What's right and fair?

[Wyatt]

Recently a few WTC's threads have been the topic of conversation around these parts. There are several rules that leave room for some judgment calls on the part of the TO

 

Several Pards have said they don't like certain suggested guidelines and wouldn't enforce the penalties while others are willing to make those calls. I see both sides of the coin................plus RO I states don't be a "hard-ass"

 

My question is..................can a TO make a judgment call that is both right and fair?

[Fargo Bill, SASS #4942]

With all due respect, this tone is what may be a problem in our society. If rules and laws are not to the liking of a small O/O, they speak out and possibly demonstrate to change things or not have to obey said restrictions. Rules are to be followed by all participants. Lets not make judgment calls unless backed by the rules. This country could use a few more HARD ASSES and a few less SOFT ASSES.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Howdy Wyatt.

 

I never view a penalty as something I hand out... BUT RATHER something the shooter earned.

 

A lot of folks like to implement 'benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter' when in actuality, NO DOUBT exist in some instances.

 

Some of the problems that might exist in handing out some penalties is that MANY of US think a penalty exist for some issues when in fact, no penalty does exist. A good example of this is the 'GF pumping his pistols'.

 

But one thing WE ALL must not overlook and that is we are all human and we're gona have mistakes made in our favor sometimes, and sometimes a judgement call will go against us. Its just the nature of it all.

 

Some folks think that the popular TOP GUNS get calls to go in their favor. You and I both know this ain't so.

 

If anything, I've seen New Shooters get 'grace' for no-calls that I couldn't believe was happening..... such as constant breaking of the 170 violation.

I wasn't the TO, MD nor did I own the property. So there was nothing I could do. But it has dampened my enthusiasm to shoot at that range alot.

 

Best regards,

 

 

..........Widder

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

I always dislike the notion that enforcing the rules is being a "hard-ass." Nothing causes more hard feelings at a match than for the rules to be applied inconsistently. If a TO doesn't want to enforce the rules he/she should surrender the clock. A TO that is not enforcing the rules is CHEATING everyone else at the match. Mistakes happen. But a conscious decision to ignore application of the rules is not a mistake.

[Yul Lose]

IMHO, the constant breaking of the 170 degree is a catastrophe waiting to happen. I thought that we were all safety officers during a match.

[Ya Big Tree]

An earned violation is both Right and Fair and needs to be applied consistently to all.

[Colt McCloud, SASS #65003L]

Yup - the TO is to blame for everything. IE: The latest split shotgun stage and not enough rounds for 6 targets. Why didn't the shooter hear what was required in the stage description when it was read out. Why didn't the shooter hear the round count of 10 -10 - 6+. Why didn't the shooter check his belt and ensure he had enough rounds for the stage and a couple of extras for when he drops them, they fall out, or just disappear. Do we need to change the title to TO - Babysitter. Nope - I still enjoy running the timer and if someone has a problem because of something THEY did, it's their problem not mine! Attitude is everything and after just recently converting to "Gunfighter" I'm having more fun than ever.

[Arcadia Outlaw, SASS 71385]

Recently a few WTC's threads have been the topic of conversation around these parts. There are several rules that leave room for some judgment calls on the part of the TO

 

Several Pards have said they don't like certain suggested guidelines and wouldn't enforce the penalties while others are willing to make those calls. I see both sides of the coin................plus RO I states don't be a "hard-ass"

 

My question is..................can a TO make a judgment call that is both right and fair?

 

I think some folks should reread original post.

 

AO

[Russ T. Sites]

Penalties are part of the game just as misses and even bonuses. I never had any bad feelings about getting a penalty I earned it just the same as if I shot it clean

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

With all due respect, this tone is what may be a problem in our society. If rules and laws are not to the liking of a small O/O, they speak out and possibly demonstrate to change things or not have to obey said restrictions. Rules are to be followed by all participants. Lets not make judgment calls unless backed by the rules. This country could use a few more HARD ASSES and a few less SOFT ASSES.

 

Amen ! +1

[Most Wanted]

I think the problem is this is a game and on one hand the TO is supposed to assist the shooter but he also needs to make the call. Some of the recent WTC threads have shown that these calls vary. Heck most of the WTC threads show that. Even on the latest thread PWB referenced a rule that is very seldom called. I think if it's in the books it should be called and I'm sure there's been some people in the past that thought I was a hard a$$ because of that. Oh well. It's your stage and you Will own it. That doesn't mean I agree with all the rules and wouldn't mind some changes. But until then I'm going to call it like I see it and on some of the gray area rules if the MD wants to overrule it that's fine. A game means nothing if we're not all playing it by the same rules.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

The only way that we can be fair is to be as close to the rule set as we can get. If you think something is a "judgement" then make the best and most honest judgement you can make. If the rules don't cover something, then it's probably not a penalty if the shooter does it.

 

I have umped a lot of baseball. And played a lot of baseball. The umps I liked to have in a game both knew the rules, and knew exactly what they would call a ball and a strike. And that a tie goes to the runner. And that if you are watching closely enough from the right angle,there are VERY few ties.

 

If you know the rules and you watch what you need to watch as a SASS TO or other range officer, there are very few judgement calls, but there are a few folks who may try bending rules in their own favor. Allowing that, is one more type of unfairness.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Shorty Jack Hammer]

I recently earned my very first SDQ (hopefully my only one) because I stopped short of the horse position I was supposed to be in, I drew my pistol and cocked it at the exact she time the TO said "too far away, move closer". I sidestepped close enough and started shooting. Of course I had traveled so when I was done the TO was falling all over himself apologizing that he had to give me an SDQ because he hadn't noticed I had cocked my pistol before he told me to move. I had no problem with that because I should have known better than to move and told him so. I thought that was right, fair, and certainly earned

.

[Blastmaster]

Recently a few WTC's threads have been the topic of conversation around these parts. There are several rules that leave room for some judgment calls on the part of the TO

 

 

Examples please, so we can be on the same wave length for further discussion.

[G W Wade]

my favorite western star was asked " who give you that black eye?" his reply was nobody give it to me I fought for it! I feel penalties are the same==some are a hard fight but some come easy GW

[Ace_of_Hearts]

I a recent shoot I caught a rifle that was headed for the ground.

I was told that I should have let it fall, or at least still given a penalty as it was obviously falling.

Additional input later in the shoot was the argument that other TOs probably would not have caught it, therefor it was unfair.

 

I gave the shooter no penalty and stood by it as was "right and fair".

No penalty can be assessed until the gun comes to rest.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

One of the most difficult calls is the 170. Did the shooter break the 170 when he carried his shotgun from position to position with barrel pointed almost straight up? Did shooter violate loading table procedures when his pistol goes bang click bang bang bang, especially when it happens a couple of times? Did shooter have one foot planted when he closed his shotgun upon arriving at a new position? Did cross draw shooter just come close or did he break the 170 when he reholstered? Was the TO OR spotters looking at shooters feet or downrange to see if shooter shuffled his feet while shooting through a small window? Tough situations for TO to make consistant decisions.

[Most Wanted]

I a recent shoot I caught a rifle that was headed for the ground.

I was told that I should have let it fall, or at least still given a penalty as it was obviously falling.

Additional input later in the shoot was the argument that other TOs probably would not have caught it, therefor it was unfair.

 

I gave the shooter no penalty and stood by it as was "right and fair".

No penalty can be assessed until the gun comes to rest.

Perfect example of team play. If you know for a fact that the only thing between the gun and the ground was you then the shooter earned the penalty. This has come up many times and opinions vary. Would I let the gun hit the ground? Probably not. Would I make the call if I caught it? Definitely.

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

While not all local shooters ever go to a Annual, State, or national match we play by the rules and assess all penalties "earned". Otherwise when a shooter does go to a shoot the rule you were "judgemental" on will bite them in the ass. Your easy on some shooters and the next TO isn't, who did the right thing?

 

The WTC calls clearly show that not everyone know the rules, and how to apply them. They also like to throw in what if's , could be's and maybe's to justify their way of thinking....not the rule and penalty that should be assessed.

 

Every penalty I have received I earned all the way up to MDQ. If they hadn't been assessed then I wouldn't have learned and other shooters would have been cheated.

 

Play by the rules...or change them.

Ike

[Blastmaster]

One of the most difficult calls is the 170. Did the shooter break the 170 when he carried his shotgun from position to position with barrel pointed almost straight up? Did shooter violate loading table procedures when his pistol goes bang click bang bang bang, especially when it happens a couple of times? Did shooter have one foot planted when he closed his shotgun upon arriving at a new position? Did cross draw shooter just come close or did he break the 170 when he reholstered? Was the TO OR spotters looking at shooters feet or downrange to see if shooter shuffled his feet while shooting through a small window? Tough situations for TO to make consistant decisions.

Either the bullet hit the proper target or it didn't. Either the shooter broke the 170 rule, or he didn't, either he shuffled his feet or move, or he didn't. Be very aware of the shooter as a TO/spotter and use your best judgement and gut feeling on what happened and if a written rule was broken.If there is doubt, then give it to the shooter. On major penalties such as breaking the 170 or moving with a cocked firearm,etc, it only takes one to call the penalty,,, and not a peanut gallery fence sitter either.

[Wyatt]

Examples please, so we can be on the same wave length for further discussion.

Here are a few that I can think of

 

The most recent one that Most Wanted refers to is not taking enough shotgun shells to the stage and earning a procedural as well as misses

 

My pet peeve is how far away from the loading table with loaded guns is too far. The rulebook clearly states loading area. Without a disclosed distance the call can be anything from arm's-length to what ever

 

Shooter finishes the stage and gets distracted. Instead of going to the unloading table they go to their gun cart. Some TO's will call a SDQ when the shooter takes hands off the long guns

 

These are a few of my favorite things!

[Tom Bullweed]

I will likely never serve as a TO or posse marshal. The best that I can do is be a right-and-fair spotter and shooter and a supporter of those brave one willing to be TOs and PMs.

Flagrant and intentional penalties should always be called, even if they are in the grey zone. Maybe shooters will understand that they should not be 'pushing' the envelope.

Penalties called on newer shooters will help them learn the game quicker. If they are having excessive penalties called then maybe they should have some offline coaching before shooting more stages.

The rules are to keep everyone safe and the playing field as level as possible.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Out of the intro in RO I handbook - something I had not really paid attention to, but we all should:

 

 

Consistency is important—undefined rules and gray areas cause hard feelings, misunderstandings, and arguments.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Cowboy Rick, SASS #49739L]

Some of what might be considered by observers to be a "judgement call" might just be pealing back the layers to find the least amount of penalty that can be applied. Yes, it's following the rules, but I see many occasions where folks responding to a WTC thread seem to be looking for the harshest interpretation of what happened. I try to look for the correct ruling, based on the circumstances, that least penalizes the shooter. No opportunity for a clean miss due to overlapping targets? Let's get the MD and decide if we'll call this a miss instead of a P. As long as the entire match is ruled the same, why be a hard ass and insist on the P? I know that shooters respect an attempt to make a fair call, whether it's a miss or a MDQ. Trying for an interpretation that hurts the shooter less is not being a "soft ass". If the hard call has to be made, it will be respected.

 

CR

[Amarillo Rattler]

I always dislike the notion that enforcing the rules is being a "hard-ass." Nothing causes more hard feelings at a match than for the rules to be applied inconsistently. If a TO doesn't want to enforce the rules he/she should surrender the clock. A TO that is not enforcing the rules is CHEATING everyone else at the match. Mistakes happen. But a conscious decision to ignore application of the rules is not a mistake.

I've EARNED four SDQs in nine years and deserved every one of 'em, though no one was at risk.

 

Three of the four are mistakes I'll never make again. Can't anticipate missing the holster with an all rounds fired revolver. Two were being away from the loading table with loaded revolvers and one for rifle hammer back on rifle after leaving the loading table.

 

I thank all four Range Officers for their calls.

 

AR

[Hoss]

Hardest for me is the 170. especially after the shooting is done and going to the unloading table. I've seen more than one shooter quite likley, albeit very briefly, break the 170. I guess the brain fades after shooting the stage. Its a hard call to make. Mosly we hear "MUZZLE" to remind the shooter. It would have to be pretty obvious for me to make that call. Aint much difference between 169 and 171! On the other hand, If I have no doubt in my mind that the shooter broke the 170, I would make the call, but I would have to be 100% sure.

 

Closest I have ever come was last week at the Texas State match. I was at the unloading table, a shooter came as close to breaking the 170 as possible with shotgun. I told him I thought he had come within about 1/64th of an inch from breaking the 170, to be more careful. Shooter was very careful after that.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

With all due respect, this tone is what may be a problem in our society. If rules and laws are not to the liking of a small O/O, they speak out and possibly demonstrate to change things or not have to obey said restrictions. Rules are to be followed by all participants. Lets not make judgment calls unless backed by the rules. This country could use a few more HARD ASSES and a few less SOFT ASSES.

 

Well if there are SOFT ASSES in SASS it is certainly not for lack of trying to get rid of them. The SASS rulebook has grown from a small simple rulebook that fit in your shirt pocket (I still have one) to three volumes of rules some of which require PWB to issue clarification on.

[Most Wanted]

 

Well if there are SOFT ASSES in SASS it is certainly not for lack of trying to get rid of them. The SASS rulebook has grown from a small simple rulebook that fit in your shirt pocket (I still have one) to three volumes of rules some of which require PWB to issue clarification on.

But if you'll notice many of the rules are designed around the shooters Bad luck, Costumes , Extra categories , etc. to give the shooters more options and a better chance at having a good day. We could really thin out the rule book but you may lose some shooters. After coaching baseball and basketball for many years I can live with any size rule book as long as it's clear.

[Rafe Conager SASS #56958]

the big issue is that if you (shooter) do thing incorrectly, why is it the TO enforcing the rules considered being a hard ass? If as a TO you are not enforcing rules correctly then the next TO calling a rule is doing the rest of us a disservice! the playing field needs to be level and fair to all, as a TO I had to enforce a safety when the shooter broke the 170 rule it was close but we(posse) had warned him before! For the 1st. 8 years of Cowboy shooting I avoided being a TO because I saw so many shooters argue with the TO after being called for an infraction or get mad at the TO for not telling them which gun to shoot or which target to shoot, for the last 2 years I have stepped up and taken the timer, but have a hard time finding people relive me by taking the timer, If the rules were hard and fast I feel that more people would step up! remember it is the shooters responsibility to understand the stage and follow the rules. Might be time for me to not take the timer just shag brass and count missis!

Rafe

[Most Wanted]

I would like to think that I'm an ok TO but by no stretch of the imagination have I been perfect. But through it all I have Never had anybody argue with me. I've only see a few people challenge someone else's call but that was done politely. Ok maybe a couple shooters weren't so polite. But hey it's just a game , don't let it get to you.

[BLACKFOOT SASS #11947]

Selective enforcement of the rules is not good enforcement!

 

Blackfoot

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

 

 

... the 170. especially after the shooting is done and going to the unloading table. I've seen more than one shooter quite likey, albeit very briefly, break the 170.

 

Please read the sections of this thread about where the 170 rule applies. It's only RIGHT AT the stage's firing line. Just don't sweep folks as you head for the unloading table or are working the guns at the unloading table.

 

You should not be calling a 170 degree penalty for the shooter walking safely back to the unloading table without sweeping someone.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Hoss]

 

Please read the sections of this thread about where the 170 rule applies. It's only RIGHT ON at the stage's firing line. Just don't sweep folks as you head for the unloading table or are working the guns at the unloading table.

 

You should not be calling a 170 degree penalty for the shooter walking safely back to the unloading table without sweeping someone.

 

Good luck, GJ

just for clarification, I was not refering to a vertical breaking of the 170. it was horizontal, and was extreamly close to sweeping somebody I like a lot.....me!

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

just for clarification, I was not refering to a vertical breaking of the 170. it was horizontal, and was extreamly close to sweeping somebody I like a lot.....me!

Then the call would not be "breaking the 170," it would be "sweeping another shooter with an empty gun." Which would be a SDQ when it happens.

 

At the firing line, the 170 can be broken in all the directions, it's a "cone".

 

Good luck, GJ

[Most Wanted]

CLOSE is not a penalty