Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Recommended Posts

I posted this on Facebook and it got several comments so I thought I'd post it here also for the comments. 
 
I found this while reading through the newest Shooters Handbook and wanted to put it out for some discussion.
The Match Director has the authority to override an “RO assisted” MSV penalty for a reshoot.
 
Stage has 4 rifle targets to be shot in a continuous Nevada Sweep (pistols were shot correctly) Shooter shoots rifle targets 1-2-3-4-3-2-1 and the rifle jambs, shooter is able to clear it but in the confusion forgets where he was and asks the TO. TO says 3 so shooter shoots 3-4, instead of starting back on 2, grounds the rifle and finishes the stage with the shotgun. Shooter gets a "P" for shooting the targets in the wrong order, a miss for the round left in the rifle as well as a Minor Safety for the round on the carrier after the next gun was fired.
 
What's the correct call? I checked with PaleWolf on this a couple of days ago but I'd like to see some discussion.
 
I'm sure many of you will get this much quicker than I did (I had to ask PaleWolf).
 
Thanks
Randy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of incorrect information from the TO the shooter gets a re-shoot. The miss and the P go away, but the MSV is carried forward to the re-shoot.

That's my take on it.

 

BS

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903 said:
Shooter gets a "P" for shooting the targets in the wrong order, a miss for the round left in the rifle as well as a Minor Safety for the round on the carrier after the next gun was fired. 

That's the answer right there.

The shooter owns the full and complete responsibility for their stage.

 

The input was NOT offered - it was REQUESTED by the shooter.

The fact that SOLICITED direction was incorrect, does not change the shooters ownership on their actions.

 

Directions that are BOTH un-requested and incorrect (TO verbal interference, peanut gallery directions, etc.) may be the basis for a reshoot being offered by the match director.

 

And if offering a reshoot on that basis - any penalty that arose (including the MSV) from that input would be waived for the reshoot.

 

But a shooter requesting assistance (and acting upon it) accepts the outcome of that request.

 

Shooters getting a reshoot from the use of assistance (even if it was incorrect) is going to eventually establish the condition that TO's will have to refrain from offering ANY assistance.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The shooter is ultimately responsible for the correct execution of the stage. A procedural can only be assessed by the TO (with input from the spotters). So, did the TO tell the shooter to do the wrong thing and then award a 'P' for doing so?

 

If so, I believe it was the correct call -- bummer. It seems a P, miss, and MSV are correct.

 

Hey, if it was Wild Bunch, at least the shooter would avoid the MSV B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Creeker.

 

P.S. - shooter should have grounded the jammed rifle.   There's an ole saying that TN Williams 'Inlaws' told their daughter:  "Leave

well enough alone".

:D

 

..........Widder

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules don't distinguish between "requested" and "unsolicited" coaching from the Timer Operator.

 

The initial question came up in 2010 regarding a similar "Trifecta" situation.

The allowance for the Match Director to "void" the MSV for a reshoot due to "improper coaching" was confirmed by the ROC at the 2010 Summit.

The verbiage was codified in the SHB in the 2019 version.
 

 

Edited by PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L
add comment
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who want to "own" the stage, take the P, the Miss, the MSV, for wrong directions that I, as R.O., gave them... I would never force a reshoot upon you.  But, it would be offered.

"Proper coaching or no coaching at all is NOT considered RO interference and will never be grounds for a reshoot." SHB Vers 25.1 pg 18

but improper instructuction may be a cause for a reshoot...  (not in the case of an SDQ).

 

"However, if there is a range failure (failure of props, failure of the timer, or Range Officer interference) beyond the competitor’s control, a reshoot may be granted. - On a reshoot, the competitor starts over clean, carrying only accrued safety penalties forward. - The Match Director has the authority to override an “RO assisted” MSV penalty for a reshoot.  SHB Vers 25.1 pg 20

 

Doesn't matter if my directions as an R.O. were solicited or not.  If the RO's improper directions are followed, the shooter is offered a reshoot.

 

So, yes... It's my fault.  Blame it on me! 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the rulebook does not differentiate between requested and un requested input. 

But common sense should still have a place in our game.  

 

I stand by my contention that allowing reshoots for THE SHOOTERS error and decisions when based on "solicited"  input is going to lead to a "No assistance" rule being put into place. 

 

Allowing shooters to request assistance and then to provide do overs, if the advice is incorrect, could lead to abuses not yet considered and is NOT worth it for the few times that a TO gets it wrong.

 

So anytime (especially after screwing up) the shooter can ask the TO for direction and any mistake on the TO's part allows a do over.

Shooter puts two in the dirt - immediately start firing questions at the TO, "How many rounds left?", "Which target?", "Do I move?", etc.

 

Just like the recent ruling that a TO may not catch a falling gun to save penalty from a shooter - the excuse for that was was the varying abilities of the TO could differently affect shooters under the same conditions.

 

This option again interjects the TO skill/ intention (good or bad) into the results of the shooter. 

Instead of the shooter taking responsibility for their score and actions; they are now sharing with the TO.

 

Decide.

Are we an individual game or a team sport?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The case in point is an extremely rare situation in which the attention of the parties involved is temporarily focused on safely resolving a firearm malfunction mid-string.

If the T/O is not certain where the shooter is at in the target order after that resolution, s/he should say so if asked; rather than guessing and risking providing improper coaching (i.e. leave it up to the shooter to get back on track). There is no need for a rule specifying that.

If the T/O misdirects the shooter, that is grounds for a reshoot.

In that case, ALL penalties resulting from the improper coaching should be negated...but the reshoot rules specify that SAFETY penalties carry forward on ANY reshoot.

The provision allowing the Match Director to void the MSV penalty in this situation has been in place for some time (as previously noted).
 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

I understand the rulebook does not differentiate between requested and un requested input. 

But common sense should still have a place in our game.  

 

I stand by my contention that allowing reshoots for THE SHOOTERS error and decisions when based on "solicited"  input is going to lead to a "No assistance" rule being put into place. 

 

Allowing shooters to request assistance and then to provide do overs, if the advice is incorrect, could lead to abuses not yet considered and is NOT worth it for the few times that a TO gets it wrong.

 

So anytime (especially after screwing up) the shooter can ask the TO for direction and any mistake on the TO's part allows a do over.

Shooter puts two in the dirt - immediately start firing questions at the TO, "How many rounds left?", "Which target?", "Do I move?", etc.

 

Just like the recent ruling that a TO may not catch a falling gun to save penalty from a shooter - the excuse for that was was the varying abilities of the TO could differently affect shooters under the same conditions.

 

This option again interjects the TO skill/ intention (good or bad) into the results of the shooter. 

Instead of the shooter taking responsibility for their score and actions; they are now sharing with the TO.

 

Decide.

Are we an individual game or a team sport?

I believe the question was regarding what the rules currently ARE, not what an individual poster thinks they SHOULD be. 

 

Your 'common sense' and mine may not be the same, therefore it's best to go with what the rules say: improper coaching is improper coaching, whether solicited or not.


As PWB mentioned, the TO has the option to say "I don't know."

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

I understand the rulebook does not differentiate between requested and un requested input. 

But common sense should still have a place in our game.  

 

I stand by my contention that allowing reshoots for THE SHOOTERS error and decisions when based on "solicited"  input is going to lead to a "No assistance" rule being put into place. 

 

Allowing shooters to request assistance and then to provide do overs, if the advice is incorrect, could lead to abuses not yet considered and is NOT worth it for the few times that a TO gets it wrong.

 

So anytime (especially after screwing up) the shooter can ask the TO for direction and any mistake on the TO's part allows a do over.

Shooter puts two in the dirt - immediately start firing questions at the TO, "How many rounds left?", "Which target?", "Do I move?", etc.

 

Just like the recent ruling that a TO may not catch a falling gun to save penalty from a shooter - the excuse for that was was the varying abilities of the TO could differently affect shooters under the same conditions.

 

This option again interjects the TO skill/ intention (good or bad) into the results of the shooter. 

Instead of the shooter taking responsibility for their score and actions; they are now sharing with the TO.

 

Decide.

Are we an individual game or a team sport?

In my opinion you are acting like a reshoot is something coming out of your pocket or costing you as a TO something.

kR

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903 said:
 
The Match Director has the authority to override an “RO assisted” MSV penalty for a reshoot.
 
 
 

 

If I'm reading correctly, this is the point of your post. Not whether or not a shooter gets a reshoot for improper coaching which we know to be the case.

 

So. If a shooter incurs a MSV while shooting their stage, but it was considered "RO ASSISTED", the shooter can appeal to the match director to override the MSV carryover.

 

To me, this is fair enough. Could be a bit of confusion as to having to go to a match director for overriding the call. As currently laid out, the RO would carry the MSV over and it would be up to the shooter to involve the MD. 

 

P.S.

We are responsible for our own safety

P.P.S.

Have to know where to draw the line with "RO DIRECTED" MSV. I.e. I would not have lost count if the RO didn't....

Edited by Tennessee williams
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just my opinion, & we all know about opinions...but...

 

P for shooting targets out of order, miss for the unfired round, MSV for round left on the carrier; offer a reshoot for improper coaching on where to start back, but the MSV carries over.  The TO told him where to start back, not how many rounds were left.  The TO's instructions did not cause the shooter to leave a round in the rifle.  No coaching is not improper coaching, so how is the MSV a result of TO interference?  I can't see where the MSV should be removed.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

As PWB mentioned, the TO has the option to say "I don't know."

 

The key word is "Option" - once again (just like the catch a falling gun example that was deemed as inconsistent assistance), the ability (or lack thereof) of the TO may significantly affect shooter performance.

One TO may know and be able to quickly and accurately communicate rounds left, target sequence, etc. 

Effectively saving the shooters stage.

Shooters result reflects a cooperative result of BOTH shooter and TO.

 

Another TO says, "I don't know" and the shooters either saves their self or trainwrecks.

Shooters result is wholly on the shooter.

 

And yet another TO communicates incorrect information and the shooter gets a reshoot for incorrect coaching.

Shooters result is a Do Over. 

 

Three like shooters - three different TO - Three different outcomes.

 

2 hours ago, Kid Rich said:

In my opinion you are acting like a reshoot is something coming out of your pocket or costing you as a TO something.

kR

Reshoots do not occur in a vacuum.

Offering reshoots based on the TO abilities and the TO options to either render assistance or remain mute affect every person at a match.

Edited by Creeker, SASS #43022
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding, right or wrong, is that the TO is focusing on gun handling, safety, and watching movement and maybe counting rounds. He's not responsible for watching the shooting sequence. In some cases the storefronts don't allow it. But reading this makes me wary of offering any advice to the shooter. The TO is now responsible for safety, round count, and target sequence. SO shut up and let the shooter own the stage.

 

What happens if the spotters yell out the wrong answer instead of the TO? Or the peanut gallery?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

 

The key word is "Option" - once again (just like the catch a falling gun example that was deemed as inconsistent assistance), the ability (or lack thereof) of the TO may significantly affect shooter performance.

One TO may know and be able to quickly and accurately communicate rounds left, target sequence, etc. 

Effectively saving the shooters stage.

Shooters result reflects a cooperative result of BOTH shooter and TO.

 

Another TO says, "I don't know" and the shooters either saves their self or trainwrecks.

Shooters result is wholly on the shooter.

 

And yet another TO communicates incorrect information and the shooter gets a reshoot for incorrect coaching.

Shooters result is a Do Over. 

 

Three like shooters - three different TO - Three different outcomes.

 

Reshoots do not occur in a vacuum.

Offering reshoots based on the TO abilities and the TO options to either render assistance or remain mute affect every person at a match.

You're debating the rule.  My post was related to the OP asking what the rule was and your post in response.   

 

15 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

That's the answer right there.

The shooter owns the full and complete responsibility for their stage.

 

The input was NOT offered - it was REQUESTED by the shooter.

The fact that SOLICITED direction was incorrect, does not change the shooters ownership on their actions.

 

Directions that are BOTH un-requested and incorrect (TO verbal interference, peanut gallery directions, etc.) may be the basis for a reshoot being offered by the match director.

 

And if offering a reshoot on that basis - any penalty that arose (including the MSV) from that input would be waived for the reshoot.

 

But a shooter requesting assistance (and acting upon it) accepts the outcome of that request.

 

Shooters getting a reshoot from the use of assistance (even if it was incorrect) is going to eventually establish the condition that TO's will have to refrain from offering ANY assistance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exercise your option to "ask for a different TO" before you step up to the line ... (or make sure there is a opportunity on the stage to bump into the TO if things start going badly). 

 

Of course ... arbitrary reshoot rulings always make people in the same category extremely happy.  

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooter asks where in the sequence he is... dagnabit folks... the spotters knew enough to see he shot it out of sequence after the TO told him the wrong target... They can certainly tell the shooter "NO #2, NOT 3!"  correcting the input from the TO... Spotters aren't usually bashful about telling the shooter a shotgun target is UP... why wouldn't they speak up and correct the TO on the right target in the sequence?   Yeah, yeah, I know the heat of the moment and all... 

 

But... incorrect coaching, whether asked for or not is still improper coaching, and calls for an offer of a reshoot.  The MSV is on the shooter AND the TO... why didn't he look at the gun as discarded and call the shooter back?  Errors... yes, but if the MD wants to cancel the MSV, that's totally his call.  How much is the 10 seconds worth to file the protest?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

My understanding, right or wrong, is that the TO is focusing on gun handling, safety, and watching movement and maybe counting rounds. He's not responsible for watching the shooting sequence. In some cases the storefronts don't allow it. But reading this makes me wary of offering any advice to the shooter. The TO is now responsible for safety, round count, and target sequence. SO shut up and let the shooter own the stage.

 

What happens if the spotters yell out the wrong answer instead of the TO? Or the peanut gallery?

The TO should be able to multi-task.  Great TOs can pat their head, rub their tummy, chew gum, walk and recite the alphabet backwards all at the same time... Good TOs can do only do 4 of the 5, Adequate TOs can only do 3... let's not discuss the ones that are only capable of less...:ph34r:

 

If the spotters yell out the wrong direction, I'd want new spotters... but... since they are Range Officers also, one SHOULD be able to rely on their directions.  And, if wrong, be offered a reshoot by the Chief Range Officer (TO).  It's his job to curtail the over-zealousness of his spotters.  

 

Peanut gallery should SHUT the H..E.. double hockey sticks UP!  As a shooter, you should ignore them, even if they're right!  But, you do so at your own peril!

Edited by Griff
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Griff said:

It's his job to curtail the over-zealousness of his spotters.  

The whole spotter thing is a mixed bag of success. Some will yell out shoot another, or right or left. Some just sit there and try to figure out if they saw the hit but didn't hear the clang. I scratch my head when I ask the counters for misses and I get 3 different answers.

I agree with your TO expectation. But sometimes it's impossible to see the targets the shooter is engaging. The really fast shooters, by the time your say something they are already doing something else.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tennessee williams said:

 

If I'm reading correctly, this is the point of your post. Not whether or not a shooter gets a reshoot for improper coaching which we know to be the case.

 

So. If a shooter incurs a MSV while shooting their stage, but it was considered "RO ASSISTED", the shooter can appeal to the match director to override the MSV carryover.

 

To me, this is fair enough. Could be a bit of confusion as to having to go to a match director for overriding the call. As currently laid out, the RO would carry the MSV over and it would be up to the shooter to involve the MD. 

 

P.S.

We are responsible for our own safety

P.P.S.

Have to know where to draw the line with "RO DIRECTED" MSV. I.e. I would not have lost count if the RO didn't....

Yes, the RO Assisted is the point I was trying to bring up, the rest is just an example to try and explain it.

 

Thanks

Randy

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patagonia Pete said:

Exercise your option to "ask for a different TO" before you step up to the line ...

(or make sure there is a opportunity on the stage to bump into the TO if things start going badly). 

...

 

Are you seriously advocating what is considered "unsportsmanlike conduct" (i.e. CHEATING) ?
FYI...The penalty for pulling THAT stunt is a
MATCH DQ (SHB p.23)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

 

The key word is "Option" - once again (just like the catch a falling gun example that was deemed as inconsistent assistance), the ability (or lack thereof) of the TO may significantly affect shooter performance.

One TO may know and be able to quickly and accurately communicate rounds left, target sequence, etc. 

Effectively saving the shooters stage.

Shooters result reflects a cooperative result of BOTH shooter and TO.

 

Another TO says, "I don't know" and the shooters either saves their self or trainwrecks.

Shooters result is wholly on the shooter.

 

And yet another TO communicates incorrect information and the shooter gets a reshoot for incorrect coaching.

Shooters result is a Do Over. 

 

Three like shooters - three different TO - Three different outcomes.

 

Reshoots do not occur in a vacuum.

Offering reshoots based on the TO abilities and the TO options to either render assistance or remain mute affect every person at a match.

And a TO by giving wrong advice can greatly affect the outcome of said match.

kR

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kid Rich said:

And a TO by giving wrong advice can greatly affect the outcome of said match.

kR

 

A T/O giving ANY advice (good or bad) can affect the outcome of ANY match.
 

Quote

 

The role of the Chief Range Officer/Timer Operator (CRO/TO) is to safely assist the shooter through the course of fire.

Coaching and constraining the shooter from unsafe acts are expected when appropriate, minimizing procedural and safety penalties whenever possible.

Proper coaching or no coaching at all is NOT considered RO interference and will never be grounds for a reshoot.

 

SHB p.18

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

Are you seriously advocating what is considered "unsportsmanlike conduct" (i.e. CHEATING) ?
FYI...The penalty for pulling THAT stunt is a
MATCH DQ (SHB p.23)

No .. I'm not advocating anyone do this. 

OTOH ... I wish I could say I never saw it happen. Not a pleasant match experience for sure. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

A T/O giving ANY advice (good or bad) can affect the outcome of ANY match.
 

SHB p.18

That's right but giving good advice is the cowboy way, but giving bad advice and not wanting to give a reshoot is certainly not. In the op the TO gave the advice to shoot the wrong target thereby leading the shooter to believe he had shot 10 rounds, inadvertently assisting him in getting a msv, I realize it is the shooters responsibility to keep track of shots . It is also the TO's responsibility to safely assist the shooter thru the stage, if the shooter gets a msv because of bad advice from the TO then the TO has not done his job. The only thing I would see wrong with the whole scenario is if the shooter was not given a reshoot or the TO not wanting to give him a reshoot.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kid Rich said:

And a TO by giving wrong advice can greatly affect the outcome of said match.

kR

Maybe.

And thats why I believe there should be a recognized difference between SOLICITED coaching and UNSOLICITED coaching.

 

IMO (and I am well aware that this is not the current standard)

If the shooter is ALREADY lost and requests TO assistance - they ACCEPT the outcome of accepting that assistance (good or bad). No grounds for reshoot - even tho the direction may have been incorrect.

 

If the shooter is running along, minding their own business and the TO, without request, yells out incorrect instructions that the shooter ACTS on.

That is improper coaching and grounds for a restart/ reshoot.  But any safety violations incurred NOT related to the improper coaching carry over.

 

Same example as above but a safety violation is incurred as a result of the shooter acting on the BOTH unsolicited and improper coaching  - then you have grounds for a restart/ reshoot where the MD may waive the safety violation as well.

 

But saying any incorrect coaching at anytime under any circumstances is a magic eraser; an automatic get out of jail free card - is a slippery slope with consequences much greater than an occasional bad call.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

But saying any incorrect coaching at anytime under any circumstances is a magic eraser; an automatic get out of jail free card - is a slippery slope with consequences much greater than an occasional bad call.

 

The rule refers ONLY to an "RO assisted MSV" (as in the cited example).
If a shooter incurs any MSVs during the stage other than in the "RO assisted" situation, those MSVs would carry over on a reshoot.

 

Edited by PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L
edit txt
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a TO give me wrong advice once.  It caused me to finish 56th place instead of 55th.

 

Ruined my whole life.

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Diamond Jake said:

I had a TO give me wrong advice once.  It caused me to finish 56th place instead of 55th.

 

Ruined my whole life.

h482CA973

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The matter of who is a TO and who isn’t a TO just happens to be one of those tiny details a MD can do for big match if they want it to grow.  Due to my job, I could not make it to RO classes for a couple of years until I was on a posse at a big match with a horrible TO that nearly wrestled people to get the chance to run the timer.  I convinced the RO instructor in the area to run a small class so I could get RO 1 & 2 to give them more TO options  and keep that one person from ever inflicting pain on shooters’ weekends again.  Unfortunately, all TO’s are not created equal.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a solution to prevent this. I learned it from Krazy Kurt (I think that was his alias) in a WBAS class at the Summit. It is valid for CAS too.

 

He yells out "next target No. n ." That way he and the TO should remember the next target after the malfunction is fixed.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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