Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Tennessee williams

Question regarding miss/flow and WTC

Recommended Posts

Ok, first off. This is not a debate about the closed WTC threads. Those are closed and I'd like to get some feedback regarding the miss flow chart and what difference any interpretations would have made. This thought process is straight forward but not really the norm. 

 

Following along the lines of the recently closed WTC thread just to have a reference. 

 

The miss flow chart asks: "Did the shooter HIT all of the correct target types with the correct type ammo? If yes- no misses, If no-assess miss." 

Now, my question:

  Everybody always uses (i.e. rifle) or (i.e. pistol) added on to the chart in order to explain that is what is meant. The chart doesn't actually say that. Could it be interpreted to not only differentiate pistol targets from rifle targets but ALSO between KDs and stationary targets? Or even circle targets and square targets within the same firearm type? After all, the miss flow chart says target type not firearm type. IMO, if we used the latter interpretation it would be more simple. Although I agree with the call of only a P going by the current interpretation of the miss flow chart, I see why people have a problem with it. There were technically 2 targets that were not HIT, one of which could be made up with the SG. The latter interpretation would have resulted in a P and a miss which seems like the more appropriate call in this circumstance.

   There you have it. What say you?

Screenshot_20200213-220038_Drive.jpg

Edited by Tennessee williams
Added picture
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

Now, my question:

  Everybody always uses (i.e. rifle) or (i.e. pistol) added on to the chart in order to explain that is what is meant. The chart doesn't actually say that. Could it be interpreted to not only differentiate pistol targets from rifle targets but ALSO between KDs and stationary targets? Or even circle targets and square targets within the same firearm type?

 

The answer is NO. Target type refers to what you shoot it with. Rifle target, Pistol target, Shotgun target.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

5-SECOND PENALTIES

Misses are 5-Second penalties.  Revolver, rifle, and shotgun targets must be engaged with the appropriate type of firearm.

A MISS is defined as the failure to hit the appropriate target type using the appropriate type of firearm... 

 

SHB p.22 (emphasis added)

 

Quote

The "P" was for HITTING the wrong RIFLE target with the 7th shot on plate #6 instead of on a buffalo target.

That does NOT also incur a MISS on a buffalo target as it was a HIT on a "correct type" of target (i.e. RIFLE).

"Correct type" (in the Miss Flow Chart) refers to a target assigned to a specific firearm...NOT to "KD vs stationary".

 

This was posted 2X on the 1st "WtC?" thread and reiterated on at least one of the followup threads.

 

 

Edited by PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L
add comment
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

SHB p.22

 

 

This was posted 2X on the 1st "WtC?" thread and reiterated on at least one of the followup threads.

 

 

I understand that, and I understand the current interpretation. I also agree with the call of a P no misses under the current interpretation of that past WTC thread. 

I am asking if when the stage instructions break up a specific firearm target type like with KDs and stationary targets, does it make sense to interpret it as such? And, since the miss flow chart already says target type not firearm target type, it could be done without changing the written part of it. When you answer the literal question asked in the miss flow chart, it would make a difference.

 

Screenshot_20200213-230604_Chrome.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

I understand that, and I understand the current interpretation. I also agree with the call of a P no misses under the current interpretation of that past WTC thread. 

I am asking if when the stage instructions break up a specific firearm target type like with KDs and stationary targets, does it make sense to interpret it as such?

NO...as already stated (5X now)

And, since the miss flow chart already says target type not firearm target type, it could be done without changing the written part of it. When you answer the literal question asked in the miss flow chart, it would make a difference.

REF: DEFINITION OF "MISS" - SHB p.22

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Screenshot_20200213-233450_Chrome.thumb.jpg.247dbfb45257baba9841f5f8d864487c.jpg

 

PWB, I dont think you've answered MY question 5X now as I've just gotten to ask it that time on this thread. I understand you are perturbed about the WTC thread, but this thread is about the interpretation of a miss. I love ya but No need to be short with me because of a different topic. 

 

This quote can still be used with what I am proposing. 

The definition of a miss you referred me to:

 Misses are 5-second penalties. Revolver, rifle, and shotgun targets must be engaged with the appropriate type of firearm.

A MISS is defined as the failure to hit the appropriate target type using the appropriate type of firearm...

 

The interpretation that I propose: Having the definition of MISS actually being what is already written in the shb. By satisfying the target type AND the appropriate firearm. So essentially a shot fired must meet 2 criteria to not be a miss. A rifle target must be hit by a round from the rifle. And. The CORRECT rifle target type must be hit. (Which is already written).

 As it is now, when it says "appropriate target type" it means rifle or pistol or shotgun. When it says "with the appropriate type firearm" it also means rifle pistol or shotgun. That is pretty redundant. Maybe it should say a miss is defined as a failure to hit the appropriate firearm target type.

 

Are inquiries to the ROC put forth through you or by our local TGs? I have no clue how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

PWB, I dont think you've answered MY question 5X now as I've just gotten to ask it that time on this thread.

...

This is what has been posted numerous times as the commonly understood meaning re the MFC:

Quote

 

"Correct type" (in the Miss Flow Chart) refers to a target assigned to a specific firearm...NOT to "KD vs stationary".

 

...

The interpretation that I propose: Having the definition of MISS actually being what is already written in the shb. By satisfying the target type AND the appropriate firearm. So essentially a shot fired must meet 2 criteria to not be a miss. A rifle target must be hit by a round from the rifle. And. The CORRECT rifle target type must be hit. (Which is already written).

(see previous response)

 As it is now, when it says "appropriate target type" it means rifle or pistol or shotgun. When it says "with the appropriate type firearm" it also means rifle pistol or shotgun. That is pretty redundant. Maybe it should say a miss is defined as a failure to hit the appropriate firearm target type.

It is "redundant" for clarity in making an "interpretation" as to what it actually means

 

Are inquiries to the ROC put forth through you or by our local TGs? I have no clue how that works.

Inquiries to the ROC regarding necessary "grey area" interpretations/clarifications are generally taken from the Wires by me (as ROC spokesperson) to the Committee via email for discussion and resolution.

I would not expect any changes to the verbiage in either the SHB "Penalties Overview" or the "Miss Flow Chart" regarding the meanings of "appropriate target type" or "correct type of target".                                                                                                                                                             

 

 

 

Edited by PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L
edit txt
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This gets a lot of folks to the point I have had veteran shooters argue with me about the call. If you don't hit a pistol target with a pistol it missed it. If you didn't hit a rifle target with a rifle you missed it. If you missed a knock down shotgun target with the shotgun then you miss that too. 

 

The confusion comes in when you start worrying about what was hit with that miss...…….lol

Edited by Cowboy Junky
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bearing in mind that my coffee ain't kicked in, I think the confusion revolves around the stage instructions saying only the KDs could be made up with the shotgun. Kinds like dividing rifle targets into 2 separate classes or strings.

I need coffee. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hendo said:

Bearing in mind that my coffee ain't kicked in, I think the confusion revolves around the stage instructions saying only the KDs could be made up with the shotgun. Kinds like dividing rifle targets into 2 separate classes or strings.

I need coffee. 

They probably say shoot the pistol targets with the pistols and the rifle targets with the rifles too in the stage instructions......the SG targets are no different. If you don't hit the intended target you missed it. What you were aiming at doesn't matter......it didn't hit what the stage instructions said it should have. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to second @Tennessee williams when he says the rule is somewhat unclear and could have a different meaning if you give a closer look.

 

6 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

This is what has been posted numerous times as the commonly understood meaning re the MFC:

Quote

 

"Correct type" (in the Miss Flow Chart) refers to a target assigned to a specific firearm...NOT to "KD vs stationary".

 

...

 

It may be stated numerous times on the wire and probably in real life as well and (hence the reactions) it's obvious that this was the intention of the meaning of target type when the SHB was written. Nevertheless, when an unenlightened new shooter (or anybody else) reads this rule book, this intention is not apparent by its wording. And there isn't a redundancy or enhancement by the adding "with the appropriate type firearm"; the first part relates to the correct target type (whatever that means) to shoot at and the second part relates to the firearm to be used.

 

I can absolutely live with the "commonly understood meaning" of the rule, but imho it should be reworded in the SHB to be clear.

 

Personally, I would prefer if the term target type was used in a more specific manner. As soon as there are different target types (with different difficulties) mixed in a string (stationary, KD, big ones, small ones, further away, close), it can get difficult when to call a SOG instead of a P.

 

Equanimous

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are these basic scoring procedures that have been in place for YEARS suddenly incomprehensible??

:unsure:

 

Hitting a target with the wrong firearm (e.g. rifle target hit with a revolver shot) is a MISS

Each target hit with an incorrect firearm – either intentionally or by mistake. (SHB p.22 - "5-SECOND PENALTIES")

 

Hitting the wrong target of the type appropriate for the firearm in use at the time is a PROCEDURAL (e.g. a KD instead of a stationary target).

Shooting targets in the wrong order. (SHB p.23 - "Procedural (P) Infractions")

 

Willfully shooting a stage other than the way it was intended in order to gain a competitive advantage (Spirit of the Game). (SHB p.24)

 

Je ne comprends pas

vIyajbe'

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

 

Je ne comprends pas

vIyajbe'

Es tut mir leid, dass ich Französisch nicht spreche.

:ph34r:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well pardon my French, but there ARE some "friggin" caveats in this situation that have caused confusion; hence 5 pages of debate.

It is not as simple as hit or miss.

Share this post


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

Ok, first off. This is not a debate about the closed WTC threads. Those are closed and I'd like to get some feedback regarding the miss flow chart and what difference any interpretations would have made. This thought process is straight forward but not really the norm. 

,,,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spottin' is a skill set that one either works at developing, or one comes by it naturally.  Every RO class I've attended, the instructor emphasised one point.  "Don't read more into the rules than what is printed."   The Miss Flow Chart is clear in what it states.   Type of target refers to the type of firearm it's designated to be shot at with... not the form of that target takes, (KD or Stationary)... This would be a classic example of reading more into the rule than what's printed.

 

If you're shooting a rifle, it doesn't matter what rifle target you hit, it's a hit.  If you hit a stationary (rifle target), when you're supposed to hit a KD, it's still a hit, just now it becomes a "P".  Likewise, if you "hit" a "pistol" or "shotgun" target with a round from your rifle, it's simply a "Miss", not a "P" for shooting a target out of order.

 

Es ist wirklich einfach.

Edited by Griff
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry PWB, I didn't want to rip the bandage off and start this all over again (hereby incurring the wrath of the Wolf), I just meant I didn't think it was just a simple thing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first read the closed thread my first thought was P and a miss.  Reading and re-reading it I understand why it's only a P and can now see how the flowchart is interpreted and as PWB said how it should be read.  I do wonder though, how many spotters, TOs, MD and others are not on the Wire, don't read these posts, and have had a stage written with similar confusion have innocently gotten the call wrong.

 

@PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L do TGs get updates and clarification about topics like this where there has been a big division of opinion vs rule clarification?  If not would it be worth it to have a monthly or quarterly email sent so things like this can filter down to the club level?  It's just a thought to make sure the playing field is even across the clubs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why are these basic scoring procedures that have been in place for YEARS suddenly incomprehensible??

:unsure:"

 

They are not incomprehensible.  Some folks want a rule for every given situation to remove all doubt so they don't have to make a subjective call. 

 

The problem is, that is an impossible task because there are those who will pick a rule apart piece by piece rather than take it at face value.  Just look at the rule change for arriving at the firing line with a cocked rifle and the clarifications that were needed to be added as to how, when, and whether to apply a penalty.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

Why are these basic scoring procedures that have been in place for YEARS suddenly incomprehensible??

:unsure:

 

I personally believe the SHB should be a living document in the fact when inconsistencies are found, they are corrected. Especially common sense definitions. Take this for instance:

A pistol that starts out in leather is DEFINED by the shb as "in hand" until it is returned to leather. However, if you set a cocked revolver down on the table or even switch hands you get penalized for it because it left your hand! That is in direct contradiction with itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of our targets are the metal TYPE.  Yeehaw!

 

@Tennessee williams, if we interpreted the rule that way, you'd run into arguments like that.  What defines a target 'type' in your scenario?  Different shape?  Different size?  Different material? Different distances?  Different color (hey this one has less paint cause it's been shot more today).  I'd personally classify them all as steel type targets and good luck arguing me down from it.  So I don't think it would work, it would just open new cans of worms. 

 

Furthermore, I don't think it would make the game any more fun, safe, or challenging (except to be a TO/spotter/stage writer and I think they have enough challenges already).  It would more likely have the opposite effect in that clubs might decide it aint worth the trouble to have fun shapes, colors, arrangements, or reactive targets anymore. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jailhouse Jim, SASS #13104 said:

"Why are these basic scoring procedures that have been in place for YEARS suddenly incomprehensible??

:unsure:"

 

They are not incomprehensible.  Some folks want a rule for every given situation to remove all doubt so they don't have to make a subjective call. 

I would say most shooters don't want to have a COMPETITION with a lot of subjective calls. Something should be legal or illegal, otherwise you have different levels of playing field for shooters under a different TO. Isn't the goal to have consistency across the playing field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

I would say most shooters don't want to have a COMPETITION with a lot of subjective calls. Something should be legal or illegal, otherwise you have different levels of playing field for shooters under a different TO. Isn't the goal to have consistency across the playing field?

The problem is, you can't rule write away subjectivity when humans are involved since there isn't always a black and white answer.  Even the MFC is interpreted differently by different TO's.  Writing more language into it will convolute the chart even more so let's just use what we have to the best of our ability and use the appeal system if you don't agree with the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

I would say most shooters don't want to have a COMPETITION with a lot of subjective calls. Something should be legal or illegal, otherwise you have different levels of playing field for shooters under a different TO. Isn't the goal to have consistency across the playing field?

 

So in an effort to have consistency you want to add another layer to the "Correct Target Type" to differentiate between rifle knockdowns and stationary rifle targets.....doesn't it stand to reason that doing so would create more confusion?

 

It's pretty straight forward as it is......a target this is supposed to be hit with the rifle is a rifle target regardless if it is a stationary or reactive target. Just because some folks tried to make it more complicated than it was doesn't mean we need to revamp the rules. 

 

Stan

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ramblin Gambler said:

All of our targets are the metal TYPE.  Yeehaw!

 

@Tennessee williams, if we interpreted the rule that way, you'd run into arguments like that.  What defines a target 'type' in your scenario?  Different shape?  Different size?  Different material? Different distances?  Different color (hey this one has less paint cause it's been shot more today).  I'd personally classify them all as steel type targets and good luck arguing me down from it.  So I don't think it would work, it would just open new cans of worms. 

 

Furthermore, I don't think it would make the game any more fun, safe, or challenging (except to be a TO/spotter/stage writer and I think they have enough challenges already).  It would more likely have the opposite effect in that clubs might decide it aint worth the trouble to have fun shapes, colors, arrangements, or reactive targets anymore. 

 

 

  That is a good response and I have thought about that. 

   It would only be relevant when the stage description breaks the shooting string into multiple types. I.e. kds or stationary. It is really just a literal reading of the miss flow chart. An example would be the difference it would have made on the closed WTC threads.

Target 1 of 6 hit, yes

Target 2 of 6 hit, yes

Target 3 of 6 hit, yes

Target 4 of 6 hit, yes

*Target 5 of 6 hit, no (no kd fell with that expended round

Target 5 of 6 hit, yes

*Target 6 of 6 hit, yes but with the 7th rd which is designated for a stationary target. Earned a P here.

Target 7 of 10 hit, yes

Target 8 of 10 hit, yes

Target 9 of 10 hit, yes

*Target 10 of 10 hit, no

SG was used to makeup 1 rifle KD takes 1 miss away. That would leave a a P and a miss.

The miss flow chart asks if the target was hit. It does not ask if a shot hit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tennessee williams said:

  That is a good response and I have thought about that. 

   It would only be relevant when the stage description breaks the shooting string into multiple types. I.e. kds or stationary. It is really just a literal reading of the miss flow chart. An example would be the difference it would have made on the closed WTC threads.

Target 1 of 6 hit, yes

Target 2 of 6 hit, yes

Target 3 of 6 hit, yes

Target 4 of 6 hit, yes

*Target 5 of 6 hit, no (no kd fell with that expended round

Target 5 of 6 hit, yes

*Target 6 of 6 hit, yes but with the 7th rd which is designated for a stationary target. Earned a P here.

Target 7 of 10 hit, yes

Target 8 of 10 hit, yes

Target 9 of 10 hit, yes

*Target 10 of 10 hit, no

SG was used to makeup 1 rifle KD takes 1 miss away. That would leave a a P and a miss.

The miss flow chart asks if the target was hit. It does not ask if a shot hit.

 

Take out the ability to make up the kd with the shotgun.

 

So you want a shooter to HIT 9 out of 10 rifle targets and give them two misses and a P.

 

Stan

Edited by Santa Fe River Stan,36999L
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Santa Fe River Stan,36999L said:

 

So in an effort to have consistency you want to add another layer to the "Correct Target Type" to differentiate between rifle knockdowns and stationary rifle targets.....doesn't it stand to reason that doing so would create more confusion?

 

It's pretty straight forward as it is......a target this is supposed to be hit with the rifle is a rifle target regardless if it is a stationary or reactive target. Just because some folks tried to make it more complicated than it was doesn't mean we need to revamp the rules. 

 

Stan

Stan

   No, not add or change more rules. Just have the ability to read them as written or change the wording to what would mean what people take it to mean now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we create 2 different types of rifle targets wouldn't it then be just 2 misses and no P? 

Just now, Tennessee williams said:

Stan

   No, not add or change more rules. Just have the ability to read them as written or change the wording to what would mean what people take it to mean now.

 

Instead of changing it to mean what people thinks it means......why don't we educate them on the correct way to make a call?

 

Stan

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Santa Fe River Stan,36999L said:

Take the ability to make up the kd with the shotgun.

 

So you want a shooter to HIT 9 out of 10 rifle targets and give them two misses and a P.

 

Stan

No, and that really proves my point. Ask the question the miss flow chart asks on target 10. Was it hit with the correct ammo? No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428 said:

With the hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money offered at local monthly matches, I can completely understand why everyone is so riled up about this....:blink:

 

 

Nobody is riled up, but it does make for good conversation. No quad taps!:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To play devils advocate.....following the current flow chart. If you hit the incorrect target type for the firearm you are shooting it's only a MISS.....if we create 2 targets types (reactive and stationary) then doesn't it stand to reason then that the round fired at the stationary target that hit the reactive target was a MISS only and no P would be earned.

 

Stan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

No, and that really proves my point. Ask the question the miss flow chart asks on target 10. Was it hit with the correct ammo? No

The flow chart doesn't ask if target 10 was hit......it asks if all the correct target TYPES were hit.....meaning were all the rifle targets hit with rifle rounds.....were all the pistol targets hit with pistol rounds and were all the shotgun targets hit with shotgun rounds

 

Yes or No?

 

In this case NO so we assess misses.......there was a miss on 5th shot fired from the rifle. The other 9 rifle rounds HIT rifle targets. So we assess 1 MISS

 

Were the targets hit in the correct order except for any misses?

 

Yes or No?

 

In this case NO they were not. The 7th round fired did not hit the target that was designated to receive the 7th shot. So we assess a Procedural

 

Shooter has a Miss and a P.....correct?

 

This particular stage gave the shooter the ability to "make-up" the miss on that occurred on the knockdown which the shooter did take advantage of thus he only got the P.

 

Stan

Edited by Santa Fe River Stan,36999L
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how you rewrite the rules there will always be situations that aren’t perfectly captured by the SHB. For example, on the original WTC that inspired this thread, I misread the OP and thought that any of the reactive targets left standing would be made up with the SG on those SAME targets. That’s why I thought after six shots the target TYPE switched to SG and therefore round 7 from the rifle would be a miss since it hit what had become a shotgun target. The change in interpretation suggested wouldn’t clear that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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