Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

WtC? Spirit of the Game


Branchwater Jack SASS #88854

Recommended Posts

The Spirit of the Game penalty is a serious infraction we need to apply accurately when necessary. Join me on The Firing Line as Snidely Dumas Jr. takes the stage with timer operator Dudley Do-Wrong determining "What's the Call?"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And a reminder to all the cowboys and cowgirls out there to like, share, and subscribe to Branchwater Jack’s YouTube channel.   Help him grow! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great video!

But what if the shooter was 85 years old (or 12 years old ----or any age)  and convincingly responded that he just became confused and forgot the stage instructions  = "brain fade" = "P"?

(All rounds were fired and hit targets, so no misses?)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Great video!

But what if the shooter was 85 years old (or 12 years old ----or any age)  and convincingly responded that he just became confused and forgot the stage instructions  = "brain fade" = "P"?

(All rounds were fired and hit targets, so no misses?)

 

 

If they rotate targets no call if they just dump they are getting a spirit,  and yes I have called it before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always suggest you g to a Nevada sweep if hopelessly lost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the danger of a bully pulpit.

The video (who some will accept as gospel) accuses others of selectively ignoring the rules and THEN chooses to use the rule while selectively ignoring the definition of the words within the rule.

 

There is ZERO competitive advantage available to a shooter AFTER an UNINTENTIONAL procedural has been earned.

The term "competitive advantage" does NOT mean an action that simply benefits you - it means an action that BETTERS you (hence the word advantage) versus your competion (hence the word competition).

 

In the example - the shooter made an obvious and unintended error (shooting 3 on the target). 

Procedural. Plus 10 seconds.

There is nothing after that point where he could gain an ADVANTAGE over a non Procedural earning competitor.

 

An intentional decision to eat a Procedural is different i.e a 60 yard movement between positions and I figure I can absorb a 10 second penalty into my time and still be FASTER versus my competition by remaining in place. 

This is a willful mis-engagement of the stage as written to gain a competitive advantage.

And is a Spirit of the Game penalty.

 

Spirit of the Game MUST determine the shooter made a WILLFUL infraction.

(Rarely will a shooter volunteer their choice as deliberate).

 

AND then we need to demonstrate there was a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE to the END result of their choice.  (Remember, eating 10 seconds on a stage rarely makes you more competitive).

 

In the absence of BOTH of these items - you cannot assign Spirit of the Game.

 

Those are the rules as they are written - don't like it?  Change the rules.

 

But don't attempt to change the meaning of words to support your desire to penalize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video is similar to an SOG penalty assessed at EoT in the past.

The first "P" was immediately followed by multiple procedural violations that could not be assessed due to the "one per stage" rule.

Going "two-handed" in a Duelist category and purposely dumping rounds on single targets (with multiple firearms) instead of alternating in order to reduce the impact of the initial 10-second penalty IS "a competitive advantage" in that it affects the shooter's score vs. that of others who shot the stage properly.

 

In both cases (at EoT and in the video) the two factors for determining whether an SOG was warranted were verified by asking the shooters WHY they engaged the stage in that manner. 
"Because I can only get one "P" and "to make up the time for the "P" = SOG 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

 

There is ZERO competitive advantage available to a shooter AFTER an UNINTENTIONAL procedural has been earned.

The term "competitive advantage" does NOT mean an action that simply benefits you - it means an action that BETTERS you (hence the word advantage) versus your competion (hence the word competition).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have to respectfully disagree. 

 

Once the p was earned anything before is mute. The competitive advantage comes from what is after. 

 

These numbers are just for illustration. 

Shooter gets the p then completes the 2nd pistol and rifle correctly. Due to the long swing, Gets a 30 second plus 10 for a p.

  =40 sec

Shooter gets the p and dumps the rest. Gets a 20 plus 10

=30 

 10 seconds is a big competitive advantage. 

 

 It's not an advantage against his competition.  It's an advantage over where he should have been had he shot it correctly.  Whether the p was intentional or not doesn't matter.   It's the actions after, that speak to the integrity  of the shooters action. Which results in cheating the competition of a fair shot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, evil dogooder said:

Have to respectfully disagree.

 

 It's not an advantage against his competition.  It's an advantage over where he should have been had he shot it correctly.

 

I fully understand what you are saying.

And MANY interpret the rule the same way...

BUT the shooter is not in competition with him (or her) self.

Not in competition over where he or she should have been on the scoresheet.

 

They are in competition with others.

And to assign a Spirit of the Game penalty.

The infraction MUST be a willful decision

AND it must create an ADVANTAGE over the competion who did not do the same.

 

I'm not the one saying this - the RULE says this.

If shooters don't like the conditions the RULE requires for assessment - then change the rule.

But until then; the rule needs to be applied as it is written; understanding and abiding by the meaning in all the words - not simply because they think an action deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

...

They are in competition with others.

And to assign a Spirit of the Game penalty.

The infraction MUST be a willful decision

AND it must create an ADVANTAGE over the competition who did not do the same.

...


Creating an actual "competitive advantage" is not necessary.
It is the willful intent to do so (whether realized or not) that meets the criteria for an SOG penalty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


Creating an actual "competitive advantage" is not necessary.
It is the willful intent to do so (whether realized or not) that meets the criteria for an SOG penalty. 

I have the utmost respect for PaleWolf; but in this instance he is wrong.

 

The RULE says to OBTAIN a competitive advantage.

Doesn't say "try" or "hope for" or "intent".

 

If you are unhappy with a rule - get it changed.

But you don't get to ignore words, add words or create new definitions of the  words to support your application of the rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule states "in order to obtain a competitive advantage" whether one is obtained or not.
The phrase relates to the reason/purpose for performing an action.

 
Subsequent assessment of a 30-second SOG for that attempt would certainly negate any advantage.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commiting the P costs 10 seconds. Cheating and dumping on one target out of category saves 5 seconds over shooting the rest correctly. Now the P only cost 5 seconds. That's a competitive advantage. I shoot Outlaw. If I shoot the wrong target with my first round and because I just got a P I dump my rifle and pistols using sights and put the shotgun to my shoulder I can wipe out the P. That's cheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

 

I fully understand what you are saying.

And MANY interpret the rule the same way...

BUT the shooter is not in competition with him (or her) self.

Not in competition over where he or she should have been on the scoresheet.

 

They are in competition with others.

And to assign a Spirit of the Game penalty.

The infraction MUST be a willful decision

AND it must create an ADVANTAGE over the competion who did not do the same.

 

I'm not the one saying this - the RULE says this.

If shooters don't like the conditions the RULE requires for assessment - then change the rule.

But until then; the rule needs to be applied as it is written; understanding and abiding by the meaning in all the words - not simply because they think an action deserves.

If the shooter dumps on a target that they know isn't a dump target they are willfully making the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, evil dogooder said:

If the shooter dumps on a target that they know isn't a dump target they are willfully making the decision.

You are correct - No one is denying the willfulness of their decision.

But everyone is ignoring the additional requirement of obtaining a competitive advantage by doing so.

Contrary to what some are asserting - there is nothing in the written rule that says "Intent" or "Try" or "If".

 

It's a bit like giving me a speeding ticket for TRYING to break the speed limit - if I didn't OBTAIN a velocity in excess in excess of the posted limit - it doesn't matter how much I wanted to or how hard I tried - I didn't do it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To use the "speeding" analogy:

 

Let's imagine I'm scheduled to be somewhere at a certain time, but my vehicle battery is dead. (Unintentional delay).

Once I jump the battery and get on the road, I intentionally break the posted speed limit in order to make up for the delay but get pulled over and cited by PD (which would further delay my arrival time); then decide to drive even faster once the officer is out of sight, I'm guilty of breaking the law twice...whether I arrive at my destination on time or not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

To use the "speeding" analogy:

 

Let's imagine I'm scheduled to be somewhere at a certain time, but my vehicle battery is dead. (Unintentional delay).

Once I jump the battery and get on the road, I intentionally break the posted speed limit in order to make up for the delay but get pulled over and cited by PD (which would further delay my arrival time); then decide to drive even faster once the officer is out of sight, I'm guilty of breaking the law twice...whether I arrive at my destination on time or not.

 

 

I can work with this.

 

Unlike real life; in our world you can only get one ticket for speeding. 

 

According to the rules - anything you do illegally after the initial ticket is not penalized.

You can only be penalized again IF your being time penalized somehow advantaged you over drivers who didnt get pulled over. 

 

And I contend, there are very few instances within our game where volunteering for a 10 second penalty will advantage you.

 

The penalty you are attempting to assess is a mitigation penalty (which currently as our rules are written does not exist).

But...  If you wanted one - here it is.

 

The mitigation penalty is assigned (if warranted) after a shooter earns procedural infraction (deliberate or unintentionally) - IF the shooter attempts to mitigate or reduce the impact of the penalty on their own score by the continued disregard of shooting sequence, target choice or movement.  This is an assigned 30 second penalty.

The mitigation penalty (instead of a procedural) can also be assigned for the DELIBERATE and WILLFUL disregard of non shooting activities required as per the written stage.

 

The above "fixes" the current rule as it eliminates the requirement of "competive advantage" as a component of the infraction.  As it is now only in regard to the individual shooters performance.

It also fixes the disconnect between "Spirit of the Game" as our highest honor and biggest penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

The term "competitive advantage" does NOT mean an action that simply benefits you - it means an action that BETTERS you (hence the word advantage) versus your competion (hence the word competition).

 

Here is something I am struggling to understand about your argument here...

 

Let us assume that Dudley and Snidely are shooting the match in the same category...

And, while Dudley was shooting his first pistol, he also committed a PROCEDURAL.

However, following his mistake, Dudley then proceeded to shoot the remainder of the stage in the way it was intended, without incident.

 

Then, Snidely proceeds to shoot the stage in the manner outlined in the video.

 

I ask you...

 

In this example, did Snidely made a willful infraction? 

In this example, was there was a competitive advantage to the end result of Snidely's choice?

 

P.S. I too have often wondered why the penalty for cheating shares the same name with one of the more venerated awards that can be presented at a match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SOG penalty is in lieu of a MDQ for cheating ("unsportsmanlike conduct").

How about we simply dispense with the 30-second SOG/FTE penalties for cheating and simply MDQ anyone who intentionally engages a stage improperly after receiving a procedural?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

Here is something I am struggling to understand about your argument here...

 

Let us assume that Dudley and Snidely are shooting the match in the same category...

And, while Dudley was shooting his first pistol, he also committed a PROCEDURAL.

However, following his mistake, Dudley then proceeded to shoot the remainder of the stage in the way it was intended, without incident.

 

Then, Snidely proceeds to shoot the stage in the manner outlined in the video.

 

I ask you...

 

In this example, did Snidely made a willful infraction? 

In this example, was there was a competitive advantage to the end result of Snidely's choice?

 

P.S. I too have often wondered why the penalty for cheating shares the same name with one of the more venerated awards that can be presented at a match.

I have likely already dug my hole deep enough (and there was already a too short list of folks still willing to shoot with me)

But we can add caveats all we like - "Maybe the other shooter earned a P as well" "Maybe one shooter was really fast and the other was really slow"

But it all comes down to

Did their (obviously incorrect) actions (including the obligatory 10 seconds for P) give them a competitive advantage over a shooter that did it correctly?

I'm not saying this person is pure of heart or a fantastic human being - I am saying we have to be REAL careful assigning penalties because we feel the shooter deserves "something" when the wording of the actual rule does not support its assessment.

 

I'm not disagreeing with need for additional penalty - what was done in the initial video is WRONG (morally) but at this time - the actions don't match up with the requirement for penalty assignment the rule lays out.  Even when it is obvious - that is the direction we need to go.

 

When I was 17 years old - I was ticketed for "Drag Racing" because I was seen by a Police Officer engaging in an impromptu stop light to stop light contest.

(63 1/2 Ford Galaxie 500 with 427 and 4:11 rear gearset)

I did a little research and at that time - the Michigan law defined Drag racing as "A pre arranged contest of speed along a predetermined distance"

I went to court with that little nugget in my back pocket and under cross;

asked the Officer if he had witnessed a pre arrangement?

Had any information on predetermined distance?

 

I got off on the charges - The judge called me aside after and said words I have never forgotten,

"Good job.  We all know what you were doing - hell I did it myself when I was your age.  And the Officer could have ticketed you for display of speed, careless driving or exhibition driving.  But he didn't and choosing the right words matters.  Don't let me see you in here again for this"

 

I have been a stickler for "right words" ever since - we all know the offense occurred; but in the absence of the "right words" it is hard to make it stick.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

The SOG penalty is in lieu of a MDQ for cheating ("unsportsmanlike conduct").

How about we simply dispense with the 30-second SOG/FTE penalties for cheating and simply MDQ anyone who intentionally engages a stage improperly after receiving a procedural?

I might make it a Progressive penalty 30 seconds, SDQ, MDQ.  But I could get behind that change.

I'm not defending the infraction - I am saying IF you're going to ding someone - make sure your rule actually covers the infraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last attempt to point out that the "right words" are used in the rule...there is NO REQUIREMENT that any "competitive advantage" actually result from the shooter's actions subsequent to the initial infraction.

 

Synonyms for "in order to"
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this happens at the early part of the stage and I'm running the timer, I'll say you have the P and just spread the rest of the shots around .  You should, as the shooter, engage every target at least once.  I've mostly had a shooters comply.  I've only come close to giving a SOG to a younger shooter, and that's because he was told by a senior shooter to just dump on targets after they get a procedural.  I told him that if they did it again, I'd give them a 30 second penalty.   I don't wish to, but dumping after getting a P is clearly, to me, a SOG.  You can be lost in a sequence, but at least one should keep trying to get back to it.  Once they don't even try to do the pattern on a separate string, that's the SOG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

I have the utmost respect for PaleWolf; but in this instance he is wrong.

 

The RULE says to OBTAIN a competitive advantage.

Doesn't say "try" or "hope for" or "intent".

 

If you are unhappy with a rule - get it changed.

But you don't get to ignore words, add words or create new definitions of the  words to support your application of the rule. 

 

Question. How do you determine the action was a competitive advantage? What yard stick do you measure this against

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Did their (obviously incorrect) actions (including the obligatory 10 seconds for P) give them a competitive advantage over a shooter that did it correctly?

 

Where does it say that they must gain a competitive advantage "over a shooter that did it correctly"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago I shot at a club no longer around and they were very lax about calling procedurals, many of them very obvious and in my view intentional. On my first stage at one match I got a procedural and I called it on myself and the posse leader actually argued with me about it. Well I decided that I’d intentionally “P” on each of the seven next stages. Out of the next 7 stages 3 P’s were called and 2 of them were over ruled by the posse leader. At the beginning of their matches they would state in the safety meeting that ALL SASS rules apply, obviously they did not. I’ve called procedurals on myself in quite a few instances that were obvious to me but totally missed by the spotters or TO. Dumping rounds after a obvious procedural just to pad your score is cheating in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I want to say is Branchwater and Alchemist Belle put a TON of work into these videos and they are fantastic at explaining so many things in this complicated sport we enjoy. Thank you both!

 

And "Bully pulpit"? Who else is putting out this kind of video teaching?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok ok, let me fix everything. Let's all agree here and now that we compete against the timer, not necessarily another shooter (there may not be another shooter in your category). This keeps all definitions as they are written and we don't have to edit anything. It also takes the guesswork out of someone saying "who was I gaining a competitive advantage against" or  "there wasn't even anyone else in my category".

   There is nothing that says a shooter has to receive a P to get a SOG penalty that I know of.

 

 The timer will always be there, and this is what I have used in my defining principles. If someone shoots targets out of order and I ask why the dump and their answer is "I already got a p and can't get but one" they earn a SOG. If they say "I was as lost as last years Easter eggs" they get a pat on the back and a gettem next time pep talk.

 

Yall are welcome:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

Yadda yadda a bunch of other stuff......

 

If they say "I was as lost as last years Easter eggs" they get a pat on the back and a gettem next time pep talk.

 

Yall are welcome:P

A cowboy that'll do that oughta have a nanner split waitin' fer em at da unloading table! :lol:

 

Kajun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big question is...is Branchwater Jack one of triplets?  :blink:  Them other two guys sure have a strong resemblance! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alchemist Belle 93666 said:

My personal thoughts...

2021-12-02-19-20-28-898.jpg

 

I know I am not alone in being grateful to the both of your for all the work that goes into these videos.

 

Please keep up the good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alchemist Belle 93666 said:

My personal thoughts...

2021-12-02-19-20-28-898.jpg

I could not possibly care less about the time, effort or expense of anyones voluntary choice.

A video venue has been created to have a platform to expound as an authority on a given topic.

There is no "in my opinion" or "in my understanding" - there is "here is how it is".

 

In the absence of an official sanctioned platform doing the same - these videos become defacto fact simply by the ability to present it as such without debate or opposing viewpoint.

The very definition of a bully pulpit.

 

No one "slapped anyone" nor embarked on personal attack - I pointed out via a reasoned debate that actually used the REAL WORDS and the definitions thereof of those REAL WORDS used in the rule.

 

As to "don't take kindly" 

I fully agree, I dont take kindly to being expected to remain silent for fear of offending while blindly accepting everything presented to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

A video venue has been created to have a platform to expound as an authority on a given topic.

There is no "in my opinion" or "in my understanding" - there is "here is how it is".

 

In the absence of an official sanctioned platform doing the same - these videos become defacto fact simply by the ability to present it as such without debate or opposing viewpoint.

The very definition of a bully pulpit.

 

No one "slapped anyone" nor embarked on personal attack - I pointed out via a reasoned debate that actually used the REAL WORDS and the definitions thereof of those REAL WORDS used in the rule.

 

But herein lies the rub...

 

In these WtC videos, including this one, I have NEVER presented content that was, "in my opinion." 

 

All these WtC videos have been following guidance and precedence from SASS or their representatives. More than one have been collaborated with representatives of the sanctioning body. Many are quoted directly from source and use direct examples from them that have been previously published by them as fact. 

 

I understand that this is a topic that you may have a differing opinion on that you would like to see changed. I can appreciate that. There are other rules and other clarifications that I would like to see changed, too. However, I have been extremely cognizant of and stayed away from exactly what you are accusing me of, on purpose. I also can appreciate that some of these issue presented may bring up discussion from folks who would like to see a specific rule changed. That's fine, too, but that has never been one of my goals.  But, let us get this straight... you have a problem with this rule and how we have been been previously told how to apply it, not with my opinion on the topic, because I have yet to give it.

 

In this instance, your issue appears to be more with the how the rule has previously been applied, as @PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L mentioned, at our World Championships.  In this video, I am using specific examples provided by the spokesman from the official sanctioned body. However, instead of copying and pasting his words here on the screen for you to read, I have set it to another media, video. In this instance, these examples are still hanging out here on the WIRE as fact. Specifically, if you are looking, he mentioned it previously in this thread, but her is some source material covering this topic that was used for the context of the video:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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