Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

WHAT'S THE CALL??


Reverend Ledslinga

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

I'll give ya my answer if you give me yours. No, not enough evidence presented to prove a miss. Clean, no P.

Now, MDQ or not?

Impossible to say without being there... Lots of nuances that can exist between the shooter and the TO.

 

For example: If a second shot was performed before the TO gave the stop command and it was understood between the shooter and the TO that the stop command was for a possible Squib... Then no call. 

 

If the TO repeated the stop command after the second shot ... Showing blattent disregard for the command, yes, MDQ... And told to never come back.

 

Phantom

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply
35 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

Since this is SASS, I thought that we should mention how SASS defines it.

 

ROI

misfire.png.626f9e4e87364ed8fc5e3bde3e09a806.png

 

squib.png.74ca8820db61aa990b08c6888cc6b5ad.png

 

SHB pg 13

 

On a personal note, my lovely wife's rifle has a nice bulge in the barrel about 4 inches of so from the muzzle from a squib she shot out because no one realized that she had one in order to tell her to stop.

 

They ended up giving her a miss.

I assume she got more than one miss.

 

You're right, this is SASS. Maybe we could start with changing over to the literal definitions of commonly used words and phrases instead of making up our own definitions. That would take care of a lot of confusion, even "fanning". That definition is open for interpretation i.e. I stop a shooter when I hear a round go off that is just a smidge quieter than the one before it.

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

Assumed facts:

 

1. There was a stuck bullet

2: First round was pushed out of the barrel by the second round.

3. Second round hit correct target.

 

There is more evidence that two bullets hit the appropriate target.

 

Again, justify a miss call.

 

Phantom

There's no evidence that two rounds ACTUALLY hit the target! Maybe the second round pushed out the first round and never made it to the target??

 

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

Impossible to say without being there... Lots of nuances that can exist between the shooter and the TO.

 

For example: If a second shot was performed before the TO gave the stop command and it was understood between the shooter and the TO that the stop command was for a possible Squib... Then no call. 

 

If the TO repeated the stop command after the second shot ... Showing blattent disregard for the command, yes, MDQ... And told to never come back.

 

Phantom

Agreed!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

There's no evidence that two rounds ACTUALLY hit the target! Maybe the second round pushed out the first round and never made it to the target??

 

There's also no concrete evidence that the one of the two rounds missed the target. If the spotter doesn't SEE the round miss then it's assumed a hit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? I'll buy that. If, in fact, the shooter didn't even flinch at the suspected squib and continued as normal, the stop was probably as the second shot was going off (or after) and the barrel obstruction (if there was one) was cleared from the barrel anyway. Scary and unsafe, but appears to have happened. Now the shooter in question (and ONLY they) knows if they heard the STOP. Shooter, if you did and kept going, shame on you. If you didn't, I'm glad you and everyone around you is safe. I hope this is a learning experience for all of us. Lots of opinions and angles to this.

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

There's also no concrete evidence that the one of the two rounds missed the target. If the spotter doesn't SEE the round miss then it's assumed a hit. 

Okay agreed, so NO EVIDENCE either way!:o

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

There's no evidence that two rounds ACTUALLY hit the target! Maybe the second round pushed out the first round and never made it to the target??

 

But regarding miss calls, benefit clause applies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So riddle me this... With the shooter's first "engagement" with the second pistol (first round), all spotters and the RO hear the "pfft" and believe it to be a squib. Freeze in time and make the call... hit or miss? Yes, I know we don't have any evidence whether there was an barrel obstruction, as that was taken away with the second shot. Spotters never saw a hit, never heard one and believe the bullet to still be in the barrel, but definitely could not detect a hit. ???

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

So riddle me this... With the shooter's first "engagement" with the second pistol (first round), all spotters and the RO hear the "pfft" and believe it to be a squib. Freeze in time and make the call... hit or miss? Yes, I know we don't have any evidence whether there was an barrel obstruction, as that was taken away with the second shot. Spotters never saw a hit, never heard one and believe the bullet to still be in the barrel, but definitely could not detect a hit. ???

 

They didn't SEE a miss either, and a miss should not be called just because the spotter didn't hear it ring steel. It's a hit unless they shooter was stopped and there was indeed a round in the barrel or a spotter actually SAW the miss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

So riddle me this... With the shooter's first "engagement" with the second pistol (first round), all spotters and the RO hear the "pfft" and believe it to be a squib. Freeze in time and make the call... hit or miss? Yes, I know we don't have any evidence whether there was an barrel obstruction, as that was taken away with the second shot. Spotters never saw a hit, never heard one and believe the bullet to still be in the barrel, but definitely could not detect a hit. ???

That's what I was trying to say. No evidence either way!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

Did the RO call a STOP?

Did the shooter keep going?

 

You make the call

 

55 minutes ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

I'll give ya my answer if you give me yours. No, not enough evidence presented to prove a miss. Clean, no P.

Now, MDQ or not?

I don't wish to discuss the miss. I would like to discuss the MDQ.

 

I was in attendance when the rule was changed from SDQ to MDQ.  There was much discussion about how to not penalize someone who was hard of hearing. Following is the resulting rule, from p.18 in the SHB."'Cease Fire' or 'STOP!' – The command called out by the CRO/TO or any witnessing Range Officer/Match Official at any time an unsafe condition develops. The shooter must stop shooting and stop moving immediately. Willful failure to comply to a Cease Fire or Stop command given by, and while under the control of the CRO/TO will result in a Match Disqualification penalty assessment."

 

In the case of a shooter who is hard of hearing, as it was stated this shooter was, I would say "willful intent" cannot be proven.

 

So, I do not support a call of MDQ.

 

Regards,

 

Allie

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

In the case of a shooter who is hard of hearing, as it was stated this shooter was, I would say "willful intent" cannot be proven.

So, I do not support a call of MDQ.

Eggsackerly!

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

Again, I'm addressing the miss call.

 

The failure to stop is irrelevant to the discussion of the miss call.

 

Can you please focus only on that issue and justify your call of a miss?

 

Phantom

From the OP we know the first round was a squib and did not exit the barrel.  This is supported by the TO calling the ceasefire and one additional spotter initially calling a miss.  

 

The second round cleared the barrel as it pushed the first slug out and was likely married (pressure welded) to it so both slugs likely hit the target together, ultimately making it a single hit. 

 

The "seeing a miss" rule applies to the fact that the spotter knew the first round did not exit the barrel.  I call 1 miss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, hard to "prove" whether the shooter heard the command or not. RO would have to ask himself if the shooter was "hearing" other commands given previously and make the determination. With the spotters AND an adjacent posse hearing the STOP, hard to believe they did not hear it, but only the shooter know for sure. A MDQ is a tough pill to swallow and is a hard call to make. One should only pick up the timer if they are willing to make such calls. Only the shooter knows if they heard the command and only the RO can make the MDQ call.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jailhouse Jim, SASS #13104 said:

From the OP we know the first round was a squib and did not exit the barrel.  This is supported by the TO calling the ceasefire and one additional spotter initially calling a miss.  

 

The second round cleared the barrel as it pushed the first slug out and was likely married (pressure welded) to it so both slugs likely hit the target together, ultimately making it a single hit. 

 

The "seeing a miss" rule applies to the fact that the spotter knew the first round did not exit the barrel.  I call 1 miss.

How can that spotter "know" the bullet did not leave the barrel unless verified still in the barrel? With the second shot fired, this can no longer be done. The spotter "thought" the bullet didn't leave the barrel, no way to prove it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jailhouse Jim, SASS #13104 said:

From the OP we know the first round was a squib and did not exit the barrel.  This is supported by the TO calling the ceasefire and one additional spotter initially calling a miss.  

 

The second round cleared the barrel as it pushed the first slug out and was likely married (pressure welded) to it so both slugs likely hit the target together, ultimately making it a single hit. 

 

The "seeing a miss" rule applies to the fact that the spotter knew the first round did not exit the barrel.  I call 1 miss.

 

No one knew, there is NO way to prove there was a squib.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK OK so what you are saying is that I can get up there and blast away as fast as I can with "blanks" and since there is no evidence of a miss I shot it clean! Is that what you are saying? LOL

 

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

OK OK so what you are saying is that I can get up there and blast away as fast as I can with "blanks" and since there is no evidence of a miss I shot it clean! Is that what you are saying? LOL

 

 

Yes, except for the whole illegal ammunition part that will get you progressive penalties and a MDQ.

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

 

Yes, except for the whole illegal ammunition part that will get you progressive penalties and a MDQ.

How would you know they were blanks? LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Flash said:

How would you know they were blanks? LOL

 

Ok, my comment is assuming there is a loading table officer;  Then it would be left up to the to and the spotters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one said anything about banning "deaf" shooters. The shooter owns the stage. If they have some sort of disability they need to notify the TO in advance. Hard of hearing and not able to hear the "Stop" command is owned by the shooter. Again, TO called stop shooter did or didn't hear it, still a MDQ.  The shooter through his own actions put everyone near him in jeopardy with an exploding pistol.

 

"TO, I am hard of hearing you'll need to tap my shoulder on the buzzer". At that point the TO should know to keep right next to the shooter in case of a "Stop" needed so he can grab the guy.

 

Giving a "benefit of the doubt" to the shooter in a safety issue is going down the wrong path.

Ike

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

OK OK so what you are saying is that I can get up there and blast away as fast as I can with "blanks" and since there is no evidence of a miss I shot it clean! Is that what you are saying? LOL

 

Yes, please do that.

 

:wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

No one said anything about banning "deaf" shooters. The shooter owns the stage. If they have some sort of disability they need to notify the TO in advance. Hard of hearing and not able to hear the "Stop" command is owned by the shooter. Again, TO called stop shooter did or didn't hear it, still a MDQ.  The shooter through his own actions put everyone near him in jeopardy with an exploding pistol.

 

"TO, I am hard of hearing you'll need to tap my shoulder on the buzzer". At that point the TO should know to keep right next to the shooter in case of a "Stop" needed so he can grab the guy.

 

Giving a "benefit of the doubt" to the shooter in a safety issue is going down the wrong path.

Ike

   Uh, yeah. Saying if they can't hear the stop command then they don't need to be shooting is exactly what that means. Try telling one of them they can't shoot because of it and see if all our dues don't go up 400% to pay for the lawsuit. I'm inspecting ADA compliance issues right now and I'm here to tell you for a FACT that is what will happen. "I'm joking" or "you took it wrong" wont help either. Heck, you even have to have wheelchair access to a baseball or soccer field. I'm very surprised this line of thought hasn't been squished by the powers that be. It must not have been seen yet.

 

  "Again, TO called stop and shooter did or did not hear it, still a MDQ". That statement is exactly WRONG. Read the whole rule.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Flash said:

OK OK so what you are saying is that I can get up there and blast away as fast as I can with "blanks" and since there is no evidence of a miss I shot it clean! Is that what you are saying? LOL

 

Only 'cause it's you...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about banning shooters for any disability. I'm saying if a shooter has an issue of any kind the TO should be made aware of it.

As to ADA, I design buildings and have been applying it since its passing 3 decades ago. It s about equal accommodations. If the sport requires people to be able to hear commands while shooting SASS isn't responsible for that. They are responsible for making every effort to allow the shooter to shoot. But again the shooter is responsible for their actions on the stage.

And how is SASS ADA compliant when someone in a wheelchair can't make it to the stages or manage a wheelchair in sand, mud, gravel etc? Concrete everywhere?

 

Ike

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

No one said anything about banning "deaf" shooters. The shooter owns the stage. If they have some sort of disability they need to notify the TO in advance. Hard of hearing and not able to hear the "Stop" command is owned by the shooter. Again, TO called stop shooter did or didn't hear it, still a MDQ.  The shooter through his own actions put everyone near him in jeopardy with an exploding pistol.

 

"TO, I am hard of hearing you'll need to tap my shoulder on the buzzer". At that point the TO should know to keep right next to the shooter in case of a "Stop" needed so he can grab the guy.

 

Giving a "benefit of the doubt" to the shooter in a safety issue is going down the wrong path.

Ike

 

To my mind Leadfinger handled this situation about as good as could be and after considering all of the facts the best call that could have been made was made.  Remember when your on the line shooting your filled with adrenaline and your focus is on completing the stage as fast as you can.  While the TO yelled out the shooters focus is on the next shot so unless he/she felt something different on the shot it wouldn't necessarily have registered in time to take effect.  Once the second shot was down range with no incident the shooter simply continued on.  Some folks are simply to fast to stop before the next shot goes bang.  Based on what Leadfinger said on page 1 this was one of those occasions.

 

Case in point at Winter Range while shooting a stage with Constable Nelson as the TO I had a squib on the second rifle round.  All that I know is that I was struggling to get the 3rd round to chamber and the TO was shaking my shoulder telling me to put the gun down and move on.  By the time that my brain kicked in I'm sure at least 2 or 3 seconds had passed.  I put the gun down and finished the stage w/o incident but in talking to the TO afterwards he indicated he had hollered Squib at least 3 times it was just completely out of my  awareness.  

 

Ps having had the privilege of being TO'ed by both Leadfinger and Reverend Ledslinga many times last winter, they are 2 of the best both at running the timer and helping shooters get through the stage safely.  Plus they are both class A people willing to help you any way they can. Good Job guys!!!!!!!

Grey Beard

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

I'll give ya my answer if you give me yours. No, not enough evidence presented to prove a miss. Clean, no P.

Now, MDQ or not?

Up to the TO. If he believes the shooter didn’t hear the Stop command it’s not an MDQ. If the TO believes the shooter heard it but continued it’s a MDQ.

 

In this case the TO has stated he believes the shooter didn’t hear him.  He’s in the best position to know so it’s not a MDQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, It happened, your club did what it did. Some think you did right, some think you did wrong. You can't go back and change it.

Question is: What are you going to do to try to prevent it from happening again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

I didn't say anything about banning shooters for any disability. I'm saying if a shooter has an issue of any kind the TO should be made aware of it.

As to ADA, I design buildings and have been applying it since its passing 3 decades ago. It s about equal accommodations. If the sport requires people to be able to hear commands while shooting SASS isn't responsible for that. They are responsible for making every effort to allow the shooter to shoot. But again the shooter is responsible for their actions on the stage.

And how is SASS ADA compliant when someone in a wheelchair can't make it to the stages or manage a wheelchair in sand, mud, gravel etc? Concrete everywhere?

 

Ike

Didn't say SASS was ADA compliant. Also I deal every day with everything from an individual designer to companies that "think" they are compliant. 

As for the last item in your post, since sass isn't a municipality or government owned there isn't a governing body that is in charge of oversight per se. But, if a suit is brought forth, thats when DOJ gets involved and you dont want that. You dont poke a sleeping bear. 

You show me a recreation soccer field or baseball field that doesnt have wheelchair access for players to get out on the field and Ill show you that its not in compliance.

 

This is the comment I am referring to.

Screenshot_20181213-125926_Chrome.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man I'm gonna git me some popcorn for this!! Can we make 10 pages???:lol:

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.