Before I suggest a rules change....

[Shooting Bull]

....I’d like to hear your opinions. 

 

I’ve seen here and elsewhere tales of shooters following erroneous TO commands and being penalized for it. The latest example was improper decoking of a firearm. Shooter followed TO instructions but ended up getting an SDQ. The logic being that it’s the shooters responsibility to know the rules.

 

Follow that to its logical conclusion. In the middle of a stage the TO sees something he believes is wrong. He barks out a command. Shooter believes TO is wrong so ignores the command and continues with the stage. In my ever so humble opinion this is a horrible precedent to set. But not only have we set this precedent, we’ve codified in our rules that it’s okay to ignore the TO command. 

 

Elsewhere in our rules we’ve identified the major objective of the TO is to SAFELY guide the shooter through the stage. To that end I believe every TO command should be considered a safety command first and should therefore be followed with no hesitation. TOs are human beings so of course they’ll make mistakes. If the command turns out to have been a mistake, so what? Give the shooter a reshoot and carry on. No harm, no foul. But shooters should never be burdened with having to decide in the middle of a stage whether or not to follow a TO command. 

 

Your thoughts please. 

[Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L]

p. 12, SHB

Personal

In addition to the safety rules mentioned above, participants are expected to follow these rules of conduct:

 

   - The Shooter must obey all range commands given by the Chief Range Officer/Timer Operator.

[Shooting Bull]

3 minutes ago, Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L said:

p. 12, SHB

Personal

In addition to the safety rules mentioned above, participants are expected to follow these rules of conduct:

 

   - The Shooter must obey all range commands given by the Chief Range Officer/Timer Operator.

 

Yep, but then we penalize them for following that rule. The justification being, “He should have known better.” 

[Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L]

2 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

 

Yep, but then we penalize them for following that rule. The justification being, “He should have known better.” 

 

I see this as a TO that is not following the handbook.  FWIW:  at TRR we would give the shooter a reshoot because the RO stopped him incorrectly.

 

per the rulebook the shooter HAS to follow the TO commands--if the command is incorrect/wrong then that's on the RO not the shooter.  

[Straight Arrow Hombre]

I think folks need to understand the difference between range commands and coaching. If you’re unable to differentiate, then it might be wise to inform the TO not to offer any coaching. 

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Hi Bull,

 

The most frequent examples I've seen of this are:

1. Shooter cocks pistol in incorrect position and is told by the TO to move.

2. Shooter loads and closes SG and is told by the TO to move.

 

We've been told, safety is on the shooter as the TO can't always see everything. If a reshoot were given, the safety would carry over. However, I've also seen a MD overrule the SDQ.

 

It is a sad situation. I welcome reading the discussion. I would be interested in knowing how it is handled in other sports as I can see the wisdom of following established policies about this. For example, if an accident happened, our not following rules from other sports might increase the venue's and individual's liability.

 

Regards,

 

Allie

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

If the RO/TO gives a verbal command, it is just that.  A COMMAND.  The shooter is obligated to obey that command.  Whether right or wrong, follow the TO/RO Command.  It's on the RO/TO and not the shooter.  Penalizing the shooter is WRONG.  There is no rule change needed.  In the event the TO/RO issues a really really STUPID command, such to as to move with a cocked gun, the shooter should just STOP.  Then wait for the TO/RO to understand the STUPID command, clear the gun (Fire it down range) and be given a reshoot.

 

It can also be a problem when someone in the Peanut Gallery yells "MOOVE" and the shooter can't tell who yelled.  STOP.  Reshoot.  We are often way too quick to assess the shooter a penalty because someone else has been STUPID.  Range commands are range commands until the command is painfully obviously STUPID.  The Peanut Gallery should also keep silent unless it is an issue of imminent safety hazard.  It those instances, the only acceptable command is STOP or CEASE FIRE.

[Gawd Awful]

8 minutes ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

I would be interested in knowing how it is handled in other sports as I can see the wisdom of following established policies about this.

 

Regards,

 

Allie

In uspsa, coaching by the RO is prohibited 

 

if you hear the RO speak while your shooting, he is almost always telling you to stop.

 

   HOWEVER it is a game based on “shoot it however you want, from wherever you want within the shooting area”.  

[Straight Arrow Hombre]

46 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

If the RO/TO gives a verbal command, it is just that.  A COMMAND.  The shooter is obligated to obey that command.  Whether right or wrong, follow the TO/RO Command.  It's on the RO/TO and not the shooter.  Penalizing the shooter is WRONG.  There is no rule change needed.  In the event the TO/RO issues a really really STUPID command, such to as to move with a cocked gun, the shooter should just STOP.  Then wait for the TO/RO to understand the STUPID command, clear the gun (Fire it down range) and be given a reshoot.

 

It can also be a problem when someone in the Peanut Gallery yells "MOOVE" and the shooter can't tell who yelled.  STOP.  Reshoot.  We are often way too quick to assess the shooter a penalty because someone else has been STUPID.  Range commands are range commands until the command is painfully obviously STUPID.  The Peanut Gallery should also keep silent unless it is an issue of imminent safety hazard.  It those instances, the only acceptable command is STOP or CEASE FIRE.

Telling a shooter to move if they aren’t in the correct position is proper coaching. If the shooter cocks a gun out of position, they have earned a penalty. At that point it’s on the shooter to know the condition of their guns and how to incur the least amount of penalty time. 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

All the rules in the world, will not stop the stupid.

If the shooter doez what an unknowing/ignorant TO tells him-

That's on the TO .............. NOT the shooter.

There isn't a TO here, that hasn't made a mistake-We are human(most of us anyways).

Respectfully,

OLG

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

6 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

All the rules in the world, will not stop the stupid.

If the shooter doez what an unknowing/ignorant TO tells him-

That's on the TO .............. NOT the shooter.

There isn't a TO here, that hasn't made a mistake-We are human(most of us anyways).

Respectfully,

OLG

not per current rules on safety issues

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

2 minutes ago, Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 said:

not per current rules on safety issues

You are correct-

Can put a new/beginning shooter in a bit of a 'pickle' tho..........

I for one-Have never seen a shooter penalized for do'n what a TO told'em to do-Even when the TO was wrong.

CC-What has your experience been here, both as shooter and TO?

OLG

 

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

1 minute ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

You are correct-

Can put a new/beginning shooter in a bit of a 'pickle' tho..........

I for one-Have never seen a shooter penalized for do'n what a TO told'em to do-Even when the TO was wrong.

CC-What has your experience been here, both as shooter and TO?

OLG

 

I once told a shooter to move with a 97 that was in battery,,,  he closed it as I said it,,, he moved, bought the penalty,,,

since then, I have altered my TO style a bit,,  making sure that doesn't happen again,,,  and if a shooter pulls a revolver at the wrong spot,  I will almost always let them got without saying anything, unless there is time to stop them safely.... a P or msv is better than a sdq

[Lawman Mays]

1 hour ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

If the RO/TO gives a verbal command, it is just that.  A COMMAND.  The shooter is obligated to obey that command.  Whether right or wrong, follow the TO/RO Command.  It's on the RO/TO and not the shooter.  Penalizing the shooter is WRONG.  There is no rule change needed.

I agree with this.

[Turquoise Bill, SASS #39118]

Having run the timer for 15+ years I made a few mistakes over the years, if the mistake is on the RO, (round count, position, restaging, etc) always give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and give them a reshoot. Exception is moving with a cocked gun, cocking a revolver or rifle out of the shooting position, shooter is responsible and is a good learning experience and buys them the penalty.

 

TB

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

7 hours ago, Lawman Mays said:

8 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

If the RO/TO gives a verbal command, it is just that.  A COMMAND.  The shooter is obligated to obey that command.  Whether right or wrong, follow the TO/RO Command.  It's on the RO/TO and not the shooter.  Penalizing the shooter is WRONG.  There is no rule change needed.

I agree with this.

the current rule is, for safety issues if the TO tells you something wrong and you do it, it's on the SHOOTER,,  if you don't like that, then a rule change IS needed... as far as safety concerns that is,,,

[Straight Arrow Hombre]

44 minutes ago, Turquoise Bill, SASS #39118 said:

Having run the timer for 15+ years I made a few mistakes over the years, if the mistake is on the RO, (round count, position, restaging, etc) always give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and give them a reshoot. Exception is moving with a cocked gun, cocking a revolver or rifle out of the shooting position, shooter is responsible and is a good learning experience and buys them the penalty.

 

TB

That is exactly correct!! The shooter has the personal responsibility to handle their firearms safely. That includes knowing when the they are safe to move. Coaching of any sort should not negate the personal responsibility of the shooter. 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

As much as it pains me to say this; because I believe I'm a really good TO and usually an asset to the shooter.

 

But, perhaps it is time to take the TO out of the equation.

 

Maybe (excepting safety issues), the TO should be instructed to let the shooter own the stage.

 

We have already determined that all TO's are not equal in ability/ reaction.

Not all TO's are equal at safely/ properly getting a shooter thru a sequence or stage.

Not all TO's are equal in knowledge of rules or watching the shooter.

Since we are incapable of providing equal service to each shooter with the TO interaction; maybe the TO's position should change to standing silently unless required solely for safety and holding the timer.

(Maybe with an exemption for new shooters requiring assistance).

 

Any other changes are simply band aids and will be inconsistently applied.

[Null N. Void]

  

5 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

As much as it pains me to say this; because I believe I'm a really good TO and usually an asset to the shooter.

 

But, perhaps it is time to take the TO out of the equation.

 

Maybe (excepting safety issues), the TO should be instructed to let the shooter own the stage.

 

We have already determined that all TO's are not equal in ability/ reaction.

Not all TO's are equal at safely/ properly getting a shooter thru a sequence or stage.

Not all TO's are equal in knowledge of rules or watching the shooter.

Since we are incapable of providing equal service to each shooter with the TO interaction; maybe the TO's position should change to standing silently unless required solely for safety and holding the timer.

(Maybe with an exemption for new shooters requiring assistance).

 

Any other changes are simply band aids and will be inconsistently applied.

 

Maybe we should just allow the TO to give statements of fact like "you've shot seven" or "you're in the wrong window" and let the shooter process the information rather than direct an action.  However, I think there should be an exemption for new shooters.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

18 minutes ago, Null N. Void said:

  

 

Maybe we should just allow the TO to give statements of fact like "you've shot seven" or "you're in the wrong window" and let the shooter process the information rather than direct an action.  However, I think there should be an exemption for new shooters.

If every TO was able to convey this information equally or in a consistent manner; I wholeheartedly support the above...   

But they can't and they don't.

So now good TO's and poor TO's are affecting the scores/ matches/ outcomes of shooters in what is supposed to be an individuals competition.

[Null N. Void]

 

6 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

If every TO was able to convey this information equally or in a consistent manner; I wholeheartedly support the above...   

But they can't and they don't.

So now good TO's and poor TO's are affecting the scores/ matches/ outcomes of shooters in what is supposed to be an individuals competition.

 

If the TO cannot convey accurate information, I'd say he/she shouldn't say anything.  We may be headed in that direction anyway.  I'd still want to be able to help new shooters until they get the feel of the sport.

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

I don't care for that direction at all, but then tha's just me

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

Well, a reflection.  Part of my original opine, was personal opine without due consideration of "the rule."  I can't argue Culpepper's position.  By rule, you do it wrong, you buy it, fair or not.  As a gunfighter, normally, I am out of the holster and cocked before a TO can say anything to stop me.  I much much prefer the TO remain silent (as per Culpepper) as it's much easier to swallow my own dumb "P" than a SDQ.  I still don't necessarily think the current rule is bad, so long as the TO/RO and the Peanut Gallery keep silent.  Safety issues are an entirely different matter.

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

as a shooter, it's easy for me,, I don't hear anything once the timer goes off,,, unless someone is talking about me by name in the peanut gallery, now THAT i will hear!

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Tough ground you have chosen to trod.  

 

I'd suggest we keep the devil we know now, and try to educate TOs better in when to yell either commands or assistance.

 

Rather than chase after a devil we don't know, and have a severe injury due to TO not speaking up because he has been told to shut up except for severe safety problems.  That "standard of silence" will soon become a HABIT of silence.  And could allow severe injury to occur.

 

I think our active assistance by the TO as the shooter progresses through the stages is excellent for the novices (25% of our crowd), and hurts very few of the experts (10% of the crowd), and the experts OUGHT to be able to accept an occasional TO error for the good of the game.  And they already have their built-in filters of when to ignore a suggestion when it would cause them more penalty.

 

If we want to just make a reshoot offer common when a TO makes a mistake, that would be a very good compromise.   But don't pressure the TO to stop assisting; instead, replace an unskilled TO with a better one (especially at high-stakes matches, State and above).

 

Expert shooters have had and would continue to have the ability to request "No Assistance For Me" from the TO.  In which case the TO (and posse) had better hold their tongues.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

 

[Shooting Bull]

4 hours ago, Straight Arrow Hombre said:

I think folks need to understand the difference between range commands and coaching. If you’re unable to differentiate, then it might be wise to inform the TO not to offer any coaching. 

 

Asking a shooter to differentiate between the two in the middle of a stage is unrealistic and goes against our claim of safety being paramount. When the TO give a command you should comply. No thinking about it, no hesitation, comply. 

[Shooting Bull]

39 minutes ago, Garrison Joe, SASS #60708 said:

 

Rather than chase after a devil we don't know, and have a severe injury due to TO not speaking up because he has been told to shut up except for severe safety problems.  That "standard of silence" will soon become a HABIT of silence.  

 

 

 

That's the exact opposite of what I'd propose. TOs SHOULD speak up without fear of causing the shooter to get a penalty. 

 

I spoke up while thiming at Winter Range. My error caused the shooter to eat an SDQ. Totally my fault but she got penalized. That ain't right. 

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

19 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

That's the exact opposite of what I'd propose.

 

Hey, SB - I'm agreeing with you strongly! 

 

TOs should continue to be able to "assist shooter safely thru stage", as our rules direct them to do now.   Don't put an unhelpful penalty on the shooter when they comply.   Provide for a reshoot with minimum of hassle.  If posse members are causing reshoots by "intrusive coaching" - deal with THAT with some sort of penalty.  Like a Spirit of the Game.

 

A few others on this thread have been calling for "TO silence" and leaving shooter unassisted except for direct safety concerns.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

 

 

 

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

22 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

I spoke up while thiming at Winter Range. My error caused the shooter to eat an SDQ. Totally my fault but she got penalized. That ain't right. 

 

That's wrong on every level one could think of   

OLG

[Barry Sloe]

I think the latest version of the rule books takes care of this.

 

If the TO gives a "stop" command and the shooter ignores it, potential MDQ (ROI, pg 70).  If the shooter follows the command and that command was in error, shooter should get a re-shoot for RO interference (ROI pg 15 & 18).  And from the ROII, pg 8: "If a safety command is given by the CRO, that is later determined to be errant, (e.g., if a squib call is determined to actually be clear), the shooter will automatically receive a reshoot."

 

Bottom line - shooter needs to follow the directions of the TO.  And our TOs need to be knowledgeable in the latest rules.

 

That's it from this side of the peanut gallery,

BS

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

I hope I don't get a suicidal TO... i mean... He might give me a command to shoot him in the head... What should i do??? Ignore his command or do what he says?

 

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

38 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

I hope I don't get a suicidal TO... i mean... He might give me a command to shoot him in the head... What should i do??? Ignore his command or do what he says?

 

 

First question, would this cause you to break the 170?

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Quote

hope I don't get a suicidal TO

 

So you would follow a command to be lethally unsafe and commit a second degree murder?   Wow.  There's the game, and then there's reality that imposes itself every once in a while.  Lets hope EVERY SINGLE SASS COMPETITOR knows the difference.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

17 minutes ago, Garrison Joe, SASS #60708 said:

 

So you would follow a command to be lethally unsafe and commit a second degree murder?   Wow.  There's the game, and then there's reality that imposes itself every once in a while.  Lets hope EVERY SINGLE SASS COMPETITOR knows the difference.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

Oh my gawd...you actually think...oh nevermind.

 

oy...

 

[Rye Miles #13621]

10 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Oh my gawd...you actually think...oh nevermind.

 

oy...

 

Some people just don't understand sarcasm!