Stirring the Pot. Stage Writing

[Doc Shapiro]

Disclaimer: This resembles a stage that I wrote today for the Sloughhouse Irregulars match for August 31.

 

There's no need to make complicated stages (though if tossed in rarely they can be a lot of fun if done well).  They can be simply written and a ton of fun to shoot.  The target layout has a lot to do with it.  Here's a very simply written stage with a lot of room for creativity by the shooter. 

 

Picture 6 targets. all approx 16 inches square.  2 at 4 yards.  2 at 8 yards.  1 at 14 yards.  1 at 20 yards.  Spread out so targets are not close together, and at different heights.  4 shotgun knockdowns at about 10 yards.

 

10 pistol, 10 rifle, 4+ shotgun

Stage long guns safely. Must use at least 2 shooting positions (standard description for this range - storefronts typically have 2 windows and a doorway, each with a table).

Start at position of choice with your hands on your own butt.

When ready call out “that was a long ride”

At the beep…

If with shotgun: knock over the 4 shotgun targets.

If with pistols and rifle: shoot each target at least 3 times. No double taps. No triple taps. (there are 6 targets)

 

[Sixgun Seamus]

Shot almost that Saturday at OVV with the exception that the targets weren't that far dispersed. Fun stage. Had to move length of building between shotgun and other guns. 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

I like this rifle sweep...

 

1-10-2-9-3-8-4-7-5-6

 

Targets 1-5 are to the Shooters left, 6-10 are to the Shooters right.

[Captain Bill Burt]

7 hours ago, Doc Shapiro said:

Disclaimer: This resembles a stage that I wrote today for the Sloughhouse Irregulars match for August 31.

 

There's no need to make complicated stages (though if tossed in rarely they can be a lot of fun if done well).  They can be simply written and a ton of fun to shoot.  The target layout has a lot to do with it.  Here's a very simply written stage with a lot of room for creativity by the shooter. 

 

Picture 6 targets. all approx 16 inches square.  2 at 4 yards.  2 at 8 yards.  1 at 14 yards.  1 at 20 yards.  Spread out so targets are not close together, and at different heights.  4 shotgun knockdowns at about 10 yards.

 

10 pistol, 10 rifle, 4+ shotgun

Stage long guns safely. Must use at least 2 shooting positions (standard description for this range - storefronts typically have 2 windows and a doorway, each with a table).

Start at position of choice with your hands on your own butt.

When ready call out “that was a long ride”

At the beep…

If with shotgun: knock over the 4 shotgun targets.

If with pistols and rifle: shoot each target at least 3 times. No double taps. No triple taps. (there are 6 targets)

 

I think I've seen this one before.  If I recall correctly I chose to sweep the front three targets three times and place the 10th round on the middle target (pistols).  Then sweep the back three targets three times and place the 10th round on the middle target.  

[Wyatt]

 Damn I’ve got a big butt............what was next?

[Warden Callaway]

l have no way to prove it but I'm suspicious that when stages are written with no specific target order more misses are called because spotters expect to the next shot to be on a target but the shooter shoots another.  

 

If I understand this stage,   I'd shoot (gunfighter) P1, P2, P1, P2, P1, P2, then P3, P4, P3, P4. Then R3, R4, R5, R6, R3, R4, R5, R6, R5, R6. 

 

Did I do right or get a P?

[Doc Shapiro]

4 minutes ago, Warden Callaway said:

l have no way to prove it but I'm suspicious that when stages are written with no specific target order more misses are called because spotters expect to the next shot to be on a target but the shooter shoots another.  

 

If I understand this stage,   I'd shoot (gunfighter) P1, P2, P1, P2, P1, P2, then P3, P4, P3, P4. Then R3, R4, R5, R6, R3, R4, R5, R6, R5, R6. 

 

Did I do right or get a P?

 

No P.  That's a valid option. 

 

We do stuff like this (no specified order) on a fairly regular basis.  The data does not support your suspicion of more misses called.  :-)

 

Doc

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

30 minutes ago, Warden Callaway said:

l have no way to prove it but I'm suspicious that when stages are written with no specific target order more misses are called because spotters expect to the next shot to be on a target but the shooter shoots another.  

 

If I understand this stage,   I'd shoot (gunfighter) P1, P2, P1, P2, P1, P2, then P3, P4, P3, P4. Then R3, R4, R5, R6, R3, R4, R5, R6, R5, R6. 

 

Did I do right or get a P?

So are you one of those folks that wants everything defined?

 

You know... Must start on the left...or right... No round count stages cuz they're confusing.

 

Phantom

[Warden Callaway]

John Bear wrote most of our stages in past couple of years until his early demise.  He often included stages with any order any starting position.  There would be a big collaboration after the reading of the stage to come up with ways to shoot the stage. Then most everyone shot it the same way as the first shooter.

[Warden Callaway]

4 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

So are you one of those folks that wasn't everything defined?

 

You know... Must start on the left...or right... No round count stages cuz they're confusing.

 

Phantom

 

Not saying that at all. I rather enjoyed the change from sweep, sweep, until all down. Just seemed like after a stage was shot, the spotters often looked confused and conflicted.  If I came up with a different order, I'd often let the TO know my plan so he could anticipate.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

9 minutes ago, Warden Callaway said:

 

Not saying that at all. I rather enjoyed the change from sweep, sweep, until all down. Just seemed like after a stage was shot, the spotters often looked confused and conflicted.  If I came up with a different order, I'd often let the TO know my plan so he could anticipate.

TO's are not spotting.

 

And if we design stages so that mediocre spotters can keep track, we'll have a very unimaginative and boring game.

[Captain Bill Burt]

14 minutes ago, Warden Callaway said:

 

Not saying that at all. I rather enjoyed the change from sweep, sweep, until all down. Just seemed like after a stage was shot, the spotters often looked confused and conflicted.  If I came up with a different order, I'd often let the TO know my plan so he could anticipate.

Yep, it's nice having choices.  If I pick an unconventional approach I generally tell the TO so he'll know what's coming. 

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

Did something very similar to this the other day.

 

5 targets.  3 very big targets out at 12 yards. 2 small targets at 4 yards.

 

Instructions were simply, with pistol and rifle, put 4 rounds on each target.

 

There was consternation on how to shoot it. Then, to add to the 'confusion', one shooter shot the small, closer targets with his rifle.

 

Finally, the spotters took a breath and all was well in the world.

 

But that stage took a bit longer for posses to get from reading the stage to shooting the stage because everyone wanted to talk about it.

[Anvil Al #59168]

Have shoot that before.

But it's been awhile.

I like not being told every little step to take.

 

Most end up shooting it the same way or very close  to it.

 

[Cypress Sam, SASS #10915]

You could save a little typing by not repeating “safely stage” every time.  If the shooter complies with SASS conventions, the guns are staged safely by default.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

1 hour ago, Warden Callaway said:

l have no way to prove it but I'm suspicious that when stages are written with no specific target order more misses are called because spotters expect to the next shot to be on a target but the shooter shoots another.  

 

If I understand this stage,   I'd shoot (gunfighter) P1, P2, P1, P2, P1, P2, then P3, P4, P3, P4. Then R3, R4, R5, R6, R3, R4, R5, R6, R5, R6. 

 

Did I do right or get a P?

I think spotting difficulty is far too often overlooked by folks writing stages.  When there is no particular target order, spotting becomes MUCH more difficult than shooting the stage.  Spotters simply don't know in advance where to look. 

 

Nothing ruins a shooting day faster than being falsely awarded misses or "P" s.   When the spotters have to look at each others' hands before making their call,  you know the stage was beyond their individual capability.  They should simply declare that they don't know, with benefit to the shooter, but even that becomes unfair to everyone else, when misses are overlooked.  

 

I've had three cases where, as a spotter, I thought bad calls were made for or against shooters in larger matches, and where bystanders had informally recorded the stage on video.   In later viewing those video clips, all three calls were in fact made erroneously.   It made me wonder how many spotter calls are really accurate.   How often do we fire a spotter? 

 

Organizationally, we make no effort at training or credentialing spotters.   Anyone who is willing to hold the flag or baton ends up doing that important job.  Short handed posses even pressure folks into spotting, even knowing their eyesight and or hearing may be impaired.    But spotters are just as important to our game as Posse Leaders and Timer Operators.  When spotter calls are bad, it ceases to be fun shooting for everybody.   But shooters politely just accept it and move on, or maybe never come back. 

 

Writing free wheeling and complex stages with no target order may be fun shooting, but it greatly adds to the spotting challenges and likelihood of errors.   

[Captain Bill Burt]

41 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I think spotting difficulty is far too often overlooked by folks writing stages.  When there is no particular target order, spotting becomes MUCH more difficult than shooting the stage.  Spotters simply don't know in advance where to look. 

 

Nothing ruins a shooting day faster than being falsely awarded misses or "P" s.   When the spotters have to look at each others' hands before making their call,  you know the stage was beyond their individual capability.  They should simply declare that they don't know, with benefit to the shooter, but even that becomes unfair to everyone else, when misses are overlooked.  

 

I've had three cases where, as a spotter, I thought bad calls were made for or against shooters in larger matches, and where bystanders had informally recorded the stage on video.   In later viewing those video clips, all three calls were in fact made erroneously.   It made me wonder how many spotter calls are really accurate.   How often do we fire a spotter? 

 

Organizationally, we make no effort at training or credentialing spotters.   Anyone who is willing to hold the flag or baton ends up doing that important job.  Short handed posses even pressure folks into spotting, even knowing their eyesight and or hearing may be impaired.    But spotters are just as important to our game as Posse Leaders and Timer Operators.  When spotter calls are bad, it ceases to be fun shooting for everybody.   But shooters politely just accept it and move on, or maybe never come back. 

 

Writing free wheeling and complex stages with no target order may be fun shooting, but it greatly adds to the spotting challenges and likelihood of errors.   

Sweeping statements are dangerous if you're relatively new to this game. 

 

A good TO will be aware of the capabilities of the posse members he is working with.  I've 'fired' spotters before.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

26 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Organizationally, we make no effort at training or credentialing spotters.   Anyone who is willing to hold the flag or baton ends up doing that important job.  

 

That is the defined purpose of the SASS RO program. And, if you read the contract for champion level events, it requires that, "all Range Officers must have completed the SASS Basic Range Operations Safety Course. (RO I)."

 

This includes spotters.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

22 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

A good TO will be aware of the capabilities of the posse members he is working with.  I've 'fired' spotters before.

To your credit.  That is prety rare in my limited experience.  

[Captain Bill Burt]

2 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

To your credit.  That is prety rare in my limited experience.  

I edited my post to reflect that with your limited experience sweeping statements should perhaps be avoided.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

8 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

That is the defined purpose of the SASS RO program. And, if you read the contract for champion level events, it requires that, "all Range Officers must have completed the SASS Basic Range Operations Safety Course. (RO I)."

 

This includes spotters.

Does anybody check RO credentials for spotters, in practice? 

Do the RO 1 trainers check hearing or eyesight as a part of the class? 

 

I wonder what kind of training and credentialing happens with professional baseball referees, or other sports officials-- just wondering.   I bet it is substantial, along with accountability reviews. 

 

But my Original point was about writing stages with consideration of spotting difficulty.   That is a part that we CAN  deal with.  Stages with wide open target order are very hard to spot.  Just look at the usual differences between the three spotters'  calls on those stages.  Often, in order to count, you have to move across a stage to get a clear view of the targets as they are shot.  You can't do that quickly enough, if you don't know which ones will be shot when.  So I think many spotters rely on their ears for the ones they cannot get into position to observe directly.  

That can be addressed in good stage design.  

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Oh my gawd...

 

Like Stage writers never spot...

 

Whatever

[Dusty Devil Dale]

2 hours ago, Warden Callaway said:

If I came up with a different order, I'd often let the TO know my plan so he could anticipate.

That might be considered as a stage requirement, so spotters know where to position themselves and what to watch for.  Nothing is more frustrating than to shoot an innovative course on a stage, and be given misses or a P,  because spotters or the T. O. don't understand what you did.  I'd say 75% or more of those cases never get appealed up the line.  And even under appeal, there is no data to review--just he said-she said stuff.  

[Griff]

46 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I think spotting difficulty is far too often overlooked by folks writing stages.  When there is no particular target order, spotting becomes MUCH more difficult than shooting the stage.  Spotters simply don't know in advance where to look.    

Welcome to my world.  I shoot '51 Navies... .36 caliber.  It's a matter of course that I'll be called for at least ONE miss that wasn't.  Whether the course of fire is known, or not.

 

I've been counted for misses when I was 1st to shoot on freshly painted targets, and ALL clearly had lead smears on them!  Spotting ain't for the faint-hearted... only for those just faint-hearted enough to avoid being a TO!

[Captain Bill Burt]

4 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Does anybody check RO credentials for spotters, in practice? 

Do the RO 1 trainers check hearing or eyesight as a part of the class? 

 

I wonder what kind of training and credentialing happens with professional baseball referees, or other sports officials-- just wondering.   I bet it is substantial, along with accountability reviews. 

 

But my Original point was about writing stages with consideration of spotting difficulty.   That is a part that we CAN  deal with.  Stages with wide open target order are very hard to spot.  Just look at the usual differences between the three spotters'  calls on those stages.  Often, in order to count, you have to move across a stage to get a clear view of the targets as they are shot.  You can't do that quickly enough, if you don't know which ones will be shot when.  So I think many spotters rely on their ears for the ones they cannot get into position to observe directly.  

That can be addressed in good stage design.  

Professional referees are well, professional.  It's what they do for a living.  Our RO's are not professionals so that's not a valid comparison.  If we go that route I suspect your match fees will have to go up significantly.  I think the bolded 'you's should be replaced with 'I'.

 

I don't find stages with wide open target order hard to spot.

1 minute ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

That might be considered as a requirement, so spotters know where to position themselves and what to watch for.  Nothing is more frustrating than to shoot an innovative course on a stage, and be given misses or a P,  because spotters or the T. O. don't understand what you did.  I'd say 75% or more of those cases never get appealed up the line.  And even under appeal, there is no data to review--just he said-she said stuff.  

Now you're proposing a requirement that shooters tell everyone how they're going to shoot the stage before they shoot it?  Where did that 75% number come from?  At the risk of hurting someone's feelings I'm glad I don't shoot at the clubs where you shoot, apparently people can't spot or write stages correctly there. 

 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

2 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

TO's are not spotting.

 

And if we design stages so that mediocre spotters can keep track, we'll have a very unimaginative and boring game.

Agree on the T. O., but often they do participate in spotting, since they are in the best position to be able to see.  

 

Disagree about the unimaginative, boring game.  Good and challenging stages can be written without the spotting problems, if the writers give consideration to  spotter positioning in the design.  My experience is that most stages get written at home at a computer, and then have to be adjusted spatially to fit into their intended bays, as the targets, tables, etc get set up.   I do that second adjustment task a lot, in advance setting targets for monthly matches.  Some designs just don't lend themselves to effective spotting, and that problem is multiplied where there is no set start point or course of fire.   Those designs should be moved to the more open bays  where props do not occlude spotters' view.   It's not about simplifying the game.  It's just about good stage planning that considers all of the needs.  

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

27 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I wonder what kind of training and credentialing happens with professional baseball referees, or other sports officials-- just wondering.   I bet it is substantial, along with accountability reviews. 

I can tell you that Donald Duke is a credentialed referee with USA hockey. They go through an annual process of recertification. It also has accountability reviews, with the higher level he tries to achieve, the more testing and reviews that he goes through.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

29 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Oh my gawd...

 

Like Stage writers never spot...

 

Whatever

Honestly, that spotting experience isn't always reflected in their stages. 

[Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474]

1 hour ago, Cypress Sam, SASS #10915 said:

You could save a little typing by not repeating “safely stage” every time.  If the shooter complies with SASS conventions, the guns are staged safely by default.

 

Unfortunately, that would not work around here.

Too many lawyer types.

We found if we didn't spell things out in detail, covering as many "What If's and Can We's" as possible, we wasted a lot of time in each stage briefing.

[Griff]

39 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

That might be considered as a requirement, so spotters know where to position themselves and what to watch for.  Nothing is more frustrating than to shoot an innovative course on a stage, and be given misses or a P,  because spotters or the T. O. don't understand what you did.  I'd say 75% or more of those cases never get appealed up the line.  And even under appeal, there is no data to review--just he said-she said stuff.  

I've been playing this game for more'n 34 years, and ain't no one come up with more numbskulled ways to decrease enjoyment and run off shooters, not mention thickening up the rule book to rival the Encylopedia Britiannica!  And trust me, you ain't alone, we've ALL done our share of well-intended suggesting...  

 

I've attended 2 EOTs where they used "professional" ROs.  There's a perfectly valid reason we ain't seen 'em in 31 years!  They DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE GAME, definitely made MORE bad calls than the newest of newbies!

 

We're an AMATUER sport, played by and regulated by amateurs.  Requiring RO training of EVERY spotter will just thin the ranks of available spotters to less than the number preferred to run a single posse.  Some folks are pressed for time to come shoot, families, work, and other interests sometimes take precedence over shooting... let alone PAYING to attend a class, so they can go to a shoot and WORK some more!

 

If I may be rude for a second, wait a few years, attend some other clubs shoots, some "BIG" matches, you're likely to be more appreciative of Kings River, a well run and fun club... far above average.  (Yes, I've shot there!)  As someone who's been in the driver's seat, trying herd a bunch of cats, another way of describing the joy of "organizing" a "big" shoot, as well as regular club shoots, it's far easier to sit in the background, "Monday morning quarterbacking"... 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

27 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Now you're proposing a requirement

I intended, and then edited my post to say "A STAGE requirement". 

Examples:

Written stage directions:

Any gun order, but rifle cannot be last.  Shooter will inform T. O. and spotters of chosen order in advance of the beep.  

 

Or announce your gun/ shooting order as a starting line.  TO can then pause, as needed for spotters to reposition themselves. 

 

Or  just say it in posse instructions.  

 

This is all pretty doable - - just consider spotting in designing stages and instructions.   

(This one really doesn't need to become a personalized argument.) 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

I've been playing this game for more'n 34 years, and ain't no one come up with more numbskulled ways to decrease enjoyment and run off shooters, not mention thickening up the rule book to rival the Encylopedia Britiannica!  And trust me, you ain't alone, we've ALL done our share of well-intended suggesting...  

 

I've attended 2 EOTs where they used "professional" ROs.  There's a perfectly valid reason we ain't seen 'em in 31 years!  They DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE GAME, definitely made MORE bad calls than the newest of newbies!

 

We're an AMATUER sport, played by and regulated by amateurs.  Requiring RO training of EVERY spotter will just thin the ranks of available spotters to less than the number preferred to run a single posse.  Some folks are pressed for time to come shoot, families, work, and other interests sometimes take precedence over shooting... let alone PAYING to attend a class, so they can go to a shoot and WORK some more!

 

If I may be rude for a second, wait a few years, attend some other clubs shoots, some "BIG" matches, you're likely to be more appreciative of Kings River, a well run and fun club... far above average.  (Yes, I've shot there!)  As someone who's been in the driver's seat, trying herd a bunch of cats, another was of describing the joy of "organizing" a "big" shoot, as well as regular club shoots, it's far easier to sit in the background, "Monday morning quarterbacking"... 

 

So OK.   Let's not make an effort to improve our spotting reliability by stage design.  Let's leave the spotters guessing what the final course of fire will be, and let them trip over each other trying to reposition where they can see targets.   That seems to be what the concensus is here.   

Sorry I mentioned it.  

Chalk it up to my "inexperience". 

[Rye Miles #13621]

12 hours ago, Sixgun Seamus said:

Shot almost that Saturday at OVV with the exception that the targets weren't that far dispersed. Fun stage. Had to move length of building between shotgun and other guns. 

Yea but it was okay to do double or triple taps! Some guys ended up with dumping 5 pistol on the last target!

[Gateway Kid SASS# 70038 Life]

9 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Agree on the T. O., but often they do participate in spotting, since they are in the best position to be able to see. 

Since spotting and calling misses seems to be an issue

SHB pg 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.

 

Disagree about the unimaginative, boring game.  Good and challenging stages can be written without the spotting problems, if the writers give consideration to  spotter positioning in the design. If your stage writers are unfamiliar with the stage/prop layout either educate them or get a different writer.  My experience is that most stages get written at home at a computer, and then have to be adjusted spatially to fit into their intended bays, as the targets, tables, etc get set up.   I do that second adjustment task a lot, in advance setting targets for monthly matches.  Every club I have ever shot at has an experienced shooter make adjustments to the course of fire prior to the match, sometimes small tweeks sometimes major relocations to account for the very issues you have brought up. Some designs just don't lend themselves to effective spotting, and that problem is multiplied where there is no set start point or course of fire. If your spotters are positioned correctly (that is one to either side of the shooter and one at the next best viewing position) at least one should have a clear view regardless of the way the shooter engages the stage. Those designs should be moved to the more open bays  where props do not occlude spotters' view.   It's not about simplifying the game.  It's just about good stage planning that considers all of the needs.  

 

Sorry for the long post but most of what you have  brought up has been discussed many times. The general solution proposed is to make sure your writers KNOW what stage/club they are writing for so as to best take advantage of available bays/props/targets/viewing positions. Make sure your spotters are at least familiar with the mantra of If you think it hit it is a hit, if you know it hit it is a hit, if you think it is a miss it is a hit. The only time they should call a miss is if they are absolutely positively certain it was a miss. Don't be afraid to fire the spotters if they are having a bad day, are unfamiliar with the venue, have repeated obvious errors etc.(of course be respectful and tactful)

So go forth and enjoy the amateur game we have knowing that sometimes things happen. And if you think professional referee's/game officials/announcers always get it right you should probably go see a professional football, basketball, hockey, baseball game sometime.

Respectfully

 

  

 

Gateway Kid

IJAFG

[Tennessee williams]

6 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

So OK.   Let's not make an effort to improve our spotting reliability by stage design.  Let's leave the spotters guessing what the final course of fire will be, and let them trip over each other trying to reposition where they can see targets.   That seems to be what the concensus is here.   

Sorry I mentioned it.  

Chalk it up to my "inexperience". 

I know. Lets all just shoot the same stage layout and order every time! That way the spotters will know exactly what to expect and when. I think you're on to something. By the first few matches all the spotters will be proficient and by 6 months everybody will be an expert. And since we will all be shooting the same stage every time our times will go down. 

   I don't think it is wholly inexperience. I think some of it is the way you come across. Not trying to be mean, just stating my opinion. Its almost to the point of when I see some of your posts its like, "whats he percentaging now" or "whats he overanalyzing".

     Personally, if I'm going to a shoot and they dumb it down for the spotters I'm gonna get bored with it and probably not go anymore.