Imperfections, inequities and subjective scoring

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

4 hours ago, Whiskey Hayes #41999 said:

Just got back on the wire.  Phantom in Creekers OP he actually states "eliminating subjective calls". 

 

To the very best of our abilities - we should be striving to do so.

I think...

They might have...

In my opinion...

 

All of the above are words used to preface subjective calls.

 

Painted targets eliminate subjective calls.

The use of recorded media to verify a P eliminates subjective calls.

 

There are a myriad of ways to better our game thru the elimination/ minimization of subjective calls.

It simply takes having the willingness to do so (but very little danger of these things ever coming to fruition because of "its too hard", "we're just volunteers" and "it's just a game") which are all simply code for "I just don't care enough to put in the effort".

[Whiskey Hayes #41999]

Creeker I do agree with your goal.  Video ok, painted targets between shooters ok.  Now here is the but.

 

Pro sports have multiple cameras with pros operating them.  If you look at the reviewed calls over 60% is call on the field stands.  That means video evidence is inconclusive.  Now we’re talking about one amateur probably using a cell phone.  Won’t help with subjectivity.  Then the painted targets.   A lot of clubs shoot on ranges on a shared firing line.  Not practical for all clubs.

 

The best way to eliminate subjectivity is at the club level.  It is tough on a club that runs 50 to 60 shooters on a hot day.  Your looking at needing 3 TO’s per posse.  However you should be able to come with 3 good posse Marshall’s that know the rules.  If you don’t have that in your club training needs to take place.

 

SASS (PW) is doing a very good job at explaining the rules.  Quoting chapter and verse.

 

I do believe in what you’re trying to achieve.  But I do believe it is up to each SASS club to focus on consistency regarding rules and calls.

 

Same goal just a different approach to consider.  I do think this starts with each club president and their club members.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

"flashy and fancy"

[Griff]

Over the long run... I've received bad calls, to the tune of probably one per match.  Let me define bad calls... misses that were hits... hits that were actually misses.  A "P" based on I shot the scenario differently that almost EVERYONE else... but still within the stage instructions.  I've been told to "STOP" by a TO, been told to "Keep going" by a TO.  A TO that tells me my shotgun targets are "DOWN" is just so much noise in my ear, what I'm expecting to hear is "UP"... so anything said sounds like "UP"... 

 

I started this game in my mid-30s... I progressed in my skill set rapidly, and reached a plateau of performance.  I began practicing, improving that performance, it came at a cost... which soon became clear I couldn't maintain. 

 

Forgive me if I do a little assuming here... I'm not much different that anyone else in this game.  I suspect the vast majority of the participants have found themselves in this same boat.  Time is finite, practicing 40-50K rounds per year was an unreasonable expectation on my part... There are only so many modifications I can afford or really want made to my guns.  I am firmly, painfully aware of my performance limitations... as I move toward finishing the 4th decade in this sport, physical imperfections hinder peak performance previously attained effortlessly.  Do I want the TO to "coach" me thru a stage?   Done correctly, it should not affect my performance one iota.  Since "down" so often sounds like "up" both comments make me pause to assess for myself the actual condition.  Neither is "improper coaching", but the affect to me is the same.  With that said, I'd rather have a TO that cares enough that I get thru a stage safely and offers that word "double-tap" or "rifle" when it appears I'm going to move off that target or start to pull the second handgun when I should be going to the rifle.

 

Just as each of us has a capacity to perform, so too, do various TOs.  You may vehemently disagree with me, but... I firmly believe that we have more EXCELLENT Timer Operators than we have competitors capable of winning the Cadillac.

 

Eliminating the TOs ability to coach will have unforeseen consequences... The vast majority of shooters don't have access to ranges where dedicated "cowboy" practice can be done.  Their practice is their local monthly match.  Maybe a little dry-fire and transition practice.  How many times can 20 posse members read the same words in a stage instruction set... and easily come up with 5 or 6 different ideas on how the stage is supposed to be shot?    Talk about inconsistent!  A little coaching to ease the shooter thru the stage properly is NOT a bad thing.  If you don't want coaching... TELL the TO.  But, to tell the TO that he can't assist the guy/gal that's likely to finish in bottom 25% regardless, so they have a pleasant time and have the opportunity to learn an unfamiliar sweep or whatever without a penalty is probably a shooter that will return.  Enough shooters that don't return... guess what?  We don't have spotters and brass pickers...   I don't care what level shooter you are, your only REAL competition is yourself.  You are the only one in control of your performance, blaming "coaching" is a crutch.  

 

Oh... and by the way, for all you newbies out there... SASS has hired professional ROs to do the RO chores at EOT... twice!  And swiftly kicked that idea to the curb!

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Howdy Griff.

You always have good, thoughtful comments.

I'll mention a couple thoughts on items you stated.

 

1.  For those of us who have a medical problem with word recognition,

the shout of "UP"  often sounds like 'STOP'.   The results of which

would be totally opposite in what the shooter does.

And, I might add, there is no provision for a reshoot under those

circumstances.

 

2.  I like your point on using monthly matches in your example.

Sure, a monthly match with TO coaching probably doesn't have

the same effect as a State and above, where it seems most of 

this discussion is aimed.   TO interference in a State and above

match can be critical, especially when the results of some

coaching can work in a negative way towards one shooter

but work in a positive way towards another.

 

I think the premise of this discussion is trying to help ensure

some sort of equality towards shooters without the TO

having to have 'coaching' as part of their job.

 

..........Widder

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

42 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

I think the premise of this discussion is trying to help ensure

some sort of equality towards shooters without the TO

having to have 'coaching' as part of their job.

This is point of this discussion...but of course it get twisted...expanded...convoluted and then that leads to Straw Man arguments.

 

Pretty simply concept here. How would removing Coaching help or hurt the game?

 

Would love to see laser beam focus on this...but hell, that ain't gunna happen.

 

Oh well...maybe I should focus my energy on joining a SASS club that has a high percentage of Regulators...always wanted one of those cute little badges.

 

Phantom

[Constable Nelson #11784]

OK then.  Do what IPSC does.   TO's at ANY sanctioned matches above club level are required to have completed a fairly rigorous course of training.  THEN they are required to RO at X number of matches per YEAR from THEN ON to retain that qualification.  (By earning "points".   A Level 2 earns less than a Level 3 and so on...X number of points must be earned annually or the qualification lapses)  IF they shoot a match at which they are officiating it is done as a "Pre-shoot" before the main match.  Often in one day.  They RO the SAME stage for the entire Main match... which ensures briefing/stage consistency.   Consistency of "coaching" is achieved by banning it completely.  (I think we all know "coaching" is one of the least consistent TO actions, some are good at it, some are not)   Paper targets are patched every time.....all steel is K/D so it is only painted between squads. If it doesn't fall its a miss.   No spotters.  You either punch holes in or knock targets down.  Zero subjectivity there.  Power factors are checked at EVERY major match... for ALL competitors.  (The "Chronograph Stage" )  Steel is theoretically calibrated for the minimum PF.     ANY failure of targets = reshoot.   All of THAT will reduce inconsistency....but of course at a significant cost in time and manpower requirements....    and it requires a considerable personal investment of effort BY the RO's.     Can we manage that?  Do we have the people who will step up?   Is it necessary to go THAT far? 

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

2 hours ago, Constable Nelson #11784 said:

OK then.  Do what IPSC does.   TO's at ANY sanctioned matches above club level are required to have completed a fairly rigorous course of training.  THEN they are required to RO at X number of matches per YEAR from THEN ON to retain that qualification.  (By earning "points".   A Level 2 earns less than a Level 3 and so on...X number of points must be earned annually or the qualification lapses)  IF they shoot a match at which they are officiating it is done as a "Pre-shoot" before the main match.  Often in one day.  They RO the SAME stage for the entire Main match... which ensures briefing/stage consistency.   Consistency of "coaching" is achieved by banning it completely.  (I think we all know "coaching" is one of the least consistent TO actions, some are good at it, some are not)   Paper targets are patched every time.....all steel is K/D so it is only painted between squads. If it doesn't fall its a miss.   No spotters.  You either punch holes in or knock targets down.  Zero subjectivity there.  Power factors are checked at EVERY major match... for ALL competitors.  (The "Chronograph Stage" )  Steel is theoretically calibrated for the minimum PF.     ANY failure of targets = reshoot.   All of THAT will reduce inconsistency....but of course at a significant cost in time and manpower requirements....    and it requires a considerable personal investment of effort BY the RO's.     Can we manage that?  Do we have the people who will step up?   Is it necessary to go THAT far? 

I say NO! I don't really think you're advocating for this. Thing is, we are humans playing a game (competition, if you will) and regulated (scored, timed and spotted) by humans. There WILL be mistakes. Should you be prepared as a match official? YES. Should you give your undivided attention to the task at hand? YES. Should you officiate like you would want done for you? YES. Are you going to make mistakes? Yes, you are; we all do. Are you going to cost someone the Cadillac? No Caddys. Are people going to be upset when it's perceived the RO cost them placing? yes, they are.

Funny thing though, I'd challenge anyone who ever felt they were treated unfairly by an RO to tell me that THEY never made a mistake ROing. Be prepared, pay attention and do your best; it all works out.

Sorry about your Caddy. 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

On 6/17/2021 at 10:39 AM, Whiskey Hayes #41999 said:

Just got back on the wire.  Phantom in Creekers OP he actually states "eliminating subjective calls". 

 

Gotta love folks taking part of what other say...this statement you make is being deceptive.

 

 

If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll be able to point where I or Creeker said that we wanted to eliminate all subjective calls...which is exactly what you are implying with your false quotation.

 

Phantom

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

On 6/16/2021 at 11:10 AM, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

A miss can't cause a P but apparently the wind can erase a miss.

I've seen that happen. Nature benefit to the shooter.

[Constable Nelson #11784]

16 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

I say NO! I don't really think you're advocating for this. Thing is, we are humans playing a game (competition, if you will) and regulated (scored, timed and spotted) by humans. There WILL be mistakes. Should you be prepared as a match official? YES. Should you give your undivided attention to the task at hand? YES. Should you officiate like you would want done for you? YES. Are you going to make mistakes? Yes, you are; we all do. Are you going to cost someone the Cadillac? No Caddys. Are people going to be upset when it's perceived the RO cost them placing? yes, they are.

Funny thing though, I'd challenge anyone who ever felt they were treated unfairly by an RO to tell me that THEY never made a mistake ROing. Be prepared, pay attention and do your best; it all works out.

Sorry about your Caddy. 

 

Correct.   I DO feel however that going SOME WAY down that path might be of benefit.  There seems to be ALMOST a consensus forming in this thread that eliminating "Coaching" may be something to be looked at????   Should we have "Stage RO's" for MAJOR matches??   This is a very interesting discussion. (TBH I don't know WHERE we get all the ROS's in IPSC... my hat is off to them!!!!)

[Dusty Devil Dale]

IMO the coaching is and needs to remain situational.  The "serious competitors" may not need to be coached, and they can and do ask to be left alone.  But others in our sport are less experienced and do need or at least appreciate the TO helping them get sorted out occasionally. 

 

In our club, Kings River Regulators, we have a new sweetheart, a 7-year old girl who is VERY serious about her shooting and already quite good at it.   She shoots our monthly matches with direct attendance and supervision by her parents, and with a bit of coaching from heart-warmed Timing Officers.  Go and watch her shoot on our website and then tell me coaching should be prohibited.  Wilsa Roger's will be a serious contender at big matches in just a few years, and then she will need no coaching.  To get there, she will receive a little help from her friends in CAS.  I sincerely hope it would be impossible for a human T.O. not to coach her through a difficult  stage.

(added:  she shoots clean)

 

My point is that  we can afford to give folks a little help.  If they need coaching, they probably are not YET going to seriously compete in the top ranks and affect match outcomes very much.  

 

When it comes to top competitors, it would seem that self respect ought to keep people from abusing or cheating via improper coaching.  There are no Caddys in our sport (thankfully), and a person enjoying wearing a stolen championship buckle could signal other problems beyond our scope of rule solutions here.   

The ROC has already wrestled with the coaching question, and we can read what they were able to come up with in the SHB.   I say just leave it alone.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

16 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

IMO the coaching is and needs to remain situational.

So it's only a Competition for some...and not others...yeah, that's consistency!

16 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

we have a new sweetheart, a 7-year old girl

Well duh! A 7 year old will always require coaching...using an extreme to support your position is rather weak.

17 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

There are no Caddys in our sport

I personally hate this...it's like a "shut up about this being a competition because there are no big prizes"...like that matters.

18 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

The ROC has already wrestled with the coaching question, and we can read what they were able to come up with in the SHB.   I say just leave it alone.

I know you like to defer to the "ROC", but my god, what do they have to do with the Structure of the game. They deal with RULES...we KNOW what the rules are! We are talking about a change to the rules and they are not charged with changing rules.

 

Phantom

 

 

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

18 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

So it's only a Competition for some...and not others...yeah, that's consistency!

Well duh! A 7 year old will always require coaching...using an extreme to support your position is rather weak.

I personally hate this...it's like a "shut up about this being a competition because there are no big prizes"...like that matters.

I know you like to defer to the "ROC", but my god, what do they have to do with the Structure of the game. They deal with RULES...we KNOW what the rules are! We are talking about a change to the rules and they are not charged with changing rules.

 

Phantom

 

 

I rarely agree with DDD, but in this case, I definitely see his point... if expounded upon.

So, he is referencing a 7- year old, what about an 8 yr old? 10...12? when is the appropriate cut-off for coaching?

How about a spouse new to CAS? Can ya coach them or are they on their own?

On the Caddy, we do not have high-value prizes, that's all. Do some still REALLY value finishing high? Of course, no one would think otherwise. As far as the ROC, from what I understand, they clarify and interpret, kinda like the Supreme Court is supposed to. I think we can agree that even though the rules are written down, many still see gray areas where things are not so cut and dried.

My concern for you is that, maybe it's because you have a god (or lord) and not THE God.

I really think if we got to know each other, we could be friends and have some very lively discussions, but somehow, on the Wire (at least how I receive it) you come off condescending and rude unnecessarily.

Probly just me though.

I don't think you CAN say coaching is ok for a 7 (insert age) yr old and not for more experienced, we all have brain farts and where exactly would you draw the line?

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

8 minutes ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

I rarely agree with DDD, but in this case, I definitely see his point... if expounded upon.

So, he is referencing a 7- year old, what about an 8 yr old? 10...12? when is the appropriate cut-off for coaching?

How about a spouse new to CAS? Can ya coach them or are they on their own?

On the Caddy, we do not have high-value prizes, that's all. Do some still REALLY value finishing high? Of course, no one would think otherwise. As far as the ROC, from what I understand, they clarify and interpret, kinda like the Supreme Court is supposed to. I think we can agree that even though the rules are written down, many still see gray areas where things are not so cut and dried.

My concern for you is that, maybe it's because you have a god (or lord) and not THE God.

I really think if we got to know each other, we could be friends and have some very lively discussions, but somehow, on the Wire (at least how I receive it) you come off condescending and rude unnecessarily.

Probly just me though.

I don't think you CAN say coaching is ok for a 7 (insert age) yr old and not for more experienced, we all have brain farts and where exactly would you draw the line?

 Phantom is blunt, and to the point. That is not rude.

My wife  and I have shot with him many times.

He's one of the best TO's you'll ever have. Fun around the campfire too.

Now-back on track of the subject. 

OLG 

 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

57 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Well duh! A 7 year old will always require coaching...using an extreme to support your position is rather weak.

I guess I don't see the 7 year old as an "extreme case" to support "my position".  (I didn't even know it was a 'position'.  It was MY opinion and clearly stated to be such.)

 

I see the girl as a shooter, near one end of a continuum of very diverse competitors and club members.  So at what point(s) along that continuum do we cut in and say no more coaching?  How do we put that into a rule --by age?   by category? by apparent IQ?  Or do we just ask you?

 

 My point is that you and others here are directly advocating prohibiting coaching.  That change makes it absolute. 

"Match officials may not coach...".  

So where in that structure are the exceptions for those who are allowed to be coached, like the ("well duh!" to you) 7 year old?  

 

CAS has a lot of different people with differing interests and opinions.  Yours is one of them.   I expressed mine.   Disagree as you wish.   

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

2 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

what about an 8 yr old? 10...12? when is the appropriate cut-off for coaching?

How about a spouse new to CAS? Can ya coach them or are they on their own?

 

2 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

On the Caddy, we do not have high-value prizes, that's all.

The value of prizes is irrelevant. Amateur competitions are essentially prize-less...

2 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

I think we can agree that even though the rules are written down, many still see gray areas where things are not so cut and dried.

I don't see gray areas. Coaching is allowed. Nothing grey about that.

2 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

I really think if we got to know each other, we could be friends and have some very lively discussions, but somehow, on the Wire (at least how I receive it) you come off condescending and rude unnecessarily.

Probly just me though.

Interpretation of my words is up to the individual as well as the intent. I don't attack anyone personally...about 99.9% of the time. I attack their positions. Funny how I'm the one that gets called "Rude" and "Condescending"...

2 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

I don't think you CAN say coaching is ok for a 7 (insert age) yr old and not for more experienced, we all have brain farts and where exactly would you draw the line?

We can. We allow training wheels until the individual understands how to SAFELY navigate the course of fire...then they are on their own.

 

Or...we just throw out hands up and say the issue of Coaching is just to complex and difficult to deal with.

 

Phantom

[Widder, SASS #59054]

2 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

 

"..... where exactly would you draw the line?"

 

Howdy Rainmaker.

I hope I'm not answering your question out of context and I

surely hope your question wasn't  just for Phantom to answer.

 

The line is 'curvy' as its structured today.   What some of us

would like to see is some barriers on some of those curves.

I can't speak for anyone else but meowndangself but

I would like to see the consistency in TO functions that won't

have an adverse effect on one shooter while favoring another.

 

I don't feel like I need to give any examples but I surely can if

need be.

As for coaching those newbies and very young, inexperienced shooters,

there are many ways those functions can be handled.

Often times, when I'm the TO for a young shooter, I ask them if they

need help or would like their 'parent', grandpa, etc...... to help them

thru the stage.   I will still TO and watch for safety issues, etc......

but allow the adult of their choice to help them thru the stage.

 

Please note.... its not just the TO who we are talking about but 

even spotters and PNut gallery hollering out commands and such

during a shooters course of fire.   Some 'lines' need to be drawn

and looking at responses from many of our Wire pards, its not

a cut and dry type situation but rather deserves some 

considerations.

 

..........Widder

 

[Shooting Bull]

In order for this idea to work we're going to have to draw lines somewhere.  In my ever so humble opinion I think coaching should remain.  But we could draw a line to delineate what kind of coaching is and isn't allowed.

 

Food for thought:  Our first and foremost priority is to remain safe.  With that in mind I propose coaching be allowed in order to prevent safety infractions.  But to promote a more consistent match between all competitors coaching would NOT be allowed for things like target engagement sequence (Procedurals), positional advice (Telling shooter to move to next shooting position), weapon location (Take your rifle or shotgun to next shooting position), or target status (Shotgun target still standing). 

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

11 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

With that in mind I propose coaching be allowed in order to prevent safety infractions. 

 

Major Safety or Minor Safety?

 

 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

2 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

Major Safety or Minor Safety?

 

 

 

BJ beat me to the question.

 

Bull, do you think the TO should call a shooter back to the rifle

when an empty is still in the receiver?

How about when the lever closes and the TO isn't sure the last

empty was ejected?

 

These are the things where a TO can effect the outcome of

the competition.   These are also the things where I personally

would like to see the line drawn and allow the shooter to

'own the stage' without TO or spotters assistance.

 

Honestly, I don't think it will ever happen in an official capacity.

Some local clubs and maybe some State matches might adopt

a clarity concerning these things,  but who knows.

 

..........Widder

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

39 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

In order for this idea to work we're going to have to draw lines somewhere.  In my ever so humble opinion I think coaching should remain.  But we could draw a line to delineate what kind of coaching is and isn't allowed.

 

Food for thought:  Our first and foremost priority is to remain safe.  With that in mind I propose coaching be allowed in order to prevent safety infractions.  But to promote a more consistent match between all competitors coaching would NOT be allowed for things like target engagement sequence (Procedurals), positional advice (Telling shooter to move to next shooting position), weapon location (Take your rifle or shotgun to next shooting position), or target status (Shotgun target still standing). 

What about when the shooter asks for help/guidance?

We have all had 'brain-fade' during a stage.

OLG 

[Shooting Bull]

1 hour ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

Major Safety or Minor Safety?

 

 

 

Put that up for a vote. I’m just spit ballin’ ideas. I’ll leave the details of how to make them work up to those with big brains. 

[Shooting Bull]

41 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

What about when the shooter asks for help/guidance?

We have all had 'brain-fade' during a stage.

OLG 

 

Exactly right, we ALL have brain fade. If you have a good TO during them you benefit. If you have a bad TO you suffer. Do away with that inconsistency by doing away with that type of coaching. 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

5 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

5 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

I know you like to defer to the "ROC", but my god, what do they have to do with the Structure of the game. They deal with RULES...we KNOW what the rules are! We are talking about a change to the rules and they are not charged with changing rules.

You read your meaning into my remark.  I didn't say the ROC could review and/or change the rule.  I said: 

 

"The ROC has already wrestled with the coaching question, and we can read what they were able to come up with in the SHB. "

 

The person talking about changing rules is not me. 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

2 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

You read your meaning into my remark.  I didn't say the ROC could review and/or change the rule.  I said: 

 

"The ROC has already wrestled with the coaching question, and we can read what they were able to come up with in the SHB. "

 

The person talking about changing rules is not me. 

Fascinating...

 

Perhaps you need to be more precise in your words...are you admitting that your statement is ambiguous? Or are you stating something else?

 

And yet you "Thanked" another thread that talked about making changes...so does that mean you by proxy are talking about changing rules?

 

I fail to see the relevance of ownership with regards to the talking about rule changes...

 

Truly a fascinating argument...

 

Phantom

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

33 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

 

Exactly right, we ALL have brain fade. If you have a good TO during them you benefit. If you have a bad TO you suffer. Do away with that inconsistency by doing away with that type of coaching. 

That won't help to maintain attendance with newbies.

Can't agree at all with that.

OLG 

[Shooting Bull]

4 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

That won't help to maintain attendance with newbies.

Can't agree at all with that.

OLG 

 

That's been one of my arguments AGAINST doing away with coaching from the very beginning.  But again, I'm just spit ballin' ideas because if we're dead set on doing this I'm darn sure going to put in my two pesos. 

[Shooting Bull]

Maybe we set up an "apprenticeship program".  Newbies come on out and have fun with 100% full coaching for _____ number of matches.  After they've "qualified" by shooting those first however many matches they fly solo from then on.  

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

1 minute ago, Shooting Bull said:

Maybe we set up an "apprenticeship program".  Newbies come on out and have fun with 100% full coaching for _____ number of matches.  After they've "qualified" by shooting those first however many matches they fly solo from then on.  

Then this game will go down the drain PDQ

Shooters helping shooters is what built SASS/CAS.

OLG 

 

[Shooting Bull]

1 minute ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Then this game will go down the drain PDQ

Shooters helping shooters is what built SASS/CAS.

OLG 

 

 

Blame Creeker.  It was his cockamamie idea.  And if you need even more proof it's stoopid, Phantom agrees with it. Oy 

 

(Poking jabs at my friends aside, anybody can sit and punch holes in any idea no matter how good. That's easy.  The challenge is taking that idea and making it work. That's all I'm trying to do, come up with workable ideas to address a known issue.) 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

3 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Then this game will go down the drain PDQ

Shooters helping shooters is what built SASS/CAS.

OLG 

 

 

Howdy Lumpy.

And it didn't hurt to have some honest integrity in its

scoring methods.

 

Therein lies where the TO's may/may not, should/should not,

can/can't interject certain coaching methods/techniques, etc...

that could help one shooter and hinder another.

 

Anyhow, its been a good conversation and I think I'm about 

out of black ink.

Ya'll have a good day.

 

..........Widder

 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

Newbies "Generally" are not attending events of consequence.

Leave coaching as is at monthlies - it doesn't matter there.

I know folks hate to hear monthlies called practice (and it can be construed as demeaning) - but doggone it - monthlies are where MOST of us learned the game and that's where MOST of us practice the game.

 

AND that is WHERE folks should be learning, being mentored and even being coached

(I still think in what manner and by whom {shutting up the peanut gallery and spotters} should still be examined; but fine - leave coaching at monthlies) 

 

But at Major events?

To expect folks to spend 100's to 1000's of dollars in entry fees, travel, food, lodging and event ancillary items to attend a major match and dismiss the inconsistency with "Well, no one is winning a Cadillac" is ridiculous. 

At MAJOR matches (Championship level matches) coaching for ANYTHING other than a immediate ceasefire requirement should be forbidden.  Period.

 

At a championship match - for good or bad (and to the best we can) - let the scores and standings reflect the skill, preparedness and focus of the shooter (not their luck of the draw TO or Posse members).

 

 

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

SASS has absolutely no criteria for who can attend the "World" Championship.  I have seen shooters show up, join, buy guns and then shoot without any idea what they were doing.  Same with state and regional shoots.  Anyone that pays the entry fee can shoot.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

17 minutes ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

SASS has absolutely no criteria for who can attend the "World" Championship.  I have seen shooters show up, join, buy guns and then shoot without any idea what they were doing.  Same with state and regional shoots.  Anyone that pays the entry fee can shoot.

And anyone CHOOSING to do that should understand the constraints of their decision.

I do so tire of having to always cater to the lowest common denominator.

 

I don't believe any of us would recommend to someone their first shoot be a Championship level match - but if some CHOOSES to make their first match that - then the results and outcome should be on them - and short of a cease fire level instance - let them shoot.