Imperfections, inequities and subjective scoring

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

21 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

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. 

EGGGGZACKLY!!!!!!

 

Thank God, god, gawd...take yer pick...that Creeker is much better at stating these things.

 

Phantom

[Doc Shapiro]

Well put Creeker.

 

To go along with his post, I'll posit this: Are we unintentionally driving away shooters by catering to the lowest common denominator?  In my experience, the answer is yes.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

3 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

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

I'll stick with the my words which I direct quoted above.   I'm kinda weary word jousting with you at this point.   Believe and say whatever you desire.  Enjoy!

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

2 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I'll stick with the my words which I direct quoted above.   I'm kinda weary word jousting with you at this point.   Believe and say whatever you desire.  Enjoy!

Not much of a Joust...

[Shooting Bull]

Sorry Creeker my friend, I can't back that play.  You want to create inconsistency in order to achieve consistency?  Is that the New Math I've been hearing about?  Let's take a step back from talking about shooters and talk about TOs for a moment.  You want me to "coach" the shooter one way at monthlies.  But then when the stakes are even higher you expect me to be able to switch gears and do something completely different at state and above matches?  Count me out.  I 100% agree with you and Phantom that even though there's no Cadillac, these matches ARE important to some of us.  So I won't be running the timer for those folks that have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars to shoot in matches when I haven't "practiced" running it at monthlies. 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

2 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

Sorry Creeker my friend, I can't back that play.  You want to create inconsistency in order to achieve consistency?  Is that the New Math I've been hearing about?  Let's take a step back from talking about shooters and talk about TOs for a moment.  You want me to "coach" the shooter one way at monthlies.  But then when the stakes are even higher you expect me to be able to switch gears and do something completely different at state and above matches?  Count me out.  I 100% agree with you and Phantom that even though there's no Cadillac, these matches ARE important to some of us.  So I won't be running the timer for those folks that have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars to shoot in matches when I haven't "practiced" running it at monthlies. 

I don't know...I think it can be done.

 

If someone is "Lost" during a string, a simple pause to acknowledge that it's a month and you go ahead an help...I can see that.

 

To me, it's just part of learning how to be a complete and competent T.O.  Besides, there's not much to remember as far as the differences between the two T.O.'ing environments.

 

I could be wrong...not that I'd admit it...but it's possible.

 

Phantom

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

17 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

Sorry Creeker my friend, I can't back that play.  You want to create inconsistency in order to achieve consistency?  Is that the New Math I've been hearing about?  Let's take a step back from talking about shooters and talk about TOs for a moment.  You want me to "coach" the shooter one way at monthlies.  But then when the stakes are even higher you expect me to be able to switch gears and do something completely different at state and above matches?  Count me out.  I 100% agree with you and Phantom that even though there's no Cadillac, these matches ARE important to some of us.  So I won't be running the timer for those folks that have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars to shoot in matches when I haven't "practiced" running it at monthlies. 

No - I want consistent coaching across the board.

I want EVERY single shooter at every single match to have a TO that is quick, agile, smart.

Well versed in the rules and laser focused on the shooters health, their hands, eyes and guns.

Able to predict the shooters next challenge and has the corrective command already on the tip of their tongue, if needed.  

A TO prepared to direct movements, count rounds and get the shooter back on track in the twinkling of an eye.

A TO that can do all the above while kicking empty shotgun shells off the boardwalk to minimize trips and falls.

I want every shooter to have a TO that cares just as much as I do when I TO.

That's what I WANT.

But there are few that are willing or even capable of being that TO - because it is HARD

(and as they will tell you - they are just volunteers, its just a game, aint no Cadillac and the myriad of other excuses for why their lacking effort or skill set should be acceptable)

 

And since every shooter will NOT get the TO they deserve.

(because there aint no way we are elevating the majority of TO to the level they should be)  then the only equitable thing we can do is find a level of performance that most can handle and set that as the standard for all.

At Championship level matches -  that level is SHUT UP and let the shooter shoot unless there is a ceasefire level occurrence. 

 

But if a TO WISHES to offer coaching, mentoring and training (or a shooter requests it) at a monthly level match - that can and should remain an acceptable part of the game.

 

It is really not a catastrophe to differentiate between monthlies and Championships.

 

 

[Shooting Bull]

Alright, let’s say we do adopt this new moratorium on coaching at big matches. What’s the penalty if a TO slips up and coaches a shooter? 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

1 minute ago, Shooting Bull said:

Alright, let’s say we do adopt this new moratorium on coaching at big matches. What’s the penalty if a TO slips up and coaches a shooter? 

Death...of course.

 

 

[Hoss]

43 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

Alright, let’s say we do adopt this new moratorium on coaching at big matches. What’s the penalty if a TO slips up and coaches a shooter? 

I think that would be the biggest problem. It would be hard to shift gears! 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Ah hA, I found some new black ink... 

 

It might be a difficult thing for some TO's to just stop

any of their coaching skills.  

But, if we don't put forth the effort to make a good attempt,

we will never know the results.

 

I think it would be worth a good try at a few of the upcoming

State matches.   Sure, there will be some young, less experienced

shooters who may want and need help from mom/dad/grandpa, etc.....

but it would be nice if TO's didn't have the responsibility

to help coach, instruct, INTERFERE, etc.....while a shooter "owns

the stage".

 

I'll say this:  I think I'm a darn good TO.   I've actually had people

REQUEST me as their TO when they shoot.   I watch & glance at the

timer about 4 times during a stage run, I count shots, I watch

the firearms being fired and staged/restage, I check a shooters

SG belt coming to the line, make sure 3 spotters are ready,

and even survey a shooters readiness for a stage.

Along with ALL of that stuff, I've coached and saved MANY

shooters from having a train wreck, 'P' and even Misses by

keeping them aware of correct target engagement.

 

It would not be a problem for me to let the shooter

"own the stage" and keep the hole in my face shut during

their stage run....... with exceptions of Cease Fire, squib, etc...

 

.........Widder

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

For those that shot Western 3 Gun, we had an Open class that did not allow coaching. We (T.O.'s), had essentially no problem toggling between them and the Category shooters.

 

When you are in No Coaching Mode, you as a T.O. seem to shift gears into a more...competitive mindset...for lack of a better explanation.

 

Phantom

[watab kid]

i always have fun when i shoot , i always feel im fairly treated in scoring and otherwise , i dont think ill ever threaten a top shooter and that may play into my assessment but it wont change my attitude or intent to have fun 

[Equanimous Phil]

There are already shooters now who ask TOs for no coaching. So, obviously the switching can be done. (Or do you coach them anyway despite their request?) 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

6 minutes ago, Equanimous Phil said:

There are already shooters now who ask TOs for no coaching. So, obviously the switching can be done. (Or do you coach them anyway despite their request?) 

 

Good question.

If I ask the TO and spotters to NOT coach me and they

do otherwise, I'll complain to them and request they not

TO or Spot for me anymore.

 

I mentioned earlier that as a reasonably fast GF, I've 

had a TO tell me that I only shot 9 rounds and I need

to pull a pistol and fire the 10th shot.   He was wrong

and it disrupted my stage run.

The next time I had him as a TO, I reminded him to "Please

DO NOT coach nor interfere with my stage".

 

A lot of folks are looking at this 'coaching' aspect as though

its some kind of Genie in a bottle,  to HELP when needed.

But coaching can be used to interfere with a shooter while

also helping another shooter.

 

Bottom line:  We put a lot of responsibility on the TO.

Asking them to eliminate coaching would lesson their

responsibility and at the same time, eliminate any

real or perceived issues associated with coaching.

 

Once again, with a couple noteworthy exceptions, 

is there really any reasons why each shooter shouldn't

be responsible for their own stage results without

any outside interference?

 

..........Widder

 

 

[Doc Shapiro]

At an IPSC match once I had a squib.  So I stopped shooting and told the RO, who was very highly experienced.  He had no idea and looked at me like I was crazy.  RO's aren't perfect, we all make mistakes.  Removing the coaching requirement will reduce the impact of those imperfections.

[Equanimous Phil]

I'm a little indetermined when a shooter is stuck and explicitely asks the TO for next target or sequence. The reason is some people will definitely have someone in the peanut gallery helping them out. Of course, you could ban coaching from the gallery, but what would be the penalty for a spectator? 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

1 hour ago, Equanimous Phil said:

I'm a little indetermined when a shooter is stuck and explicitely asks the TO for next target or sequence. The reason is some people will definitely have someone in the peanut gallery helping them out. Of course, you could ban coaching from the gallery, but what would be the penalty for a spectator? 

Death?

Or if a registered shooter - a progressive penalty up to and including Spirit of the Game.

Obviously CEASEFIRE/ SQUIB level commands could come from anyone (everybodies a safety officer) - but the caveat to the shooter that following any instruction other than those specific commands no matter the outcome will not be improper coaching or grounds for a reshoot.

Another reason why we would have to train and implement a VERY limited specific vocabulary for TOs during the stage.

[Painted Mohawk SASS 77785]

Wow this has been an interesting  read of all the comments re coaching..I've always been of the opinion to help or prompt the shooter when they have a brain fade, don't move or grab the wrong gun etc, I think this is probably ok at at a monthly but not at high level shoots.Even then you can't do it all the time & eventually the shooter has to take personal responsibility after the beep.

At a recent Club annual I took notice of how much coaching there was... ' a lot ' was the answer & I noticed there were 'habitual shooters that asked for help all the time !!!

I don't know of anyone personally who doesn't look at the results of a match to see how they fared so there is some form of competitor in all of us, so yes I do agree that the evener we make it , the better it is.

Under the present rules where the TO  can coach I will help a shooter ..BUT'   I think no coaching is the way to go.

It is a very important topic & does need addressing.

 

[Equanimous Phil]

21 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Or if a registered shooter - a progressive penalty up to and including Spirit of the Game.

Yes, there are possibilities for participants.

 

22 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Obviously CEASEFIRE/ SQUIB level commands could come from anyone (everybodies a safety officer)

Which is a good thing and shouldn't (imho) be changed.

 

23 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

but the caveat to the shooter that following any instruction other than those specific commands no matter the outcome will not be improper coaching or grounds for a reshoot.

I was not thinking of improper/"wrong" coaching by an outstander that could be claimed for a reshoot. I thought of "correct" coaching/advices/hints that provide an advantage for the shooter. Of course, you could dismiss those spectators from the event, but a shooter could still bring (hire ) as much friends as there are stages...

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

On 6/16/2021 at 1:56 PM, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

On 6/16/2021 at 1:48 PM, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

 

I never understand why simple straightforward questions to improve our game are met with the expectation of battle.

I’ve been in this game 25 years. Your question was simple. The answers are complex as the game evolved and changed flavor. 

This isn’t battle. It’s just lively discussion. 

[Singin' Sue 71615]

On 6/16/2021 at 2:10 PM, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

The next thing people will be saying is that if there are four shotgun targets and you miss the first two and hit the last two and while you are reloading to shoot the first two the wind blows them down you are clean.  Oh wait, some are already saying that.  A miss can't cause a P but apparently the wind can erase a miss.

Shoot where they were...engage the same amount of loads as the scenerio calls for.

(Unless it is in the scenerio that you are the lucky one to get 'seven in one blow' )

[Singin' Sue 71615]

8 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

 

Good question.

If I ask the TO and spotters to NOT coach me and they

do otherwise, I'll complain to them and request they not

TO or Spot for me anymore.

 

I mentioned earlier that as a reasonably fast GF, I've 

had a TO tell me that I only shot 9 rounds and I need

to pull a pistol and fire the 10th shot.   He was wrong

and it disrupted my stage run.

The next time I had him as a TO, I reminded him to "Please

DO NOT coach nor interfere with my stage".

 

A lot of folks are looking at this 'coaching' aspect as though

its some kind of Genie in a bottle,  to HELP when needed.

But coaching can be used to interfere with a shooter while

also helping another shooter.

 

Bottom line:  We put a lot of responsibility on the TO.

Asking them to eliminate coaching would lesson their

responsibility and at the same time, eliminate any

real or perceived issues associated with coaching.

 

Once again, with a couple noteworthy exceptions, 

is there really any reasons why each shooter shouldn't

be responsible for their own stage results without

any outside interference?

 

..........Widder

 

 

I guess being a mother of 6, and 8 grandchildren...I can concentrate/discern on one voice out of many.

I listen to my TO.

If I hear STOP or CEASE FIRE , I do.

If I am sure I shot all my rounds and hear "1 more" I will move on and take my chances on a penalty.

If I am not sure, I will either index that pistol once more, or lever that rifle once more...NOT AN ISSUE.

if you do not want any coaching SAY SO.

Then TO tells EVERYONE to zip it for the shooter...

Easy fix.

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

44 minutes ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

I’ve been in this game 25 years. Your question was simple. The answers are complex as the game evolved and changed flavor. 

This isn’t battle. It’s just lively discussion. 

Creative quoting... exactly what I said.

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

I agree with allowing coaching at monthlies and disallowing at annuals, especially championship matches.  I think this would be a very good compromise and promote TO consistency at these matches.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

29 minutes ago, Possum Skinner, SASS#60697 said:

.

 

I like your EDIT, Possum..... 

You EDIT better than anyone on the Wire..... 

 

..........Widder

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

On 6/16/2021 at 3:56 PM, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

Everybody is always talking about the TO should do this or the TO should do that or the TOs need more training.  SASS does not now and has never had professional TOs.  The TO is anyone on the posse that happens to be holding the timer.  Sometimes the TO is the only one on the posse willing to run the clock.  Many should not even be allowed to TO but when they grab the timer most people won't tell them they are not competent to be a TO.  A lot of the people running the clock have never read the rules let alone tried to keep up with rule changes and interpretations.

 

No doubt!  Back when I was a MD I had to 'ban' a shooter from running the timer, or trying to report Ps.  I think he printed out the rule book about 10 years before, read the title, and figured he was good to go.  Ran off a pair of brand new shooters by threatening to give them a P for taking too long loading (they were sharing guns).  They never came back.

 

On 6/16/2021 at 4:04 PM, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Extraordinarily rare occurrence.

 

Reshoot.

 

Phantom

 

What about the miss that knocked down the shotgun target?  Under current rules it doesn't carry over to the reshoot.  

 

15 hours ago, Doc Shapiro said:

Well put Creeker.

 

To go along with his post, I'll posit this: Are we unintentionally driving away shooters by catering to the lowest common denominator?  In my experience, the answer is yes.

 

I think you're probably right.  However, as mentioned previously, if there are two camps in SASS, competitors and those for whom 'it's just a game' I suspect the current setup attracts more from the 'it's just a game camp' and fewer serious competitors.  If we remove coaching from TO duties we probably make SASS more attractive to competitors, but do we also make it less attractive to those for whom 'it's just a game?'

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

3 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

What about the miss that knocked down the shotgun target?  Under current rules it doesn't carry over to the reshoot. 

Well this is even more rare that the previous example...and frankly, poor stage layout.

 

3 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I think you're probably right.  However, as mentioned previously, if there are two camps in SASS, competitors and those for whom 'it's just a game' I suspect the current setup attracts more from the 'it's just a game camp' and fewer serious competitors.  If we remove coaching from TO duties we probably make SASS more attractive to competitors, but do we also make it less attractive to those for whom 'it's just a game?'

If it's just a "Game", then why would it matter to these folks?

 

Phantom

 

PS: glad to see your family having a great time at EOT!

[Captain Bill Burt]

Just now, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Well this is even more rare that the previous example...and frankly, poor stage layout.

 

If it's just a "Game", then why would it matter to these folks?

 

Phantom

 

PS: glad to see your family having a great time at EOT!

I'm not sure it would matter.  I fall more into the competitor category.  That's one of the problems I think we face is that it can be difficult to see things from the other camp's perspective.  That's one reason I posted the question.  Perhaps a 'it's just a game' pard should opine on that. 

 

As a shooter it wouldn't bother me a bit to have coaching removed.  I can't remember the last time anyone coached me anyway.  I can remember times when poor coaching/spotting cost me either a match win, or at least a category win. 

 

We are really having fun Phantom, thank you!  

 

As a father one thing I like to do is enjoy experiences with my kids that they will remember and treasure.  This will definitely be one of them.   My only regret is that my younger daughter (14) wouldn't join us.  She has zero interest in shooting of any kind, preferring to read.

[Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971]

At a recent state match I was shooting black powder while falling plate and shotgun targets were bouncing back up after being knocked down.  Because I could not see through the smoke I did not see this and tried to re-engage the targets when the TO coached me saying "They're down."  I dislike coaching at any match but always ask for coaching on shotgun targets since I usually cannot see them fall.  I think that coaching me was essential in this match.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Just now, Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971 said:

At a recent state match I was shooting black powder while falling plate and shotgun targets were bouncing back up after being knocked down.  Because I could not see through the smoke I did not see this and tried to re-engage the targets when the TO coached me saying "They're down."  I dislike coaching at any match but always ask for coaching on shotgun targets since I usually cannot see them fall.  I think that coaching me was essential in this match.

And what about your fellow competitors that might not have received that coaching??

[Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971]

I believe that targets bouncing back unobserved deserves coaching and a competitor not receiving coaching in this circumstance should complain.  (I will not continue this dialog.)

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

And what about your fellow competitors that might not have received that coaching??

It could be argued that they had the same opportunity to ask for it.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

46 minutes ago, Possum Skinner, SASS#60697 said:

It could be argued that they had the same opportunity to ask for it.

Okay, I'll go with...I was a bit ambiguous.

 

Restating comment:

 

"And what about your fellow competitors that might not have received an answer because the T.O. was making sure that the timer was picking up the last shot"...

 

Or

 

"And what about your fellow competitors that might have received a Geee Pard, I was watching the gun"

 

Or

 

"And what about your fellow competitors that might have got a Geee Pard, I don't know"

 

Phantom

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

1 hour ago, Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971 said:

I believe that targets bouncing back unobserved deserves coaching and a competitor not receiving coaching in this circumstance should complain.  (I will not continue this dialog.)

Why?

 

Because you're not confident in your position??

 

I just don't understand why people won't stand up for their position...at least to the point that there's some kind of consensus...but...I guess they just want to take their ball home.

 

Phantom