How would you handle this?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

REF: ASSESSING PENALTIES AND PROTESTS 

SHB pp. 23-24

[Anvil Al #59168]

Probably better not put what I would do.

 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

We've probably all done this at one time or another -- gone over and cued the scorekeeprt to give us a SDQ on a stage--say we forgot to go to the ULT and in a small posse, nobody caught it except us.   The honesty makes us feel good, but doing it that way puts the score keeper in the awkward position of deciding whether or not, and how, to change the scores called out by the T.O.  It forces the kind of dialog described in the O.P.    

 

Properly done, we should approach the T.O. and inform them of the issue.  They can then ask the scorekeeper to make any needed changes, per their decision.  The scorekeeper receives ONE set of directions.  If we disagree with the T.O. decision, we have the MD resolution path to follow up on. 

 

Think how that process would have changed the OP scenario. 

 

The informality of small matches makes it fun but deceptively relaxing at times.   Chain-of-command is still important (but it can still be friendly,  which was another, totally separate issue, IMO).

 

[Fox Creek Stitcher]

1 hour ago, Yul Lose said:

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?

You are correct. It was a typo. Sorry. I have corrected the OP.

 

The shooter had a  squib on stage 5 and unloaded the rifle and cleared the squib. He was observed at the ULT cycling the rifle several times and everyone thought it was clear. At the "LT" he cycled the rifle a few times again and the live round flew out. The only explanation we can come up with is that the cartridge had been stuck in a possibly dirty magazine tube. If someone had turned the rifle over after clearing it to check for the follower, that wouldn't have happened.

[Singin' Sue 71615]

32 minutes ago, Fox Creek Stitcher said:

You are correct. It was a typo. Sorry. I have corrected the OP.

 

The shooter had a  squib on stage 5 and unloaded the rifle and cleared the squib. He was observed at the ULT cycling the rifle several times and everyone thought it was clear. At the "LT" he cycled the rifle a few times again and the live round flew out. The only explanation we can come up with is that the cartridge had been stuck in a possibly dirty magazine tube. If someone had turned the rifle over after clearing it to check for the follower, that wouldn't have happened.

Less chance of it happening...we all have had things 'happen' that aren't the norm.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

1 hour ago, Singin' Sue 71615 said:

Less chance of it happening...we all have had things 'happen' that aren't the norm.

 

1 hour ago, Fox Creek Stitcher said:

You are correct. It was a typo. Sorry. I have corrected the OP.

 

The shooter had a  squib on stage 5 and unloaded the rifle and cleared the squib. He was observed at the ULT cycling the rifle several times and everyone thought it was clear. At the "LT" he cycled the rifle a few times again and the live round flew out. The only explanation we can come up with is that the cartridge had been stuck in a possibly dirty magazine tube. If someone had turned the rifle over after clearing it to check for the follower, that wouldn't have happened.

If the round was in the magazine or on the carrier and not in the chamber, it was an MSV, not a SDQ, at least until shooter failed to clear it.  But failure to clear the gun properly became a SDQ on the stage where it happened. 

 

 A more careful look, or  careful ULTO could have saved the shooter some grief.   But squibs tend to create disarray at the ULT.  A good time to pay very close attention to things other than the interesting squib.  

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

10 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

If the round was in the magazine or on the carrier and not in the chamber, it was an MSV, not a SDQ, at least until shooter failed to clear it.  But failure to clear the gun properly became a SDQ on the stage where it happened. 

 

 A more careful look, or  careful ULTO could have saved the shooter some grief.   But squibs tend to create disarray at the ULT.  A good time to pay very close attention to things other than the interesting squib.  

 

No MSV for safely restaging a rifle with rounds remaining after a declared "SQUIB" call.

[Singin' Sue 71615]

12 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

If the round was in the magazine or on the carrier and not in the chamber, it was an MSV, not a SDQ, at least until shooter failed to clear it.  But failure to clear the gun properly became a SDQ on the stage where it happened. 

 

 A more careful look, or  careful ULTO could have saved the shooter some grief.   But squibs tend to create disarray at the ULT.  A good time to pay very close attention to things other than the interesting squib.  

The ULTO was most likely clearing the next shooter, as he said the gun had been 'racked' and apparently cleared by EVERYONE involved.

I was not there...so speculation is mute.

The OP was more on how to handle the TO's reaction.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

1 hour ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

No MSV for safely restaging a rifle with rounds remaining after a declared "SQUIB" call.

Valid point.   My mistake --again. 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

1 hour ago, Singin' Sue 71615 said:

The ULTO was most likely clearing the next shooter, as he said the gun had been 'racked' and apparently cleared by EVERYONE involved.

I was not there...so speculation is mute.

The OP was more on how to handle the TO's reaction.

Thought we settled that second point with the tar-n-feathers.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

Among the first points made in RO training is to enforce the rules, but also keep the game fun for everyone.   Matches are less enjoyable after shooters leave angry.  There's no need for that if the T.O. is doing the job properly.  

[Widder, SASS #59054]

1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Among the first points made in RO training is to enforce the rules, but also keep the game fun for everyone.   Matches are less enjoyable after shooters leave angry.  There's no need for that if the T.O. is doing the job properly.  

 

And its hard to enforce the rules if folks don't properly KNOW the rules.

 

And when those rules are improperly applied, it lessens the enjoyment factor and yes..... people get angry.

 

..........Widder

 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

44 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

 

And its hard to enforce the rules if folks don't properly KNOW the rules.

 

And when those rules are improperly applied, it lessens the enjoyment factor and yes..... people get angry.

 

..........Widder

 

You've hit onto why the T.O. has such a difficult job.  It definitely isn't for everyone, and training alone isn't necessarily the cure-all.  There's a multitasking TALENT that shows on all really good T.O.s.  When it's done well, the whole game reflects it.  But unfortunately when it is done poorly, the whole game also reflects it.  Lots of different skill sets have to come together there.  

[Billy Boots, # 20282 LTG-Regulator]

just curious, when and where was the squib removed?  just asking.

SDQ to shooter for STAGE 5....MDQ for TO who has broken finger (oops.  well might "should have" broken finger). 

[Tyrel Cody]

On 9/12/2021 at 10:16 AM, Scarlett said:

@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

 

There's two sides to every story, I'd sure like to be able to hear from all sides involved. There's at least one other person that was there that said it didn't quite happen as described.

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

49 minutes ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

There's two sides to every story, I'd sure like to be able to hear from all sides involved. There's at least one other person that was there that said it didn't quite happen as described.

 

Agreed.  Some people seem to have a tendency to want to tar and feather after hearing only the initial report.

[Scarlett]

2 hours ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

There's two sides to every story, I'd sure like to be able to hear from all sides involved. There's at least one other person that was there that said it didn't quite happen as described.

You’re right - I didn't mean to appear to be  picking sides…I was trying to point out a way to have avoided the WHOLE CONFLICT. 

 

Hugs and apologies, 

Scarlett

[Tyrel Cody]

6 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

You’re right - I didn't mean to appear to be  picking sides…I was trying to point out a way to have avoided the WHOLE CONFLICT. 

 

Hugs and apologies, 

Scarlett

No need for any apology, but I will take you up on the Hugs 

 

Oh and I'm getting a screen shot of this, you're the first female to tell me I'm right in a long time 

 

You're right too though, there probably was a way it could have been avoided; there usually is.

 

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

All that a discussion on the WIRE can ever really consider is a scenario as laid out by the OP, and perhaps expanded upon by other witnesses after some discussion occurs.   It's ALWAYS better if we just consider a general situation than one where folks have invested interests in appearing to have been correct in their past actions. 

 

Arguments about what details were observed to have happened, when the observations vary from where the witness was standing or or what they remember hearing, are usually not resolvable by other parties after the fact.

 

BUT - The rules are written to be general.  Would be much better if our discussions were kept general as well.  On all sides of a topic.

 

Rarely does the wire "WTC" posting provide sufficient context that a decision can be made that PERFECTLY fits the actual situation.  And we don't want them to, either, to protect the good, the bad, and the ugly of "cowboy match reality." 

 

Consider whether your next post is worth making.  Are you stirring a pot?  Are you going to be able to improve several readers' understanding of an important interpretation of the rules?   Or is the post likely to hurt other shooters feelings or egos by being real specific?

 

And remember, this is a game, no one took something valuable from you by winning or by finishing the match with a lesser penalty than you would have thought they should have earned.  If we damage our ability to get along well together, we stand to lose a lot of future enjoyment.  All said IMHO.

 

good luck, GJ

 

 

[Lucky R. K.]

I was there and witnessed the act. It did not happen as described in the OP. If anyone questions my integrity you can check with 3Cut, Doc Perry, Noah Fitz, or Bullshead Bill, or even Sketter Willie, although some question his sanity.

[Lucky R. K.]

Some have mentioned taking the question to the MD. We do not have a MD at our local matches. Our club leader was the man who had the rifle problem and the posse Marshall is the one who made the call we are talking about.

[Cypress Sun]

57 minutes ago, Lucky R. K. said:

I was there and witnessed the act. It did not happen as described in the OP. If anyone questions my integrity you can check with 3Cut, Doc Perry, Noah Fitz, or Bullshead Bill, or even Sketter Willie, although some question his sanity.

 

I, for one would appreciate hearing what you witnessed and your perspective of what happened. 

[Lucky R. K.]

Basically the TO told the scorekeeper to apply the penalty to the next stage. The timekeeper argued that the penalty should be applied to the current stage. I have been taught that only the TO and spotters have input into the shooters score. The scorekeeper kept arguing and the TO told her to do what he said. You decide who was correct.

[Lucky R. K.]

I forgot, the shooter declared the round in the rifle when he went to load for the next stage.

[Fretless]

1 hour ago, Lucky R. K. said:

I was there and witnessed the act. It did not happen as described in the OP. If anyone questions my integrity you can check with 3Cut, Doc Perry, Noah Fitz, or Bullshead Bill, or even Sketter Willie, although some question his sanity.

Lucky,

Perhaps you might take a cue from Garrison Joe's post and offer what you can in a more general manner.  Until your post, no names have been mentioned.  You just named 5 people, four of which were not even at the match.  I was a few feet away. I did not hear the conversation, and, unlike you, I can hear perfectly well.  If you have something useful to say, say it.  

1 hour ago, Lucky R. K. said:

Some have mentioned taking the question to the MD. We do not have a MD at our local matches. Our club leader was the man who had the rifle problem and the posse Marshall is the one who made the call we are talking about.

There was no defined posse marshal.  The TO in question was not the person who read, or wrote, the stages.  The man who had the problems with his rifle is the organizer at a different club where you and I both shoot.  You seem to be here to offer vague defense instead of constructive input.  Like I said.  If you have something useful to add to the question at hand (what a scorekeeper should do if a TO gets belligerent), please say so.  

 

Notice how I generalized the OP. Even if I did not, the OP omitted the location, date, and all names.   This thread is not, should not be, about your friend.  That just happens to be the current example being used.  

 

2 minutes ago, Lucky R. K. said:

Basically the TO told the scorekeeper to apply the penalty to the next stage. The timekeeper argued that the penalty should be applied to the current stage. I have been taught that only the TO and spotters have input into the shooters score. The scorekeeper kept arguing and the TO told her to do what he said. You decide who was correct.

You seem confused about these details.  Since this was during the 6th (last) stage of the match, there was no "next stage".  Who was correct" was never the question at hand.  It is perfectly plausible that everybody was in some way wrong.  It sounds like perhaps you are trying to say that a scorekeeper should just record anything they are told, even if what they are told is out of alignment with the rules.  That's not an uncommon belief.  If that is your stance, you are welcome to it. 

29 minutes ago, Lucky R. K. said:

You decide who was correct.

Surely you are not trying to justify wagging a finger in another person's face and yelling at them.

[Scarlett]

5 hours ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

Oh and I'm getting a screen shot of this, you're the first female to tell me I'm right in a long time 

At least you didn’t call me a LADY! 

 

Hugs and more hugs!

 

Scarlett