Father Kit Cool Gun Garth Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 2 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said: OK. I'll buy that. Education is a wonderful thing. Colorado: Please deposit coins in slot. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostVaquero Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 I have no problem with the TO being final call if a P. However as stated not even the TO was sure. To me if the TO who is in the best position is not sure and two spotters are not sure, the TO should not depend on the lone spotter. Benefit of doubt or in this case lack of consensus should always benefit shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom, SASS #54973 Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 56 minutes ago, LostVaquero said: I have no problem with the TO being final call if a P. However as stated not even the TO was sure. To me if the TO who is in the best position is not sure and two spotters are not sure, the TO should not depend on the lone spotter. Benefit of doubt or in this case lack of consensus should always benefit shooter. Please, just abide by the rules. Phantom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafe Conager SASS #56958 Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 19 hours ago, Gawd Awful said: Actually the TO is THE ONLY ONE who actually determines the “p” the TO polls the spotters for MISSES and listens to any input on procedrials. But the TO determine weather the shooter gets a P or a MSV, not the spotters Yep according to page 51 of the ro handbook the final determining call for administering a p resides with the to , he/she should solicit the input of the spotters but the ultimate call is the to's Rafe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom, SASS #54973 Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Rafe Conager SASS #56958 said: Yep according to page 51 of the ro handbook the final determining call for administering a p resides with the to , he/she should solicit the input of the spotters but the ultimate call is the to's Rafe Right...so? If a Spotter says they saw a P, and the TO isn't sure, they need to call the P. Phantom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawd Awful Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said: Right...so? If a Spotter says they saw a P, and the TO isn't sure, they need to call the P. Phantom So if the T.O. isn't sure, 1 spotter is sure of a P, and the other 2 spotters are sure its not a P, what's YOUR CALL? how about T.O. and one spotter aren't sure, 1 spotter knows its a P, and the other spotter knows its Clean? as you said earlier "abide by the rules" The rules state that the benefit of the doubt ALWAYS goes to the shooter. If only 1 spotter saw a P, abide by the rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom, SASS #54973 Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 34 minutes ago, Gawd Awful said: So if the T.O. isn't sure, 1 spotter is sure of a P, and the other 2 spotters are sure its not a P, what's YOUR CALL? how about T.O. and one spotter aren't sure, 1 spotter knows its a P, and the other spotter knows its Clean? as you said earlier "abide by the rules" The rules state that the benefit of the doubt ALWAYS goes to the shooter. If only 1 spotter saw a P, abide by the rules So I'll play this little game...see how I do. Situation 1: Simple - no P. Situation 2: Simple - no P. Your last statement doesn't reflect the two silly examples that I just answered. If only one spotter saw a P, and that's ALL I have as a TO, than the shooter gets a P. If I'm wrong, I'll listen to someone that I trust when it comes to rules and theirt interpretation (ie: PWB). I hope that you don't TO for meaningful matches as I would be concerned about the consistency of the match. Phantom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 "If there is no doubt, there is no benefit." Contrary statements from one of the "line ROs" who are certain that the shooter did NOT commit a procedural error should be taken into consideration & would be an example of "doubt". ...PROVIDED that they were in a position to observe and paying attention. "I don't know for sure" or "I didn't see it" would NOT provide "BOD" to a situation in which one or more are sure that the violation occurred. The T/O should also verify that the "order of engagement" was not an allowed option under the stage instructions. (e.g. a shooter shoots the stage in a manner different from everyone else, but in a way that was allowed by the stage instructions; an RO calls a "P", being unaware of that method/order of engagement). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lead Ringer Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 On 6/6/2018 at 9:45 PM, Phantom, SASS #54973 said: If a TO disregards a Spotters P call. They better have seen clearly that a P has not occurred or the other Spotters have clearly seen that a P has not occurred. If not...P. I’ve disregarded plenty of single spotters “P” call! Not because I’m a horses A__. Because some people daydream, turn away, are easily confused and have no business with a spotting stick! had a spotter call me for a “P” at a big match recently. I simply reloaded a jacked round. And he was confused. I’m sure glad the TO had the overriding authority. Regards, Ringer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom, SASS #54973 Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 23 minutes ago, Lead Ringer said: I’ve disregarded plenty of single spotters “P” call! Not because I’m a horses A__. Because some people daydream, turn away, are easily confused and have no business with a spotting stick! had a spotter call me for a “P” at a big match recently. I simply reloaded a jacked round. And he was confused. I’m sure glad the TO had the overriding authority. Regards, Ringer I must be the worse fricken communicator on earth... Where in the hell did I ever say or imply that a TO should simply be a mindless mime and never make inquires into what a spotter saw???? Oy!!! Phantom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blast Masterson Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 The only time I would go along with a Spotter called 'P' would be if Ringer was one of the spotters... Many spotters don't know what they are looking at when they do see something. The TO didn't know. 2 Spotters didn't know, and one thinks he saw the hit (which in my book is unlikely). There are spotters that are there doing their job the best they can. We don't need no Barney Fife know-it-all spotter calling 'P's' when he was the only one who saw it. Most spotters are not trained RO's yet and should not the sole deciding factor for a 'P'. A safety violation would be another matter... This was a chain fire, not an intentional act to shoot faster than the rest of you be trying to engage targets without taking the time to send them through the barrel. He probably blew up his gun and your fighting over a 'P'. After that train wreck he probably will be off the rest of his game. I was a spotter in a State Match (which was only my 3rd match ever). I assure you I didn't know what I was doing (other than looking for misses), I was just doing what was asked of me. I had no intend to twisting the Rule Book words like a Politician or Lawyer (interchangeable) to make a point. These are penalties. They are about when you do something wrong. What can you prove "Chain Fire Jack" did wrong in this case? Your saying he had control of the chain fire and is responsible for a stray bullet that didn't go down the barrel of this gun? Really? Is this what this game is about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom, SASS #54973 Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 Great...we have a bunch of folks apparently that just don't want to abide by the rules. Screw it...let's just not even run a timer and just go out and burn ammo. Cuz if we aren't abiding by the rules, we have no game. Phantom PS: For those with reading comprehension issues, we are not talking about one spotter THAT THINKS he saw a P. We're talking about one spotter that KNOWS he saw a P...oy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 On 6/6/2018 at 12:03 PM, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said: ... I saw a 2-shot "chain fire" in which both balls hit the same target (freshly painted, first shooter on the stage). As in the OP, the order was a "sweep"...shooter got a "P" for the DT. In that case, the shooter had failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent "flash over" when loading the revolvers. It was the shooter's "brain fade" that contributed to the multiple discharge. There was NO DOUBT that the projectiles struck the target in a manner contrary to the stage instructions. = PROCEDURAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keystone, SASS # 47578 Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 Howdy, During my personal experiences as a T/O, I have on more than one occasion had a single spotter indicate a shooter had earned a "P". That is, until I questioned the nature of his call only to discover he/she was mistaken as to the correct shooting sequence. It is a rare occurrence that a single spotter is the only one of four people observing a shooter to call a procedural, but it does happen. Then, after discussion among the T/O & other spotters and an "oh yeah" moment, the "P" is upheld. Allowing gun order as shooters choice, permitting sweeps from either right or left and folks shooting gunfighter have cornfused more than one spotter. Good communication between the T/O & spotters usually resolves uncertainties and yields fair unbiased penalty calls or no calls. Hasta Luego, Keystone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramblin Gambler Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 On 6/7/2018 at 8:59 AM, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said: Yusta B.: I believe this first Archived Post is the one you were referring to. I have also included two other Posts that discussed the same thing. Thought our readers would like to see them. Now I want to respond to those old threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Kit Cool Gun Garth Posted June 8, 2018 Share Posted June 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, Ramblin Gambler said: Now I want to respond to those old threads. Gambler: There is a lot of great resource material on the SASS WIRE that can be just as helpful today as it was when it was posted. Granted, exceptions need to be made when it pertains to rule changes during the years; however, I always like to go back and research a topic every now and then. Sort of like looking through a scrapbook. Lots of memories, GOOD, BAD or UGLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.