WTC

[Captain Bill Burt]

Three pistol targets, three rifle targets, 10-10-4, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun.  Starting on the middle target place one round on the middle, then three on either outside target, then one round in the middle.  Repeat sequence using other outside target. 

 

The shooter shoots his first pistol correctly.  With the second pistol the shooter places one round on the middle target, three rounds on the correct outside target, then the fourth round on that same outside target (according to the spotters).

 

All three spotters call no misses and a P.  The TO states that the last pistol round was a miss, so 1 miss, no P. SASS rules state spotters are the final authority on misses, BUT the TO is the final authority on Ps.  The TO says there is no P and the spotters say there is no miss.  

What's the call?

 

PS, this did NOT happen this weekend and I'm not revealing when it did happen to protect the 'innocent'. 

[John Kloehr]

Per the flow chart, no on misses, yes on procedural, no further call.

[Captain Bill Burt]

 

4 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Per the flow chart, no on misses, yes on procedural, no further call.

How do you get a P when the TO says no?

[Hollifer A. Dollar]

I have a question:  what was the justification from the TO to call it a miss?  Overlapping targets that didn't allow a clean miss?  Something had to prompt that call.  Per your description it is clearly a P on the surface, but...

 

The TO has final call on procedurals & if he says no P, then no P.  Like you said, the spotters did not call a miss, so no miss.  The proper call, if the TO says no P, is clean.  There had to be a reason to make the call that was made.

 

Holler

 

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

CBB, you didn't sleep well last night, did you? 

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

41 minutes ago, Hollifer A. Dollar said:

I have a question:  what was the justification from the TO to call it a miss?  Overlapping targets that didn't allow a clean miss?  Something had to prompt that call.  Per your description it is clearly a P on the surface, but...

 

The TO has final call on procedurals & if he says no P, then no P.  Like you said, the spotters did not call a miss, so no miss.  The proper call, if the TO says no P, is clean.  There had to be a reason to make the call that was made.

 

Holler

 

 

The TO stated he saw the fifth round out of the last pistol was a clean miss and definitely did not hit the incorrect target.

25 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

CBB, you didn't sleep well last night, did you? 

 

About 50% of the time that would be correct, but I actually got a solid 8+ last night and the night before!!

[Rance - SASS # 54090]

“P” no misses..

[Two Dot, 14911]

T.O. Has no say on misses and final say on P’s and safety’s. Spitters say no misses, T.O. Says no P. Clean shooter.

[Cypress Sun]

Clean with a double secret, unrecorded 10 second bonus.

[Mister Badly]

No p no miss

[J.S. Sooner, SASS #73526]

Mulligan

[Eyesa Horg]

1 hour ago, Rance - SASS # 54090 said:

“P” no misses..

+1

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Timer Operator is specifically instructed to NOT be watching the targets, except for general aiming errors that would indicate a P for shooting a sequence out of order or violating any round count instructions.  RO was in error by denying the spotters call, and had no authorization to make any call if he "saw a miss"    I'd leave it as what the Spotters agreed to, no misses.  And as a TO, I'd strongly take into consideration their SUGGESTION OF A P for shooting last shot on wrong target.   Perhaps there was an edge shot that split a bullet to kick up dust, and that is what the TO saw.  Sometimes a TO just has to be able to admit he made a mistake, and better yet, learn to keep his mouth shut at times.

 

Just a P.  If we have all the info correct.

 

good luck, GJ

 

(corrected because I had it in mind when first answering that the P call had been made by the TO, not suggested by the spotters.)

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Obviously, there appears to be some doubt on what has really happened.

And sometimes, spotters have relied on each other to determine their calls.

 

Therefore, I would call the shooter clean and forgetaboutit.

 

..........Widder

 

[Marauder SASS #13056]

Oh for the good 'ol days when a miss was a miss and P was a P. 

 

They "fixed that" in the early 2000's because they were angry people didn't call enough spirit of the game penalties.

[Tn Tombstone]

As TO, I know if I over rule the spotters I may not have spotters next time.

I'm with Garrison Joe, if the TO saw the miss then he was not watching the guns or timer.

[Griff]

TO needs to go back for a refresher course.  

[Captain Bill Burt]

LOL.  I'm really just interested in what folks think the call should be, not criticism of the (IMHO excellent, put perhaps mistaken) TO.  No, I wasn't the TO, thank you. I was a spotter.

 

[Fretless]

As has already been said, if the TO issues no penalties, there are no penalties.  If the spotters call no misses, there are no misses.

 

Clean.  Next shooter.    (Windshield)

 

That said, per the description of events in the OP, clean with a P wound have been more accurate.

[Cypress Sun]

1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

LOL.  I'm really just interested in what folks think the call should be, not criticism of the (IMHO excellent, put perhaps mistaken) TO.  No, I wasn't the TO, thank you. I was a spotter.

 

 

P

and...no bonus.

[Rye Miles #13621]

I have to agree with a P and that’s it!

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

LOL.  I'm really just interested in what folks think the call should be, not criticism of the (IMHO excellent, put perhaps mistaken) TO.  No, I wasn't the TO, thank you. I was a spotter.

Very clear the call should have been a "P".   TO should always take the input from the spotters into consideration on any potential call for each shooter.  If all three spotters describe the same "P", whether the TO saw it or not is fairly conclusive that a "P" occurred.  If the final pistol shot hit any pistol target it's a hit... period.

[Kirk James]

If the timer operator insists there was no "P" and doesn't agree with the spotters it is the TO's call regarding the P.  If after a discussion with the spotters the TO sticks to his/her ruling on the P, and the spotters stick to theirs regarding no misses, then it is a no call.  

[Captain Bill Burt]

That's pretty much what happened.

[John Kloehr]

On 5/22/2023 at 7:40 AM, Captain Bill Burt said:

 

How do you get a P when the TO says no?

I was per the flow chart.

 

If the TO does not call it, then clean.

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

This thread reminds me of an old Chinese proverb.

 

三个和尚没水喝。 (Sān gè héshàng méi shuǐ hē / 'three monks have no water to drink')

 

The same as the English saying “too many cooks spoil the broth”.

[I. M. Crossdraw, SASS# 8321]

TO says no "P", spotters say no misses.  Clean shooter.  just my .02 cents.

[Tex Wilson]

TO says no P, spotters say no misses........pistol string is clean.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

This scenario of potential heartburn points out that almost all the "spotting of the results of shooting" are the job of the spotters.  Except for correct target order or round count hits-on-each-target.   These are, by our rules, the job of the TO.  Except the TO is directed to watch the shooter, keep the shooter safe, and watch all the holster/long gun/staging/cocking/moving/muzzle control actions for possible Ps or safety calls.   Not to watch the targets.  Kind of an impossible job description.

 

It probably would be quite a bit harder on the spotters to take on the "correct target order or round counts", but it could be a cleaner delineation of responsibilities that more closely adhere to the directive that TO does not watch the targets, but instead manages the shooter.  However, that approach would also make it very hard for the TO to assist the shooter with "what target do I shoot next?" pleas from a confused shooter.   

 

Seems there might be a rough spot in the division of jobs among the safety officers on the line.  Just an out-of-box idea.

 

good luck, GJ

 

 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

18 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

...

All three spotters call no misses and a P.  The TO states that the last pistol round was a miss, so 1 miss, no P. SASS rules state spotters are the final authority on misses, BUT the TO is the final authority on Ps.  The TO says there is no P and the spotters say there is no miss.  

 

 

The correct call should have been a PROCEDURAL for "Shooting targets in the wrong order." (SHB p.21)

 

The TO'S "MISS" call on the last shot (contrary to the spotters' unanimous HIT call on the WRONG TARGET) goes beyond the authority of a Timer Operator.

 

ASSESSING PENALTIES AND PROTESTS

During the course of fire, a shooter may on occasion incur penalties which need to be assessed. The immediate authority on the stage to that end is the Timer Operator (TO), assisted by the input of the spotters. The scope of assessing penalties includes safety violations, procedural errors, appropriate completion of stage activities, illegal firearms and equipment, appropriate ammunition, appropriate dress, and other category specific requirements such as the adequate production of smoke in the blackpowder categories.

The TO may unilaterally assign penalties for safety violations and procedural errors when they have clearly occurred (this does not include assessing misses). Assessing misses is purely in the purview of the spotters.

SHB p.23

[Fretless]

@PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L, please clarify one thing for me, as I believe it is the central question of this thread. Are you saying that the TO is obligated/required to assign a penalty reported by the spotters?  

 

I think nearly everybody agrees that in the situation defined in the OP the TO should have assigned a P, but did they, within the rules, have to assign that P?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

57 minutes ago, Fretless said:

@PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L, please clarify one thing for me, as I believe it is the central question of this thread. Are you saying that the TO is obligated/required to assign a penalty reported by the spotters?  

 

I think nearly everybody agrees that in the situation defined in the OP the TO should have assigned a P, but did they, within the rules, have to assign that P?

 

IMO...YES.
Given that the "P" was negated by the TO choosing to ignore/override the spotters' observations in regard to that last shot.
 

A Timer Operator is supposed to consider input from the spotters regarding "non-miss" penalties (e.g. 170 violations that the TO may not be in a position to observe), rather than arbitrarily dismissing that input.

Enforcement of the rules in that regard then goes up the "chain of command" to the Posse Marshal, whose duties and responsibilities include:
"... ensuring all rules and regulations are followed." (SHB p.20)

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Additional references:

 

The TO may unilaterally assign penalties for safety violations and procedural errors when they have clearly occurred (this does not include assessing misses). Assessing misses is purely in the purview of the spotters.

SHB p.23

 

The TO does not spot or count misses – but can provide insight if there is a question due to the vantage point of the TO to the shooter.

RO1 p.25

 

The TO is not relied upon to count shots and misses.

RO1 p.26

 

The TO should be counting shots fired but should NOT be counting misses.

RO2 p.7

 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Thanks PWB.    Honestly..... I've learned a little from this thread.

 

In my mind, it appears the TO was a 'hard ass' in NOT listening to the spotters and not assessing

the penalty.

 

..........Widder

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

2 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

Thanks PWB.    Honestly..... I've learned a little from this thread.

 

In my mind, it appears the TO was a 'hard ass' in NOT listening to the spotters and not assessing

the penalty.

 

..........Widder

 

Well, knowing how much the TO deliberated over this, second guessed himself, called me later to talk about it, apologized, etc. etc.  I'm inclined to cut him a bit of slack. 

 

I told him when it happened that it was crying out for a WTC, but that I was going to wait a while to post it.