Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

The Loading Table/Area -- Rules?


Dusty Devil Dale
 Share

Recommended Posts

I’ve been the PM at quite a few state and regional matches and I’ve always ensured we had both loading and unloading table officers. 

 

I’m not advocating removing any rules, it’s just not clear to me that we have a rule that imposes a SDQ on a shooter who loads without being supervised by an LTO.

 

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

On 9/18/2021 at 11:54 AM, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

These are match directors for those events. It's not ROC or the TG's voting/reinforcing a rule. As MD's they can decide how their match is to run. But do they speak for all the clubs?

 

Two of those Match Directors are also on the ROC...two other ROC members were present at that meeting, as well as the SASS BoD.
The statement quoted from the 2019 EoT meeting minutes (which were posted on the TG Wire to be communicated to the Territorial Governors' respective clubs & subsequently saved in the
 Rule Clarification Archives)was posted on this thread regarding current SASS policy regarding oversight at the loading table.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Doc Shapiro said:

Snakebite, just a point of order.  Range rules at Fort Miller are not SASS rules.  As Irish Ike pointed out, there's not a rule in the existing SASS documentation requiring a LTO, nor a penalty for not having one.  Only enough information to make it a guideline, not a rule.

Doc... You ought to know that I am very aware that Fort Miller does not make SASS rules. What we do, is to follow SASS rules, all of them. The Range Rule reprint of Fort Miller was only a response to support what Allie was told. It was our match, I was the MD, and we enforce the SDQ rule for not following LT/ULT procedures. My response to her query was correct, proper and agreed to by every shooter in advance. 

 

  As for this whole thread, I've tried to point out that the posse marshal was charged with filling the RO positions on the posse. It states "must". Those 7 RO positions were and still are: The Timer operator, the 3 spotters, the scorekeeper, the Loading table Officer and the Unloading table officer. That charge pretty much indicates that the position needed to be filled, and that it was the Posse Marshals job to see to it that it was done. It is not a Guideline.  I know that many here don't like it and some don't believe it, one guy was even so rude as to make a cheap comment about some guy that use to be important... but the fact is, I was there and I'm pretty sure that you know I am not just making that stuff up. Those original documents were the SHB, the RO I course and the RO II course. As you well know, I was part of writing them, and also as I'm sure you know, I've not always been keen on a lot of the verbiage. Some work took place over time on making things more clear, but there has always been areas that were vague. The biggest rewrite came just a few years ago. But none of the re-wording or the last re-write changed any of the rules! Only a vote of the TGs or a mandate from the CEO can change the rules, then or now. As far as I know, Neither of those two events have taken place. I have not made my argument as to why I think that the shooter should be checked. That is not the discussion here.  I have only tried to show that it is required to be checked. That requirement has been substantiated by the ROC, yet some still don't believe it. If the guys here don't want to accept that, then they should consider asking the HQ for an Official ruling. If the rule has been changed, then it ought to be made clear to all just what it is. If you don't like the answer then lobby to get a rule change. All the bantering here is not going to change anything. 

 

Snakebite

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

1 minute ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

even the described expeditor?

The expeditor is not and has never been a RO. It has always been an optional position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Two of those Match Directors are also on the ROC...two other ROC members were present at that meeting, as well as the SASS BoD.

Show me the rule in one of the books. Someone  saying it's needed doesn't mean anything unless its in the shooters handbook as a requirement and it also clarifies penalties. No one has referenced an actual requirement other than a description for ht position in the rules.  

per the TG minutes; In either case, a person MUST BE checking, as per our rules. A consensus was reached that what really matters is that the firearms are checked,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snakebite, as referenced by this discussion, the rules on this point aren't clear.  I'm not lobbying for a change, just pointing it out. 

 

Yes, I'm quite aware of the history.  As you know, at one point I rewrote the rules to introduce clarity and remove ambiguity.  The version I presented was declined.  I'm sure there were issues with the document that I produced.  People are, by very nature, imperfect.  Therefore any document that is produced will also be. 

 

That doesn't negate the fact that ambiguity continues to exist.  If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have all of these "what's the call" discussions.  Pointing out ambiguities can help improve documentation.  If the Committee decides to clear it up, that's their prerogative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Snakebite said:

But none of the re-wording or the last re-write changed any of the rules! Only a vote of the TGs or a mandate from the CEO can change the rules,

Show me the rule.....An approved and issued Shooters Handbook is the thing we must abide by.

The area in the SHB and RO1 books describe a bunch of positions and the roles for each. And I guarantee you all the matches do not provide all the positions listed. Otherwise we'd need berm marshals and expeditors at monthly shoots.

The current RO1 book doesn't say anything about those positions being a mandatory requirement. It would depend on the size of the match. So they are discretionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Snakebite said:

I know that many here don't like it and some don't believe it, one guy was even so rude as to make a cheap comment about some guy that use to be important... but the fact is

The fact is; I'm the guy who made a factual comment about that certain shooter. I've been a member of that club for 20 years. And I have been a part of the Board for 14 years. At no time was the shooter you mentioned on the Board and "running" anything especially the show. He was a very important part of our club. Not just financially but also promoting our annual shoots and maintaining a presence in SASS at a higher level. If HPD used LTO's it was because we thought they were mandatory. We later learned that they aren't so we dropped them. It was a club decision.

 

I've made a lot of comments about this. I'm upset because people keep saying 'well if so and so said its a rule, or if a committees said its a rule, and no one can change the rules other than... Yet no one can point me to any language that says it's a mandatory requirement. The only thing referenced is a long list o f positions and a description for the role of that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Snakebite said:

The expeditor is not and has never been a RO. It has always been an optional position.

But it's listed as a position along with 11 other positions.  Where does it say its optional? It says large matches,,,,what is large?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snakebite said:

All they are checking for is to make sure that you don't have a cap under the hammer. It doesn't matter if there is powder and ball in the cylinder of not.

How do they check to insure all 6 chambers aren't charged? They can't without looking at the cylinder face.

I use conversion cylinders. I have tried to show LTO's that the hammer is down on an empty cylinder but they can't tell unless you can see that the firing pin is not extended out. I've had them want to take my pistol so they can see for themselves the hammer is on the firing pin in the down position. Thats just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

unicated to the Territorial Governors' respective clubs & subsequently saved in the Rule Clarification Archives)was posted on this thread regarding current SASS policy regarding oversight at the loading table.

Pale Wolf, you of all people are the most respected and knowledgable person in regards to rules, clarifications and history. We all thank you for helping us. Reading the minutes it clarifies that in the absence of an LTO another shooter can be used to verify the loading procedure. Nothing was said about the LTO being required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Two of those Match Directors are also on the ROC...two other ROC members were present at that meeting, as well as the SASS BoD.
The statement quoted from the 2019 EoT meeting minutes (which were posted on the TG Wire to be communicated to the Territorial Governors' respective clubs & subsequently saved in the
 Rule Clarification Archives)was posted on this thread regarding current SASS policy regarding oversight at the loading table.

 

THANK YOU !!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

How do they check to insure all 6 chambers aren't charged? They can't without looking at the cylinder face.

I use conversion cylinders. I have tried to show LTO's that the hammer is down on an empty cylinder but they can't tell unless you can see that the firing pin is not extended out. I've had them want to take my pistol so they can see for themselves the hammer is on the firing pin in the down position. Thats just wrong.

 

There is no rule prohibiting charging all six chambers (that is listed as an option for a single round reload with a specific exemption to cap the 6th chamber before firing the first 5 regardless of stage instructions). REF: SHB p.13

Percussion revolvers are not considered loaded until capped. There is no need to be "looking at the cylinder face" for a charged chamber when the uncapped chamber is easily verified by watching the shooter lower the hammer on that nipple.

Same for a conversion cylinder with multiple firing pins.
(I agree re the LTO or observer not personally handling the shooter's revolver)

 



 

Edited by PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L
edit txt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Two of those Match Directors are also on the ROC...two other ROC members were present at that meeting, as well as the SASS BoD.
The statement quoted from the 2019 EoT meeting minutes (which were posted on the TG Wire to be communicated to the Territorial Governors' respective clubs & subsequently saved in the
 Rule Clarification Archives)was posted on this thread regarding current SASS policy regarding oversight at the loading table.

 

 

PWB, I found this referencing the link above: "8.The issue of enforcing Loading Table Officers was raised.The question was “are they an absolute requirement?”The TG pointed out how the requirement for a specific LTO is applied differently from club to club.Blackjack Zak (MD at Winter Range) andLassiter/Deuce (MDs at EOT) allagreed that there must be someone checking at the Loading Table, either a specific person assigned as an LTO......or shooters at the LT check each other.Ineither case, a person MUST BE checking, as per our rules.A consensus was reached that what really matters is that the firearms are checked, whether by an adjacent shooter or by an LTO. "

 

What's the current process to update the official documentation to reflect changes like this so that all shooters have access to the correct documentation directly from the SASS website?  As in what's the "single source of truth" and how often is it updated?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like this thread is becomming unwieldy, getting into peripheral fields, based on examples, or in some cases, just disbelief that past decisions have been made, whether or not they were properly documented in everyones' view.  

 

I'd like to recall attention to Captain Bill Burt's post some pages back.  (paraphrasing)  There is need to understand the distinction  between SASS direction to affiliate clubs, regarding SASS sanctioned matches, and SASS rules imposed on individual shooters. 

I think that is realistic advice.

 

As a shooter in SASS affiliated matches, I expect to abide by match rules imposed by those clubs that, in turn,  must implement SASS's expectations.  So SASS policies are required of me as a shooter, at least indirectly through that route.

 

I've now read plenty here, from Snakebite, PWB, and other knowledgeable people, to recognize (as our SASS-affiliate club's MD for monthly matches) that I need to assure that loading is properly observed, per past ROC discussions/decisions.  And as a shooter, whether or not a formal shooter rule exists in the SHB or RO Manuals, I have to follow the club and match rules, and accept their penalty decisions pertaining to loading procedures.    

 

I confess I did not fully understand that indirect linkage until now.  Whether I like it or not, it is a part of the expectation placed upon me as a SASS-connected MD and shooter.    Thank you Captain Burk for bringing it to light for me.  

 

 

 

Edited by Dusty Devil Dale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Doc Shapiro said:

 

PWB, I found this referencing the link above: "8.The issue of enforcing Loading Table Officers was raised.The question was “are they an absolute requirement?” The TG pointed out how the requirement for a specific LTO is applied differently from club to club.Blackjack Zak (MD at Winter Range) andLassiter/Deuce (MDs at EOT) allagreed that there must be someone checking at the Loading Table, either a specific person assigned as an LTO......or shooters at the LT check each other.Ineither case, a person MUST BE checking, as per our rules.A consensus was reached that what really matters is that the firearms are checked, whether by an adjacent shooter or by an LTO. "

 

What's the current process to update the official documentation to reflect changes like this so that all shooters have access to the correct documentation directly from the SASS website?  As in what's the "single source of truth" and how often is it updated?

 

I quoted that earlier in this thread (with a link to the archived doc)
I will add verbiage to that effect to the list of edits to the SHB (which is updated annually).

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

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

 

I quoted that earlier in this thread (with a link to the archived doc)
I will add verbiage to that effect to the list of edits to the SHB (which is updated annually).

 

Ah, ok.  Updated annually.  Thanks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add that in these days of the interwebz, is updated annually sufficient?  When a web site can be updated in a few minutes (as I did when posting scores for a local club earlier), annually doesn't necessarily make sense. 

 

When rulings are made and rules adjusted, they should be posted within a few weeks so that everyone has access to the same rules in a reasonably time efficient process.

Edited by Doc Shapiro
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doc Shapiro said:

Snakebite, as referenced by this discussion, the rules on this point aren't clear.  I'm not lobbying for a change, just pointing it out. 

 

Yes, I'm quite aware of the history.  As you know, at one point I rewrote the rules to introduce clarity and remove ambiguity.  The version I presented was declined.  I'm sure there were issues with the document that I produced.  People are, by very nature, imperfect.  Therefore any document that is produced will also be. 

 

That doesn't negate the fact that ambiguity continues to exist.  If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have all of these "what's the call" discussions.  Pointing out ambiguities can help improve documentation.  If the Committee decides to clear it up, that's their prerogative. 

I certainly would not argue with this. It is a know fact. Many things are and have been vague. Moving from the original idea of the rules and tiny rule book to what we have now was a long journey. As the game progressed thing became more difficult. What use to be the rule of thumb: "If it looks Cowboy, then it is Cowboy" developed into the various mods and allowable equipment, yata, yata. No, it is certainly no always clear. It is impossible to provide a absolute for every possible situation, that was a big part of the reasoning behind the training program's attempt to get everyone familiar enough with the rules that they could make a call from various locations and come to the same conclusions. Attitudes and regional preferences have played a big part in arriving at different conclusions. I think that is part of the WTC, along with the fact that many folks just don't read the rules, or are unable to understand anything other than a Direct and absolute statement that leave no room for any variation. Such a statement is not always possible to cover every situation. Any way, you are correct that everything is not made absolutely clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doc Shapiro said:

I'd like to add that in these days of the interwebz, is updated annually sufficient?  When a web site can be updated in a few minutes (as I did when posting scores for a local club earlier), annually doesn't necessarily make sense. 

 

When rulings are made and rules adjusted, they should be posted within a few weeks so that everyone has access to the same rules in a reasonably time efficient process.

 

Editing and updating the SHB and the RO1 & RO2 Course materials is not the same as posting match scores on a club homepage.

 

As a general practice, rule changes/clarifications are immediately cross-posted & pinned on three of the Wire forums. That includes links to meeting minutes that are posted on the "Rule Clarification Archives" page (which is accessible from the "SASS Shooter Handbooks" page).

Those posted on the TG and Instructor Wires remain up for a longer period of time (some for up to two years even after being codified in the rules docs).

 


 


 

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

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

Same for a conversion cylinder with multiple firing pins.

The only thing with cap and ball is knowing which chamber wasn't loaded when starting to cap. Some shooters leave a nipple off and some mark/paint the nipple. The only safety issue is not capping a charged chamber and getting a chain fire!

As to conversion cylinders its very hard to see the firing pin as you rotate the cylinder around to get to the one you can lower the hammer on. Most LTO's sort of look but you can't see it if its in shadow. So they accept you're saying it's good.

 

I'm not trying to stir the pot or or be an abstinent clown here. I just don't see wording that says an LTO is mandatory. Once the clarification was made that a fellow shooter can check the loading for you the whole LTO thing sort of went out the window. This evolved into no one other than the shooter checking the loading of their guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the following perplexing.

 

Usually, a clarification is posted by PWB. There may be some grumbling; but, the clarification is usually accepted. Sometimes, he takes the "grumbles" to the ROC before everyone accepts the clarification.

 

He has clarified that a LTO or person on the loading bench is required to check another person's guns. Why is this continuing to be ignored or misunderstood? 

 

My answer is, as I stated or implied in my first post on this thread, many people will not be placated with a clarification. They require a specific statement in the SHB that a LTO or similar is required.

 

It is that simple. Why does the ROC balk at this? Maybe, because the "rule" or "clarification" is so unpopular that it isn't misunderstood at all. It is ignored and the ROC fears taking steps to mandate it. They only discuss it when forced to do so.

 

As this is a recurring topic of discussion and discontent, I feel that requiring a LTO should be put to a vote of the TGs. If they vote to no longer require a LTO or to require a LTO, either way, an update to the SHB should be required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my reply to Doc (6 posts up), I have added the statement from the 2019 meeting to the list of edits to be considered for the next version of the SHB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

In my reply to Doc (6 posts up), I have added the statement from the 2019 meeting to the list of edits to be considered for the next version of the SHB.

You're a patient man.  Thank you for all the time that you spend shepherding us through all of the  threads here.  It is appreciated by everyone, I'm sure, even those who may disagree at times.   Thank you sincerely. DDD

Edited by Dusty Devil Dale
  • Like 2
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.