What's the call?

[Guest Texas jack Black SASS#9362]

55 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

That rewriting/clarifying task may be easy enough to suggest, but it is way more difficult than it appears on the surface.  There are almost infinite scenarios to cover (witness the diverse WTC posts here), and some of them have attached safety issues that don't leave much leeway.  Then, there are numbers of shooters testing boundaries to game any weak points in what is written, to gain advantage.  So it always will boil down to on-the-spot interpretations, and appeal processes.  There are going to be differences in how we each view those events.   

 

I think the best we can do is what we are doing right here--discussing understanding gaps/differences, openly seeking responses from others, including more experienced folks, and then having an ROC in the background to chime into the discussion, and periodically review identified issues and problems, revising rules as needed. 

 

At worst, the rule ambiguities are still much less of a challenge than the difficulties of three people trying to spot and count misses, amid the structural visual limitations of many stages, the choices that shooters are given regarding gun order, and in many cases target order, and given the speed with which spotting decisions must be made.   Absent some new technology (which few of us would want) counting will probably continue to be the most difficult and the weakest link, IMHO.  

 

We all need to be patient with each other's questions here, and try to remain open and helpful to each other.  I really don't think things are very broken--otherwise, none of us would still be here and having fun. 

  

 

 

  Very well put  BUT?

[Tucker McNeely]

13 hours ago, Sergeant Duroc said:

Thanks Tucker!  I usually count in my head each time I hear the "bang"- this way I only had to learn to count to 5 and 10:).  It does help for longer dumps on targets. I wasn't the TO at the time.  I had just finished shooting and was at the unloading table watching a very fast shooter take the stage.  When the dust cleared he was called from a MSV and a miss. I just couldn't get my brain wrapped around the reasoning used for not getting the "P".  Like I said before, I just want to be a solid TO when I'm up there and work to learn/understand the rules to be fair to everyone.    

All good stuff.  A couple of years ago I got a laminated miss chart and penalty cad as a posse marshal. That has proved useful many times.   Most items can be answered with the chart.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

28 minutes ago, Tucker McNeely said:

All good stuff.  A couple of years ago I got a laminated miss chart and penalty cad as a posse marshal. That has proved useful many times.   Most items can be answered with the chart.

 

I've found that the "Penalties Overview" section of the SHB can also be useful in determining a call:

http://www.oowss.com/SASS Rules Docs/Penalties Overview 2019.pdf

 

[Flying W Ramrod]

On 6/8/2019 at 7:43 PM, Grizzly Dave said:

 double jeopardy does not apply here.  

He earned the P as soon as he shot the target out of order, the miss for the un fired round, and the MSV for the round on the carrier.  To avoid the miss (and the MSV) after firing 9, he could have shot (and hit) any rifle target.

Not so, on the avoidance issue. He earned the P as soon as the third shot hit the third target.  He would have only avoided the MSV.Now, if he shot 1-2-6, he wouldn't have the P, only the miss.

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

1 hour ago, Flying W Ramrod said:

Not so, on the avoidance issue. He earned the P as soon as the third shot hit the third target.  He would have only avoided the MSV.Now, if he shot 1-2-6, he wouldn't have the P, only the miss.

 

He's correct actually. Don't quite understand the "avoidance" issue.

 

As was started many posts ago, the third shot earned a P, but had the TO been able to make the shooter aware that there was one more round, the shooter could have avoided 15 seconds worth of penalties.

 

What an I missing??

 

Phantom

[Flying W Ramrod]

51 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

He's correct actually. Don't quite understand the "avoidance" issue.

 

As was started many posts ago, the third shot earned a P, but had the TO been able to make the shooter aware that there was one more round, the shooter could have avoided 15 seconds worth of penalties.

 

What an I missing??

 

Phantom

It's what ever he did with the last round. If he went back and hit a target, he'd have a P, but you can only have 1. If he ejected, he'd have a miss, if he fired at the berm, he'd have a miss. Ejecting would negate the MSV, but would still have a Miss. Hitting any other, rifle, target would negate the MSV and the Miss.  No matter what action, he'd still have a P, minimum.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

21 minutes ago, Flying W Ramrod said:

It's what ever he did with the last round. If he went back and hit a target, he'd have a P, but you can only have 1. If he ejected, he'd have a miss, if he fired at the berm, he'd have a miss. Ejecting would negate the MSV, but would still have a Miss. Hitting any other, rifle, target would negate the MSV and the Miss.  No matter what action, he'd still have a P, minimum.

I understand all that.

 

Perhaps I missed where someone said the shooter could have avoided getting the P after the third shot. All I remember without going back and reading each post is that folks where commenting on how the shooter could have avoided the other penalties.

 

Phantom

[Ramblin Gambler]

2 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

I understand all that.

 

Perhaps I missed where someone said the shooter could have avoided getting the P after the third shot. All I remember without going back and reading each post is that folks where commenting on how the shooter could have avoided the other penalties.

 

Phantom

 

Flying ramrod stipulated in the post you quoted that if he had shot it 1-2-6 (instead of 1-1-7) then he could have avoided the P too.  You just missed his new what-if. 

 

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

37 minutes ago, Ramblin Gambler said:

 

Flying ramrod stipulated in the post you quoted that if he had shot it 1-2-6 (instead of 1-1-7) then he could have avoided the P too.  You just missed his new what-if. 

 

 

I saw that, but his questioning the "avoidance" statement was prior to that.

 

I'll just chalk this one up to one of those "I don't get it" posts.

 

Phantom

[Bramble Mountain Buzzard]

I shot down in Kansas a couple of years ago and the exact same thing came up except it was a 2-6-2 (IIRC). Shooter shot a 2-4-2. I called P-MS and 2 misses. They ended up giving him only 2 misses. I'm from out of state, so I made one more attempt at explaining the calls. Got a such and such said that's how they score at End of Trail. I stopped trying. And will never be going back.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

19 minutes ago, Bramble Mountain Buzzard said:

I shot down in Kansas a couple of years ago and the exact same thing came up except it was a 2-6-2 (IIRC). Shooter shot a 2-4-2. I called P-MS and 2 misses. They ended up giving him only 2 misses. I'm from out of state, so I made one more attempt at explaining the calls. Got a such and such said that's how they score at End of Trail. I stopped trying. And will never be going back.

Well to bad they didn't listen to ya cuz you were essentially correct (2 5 sec penalties for the 2 unfired rounds).

 

Sad that there are folks that apparently compete at the World Championships and don't even know some of the most basic rules.

 

Phantom

[JohnWesleyHardin]

This appears to be a legitimate question that should spark a thoughtful discussion.  I am a new RO and I want to understand the rules.  This forum is great to to have experienced ROs explain the rules.  When I make a call, I want to be 100% sure that I am right.  I am an attorney in real life and the rules are not written very well.  There should not be any ambiguity at all.  Some of the rules are subject to interpretation and have been explained by those who make those decisions down the chain of command.  Rules should not need to be interpreted That's why these discussions are great.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

1 minute ago, JohnWesleyHardin said:

This appears to be a legitimate question that should spark a thoughtful discussion.  I am a new RO and I want to understand the rules.  This forum is great to to have experienced ROs explain the rules.  When I make a call, I want to be 100% sure that I am right.  I am an attorney in real life and the rules are not written very well.  There should not be any ambiguity at all.  Some of the rules are subject to interpretation and have been explained by those who make those decisions down the chain of command.  Rules should not need to be interpreted That's why these discussions are great.

First, I can guarantee you that our rules will never be attorney proof...

 

Perhaps you can give some examples of rules that you feel are ambiguous??

 

Regarding the specific question brought up by the OP, there is no ambiguity. 

 

Phantom

[JohnWesleyHardin]

Here is an example.  Page 16 says a shotgun is considered safe to leave the shooter's hand ONLY when empty.  Page 18 says the long gun must be cleared prior to leaving the shooter's hands at the unloading table.  That is contradictory and requires interpretation.  There has been a lot of discussion on this issue alone on this forum.  Moreover, the fact that there is a discussion above about a miss can't cause a procedural shows that rule can be subject to interpretation. 

 

My point is, this is a great forum to discuss what an appropriate call should be because the rules aren't perfect and neither are the interpretation of the rules.  

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

3 minutes ago, JohnWesleyHardin said:

Here is an example.  Page 16 says a shotgun is considered safe to leave the shooter's hand ONLY when empty.  Page 18 says the long gun must be cleared prior to leaving the shooter's hands at the unloading table.  That is contradictory and requires interpretation.  

 

Read all of the application for the rule on page 18

 

  If the  long  gun is  the  last  firearm  used,  it  must  be  cleared  prior  to  it  leaving the  shooters  hand(s)  at  the  unloading  area. 

 

Being cleared prior to leaving the shooter's hands at the ULT only applies if it is the last gun fired.

[Captain Bill Burt]

23 minutes ago, JohnWesleyHardin said:

This appears to be a legitimate question that should spark a thoughtful discussion.  I am a new RO and I want to understand the rules.  This forum is great to to have experienced ROs explain the rules.  When I make a call, I want to be 100% sure that I am right.  I am an attorney in real life and the rules are not written very well.  There should not be any ambiguity at all.  Some of the rules are subject to interpretation and have been explained by those who make those decisions down the chain of command.  Rules should not need to be interpreted That's why these discussions are great.

I agree that this is a good place to ask and answer questions. But ‘rules should not need to be interpreted’? Really? The same could be said of laws, yet we have the USSC, we have penumbras and emanations and ‘living documents.’ A SASS rulebook that did not need to be interpreted and covered every situation would be hundreds if not thousands of pages. No offense to the OP or anyone else, but the vast majority of WTC posts arise from a failure to read the SHB, not from a failure to correctly interpret what’s in it.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

7 minutes ago, JohnWesleyHardin said:

Here is an example.  Page 16 says a shotgun is considered safe to leave the shooter's hand ONLY when empty.  Page 18 says the long gun must be cleared prior to leaving the shooter's hands at the unloading table.  That is contradictory and requires interpretation.  There has been a lot of discussion on this issue alone on this forum.  Moreover, the fact that there is a discussion above about a miss can't cause a procedural shows that rule can be subject to interpretation. 

 

My point is, this is a great forum to discuss what an appropriate call should be because the rules aren't perfect and neither are the interpretation of the rules.  

I can't fix people that take sections of rules outta context... And I can't fix people who do not comprehend well.

 

Would love for folks to read the rules and put some effort into understanding them before immediately jumping on the Wire.

 

Phantom

[Kirk James]

I keep a rule book in my cart and refer to it when situations arise.  I also read it from time to time.  The penalties overview is great.  Can it be added to the shooters handbook and become the go to place for rule interpretations on WTC.  The problem I have on the wire is there are often many opinions on the proper call.  I appreciate the time and energy PWB puts into the wire and his clarification.  It is sometimes hard to block out the many discussions, although they bring up many valid points.  The rule I believe I understand but have yet to have the skill to catch or assist is when the rifle is set down after the shooter fires 9 rounds and is moving to the next firearm and has left the shooters hands.  If the live round is on the carrier the shooter can come back and correct it.  If the live round or part of the live round is in the chamber, the shooter cannot correct it.  Is this right?   

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

2 hours ago, Kirk James said:

I keep a rule book in my cart and refer to it when situations arise.  I also read it from time to time.  The penalties overview is great. 

Can it be added to the shooters handbook and become the go to place for rule interpretations on WTC.

The linked pdf doc is copied directly from the SHB pp. 22-24

  The problem I have on the wire is there are often many opinions on the proper call. 

I appreciate the time and energy PWB puts into the wire and his clarification.

Thank you. 

  It is sometimes hard to block out the many discussions, although they bring up many valid points.  The rule I believe I understand but have yet to have the skill to catch or assist is when the rifle is set down after the shooter fires 9 rounds and is moving to the next firearm and has left the shooters hands. 

If the live round is on the carrier the shooter can come back and correct it.  If the live round or part of the live round is in the chamber, the shooter cannot correct it.  Is this right?   

That is correct...if not chambered, that condition may be corrected before firing the next firearm of the stage; or, if the rifle is last, before it leaves the shooter's hands at the ULT.
REF: SHB pp.17-18

 

 

[Kirk James]

Thank you.  That would be a hard one to catch in action, but its great to know the rule.  

[The Outlaw Travis James]

On 6/9/2019 at 8:45 PM, Tucker McNeely said:

All good stuff.  A couple of years ago I got a laminated miss chart and penalty cad as a posse marshal. That has proved useful many times.   Most items can be answered with the chart.

Where can one find these cards?

[Tyrel Cody]

31 minutes ago, The Outlaw Travis James said:

Where can one find these cards?

 Page 41 and 42 of the shooters handbook, print them and laminate them yourself.

[Hoss]

On 6/9/2019 at 6:12 PM, Dusty Devil Dale said:

That rewriting/clarifying task may be easy enough to suggest, but it is way more difficult than it appears on the surface.  There are almost infinite scenarios to cover (witness the diverse WTC posts here), and some of them have attached safety issues that don't leave much leeway.  Then, there are numbers of shooters testing boundaries to game any weak points in what is written, to gain advantage.  So it always will boil down to on-the-spot interpretations, and appeal processes.  There are going to be differences in how we each view those events.   

 

I think the best we can do is what we are doing right here--discussing understanding gaps/differences, openly seeking responses from others, including more experienced folks, and then having an ROC in the background to chime into the discussion, and periodically review identified issues and problems, revising rules as needed. 

 

At worst, the rule ambiguities are still much less of a challenge than the difficulties of three people trying to spot and count misses, amid the structural visual limitations of many stages, the choices that shooters are given regarding gun order, and in many cases target order, and given the speed with which spotting decisions must be made.   Absent some new technology (which few of us would want) counting will probably continue to be the most difficult and the weakest link, IMHO.  

 

We all need to be patient with each other's questions here, and try to remain open and helpful to each other.  I really don't think things are very broken--otherwise, none of us would still be here and having fun. 

  

And remember, the well paid refs in pro sports even with instant replay make mistakes. (Saints vs Philly no call).  So yes, asking questions, clarifying rules is appropriate. I like the WTC threads, and try to use the rule book to sort out the correct call. Some are tough!  Like 99% of at TOs, I just want to get it right. I hate to penalize anybody. A shooter, or a guy on another posse but in the same category who does not make a mistake, but in effect gets the penalty because I did not properly apply the rules. 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

5 minutes ago, Hoss said:

And remember, the well paid refs in pro sports even with instant replay make mistakes. (Saints vs Philly no call).  So yes, asking questions, clarifying rules is appropriate. I like the WTC threads, and try to use the rule book to sort out the correct call. Some are tough!  Like 99% of at TOs, I just want to get it right. I hate to penalize anybody. A shooter, or a guy on another posse but in the same category who does not make a mistake, but in effect gets the penalty because I did not properly apply the rules. 

Kind of a straw man... Don't think there's anyone that doesn't see the value in WTC posts... Don't see where anyone suggested that.

 

I for one mentioned that folks should at least try to put in a little effort in finding the answer before jumping right on the Wire.

 

Phantom

[Flyin Shootest]

6 hours ago, The Outlaw Travis James said:

Where can one find these cards?

PM, me with your mailing address, and I will mail you one of the ones I distribute at my RO Classes.

 

F.S.

[Tucker McNeely]

1 hour ago, Flyin Shootest said:

PM, me with your mailing address, and I will mail you one of the ones I distribute at my RO Classes.

 

F.S.

Ask and you shall receive.   Thanks, Flying Shootist