What's your call

[Tennessee williams]

Sorry in advance for this, but I haven't been able to shoot in several months due to tearing tendons and ligaments in my arms. It's the equivalent of a foot of snow for me. 

 

From the shb and pocket RO card:

Failure to engage/Spirit of the game: Wilfully shooting a stage other than the way it was intended in order to gain a competitive advantage, not meeting the minimum ammunition power factor, or wilfully disregarding a non-shooting procedure. 30 seconds

  

   Notice the above does not say if the shooter gains an advantage they automatically earn a SOG penalty or that the lack of gaining an advantage gets them out of the SOG penalty. It says in order to. Re-read that if you need to, it's important verbiage. 

 

  Shooter A and shooter B both shoot the stage the same way:

 

   There are those who put forth the previous scenario is a "blanket" call of P and a SOG without an indication from the shooter as to WHY, because the shooter realized they received a procedural penalty. Remember me saying shooter A and shooter B shot it the exact same way? Here is what happened when the TO asked each one why the shooter just dumped the last rounds.

 

Shooter A said, "you can't get but one P and it's quicker that way."

 

Shooter B remembers having shot a stage last month where they got lost and asked the TO, "I got lost and hit the wrong target. What do I do now?" Where the TO replies, "it doesn't matter now, just dump them." So shooter B does just that when they get lost this time. 

 

Both shooters shot the stage the same way. Can you have a "blanket" call for the above scenario without polling the shooter? What's your call?

Edit: I realize just as you folks that have been shooting a while that when you get lost, don't dump so people don't have the thought you're trying to gain time. BUT, everybody hasn't been shooting as long and may not know to do that. You can't assume everybody's experience level is the same.

Edited January 30 by Tennessee williams
Marked

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

IMO...the ONLY way to determine INTENT is to ASK the shooter WHY s/he shot it that way.

 

[Hoss]

Would be tough, but shooter A gets the P+SOG. He admittedly did it to gain time. Shooter B just the P. 
 

as a shooter & TO, if I get lost (Or shooter if I’m TOing) once the P is earned  I default to a Nevada sweep. 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

PWB beat me to it.

 

Shooter 'A', based on their answer to the TO (indicating reason) earns the 'P' and SOG penalty.

 

Shoot 'B', based on their answer to the TO (indicating reason) only earns the 'P'.

 

My opinion, ya can't justify a 'blanket call'.  The key word in the rule is "Willfully.......".

 

..........Widder

 

[Lucky Lead Pepper]

In the scenario written above, I would say shooter A has a P and a SOG.  Shooter B did not try to gain a competitive advantage, they just didn't know what to do.  They get a P and a little discussion about how they should do it differently in the future.

[Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903]

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

IMO...the ONLY way to determine INTENT is to ASK the shooter WHY s/he shot it that way.

 

I agree 100% with PaleWolf you can’t determine intent without asking. 

[Yul Lose]

6 minutes ago, Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903 said:

I agree 100% with PaleWolf you can’t determine intent without asking. 

What if the shooter lies about his intent?

[Hoss]

1 minute ago, Yul Lose said:

What if the shooter lies about his intent?

They have to live with it. 

[Krazy Kajun]

54 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

PWB beat me to it.

 

Shooter 'A', based on their answer to the TO (indicating reason) earns the 'P' and SOG penalty.

 

Shoot 'B', based on their answer to the TO (indicating reason) only earns the 'P'.

 

My opinion, ya can't justify a 'blanket call'.  The key word in the rule is "Willfully.......".

 

..........Widder

 

I ain't one to argue with PWB but what if shooter A had a chicken foot hanging off his gun belt....wouldn't that give him a special dispensation by virtue of being "clucked up?" 

 

Kajun

Edited January 30 by Krazy Kajun

[Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903]

1 hour ago, Yul Lose said:

What if the shooter lies about his intent?

If he can live with winning the Cadillac by lying that’s on him.

 

Randy

[Gateway Kid SASS# 70038 Life]

2 hours ago, Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903 said:

If he can live with winning the Cadillac by lying that’s on him.

 

Randy

This ^^^^^ x 10000

As a wise man once told me 

“if you cheat to win, you’re not winning just cheating”
Regards

    

Gateway Kid

[Equanimous Phil]

I guess in every other sport the referee would get a lot of laughter if (s)he'd ask players who commited unsportslike behaviour if they've done it willfully or not and if they would prefer to get away with it.

 

In the scenario above, shooter A probably just wasn't aware that his answer will get him an SOG. So, next time shooter A's answer might also be "oh..., just brain fade, completely lost track".

 

A lot of rules in every rule book are originated by just a few participants who want to outsmart the game. Offering loopholes to those black sheep (such as inluding intent) doesn't help the game.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

1 hour ago, Equanimous Phil said:

I guess in every other sport the referee would get a lot of laughter if (s)he'd ask players who commited unsportslike behaviour if they've done it willfully or not and if they would prefer to get away with it.

 

In the scenario above, shooter A probably just wasn't aware that his answer will get him an SOG. So, next time shooter A's answer might also be "oh..., just brain fade, completely lost track".

 

A lot of rules in every rule book are originated by just a few participants who want to outsmart the game. Offering loopholes to those black sheep (such as inluding intent) doesn't help the game.

 

If shooter 'A' has repeated events, would it not be viewed as 'intentional' to gain advantages?

 

ALSO..... if shooter 'B' were to have repeated events and keep using the same reasoning, could it not be viewed as 'intentional' and warrant

the SOG penalty?

 

Using the 'Brain Fade' reasoning might work once..... but not multiple times.

 

..........Widder

 

[Griff]

You (collective, not specific) can't judge intent without asking.  The liar will just earn our contempt.  Which will soon lead losing interest and leave as they learn that's harder to overcome than a "SOG".

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

I have been shooting CAS for quite a while now and am probably a "middle of the pack" shooter. I don't practice as I should and know I could get better if I did. I do, however, take my RO duties very seriously and have seen many shooters over the years (many) that have done something that I know was done to gain an advantage. From "jumping the timer" to the aforementioned target dump and I do try my best to give the penalty when appropriate. But sometimes I am not the TO and just an observer and see that happen and most times, it ends up biting them, as they have a hiccup somewhere else that takes back their time and usually more than they were going to gain. Sometimes they "get away with it" and that's when I figure that they have to live with themselves and their cheating ways. Yes, that's how I view it, cheating. I'm pretty sure people who do this know exactly what they're doing and if that's the way you do better, then you go ahead, but you have to look at yourself in the mirror and if you are ok with doing things like this, then I pity you. Have I made mistakes? Sure have, but I also do my best to make it right as well. I have called penalties on myself and will continue to do so as warranted. Am I perfect and everyone should do as I do? Not even close, I just try.

[Equanimous Phil]

2 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

If shooter 'A' has repeated events, would it not be viewed as 'intentional' to gain advantages?

 

ALSO..... if shooter 'B' were to have repeated events and keep using the same reasoning, could it not be viewed as 'intentional' and warrant

the SOG penalty?

 

Yes, according commonsense, that could and maybe should be viewed as 'intentional' and result in a SOG, but as only the shooter KNOWS his/her intentions

 

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

IMO...the ONLY way to determine INTENT is to ASK the shooter WHY s/he shot it that way.

 

the shooter's statement is the only basis for a conviction. Brain fades can happen everytime you get a P.

 

It's rather unlikely that one wins a category when earned a P, but nevertheless it's kind of frustrating for every shooter ranked below.

[Eyesa Horg]

Even with a brain fade, you likely don't think the 5 shot dump was the scenario. Just shoot it the best you recall it and the TO is possibly yelling a target number or position to help you.

[Matthew Duncan]

10 hours ago, Yul Lose said:

What if the shooter lies about his intent?

Then they are a Liar.

[Captain Bill Burt]

12 minutes ago, Matthew Duncan said:

Then they are a Liar.

Exactly! I’m willing to get bumped a slot to establish beyond a doubt that someone is a cheater. It’s happened a time or three.

 

Yeah, officially they ended up ahead of me, but I knew and they knew what really happened and that’s good enough for me.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Another option in event that the shooter's excuse is "questionable" would be to assess the SOG penalty and advise the shooter of the protest and appeal procedures

(SHB pp.23-24).

 

 

[Shooting Bull]

11 hours ago, Lucky Lead Pepper said:

In the scenario written above, I would say shooter A has a P and a SOG.  Shooter B did not try to gain a competitive advantage, they just didn't know what to do.  They get a P and a little discussion about how they should do it differently in the future.

 

 

For my own education as a TO, how should the do it differently in the future?  

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

13 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

For my own education as a TO, how should the do it differently in the future?

 

I would suggest anything other than dumping the remaining rounds on a single target.

[John Kloehr]

1 hour ago, Shooting Bull said:

 

 

For my own education as a TO, how should the do it differently in the future?  

From what I am gathering in this discussion, return to the pattern as best possible is the right action.

 

I made this (dump) mistake some time back. I got and accepted the P, but I did have an objection... Why was I not getting all the misses I earned?

 

Well, I was confused about the rule. I may still be confused. I (now) think the rule is as long as I hit the plate I am aiming at, it is not a miss as long as it is the right kind of target for the firearm. If it is the wrong plate, it is a P. One P max. As long as I hit it.

 

I was part way into the string. Something went wrong and I had to fix my gun on the clock. I did so. Fine, I have no problem with the time. I own the stage after the first round goes down range.

 

So gun ready to go again, I look up and realize I lost my place...

 

A quick mental calculation, I realized I could get two rounds on the correct plate if I chose the right plate. I would not know which two rounds, but for sure two of them would be correct. (misunderstood rule!) I also needed to empty my gun as part of finishing this train wreck.

 

So I dumped the remaining rounds on my chosen plate. (Competitive advantage expecting at least one miss plus a P, but not getting at least two more misses)

 

I should have returned to the pattern even if in the wrong place, I might have got lucky and been clean. Otherwise it would have been the one P. And no misses.

 

As it was, even if for the wrong reason, I do think it could have been SOG worthy. I was doing it to get the best possible score. But my reason was not time, it was not understanding what counted as a miss.

Edited January 30 by John Kloehr
Thanks Widder.

[Abe E.S. Corpus SASS #87667]

If a shooter is asked why he shot the stage incorrectly after earning a P, can they “take the Fifth”?

 

Benefit if the doubt goes to the shooter, after all.

 

This is said tongue in cheek.

[Rye Miles #13621]

Sounds like a lie detector is in order here! Put that shooter under bright lights and grill him until you get the truth!!

 

I'd give him a P and leave it at that!

[Widder, SASS #59054]

John,

hitting the 'wrong' plate does not always constitute earning a 'P'.

 

If you hit a 'rifle' plate with your pistol (and vice versa), you earn a MISS, not a 'P'.

 

If you hit the wrong pistol plate with pistol, its a 'P'.

 

..........Widder

 

[Eyesa Horg]

Grilling him would certainly put an end to the behavior , just be sure to remove all ammo and caps first.

[Billy Boots, # 20282 LTG-Regulator]

Guess I will be odd man here but this is my opinion.  

Why, intent, whatever is not  a needed question.  IMO, Both get a P.  As TO, do we really want to take time on line and discuss.  Shooter shot stage in best manner he could once error was made, he gets time and expects the P, next shooter.

PW, I suspect you remember this very debate at a TG convention some 15 years ago in discussion of P rules.   Quick Cal and others pointed out that a competitive shooter was not going to dump to gain an advantage because the 10 had already took him from his goal.  In "heat of moment" (confusion), discussion to what target and/or shooter scrambling with his own thoughts, dumb is legal and a valid  way to get through stage.  Intent might be questionable but move on.

SOG is a very serious call and I hate for it to become "mis-used".  OK, shooter is known to do this action then at some point he may get hit with SOG for discipline.  Hopefully if this the case then the SOG will be a correction to future questionable actions in shooting stages.

 

[John Kloehr]

15 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

If you hit a 'rifle' plate with your pistol (and vice versa), you earn a MISS, not a 'P'.

 

If you hit the wrong pistol plate with pistol, its a 'P'.

Good point. My error above was on the right kind of target.

 

Edited my post to include this input.

[Will Kane]

I have a suggestion for y'all to shoot down.

 

Add the following "strict liability" definition to the FAILURE TO ENGAGE/SPIRIT OF THE GAME section of the Shooter's Handbook:

"Dumping two or more remaining rounds on a single target after commission of a Procedural infraction."

 

Intent and state of mind are then irrelevant.

[John Kloehr]

5 minutes ago, Will Kane said:

I have a suggestion for y'all to shoot down.

 

Add the following "strict liability" definition to the FAILURE TO ENGAGE/SPIRIT OF THE GAME section of the Shooter's Handbook:

"Dumping two or more remaining rounds on a single target after commission of a Procedural infraction."

 

Intent and state of mind are then irrelevant.

Lawrence Welk sweep...

 

Shooter shoots 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 (first #4 is a P)

Or 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4 (last #3 is a P)

 

But I get what you are saying...

 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 (second #1 is a P)

 

I don't think a new rule is needed, but try re-writing your's to account for all possible sweeps.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

58 minutes ago, Billy Boots, # 20282 LTG-Regulator said:

Guess I will be odd man here but this is my opinion.  

Why, intent, whatever is not  a needed question.

It IS due to intent being one of the two components in assessing the proper penalty.

 

IMO, Both get a P.  As TO, do we really want to take time on line and discuss.  Shooter shot stage in best manner he could once error was made, he gets time and expects the P, next shooter.

Current procedure is to hand off the timer and take such discussions off the line (SHB p.24).

...

SOG is a very serious call and I hate for it to become "mis-used".  OK, shooter is known to do this action then at some point he may get hit with SOG for discipline. 

Who's going to be keeping track of how many times an individual shooter does this if attending matches at multiple venues?

Hopefully if this the case then the SOG will be a correction to future questionable actions in shooting stages.
Enforcing the rule the first time it happens SHOULD get the message across, as well as set an example for others that doing so will not be tolerated.

 

...IMO

 

[Billy Boots, # 20282 LTG-Regulator]

Ok, because we get indent from shooter then he/she gets SOG. Maybe they will not dump as per this type incident again.  IMO,  it was a legal act. I believe we all can agree that often TO instructs shooter to do so to lessen confusion.  A more "focused" shooter may have finished sequence in different manner but still gets P but perhaps less likely to receive SOG. 

 

[Shawnee Hills]

As an aspiring TO, I'd like to know how common these types of infractions are?  Just based on my observations in the short time that I've been competing in CAS, I'd guess very few.  I suspect it's a bigger issue at annual and above matches, yes?

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

This is why (imo) this is a poorly worded, poorly thought out and poorly applied rule.

This is the ONLY rule in our game where the subjectivity of "shooters intent" must be determined (or matters).

But yet - it is the greatest time penalty (short of DQ).

 

EVERY other rule is based around objective, measurable "result".

Shooter loads too many rounds in the rifle - penalty is assigned (doesn't matter why).

Shooter breaks the 170 - we assign penalty (doesn't matter why).

Shooter drops their gun to the ground - we assign penalty (doesn't matter why).

 

There is no place for rules that view the exact same action and then assign differing outcomes.

 

Either make SOG a definable infraction (or series of infractions) that can be consistently applied via review of the shooters observable action or do away with it.