ROC Rulings

[Tennessee williams]

3 hours ago, Krazy Kajun said:

Yeah TW....and you hang accoutrements off the laces like your chicken feet and voodoo dolls and such! 

 

Kajun

 

 

  Kajun, I's just proud you used the word accoutrements. 

  Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.

 

[Major General Shagnasty]

5 hours ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

 

I like extra butter and some Tabasco on mine. 

Bring a large bowl......  

OLG 

Ah, If I may I would like a little ice cream with my heavily salted and buttered bowl,  please! 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

20 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

There is zero requirement to wear "cowboy" boots.

So, IF the specific shoes are illegal - under what standard?

The laces? 

Probably not - leather braided laces are legal.

The logo?

Manufacturer logos are allowed.

The sole?

Lots and lots of shoes in our game have rubber soles.

The leather toeguard?

I don't see anything that would make that illegal.

 

So maybe I'm missing something;  "perhaps" they are illegal - I'm simply asking why.

And asking that moving forward every "ruling" handed down is subject to the same scrutiny and justification.

 

Not wanting to start this all over again, (although that appears already to have happened) I only observed that almost all of the men at our matches wear cowboy boots.  I hope that didn't infer that it is a requirment.  I think a lot of new shooters probably get locally coached to get them a pair of cowboy boots, so they do and they continue to wear them.   

 

I'm personally OK with what the ROC decided.  I personally prefer the cowboy, or at least Old Western look on our ranges.  The full breadth of allowing anything pre- 1900, seems overridden, to me, by the rule requiring  all clothing and equipment must be worn... how it would have been in the Old West or as seen on B-Western movies and television.   Bankers, politicians, gamblers seem congruent.  Steam Punk seems less so.   I just never saw anything like that on TV westerns or in Old West movies.  (unless Wizard of Oz was a Western--being based in Kansas?) 

Just sayin.  Could be mistaken there. 

 

IMO, maintaining our Old West theme of "cowboy action" is important. I think the spectating public easily gets caught by the Old West nostalgia, and that is one reason we have gotten positive media play, while almost all other shooting sports are receiving media criticism.  

 

But I agree an explanation of the ROC logic would be helpful.  Players need to know what the rules are and what they mean.  

 

[McCandless]

I made a pot of creamy chicken mushroom soup (from scratch) tonight.  I wasn't wearing any shoes.  Didn't even drop the knife into my foot!

 

Have no idea what that has to do with anything.  But if I'd been wearing them red shoes, I'd probably have fell into the pot.  

[Hendo]

11 minutes ago, McCandless said:

 

 

Have no idea what that has to do with anything.  But if I'd been wearing them red shoes, I'd probably have fell into the pot.  

It's not falling into the pot that matters.

It's that you look good doing it. 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

19 minutes ago, McCandless said:

I made a pot of creamy chicken mushroom soup (from scratch) tonight.  I wasn't wearing any shoes.  Didn't even drop the knife into my foot!

 

Have no idea what that has to do with anything.  But if I'd been wearing them red shoes, I'd probably have fell into the pot.  

The soup sounds v. good.  I had a barbecued chicken with wild rice.  The creamy soup would have been great over the rice. 

[Cat Brules]

10 hours ago, Null N. Void said:

To start, I appreciate the work that PWB and the ROC do.  I just don't agree sometimes.

 

I let this drop a couple of months ago, but I now have some time to fire it up now that some others have started.  I asked about a pair of boots, yes boots, leather boots, that did not kill my feet.  I have a medical problem on my left foot.   The ROC said the boot was not acceptable.  The ROC did not reply with a list of acceptable boots for people with foot problems.  Just suck it up and figure it out is basically what was said. If you guess wrong, you're out the hundred $ or more that you paid.  It's months to get a decision from the ROC.

 

When you have pants on, you can't tell what the laces are.  Note that Ariat Lacers have PLASTIC speed lacing lugs at the top.  They are clearly visible on the boots.  They are probably glass reinforced nylon. That didn't exist in the old west.  The stitching on our boots is probably Nylon thread.  Nylon did not exist in the old west.  The threads and the fabric that we routinely in our clothes use did not exist in the old west.  The "Cooler Cowboy Shirt" is polyester with a fancy coating and did not exist in the old west.  Roy Rogers did not exist anywhere else except in entertainment.

 

As far as I'm concerned the boots shown were fine. I'm just as fine with any costuming that people enjoy.  In my view, we're here to shoot fast and enjoy the match.

 

I'd like to see minimal clothing requirements and us, as a organization, not worry about it.  If you want to compete in the clothing centered categories, have at it and upgrade to your hearts content.  If you just like to shoot the guns, have at it so long as you meet the existing minimums.  

 

Every time we get into this level about what's OK, we end up driving potential shooters away.  I've heard it again and again, from shooters that are interested in the guns and the way we do things, that they give up over costuming because they don't want to be hassled and can tell you about people they know that have been hassled.  Is it true? Maybe or maybe not.  However, perception is reality.   You can argue all you want, but that is what potential customers say.  

 

If you forced me to wear pointed cowboy boots, I'd probably have to quit.  If you took away my Lacers, I'd have to quit.  ROC, is this what you want?

 

Null N. Void

 

we're here to shoot fast and enjoy the match.

 

NO....I don’t agree with that at all!!

I believe a huge, vital part (maybe a MORE vital part) of CAS/SASS is period dress.
 

If “shooting fast” and getting the best time is your idea of the primary rationale for Cowboy action shooting, I believe you are quite possibly in the wrong shooting sport.

 

Cat Brules

 

[Cat Brules]

My view  is the following:

 

Read The Rules

Follow The Rules

(Including Period Dress Requirements)

Otherwise, Be Disqualified

Period.
 

Cat Brules

[Null N. Void]

Love the sport.  Wish we had more and younger shooters coming in.  

[Equanimous Phil]

I used to do other shooting sports which I quitted a long time ago. I am still quite new to CAS, Cowboy Action Shooting, starting my 2nd season. The game attracted me mostly because of the atmosphere and playing cowboy. I have read a couple of times on the Wire when it comes to clothing that CAS is not reenacting, and if you're into period correctness you'd better join NCOWS, and as long you don't wear outlawed items you're - according the rules of  SHB - good to go with jeans, a long sleeve shirt and a pair of working boots (except BW and CC). But on the first pages of that SHB you can also read the following (which for me sounds like kind of a dogma):
 

Quote

 

The shooting competition is staged in a unique, characterized, Old West style.

 

American history buffs and serious shooters alike agree the use of vintage firearms, authentic costuming, unique targets, and fast action make Cowboy Action Shooting™ one of the most interesting of all shooting sports for both spectator and contestant.

 

Cowboy Action Shooting™ is a combination of historical reenactment and Saturday morning at the matinee. Participants may choose the style of costume they wish to wear, but all clothing must be typical of the late 19th century, a B-Western movie, or Western television
series.
SASS puts a great deal of emphasis on costuming because it adds so much to the uniqueness of the game and helps to create a festive, informal atmosphere that supports the friendly, fraternal feeling we encourage in our competitors.
All shooters must be in costume, and we encourage invited guests and family also to be costumed. Shooters must remain in costume at all match events, including dinners, award ceremonies, dances, and other SASS related activities.

 

 

For me that is kind of a contradiction. Wearing jeans and a normal long sleeve shirt just aint't costuming for me, neither old west nor movie/TV style. The more you open the borders just to attract more shooters the more CAS becomes washed-out mainstream and loses its uniqueness.

 

I am glad I was able to join a club with great emphasis on clothing according the lines above. I wouldn't have joined if everybody looked like playing in a country band.

 

Of course, nobody in our club will deny a pard with feet issues wearing convenient (unobtrusive) footwear to keep him in the game. Also new shooters can take their time to gather all the needed equipment and clothes.  But that's still an exception and not basic rules.

 

It's just my opinion on CAS and I am sure a lot of you will disagree as "CAS is changing", but changes to a game that is based on a certain time period are imho limited. But if a majority of SASS members don't identify with the quoted lines from the SHB, those lines should be revised.

 

Equanimous

[Captain Bill Burt]

14 hours ago, Null N. Void said:

 

As far as I'm concerned the boots shown were fine. I'm just as fine with any costuming that people enjoy.  In my view, we're here to shoot fast and enjoy the match.

 

 

3 hours ago, Cat Brules said:

 

we're here to shoot fast and enjoy the match.

 

NO....I don’t agree with that at all!!

I believe a huge, vital part (maybe a MORE vital part) of CAS/SASS is period dress.
 

If “shooting fast” and getting the best time is your idea of the primary rationale for Cowboy action shooting, I believe you are quite possibly in the wrong shooting sport.

 

Cat Brules

 

We keep coming back to this, year after year.  We have a group, Null and I are both in it, who enjoy shooting and doing it as quickly as we can.  OTH we have a group whose primary enjoyment is dressing up cowboy.

 

My view is that there should be room for BOTH groups in this particular tent.

 

Unfortunately one group has a subset of members in it who look down on the other group and disparage what they find enjoyable in the game.  Newsflash, you don't hear people who enjoy the shooting fast aspect complaining about the dress up group.  Most of the first group, either enjoy seeing people dressed to the nines, or are indifferent to it, but they're not hostile.  You don't hear them complaining that a particular shooter is too dressed up, nor do you hear them complaining that their transitions are too slow, or they're not shooting fast enough.

 

You do hear a subset of the dress up group crying and moaning about 'gamers' who, though they're abiding by the costuming rules, aren't living up to some individual's heightened dress expectations.   These are the people for whom a pair of boots, a hat, jeans and a western shirt 'just aren't good enough.'  They're people who feel free to judge others and find them wanting because they're interested in a different aspect of the game.  They conclude that because that's not the aspect of the sport that THEY enjoy, it shouldn't be the aspect that YOU enjoy.

 

I think it would be really nice if the dress up group would stop trying to enforce rules that don't exist and/or trying to shame shooters who aren't going the extra mile.  It's not going to happen though because deep inside they have a burning desire to tell other people what to do and stick their noses in other peoples business.  Bottom line, they're obnoxious busybodies who don't have a life.

 

They obsess over whether your boots have lug soles, or whether you have a zipper, or a hat.  They're certain you're winning because you have a shortstroke in your rifle.  They are at the match 'just to have fun' (one of the phrases that gets thrown around that reveals true ignorance IMHO, since all of us are there to have fun, in different ways).  They supposedly don't care if they win, but boy are they worried about how you're standing before the buzzer, or whether you got both feet behind the table.  They're upset because you started the stage looking at your guns instead of looking down range.  Trying to shoot a stage in the most efficient way is a really bad thing in their view, cause that means you're a gamer, which to them is a very bad thing, perhaps worthy of tar and feathers.

 

I find them to be sad individuals and generally I feel sympathy for them because they usually are unhappy people.

[Captain Bill Burt]

Now, back to the OP.

I respectfully disagree with you Creeker.  The ROC doesn't owe us an explanation and neither does the Wild Bunch or SASS HQ.  SASS is a business, the people who own it have a right to hire who they want, fire who they want, and generally conduct their business however they choose.  We as the consumers have a right to consume their product/service, or not.  

 

Having said that, yeah it's a slightly different business model since we provide free services that help support SASS, which isn't typical in businesses.  Given that, its not unreasonable to ask for transparency and to have some voice in what's happening.   SASS has to balance that tension between a traditional business model, and our hybrid one.  We as consumers can balance how much free stuff we do for SASS with our feelings about how they're doing business.  If they become to opaque, or lock customers out and don't let them contribute and feel part of the process they're going to get less buy in and less free help.  

 

As an RO instructor I would find it helpful to know how they make some of their determinations.  As a shooter I really don't care, I just want to know what the rules are so I can stay within the lines. 

[Null N. Void]

I try to disagree without being disagreeable. 

 

I wear clothing appropriate to the sport way above the minimums.  I abide by all of the rules, including ones I don't like.

 

I support multiple clubs and shoot most weekends.  I'm on the board of the Cross Creek Cowboys.  I'm RO1 and RO2 qualified and run the timer quite a bit.  I also like to go fast. 

 

I truly admire the people that make their own clothing.  I'm not as thrilled with purchased costumes.

 

There is plenty of room in the sport for clothing centered people and go fast people.  Discussions are warranted and fun.  Get the hell out of Dodge comments are rude.

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

55 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Now, back to the OP.

I respectfully disagree with you Creeker.  The ROC doesn't owe us an explanation and neither does the Wild Bunch or SASS HQ.  SASS is a business, the people who own it have a right to hire who they want, fire who they want, and generally conduct their business however they choose.  We as the consumers have a right to consume their product/service, or not.  

 

Having said that, yeah it's a slightly different business model since we provide free services that help support SASS, which isn't typical in businesses.  Given that, its not unreasonable to ask for transparency and to have some voice in what's happening.   SASS has to balance that tension between a traditional business model, and our hybrid one.  We as consumers can balance how much free stuff we do for SASS with our feelings about how they're doing business.  If they become to opaque, or lock customers out and don't let them contribute and feel part of the process they're going to get less buy in and less free help.  

 

As an RO instructor I would find it helpful to know how they make some of their determinations.  As a shooter I really don't care, I just want to know what the rules are so I can stay within the lines. 

I completely disagree with your statement. It might be technically correct to say SASS owes us nothing, but it certainly isn’t the smartest business model. There are a lot of folks that shoot at sass matches that are no longer sass members and a big reason is that very philosophy, especially when so much of the work done by SASS is volunteer “member” work. 
 

Oh and just to be technical me own dang self, the consumer/business relationship does not end at consume or don’t consume. If it did, then there wouldn’t be regulations and agencies like the consumer protection agency to, we’ll, protect consumers. 

[Captain Bill Burt]

6 minutes ago, El Hombre Sin Nombre said:

I completely disagree with your statement. It might be technically correct to say SASS owes us nothing, but it certainly isn’t the smartest business model. There are a lot of folks that shoot at sass matches that are no longer sass members and a big reason is that very philosophy, especially when so much of the work done by SASS is volunteer “member” work. 
 

Oh and just to be technical me own dang self, the consumer/business relationship does not end at consume or don’t consume. If it did, then there wouldn’t be regulations and agencies like the consumer protection agency to, we’ll, protect consumers. 

I respect your opinion.

 

I do want to point out that although I believe SASS doesn't OWE us a thing, I also believe it's in their best interests to be as transparent about these things as they can be given the nature of this business and it's dependency on it's members to contribute.  I think our positions are closer than you might believe, and perhaps you're focusing on my first statement and not the following statements. 

 

I'm not sure how the regulations and agencies you mentioned are pertinent to the discussion at hand.  Yes they exist and are a part of the consumer producer relationship, but I don't think they have any bearing on whether the ROC shows us how the sausage is made. 

[Griff]

WOW!  Talk about how to work yourself up over nada!  I have to admit, I'm truly ambivalent on this issue.  On the one hand, it would be nice for comparative notes to know what features rendered the ROC majority feel the "boot" wasn't legal for wear.  In order to assess future buying decisions.  While on the other hand, it was my personal opinion, right off the bat, that they would not be legal.   And for me, it was no ONE thing, but rather, a number of it's features.  But frankly, if I was asked to say which feature put it over the top, & into the "illegal" category, it was that piece of leather over the big toe.  Like another respondent stated, it just simply doesn't have "the LOOK" of an old west boot/shoe/foot covering.  And if I have to explain that to anyone, you certainly won't "get" the answer.  So I won't try.

 

In the great big scheme of things, is this something to get worked up over?    Any answers should be at the very least entertaining... otherwise don't bother.  

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

19 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I respect your opinion.

 

I do want to point out that although I believe SASS doesn't OWE us a thing, I also believe it's in their best interests to be as transparent about these things as they can be given the nature of this business and it's dependency on it's members to contribute.  I think our positions are closer than you might believe, and perhaps you're focusing on my first statement and not the following statements. 

 

I'm not sure how the regulations and agencies you mentioned are pertinent to the discussion at hand.  Yes they exist and are a part of the consumer producer relationship, but I don't think they have any bearing on whether the ROC shows us how the sausage is made. 

I’m sure you’re right about us being fairly close on opinion. In fact it was the stuff you posted about volunteer work that got me thinking about the relationship in the first place. 
 

I mentioned the regulations and protections as a counter to the whole private business owes us nothing part. Last time I looked at a package of sausage, while it doesn’t describe the process, the ingredients are clearly listed as is the nutritional information like calories and fat (damnit!). I think that’s what Creeker is asking for. A little more of the ingredient label so that we can see exactly why those shoes are illegal. 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

2 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Trying to shoot a stage in the most efficient way is a really bad thing in their view, cause that means you're a gamer, which to them is a very bad thing, perhaps worthy of tar and feathers.

 

I find them to be sad individuals and generally I feel sympathy for them because they usually are unhappy people.

Honestly, I don't think I've, as yet, met anyone like that in CAS.  Some are here to participate.  Others (most) are here to compete.   But I've not met anyone who seems obsessed with or even wants to bother with controlling others.  

 

Here on the Wire is a different world.  Here, direct rules interpretation questions are put on the table for discussion, and so it's natural that people with different experience levels express their differing opinions.  Often those opinions are based on their experience and their reading or misreading of the details of wording within the SHB.  The devil lives in those details, readings, and misreadings.  They are often the source of discord here, and at times tempers (and rude insults) can flare.  Because the communication is not face to face, it is easier to be rude to each other.  But the issues between us only come up because somebody asked the direct question in the OP.  When you ask that kind of a question, you are always going to get variety in the responses.  People's opinions are going to vary--and sometimes run head on into each other.  I actually  see that interface as one of the Wire's many purposes.   It is a good thing, as long as it stays constructive.  That occasionally fails, and non-constructive (or destructive) threads get locked or unusually rude or inflammatory comments sometimes get removed by the site moderator.  But all of it occurs only because the questions are initially put up onto the table, with the understanding that people will speak out.   

 

But I absolutely don't see any of the contention or animosity carried over to the range.   Out there we all laugh and have a good time together, with everyone doing things their own way, some much more quickly than others.  I see tolerance and humility in literally all of our participating shooters.   We know there are likely to be disagreements between us, but they all get put away while we're visiting and shooting.   

 

I contrast that to an extreme liberal man who was a member of a hiking club I belonged to.  Every time we got together as a club, he had to bait individuals into an angry political argument, either over politics, economics or religion (he was a devout atheist).  But that kind of thing just thankfully doesn't happen in CAS.  (The other club finally dissolved, because no one could ever enjoy their club gatherings).  

 

So I think we all ought to smile and enjoy each other's comments and friendship here, and enjoy the process of rolling around different thoughts and opinions.  Often, something useful comes out of the fray, when clarifying posts or ROC Clarifications come up (my particular thanks here to PWB and the ROC).   

 

Overall for me, the Wire is a positive experience and useful tool.  I pick up a great deal of useful info here that is worth the normal occasional opinion flare ups.  None of it but the gun, ammo, or shooting techniques information is ever taken to the range with me.  That appears to be the case for everyone else as well.  I think it's a big reason why we are all still here and respecting each other.   

 

 

 

 

[Tyrel Cody]

7 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 But I've not met anyone who seems obsessed with or even wants to bother with controlling others. 

 

Please take this as constructive criticism. While I'm sure you are not that way on the range a lot of your posts come across just that way.

 

I get it, I'm sure some of my own posts come off negative or controlling; if so I'll apologize. We all need to take care not to be overbearing, condescending, elitist, etc.

 

 

 

I'd like to know the why behind the ROC's decisions as well.

 

[BootStrap Phil]

Interesting thread, Wire so much fun........is it? Anyhooo Just do not see the big deal on shoes, been to match after match that older folks who need to wear everything under the sun cause of medical conditions. Is it that big of a deal? Sure when they started 20 years ago sure they wore boots and all the period stuff. 

 

If we come for the shooting and stay for the people, what does foot wear matter? If these folks need to wear different shoes let'em. Again see a lot of hoopla over trivial things, and the earlier statement made in thread about 2 different factions in the sport man dead on. Been in this sport just over 4 years now and in that short time have been subject to the elitist been here since the sport started club snide comments, and opinions of how I am approaching the sport. Makes never mind to me as my life journey has given me thick skin and I am here to shoot and have fun with my wife.

 

There are multiple reasons we can not attract new shooters and this is just one.  Said once say it hundred times let the sport morph as needed;  Bottom line is don't have folks that grew up with the westerns like fair amount did in this sport, and to attract them and keep them shouldn't we adjust fire? I shot B-western for close to the 4 years (changed as Marlin caused to much stress..lol) not once did a gunslinger/speedster/down dresser go "whats up with the over the top look" 

 

Dang lets just shoot have fun and put the as the cylinder turns away. Just my 1 1/2 cents.

 

Stay safe out there ya'll.

[Yul Lose]

11 minutes ago, BootStrap Phil said:

Interesting thread, Wire so much fun........is it? Anyhooo Just do not see the big deal on shoes, been to match after match that older folks who need to wear everything under the sun cause of medical conditions. Is it that big of a deal? Sure when they started 20 years ago sure they wore boots and all the period stuff. 

 

If we come for the shooting and stay for the people, what does foot wear matter? If these folks need to wear different shoes let'em. Again see a lot of hoopla over trivial things, and the earlier statement made in thread about 2 different factions in the sport man dead on. Been in this sport just over 4 years now and in that short time have been subject to the elitist been here since the sport started club snide comments, and opinions of how I am approaching the sport. Makes never mind to me as my life journey has given me thick skin and I am here to shoot and have fun with my wife.

 

There are multiple reasons we can not attract new shooters and this is just one.  Said once say it hundred times let the sport morph as needed;  Bottom line is don't have folks that grew up with the westerns like fair amount did in this sport, and to attract them and keep them shouldn't we adjust fire? I shot B-western for close to the 4 years (changed as Marlin caused to much stress..lol) not once did a gunslinger/speedster/down dresser go "whats up with the over the top look" 

 

Dang lets just shoot have fun and put the as the cylinder turns away. Just my 1 1/2 cents.

 

Stay safe out there ya'll.

Phil, ol pard you’re applying waaaay to much logic to the situation. Some folks just can’t stand it if they can’t put you in some kind of a box that they like. Our Bandidos matches and many others down here are filled with older and younger shooters that wear the footwear that gives them the most safety and comfort. Most clubs here would probably fold overnight if the footwear police enforced cowboy boots only. I know I’d find something else to do.

 

Very astute observations and I agree with everything you said.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

1 hour ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

Please take this as constructive criticism. While I'm sure you are not that way on the range a lot of your posts come across just that way.

 

I get it, I'm sure some of my own posts come off negative or controlling; if so I'll apologize. We all need to take care not to be overbearing, condescending, elitist, etc.

 

 

 

I'd like to know the why behind the ROC's decisions as well.

 

TC, I am sorry you view me that way.  (sorry also in advance for the length of this) 

 

Peoples persuasive arguments are always going to be presented with as much underlying factual authority as possible.   Sometimes those facts are met by contrary facts, or sometimes unjustified  opinions or even abject denial.  Then the discussion will intensify.   It happens here on the Wire frequently with everyone--not just with me. 

 

Sometimes the intensification happens even when the outcome (like shoes) isn't really all that important to the participants.  The discussion one-upsmanship seems to take on its own competitive importance.  It happens often here, where a handful of "likes" from others seems to be the illusory prize in all Internet forums, somehow being interpreted as correctness. But in reality, correctness is not just a voting or popular opinion process.  (The earth really wasn't flat) 

  

Persuasion is not the same thing as "control".  When you are in control, persuasion isn't needed.   None of us can presume to control anybody from this forum.  So all of us do the best job we can of presenting our arguments for consideration.  I'm no different than everyone else here.  I present what I know or believe to be true.  People can do what they want with it. 

 

In important decision cases, like the two Coronavirus discussion threads last week, where we individually had to make important health v. recreation event decisions, you will see me stick to my guns and try to present facts as persuasively as I can.  Last week, I did so, because I was advocating exactly the same thing as the unanimous medical community.  But at the time, that particular message was very unpopular and disturbing to some here.  Many here told me I was overreacting to media hype, and they almost uniformly objected to me offering guidance that invaded their personal freedom of choice. 

 

The outcome realities on COVID-19 management are now pretty evident.   If those commenters went back and re-read the entire thread now, start to end,  they might better grasp what I was trying to get across about need for gatherings to be limited and suspended.  Most here were reading media news articles, while I was reading my wife's technical medical (and public health)  journals.  The facts between the two were then incongruent.  But nobody here knew that, as yet. 

 

 Unfortunately, at that time, the general media was in denial of the needed quarantines.  They didn't understand the issues and didn't try to  convince the broader public of the need to sequester themselves, until it was very late in the game.  Legal orders had to be issued, and even those are still not being well followed.  The time-lag actually has cost additional infections and some cases, human lives. 

 

I'm just citing that as an example.  I usually post here when I feel I have something useful to contribute, and in doing so, I try to be as persuasive as possible.  But if you really prefer not to have to think about the points I bring up, just say the word and I'll politely just quit posting to the Wire.   I'm not here to make anybody's life unhappy or  awkward. 

Just say the word.  

DDD

 

[Tyrel Cody]

2 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

I do not want anyone to quit posting on the Wire.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

I think everyone is getting a little too focused on the footwear and losing sight of the question.

 

The ROC has the authority to rule "something" as illegal or allowed - Currently they can do so without explanation or justification.

 

I would like to see that changed.

 

The footwear in question is simply the latest example of their ruling.

And since we are dealing with a simplistic and easily explained item - this seems to be an opportunity for  insight into the ROC process.

 

For instance - I would like to see...

The ROC rules that a "specified item" is illegal on the following grounds:

A.  Explanation of why item/ rule was being looked at.

B.  Rule citation for supposed violation.

C.  Example(s) of violation specific to these example.

 

Explanation of how the above item/ rule differs from other like items.

Explanation of what impact this ruling may have on other existing like items/ rules (in other words; is this a wide range ruling or is it specific to this one item).

 

I'm hoping the ROC considers all of the above when they make a ruling.

And if they do - they should be proud to show the process.

[Captain Bill Burt]

22 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

I think everyone is getting a little too focused on the footwear and losing sight of the question.

 

The ROC has the authority to rule "something" as illegal or allowed - Currently they can do so without explanation or justification.

 

I would like to see that changed.

 

The footwear in question is simply the latest example of their ruling.

And since we are dealing with a simplistic and easily explained item - this seems to be an opportunity for  insight into the ROC process.

 

For instance - I would like to see...

The ROC rules that a "specified item" is illegal on the following grounds:

A.  Explanation of why item/ rule was being looked at.

B.  Rule citation for supposed violation.

C.  Example(s) of violation specific to these example.

 

Explanation of how the above item/ rule differs from other like items.

Explanation of what impact this ruling may have on other existing like items/ rules (in other words; is this a wide range ruling or is it specific to this one item).

 

I'm hoping the ROC considers all of the above when they make a ruling.

And if they do - they should be proud to show the process.

I'm not sure how helpful B. will be. 

 

I don't think we want rules that cover every possible item of clothing a person could wear, so I think you're going to come back to comments like, the rubber over the toe doesn't look cowboy. 

 

Do we need a rule that says you can't have part of the sole of the shoe covering the toe?  I don't think so.

I'm more interested in how rules related to penalties are adjudicated and how they fit logically with existing rules.   For example the new cocked rifle rule.  Transparency there would be helpful.  

 

Costuming is more subjective and therefore could lead to an Encyclopedia Britannica sized rule book.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

35 minutes ago, Tyrel Cody said:

I do not want anyone to quit posting on the Wire.

Likewise.  I do appreciate your posts.  I just felt the need to explain where I come from.  I'll give thought to your comment, in writing future comments.   Thx

[Still hand Bill]

As a new shooter, some explanation would be useful.  It might prevent each and every case being presented for a ruling due to following precedent.  Ie this shoe was not allowed because of this, then we as shooters know if a shoe has that feature, it’s probably not allowed.  
 

in sailing, there are books of cases and interpretations so people can learn from previous decisions.  It helps clarify what the rules mean.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

33 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I'm not sure how helpful B. will be. 

 

I don't think we want rules that cover every possible item of clothing a person could wear, so I think you're going to come back to comments like, the rubber over the toe doesn't look cowboy. 

And you lay your finger on the pulse of the question.

 

IF the ROC is making determinations and rulings without a corresponding RULE existing - then perhaps it is something outside their purview?

 

I'm viewing the ROC as sort of the supreme Court of our game - they shouldn't be making rules - but clarifying or striking down when needed.

 

But if a rule doesn't not exist to support their position - they should say that and cede the authority to the shooters.

 

They can state their subjective opinion that such and such is perhaps not "cowboy" enough (as many on here have done); but in the absence of a RULE - the item cannot be ruled illegal.

[Captain Bill Burt]

9 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

And you lay your finger on the pulse of the question.

 

IF the ROC is making determinations and rulings without a corresponding RULE existing - then perhaps it is something outside their purview?

 

I'm viewing the ROC as sort of the supreme Court of our game - they shouldn't be making rules - but clarifying or striking down when needed.

 

But if a rule doesn't not exist to support their position - they should say that and cede the authority to the shooters.

 

They can state their subjective opinion that such and such is perhaps not "cowboy" enough (as many on here have done); but in the absence of a RULE - the item cannot be ruled illegal.

OK.  In this case, if I were on the ROC I would cite this rule.

 

SHB page 2

Participants may choose the style of costume they wish to wear, but all clothing must be typical of the late 19th century, a B-Western movie, or Western television series.

 

Would that be good enough? Do we feel comfortable with the ROC's ability to fairly determine whether something fits those broad guidelines? Or would it have to be more specific?

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

14 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

OK.  In this case, if I were on the ROC I would cite this rule.

 

SHB page 2

Participants may choose the style of costume they wish to wear, but all clothing must be typical of the late 19th century, a B-Western movie, or Western television series.

 

Or would it have to be more specific?

Much more specific - simply because of the width and breadth of items worn similar or close to the "illegal" item in appearance and function.

 

What specifically makes this item illegal?  Subjective opinion is not a rule.

 

I would contend the shoe appears to be similar to moccasins commonly worn in history and in media 

[Captain Bill Burt]

1 minute ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Much more specific - simply because of the width and breadth of items worn similar or close to the "illegal" item in appearance and function.

 

What specifically makes this item illegal?  Subjective opinion is not a rule.

 

I would contend the shoe appears to be similar to moccasins commonly worn in history and in media 

I suspected that would be your position.  I contend that expecting costuming rules to be that explicit is a bridge too far. How exactly are we going to specify what every type of footwear can look like, what every possible configuration can and can't be?  Then extend that beyond footwear to pants, shirts, hats, bandannas, spurs....no thanks.  I respect your opinion, but I don't think what you want is practical.  Whether or not a gun is cocked or not, what the penalty is and when it's applicable can all be objectively determined.  Costuming cannot.  I'm comfortable leaving those determinations with a group of experienced cowboys/girls who I am sure are doing their best to be fair and reasonable.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Absolutely .... the very LAST thing you ever do is ask for PERMISSIONS.  NEVER .. EVER .. Ask Permissions.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

17 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I suspected that would be your position.  I contend that expecting costuming rules to be that explicit is a bridge too far. How exactly are we going to specify what every type of footwear can look like, what every possible configuration can and can't be?  Then extend that beyond footwear to pants, shirts, hats, bandannas, spurs....no thanks.  I respect your opinion, but I don't think what you want is practical.  Whether or not a gun is cocked or not, what the penalty is and when it's applicable can all be objectively determined.  Costuming cannot.  I'm comfortable leaving those determinations with a group of experienced cowboys/girls who I am sure are doing their best to be fair and reasonable.

We have subjectivity in our rules now...Just look at the BP smoke standard.

[Tyrel Cody]

10 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

We have subjectivity in our rules now...Just look at the BP smoke standard.

 

True story.

 

 

 

Funny thing(well to me anyway), after taking the R01 class a few years ago, Mustang Lewis told me you(yes you Branchwater Jack) weren't making enough smoke in his opinion. I simply told him you can't go off of opinion AND if you'll watch me on the next stage you'll notice that I'm not making as much smoke as normal. At the time I was shooting 30gr of FFg in .45 revolvers and .44-40 rifle. The young are very observant and need to be taught the rules.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

27 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

OK.  In this case, if I were on the ROC I would cite this rule.

 

SHB page 2

Participants may choose the style of costume they wish to wear, but all clothing must be typical of the late 19th century, a B-Western movie, or Western television series.

 

Would that be good enough? Do we feel comfortable with the ROC's ability to fairly determine whether something fits those broad guidelines? Or would it have to be more specific?

I think in our sport, it is possible to get lost in a sea of rule specificity, given all the stage situations and all of the available attire options.  The only rulebook changes I would like to see would be some kind of detailed index so we can more easily find ALL of the statements pertaining to a particular situation or decision.  But that's another thread for another time.  

 

  I think most of the rule descriptions are adequate as they are.  When interpretation becomes needed in our matches, I'm good with the TO and MD making on-the-spot decisions with only cursory explanations.   Keep things moving and suck it up if you feel unfairly treated by the umpires.  Right or wrong, It happens sometimes. 

 

But I agree when it comes to less time constrained decisions, a bit of clarifying discussion and explanation could be offered and would be helpful. 

 But WTS, I think we need to realize that every one of those ROC  determinations is going to ruffle somebody's feathers, one way or the other.  It's unavoidable.  They do the best that they can, given their budget and pay grade.  I give them much credit.