How would you handle this?

[Fox Creek Stitcher]

Say you're the scorekeeper at a match and a shooter comes up to you at stage 6 and tells you he just earned a stage DQ. You ask him why and he says that when he arrived at the loading table, he ejected a live round out of his rifle.

 

You took RO1 training a few months ago and remember learning that this type of SDQ goes on the stage where he left the cartridge in the rifle, the previous stage, stage 5. (RO1 page 29 "Leaving the unloading table without clearing all firearms will result in the penalty being assessed on the stage where the infraction was committed."

 

While you are explaining this to the shooter, the TO comes over and asks what happened. The shooter explains why he gets a stage DQ. The TO then tells you that he gets a stage DQ for the current stage, stage 6, and the shooter cannot shoot this stage. You say to the TO: "Should it be this stage or stage 5?" (you want to be sure to put it into the correct place for scoring). The TO immediately sticks his finger in your face (about two inches from your face) and shouts at you: "WHAT DID I SAY?"

[Matthew Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Fox Creek Stitcher said:

...The TO immediately sticks his finger in your face (about two inches from your face) and shouts at you: "WHAT DID I SAY?"

 

"WHAT DID I SAY?"

 

"You said the MD should make the call."

[Cypress Sun]

I'd say, "You're the TO and now the scorekeeper"

[Imis Twohofon,SASS # 46646]

And you get SOG  for belligerent behavior. Lets go see the MD.

 

Imis Well I am wrong about the SOG, that is only for the shooter( not in this case) but the belligerent behavior problem stands

[Singin' Sue 71615]

Sorry folks are like that.

 

 

[Singin' Sue 71615]

So, a bit confused.

He left/ejected the round at the unloading table on stage 5?

Then came to you on stage 6 to tell you?

 

Or

 

He was at the LOADING table on 6 and ejected the left round at the begining of loading?

You said TO said he couldn't shoot stage 6? So...

Either of these scenerios tell me he earned the SDQ for stage 5.

To my best understanding.

[Yusta B.]

SOG   MDQ     Absolutely NO EXCUSE for that behavior. And besides that - he was wrong, by a lot !

 

As Garrison Joe pointed.

[Fox Creek Stitcher]

18 minutes ago, Singin' Sue 71615 said:

He was at the LOADING table on 6 and ejected the left round at the begining of loading?

You said TO said he couldn't shoot stage 6? So...

Either of these scenerios tell me he earned the SDQ for stage 5.

 

Yes. ^^This one^^

[Black Hills Barb]

He needs to be shown the shooter handbook for starters!

Then his belligerent attitude should be discussed.  Considering it could get worse when the penalty is argued, a Spirit of the Game discussion might have to come into play.  He could be shown that in the handbook as well.  He sounds like a MD that I once went toe to toe with - off the range though. 

[Dream Chaser, SASS #79316]

I would certainly try to never posse with him (TO) again.  Exception might be if you know this person and have never seen this type of behavior from him then I might give it a pass yet approach them privately at a later time and let him know how his behavior bothered you.  To do this I would have to be in my most forgiving mood for sure.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

(Spirit of Game penalties only are earned by shooters trying to perform the stage other than as written to gain advantage)   No to giving out an SOG.

 

What part of "No Interpersonal Conflicts" does the TO not understand?  He didn't even ask why you thought that safety penalty should be applied like you suggested?   A quiet word to the TO once he gets off the firing line, or if that does not produce an apology, then a more strong word with the Match Director.  Shooters causing Interpersonal Conflicts are usually greeted with a MDQ.  We never need to intentionally hurt our shooters' feelings.   Leads to low attendance at matches in the future.  And in this case, losing the services of a good scorer.

 

good luck, GJ

[Singin' Sue 71615]

1 hour ago, Fox Creek Stitcher said:

 

Yes. ^^This one^^

Okay. So with that clarification...he left the unloading table from 5...and made it to the loading table on 6.

According to the rules, I believe the DQ was 5...

Now...the fact that he was able to leave the prior unloading table is bad...

Sure he wasn't the first...hope the last.

 

[evil dogooder]

Depends on what mood im in.  Either way he earned the no interpersonal conflict.    It is something that is not given out enough.     It's clear cut in the rule book.  There minute he gets in your face his  match is done. 

 Personally Id that finger touched me he also would earn a new bend to his finger. 

 

  To many people put up with bs because they don't want to be that guy.      On our posse at eot this year a kid had an ad.  Took part of the table off.  Should have been a mdq.  He was given just a miss.  His dad blew up and threw a fit that lasted for 2 stages about kids only have to engage. Not hit.   Per the rule book both should have been gone.  Yet nobody called them on it. 

[Null N. Void]

The interpersonal parts have been handled.  There is a mechanical aspect to this.  I have seen it once.

 

A round was hung up in a dirty magazine.   It did not drop during the stage.  It did decide to cut loose at the unloading table when the shooter cycled the '73.  The shooter received a Minor Safety for a round left in the magazine.  The shooter did reload to avoid the miss during the stage.  Once the shooter cleaned the magazine tube, the problem went away.

 

I could see this easily hanging up until the shooter made it to the the next stage.  That's why when I'm at the unloading table, I ask the shooter to show the bottom of a '73 so I can see the follower.   If there's a round there, or you can't see the follower, they there is something wrong and you proceed accordingly.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

As a Posse member, whether Score Keeper or not, belligerent attitude towards a fellow Cowboy shooter

should be taken to the MD and settled.

 

NOW, as for the shooter who earned the penalty..... it is not up to the score keeper (or anyone else)

to contest a call but rather the shooter themselves have to be the one to contest a call.

The shooter needs to take the situation to the MD and get the penalty correctly applied.

 

Agree with Garrison Joe....... no SOG because it doesn't fit the guidelines for SOG.

 

..........Widder

 

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

21 minutes ago, Null N. Void said:

...I could see this easily hanging up until the shooter made it to the the next stage.  That's why when I'm at the unloading table, I ask the shooter to show the bottom of a '73 so I can see the follower.   If there's a round there, or you can't see the follower, they there is something wrong and you proceed accordingly.

I would want to ask the person with the rifle, who cleared him at the stage 5 unloading table?  And then ask that person if they look for the follower and if not, explain why it is important.  Lots of people don't know to do it, or how.  I recall hearing it mentioned on occasion at safety briefings, but not for many years.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

2 hours ago, Yusta B. said:

SOG   MDQ     Absolutely NO EXCUSE for that behavior. And besides that - he was wrong, by a lot !

 

As Garrison Joe pointed.

The score keeper cannot assess a penalty-- particularly not against the T.O.

The matter would need to be elevated to the Match Director

--------- or if a small monthly match, the Posse could just tar-n-feather the errant and arrogant T.O.  

[Singin' Sue 71615]

20 minutes ago, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

I would want to ask the person with the rifle, who cleared him at the stage 5 unloading table?  And then ask that person if they look for the follower and if not, explain why it is important.  Lots of people don't know to do it, or how.  I recall hearing it mentioned on occasion at safety briefings, but not for many years.

Tex goes as far as sticking his finger in there...wich really peeves me...but, it is what it is.

Yes, look...not 'written' anywhere.

I always give a couple of 'racks' at the unloading table...

[Fretless]

19 minutes ago, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

I would want to ask the person with the rifle, who cleared him at the stage 5 unloading table?  And then ask that person if they look for the follower and if not, explain why it is important.  Lots of people don't know to do it, or how.  I recall hearing it mentioned on occasion at safety briefings, but not for many years.

That would be me.  I did not know/think to look for the follower.  He cycled the rifle several times at the unloading table.  I will absolutely look for the follower in the future anytime there is a belief that rounds might have been left in the gun.  

In this case there was a squib, so we knew rounds were still in the gun.  Two rounds came out.  Apparently that should have been three.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

21 minutes ago, Singin' Sue 71615 said:

Tex goes as far as sticking his finger in there...wich really peeves me...but, it is what it is.

Yes, look...not 'written' anywhere.

I always give a couple of 'racks' at the unloading table...

 

ROI pg 28-29 (emphasis added)

 

Quote

Unloading Table Officer

Unloading Table Officers are responsible for visually checking to ensure all firearms are UNLOADED after the completion of the shooting stage.

- Competitors shall unload each of their firearms in a manner that the Unloading Officer can visually check & confirm that each firearm is empty.

- Rifles and Shotguns are to be cycled to verify their magazines are empty.

- The Unloading Table Officer should observe the magazine follower if possible.

- All firearms taken to the firing line must be checked and “shown clear”- whether or not they were used in the course of fire.

 

[Singin' Sue 71615]

23 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

ROI pg 28-29 (emphasis added)

 

 

Guess it is now written.

Thanks

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

When I clear my rifle at the unloading table, I always give it a couple lever racks and then flip it over (1873) so the follower is visible.  I know some folks look at it and many don't.

[Singin' Sue 71615]

29 minutes ago, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

When I clear my rifle at the unloading table, I always give it a couple lever racks and then flip it over (1873) so the follower is visible.  I know some folks look at it and many don't.

Yup. If possible...'73 you can...others not so much.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

5 hours ago, Imis Twohofon,SASS # 46646 said:

And you get SOG  for belligerent behavior. Lets go see the MD.

Imis

 

That's NOT an "SOG".
It's  MATCH DQ

[Waimea]

6 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

I'd say, "You're the TO and now the scorekeeper"

 

We think so much alike it's downright scary.

 

I'm kinda surprised nobody mentioned biting that finger though.

I sure woulda been tempted.

 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

4 hours ago, Singin' Sue 71615 said:

Tex goes as far as sticking his finger in there...which really peeves me...but, it is what it is.

Yes, look...not 'written' anywhere.

I always give a couple of 'racks' at the unloading table...

Had a ULTO that used to do that...until I threatened to slam the action closed the next time he did it. 
(both of us were just kidding around) 

[Scarlett]

Here’s my take:

 

some people in this game are jerks - not many.  The OP (whom I know well) is VERY new to the game HOWEVER, has shot a match or two EVERY weekend for 8 months and has taken RO 1 and studied the book.   

 

SOMETIMES, we have to pick our battles.  SOMETIMES, we have to choose which ditch we are willing to die in.  And SOMETIMES we need to “stay in our lane”.  Hear me out - spotters need to spot, TO needs to time/safely guide shooter and scorers need to score and peanut gallery needs to enjoy one another’s company. 
 

In the BIG PICTURE, it really doesn’t matter whether shooter got a SDQ for stage 5 or 6.  What DOES matter is that he went to the loading table and ejected a live round. TOO MANY PLACES do NOT require a LT officer. Sadly, I know some Shooters who would not have told on themselves if it hadn’t been seen.
 

Here is how I believe it could have been handled without the finger wag…

 

Shooter ejects live round at LT. Reports it to the POSSE MARSHAL, it is the PM who instructs the Scorekeeper as to how to record the score. If the PM and TO and MD are the same person, the call is made…(remember picking battles/ditches). Even if it is wrong…. There’s no further “chain of command” with which to fight and, in the end, it’s a game…

 

Not a lot of people - men especially- are gonna take getting challenged by a “new little lady” well (probably what he was thinking while wagging his finger), when ultimately, at least as described by post, it’s his decision as to how to proceed. Choices are limited at that point. 
 

Hugs!

 

Scarlett

[Cypress Sun]

23 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

 

Not a lot of people - men especially- are gonna take getting challenged by a “new little lady” well (probably what he was thinking while wagging his finger), when ultimately, at least as described by post, it’s his decision as to how to proceed. Choices are limited at that point. 
 

Hugs!

 

Scarlett

 

Usually, I agree with most of your post. This one, or at least this line, I strongly disagree with.

 

Sticking one's finger in anyone's face is provocation when done in a threatening or condescending manner. Most men and a few ladies would have NOT appreciated this at all. It could have lead to a physical altercation and probably would have had he done this to me. I'm not one to "run to the boss". I take care of things right there and right then. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes not, but you'll know where I stand. That he did this to a lady makes the situation even worse IMO.

 

Some, very few but some, feel like they are the boss of the posse when they do TO or PM chores and act like complete asses. I've seen it over the last 24 years of shooting CAS and I'm sure others have also. Let me state that these instances have been very rare, but have happened. 

 

There's no way in hell that I would give him a pass on this...not if he did it to me or anyone else. Bad behavior/unsportsman like conduct needs to be stopped in it's tracks as soon as it happens. If it was a match that I was involved with, this guy would never hold another timer on my watch.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

All for want of just a little humility -- seemingly a rare component in almost everything these days. 

 

With the exception of imminent and blatant safety issues (which this was not), being the T.O.  for a weekend shooting stage isn't really much of reason to quit respecting people and friendships.   

 

Some people could benefit from occasionally sitting quietly in front of a mirror, IMO.  

[Scarlett]

@Cypress Sun  Agreed! I am in NO WAY condoning his awful behavior! I think that finger wagging could have been avoided by following “chain of command”… and, behavior like this should NOT have been tolerated by others present. I wasn’t there… had I been, I would have said something - probably after guns were put away, though. 
 

The TO APPEARS to have taken issue with being challenged as to whether the DQ was stage 5 or 6.  Personally, I think he took MORE issue with it because @Fox Creek Stitcher is a 8 month +  lady shooter (that I KNOW) who challenged him - and happened to be CORRECT. 

 

Hugs!

Scarlett

[Singin' Sue 71615]

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

Had a ULTO that used to do that...until I threatened to slam the action closed the next time he did it. 
(both of us were just kidding around) 

I have aired my opinion to him...but, you know.

Life goes on!

[Fretless]

This thread has hit on two things that I feel are worth voicing an opinion on.

 

First, chain of command. 

In my limited experience, at single posse monthly matches this is often not clear.  (Something about having only one posse makes the organizers think that leadership is not needed)  There may not be a defined match director, just so and so wrote the stages.  There may not be a defined posse marshal, just this or the other seasoned shooter who always steps up to assume command.  That sets the stage for arguments, because there literally is no clear path to resolution.  This gets compounded by the erroneous belief that the ability to shoot fast gives people knowledge and understanding of the rules. Spoiler alert.  It definitely does not. 

 

The other thing is sticking to one role at a time. 

As a general principal this is sound advice.  It helps to maintain the chain of command.  It insures that the posse chores get done.  It allows the people doing those jobs to know what they need to focus on in order to do each job properly. It is also an over simplification.  Spotters for example, can suggest, but have no authority to call, anything other than misses.  A spotter would be perfectly in the right to completely ignore procedural penalties.  A TO would be well within their authority to not even ask the spotters to think about a possible bad call.  The Score "Keeper" is not just the score "Recorder".  We should expect that person to feel an obligation to accurately record what happened at the match.  That person should know the rules, and the TO should view them as a partner. In the recording of scores those two jobs should be each other's check and balance.  Common examples would be the TO accidentally calling something different than is on the clock, or the score keeper making a typo when entering.  We fix these errors by each person showing the other, not just calling it out.

Or, the example of the OP.  The question from the score keeper was a legitimate question, with real ramifications.  Sure, it's ultimately just a game, but putting the SDQ on the wrong stage deprived a shooter of the chance to finish the match.  Yes, the shooter could appeal it them self, but the score keeper was in a position to head that off before it ever became an issue.  That is, she should have been, except the TO seemed to view her as a subordinate.  That's on him.

[Lucky R. K.]

Things did not happen as described. I actually observed the incident. The shooter did leave an empty round in his rifle and declared it when he found it at the beginning of the next stage. I think the TO said the penalty should carry to the next stage but I am not sure.

 

First, the TO is a longtime, well thought of member of the hosting club and a law officer. He acts as a gentleman when running the timer.

Second, I believe the rules say only the TO and spotters have any input with regards to the shooter score. The score keeper has no input as to the score or anything else. Anybody can and should call out safety concerns but that was not the case here.

The score keeper and I had an interpersonal conflict at our last shoot. She came up to me and introduced herself. First time I had ever seen her. She said she heard that I was an A$$hole. LI should have asked that she be removed from the match but I did not.

 

[Scarlett]

Agree with you @Fretless 100%. NONE of us are insubordinate to the other. NONE.  
 

monthly matches that are relaxed/or don’t enforce rules across the board hurt the game as well as shooters. You have a tremendous perspective since you’ve traveled so much… and your post points out that I, may be, have oversimplified things. ..I think that’s because I shoot (mostly) at places with good leadership.
 

Leadership is necessary - effective leadership is necessary at EVERY level of the sport. You don’t always notice it when it’s there because things run smoothly… but it’s glaring when it’s absent.   integrity and fairness mean a LOT to me. 

 

Thinking about your post… I realized that some places call the score keeper recorders just like some places call spotters counters. Interesting. 
 

Take care!

 

Hugs!

Scarlett
 

 

[Yul Lose]

22 hours ago, Fox Creek Stitcher said:

Say you're the scorekeeper at a match and a shooter comes up to you at stage 6 and tells you he just earned a stage DQ. You ask him why and he says that when he arrived at the unloading table, he ejected a live round out of his rifle.

 

You took RO1 training a few months ago and remember learning that this type of SDQ goes on the stage where he left the cartridge in the rifle, the previous stage, stage 5. (RO1 page 29 "Leaving the unloading table without clearing all firearms will result in the penalty being assessed on the stage where the infraction was committed."

 

While you are explaining this to the shooter, the TO comes over and asks what happened. The shooter explains why he gets a stage DQ. The TO then tells you that he gets a stage DQ for the current stage, stage 6, and the shooter cannot shoot this stage. You say to the TO: "Should it be this stage or stage 5?" (you want to be sure to put it into the correct place for scoring). The TO immediately sticks his finger in your face (about two inches from your face) and shouts at you: "WHAT DID I SAY?"

In your first sentence you said he ejected the live round at the unloading table at stage 6, did you mean loading table at stage 6?