Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Imperfections, inequities and subjective scoring


Recommended Posts

I doubt I'll TO anytime soon. I don't trust my ability to do it correctly, so I wouldn't expect anyone else to trust me with it at this point.

I've been doing spotter duties fairly consistently at monthlies and will admit the mistakes I've made, take them seriously and strive to always do better.

Heck, I even take the brass picker job seriously. As long as I'm in the game, I will always try to do better, whether as a shooter or a posse member. There is a human element in this sport, as long as we all do what we can to keep the consistency and adherence to the rules, the playing field will be as level as we can make it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

^^^^^^

 

Moo.  This boils down to the two camps in SASS.  Those who believe SASS matches are a shooting competition and those that believe it is just a game and not to be taken seriously.

It's a competitive shooting game that I take very seriously.

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hendo said:

I doubt I'll TO anytime soon. I don't trust my ability to do it correctly, so I wouldn't expect anyone else to trust me with it at this point.

I've been doing spotter duties fairly consistently at monthlies and will admit the mistakes I've made, take them seriously and strive to always do better.

Heck, I even take the brass picker job seriously. As long as I'm in the game, I will always try to do better, whether as a shooter or a posse member. There is a human element in this sport, as long as we all do what we can to keep the consistency and adherence to the rules, the playing field will be as level as we can make it. 

Since we are not Martins...or...other thing...yes, the "Human" element will exist. This is not a convincing argument to minimizing the exposure to the "Human" element.

 

Consistency is impossible since there are things we cannot control. Weather affecting conditions for example. No one is saying...or implying that we can make this (or just about any game), perfectly consistent. And of course this shouldn't be an excuse to not look for ways to maximize consistency.

 

Again...like some weird Sacred Cow exist in CAS...yeah...weird...

 

Phantom

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

^^^^^^

 

Moo.  This boils down to the two camps in SASS.  Those who believe SASS matches are a shooting competition and those that believe it is just a game and not to be taken seriously.

What???

 

So if we want to maximize consistency we are somehow taking the game to seriously???

 

Good lord...let's just take away the timers...shoot whatever...and pull winner's names out of a hat. What??? You don't think this is taking the game serious enough?

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lemme see.  I shot a State match at which I hit a Shotgun Knockdown squarely 13 times.  It never went down.  20 other shooters didn't have that problem (then 3 "Others" did) so eventually there was a re-shoot.  Good thing the stage was still set up.  I see we often ask a little "much" of the "TO" but is is reasonable to expect the dude or dudette with the timer to at least know the rules and pay attention to the shooter rather than "spot."

 

Take professional Tennis for example.  Many Venues have gone to Electronic means for calling "in or out" or "Fault."  The cost is/was staggering.  Still wan't what we would describe as "optimal."

 

What we have is what we have.  Accept as being "imperfect."  Accept there will be errors.  Accept it is a Game and some will play more seriously than others.  The "Game" is suppose to be fun and getting caught up in the Minutiae is counterproductive.  Getting all wrapped around the axel of our imperfections will just give you indigestion.

 

Oh, forgot.  I LIKE THE GAME JUST THE WAY IT IS.  Leave Frontiersman and Gunfighter ALONE!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Since we are not Martins...or...other thing...yes, the "Human" element will exist. This is not a convincing argument to minimizing the exposure to the "Human" element.

 

Consistency is impossible since there are things we cannot control. Weather affecting conditions for example. No one is saying...or implying that we can make this (or just about any game), perfectly consistent. And of course this shouldn't be an excuse to not look for ways to maximize consistency.

 

Again...like some weird Sacred Cow exist in CAS...yeah...weird...

 

Phantom

You know what? You are absolutely correct. I am sorry I said a dam thing.

 

Out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hendo said:

You know what? You are absolutely correct. I am sorry I said a dam thing.

 

Out.

Oh...sorry. Did my difference of opinion make you upset?

 

See here's the problem with SM forums. Folks think that their opinion must be respected. Well there are a bunch of folks that think my opinion stinks...real bad. And that's awesome!! They have a right to think my thoughts on a subject are way off base...

 

Good lord (I'm saying this a lot...hmmmmm....), listen to other's thoughts and counter those thoughts if you don't like them. But to just pick up your ball and go home is chi...is not productive...and I'm sure you wished to be productive in the thread...right?

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

What???

 

So if we want to maximize consistency we are somehow taking the game to seriously???

 

Good lord...let's just take away the timers...shoot whatever...and pull winner's names out of a hat. What??? You don't think this is taking the game serious enough?

 

Phantom

I didn't say what camp I am in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I didn't say what camp I am in.

Butbutbut...I'm assuming you're against me!!!!

 

EVERYONE IS AGAINST ME!!!!!!!

 

:mellow:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Butbutbut...I'm assuming you're against me!!!!

 

EVERYONE IS AGAINST ME!!!!!!!

 

:mellow:

 

I am not against you.  I like the fact that you speak your mind and defend your position (even though it’s usually wrong :D). Carry on. :FlagAm:

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to find ways to remove subjectivity as much as reasonably possible, however, I also don't think there's a "one size fits all" type of solution. 

 

For targets, the ideal would be steel targets that have a trigger and record hits consistently, but if such a thing exists, I'm sure the costs are quite high.  Next up would be painting between shooters, but that's not feasible at all ranges for a number of reasons.  Which basically means we're back to spotters and human error.

 

For the TO, removing the requirement to coach would be very helpful.  Even if it were at state level matches and above.  Then it could be up to the individual clubs to determine implementation.

 

For the peanut gallery, just encourage folks to be quiet and respectful of the shooter.  I'm not calling for golf type etiquette, but let the shooter own the stage.

 

In the end, we're all human, and we do make mistakes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I am for truth, justice and the American way.

Me too.

Truth - The actual occurrence - not modified, adjusted or debated.  Call what you saw.

Justice - Equal opportunities for success - equal penalties for failure.  Not depending on your sex, creed, color or TIMER OPERATOR.

The American way also read as The RIGHT way; and while the patriot in me wishes this was always the case - I know it is not.

But the RIGHT way - the ideal to be held up and exalted is doing it correctly regardless of the perceived difficulty, lack of will or level of participation.

To do our best in every endeavor and never use excuses like "Just a Game" as justification to expect less, accept less or do less than we should.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Butbutbut...I'm assuming you're against me!!!!

 

EVERYONE IS AGAINST ME!!!!!!!

 

:mellow:

 

Actually, I think you make a valid point.........ESPECIALLY your views of how the TO should function.

 

A lot of Wire Pards seem to favor 'consistency' and fairness in scoring, etc..... but few want to recognize

any of the suggestions to accomplish the goal.

 

I don't recall seeing any positive points of the TO saving someone from a 'P' on one Posse

vs. a TO that doesn't save a shooter from earning a 'P' on another Posse.

 

..........Widder

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

I don't recall seeing any positive points of the TO saving someone from a 'P' on one Posse

vs. a TO that doesn't save a shooter from earning a 'P' on another Posse.

I guess this kind of randomness...makes the competition more of a "Game"...or...something...????

 

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to point out that even "games" have rules.  Monopoly has quite a rulebook, Risk, Gin, Poker, all games have rules and players are expected to follow them.  All of these games have winners and losers.  It's the nature of playing a game.  I really don't understand the "it's just a game" argument and how that's different from a "competition". 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll make a case in point:

 

'TO'  Phantom loves to help out shooters because he's 'fair' and honest and its his duty to

make sure all is well for every shooter that comes to the line while he is the TO.

His shooter fires off 10 rifle rounds and makes the rifle safe..... but the lever is closed.

Phantom yells out to the shooter: "Lever, Lever ... I ain't sure you ejected that last empty".

Shooter runs back to the rifle, opens the lever to find the rifle empty.

Phantom should have kept his mouth shut.  Costed the shooter a few seconds.

 

'TO' Widder also loves to help as needed.  Not much different than the other great TO.

Shooter fires off 10 rifle rounds and makes the rifle safe ..... but the lever is closed.

Widder yells out to the shooter:  "Lever, Lever ... you got an empty still in the rifle".

Shooter runs back to the rifle, opens the action and an empty pops out.

Saved the shooter a big penalty.

BUT.... Widder should have also kept his mouth shut because his actions vs. Phantoms  actions

FAVORED one shooter over the other enough to totally shift the outcome of the match.

 

No one is arguing that TO's are suppose to be perfect.  But to eliminate the 'coaching'

aspect does help prevent a 'see-saw' event between 2 shooters based on a TO's 

actions.

 

Well, thats how I see it.

 

..........Widder

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

 

 

EVERYONE IS AGAINST ME!!!!!!!

 

:mellow:


“And now I have been shot by a child!”  Tom Chaney

 

Seamus

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Butbutbut...I'm assuming you're against me!!!!

 

EVERYONE IS AGAINST ME!!!!!!!

 

:mellow:

Not all the time!!:P

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

In Widder's examples above, the first T/O's "improper coaching" would be grounds for a RESHOOT for "RO interference". 

 

Thanks PWB.     I was hoping 'someone' would catch that.

And course, some TO's / MD's  would know that rule and offer the reshoot.

 

BUT..... how many TO's or even MD would know that rule about "improper coaching" and would

offer or allow a reshoot?    This, in my opinion,  would be another reason for TO's to stop 'coaching'

unless there are real safety issues, cease fire, etc.....

 

..........Widder

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

 

Thanks PWB.     I was hoping 'someone' would catch that.

And course, some TO's / MD's  would know that rule and offer the reshoot.

 

BUT..... how many TO's or even MD would know that rule about "improper coaching" and would

offer or allow a reshoot?    This, in my opinion,  would be another reason for TO's to stop 'coaching'

unless there are real safety issues, cease fire, etc.....

 

..........Widder

 

IMO...If they don't know the rules regarding reshoots, they have no business in either of those positions.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

 

Thanks PWB.     I was hoping 'someone' would catch that.

And course, some TO's / MD's  would know that rule and offer the reshoot.

 

BUT..... how many TO's or even MD would know that rule about "improper coaching" and would

offer or allow a reshoot?    This, in my opinion,  would be another reason for TO's to stop 'coaching'

unless there are real safety issues, cease fire, etc.....

 

..........Widder

 

 

Agreed.  Remove the coaching requirement from the rules and this problem goes away.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I just took an RO2 class, and I don't remember being taught that coaching was required. In fact, they said that some people don't like being coached(my son hates it) and you should respect that. Can someone point me to the rule that says the TO HAS to coach?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Springfield Slim SASS #24733 said:

Funny, I just took an RO2 class, and I don't remember being taught that coaching was required. In fact, they said that some people don't like being coached(my son hates it) and you should respect that. Can someone point me to the rule that says the TO HAS to coach?

 

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.

SHB p.18

 

REF also: RO1 p.9

 

Quote

The Range Officer should make every effort to safely assist the shooter through the course of fire by coaching when required or requested, and giving appropriate range commands, if necessary.

RO2 p.7

 

 

Edited by PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L
add comment
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

to safely assist the shooter through the course of fire

 

This is another phrase that needs to be eliminated or better defined.  Some interpret this to mean to make sure the shooter shoots the stage safely, i.e., to make sure the shooter does not engage in unsafe acts while shooting.  Other think it is a mandate for the TO to shoot the stage for the shooter, i.e., if the shooter makes a mistake the TO has failed to "safely assist" the shooter in shooting the stage.  The TO is always the chief safety officer but the phrase "safely assist" is not necessarily interpreted that way.

Edited by Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

SAFELY ASSIST

The 2 paramount words in the RO Motto are SAFELY ASSIST!

Keys to a winning ASSIST:

1. Consistent information & communication

2. Assessment of the shooter

3. Shooter inventory

4. Anticipate

5. Attitude

6. Coaching

RO1 p.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And therein is part of the problem with the phrase.  It says The 2 paramount words in the RO Motto are SAFELY ASSIST!  But then the six items that are listed only relate to the word ASSIST.  None of them refer to or mention "safely".  Is "safely assist" supposed to mean a good TO must or should coach?  And what is supposed to be done safely?  The way the TO provides the assistance or the way the shooter implements the assistance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

And therein is part of the problem with the phrase.  It says The 2 paramount words in the RO Motto are SAFELY ASSIST!  But then the six items that are listed only relate to the word ASSIST.  None of them refer to or mention "safely".  Is "safely assist" supposed to mean a good TO must or should coach?  And what is supposed to be done safely?  The way the TO provides the assistance or the way the shooter implements the assistance?

 

Please READ the subsections following that list.

Particularly on page 9 under "SAFELY" Assist

 

I'm not going to "cut & paste" numerous pages from the rules docs to answer these questions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

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

 

If everyone is satisfied with the current system that allows/ encourages inconsistency and inequities in scoring and operations - then they should be willing to say so.

And Ill accept my position in the minority.

If they are not satisfied - the only way to perhaps move toward improvement is to talk about it.

And Ill do my best to lead the charge.

 

Everything does not have to be adversarial.

Battle? Have you been on the Wire? Rhetorical, of course you have. I just expected a "lively" discussion... exactly what has happened. Now,

The way I approach ROing is that I want to do for the shooters what I expect to be done for me. Pay attention, know what you're doing (to include training, if that's what SASS has decided, stay up on the rules and WTCs) and actually care. Yes, we have to get experience at some point on running the timer and that will happen at monthlies, hopefully gradually as folks can get worked in. I'm happy to take the timer, in fact I always shoot first so I can go work. It doesn't have to be the timer, I regularly pick brass or spot or whatever. We just need to have a mindset that getting better and putting a good effort will help to make things... better.

As far as the coaching thing, I'll go along with whatever is decided. I do coach, mostly when a shooter is inexperienced or I see they are lost. More experienced and those I know don't like it, I back off. I want to help ensure we keep doing this whole CAS game, competition or whatever we want to call it. There are many factors leading to our downfall, we don't need to "eat our own".

Edited by The Rainmaker, SASS #11631
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a TO I ask the shooter if they are comfortable with the course of fire and if it’s the first time I’ve shot with them, if they can hear the timer beep.  I never count hits/misses, I concentrate on round count and safety items (170 rule, hammer position, etc.).   I’m also a proponent of ongoing training and improvement of training curriculum.  I don’t buy the arguments about logistics and volunteer force.  A good TO wants to stay current, improve, and give a good experience to the shooters.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

^^^^^^

 

Moo.  This boils down to the two camps in SASS.  Those who believe SASS matches are a shooting competition and those that believe it is just a game and not to be taken seriously.

I have to agree with this statement in that there really are two camps in SASS.  When I first started this game I was shocked and generally offended by the use of the term "Gamer."  I thought a shoot was meant to be a competition where your time was your score and came to compete, but I apparently started at a high enough level that it offended some of the "Just for fun" shooters.  In fact, at my first shoot I was asked to find another posse on my next visit, simply because I was obviously a "Gamer" and that "they didn't play that way around here."  Frankly, I didn't go back to that club for quite awhile afterward and they have now been out of business for quite some time (I have to wonder why).  To this day, I genuinely dislike the cowpoke that confronted me with that suggestion and I still don't really understand his attitude!  He didn't even have time to get to know me, but had already passed judgement on me.  Anyway, it just shows how divided we really are about the game and I don't think that it's changed much since then or that it's going to any time soon.

 

To directly respond to the initial point of this thread, anyone that considers Cowboy Action to be a competition is going to consider consistency, accurate calls, and no "Gimmes" an important part of any match.  Striving to improve those characteristics is nothing but positive in their eyes.  However, as a "Just for Fun" shooter, one simply isn't going to care about it very much.  Unfortunately, I don't know of any good way to change this situation, as these divisions are deeply rooted in the nature of the participants of this game.  You simply can't please everyone no matter what!  It is what it is and we each make our own choices on how to play the game.  It's just that some of us are better at getting along than others and I think we could still improve that area quite a bit!  Good luck and good shooting to all.    

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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