Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

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

Kirk James

WTC

Recommended Posts

How many spotters need to see a procedural if the TO does not see it?  TO could not see much through the window due to the size of the shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1

 

Have seen many times only one will catch something.

 

When as a TO I will ask what it was. Once they tell me. I will say yes. Dang. They did do that.

Or no. That was not a P. And here is why.

Share this post


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

One is enough IF the TO agrees.  Three is not enough IF the TO doesn't agree.

Mr. Captain hit the nail on the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I as the TO or one of the spotters calls a P I will check with the 3 spotters and see if they saw what I saw or vice versa.  A lot of times what someone thinks is a P isn't.

Ike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kirk James said:

How many spotters need to see a procedural if the TO does not see it?  TO could not see much through the window due to the size of the shooter.

Sounds like a window that ought to be enlarged.  The T. O. has to be able to see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Sounds like a window that ought to be enlarged.  The T. O. has to be able to see.  

 

DDD:  I say this with some sarcasm.

See What?

Heck, there are numerous occasions where ya got 3 spotters actually watching and moving to

positions to see targets adequately and they still manage to miss things.

 

On a more realistic comment, we have props that a shooter grabs their SG, shoots 2 and moves to next window to

engage more SG targets.

All the TO can do is move with them and at the same time, stay out of their way.

 

For all intended purposes, the TO's do a great job.   But there are those circumstances that even with good

efforts, a TO can't see everything.

 

..........Widder

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

 

DDD:  I say this with some sarcasm.

See What?

Heck, there are numerous occasions where ya got 3 spotters actually watching and moving to

positions to see targets adequately and they still manage to miss things.

 

On a more realistic comment, we have props that a shooter grabs their SG, shoots 2 and moves to next window to

engage more SG targets.

All the TO can do is move with them and at the same time, stay out of their way.

 

For all intended purposes, the TO's do a great job.   But there are those circumstances that even with good

efforts, a TO can't see everything.

 

..........Widder

 

I'm not disagreeing that we have to live with some stage design limitations.  That will always be the case.  But perennial spotting or TO access problems ought to be addressed, wherever possible.  Over two years, our club made a serious effort to work through our permanent props, and eliminate as many impediments to shooter, T. O., and spotter visibility and access as we could identify.  We widened doorways and windows, lowered some windows to enable DB shotgun loading by shorter shooters, raised the top of some windows to accommodate taller folks, and installed some carefully placed added view ports and windows to give more Spotter visibility.   All of that took quite a bit of effort, but now we have very few places where the T. O. is limited in doing his/her job, and our Spotters can see the targets with much less adjustment or motion.   So it CAN be done.   

As a result, we have very few situations like the one in the OP, where calls become questioned, because actions could not be properly seen.  

 

Was it worth the effort?  Yes. 

 

Did it materially change the appearance/mood  of our old west town set?  Slightly, but not noticeably. 

 

It took a lot of careful thought and effort, but the shooting is the most important thing we do as a club, and without reliable spotting and officiating (fairness), the shooting becomes less fun for everybody.  So we made the effort to look carefully and clean stage sets up as much as possible. 

That was my basis for my original comment.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHB pg 24 (emphasis added)

Quote

ASSESSING  PENALTIES  AND  PROTESTS 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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROI pg 48

Quote

The TO verifies  at  least  2  of  the 3  spotters agree on misses, and can  consider  input from  the spotters regarding  procedurals  and/or  safety violations-  as  well  as  any personal  observations  during  the stage. 

 

Final assessment  regarding  the  assessment  of penalties  is made by  the TO.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the TO does not see the procedural (for whatever reason)  and two spotters say they did not see it, the question was if one spotter is enough to make the call.  This is not about one particular incident even though I cited the TO could not see out the window.   My reason for questioning this was that I was under the understanding that 2 of the 3 spotters would need to verify the call if the TO did not see it.   I could not find that in the shooters handbook.   I now understand the TO needs to make the final assessment based on the evidence from the spotters if the TO does not see it.    Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the TO misses the string that caused the call it’s still his responsibility to determine whether or not a P is appropriate. In that situation if I had even one spotter who expressed certainty that a P did not occur and could credibly describe what happened I would not support a P, and I would consider whether I needed a break.

Share this post


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

If the TO does not see the procedural (for whatever reason)  and two spotters say they did not see it, the question was if one spotter is enough to make the call.  This is not about one particular incident even though I cited the TO could not see out the window.   My reason for questioning this was that I was under the understanding that 2 of the 3 spotters would need to verify the call if the TO did not see it.   I could not find that in the shooters handbook.   I now understand the TO needs to make the final assessment based on the evidence from the spotters if the TO does not see it.    Thanks

There are too many variables to make a judgement on what should be done.

Did the 1 spotter have a particular visual advantage over the other two?

Are the other two spotters inexperienced?

Are the two spotter attentive?

 

I have made procedural calls with only one spotter seeing the error. It just happened to be a "foot fault" where the shooter was not close enough to the designated position.

Some calls are just plain out and out hard to make.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ace_of_Hearts said:

It just happened to be a "foot fault" where the shooter was not close enough to the designated position.

As a TO, If my spotters call a P that I did not see for whatever reason, I have them explain what exactly they observed.  Then make the call or not based on that input, a fair number of times it ends up a no call as it was a spotter with confusion as to a sweep, or round count.  (most often happens on the first few shooters in a new stage as getting the new sequence into some folks brains take longer B)

Then if time allows I use the possible call as a teaching tool, why is it or is it not a P.  Like a shooter clearly aiming at the wrong target, but missing etc. 

 

As for a "foot fault" the clubs I shoot with regularly have changed the wording of positions from "behind" etc to AT which we define in the walk thru as able to reach the position to retrieve or put down a gun without moving, or "when targets are visible" you may engage.    There are enough things to watch down range and on the upper part of a shooter, then add watching for a foot in the wrong place.  Hard enough to watch a possibly closed action with a live round and feet, why add more?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 11:41 AM, Kirk James said:

How many spotters need to see a procedural if the TO does not see it?  TO could not see much through the window due to the size of the shooter.

Just one.  

 

For me, as a TO, the spotter will need to articulate correctly and precisely their version of the supposed Procedure.  I will question them several times.  I also speak with the other spotters and confirm their version.  I need to verify and confirm the call, as it is my duty and my responsibility to my posse and the shooter.  In other words, the spotter must convince me. 

 

Either way I go, I walk over to the shooter, at the unloading table and confirm my decision.  Be it right or wrong.

 

Move on.

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.