Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

ROC - Changes needed?


Recommended Posts

The ROC is a group that were perhaps created with good intentions - but whose operations and input need to be re-organized, redirected or possibly dissolved.

There is no sense in a rules sanctioning body whose input is never codified into the rules.

Saying to shooters that,

"Yes; we have a rule book - but to arrive at the CORRECT ruling - you must combine the rule book with an addon volume that is not printed nor referenced within the printed rules."

And furthermore is created by a group that asks for zero feedback from the end users and has zero accountability to the end users of this information.

This is ridiculous.

 

If the rules require clarification - then at minimum the existence of a clarification MUST be referenced in the issued rulebook.

And if the rule is so egregiously written that extensive clarification is required - the rule needs to be re-written (by the RULE creation TG system - not by the ROC)

 

As my understanding is that rule implementations and changes were intended to flow from the TG system - The ROC should be extremely limited in their ability to change rules by their interpretations.  Their input should be limited to clarification solely - not creation (i.e. they should not have carte blanche to look at a rule and ADD components/ restrictions to said rule based on their desires) their sole input should be clarification of what does this word/ phrase mean?

AND when they make a ruling there should always be a WHY component. 

WHY was a ruling requested or required and WHY was the decision reached that was presented.

We are not children and most of us bristle at the idea of being told what to do without any supporting reasons - but if a valid explanation exists most of us understand logic (and even if we disagree with a ruling - we will likely abide by it)  Civil disobedience arises when we disagree with a ruling and no support for that ruling is offered beyond, "We say so".

 

Additionally there should be a mechanism that requires upon an issued ROC clarification/ ruling; a TG vote to EITHER agree with/ retain the ruling or begin a reworking of the rule or elimination of the rule in question. 

 

 And if the ruling/ clarification has no bearing on safety or competition - it should be outside the purview of the ROC.

Case in point - the current thread regarding the "Terminator" style 1887 shotgun being illegal for our game.

The firearm is a completely legal firearm for our game per the shooter handbook - it is not NFA or tax stamp reliant.

It conveys no safety issues or competitive advantage - but has been declared illegal because...

Hmm?  No idea why it is illegal other than somebody doesn't like the way it looks.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Happy Jack, SASS #20451 said:

Well Creeker we just disagree on the relevance of the ROC. 

I am a relatively intelligent man - and sometimes even reasonable.

Can you elaborate on what I am missing?

I provided my reasoning above - but it mostly comes down to the following points:

Lack of documentation of rulings conveyed to the end users via or referenced within printed materials.

unaccountable to the end users (and I understand - we don't own SASS, so we don't deserve accountability) but...

non input soliciting from the end users (and I understand - we don't own SASS, so no requirement to solicit input) but...

I often view their rulings as (not always) as over reaching and creating new rules by fiat - not attempting clarification of existing rules.

And lastly - I view their rulings as methods to allow/ disallow personal agendas (fixing items they think were established incorrectly) rather than just to clarify rules.

 

My opinion and no more valid than any other.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

Is the TG system even viable or relevant anymore?

I have long thought the TG system needed overhaul - and I think the "flaws" within the TG system have led to the ROC being in the position of authority that it is now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when the TG system was created, we didn't have the internet.

 

If SASS wanted to give out information to its membership, they needed an advocate at the club level. SASS sent the information to the TG, the TG would put it in the club newsletter, the club would send the newsletter to the members.

 

It also gave a central point of contact from the club level up to headquarters.

 

Today, Misty can push a button and instantly send out a message to the membership, so that need isn't there anymore.

 

So now, all you need them for is a rules vote. Historically, they've all gathered together one place to do that. You don't really need that anymore. And, I question whether or not that vote could be just done by the membership at large. But how do you do that?

 

If we want to talk about changing the system....Here is a thought for discussion.

 

Lock the shooter's handbook for 2 years. No changes, tweaks, or clarifications during those two years.

 

Starting in January the year before the new handbook takes affect, anyone can submit a proposed rule change. They must be submitted by April 1.

 

The proposed rule changes are then sent to a rules committee and are reviewed by them and the advisory board. This time also includes time for the rules committee to review the existing shooter handbook for changes, clarifications, modifications, or restructuring.

 

Rule changes that make it out of that review are posted for comments by the membership by July 1. This period lasts for 30 days after which time the rules committee and the board of directors can review the comments and amend the changes as necessary.

 

The amended rules are then posted for vote on beginning September 1. Online voting can be done any time during the next two weeks. At which time, the rule changes are either accepted or defeated by that vote.

 

The rules approved by vote will be posted in the new shooter handbook no later than December 1 of that year with the rules taking affect at the start of the new year.

 

All this does a couple of things.

 

It helps negate the cry that the rules change too often and are hard to keep up with.

 

By locking the rulebook, you negate the issue of keeping up with clarifications that are not in the Handbook.

 

It gives the membership a chance to allow their voice to be heard in instances where TGs are AWOL or non-participatory.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The essential issue is that the rulings need to be codified in hard copy and regularly revised.  Outside of that framework there is undue flexibility where customs, opinions and decisions can be freely reinterpreted / redecided.  Re doing a rulebook is heavy lifting and requires a particular mind set and skill set.  Most don't care to go there in a recreational organization.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was the "trouble maker" that once again brought up the clarification issue at the EOT TG meeting. As a RO Instructor, TG and match director I find it absolutely appalling that I'm expected to sift thru years worth of "clarifications" spread over FB "what's the call", PWB's website, the RO and TG forums, and God knows where else for the correct answer.

When I ask why a few simple changes can't be made to the SHB to eliminate the challenge the response has been "it's not needed and it's too much work", yet I'm expected to devote my spare time as a volunteer to research it all!

I also asked that when a rule needs "clarification" why can't it be revised quarterly on the internet? It's not like SASS is printing and mailing copies anymore. A few minutes on a keyboard is all it would take. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading the TG's are eliminated. The 26,000 members can now submit rules, comment on a proposed rule change, and vote on the proposed change?

 

We can't get a few hundred TG's to meet or vote and this is better because?

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

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

We can't get a few hundred TG's to meet or vote and this is better because?

 

As it has even been mentioned in the TG meetings, they have become apathetic and unresponsive.

 

And let us also not forget, it's the current TG system that got us this great new cocked rifle rule.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But to your point, @irish ike, SASS #43615

I never said who took the vote. What if, in the above spitball idea, it was the TGs who took the vote?

 

It gets the TGs feeling a part of the rules making process again.

 

It negates the need for all the TGs to gather in one place to vote on rule changes.

 

It helps TGs who can't travel to EOT and WR each year but want to participate have an option to do so without having to give an attendee their proxy.

 

The Comment period Gives the membership a chance to assist the powers that be hash out all the possible problems, so we don't get the fall out from the repercussions that the TGs didn't think of like we have had happen before. And, it gives the idea a chance to grow and mature before the vote is taken, unlike what happened the last time.

 

Edited by Branchwater Jack SASS #88854
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Beartrap SASS#57175 said:

I'm expected to sift thru years worth of "clarifications" spread over FB "what's the call", PWB's website, the RO and TG forums, and God knows where else for the correct answer.

 

Shameless self promotion

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a TG I remember many, many posts and many, many comments every time someone brought up how to get the TG"S to vote without meeting.

Zoom this, TV that, ballots.

The big issue everyone felt they needed to be able to listen to the discussion and be able to comment on it.  Impossible.

I don't remember exactly but I think it was around 2015 that a vote was taken by the TG's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My vote is for Beth Sutton of Yellowstone to be in charge of all rules.  Her motto is: "Your the Trailer Park, I'm the Tornado".

God save the Union. 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

The big issue everyone felt they needed to be able to listen to the discussion and be able to comment on it.  Impossible.

What are we doing right now if not engaging in and listening to discussion and commenting on it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be nice if Misty (President and Owner of SASS) or the "Head of the ROC" would chime in on this important topic, instead of always dumping it on Pale Wolf to represent them.  How many times on the Wire when important topics have come up, and the only to reply is Pale Wolf?  Is he their 'Crash Test Dummy" who has to take all the abuse.  I hope he gets extra pay for doing their job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lone Spur Jake SASS #7728 said:

Would be nice if Misty (President and Owner of SASS) or the "Head of the ROC" would chime in on this important topic, instead of always dumping it on Pale Wolf to represent them.  How many times on the Wire when important topics have come up, and the only to reply is Pale Wolf?  Is he their 'Crash Test Dummy" who has to take all the abuse.  I hope he gets extra pay for doing their job. 

 

He isn't a crash test dummy, but, officially @PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L is the official ROC spokesperson.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

What are we doing right now if not engaging in and listening to discussion and commenting on it?

It's a super small percentage of the total TG's.  And whats to discuss ROC is making the decisions 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ROC does a tough job. No doubt. But I’ve often wondered why the rules aren’t better codified. I’ve even been referred to a club page in Oregon for a list of rule clarifications. And lots of times people jokingly refer to the RO III book. We should be able to do better. 
 

and this is absolutely not a knock on PWB. He has a nearly impossible job! 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Hoss said:

The ROC does a tough job. No doubt. But I’ve often wondered why the rules aren’t better codified. I’ve even been referred to a club page in Oregon for a list of rule clarifications. And lots of times people jokingly refer to the RO III book. We should be able to do better. 
 

and this is absolutely not a knock on PWB. He has a nearly impossible job! 

The references to the RO III book, is a tongue in cheek reference to using some uncommon good sense.   Or, in the venacular, "common sense".  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

As it has even been mentioned in the TG meetings, they have become apathetic and unresponsive.

 

And let us also not forget, it's the current TG system that got us this great new cocked rifle rule.

 

 

What was put into the rule book by the ROC, regarding leaving the table with a cocked rifle, was not what was voted on by the TG’s.  And it should have been long guns, not just rifle.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Possum Skinner, SASS#60697 said:

What was put into the rule book by the ROC, regarding leaving the table with a cocked rifle, was not what was voted on by the TG’s.  And it should have been long guns, not just rifle.

 

This is the rule change that was voted on, as was reported:

 

Proposed rule change:
Eliminate the automatic Stage DQ penalty for leaving the loading table with a cocked rifle.
In such instances, the shooter will be directed to point the rifle safely into the back berm, bring the hammer to full cock if it is in the half-cock/safety position, then pull the trigger.

If no round is fired, the shooter will be directed to finish staging firearms in order to start the stage (No Call).
If a round fires when the shooter pulls the trigger, the shooter will be assessed a Stage DQ and directed to proceed to the unloading table.

 

PASSED by vote of the Territorial Governors.
YES - 208 (75.3%)
NO -- 68 (24.6%)

Effective January 2020

 

From:

 

If that is not true, and what was voted on was different, what was actually voted on by the TGs?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a shooter, I don't really care how the sausage is made, as long as it tastes good I'll take it.  Right now it seems fine, so when is the next match?

 

As someone once responsible for interpreting and/or enforcing/teaching the rules, how they get made, and whether they're easy to access and understand meant a great deal. 

 

Clearly the old mechanisms aren't being used anymore, but there is a semblance or assumption that the old way is still in affect.  The TGs are not meeting and voting on rules, and the ROC is not merely 'clarifying' rules.  The 'clarifications' are not easy for a typical member to access.  There are also inaccuracies/contradictions in the rulebook that need to fixed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Possum Skinner, SASS#60697 said:

What we were told was that what was voted on was the shooter had until a gun was fired to correct it.

 

So, did the TGs not know what they were actually voting on, or not actually read it?

 

If I remember right, the vote was done electronically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Possum Skinner, SASS#60697 said:

I can’t answer that, Jack, as I was not yet a TG.  However, the ones discussing it were very sure of what they voted on and we’re unhappy that the rule was not exactly what they had approved.

 

As TGs, don't you have to ability to bring forth an amendment to a rule for a vote?

Seems like you want to do away with:  "Safe Conditions During a Course of Fire – Rifles A rifle is considered SAFE to leave the shooter’s hands in the following condition(s) only (some conditions may be corrected before firing the next firearm): - Empty. - Hammer fully down on an empty chamber or spent round, action closed (restaged for further use)," for this instance.

 

It looks like the ROC ruled correctly according to what was voted on.   Just because there were unintended consequences, we should not throw rocks at the ROC.  The legislation that is voted on should be clear and complete.  Just like stage descriptions, "intent" doesn't get it done.  It's what written that counts.

 

Sounds like the TGs need to revisit this rule and see if the majority want to make an exception to the Safe Conditions section.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Possum Skinner, SASS#60697 said:

I can’t answer that, Jack, as I was not yet a TG.  However, the ones discussing it were very sure of what they voted on and we’re unhappy that the rule was not exactly what they had approved.

Below is the verbiage the TGs received from SASS. 

 

 

This is from the TG Bulletin sent out 11/1/2019..

 

Quote

 

VOTING ITEM INFORMATION

Proposed rule change:

Eliminate the automatic Stage DQ penalty for leaving the loading table with a cocked rifle.

In such instances, the shooter will be directed to point the rifle safely into the back berm, bring the hammer to full cock if it is in the half-cock/safety position, then pull the trigger.

If no round is fired, the shooter will be directed to finish staging firearms in order to start the stage (No Call).

If a round fires when the shooter pulls the trigger, the shooter will be assessed a Stage DQ and directed to proceed to the unloading table

 

 

Current rules/penalties:

Movement is not allowed with a loaded round under the hammer of any firearm. Movement is defined by the basketball “traveling” rule. Whenever a shooter has a loaded round under the hammer of a firearm in hand, at least one foot must remain in place on the ground. The first violation will result in a Stage Disqualification penalty. The second violation will result in a Match Disqualification penalty assessment. It is also not allowed to leave the loading table with a cocked, loaded firearm.

SHB p.12 – Participant Conduct - Safety

- Rifles may be staged with the magazine loaded, action closed, hammer fully down on the empty chamber (NOT the safety notch), with the muzzle pointing in a safe direction (adheres to the 170° rule).

SHB p.15 – Safety and Handling Conventions - Rifles

- Changing location/moving with a live round under a cocked hammer or firearm with the hammer down on a live round.

- Changing location with a long gun with the action closed and the hammer cocked.

SHB p.23 – Stage Disqualification Penalty (SDQ)

 

Definitions:

Cocked – hammer not fully down (full, half-cock or safety notch).

SHB P.43 – Glossary of Terms

Hammer down – hammer fully down at its final resting position.

Loaded Firearm – Any firearm with unfired round(s) in the action/chamber/magazine.

SHB p.44 – Glossary of Terms

 

 

 

 

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

10 minutes ago, Santa Fe River Stan,36999L said:

Below is the verbiage the TGs received from SASS. 

 

 

This is from the TG Bulletin sent out 11/1/2019..

 

 

Thanks, @Santa Fe River Stan,36999L

 

So, My question is, how did some TGs not understand the proposal and what they were voting on?

 

Quote

Eliminate the automatic Stage DQ penalty for leaving the loading table with a cocked rifle.

In such instances, the shooter will be directed to point the rifle safely into the back berm, bring the hammer to full cock if it is in the half-cock/safety position, then pull the trigger.

If no round is fired, the shooter will be directed to finish staging firearms in order to start the stage (No Call).

If a round fires when the shooter pulls the trigger, the shooter will be assessed a Stage DQ and directed to proceed to the unloading table

 

How do we get, from the above proposal, some folks upset and claiming that, "What was put into the rule book by the ROC, regarding leaving the table with a cocked rifle, was not what was voted on by the TG’s"? Back in 2019 there were several of us who pointed out that the problems with the nuance in the rule, as it was proposed, before the vote ever took place, including the fact that it only applied to the rifle. So, to suggest that they did not know otherwise, one might assume that they were not paying attention.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 

Thanks, @Santa Fe River Stan,36999L

 

So, My question is, how did some TGs not understand the proposal and what they were voting on?

 

 

How do we get, from the above proposal, some folks upset and claiming that, "What was put into the rule book by the ROC, regarding leaving the table with a cocked rifle, was not what was voted on by the TG’s"? Back in 2019 there were several of us who pointed out that the problems with the nuance in the rule, as it was proposed, before the vote ever took place, including the fact that it only applied to the rifle. So, to suggest that they did not know otherwise, one might assume that they were not paying attention.

 

 

I don't know.......What got put in the book seems to match with what we voted on except for "into the back berm" was replaced by "downrange.

 

 

Stan

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had this call on me at the Kansas state match.I got to the line with cocked rifle.When I saw it I told the TO.Thats when my hand came off the rifle.

They didn't give me a SDQ as I was talking to the TO at the time.I would have taken the DQ if thats the way they called it.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Largo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only add that during discussions at our club, it was pretty much the consensus that no change was needed for the shotgun, since they are stage open and empty, and in nearly EVERY case, they are already cocked.  A fact that suffered from very little debate back when shooters were called for having their hammered doubles cocked as they approached the line or staged their shotgun.   The only change I saw was from "berms" to "downrange"... and was mentioned at our club as we don't have "berms"...   Seemed elitist to make that distinction.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand the need for the ROC, I don’t see a need for TGs.  As @Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 mentioned in this day and age we’re all communicating electronically and don’t have a need for a go between anymore.  Of course everything will depend on what Misty wants and what she feel comfortable with.  I’ll just add that my only interaction with a TG turned me off to the whole concept, I got the old “this is the way we’ve always done it” answer.  

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.