Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Major BS Walker Regulator

WTC

Recommended Posts

B Western 'Hats must be worn and must be felt hats only. No straw or palm leaf hats allowed'. So they must be worn. Define worn? Many a cowboy/cowgirl wore their hats off their head suspended by stampede strings, in the movies and TV . So they are "wearing"  them. Or do we need a clarification on hat wearing? Should we ask PWB to weigh in on this critical issue?

 

Still not sure what this has to do with the original OP? Other than the typical divergent replies on here that have nothing to do with the original OP. So, if a shooter comes ot the line wearing a Make America Great Again button on their shirt is that advertising?

Ike

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

Okay, now we're headed down the right track.

 

Where does that answer come from?

I'm old and not sure but I think it came from a rule clarification.

 

Randy

Share this post


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

B Western 'Hats must be worn

I think worn is on your head as opposed to hanging on your back via a stampede string. I could very well be mistaken but I'm pretty sure this came out in another rule clarification.

 

Randy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randy, I'll go back to what I said earlier, 'If it ain't in the rule book it ain't a rule'. Clarifications don't count.

Ike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roc clarification from. 2016 specified that hat must be worn on head for those categories

 

it was that same TG meeting where it was clarified that if the starting position was Hands-On hat oh, the rest of the sass defaults, IE standing erect, were still in effect. in other words, you couldn't be crouched over hanging over your rifle with your hands on your hat.

 

Now you will not find either one of these clarifications in the current shooters handbook either, however, they are still in effect. The shooters handbook is not going to cover every single little nuance of the rules. That's why they have these clarifications from time to time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree, however, that we as an organization need to do a better job of organizing, maintaining, and publishing these clarifications.

 

Especially since folks do not regularly attend RO refresher courses, and we as an organization do not require people to take those classes in order to maintain their RO status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a few attendees were made aware of the "CLARIFICATION" and the majority, as in the rest of us, aren't. But hey we're all paying by the same rules right. NO.

As I understand it the ROC clarifies rules. But technically the rules changes have to be presented too and approved by the TG's. So if that didn't occur is it really a rule clarification if the TG's didn't weigh in on it?

 

The methodology for this whole process needs to be re-visited.

 

And the original OP was what?

Ike

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Rules Clarification Archives" page has been updated.

The LINK to that page is on the SHOOTERS HANDBOOK page on the SASS home page.

Any recent clarifications from the ROC and/or Wild Bunch are "in effect" whether they are codified in the SHB or not.

It is our intent to include most of those in the edits of the SHB as necessary.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

Now you will not find either one of these clarifications in the current shooters handbook either, however, they are still in effect. The shooters handbook is not going to cover every single little nuance of the rules. That's why they hate these clarifications from time to time.

That makes it difficult for those who don't follow the wire and WTC threads. If I'm a TO at a match and someone holding the rule book challenges my call re the OP, how do I back it up if it isn't in the book? "I read it on the wire" won't cut it outside of a monthly match.

 

I was the one who posted the question back in March of 2017. The answer I got makes perfect sense, but it doesn't seem like a "little nuance" to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PINNED POST re the clarification as to exactly when the penalty for "shooting out of category" applies; and how to avoid the "P".

 

That has also been cross-posted to the TG and RO Instructor Wires.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You Sir. I had to make a ruling on this Saturday and I did it based on this information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many clarifications go back several years, and this one goes back two years. If these can't be incorporated into the SHB, I would suggest a GREAT BIG NOTE in the Forward page and table of contents of the SHB to this above mentioned link http://www.oowss.com/ROCornerIndex.htm. I'm thinking a reference to this would nip a number of WTC threads in the bud.

 

In all sincerity, thanks for all you do PWB. :)

 

Share this post


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

B Western 'Hats must be worn and must be felt hats only. No straw or palm leaf hats allowed'. So they must be worn. Define worn? Many a cowboy/cowgirl wore their hats off their head suspended by stampede strings, in the movies and TV . So they are "wearing"  them. Or do we need a clarification on hat wearing? Should we ask PWB to weigh in on this critical issue?

...

 

 

Quote

Hats: Classic Cowboy/Cowgirl and B-Western (ladies and men) are required to wear hats on their heads, not hanging by a stampede from your string or anywhere else. This is already a rule; just a clarification. 

EoT TG Meeting - 2016 (edited for clarity)

Share this post


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

Randy, I'll go back to what I said earlier, 'If it ain't in the rule book it ain't a rule'. Clarifications don't count.

Ike

 

YES...they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have the SHB AND the Clarifications website. Are those the only places we need to be aware of to make correct calls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. As stated above, also look at PWB's pinned posts here. A lot of iffy wtc posts are hashed out here and it'll save you time. I have used it many times.

Share this post


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

Randy, I'll go back to what I said earlier, 'If it ain't in the rule book it ain't a rule'. Clarifications don't count.

Ike

So clarifications via SCOTUS don't count???

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the things on that clarification site are confusing and I may need clarification on those... Lol

But seriously, does the "RECOMMENDATION: YES…CHANGE THE RULE AS SUGGESTED (amended re "safety notch") " mean that the rule was officially changed or just recommended to be changed in the future? Can't find what was amended on the safety notch... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Chicken George* said:

RECOMMENDATION: YES…CHANGE THE RULE AS SUGGESTED (amended re "safety notch") 

... By the way, that was for the suggestion that going to the line with the rifle hammer cocked would not automatically be a SDQ. It is on the clarification site so does that make it an official change? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Chicken George* said:

Some of the things on that clarification site are confusing and I may need clarification on those... Lol

But seriously, does the "RECOMMENDATION: YES…CHANGE THE RULE AS SUGGESTED (amended re "safety notch") " mean that the rule was officially changed or just recommended to be changed in the future? Can't find what was amended on the safety notch... 

 

The ROC recommended taking the issue of changing the rule to the TGs for a vote.

There has been NO CHANGE to the current rule/penalty.

The "safety notch" amendment was not included in the original agenda item; but added to the recommendation regarding how to handle a firearm in that condition.

 

15 minutes ago, Chicken George* said:

... By the way, that was for the suggestion that going to the line with the rifle hammer cocked would not automatically be a SDQ. It is on the clarification site so does that make it an official change? 

 

The document was archived for future reference (as are most of those on that site).

 

THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE TO THE REFERENCED RULE/PENALTY.

 

Recommendation: 

NOUN
  1. a suggestion or proposal as to the best course of action, especially one put forward by an authoritative body.
     
     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much of this "stuff" seems to be folks trying to get around the spirit of the rule(s).  Please folks just wear the dang hat on your head and get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe LaFives #5481 said:

So much of this "stuff" seems to be folks trying to get around the spirit of the rule(s).  Please folks just wear the dang hat on your head and get over it.

No s#&@!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.