Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

WTC, part 2


Cheyenne Culpepper 32827

Recommended Posts

Snakebite asked the question,

 

TO removes hull or casing from a long gun instead of calling shooter back, what's the call?

 

Posses or shooters given wrong instructions for a stage are often required to reshoot the stage or take a P.

 

Shouldn't the shooter in this case be given the same options, with the exception of a msv instead of a P?

 

of course TO needs to be told NOT to do that!

 

I would think shooter should be given the choice, msv or reshoot the stage...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that. But TO messed with it instead of calling shooter to fix it,,,

 

shud that be a consideration?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the shooter had already fired next gun, he was not given the chance to correct the problem on his own.

TO should not have done that but you can't penalize the shooter for the TO's actions unless the next gun had been fired before hull was removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but shud that shooter have the advantage he received by not being called back and by the TO in errantly removing the cause of a msv?

 

in several instances whole posses or individual shooters have had to reshoot a stage because instructions were improperly read, or receive a P.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say if the shooter had already fired the next gun before the TO messed with it the they had already earned the MSV. If the TO messed with it prior to the shooter shooting the next gun the shooter was not given the chance to correct it. Bad TO, shame on you! I don't see how this compares to a whole posse having to reshoot because they were given the wrong instructions, they didn't shoot the same stage as the other posses. TO make mistakes all the time, we are not perfect, sometimes it benefits the shooter, sometimes it doesn't. I just hope that when I make a mistake that it benefits the shooter and not the other way around..

Link to post
Share on other sites

how cud you give the shooter the advantage he received? bad TO? yes but shooter got big advantage...

Link to post
Share on other sites

how cud you give the shooter the advantage he received? bad TO? yes but shooter got big advantage...

Not of his doings. How can you penalize him for something the TO did? If the TO removed the hull prior to the next gun fired, he took away the shooters ability to correct the problem as he has the right to do. If you give a reshoot without the MSV carrying over you are still removing the MSV the same as a no call due to the TOs interference. If you give a reshoot and carry over the MSV the shooter is still being penalized for something the TO did. This is not a coaching/no coaching issue, it is a TO interference issue. Personally I think the best resolution for all is no call, next shooter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what is to stop the TO from doing it again??? what's wrong with giving a clean reshoot? no one is given a benefit. unless it is decreed that the shooter should have gotten the MSV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know after giving this some thought the reshoot for TO interference does make some sense (if next gun has not been fired or pistol had not been cocked ) in that case MSV . On the last post I was a bit naïve and never gave cheating a thought so I think a no call might be taken advantage of . But , anything short of a MSV has helped a shooter that left his gun in the wrong condition . So at this time the reshoot seems the least offensive .

 

See reshoots #2 A range officer impeding the progress of a shooter .

 

Who's to say that the shooter wouldn't have received some Verbal help from someone else and been able to fix the problem . So if the TO had already removed the hull there was NO possibility of the shooter fixing it . I see that as impeding . BTW on the last thread I said no call and the next post I may hear a good argument and go with MSV . These are just opinions and I would be interested in how PWB would call it .

Link to post
Share on other sites

MM - I disagree, I think it is exactly a no coaching issue. The TO never said anything, the shooter shot the next gun, the fact that the TO removed the hull doesn't matter, the shooter earned the MSV as he/she didn't not correct it before the next gun was fired. In the end, the shooter is responsible for his or her stage unless the RO physically gets in their way or gives them improper direction.

 

 

Improper coaching that either impedes the shooter’s progress or results in a procedural penalty may be grounds for a

reshoot. RO 1 page 4, also reference RO 1 page 22

 

I can see your stance of RO interference though, if the TO did something before the next gun was fired without the shooters knowledge or the TO saying 'hull' or whatever that could be interpreted as RO interference. I could also be interpreted as the TO cheating on behalf of the shooter. BUT, the TO is not required to coach. BUT AGAIN as the primary directive is to safely guide the shooter thru the stage, and the penalty is an MSV, well maybe...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a shooters sets down a gun with the action closed, case on the lifter, liver round on the lifter, live round in the chamber or any other thing, NO one should touch the gun(s) except the shooter who is shooting the guns at the time.

 

If the shooter comes back and fixes the issue before shooting next gun or not will receive the penalties appropriate to the action.

 

Proper or improper couching does not change the issue.

Couching is not mandatory..it's optional.

 

Changing the condition of the gun as left by the shooter, does not leave it to show the shooter the error that receives the penalty.

------------------------

I for one will ask the shooter if your would like help during the stage or not.

Some do and some don't .

Some that don't want help will call TO interference and ask for a re shoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue (including the "Lever Buddy" question) is up for further clarification by the WB-mandated rewrite of the "Action Open" rule(s).

 

The following statements from the proposed rewrite (REF: TG Summit Discussion Items) should clear up the intent and application of the call when the T/O chooses to actively "assist" the shooter in that manner:

 

Appropriate penalties will be applied if it is not clear, plus a 10 sec safety if the closing was caused by the shooter. No one other than the competitor may handle the gun in question.

 

(this is reiterated FOUR TIMES in the SHB & RO1)

 

Should someone other than the competitor open the action of the gun, any penalties that would have been incurred will still be applied.

 

(this would also apply to CLEARING a firearm, whether the action is open or not)

 

This is NOT the same as catching a falling firearm to prevent damage (to personnel or property).

This is NOT the same as a T/O (PM? or Berm Marshal) giving wrong info to a posse causing a mass reshoot situation during a match.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grizz , I have seen more times than I can count a shooter set down SG and take off like a bolt of lightning with TO in tow only to have a Spotter call the shooter back for a hull . In the case of Snakebite's thread the TO removed the possibility of that ever happening . That to me is range officer interference . I don't like any of the answers to this situation .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can see that for sure, but I still think the shooter owns it. I'll be interested to see PWBs take on it.

I see PWB commented while I was typing. Also reference his comments on post 14 on the WTC thread.

 

Interesting side bar, what happens if a spotter gives the shooter wrong direction? Looking at the RO 1 descriptions of each of the duties, right up at the top it says that all of them are Range Officers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue (including the "Lever Buddy" question) is up for further clarification by the WB-mandated rewrite of the "Action Open" rule(s).

 

The following statements from the proposed rewrite (REF: TG Summit Discussion Items) should clear up the intent and application of the call when the T/O chooses to actively "assist" the shooter in that manner:

 

(this is reiterated FOUR TIMES in the SHB & RO1)

 

(this would also apply to CLEARING a firearm, whether the action is open or not)

 

This is NOT the same as catching a falling firearm to prevent damage (to personnel or property).

This is NOT the same as a T/O (PM? or Berm Marshal) giving wrong info to a posse causing a mass reshoot situation during a match.

 

Shooter stages rifle with butt on floor and barrel against wall . Shooter moves forward through a door way and TO follows behind . As TO gets to doorway he sees the rifle falling so as to prevent any damage or further safety issues he catches it . What would that call be . To me since the gun was falling and no way for the shooter to stop it I would still award the penalty . Thanks for your help .

Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue (including the "Lever Buddy" question) is up for further clarification by the WB-mandated rewrite of the "Action Open" rule(s).

 

The following statements from the proposed rewrite (REF: TG Summit Discussion Items) should clear up the intent and application of the call when the T/O chooses to actively "assist" the shooter in that manner:

 

(this is reiterated FOUR TIMES in the SHB & RO1)

 

(this would also apply to CLEARING a firearm, whether the action is open or not)

 

This is NOT the same as catching a falling firearm to prevent damage (to personnel or property).

This is NOT the same as a T/O (PM? or Berm Marshal) giving wrong info to a posse causing a mass reshoot situation during a match.

 

 

Thank you very much

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification PW!! that's what I was going for.

 

Most Wanted, catching the rifle or any firearm is a no call, if it didn't break the 170...by the TO that is

Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT, the shooter has not earned the penalty until the next gun is fired. Had the TO not INTERFERED the shooter could have returned and cleared it WITHOUT penalty. Assuming that the TO cleared it prior to the next gun being fired there was no penalty earned at that point so a clean reshoot would be in order for RO interference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as PW said, MSV,,,,

 

now if someone else hollers hull and he went back,,,, but couldn't fix it because the TO interfered, would that be grounds for a reshoot????

Link to post
Share on other sites

The shooter should not be penalized because someone corrected a condition that the shooter was not given a chance to correct themselves. The shooter may have very well caught the condition themselves or been notified by another range officer before the next gun was fired, you will never know. As far as the shooter being given an advantage over other shooters, what about when two or all three spotters make the wrong call as far as misses? Crap happens. Some shoots you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.

No call, next shooter.

 

Fillmore

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, here we have it, official call is msv, but tha's ok,,,, each posse can call it as they see it... hmmmm

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, here we have it, official call is msv, but tha's ok,,,, each posse can call it as they see it... hmmmm

I say put this up to the rules committee. It's very wrong to penalize the shooter for a penalty that could have been corrected had the shooter been given the opportunity.

What if the TO did it to cheat his fellow competitor into getting a penalty. No thank you, I don't want to swallow that!

 

 

Fillmore

Link to post
Share on other sites

as PW said, MSV,,,,

 

now if someone else hollers hull and he went back,,,, but couldn't fix it because the TO interfered, would that be grounds for a reshoot????

That is my point. Say I shoot my shotgun, restage it open and there is an empty in it and I didn't see it. I start for the next shooting position but before I shoot my next gun someone in the peanut gallery yells "HULL" I look and see the empty in the shotgun. As I turn to go correct it the TO clears it. I haven't earned a MSV yet because I haven't fired my next gun but I can't fix it because the TO interfered. Now I get a MSV? I believe what PWB was quoting applies AFTER the penalty is earned. If someone other than the shooter clears it AFTER the penalty had been earned the shooter still gets the penalty even though they didn't get to see it. That's what I think but I'm probably wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe one of the spotters would have seen it and said something maybe the shooter would have heard in time to do something, maybe he would have gone all the way and scored a touchdown if they hadn't tackled him.

 

Bottom line is TO's keep yer grubby little mitts of the guns and hulls unless the guns are falling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in all reality, I've never seen this exact scenario happen, that is TO clear it but the shooter was coming back to clear it,,,

 

in that case common sense should prevail and a reshoot granted,,,, I think.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is up to the time that the penalty is actually earned, if the TO interferes and precludes the shooter from correcting it without penalty the shooter should not be penalized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reshoot is an option for the shooter should he/she be given "bad coaching". The shooter has the option of taking or declining a reshoot. The shooter should never be forced into taking a reshoot because of bad coaching or TO interference.

We have a plethora of penalties for when the shooter does wrong. Why assign a penalty when the shooter does nothing wrong.

 

Fillmore

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case the is no safety violation until the shooter fires the next gun so there really is no penalty to undo.

 

Fillmore

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.