Fordyce Beals Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Shooting instructions say to : Shoot two single tap sweeps on the five targets.... I am running the timer and note that the shooter starts on the left and single tap sweeps to the right target completing the first single tap sweep. The shooter starts the second single tap sweep on the right and finishes on the left completing the second single tap sweep. At the completion of the stage i question the spotters and they say clean and a procedural, he double tapped the right target. I am taken back and ask did not the two sweeps fulfill the instructions? The stage writer is on the firing line and when questioned by the spotters says his intention was to not shoot the last target twice so the counters stand their ground. Did the fifth (end of first sweep) and sixth shot ( start of the second sweep) on the same target constitute a procedural given the written instruction? Should the intention of the stage writer have any bearing after the stage is shot? Am I acting like I am on a different planet? Fordyce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusta B. Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Sweeps were stated as being separate in stage instructions. No harm, no foul, no P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goody, SASS #26190 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Sweeps were stated as being separate in stage instructions. No harm, no foul, no P Agree, writer should have included "No double taps". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Barleycorn, SASS #76982 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Poor stage writing PS Was there no posse Marshal walk through? This is were some unclear stage writing can get tweaked so shooters are clear on what is required to shoot the stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Rick, SASS #49739L Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Clean - no P. Stage instructions were followed - you were right. You can also overrule a P, but not misses CR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boggus Deal #64218 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 No poor stage writing. Not poor instructions from posse marshal, Per the OP, its two single tap sweeps on five targets. 5th shot is END of first sweep. 6th shot is beginning of second sweep. Those spotters need some training to think! If that was his intention, then he should have written it in. But shooter can't read stage writer's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusta B. Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 As stated "The stage writer is on the firing line and when questioned by the spotters says his intention was to not shoot the last target twice so the counters stand their ground." So, by the stage writer's statement - poor stage writing for what he wanted. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 As stated "The stage writer is on the firing line and when questioned by the spotters says his intention was to not shoot the last target twice so the counters stand their ground." So, by the stage writer's statement - poor stage writing for what he wanted. ? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Canyon Kid #43974 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Unless no double taps were identified in reading of stage or questions following same, NO P. In these cases it is my practice to ask unless someone else does it first. Stage writer can only clarify stage intent before anyone shoots it. After stage read and clarifications/questions answered, those are the total instructions. One shoot I know of we have a match director that provides his own interpretations of stages after many shooters have shot a stage and then as a spotter/timer just goes his own way with penalties no matter what is written. That is keeping match turn out lower than it could be. Match director for that matter changes SASS rules he does not like, goes his own way as a spotter/RO timer on them also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Everytime a stage is written like this there are always questions. If the stage writer wants to make it clear that the two sweeps are supposed to start on the same end he/she should say so or say no double taps. Around here we just say yes you can shoot the sweep dirty, i.e., double tap the last target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 The TO should have thanked everyone for their opinion and then instructed the score keeper NOT to record a "P". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Barleycorn, SASS #76982 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 No poor stage writing. Not poor instructions from posse marshal, Per the OP, its two single tap sweeps on five targets. 5th shot is END of first sweep. 6th shot is beginning of second sweep. Those spotters need some training to think! If that was his intention, then he should have written it in. But shooter can't read stage writer's mind. Sure it was bad stage writing, if he intended no double tapping the last target. How could anyone who shoots enough CAS to write stages not have seen the double tap end target coming? How was this not cought at the PM walk through? Someone had to ask if it was a "yes you can" double tap the end or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Whiskers Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 John Barleycorn, SASS #76982, on 17 Nov 2016 - 12:01 PM, said: Sure it was bad stage writing, if he intended no double tapping the last target. How could anyone who shoots enough CAS to write stages not have seen the double tap end target coming? How was this not cought at the PM walk through? Someone had to ask if it was a "yes you can" double tap the end or not? How do we know if there was a walk through with PM's? Some clubs are small enough that getting 1 posse is a norm. But it was poor stage writing; and if it was 1 posse the stage writer should have spoken up with his intentions as the stage was being read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Brules Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 At a monthly match, the impact of poor stage writing, coupled with confusion will generate these bad calls. At a large competition match, to have such situations occur can obviously lead to contentious arguments. Shouldn't have happened, but can't be fixed now. I suggest that the shooter bring it up either at the next match or by phone and ask the match director to, in the future, have the stage writing proofed by two others, outside their little clique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 I have never seen a scenario that said "single tap." What were the exact stage instructions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefro, SASS#69420 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Yes. Yep, real easy to write "with pistols, shoot two five shot sweeps starting on the same end" Shooter shot it right, there was no double tap on #5, he shot two five shot sweeps on five targets. He hit target #5 once with first five rounds, then target #5 became target #1 for the second five rounds. Unless specified "from same end" it's all good...no P Good Luck We like to give shooters options on most stages, makes em' shooter friendly for righties, lefties, two-handers, duelists, GF...etc..etc. We have a note on the bottom of the stages that says------ Note; Sweeps may start on either end, Nevada sweeps in either direction, Stage Conventions apply. Jefro Relax-Enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokestack SASS#87384 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 The word intent should be added to the list of outlawed items. When I do a walk through, one of the very first things I make sure everyone understands is that my intent does not exist and should never be called into question. Either I wrote something or I did not. There is no third option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attica Jack #23953 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Nothing said about shooting a double tap..............go for it. No P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodyMaverick Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Based on the info given I would say no P. Just like 'doubt', 'ambiguity' should favor the shooter. I wonder if the rifle was written to be same as pistols? Were there no gunfighters on the posse? I would have requested clarification right after the instructions were read since I would shoot the string differently depending on the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakebite Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 The TO should have thanked everyone for their opinion and then instructed the score keeper NOT to record a "P". This is exactly correct. The stage was shot as the instructions were written. It doesn't matter that the person that wrote the scenario was there or not. If it was to be changed, then it should have been done before the stage was shot by any posse. Remember... the T.O. is the person that makes the call on Proceedurals... NOT THE SPOTTERS. The person that wrote the scenario needs to make it clear what is required. Snakebite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keystone, SASS # 47578 Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Howdy, "Remember... the T.O. is the person that makes the call on Procedurals... NOT THE SPOTTERS." (quoted by Snakebite) Just to clarify, the Timer Operator has the final say regarding penalties but does consider the spotters observations. Range Officer Level I, page #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. 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. Hasta Luego, Keystone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 A simple "Yes you can" would have made it clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokestack SASS#87384 Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 A simple "Yes you can" would have made it clear. Yes you may... of course they can. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.