Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

WTC Sweep


Creeker, SASS #43022

Recommended Posts

This has become a joke...folks that know what a Sweep is when no further descriptor is given still arguing...some kind of intellectual masturbation I guess.

 

So now, as a stage writer...a simple one mind you...not some world famous one, wants so write a 5 target sequence like:

 

Double tap an outside target, then two identical sweeps on the three inside targets, then double tap the other outside target.

 

Soo...what do I write? Perform a sweep as: 1-1-2-3-4-2-3-4-5-5 or 1-1-4-3-2-4-3-2-5-5 or 5-5-4-3-2-4-3-2-1-1 or 5-5-2-3-4-2-3-4-1-1

 

I give up. 

 

This discussion has turned into some weird version of the Twilight Zone...

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply
10 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

This has become a joke...folks that know what a Sweep is when no further descriptor is given still arguing...some kind of intellectual masturbation I guess.

 

So now, as a stage writer...a simple one mind you...not some world famous one, wants so write a 5 target sequence like:

 

Double tap an outside target, then two identical sweeps on the three inside targets, then double tap the other outside target.

 

Soo...what do I write? Perform a sweep as: 1-1-2-3-4-2-3-4-5-5 or 1-1-4-3-2-4-3-2-5-5 or 5-5-4-3-2-4-3-2-1-1 or 5-5-2-3-4-2-3-4-1-1

 

I give up. 

 

This discussion has turned into some weird version of the Twilight Zone...

 

Phantom

Is-zak-ly....

And, if you were setting the targets, would you give some form of special identification to end targets?  Perhaps end targets, 1 & 5, could be placed a step forward or rearward to 2-3-4.  If a good selection of targets available, I might have 1 & 5 a different shape than 2-3-5.  O'well, we can save target placement in our SWEEP for another season of Twilight Zone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon further reflection it dawned on me that “Sweep” isn’t contained in the Glossary of Sweeps. Why? Because it doesn’t need to be. Unless otherwise directed sweeping the targets means to engage them sequentially from one end to the other. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this stage for example

 

Eldorado 2018 Stage 7 (you can look it up)

http://eldoradocowboys.com/assets/applets/2018_MAIN_MATCH__6.25.18_printer_ready.pdf

There are 5 targets each for rifle and pistol

Instructions: "DOUBLE TAP PISTOL TARGETS--ANY ORDER"

So, Just double the two right most targets, do not engage the other three targets.  

The instructions do not say ALL targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, wyliefoxEsquire said:

How about this stage for example

 

Eldorado 2018 Stage 7 (you can look it up)

http://eldoradocowboys.com/assets/applets/2018_MAIN_MATCH__6.25.18_printer_ready.pdf

There are 5 targets each for rifle and pistol

Instructions: "DOUBLE TAP PISTOL TARGETS--ANY ORDER"

So, Just double the two right most targets, do not engage the other three targets.  

The instructions do not say ALL targets.

 

 

It also says to use 10 pistol rounds.  If you can only double tap, that will require 5 targets :-p

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I could double-tap one target, then another then go back and double tap the first, etc for 10 rounds - since we now need to spell out essentially everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Doc Shapiro said:

 

 

It also says to use 10 pistol rounds.  If you can only double tap, that will require 5 targets :-p

 

8 minutes ago, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

But I could double-tap one target, then another then go back and double tap the first, etc for 10 rounds - since we now need to spell out essentially everything.

Eggggg-zackly!

 

So how far do we take this lunacy?

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is simple.

Either specifically state the target sequence

or

Write the stages in a way that allows the shooter to decide HIS/HER sequence.

But do not complain if the shooter follows the instructions but does not shoot it the way YOU wanted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, wyliefoxEsquire said:

The solution is simple.

Either specifically state the target sequence

or

Write the stages in a way that allows the shooter to decide HIS/HER sequence.

But do not complain if the shooter follows the instructions but does not shoot it the way YOU wanted.

Not attacking you...but do you write stages?

 

The whole discussion centers on what a "Sweep" is without any further delineation. My whole "Life" in SASS has understood that a call out for a Sweep (again, by itself), was a clear description. So now stage writers need to spell out every possible combination for ALL sweeps????

 

Oy...

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking is a P as well. In my mind a ""sweep"  is start one end, go to the other. Was there ever an official; ruling from PWB? I tried to look at "Likes" but never saw ether way, but could have missed it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hoss said:

My thinking is a P as well. In my mind a ""sweep"  is start one end, go to the other. Was there ever an official; ruling from PWB? I tried to look at "Likes" but never saw ether way, but could have missed it. 

There are NO official rulings on "Sweeps".

 

Phantom

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

There are NO official rulings on "Sweeps".

 

Phantom

I guess my poorly worded question was on the OP. P or no P? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wyliefoxEsquire said:

How about this stage for example

 

Eldorado 2018 Stage 7 (you can look it up)

http://eldoradocowboys.com/assets/applets/2018_MAIN_MATCH__6.25.18_printer_ready.pdf

There are 5 targets each for rifle and pistol

Instructions: "DOUBLE TAP PISTOL TARGETS--ANY ORDER"

So, Just double the two right most targets, do not engage the other three targets.  

The instructions do not say ALL targets.

There are differences between stage writing conventions and conventions within the English language.

 

Within the English language; it is documented and understood that the addition of the letter S turns a singular into a plural and when presented with the plural encompasses ALL of the specified item.

 

See the cowboyS. 

Is understood as encompassing all the cowboys visually available - it does not  separate like items.

 

Pistol TargetS encompasses all the pistol targets visually available.

Requiring a double tap on each target.

 

The word THOSE would perhaps allow for the delineation of one or two like items from the whole; but the word those is not in use in the stage instruction.

 

But unlike plurals and encompassing words; the singular term SWEEP does not have an universally agreed upon definition as it is applied within the context of cowboy action.

 

In the absence of such a definition, ANY recognized sweep, sequence or round count that satisfied the stage instruction is legal.

 

And for those insisting that a sweep is a sweep and should be accepted as they define it...  Solely and wholly  because thats the way they have always done it; is not a valid enough reason to meekly accept accept a non existent definition.

 

Just because no one has previously questioned or challenged something; does not mean it is true, accurate or valid.

 

 

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

My thinking is a P as well. In my mind a ""sweep"  is start one end, go to the other. Was there ever an official; ruling from PWB? I tried to look at "Likes" but never saw ether way, but could have missed it. 

 

57 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

There are NO official rulings on "Sweeps".

 

...and, IMO, there shouldn't have to be.

("we" certainly wouldn't want to be lambasted for attempting to stifle a shooter's creativity regarding stage engagement)

<_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotcha now. just a little slow on the uptake! 

 

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

And for those insisting that a sweep is a sweep and should be accepted as they define it...  Solely and wholly  because thats the way they have always done it; is not a valid enough reason to meekly accept accept a non existent definition.

 

Just because no one has previously questioned or challenged something; does not mean it is true, accurate or valid.

 

And a convention that has stood the test of many years, and is generally understood by the large majority of folks, is usually as good as a rule.   If only a small minority believes the sequence can mean something else, then to shoot that "sweep" differently than the common understanding is taking risk into the shooter's own hands.  When in doubt, the SHOOTER should inquire of the RO if that "different" sequence will be in compliance with the posse's understanding.   And then the RO should enforce what he states. 

 

At one state match years ago I did ask of the RO if the pattern I wanted to use was acceptable.  I got an affirmative answer.  I then shot it that way, and was stunned when the spotters and RO then decided it was NOT acceptable and they gave a P.  Not the Cowboy Way, for sure.

 

If the stage officials (spotters, with supervision by the RO at the time of the run) rule it as "sequence fired did not meet the stage description" - then you have your answer.   Arguing P calls is normally not entertained, during or after a match.  It CERTAINLY was not allowed at EOT 2018.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shooting Bull said:

And on a separate but not unrelated note; if you get an MDQ for sweeping someone with one of your firearms, what did you just do? 

 

Left hand, right hand, left knee, right knee, belly?^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Texas jack Black SASS#9362

And Here I am thinking winter was over.I never imagined we would see such snowflake reasoning.:blink:;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 7:22 AM, Ramblin Gambler said:

 

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. 

RG - Since you are talking about my post saying ... "P1-P5 consecutively" ... Yes .. along with the description there is normally a picture of the target layout showing their numbering. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Texas jack Black SASS#9362 said:

And Here I am thinking winter was over.I never imagined we would see such snowflake reasoning.:blink:;)

 

Yep.. I had no idea a simple sweep would go 4 pages..

 

Rance ;)

Thinkin it has been hot out tho:huh:

and that was given as Creekers reasoning :mellow::)

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.