposal stalled out last year due to trying to limit from where a round could be retrieved. To reiterate: If such retrieval can be done SAFELY (without incurring a SDQ or MDQ), why not allow it? I'm on the same page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I'm on the same page ohhhh, thet makes us all feel much better!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 ohhhh, thet makes us all feel much better!!!! Remind me to tell you about last week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Remind me to tell you about last week call me later!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.