WTC

[Buck D. Law, SASS #62183]

So someone says they were swept (aka a gun is pointed at someone) and we need collaboration?

[Anvil Al #59168]

You are responding to my post. I said, in my post (has nothing to do with OP) no one else, and that includes the TO witnessed the infraction,, as in everyone was occupied with other things., Think TO was involved with the score keeper to be sure the time was recorded properly for example. Bottom line, you as the TO has to rule in favor or not , what the one sole person that really believes what he saw and has reported to you as the TO. Now, what would you do?

 

I will reveal what I would do later down this thread.

 

 

Sorry. I don't play those kind of what if games.

 

You left to many things out that might change the call to be made.

 

BUT.

 

I have had to make a call when only one person seen it.

And with what was presented to me at the time.

I made the call. And the shooter was SDQed.

 

But that does not mean that would be my call every time.

Each case would be different.

For many different reasons.

[Anvil Al #59168]

So someone says they were swept (aka a gun is pointed at someone) and we need collaboration?

 

 

"With what I observed and the information available"

 

Don't leave that part out.

 

Lets not forget what the TO sees.

[Most Wanted]

So, as a TO, if someone comes up to you and states that someone swept them while going to ULT, aNd they are very sure, no one else saw it, what is the call?

This should be interesting.

If shooter disagrees it's a no call . BOD shooter . This is a no win , somebody is going to be pissed . As has been said as a TO you have other chores to do so once the shooter is heading to the ULT you may lose sight of them .

[Nichols Creek, SASS #77627]

Buck, we were on the same posse. I was beside the shooter coming off the stage. This is the stage with the forward movement. I did not observe a sweep of a gun at any time. Maybe Billy should have gone to the posse Marshall or the match director. If my call had been overruled, so be it. But at the time, it was my call to make. And I take full responsibility for my call.

[Buck D. Law, SASS #62183]

Someone being swept should not require collaboration.

[Nichols Creek, SASS #77627]

I'm sure you are correct. I gave the benefit of my doubt to the shooter

[Most Wanted]

Someone being swept should not require collaboration.

You had a lot to say then backed off just in time because I hit the quote and didn't understand why this sentence came up . So working from memory the TO in question missed a couple SDQs and was also given the gift of a no call of a shot he placed within five feet of himself . I gotta ask why as a TG and RO instructor why you didn't take all of this to the MD? Sometimes its best not to get involved but this sounds way over the line .

[Blastmaster]

Told ya this would be interesting.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Verrrrrrry interesting...

 

Also...a bit disappointing...

 

Phantom

[Nichols Creek, SASS #77627]

Yes I had an AD. The round did not hit the target. Of that I'm sure. There was discussion, that I was not involved in, on where the round impacted. To my knowledge, and evidently, no one could say for sure. So yes, I got the benefit of doubt. There was another call I was not sure of, so yes, I availed myself of having a RO3 handy and asked for clarification. I was also not the only TO on the posse. There were at least 3 of us taking turns.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Yes I had an AD. The round did not hit the target. Of that I'm sure. There was discussion, that I was not involved in, on where the round impacted. To my knowledge, and evidently, no one could say for sure. So yes, I got the benefit of doubt. There was another call I was not sure of, so yes, I availed myself of having a RO3 handy and asked for clarification. I was also not the only TO on the posse. There were at least 3 of us taking turns.

Too many Monday Morning Quarterbacks...IMHO...

 

SXS's are hard to keep barrels upright...or pointed in a perfectly safe direction when headed up stream...thank gawd the action has to be open too! RO3 is a good point of reference.

 

Phantom

[Blastmaster]

Too many Monday Morning Quarterbacks...IMHO...

 

SXS's are hard to keep barrels upright...or pointed in a perfectly safe direction when headed up stream...thank gawd the action has to be open too! RO3 is a good point of reference.

 

Phantom

Phantom,

 

OP said SG barrel was near parallel to ground,,, as in horizontal, as he headed upstream. Could still be pointed somewhat in a safe direction but would raise my awareness and uneasiness level up a peg.

[Rance - SASS # 54090]

We are a small club..

 

We had this situation happen..

Breaking the 170 (by carrying all his long guns from the loading table

to the firing line by the front of the forearms) by a Long Time Respected Shooter..

He was almost dragging the butt stocks..

 

Shooters called it out..nothing happened..

Shooters went to the match director... told him..

It was one of his buddies that had the infraction..

He EARNED all by himself a MDQ''

The MD came over to our posse and told us all to be careful of the 170..

We lost about 5 shooters that day who said "We won't be back"

 

Rance

Thinkin' when ya see the call.. make the tough one buddy..

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Phantom,

 

OP said SG barrel was near parallel to ground,,, as in horizontal, as he headed upstream. Could still be pointed somewhat in a safe direction but would raise my awareness and uneasiness level up a peg.

I've heard folks have recollections that were soooo far off...

 

Had a shooter whom I have great respect for say I broke the 170 while moving with my shotgun...that I had it pointed right at a friend that was video taping. Didn't make the call...which was weird...I said that I didn't and that I was 100% sure I didn't. I would have lived with him calling a 170 violation as perhaps I was wrong...I can live with it...never would have put up a fuss. We all do the best we can do in making calls...right??

 

Anyway, afterwords we looked at the video and I wasn't even close to violating the 170.

 

So...eye witness accounts can be wrong.

 

Cheers!

 

Phantom

[Captain Bill Burt]

Thank you Palewolf. The PM was at the loading table. The RO was discussing if a sdq had been committed by the shooter with the spotters. Myself and at least 3 other people were swept and we did inform RO, but there was no call. As I stated in op the barrels were almost parallel with the ground. I thought you should always at least make an attempt to keep barrels straight up if there is no other good direction to point them.

So according to the OP, multiple posse officials informed the TO that they had been swept and he issued a no call, or the PM did.

 

I made the call. I did not observe a penalty. Mr broncstomper did say he saw a sweep, I have no memory of any other collaboration of a sweep. With what I observed and the information available,no penalty was assessed. I stand by my decision. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback a call, but it was my decision to make and, I did. Next shooter!

So were you the RO discussing a potential penalty, or the PM at the table? Since you're saying you did not observe a penalty and have no memory of any other collaboration of a sweep, then someone isn't reporting the facts accurately. Either multiple people reported a sweep, or only one did.

 

Someone being swept should not require collaboration.

I agree, unless as the final 'decider' I think the reporter is lying/mistaken.

 

I'm sure you are correct. I gave the benefit of my doubt to the shooter

So you doubted Broncstomper's statement that he had been swept? Why?

 

I've been in similar situations, I usually remember pretty well who provided me with information about the incident. You're saying you can't remember whether anyone other than Broncstomper mentioned being swept? How long ago did this occur?

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

We are a small club..

 

We had this situation happen..

Breaking the 170 (by carrying all his long guns from the loading table

to the firing line by the front of the forearms) by a Long Time Respected Shooter..

He was almost dragging the butt stocks..

 

Shooters called it out..nothing happened..

Shooters went to the match director... told him..

It was one of his buddies that had the infraction..

He EARNED all by himself a MDQ''

The MD came over to our posse and told us all to be careful of the 170..

We lost about 5 shooters that day who said "We won't be back"

 

Rance

Thinkin' when ya see the call.. make the tough one buddy..

I do not know why you object to someone carrying long guns from the loading table by their forearms with butts low?? Is this illegal?

[Wyatt]

Have read this topic several times and I am lost and confused.

 

So.............there are RO 3's, you can have more than one TO at a time and the shooter, who was also the TO, had an AD that landed inside of 10 feet and then didn't see himself sweep people and didn't call it on the shooter/TO due to BOD?

 

OK...........typical topic on the wire

[Most Wanted]

I've heard folks have recollections that were soooo far off...

 

Had a shooter whom I have great respect for say I broke the 170 while moving with my shotgun...that I had it pointed right at a friend that was video taping. Didn't make the call...which was weird...I said that I didn't and that I was 100% sure I didn't. I would have lived with him calling a 170 violation as perhaps I was wrong...I can live with it...never would have put up a fuss. We all do the best we can do in making calls...right??

 

Anyway, afterwords we looked at the video and I wasn't even close to violating the 170.

 

So...eye witness accounts can be wrong.

 

Cheers!

 

Phantom

Seen that more than a few times and as a TO overturned the call. That's why if only one person says it happened and the shooter says otherwise I go with the shooter. What if I was looking back to check for a hull or any number of things for a split second somebody thought they were swept. Many people think because they can see the hole at the end of the barrel that they've been swept or the 170 was broke. Many times not true. If I took a case to court saying one thing and the accused said the other and I had No other proof how far would I get. I don't see this any differently.

[Griff]

Hmmmm. If someone thinks they've been swept by the muzzle of firearm... and the TO doesn't make the call they think is right, they should go to the MD and protest the call... The MD has the ultimate responsibility to make the call. The MD SHOULD interview all parties that may have input into the situation and then make the final call based on said input and the MD's uncommon good sense.

 

Of course, this should all take place as close in time as practicable to the alleged infraction.

 

Beyond that, any comment from me is only supposition and conjecture.

[Cypress Sun]

First off, this is not meant as a slight to S x S shooters.

 

Over the last year, I've noticed that some S x S shooters have gotten lax when transporting guns to the LT, to the line, to the ULT and to their carts. Just a few weeks ago, at a local match, I removed the barrel(s) from a S x S to demonstrate how people sweep others and also how not to sweep others. It seemed to be an effective way to get the point across without using an actual full gun. I don't know of anyone who enjoys getting a gun pointed at them.....let alone me.

 

This thread kind of falls into the "If you think it's a miss, it's a hit" category. If you KNOW you've been swept, then you've been swept.

 

When you can see light at the OTHER end of the barrels.....you've been swept. No matter who the offender is......you have to make the call.

 

CS

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Have read this topic several times and I am lost and confused.

 

So.............there are RO 3's, you can have more than one TO at a time and the shooter, who was also the TO, had an AD that landed inside of 10 feet and then didn't see himself sweep people and didn't call it on the shooter/TO due to BOD?

 

OK...........typical topic on the wire

Wow, finally a post that makes sense!!

[Cherokee sgt.]

As I said before I was at this match. On the stage in question & posse in question - posse Marshall had stage DQ , why I don't know. so were calls on this posse lax ?

My understanding of 170 rule is on target ingagement , not From Stage To ULT

This stage was very congested & no easy way to get to ULT

T.O. Said he stood by his call.

RO1 rule said he can make the call.

So was a guilty man not hanged on the word of one person?

OR was a innocent man not hanged on the word of one person ?

Calls are made we should NOT take them personally !!!

Next shooter up !

[Bad Hand]

As I said before I was at this match. On the stage in question & posse in question - posse Marshall had stage DQ , why I don't know. so were calls on this posse lax ?

My understanding of 170 rule is on target ingagement , not From Stage To ULT

This stage was very congested & no easy way to get to ULT

T.O. Said he stood by his call.

RO1 rule said he can make the call.

So was a guilty man not hanged on the word of one person?

OR was a innocent man not hanged on the word of one person ?

Calls are made we should NOT take them personally !!!

Next shooter up !

My understanding of the 170 rule differs from yours, I thought it was from gun cart to gun cart.

[Griff]

My understanding of the 170 rule differs from yours, I thought it was from gun cart to gun cart.

It is... with the caveat that if even keeping the muzzle in the 170º, you might sweep someone. You know that sometimes, in their zeal to pick brass, reset targets, the posse might move between the shooter trying to get to the unload table and downrange, it is prudent for the shooter to carry long guns with their muzzles straight up. Which might not be in accordance with the "letter of the law", it's certainly in accordance with the "spirit of the law." I think PWB quotes that from pg 33 of the RO3 manual.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

My understanding of the 170 rule differs from yours, I thought it was from gun cart to gun cart.

 

NO...it is NOT.

 

If my cart is at the back of the shooting bay, I'm certainly NOT going to maintain the muzzles in a DOWNrange orientation with the posse, shooters, T/O, spotters, etc between my cart and the firing line/stage.

 

Advise an RO1 refresher (and a reading of the definition of the 170º rule - RO1 p.29

[Coyote Kincaid]

My understanding of the 170 rule differs from yours, I thought it was from gun cart to gun cart.

+1 here as well but I practice not sweeping anyone from when they come out of my vehicle until they go back in to my vehicle. Muzzles should always be up. I know from experience that some SxS will close on you if held straight up by the barrels so they need a slight angle to them but that would not break the 170.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Some of y'all need to READ the definition of the 170º rule...again...and again...

then stop & think about how it would be applied on the range/firing line/stage.

 

It is NOT "from gun cart to gun cart"...and never has been.

[Marauder SASS #13056]

I have often seen folks say that the 170 rule was broken or that they were swept because they could see the hole in the barrel.

 

I believe it was Santa Fe River Stan that had a good visual of what the 170 truly looks like. It is only 5 degrees off of the horizontal or vertical. That is about 10 inches forward of the shooting line at 10 feet from the shooter.

 

As such, you can normally see the entire bore with only slight distortion and still be within the 170 degree rule. And it is not easy toe "measure" with the eye. That is why many people believe they have been swept or saw the 170 broken, when it was not.

 

Normally, when folks do break the 170, it is pretty obvious because they have went beyond vertical or horizontal. Even though that is only a few degrees different, it is much easier to determine that was it 160 or 175 degrees.

 

So, my experience is that yes, sometimes it does need to be validated.

[Cherokee sgt.]

My understanding of the rule book comes the book & common sense

& of course PWB

My point of my post was on this stage posse members should have given shooters clear access

To the ULT !!!!

Thanks

[Anvil Al #59168]

I have often seen folks say that the 170 rule was broken or that they were swept because they could see the hole in the barrel.

 

I believe it was Santa Fe River Stan that had a good visual of what the 170 truly looks like. It is only 5 degrees off of the horizontal or vertical. That is about 10 inches forward of the shooting line at 10 feet from the shooter.

 

As such, you can normally see the entire bore with only slight distortion and still be within the 170 degree rule. And it is not easy toe "measure" with the eye. That is why many people believe they have been swept or saw the 170 broken, when it was not.

 

Normally, when folks do break the 170, it is pretty obvious because they have went beyond vertical or horizontal. Even though that is only a few degrees different, it is much easier to determine that was it 160 or 175 degrees.

 

So, my experience is that yes, sometimes it does need to be validated.

 

I have also seen someone try and call being swept.

When in fact.

THEY was standing INSIDE. The shooters 170.

 

They had moved up so they could see better. But in doing so. Had moved inside the shooters 170.

Shooter did not break the 170. But that person had been swept.

But it was that persons fault for being up to far. Not the shooter.

[Jefro, SASS#69420]

The barrels were almost parallel to the ground. When I said muzzle, he ignored me and kept on walking.

I guess we'd have to be there to get the whole schpill. However most of us have at one time or another warned someone about muzzle or been warned ourselves. The usually action is to take corrective action, not ignore you.

 

I have often seen folks say that the 170 rule was broken or that they were swept because they could see the hole in the barrel.

 

I believe it was Santa Fe River Stan that had a good visual of what the 170 truly looks like. It is only 5 degrees off of the horizontal or vertical. That is about 10 inches forward of the shooting line at 10 feet from the shooter.

 

As such, you can normally see the entire bore with only slight distortion and still be within the 170 degree rule. And it is not easy toe "measure" with the eye. That is why many people believe they have been swept or saw the 170 broken, when it was not.

 

Normally, when folks do break the 170, it is pretty obvious because they have went beyond vertical or horizontal. Even though that is only a few degrees different, it is much easier to determine that was it 160 or 175 degrees.

 

So, my experience is that yes, sometimes it does need to be validated.

That was a really good diagram of the 170, I copied it but can't find it anywhere. Maybe Stan would post it again for us. Good Luck

 

Hmmm I wonder if schpill is a real word

 

Jefro Relax-Enjoy

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

I wonder if schpill is a real word

 

No, but spiel is. And I'm pretty sure that is what you wanted.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spiel

 

And if you hang around on this thread long enough, you are likely to get one.

 

Good luck, GJ

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

My understanding of the 170 rule differs from yours, I thought it was from gun cart to gun cart.

That is not possible on many stage configurations.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

 

NO...it is NOT.

 

If my cart is at the back of the shooting bay, I'm certainly NOT going to maintain the muzzles in a DOWNrange orientation with the posse, shooters, T/O, spotters, etc between my cart and the firing line/stage.

 

Advise an RO1 refresher (and a reading of the definition of the 170º rule - RO1 p.29

 

Thank you PWB.

 

I was about to make comment of what you stated. (Plus, I'm oughta blue ink in my computer... )