Just wondering wtc MD

[Tennessee williams]

     I know a match director has the need and authority to overrule calls. I was wondering if that extends across the board for all calls or if there are certain limitations either rule specific or ethically. I didn't find my specific answer in any of the books. Here are a couple of examples:

1) Shooter disagrees with a sdq call for part of a round being in the chamber of his rifle. Shooter says it was only on the carrier and TO says part of it was in the chamber. How does MD deal with that? 

 

2)Shooter is called for a miss by 2 or 3 spotters. The TO can't override a miss call. Does the MD have the authority?

3)Shooter vehemently denies a called P by the TO to the point of heated words. Does the MD take off the P or award a spirit of the game or other call?

 

Just wondering about your experiences and or justifications.

[John Kloehr]

[Deleted text, TW fixed it]

 

On #3, "heated words" violates guidance to respectfully appeal. Not a good start to a favorable resolution.

[Cypress Sun]

 

Just from my POV

 

#1 - Get both points of view. If the TO stands by what he or she called, call remains.

 

#2 - No

 

#3 - Not only does the call NOT get reversed, the shooter has earned a MDQ.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

1. MD must determine whether there is ANY doubt regarding the T/O's observation.

 

2. NO.

 

3. There is no "spirit of the game" penalty for "heated words".

..."Belligerent attitude" = MDQ

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

REF also SHB pp.23-24 "ASSESSING PENALTIES AND PROTESTS".
 

It should be a very rare circumstance in which a protest gets all the way up the chain of command to a Match Director.

Such appeals are generally due to misunderstandings or misapplications of conventions or stage instructions.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

All three of these are "observation" or judgement calls of shooter actions during the stage.  Two are based upon the TO seeing an infraction and then applying the rule for such infraction properly..  One of these is a majority-decision by spotters that a miss occurred.  None of these are disputes about whether the rule was properly applied.   They are disputes solely that the shooter believes TO or the majority of spotters did not see an infraction that was called.

 

Such judgement calls are not subject to a protest.    Improper interpretation of the rule or the penalty that is associated with the infraction could be protested (but that is not what is in dispute).

 

It's like arguing a ball-or-strike call or a fair-or-foul call in baseball.  We trust that the TO (or spotters on a miss call) observed the infraction correctly.  They have the best view, they should be in the proper position, and they have the responsibility to be watching for infractions.

 

The Posse Marshal does not have a better view of what happened, by definition.  Or anyone else farther up the chain, most of whom were not on the stage at the time.  Spotters don't have authority to make penalty calls, just to report misses.    A shooter should be told that protesting a judgement call by the TO (or a majority of spotters) on what they observed is not allowable, and that determination should be sustained up the chain of "command."

 

Will that always get the ABSOLUTELY CORRECT call made?  Maybe not.  It does get the call made quickly and by trained personnel who should have been in a good position.   And, errors in judgement calls will usually be evened out by situations where another infraction was NOT noticed..

 

If a shooter or posse believe that judgement calls are not being made accurately, the proper course of action is for the posse marshal to consider that objection and (if necessary) relieve the TO or the spotters and bring in new blood that the posse marshal believes will be more accurate with those judgement calls.  

 

But we should not allow the breakdown of the "judgement calls are not subject to protest" principal.  Shoots are slowed for no good reason if you allow protests for judgement calls.  And it certainly undercuts the authority of the TO and spotters, and makes for MORE disputes to come along, after their calls on the line are second guessed.

 

good luck, GJ

[Widder, SASS #59054]

TN,

Your #2 makes me ask:   WHY would a shooter ever protest a 'Miss' and why would a MD

even get involved in a 'Miss' call?

Matter of fact, HOW can you protest a 'Miss' call?   If 2 or 3 spotters call a 'Miss', would it even

be debatable, other than their surety of their call.

 

..........Widder

 

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

First TW, welcome back, it's been a while!

 

As far as authority goes, your questions have been answered.  With respect to what an MD 'should' or 'needs' to do, with respect to

 

1. I don't see how an MD who wasn't there should overrule a call made by the CRO, who was there.

2. The MD can't make that call, but even if he could, on what basis does someone who wasn't there rule on whether it was a hit or a miss?

3. The definition of 'heated' may vary from TO to TO, but the rules are clear about belligerent behavior.

[Tequila Shooter]

22 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

TN,

Your #2 makes me ask:   WHY would a shooter ever protest a 'Miss' and why would a MD

even get involved in a 'Miss' call?

Matter of fact, HOW can you protest a 'Miss' call?   If 2 or 3 spotters call a 'Miss', would it even

be debatable, other than their surety of their call.

 

..........Widder

 

 

 

When I spot I stand away from other spotters and pay attention, but I’ve seen some pretty P1$$ Poor spotting, as probably everyone has.  Spotters not really watching and just going along with the others, etc.  Maybe that’s what TN was talking about, shooter sees that going on, gets a miss and then protests the call.  Of course the PM or TO shouldn’t let it get to that point.