Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

WTC Sweep


Creeker, SASS #43022

Recommended Posts

Hi, and what about 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2.. no double tap and a continuous sweep....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Curly Red Ryder said:

Hi, and what about 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2.. no double tap and a continuous sweep....

Instructions were to begin on an end target and then repeat...

So both "sweeps" had to begin on either T1 or T5.

Your example begins the 2nd five rounds on T4.

I think they would have dinged you as well.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Instructions were to begin on an end target and then repeat...

So both "sweeps" had to begin on either T1 or T5.

Your example begins the 2nd five rounds on T4.

I think they would have dinged you as well.:D

 

No, we like him.  We'd have let him slide with a warning. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hells Comin said:

In your weird way of thinking it's a 4 round sweep then 6 round sweep.

can't believe I'm posting here!!

NAAAW, surely not you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This a small sample of what you get when you get board and try to lawyer up the rules. Sometimes I think when the goal is to work around the instructions rather than just shoot the stage as intended this is what happens...….lol. I'd call it a P. Never seen a sweep jump back & forth. That's the opposite of a sweep...or a P in this case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Ok, that was a triple tap.

Give me the P.

 

I was hoping you were posting it 5 times left to right, then 5 more right to left.  I was disappointed when you stopped at 3. 

 

20 hours ago, Patagonia Pete said:

Starting on either end sweep P1-P5 (consecutively). Repeat the sequence for a total of 10 rounds.

 

Do you have a diagram numbering the targets?  I ask because at my club we once had a stage that instructed us to hit the targets in order 1-10, but they weren't numbered straight across.  It kinda started in the middle and bounced around.  Truth be told I think it was intended to be closest to furthest but that wasn't obvious with so many targets spread around.  We were told there was no law saying targets had to be numbered left to right or right to left.  That was another tactic I tried when I wanted to shoot the outside-inside sweep.  He had told me they had to be shot in order but the Targets weren't numbered so I asked if I could number the targets however I want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramblin Gambler said:

We were told there was no law saying targets had to be numbered left to right or right to left. 

 

"We deal in rules, friend, not laws"  :lol:

 

Conventionally, targets are assigned a number from left to right, as viewed from the shooting position at which they are to be engaged.

 

Be kind to everyone and don't select another style for numbering targets, if you are going to number them to help with a confusing sequence.

 

Better yet, set your targets and select your sequences so that things are simple enough to not turn the shoot into a math quiz.

If you have to start numbering targets to make things clear, stop and think again about what you are doing.

 

 

As an aside, one of my big gripes about folks reading stages is when they stand back at the shooting position and "explain" the target sequence by reciting the digits from 1 to 10, while pointing wildly at the actual targets to be hit with each of those SHOT numbers.   Be kind to everyone and explain the pattern you require, if there is one.  Walk out and "vanna" the targets with a tap, if that suits you.

 

Although it can take a little more time, it's still better to say "1 shot on #1, 2 shots on #4, 3 shots on #2 and 4 shots on #3" (yes, an ugly sweep that would be), rather than just showing folks you know how to count to ten.  :lol:

 

And to avoid loosing pards' attention when reading a new-to-the-club sequence, that's why it's always good to have your stage descriptions written down where the shooter can review them - either in a booklet or posted at the loading table.

 

Good luck, GJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Garrison Joe, SASS #60708 said:

 

"We deal in rules, friend, not laws"  :lol:

 

Conventionally, targets are assigned a number from left to right, as viewed from the shooting position at which they are to be engaged.

 

Be kind to everyone and don't select another style for numbering targets, if you are going to number them to help with a confusing sequence.

 

Better yet, set your targets and select your sequences so that things are simple enough to not turn the shoot into a math quiz.

If you have to start numbering targets to make things clear, stop and think again about what you are doing.

 

 

As an aside, one of my big gripes about folks reading stages is when they stand back at the shooting position and "explain" the target sequence by reciting the digits from 1 to 10, while pointing wildly at the actual targets to be hit with each of those SHOT numbers.   Be kind to everyone and explain the pattern you require, if there is one.  Walk out and "vanna" the targets with a tap, if that suits you.

 

Although it can take a little more time, it's still better to say "1 shot on #1, 2 shots on #4, 3 shots on #2 and 4 shots on #3" (yes, an ugly sweep that would be), rather than just showing folks you know how to count to ten.  :lol:

 

And to avoid loosing pards' attention when reading a new-to-the-club sequence, that's why it's always good to have your stage descriptions written down where the shooter can review them - either in a booklet or posted at the loading table.

 

Good luck, GJ

Exactly!!!

 

Also, if folks are new to the club and you have a "club" sequence, or it's a brand new sequence, let folks know that you'll explain it thoroughly after you've completely read the stage.

 

Just a suggestion :)

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 1:46 PM, Nasty Nels said:

If we parse the instructions, Creeker was correct, he shot two sweeps and should not have gotten a “p”.

Absolutely.  If you want the shooter to do something specific, tell them specifically what to do.  A simple "L to R or R to L" would have suppressed the shooter's creativity in interpreting the instructions.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Griff said:

Absolutely.  If you want the shooter to do something specific, tell them specifically what to do.  A simple "L to R or R to L" would have suppressed the shooter's creativity in interpreting the instructions.  

I disagree. 

 

A "Sweep" without further delineation is just that - a "L to R or R to L".

 

If the intent of the stage writer was to have a shooter PICK their own sweeps, then the instructions should have said something like: Perform 2 sweeps of the shooters choice.

 

Calling for a "Sweep" is specific.

 

Either that, or rename "Sweep" so that calling out a "Sweep" will no longer be accepted as 1-2-3-4-5...etc. Which of course in my opinion is just idiotic.

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

I disagree. 

 

A "Sweep" without further delineation is just that - a "L to R or R to L".

 

If the intent of the stage writer was to have a shooter PICK their own sweeps, then the instructions should have said something like: Perform 2 sweeps of the shooters choice.

 

Calling for a "Sweep" is specific.

 

Either that, or rename "Sweep" so that calling out a "Sweep" will no longer be accepted as 1-2-3-4-5...etc. Which of course in my opinion is just idiotic.

 

Phantom

Simply stating  "sweep" is not a well defined course of fire.  Until it is, (well defined, that is).  It is the stage writer's job to do so.  If the shooter cannot read the instructions without equivocation then they must be interpreted by said shooter.  In the "Glossary of Sweeps" we have a large number of sweeps defined by name and description.  The vast majority of them start on one end or the other...  quite a few do not include double taps... yet not require a sequential progression from one end to the other.  Are they not "sweeps"?  Using said names and description aids us in understanding the stage writer's intended course of fire.  Without said description (or "name"), it is subject to the shooter's interpretation of what is written.  When a stage writer leaves his instruction open to a shooter's interpretation, he must accept such interpretations.  Are we humans, or robots?  Improvisation has lead to the vast majority of these sweeps... not all of them were drafted by the stage writer... many were a shooter's interpretation of what the stage writer wrote.  

 

I hope we can simply agree to disagree.  I encourage you to consider that good stage writing and match management should include stages that both allow a shooter's interpretation and stages that precisely define what's expected during the course of fire.   A precisely defined course of fire aids both novice shooters and spotters.  A more loosely defined stage encourages creativity in completing a course of fire, but... demands more attention by the spotters and TO.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Idiotic ! "Boom" Now we're getting somewhere. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that sweep means start on one end of the target array and shoot the targets as they are encountered moving towards the other end. As if sweeping them with a broom. Simple. Anything else will be defined in the stage instructions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 9:28 AM, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Yeah well...that's because a "Sweep" is just that. It's like asking for water. Not Lemon Water, not Carbonated Water...just Water.

 

Obviously some of you don't write stages. Now you want us to have to add "Standard" or "Generic" or...whatever to the word "Sweep" when we want folks to...Sweep.

 

Good gawd...

 

OY!!!

 

Phantom

 

 You made me laugh last night. I was at a restaurant and ordered a glass of water.  The waitress brought me a glass of water with a lemon wedge In it. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Griff said:

Simply stating  "sweep" is not a well defined course of fire.  Until it is, (well defined, that is).  It is the stage writer's job to do so.  If the shooter cannot read the instructions without equivocation then they must be interpreted by said shooter.  In the "Glossary of Sweeps" we have a large number of sweeps defined by name and description.  The vast majority of them start on one end or the other...  quite a few do not include double taps... yet not require a sequential progression from one end to the other.  Are they not "sweeps"?  Using said names and description aids us in understanding the stage writer's intended course of fire.  Without said description (or "name"), it is subject to the shooter's interpretation of what is written.  When a stage writer leaves his instruction open to a shooter's interpretation, he must accept such interpretations.  Are we humans, or robots?  Improvisation has lead to the vast majority of these sweeps... not all of them were drafted by the stage writer... many were a shooter's interpretation of what the stage writer wrote.  

 

I hope we can simply agree to disagree.  I encourage you to consider that good stage writing and match management should include stages that both allow a shooter's interpretation and stages that precisely define what's expected during the course of fire.   A precisely defined course of fire aids both novice shooters and spotters.  A more loosely defined stage encourages creativity in completing a course of fire, but... demands more attention by the spotters and TO.  

I'll make this short.

 

Again, what have "we" called a simple L to R or R to L target engagement since the beginning of time???? 

 

I'll give you a hint: Sweep

 

It's our most basic target engagement sequence. It's the building block of all others... No future delineation needed.

 

So sorry that now it seems that folks need further clarification... Quite sad actually.

 

Sorry Griff, but no I will not agree to disagree. I'm tired of the over complicating of life that seems to have taken over our lives. 

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wyatt said:

 

 You made me laugh last night. I was at a restaurant and ordered a glass of water.  The waitress brought me a glass of water with a lemon wedge In it. :lol:

That would be a P...

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Griff said:

 A precisely defined course of fire aids both novice shooters and spotters.  A more loosely defined stage encourages creativity in completing a course of fire, but... demands more attention by the spotters and TO.  

A lot of wisdom in these words ......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Texas jack Black SASS#9362
2 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

I'll make this short.

 

Again, what have "we" called a simple L to R or R to L target engagement since the beginning of time???? 

 

I'll give you a hint: Sweep

 

It's our most basic target engagement sequence. It's the building block of all others... No future delineation needed.

 

So sorry that now it seems that folks need further clarification... Quite sad actually.

 

Sorry Griff, but no I will agree to disagree. I'm tired of the over complicating of life that seems to have taken over our lives. 

 

Phantom

  right on plain and simple .

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

...I'm tired of the over complicating of life that seems to have taken over our lives. 

Phantom

I too, will make this short...   I'm not so certain that we can put the genie back in the bottle.  Frankly, I read and interpret "sweep" the same as you, but... I won't penalize a shooter for thinking outside-the-box.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Griff said:

I too, will make this short...   I'm not so certain that we can put the genie back in the bottle.  Frankly, I read and interpret "sweep" the same as you, but... I won't penalize a shooter for thinking outside-the-box.

I won't either...but if they do what the OP did, that's not thinking outside-the-box to me. That's earning a P.

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

I won't either...but if they do what the OP did, that's not thinking outside-the-box to me. That's earning a P.

 

Phantom

Fortunately, we don’t have a lot of “gamers” in SASS.  However, they do exist.

 

Creeker, as always, has raised an issue that may, or may not,  be a problem.

 

He made a good argument that we did not allow to be held up at a monthly match; especially at a club where he was the President.

 

I am not certain that he would have earned a “p’ at a “major” match where “sweep” was not defined.

 

I think the horse is dead.  Time to move on.

 

Have a great Independece Day; the basis of which we can have these “discussions”!

 

NN

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Nasty Nels said:

Fortunately, we don’t have a lot of “gamers” in SASS.  However, they do exist.

 

Creeker, as always, has raised an issue that may, or may not,  be a problem.

 

He made a good argument that we did not allow to be held up at a monthly match; especially at a club where he was the President.

 

I am not certain that he would have earned a “p’ at a “major” match where “sweep” was not defined.

 

I think the horse is dead.  Time to move on.

 

Have a great Independece Day; the basis of which we can have these “discussions”!

 

NN

Oh I can almost guarantee that he would of got a P at a Major match. Ref PWB reactions.

 

Happy 4th!!

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Griff said:

Simply stating  "sweep" is not a well defined course of fire.  Until it is, (well defined, that is).  It is the stage writer's job to do so.  If the shooter cannot read the instructions without equivocation then they must be interpreted by said shooter.  In the "Glossary of Sweeps" we have a large number of sweeps defined by name and description.  The vast majority of them start on one end or the other...  quite a few do not include double taps... yet not require a sequential progression from one end to the other.  Are they not "sweeps"?  Using said names and description aids us in understanding the stage writer's intended course of fire.  Without said description (or "name"), it is subject to the shooter's interpretation of what is written.  When a stage writer leaves his instruction open to a shooter's interpretation, he must accept such interpretations.  Are we humans, or robots?  Improvisation has lead to the vast majority of these sweeps... not all of them were drafted by the stage writer... many were a shooter's interpretation of what the stage writer wrote.  

 

I hope we can simply agree to disagree.  I encourage you to consider that good stage writing and match management should include stages that both allow a shooter's interpretation and stages that precisely define what's expected during the course of fire.   A precisely defined course of fire aids both novice shooters and spotters.  A more loosely defined stage encourages creativity in completing a course of fire, but... demands more attention by the spotters and TO.  

 

I believe you’ve made Phantom’s point more than your own. As is correctly noted in the glossary of sweeps, any sweep other than straight L to R, or R to L is given a specific name. Notice that there is no sweep in there for straight L to R, or R to L. There doesn’t need to be because that’s just a sweep. No specific name needed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One major change from the old days when I started.

 

The statement was, "If you have to ask, the answer will normally be 'No'."

 

With that said, I like creativity a lot and like to give shooters some options for variety and fun.  But like Phantom, I don't want to have to read a form of the IRS rules to play this game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shooting Bull said:

 

Notice that there is no sweep in there for straight L to R, or R to L. There doesn’t need to be because that’s just a sweep. No specific name needed. 

This is the issue - I disagree that there is a so called BASIC or SIMPLE sweep from which all other sweeps are derived and are sub sets of.

There are simply sweeps (plural, multiple, many variations) - none is more basic, understood or deserving of elevation than any other.

So if you ask for a SWEEP - any sweep that fulfills the requirements of your request has to be acceptable.

 

Do we attempt this vagueness with ANYTHING else that has many varieties?

Even Phantoms WATER example requires clarification - Ice water, Tap water, Bottled water?

 

At Enterprise: 

Give me a car - they bring you a Model T to the front.  

No, I wanted a Camry. 

Oh, I'm sorry sir, when you asked for a car without any specificity - I had assume you meant the Model T - understood and accepted genesis of modern cars.

 

At Burger King:

Give me a burger - they bring you a steaming hot hamburger patty.

Um, no bun?  No condiments? 

Oh, I'm sorry sir, when you asked for a burger without any specificity - I had to assume you meant the simple, basic burger - the understood and accepted genesis of all burgers.

 

 

At Barnes and Noble:

I'm looking for a book - They hand you a Bible.

 

If you want a SPECIFIC result - YOU must SPECIFICALLY request it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

This is the issue - I disagree that there is a so called BASIC or SIMPLE sweep from which all other sweeps are derived and are sub sets of.

There are simply sweeps (plural, multiple, many variations) - none is more basic, understood or deserving of elevation than any other.

So if you ask for a SWEEP - any sweep that fulfills the requirements of your request has to be acceptable.

 

Do we attempt this vagueness with ANYTHING else that has many varieties?

Even Phantoms WATER example requires clarification - Ice water, Tap water, Bottled water?

 

At Enterprise: 

Give me a car - they bring you a Model T to the front.  

No, I wanted a Camry. 

Oh, I'm sorry sir, when you asked for a car without any specificity - I had assume you meant the Model T - understood and accepted genesis of modern cars.

 

At Burger King:

Give me a burger - they bring you a steaming hot hamburger patty.

Um, no bun?  No condiments? 

Oh, I'm sorry sir, when you asked for a burger without any specificity - I had to assume you meant the simple, basic burger - the understood and accepted genesis of all burgers.

 

 

At Barnes and Noble:

I'm looking for a book - They hand you a Bible.

 

If you want a SPECIFIC result - YOU must SPECIFICALLY request it.

 

Exactly - like telling someone to go slow around a curve - how slow is slow ? If you're going 70 and you SLOW down to 50 for a 20 mph curve, you're gonna get a surprise.

How high is high, how many is many, how often is often. The base word can have different meanings or values.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Oh I can almost guarantee that he would of got a P at a Major match. Ref PWB reactions.

Happy 4th!!

Phantom

But....... would a major match have left the "sweep" remain undefined?

2 hours ago, Shooting Bull said:

 

I believe you’ve made Phantom’s point more than your own. As is correctly noted in the glossary of sweeps, any sweep other than straight L to R, or R to L is given a specific name. Notice that there is no sweep in there for straight L to R, or R to L. There doesn’t need to be because that’s just a sweep. No specific name needed. 

Actually, our basic disagreement is over the penalizing the shooter for "gaming" the scenario.  

 

I'm done... have to go back to tapping a mounting hole in my farm tractor... which knows no holiday.  Enjoy the rest of your celebrations of our country's anniversary of declaring our Independence... I know I will.    An adult libation awaits my completing my current task.  This have been a fun and challenging discussion, even if uncomplicated.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Griff said:

But....... would a major match have left the "sweep" remain undefined?

Actually, our basic disagreement is over the penalizing the shooter for "gaming" the scenario.  

 

I'm done... have to go back to tapping a mounting hole in my farm tractor... which knows no holiday.  Enjoy the rest of your celebrations of our country's anniversary of declaring our Independence... I know I will.    An adult libation awaits my completing my current task.  This have been a fun and challenging discussion, even if uncomplicated.  

Well... I've done a few Majors of late, and they do use "Sweep". Most will say something to the affect of Starting from either end...

 

Happy tapping :D

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we need to number every target and specifically say the exact sequence?

 

I do like some of that because naming sweeps will not be needed since the sequence must be spelled out specifically. 

 

So we should expect a lot more number in the stage writing.  And if you want to allow some flexibility, add a a couple of paragraphs that will detail all the allowed options.

 

Instead of saying Nevada sweep, we should say - "Nevada Sweep - Starting on one side, sweep the targets sequentially from side to side without double-tapping any target" 

 

Will that help?

 

So quite using confusing name (such as sweep, etc) and just list a specific sequence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think our disconnect is in the interpretation of the term “sweep”. There are those who are of the opinion that it is a generic term that needs clarification. On the other hand there are this of us who believe that absent any further descriptor such as “Nevada”, “Progressive”, “Badger”, etc. the definition is understood to be simply sweeping consecutive targets from one end to the other. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the outside the box thinking.  I wonder if there will be an official interpretation of this posted at some point? Sort of like the default starting position when none is mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 1, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

 

 

Target array is five targets in a straight line parallel to the firing line.

O....O....O....O....O

Stage instructions.

With rifle:

Beginning on either end; sweep targets.

Then repeat instruction, no double taps.

 

 

I'd venture to say without any further explanation than what is posted..

any CAS would shoot this either of two ways..

1-2-3-4-5-1-2-3-4-5 or 5-4-3-2-1-5-4-3-2-1

This (to me) is how it was explained to be shot..

If you asked 100 CAS's I believe 99 would say that is correct way..

1 is overthinking it.. He takes the risk of the "P"..

 

Rance ;)

Thinkin' 

Take your "P" 

Next shooter..

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.