Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

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

fannerfifty 59504

Who calls the procedural?

Recommended Posts

Guest Texas jack Black SASS#9362
7 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I'm not sure what you mean about few agree?  It's not a matter of agreeing.  There's a rule, responsibilities are clearly explained, as Branchwater said:

 

SHB page 24

During the course of fire, a shooter may on occasion incur penalties which need to be assessed. The immediate authority on the stage to that end is the Chief Range Officer/Timer Operator (CRO/TO), assisted by the input of the spotters. The scope of assessing penalties includes safety violations, procedural errors, appropriate completion of stage activities, illegal firearms and equipment, appropriate ammunition, appropriate dress, and other category specific requirements such as the adequate production of smoke in the blackpowder categories. The CRO/TO may unilaterally assign penalties for safety violations and procedural errors when they have clearly occurred (this does not include assessing misses). Assessing misses is purely in the purview of the spotters.

 

People don't have to agree, they just have to understand whose responsibility it is, in this case the TO.   I'm not sure who, if anyone, has disputed that.  This isn?"'t really a "What's the Call?", it's a "What does the Handbook Say?"

 

 

 I said few agree , meaning 27 responses and so many have so much trouble understanding a simple rule and rule book. IMHO :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2019 at 12:01 AM, wyliefoxEsquire said:

Page 21 at the bottom, SHB

 

- Chief Range Officer/Timer Operator (CRO/TO) – is the Chief Range Officer (CRO) for the stage and is in charge of the firing line as long as he/she is running the timer, and has the primary objective to safely assist the shooter through the course of fire.

 

- Spotters/Counters – have the responsibility to count shots and misses and to verify targets were engaged in the correct order for the required number of shots.

 

It appears to me that the TO needs to be watching the shooter not the targets.  It it the job of the spotters to watch for "p's".

 

 

Spotters watch for Ps and report to the TO what they believe happened, the TO is the final arbiter of whether a P is assessed or not.

 

On 4/22/2019 at 12:32 PM, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

I was referring to the reference chart that outlined the process for a TO. RO1 page 49. It doesn't say anything about determining procedurals or safeties with the spotters...just misses!

We have storefronts where the windows don't allow the TO to clearly see what the shooter shot. SO as others are saying, 4 people weigh in on the outcome, the TO ultimately makes the final determination. Unless the shooter protests and then ?????

Ike

The reference chart doesn't say that, but it is explained on page 24 of the SHB.  TO's are the final decision maker with respect to Ps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original OP, he didn't dispute the authority of the TO or having the final word. He was asking about the TO assessing a P when none of the 3 spotters saw it. And then implying the TO talked them into it so they'd change their mind! Assuming they all had a clear view of the shooter and the targets and 3 of the 4 people watching the shooter said no P, and then applying the benefit of the doubt to the shooter, wouldn't the correct call be "No P"? If people have to be talked into changing their mind is that the correct approach to applying what the TO thought he saw. And as presented this wasn't a one time thing but the TO did this more than once. Leads me to believe the TO needed to be questioned as to why he sees things no one else saw?

 

I shoot at this range and the spotters have no issues with seeing the shooter. I also know the windows we shoot from can block the view of the TO as to what the shooter actually shot.

Ike

Share this post


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

Back to the original OP, he didn't dispute the authority of the TO or having the final word. He was asking about the TO assessing a P when none of the 3 spotters saw it. And then implying the TO talked them into it so they'd change their mind! Assuming they all had a clear view of the shooter and the targets and 3 of the 4 people watching the shooter said no P, and then applying the benefit of the doubt to the shooter, wouldn't the correct call be "No P"? If people have to be talked into changing their mind is that the correct approach to applying what the TO thought he saw. And as presented this wasn't a one time thing but the TO did this more than once. Leads me to believe the TO needed to be questioned as to why he sees things no one else saw?

 

I shoot at this range and the spotters have no issues with seeing the shooter. I also know the windows we shoot from can block the view of the TO as to what the shooter actually shot.

Ike

If the one person who did see a P was the TO then the correct call would be a P. OTH, if three spotters call a P and the TO saw that the stage was shot correctly then the call is clean. There’s nothing in the rule book that says if the spotters are unanimous they can overrule the TO with respect to Ps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when being in RO course and them telling you the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter is what, BS, subjective, depends on who the RO/TO is? If 3 of the 4 people say no P who would over rule that? If I was the shooter I would protest.

Ike

Share this post


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

So when being in RO course and them telling you the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter is what, BS, subjective, depends on who the RO/TO is? If 3 of the 4 people say no P who would over rule that? If I was the shooter I would protest.

Ike

In order to get the benefit of the doubt there must be doubt!  If the three spotters introduce doubt into the TO's mind then he should accept their call. If he is certain that he saw it correctly then he should stick with his call.  Speaking only for me I would have to be very certain to over ride three spotters and give a P.  On the flip side if I'm 'pretty certain' there was no P and the spotters aren't very persuasive then I'm not going to give a P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the P has to do with target order then I would hope the TO would depend on the spotters (his/her job) for the final word.  If three spotters all agree that the targets were hit in the proper order then the TO should not intervene with his/her opinion.

 

If the P is about firearm order then I would hope the TO is aware (his/her job) and would be the final word.

 

If the TO does not like the outcome of the spotters decision on target order, then the TO should ask for spotter relief.  

 

 

Share this post


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

If I was the shooter I would protest.

 

No posse marshal or match director I know would allow a protest of a "what was seen" call to go forward (such as a P for target order).   Protests are much more likely to be successful if there was inaccurate application of a rule, not a "ball or strike" or "safe or out" call.

 

With a "what was seen" call, there is no way to obtain "absolute truth" by anyone but folks who were on the line and watching the run for this kind of a call, and that is why there are three advisors - spotters - and a final "caller" - the TO.  And the TO is there in case the call involves things the spotters have a hard time seeing (like two loaded guns out at same time).

 

Good luck, GJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Posse is seeing a TO calling P's when the spotters are saying one didn't occur then its replace the TO time.

So Joe what you're saying is, if the shooter hears the 3 spotters disagreeing with the TO and the TO chooses to apply a P the shooter has no ability to protest. Is there a list or described criteria somewhere that defines what a shooter can or can't protest? Please share that as I am unaware of one. I thought a shooter has the ability to protest or call into question anything they don't agree with.

If a shooter came to me as the RO or MD and said 3 spotters said no P and the TO overruled them I would rule in favor of the shooter. My understanding has always been the TO isn't the primary source for watching shooting order, the spotters are. Especially when the TO may not have a clear view of what and how the shooter is shooting.

Ike

Share this post


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

If the P has to do with target order then I would hope the TO would depend on the spotters (his/her job) for the final word.  If three spotters all agree that the targets were hit in the proper order then the TO should not intervene with his/her opinion.

 

If the P is about firearm order then I would hope the TO is aware (his/her job) and would be the final word.

 

If the TO does not like the outcome of the spotters decision on target order, then the TO should ask for spotter relief.  

 

 

I'm going to respectfully suggest that your view of what a TO 'should' do is not in accord with what the rule book says.  It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's not how the rules are currently written.  If that's the way you run a match then you are not following SASS rules.  

 

19 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

If the Posse is seeing a TO calling P's when the spotters are saying one didn't occur then its replace the TO time.

So Joe what you're saying is, if the shooter hears the 3 spotters disagreeing with the TO and the TO chooses to apply a P the shooter has no ability to protest. Is there a list or described criteria somewhere that defines what a shooter can or can't protest? Please share that as I am unaware of one. I thought a shooter has the ability to protest or call into question anything they don't agree with.

If a shooter came to me as the RO or MD and said 3 spotters said no P and the TO overruled them I would rule in favor of the shooter. My understanding has always been the TO isn't the primary source for watching shooting order, the spotters are. Especially when the TO may not have a clear view of what and how the shooter is shooting.

Ike

The same here, respectfully, your understanding is incorrect. It's not necessarily about who the primary source is, it's about who makes the final determination, for Ps that's the TO.

 

Share this post


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

3 spotters said no P and the TO overruled them I would rule in favor of the shooter.

 

If protested by the shooter, I would first poll the 4 range officers to make sure this was a "what was seen" call, not a "didn't apply rules properly" call.

 

If this was a "had to see it" call, MD or even posse marshal has no real reason to get into the middle of that, because there is no "win" anywhere.  Deny the protest.  Rotate in a new set of range officials if you have concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, if 3 people say no P and the TO says P why wouldn't the shooter be able to go to the RO/MD? Who's going to tell the shooter the TO is the supreme ruler and they aren't allowed to question the call? At the range this question came from it is impossible at some storefront windows for the TO to see what the shooter has shot at or if he hit it. The TO can monitor gun handling, gun order, and shooter movement. So the spotters would be the primary source for shooting P's.

Captain, the book says the TO has the final authority, unless protested by the shooter. But if a TO is calling P's when 3 people say no then maybe the TO is wrong!

Ike

Share this post


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

Again, if 3 people say no P and the TO says P why wouldn't the shooter be able to go to the RO/MD? Who's going to tell the shooter the TO is the supreme ruler and they aren't allowed to question the call? At the range this question came from it is impossible at some storefront windows for the TO to see what the shooter has shot at or if he hit it. The TO can monitor gun handling, gun order, and shooter movement. So the spotters would be the primary source for shooting P's.

Captain, the book says the TO has the final authority, unless protested by the shooter. But if a TO is calling P's when 3 people say no then maybe the TO is wrong!

Ike

And maybe he's right.  Who's to say?  The rule book says the TO has the final say.  That's why Joe is correct that what was seen calls aren't usually entertained.  It's almost like our court system.  Generally the trial court determines facts and the appeals court examines whether the law was applied correctly. 

 

To respond to your 'who's going to tell the shooter the TO's call is final'.  The rule book does that.

 

You keep saying that the spotters should be the primary source, but you don't seem to get the distinction between the way you would like for it to be and the way it is.  I get it, you THINK that the spotters should have the last word, but the rule book SAYS the opposite.  Most of us are going to go with what the book says and not what some random shooter thinks it SHOULD say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said the TO doesn't have the final ruling but.......if a shooter disagrees with the call he has every ability to take the call to a higher authority.  My basic premise is this, if 3 spotters, the TO, and the shooter can all see what occurred and only the TO calls a P you're all saying the TO is the final authority. As in the TO is never wrong.  If I was a shooter and heard 3 out of 4 people say it was not a P, I would ask to speak with the TO and the spotters.

Next someone is going to say whats the big deal? A 10 second penalty would kick a good shooter out of the top 10 at a regional, national, or international match. TO's can and have been wrong. Otherwise why have spotters?

Ike

Share this post


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

I never said the TO doesn't have the final ruling but.......if a shooter disagrees with the call he has every ability to take the call to a higher authority.  My basic premise is this, if 3 spotters, the TO, and the shooter can all see what occurred and only the TO calls a P you're all saying the TO is the final authority. As in the TO is never wrong.  If I was a shooter and heard 3 out of 4 people say it was not a P, I would ask to speak with the TO and the spotters.

Next someone is going to say whats the big deal? A 10 second penalty would kick a good shooter out of the top 10 at a regional, national, or international match. TO's can and have been wrong. Otherwise why have spotters?

Ike

Nope, never said the TO is never wrong, I just quoted the rule book, which says he is the final authority.  I don't see how you get from the TO is the final authority to the TO is never wrong.  Doesn't seem logical to me.  From my perspective, and based on the rule book, the prevailing thought is that the TO is the one most likely to be in a position to correctly ascertain whether a P occurred or not.  Not always, but most often.

 

I also said it would be rare for me to over rule three spotters, particularly to call a P.  I don't believe I've ever done that.  I do remember over ruling all three spotters who wanted me to call a P on a couple of occasions.

 

You're right, TO's can be wrong, so can spotters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ike, Capt Bill. You are both right. You're just looking at it from different angles. It has already been said, but what troubles me about the OP is the statement that several P's were called by the TO and the spotters didn't see any of them. I've only shot in about 120 matches, but I can't remember ever seeing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I'm going to respectfully suggest that your view of what a TO 'should' do is not in accord with what the rule book says.  It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's not how the rules are currently written.  If that's the way you run a match then you are not following SASS rules.  

 

The same here, respectfully, your understanding is incorrect. It's not necessarily about who the primary source is, it's about who makes the final determination, for Ps that's the TO.

 

Please help me find the place in the "rules" that contradicts page 21

 

Page 21 at the bottom, SHB

 

- Chief Range Officer/Timer Operator (CRO/TO) – is the Chief Range Officer (CRO) for the stage and is in charge of the firing line as long as he/she is running the timer, and has the primary objective to safely assist the shooter through the course of fire.

 

- Spotters/Counters – have the responsibility to count shots and misses and to verify targets were engaged in the correct order for the required number of shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooters Handbook page 24

 

During the course of fire, a shooter may on occasion incur penalties which need to be assessed. The immediate authority on the stage to that end is the Chief Range Officer/Timer Operator (CRO/TO), assisted by the input of the spotters. The scope of assessing penalties includes safety violations, procedural errors, appropriate completion of stage activities, illegal firearms and equipment, appropriate ammunition, appropriate dress, and other category specific requirements such as the adequate production of smoke in the blackpowder categories. The CRO/TO may unilaterally assign penalties for safety violations and procedural errors when they have clearly occurred (this does not include assessing misses). Assessing misses is purely in the purview of the spotters.

 

Please read the handbook and don't lawyer the game!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 24 does not address the OP.

The OP stated

"none of the counters saw the procedurals "

so it is fair to say

procedural errors when they have clearly occurred

does not apply

 

This is a game.  Meant to be fun.  

I for one would not like to have a TO assess a procedure (wrong target sequence ) where none of the spotters agree.  

IMHO any TO doing this is overstepping their role.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if the spotters did not see anything!!!!!!!!!!

 

If the Timing Operate clearly  saw a penalty, then the penalty is to be assessed!

Regardless of the spotters or the peanut gallery or your best friend.

 

If you don't like the way the rule is and the way it is enforced, then take it up with your territorial Governor  and have the rule changed. (If you can get enough votes)

 

 

Share this post


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

Page 24 does not address the OP.

The OP stated

"none of the counters saw the procedurals "

so it is fair to say

procedural errors when they have clearly occurred

does not apply

 

This is a game.  Meant to be fun.  

I for one would not like to have a TO assess a procedure (wrong target sequence ) where none of the spotters agree.  

IMHO any TO doing this is overstepping their role.

 

The rule has been placed in the thread for you to read and three RO instructors have tried to explain it to you. What more do you want? Have you decided that you’re the ultimate arbiter of what the rules are and your opinion should trump everything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Marshal Chance Morgun said:

Ike, Capt Bill. You are both right. You're just looking at it from different angles. It has already been said, but what troubles me about the OP is the statement that several P's were called by the TO and the spotters didn't see any of them. I've only shot in about 120 matches, but I can't remember ever seeing that.

That's the thing I get from this as well. It could be poor spotting as we get that sometimes but if it were it should have been corrected. It could be the TO was having a bad day? I have handed the timer off before because I was not in tune with the spotters and felt that would benefit the posse. Personally I watch the guns and it's pretty hard to see the gun and the impact on the target as you can't focus on both even if they are in line. 

 

So I talk to the spotters and watch the gun dance around and most times you can get a good indication of what's going on but if the targets are close together and father away plus there is a lot of gun movement it gets tough so as the TO I listen to the spotters and combine all the "evidence" which I would think is what most of us are doing. We want to make the right call......it's natural. 

 

I personally fell like the benefit goes to the shooter MUCH more often than the 3 spotters and the TO make the wrong call. Most people error to the shooter...…….at least around here. I don't think any system will be perfect but in this case either the TO or the spotters probably should have been changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something just like this just happened the other day, where the shooter took liberty with the target order when shooting the stage.

 

Upon completion of the stage, the TO looked about as spotters all shook their fists in the air and declared the shooter clean and commented to eachother on how masterfully the stage was shot.

 

TO looked at the shooter and said, "You know what you did?"

 

Shooter said, "Yup."

 

TO Called out the time, no misses, and a P all to be recorded.

 

Spotters were scratching their heads a bit, but the TO then went and told the spotters what the shooter did wrong in hopes that the spotters would catch it next time.

 

In this case, if the TO did not call the procedural penalty that the shooter earned, they would have penalized each and every shooter at that match 10 seconds. And, you're right in that not calling that 10 second penalty could determine a lot of outcomes during the match as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 12:47 PM, fannerfifty 59504 said:

Who calls the procedurals? I recently had an experience where the TO called several procedurals on shooters , none of the counters saw the procedurals and yet the TO assessed the penalty, or explained what they didn't see to have them change there score. 

The problem I have is that the T.O. didn't explain what they saw! Not sure why he/she didn't. T.O. absolutely can and should have the authority to assess a P if warranted, but tell the shooter why he/she earned the p

Rafe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rafe Conager SASS #56958 said:

The problem I have is that the T.O. didn't explain what they saw! Not sure why he/she didn't. T.O. absolutely can and should have the authority to assess a P if warranted, but tell the shooter why he/she earned the p

Rafe

 

Agreed.  The TO must announce the time and any misses/penalties to the shooter. And the shooter has every right to ask why.

 

REF ROI, bullet 11

Quote

Untitled.png.1c3ef20216c0511eb40a4fd5e89c53ab.png

 

Also See SHB pg 23 (emphasis added)

Quote

In the event a competitor feels a CRO/TO’s ruling is in error or has been unfairly assessed,
and the firearms have been made safe and unloaded, the ruling may be politely and calmly
appealed, initially to the CRO/TO and/or Posse Marshal, and only by the competitor involved.
The discussion should be taken off the firing line so as not to incur any delays in the shooting
flow, involving only those officials on the line at that time and the shooter (the shooter,
CRO/TO and spotters). The CRO/TO must remain completely objective, consider the facts
and evidence as it is, and must be prepared to discuss the details addressing any questions
the shooter may have
. Recorded video/audio or photographic data will never be allowed to be
presented as evidence in either regard. Remember: The benefit of any doubt always goes to
the shooter. Competitors are typically required to register their appeal or protest prior to
leaving the stage or bay where the event in question took place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent! communication is key. Between TO and spotters, between TO and shooter, etc. Everyone should understand the calls recorded and why; that's how we learn and improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we are getting some where. 

 

If if I earn something I should get it. 

I also as a shooter should know  and understand exactly why I am getting said something when I leave the line. 

 

Share this post


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

If the Posse is seeing a TO calling P's when the spotters are saying one didn't occur then its replace the TO time.

 

 So if your TO  is doing his job per the rule book he should be replaced? 

 

 Wow just wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are standing behind my Right Shoulder you are often NOT in a good position to see anything ,,,,,,, SMOKE ,,,, you need to back off a step or two and bob and move like I am to see anything ....

And even at that I believe properly placed spotters that are paying attention have at least as good a chance of making the call as TO ...

 

You do not need the timer up in my face to pick-up my shots !!! I have long ago lost count of the times the timer has bumped me or come into my line of sight ....

This is distracting, and is NOT needed ... On a quiet Range the timer will pick-up the sound of my Rifle from 80 yards away ....

 

I have on more than a few stages had to fire my last shots from my knees to see through the Smoke ....

My .45 Colt loads contain 37.7 gr. of Goex 3f ,,, and Shotshells  are stoked with more of the same ...

 

Jabez Cowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Flanigan Flats said:

IF being the key word 

The rule is clear. When a TO sees a p it should be called. Even if the spotters don't agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Who calls the procedurals? I recently had an experience where the TO called several procedurals on shooters , none of the counters saw the procedurals and yet the TO assessed the penalty, or explained what they didn't see to have them change their score

 

Some assumptions are being made in this discussion regarding the T/O failing to explain why procedurals were assessed re the OP.

What is lacking is additional information regarding what those procedurals were for, and why/how the spotters missed them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through all of the typing I have never once said the TO isn't, doesn't, or shouldn't have the final authority to apply whatever.  What I'm saying, and ya'll can't seem to wrap your minds around is this, 'the TO can make mistakes and apply the wrong call'! If 3 spotters and the shooter all say there was no P then how in the wide world of sports could a TO still apply a P?

PaleWolf is correct, as usual, not enough info on what caused the P's to be applied. But if after the TO has to "talk" people into giving a P and the shooter is told why and they don't agree what then?

Same weekend a shooter pulls his pistol and shoots 4, holsters, pulls second pistol shoots 5. TO is telling him one more the whole time. The shooter is hard of hearing and moves to his rifle. Shoots 10 and finally hears the TO telling him he only shot 9. Shooter goes back to the pistol position, pulls his pistol, shoots the 10th round, correctly in order. TO gives him a P for shooting guns out of order, and a minor safety for holstering his pistol with a round still in it. Hammer was down on an empty! The TO was wrong, but according to this group maybe not so much. We, I, went back and corrected the score at the end of the match when it was brought to my attention by the shooter.  TO and the shooters will have a lessoned learned at the next shoot.

We've all seen wrong calls made and they should be corrected. Thats all I'm saying.

Ike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, evil dogooder said:

 So if your TO  is doing his job per the rule book he should be replaced? 

 

 Wow just wow

So the TO is exempt for being called on mistakes they make?

 

Wow, just WOW

Share this post


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

So the TO is exempt for being called on mistakes they make?

 

Wow, just WOW

So who makes the call that the TO made a mistake and where does it mention that in the SHB?

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.