What's your call

[Roy's creek Dan, SASS 73697]

This actually happened several years ago. On a very complicated scenario, shooter comes to the line and says" this is a stupid hard stage Ill take my P and still be faster than shooting it the way its written" then proceeds to dump pistols on one target the rifle on one target then shoots the 4 shotgun targets . He was given a spirit of the game and was assessed the penalty. That in my opinion is what the rule is for. Not for the original post where the same action can have different results.

I'm with Billy and Creeker on this one.

 

 

[Rance - SASS # 54090]

Reading the original scenario..

They should have both (A&B) received a Spirit of the Game penalty..

Shooter A admitted to what he had done..

Shooter B explained that on a previous match he lost count and the TO said it didn’t matter at that point.. he already had a P.. so he jut dumped it..

That can now be his excuse forever?? 
He should of found out the correct way to handle a brain fade by his next match..

Just my thinkin’

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Another example:

 

Targets are four small poppers on each side of a large (3'x2') "marshal" target:

  p p p p M p p p p

Revolver sequence was two 5-round sweeps...engaging 2 poppers>Marshal>2 poppers; then repeat.

 

Frontier Cartridge DUELIST shooter engaged: p p >> p p (incurring a "P") and reholstered 1st revolver.

TO & spotters said "One more!"...shooter redrew and shot M.

Shooter then drew 2nd revolver and quickly dumped 5 rounds on M shooting "traditional/two-handed".
(two additional procedural violations which, under the "One "P" per stage" rule, could not be assessed)

 

At the ULT, the shooter was asked why he shot it that way.

Response was "To make up for the procedural."

Shooter was informed that he would be assessed a "Spirit of the Game" penalty in addition to the initial Procedural.

 

Without going into the details of the subsequent conversation with the PM/RM, the shooter protested the SOG all the way up to one of the Match Directors.
When he told the MD what he had done and WHY, the MD's response was, "That's a classic example of a Spirit of the Game violation".

 

[Lone Spur Jake SASS #7728]

What would John Wayne do?  If he thought someone was cheating, he would at least follow Tobie Keith's "American Soldier" song and "put a butt up their ass, it's the American way."  

There is no place for "cheaters" in any sport/game/competition.

As a SASS TO/RO since 1995, I watch the shooter from start to finish.  If I see a shooter is out of "sync" in a shooting scenario, I immediately tell that shooter what his next shot should be and what the rest of his shots should be.  It's doing the job you are assigned to do.

Letting the shooter just "dump" the rest of the rounds and just get a "P" is not fair to the rest of the shooters.

Lessoned learned early with a SOG will probably stop a shooter from doing it again.

 

[Equanimous Phil]

12 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

[...]

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

[...]

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.

 

I fully second Creeker's statement. There needs to be an objective (as possible) call for every action without hearing the shooter's story afterwards.

 

I understand the hesitation to assign multiple Ps on one stage. But what about only one possble P per shooting string caused by error in shooting sequence? If your first pistol shot hits the wrong target by all means dump the rest on the same target and get one P. But if you do it two-handed while supposed to shoot one-handend get a second P. If you then don't follow the rifle shooting sweep get your third P etc. Imho, this would provide a lot more objectivity and would prevent the discussions above. It would also be easier and clear for every shooter because s/he knows what's allowed after getting a P and how to proceed without getting an SOG.

[Captain Bill Burt]

1 hour ago, Equanimous Phil said:

 

I fully second Creeker's statement. There needs to be an objective (as possible) call for every action without hearing the shooter's story afterwards.

 

I understand the hesitation to assign multiple Ps on one stage. But what about only one possble P per shooting string caused by error in shooting sequence? If your first pistol shot hits the wrong target by all means dump the rest on the same target and get one P. But if you do it two-handed while supposed to shoot one-handend get a second P. If you then don't follow the rifle shooting sweep get your third P etc. Imho, this would provide a lot more objectivity and would prevent the discussions above. It would also be easier and clear for every shooter because s/he knows what's allowed after getting a P and how to proceed without getting an SOG.

Does this infraction occur often enough that we need to make sweeping rules changes to address it?

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

29 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Does this infraction occur often enough that we need to make sweeping rules changes to address it?

Occur or addressed? I think sometimes we already know they have a P and we just disregard additional infractions when really, they are not so minor. I do think it is easy to lose track of where you are at on a stage (heck, I write em and I still get lost) but a dump "appears" to be a time saver and running through something close to a sequence (such as a Nevada Sweep) at least on the surface, looks like even though you forgot the sequence, you are trying to get through it without "making up for the P" with a dump.

[Equanimous Phil]

50 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Does this infraction occur often enough that we need to make sweeping rules changes to address it?

I estimate that there are a couple of infractions that occur not very often which are already covered in the SHB. Shouldn't be the decision criteria, imho.

[Captain Bill Burt]

53 minutes ago, Equanimous Phil said:

I estimate that there are a couple of infractions that occur not very often which are already covered in the SHB. Shouldn't be the decision criteria, imho.

I think a cost benefit analysis should always be part of decision making.  What's the benefit of adding more Ps, or some of the other solutions that have been put forth?  The benefit is eliminating instances where someone deliberately tries to minimize the cost of a P by dumping on a target.  First let's consider how much that really helps them.  A really good shooter might save themselves what, a second?  So now that P only cost them 9 seconds.  A much slower shooter might be able to knock off a whole two or three seconds by dumping all rounds on one target.  Eliminating that outcome would be part of the benefit of adding additional Ps as you proposed.  We can't know the full benefit of this unless we know how often these infractions occur, which from my experience is not very often. 

 

Do we really need to change a fundamental part of our rules (1 P per stage) to 'fix' this?  That seems a bit extreme to me.

 

I'm not convinced we need to take any action at all, and if we do need to, I'm in favor of modifying how the SOG is enforced, or eliminating it all together rather than introduce rules that are going to impact other facets of the game. 

 

To my knowledge I've never been bumped a spot due to that occurring.  I have been bumped many times due to spotters failing to call misses or Ps though.  I've seen shooters win the overall at the State match level due to bad calls on misses and Ps.  I've seen pretty bad behavior around those calls as well. 

 

That's a much bigger issue than SOG calls.

 

No offense, but this concern seems like a tempest in a teacup to me.

[Shamrock Sadie]

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

Another example:

 

Targets are four small poppers on each side of a large (3'x2') "marshal" target:

  p p p p M p p p p

Revolver sequence was two 5-round sweeps...engaging 2 poppers>Marshal>2 poppers; then repeat.

 

Frontier Cartridge DUELIST shooter engaged: p p >> p p (incurring a "P") and reholstered 1st revolver.

TO & spotters said "One more!"...shooter redrew and shot M.

Shooter then drew 2nd revolver and quickly dumped 5 rounds on M shooting "traditional/two-handed".
(two additional procedural violations which, under the "One "P" per stage" rule, could not be assessed)

 

At the ULT, the shooter was asked why he shot it that way.

Response was "To make up for the procedural."

Shooter was informed that he would be assessed a "Spirit of the Game" penalty in addition to the initial Procedural.

 

Without going into the details of the subsequent conversation with the PM/RM, the shooter protested the SOG all the way up to one of the Match Directors.
When he told the MD what he had done and WHY, the MD's response was, "That's a classic example of a Spirit of the Game violation".

 

 

THIS example by PWB is a SOG. In the original "Shooter A" post here, the sentence "They then realize they acquired a Procedural, so dumps the remaining 7 rounds on the middle target" is the same type of example. There were 3 targets; the shooter hit the first target and the second target (not even hitting the third target), as the shooter "realized they acquired a Procedural." The shooter in example B in the original post was not intentionally trying to gain an advantage.

[Shamrock Sadie]

11 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I think a cost benefit analysis should always be part of decision making.  What's the benefit of adding more Ps, or some of the other solutions that have been put forth?  The benefit is eliminating instances where someone deliberately tries to minimize the cost of a P by dumping on a target.  First let's consider how much that really helps them.  A really good shooter might save themselves what, a second?  So now that P only cost them 9 seconds.  A much slower shooter might be able to knock off a whole two or three seconds by dumping all rounds on one target.  Eliminating that outcome would be part of the benefit of adding additional Ps as you proposed.  We can't know the full benefit of this unless we know how often these infractions occur, which from my experience is not very often. 

 

Do we really need to change a fundamental part of our rules (1 P per stage) to 'fix' this?  That seems a bit extreme to me.

 

I'm not convinced we need to take any action at all, and if we do need to, I'm in favor of modifying how the SOG is enforced, or eliminating it all together rather than introduce rules that are going to impact other facets of the game. 

 

To my knowledge I've never been bumped a spot due to that occurring.  I have been bumped many times due to spotters failing to call misses or Ps though.  I've seen shooters win the overall at the State match level due to bad calls on misses and Ps.  I've seen pretty bad behavior around those calls as well. 

 

That's a much bigger issue than SOG calls.

 

No offense, but this concern seems like a tempest in a teacup to me.

 

I believe it boils down to the lack of calling true penalties at monthly club-level matches. That's on the MDs and TGs at the club not promoting the calling of penalties, which trickles down to the spotters/TOs. Spotters/TOs at monthly matches get lax on calling penalties, then it gets carried on to annual and above matches (including Nationals and Word), even knowing the shooter should get penalized (of course excluding when there are doubts of what a shooter did - "I think," "I'm not sure," etc.).

 

For the SOG quick dumping scenario:

• Take 2 shooters of equal speed shooting the same scenario as in this original post (3 targets and a 2-1-2 sweep).
• Shooter A realizes they got a P after the 2nd shot (1st shot on left target, then 2nd and 3rd shots on middle target, when that 2nd shot should be on the 1st target) but does not dump and attempts to finish the sweep.
• Shooter B realizes they got a P after the 2nd shot (1st shot on left target, then 2nd and 3rd shots on middle target, when that 2nd shot should be on the 1st target), so the shooter quickly dumps the remaining 7 rounds on the middle target.
• When Shooter B quickly dumps on the middle target, they eliminate the movement from sweeping across all 3 of the targets for the remaining 7 rounds, hence, lowering the raw time of that stage. This would be an advantage for Shooter B on the raw time, as Shooter A had to take the time to move across the 3 targets.

 

 

Edited February 1 by Shamrock Sadie

[Equanimous Phil]

3 minutes ago, Shamrock Sadie said:

THIS example by PWB is a SOG.

Yes, SOG. But what if the shooter's answer to the TO's 'why' was different, kind like: 'I completely forget the sequence and once upon a time a TO told me I could dump the rest on one target. When I got the P, I was very stressed and sweat was suddenly running in my palms and for safety reasons I had shoot two-handed'. Would that still be an SOG without the provable intention to gain andvantage?

 

40 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I have been bumped many times due to spotters failing to call misses or Ps though.  I've seen shooters win the overall at the State match level due to bad calls on misses and Ps.  I've seen pretty bad behavior around those calls as well. 

 

That's a much bigger issue than SOG calls.

Agree, the SOG issue is of very low priority and it's more important to address things that are of more impact to the game like bad spotter or TO calls.

 

But someone came up with the SOG topic and it seems that such incidents are handled inconsistently. The SHB has been and will be revised all the time as it's a continuous improvement process to allow a safest and fairest game possible (knowing that it never will be completely fair and safe).

I think every rule change that facilitates some rule consistency is enough benefit. The current situation where you have to ask the shooter why s/he acted like that is just not satisfying, so I posted an approach that came to my mind. But I'm sure there are other and probably better solutions, such as rewording the SOG.

 

And while it's very unlikely (but still possible) to win your category with a P on your score sheet, it still matters, imho. There are shooters who are happier than the winner when their Alias is not on the very bottom of the score board.

 

Btw, my goal is not that are more P applied. Rather, shooters avoid Ps because of unmistakable rules instead of 'gaming' and provoking discussions.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

We need to remember that in MOST instances, the original 'P' is earned from a "Brain Fade".

 

Pleeeeeezzzzzz, lets not compound the situation by adding multiple 'P's into the penalty due to this Brain Fade.

If you think about it, once the first shoot occurs either out of order or wrong gun, etc........ most every shot afterwards will be

out of order.    

 

AND..... if the shooter gets the pistol scenario wrong, odds are the rifle will follow the same sequence.   Multiple 'P's for

such an infraction should be avoided.

 

Just my .02

 

..........Widder

 

[Shooting Bull]

Here's a thought out of left field.  Eliminate the Spirit of the Game penalty but bump the procedural penalty up to 20 seconds.  By doing that you allow the shooter to dump any remaining rounds on a single target without having to be the Amazing Kreskin to figure out why they did it.  But at the same time, there's no way they can outshoot the penalty.  

[Eyesa Horg]

5 hours ago, Shooting Bull said:

Here's a thought out of left field.  Eliminate the Spirit of the Game penalty but bump the procedural penalty up to 20 seconds.  By doing that you allow the shooter to dump any remaining rounds on a single target without having to be the Amazing Kreskin to figure out why they did it.  But at the same time, there's no way they can outshoot the penalty.  

Nope! Don't care for that one.

[Tennessee williams]

8 hours ago, Shamrock Sadie said:

 

THIS example by PWB is a SOG. In the original "Shooter A" post here, the sentence "They then realize they acquired a Procedural, so dumps the remaining 7 rounds on the middle target" is the same type of example.

No ma'am. It is NOT the same type of example. In PWB's example, the shooter is overheard at the unloading table saying you can't get but one P and said it was faster to do it that way.  This showed the shooter's intent which is a prerequisite for the SOG call. 

  In the scenario for shooter A and shooter B (copied directly from your fb post) how do we know WHY the shooter did what they did? Shooter A nor shooter B showed their intent until the TO asked them. This is why I said on your post, you just can't hand out a SOG penalty without knowing why they did it. Shooter A and shooter B are just one example of why you can't just say if someone dumps they get a SOG. The shooter in your post could have been either shooter A or B, but you wouldn't have known because of your "blanket call" because of the dump and this is my point.

 

  

 

8 hours ago, Shamrock Sadie said:

 

There were 3 targets; the shooter hit the first target and the second target (not even hitting the third target), as the shooter "realized they acquired a Procedural." 

  Realizing they got a P does not show intent nor does it mean they "intentionally shot the stage in a manner other than intended in order to gain a competitive advantage" as pointed out by shooter B who remembers the TO from 3 weeks ago saying "it doesn't matter now just dump the rest" We as TOs cannot guess intent, and intent is a prerequisite of the SOG.

   I understand you wrote the scenario to give an example of a SOG. I agree a SOG would be the right call, if it had explained why the shooter did what they did.

 

[John Kloehr]

9 hours ago, Shamrock Sadie said:

Take 2 shooters of equal speed shooting the same scenario as in this original post (3 targets and a 2-1-2 sweep).

• Shooter A shoots the scenario correctly.
• Shooter B realizes they got a P after the 2nd shot...
• When Shooter B quickly dumps on the middle target, ... This would be an advantage over Shooter A...

Probably not an advantage over shooter A, but it would be an advantage over some equal speed shooter C who also earned a P and tried to at least return to some semblance of the specified sweep. The P is quite a bit to overcome against a shooter without the P.

 

And I think this may be an important point about the Spirit Of the Game. Competitive advantage does not require having some potential win over all other shooters, IMO SOG equally applies to the fight for "not last" against any other shooter just ahead of any DQ.

 

So not criticizing you, I think you raised an important point and maybe your fingers on the keyboard got ahead of your thoughts.

 

I invite you to find my earlier post where I described a string in which I earned a P. It moved me way down the rankings, and I do not rank high to begin with. Would you have given me just the P or was my action SOG worthy? Why or why not?

 

 

[Tennessee williams]

9 hours ago, Shamrock Sadie said:

 

I believe it boils down to the lack of calling true penalties at monthly club-level matches. That's on the MDs and TGs at the club not promoting the calling of penalties, which trickles down to the spotters/TOs. Spotters/TOs at monthly matches get lax on calling penalties, then it gets carried on to annual and above matches (including Nationals and Word), even knowing the shooter should get penalized (of course excluding when there are doubts of what a shooter did - "I think," "I'm not sure," etc.).

 

For the SOG quick dumping scenario:

• Take 2 shooters of equal speed shooting the same scenario as in this original post (3 targets and a 2-1-2 sweep).
• Shooter A shoots the scenario correctly.
• Shooter B realizes they got a P after the 2nd shot (1st shot on left target, then 2nd and 3rd shots on middle target, when that 2nd shot should be on the 1st target), so the shooter quickly dumps the remaining 7 rounds on the middle target.
• When Shooter B quickly dumps on the middle target, they eliminate the movement from sweeping across all 3 of the targets for the remaining 7 rounds, hence, lowering the raw time of that stage. This would be an advantage over Shooter A, which had to take the time to move across the 3 targets.

 

 

This is what has most people confused in my opinion. 

  You DO NOT HAVE to gain an advantage to earn a SOG penalty. Likewise, just because you DON'T gain an advantage does not mean you can't earn a SOG penalty. So, whether you gain an advantage or not, has no relevance in a SOG call at all as the rule is written.

  If you can answer this question with a yes without guessing intent, then call a SOG:

  Did the shooter intentionally try to gain an advantage by shooting the stage other than the way it was intended?

  

Here is an example of not gaining an advantage and earning a SOG: The shooter for whatever reason thinks they can gain 2 seconds because their transition is 12 seconds faster going Pistol, Rifle, shotgun than it would be going the stage directed Pistol, Shotgun, rifle. Shooter shoots it p,r,sg and when asked why they did that, said it was faster for them to do it that way. SOG

 

Here is an example of gaining time in the sweep and it not being a SOG. The shooter gets lost in the difficult scenario and realizes they have a P and dumps the last 3 or 4 rounds on a plate. When asked why, the shooter said they were lost as last years Easter eggs and didn't know what to do. No SOG

[Shamrock Sadie]

1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

No ma'am. It is NOT the same type of example. In PWB's example, the shooter is overheard at the unloading table saying you can't get but one P and said it was faster to do it that way.  This showed the shooter's intent which is a prerequisite for the SOG call. 

  In the scenario for shooter A and shooter B (copied directly from your fb post) how do we know WHY the shooter did what they did? Shooter A nor shooter B showed their intent until the TO asked them. This is why I said on your post, you just can't hand out a SOG penalty without knowing why they did it. Shooter A and shooter B are just one example of why you can't just say if someone dumps they get a SOG. The shooter in your post could have been either shooter A or B, but you wouldn't have known because of your "blanket call" because of the dump and this is my point.

 

 

  Realizing they got a P does not show intent nor does it mean they "intentionally shot the stage in a manner other than intended in order to gain a competitive advantage" as pointed out by shooter B who remembers the TO from 3 weeks ago saying "it doesn't matter now just dump the rest" We as TOs cannot guess intent, and intent is a prerequisite of the SOG.

   I understand you wrote the scenario to give an example of a SOG. I agree a SOG would be the right call, if it had explained why the shooter did what they did.

 

=============

"No Sir".... The shooter I detailed in my scenario did it intentionally. I did not add in the description that they got confused and shot it wrong, as described in your Shooter B.  "They then realize they acquired a Procedural, so dumps the remaining 7 rounds on the middle target." They intentionally dumped the last 7 shots.

Reel it in, buddy. I DO NOT just hand out SOG's freely and don't make blanket calls either. I never said to do that on the FB post nor here.

So as a matter of fact, a couple of weeks ago this happened at a match where I was at the loading table and watched the shooter. The shooter knew they had a P (different sweep) after the second shot, said something like Ugh in disgust, then quickly shot the last 8 rounds on the middle target (of 3) very fast. After he finished, the spotters and TO looked back at me, as they knew he had intentionally dumped the rounds to make up some speed on . I shook my head and said something like, I'm not spotting; you guys have to make the call. Then I said if you're not going to call it, then at least go give the shooter a talkin' to, because he needs to know. A P was called, but no SOG.

[Shamrock Sadie]

42 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Probably not an advantage over shooter A, but it would be an advantage over some equal speed shooter C who also earned a P and tried to at least return to some semblance of the specified sweep. The P is quite a bit to overcome against a shooter without the P.

 

And I think this may be an important point about the Spirit Of the Game. Competitive advantage does not require having some potential win over all other shooters, IMO SOG equally applies to the fight for "not last" against any other shooter just ahead of any DQ.

 

So not criticizing you, I think you raised an important point and maybe your fingers on the keyboard got ahead of your thoughts.

 

I invite you to find my earlier post where I described a string in which I earned a P. It moved me way down the rankings, and I do not rank high to begin with. Would you have given me just the P or was my action SOG worthy? Why or why not?

 

 

Yep - I went to fast with the keyboard. Shooter B has the advantage on raw time. I'll fix it.

[Lone Spur Jake SASS #7728]

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.  "Ooh....I am old, I am a new shooter, I didn't take my meds, my wife is harassing me, I forgot my ammo, etc., etc., etc., a shooter screwed up and had a "Train Wreck" on a stage.  So the wrest of the shooters at a club, State, Regional, Nat'l, World Championship match should be "penalized" by that shooter not getting all the penalties they earned?

[Tennessee williams]

22 minutes ago, Shamrock Sadie said:

=============

"No Sir".... The shooter I detailed in my scenario did it intentionally. I did not add in the description that they got confused and shot it wrong, as described in your Shooter B.  "They then realize they acquired a Procedural, so dumps the remaining 7 rounds on the middle target." They intentionally dumped the last 7 shots.

 

Yes ma'am, they're the same. I copied and pasted your post word for word. Matter of fact, it's a picture of your post. The difference is, In my scenario the TO asked why the shooter did what they did. In yours, they did not. They only awarded a SOG.

22 minutes ago, Shamrock Sadie said:

 

Reel it in, buddy. I DO NOT just hand out SOG's freely and don't make blanket calls either. I never said to do that on the FB post nor here.

 

Just the fact you know you got a P and dumped doesn't mean you did it to gain an advantage. Could've been confused or been told in the past to just dump because you already got a P. That's the 2nd time you've told me to "reel it in". I'm only discussing a call. When 2 similar personalities disagree it may not smell like roses.

22 minutes ago, Shamrock Sadie said:

 

So as a matter of fact, a couple of weeks ago this happened at a match where I was at the loading table and watched the shooter. The shooter knew they had a P (different sweep) after the second shot, said something like Ugh in disgust, then quickly shot the last 8 rounds on the middle target (of 3) very fast. After he finished, the spotters and TO looked back at me, as they knew he had intentionally dumped the rounds to make up some speed on . 

...how did they know? Because he did it fast? Because he saved time? Did they even inquire as to why he did it? You said they just knew. That could be guessing intent. From only what you said that I quoted, it could be possible he had been told in the past "you already got a P just dump it". We've ALL heard a TO say that before. Not saying that's the case, but it's possible and how would you know?

 

[Tennessee williams]

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

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.  "Ooh....I am old, I am a new shooter, I didn't take my meds, my wife is harassing me, I forgot my ammo, etc., etc., etc., a shooter screwed up and had a "Train Wreck" on a stage.  So the wrest of the shooters at a club, State, Regional, Nat'l, World Championship match should be "penalized" by that shooter not getting all the penalties they earned?

I don't know that anybody is saying that but would you want a "cheater" call called on you if it wasn't intentional? That's what a SOG is when it doesn't have to be politically correct. We have penalties for "unintentional". Those are Ps.

[Lone Spur Jake SASS #7728]

If SASS had multiple "P,s" for a shooter, whether brain fade, intentional, etc., then there would not be any time wasted on whether to give them an SOG.

The "cheaters" would learn really quick not to try and cheat.  The other shooters would listen to the TO on what to do next if they get out of "sync."

It's not that complicated.  "If you earn it, you get it."

[John Kloehr]

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

It's not that complicated.  "If you earn it, you get it."

So should I count you in those that think I earned an SOG?

 

Not saying you would be wrong, just want to know. Because I may have earned it.

[Griff]

10 hours ago, Shooting Bull said:

Here's a thought out of left field.  Eliminate the Spirit of the Game penalty but bump the procedural penalty up to 20 seconds.  By doing that you allow the shooter to dump any remaining rounds on a single target without having to be the Amazing Kreskin to figure out why they did it.  But at the same time, there's no way they can outshoot the penalty.  

I gotta disagree... If you wanna bump any penalty up is should be the MSV... No way should a P be a bigger hit on one's scorecard than a MSV.  No matter how many brain fades you have in the course of any single stage, should the penalty be greater than just one safety infraction, no matter how minor. 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

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

If SASS had multiple "P,s" for a shooter, whether brain fade, intentional, etc., then there would not be any time wasted on whether to give them an SOG.

The "cheaters" would learn really quick not to try and cheat.  The other shooters would listen to the TO on what to do next if they get out of "sync."

It's not that complicated.  "If you earn it, you get it."

 

And there are times when you get it and didn't earn it.

 

How many misses are given when the shooter didn't miss?

And I'm sure a few 'P' have been awarded without the shooter making any errors.

 

When it comes to this subject of 'SOG' penalty, it might be just my lack of reading skills but.... there are a couple words

used in the penalty description that either validate using the SOG penalty or not.  Those words are "Willfully" and "Intent".

 

Its Saturday morning.  Everybody got up before 7:00, packed up the truck and headed out to enjoy a fun day with 

like minded friends.   In all the excitement to shoot and sudden stress spike at the sound of the 'Beep', the shooter

gets a 'brain fart'.   

During the processing of brain cells trying to keep their thoughts together, the shooter remembers a previous TO

instructing them to just shoot at 'any target' and finish the stage.

 

Do you really think dumping a few rounds on one of the targets warrants usage of the SOG penalty when we

really don't know the intent of the shooter UNLESS we ask, etc........

 

..........Widder

 

[Griff]

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

If SASS had multiple "P,s" for a shooter, whether brain fade, intentional, etc., then there would not be any time wasted on whether to give them an SOG.

The "cheaters" would learn really quick not to try and cheat.  The other shooters would listen to the TO on what to do next if they get out of "sync."

It's not that complicated.  "If you earn it, you get it."

The TO is under no obligation to tell a shooter "what to do next if they get out of sync."

[Eyesa Horg]

Most try I think. But in reality the time taken during the fade probably is more than any dump might save at that point. For myself, I always try to finish the stage the best I can remember. You'll find out if ya picked the right target shortly!

[Fretless]

12 hours ago, Lone Spur Jake SASS #7728 said:

If SASS had multiple "P,s" for a shooter, whether brain fade, intentional, etc., then there would not be any time wasted on whether to give them an SOG.

The "cheaters" would learn really quick not to try and cheat.  The other shooters would listen to the TO on what to do next if they get out of "sync."

It's not that complicated.  "If you earn it, you get it."

Example:  4 targets.  Stage calls for a 10 round Nevada sweep starting on either end, double tapping the outside targets.

Our shooter forgets the double taps, and just shoots a single tap Nevada sweep.

 

Under the current rules that shooter would earn a P on the second shot, and probably not know until they were finished that they had done anything wrong.

 

With unlimited Ps that shooter would earn 8 procedural penalties, because only their 1st and 8th shots were on the correct targets.

 

Let's not venture down that road

[Ashley D Austin]

Thank you for bring this subject up. I have seen a number of times experienced shooters dump after getting a P and their buddies support their decision by saying, "You can get only one P".

 

[Equanimous Phil]

34 minutes ago, Fretless said:

With unlimited Ps that shooter would earn 8 procedural penalties, because only their 1st and 8th shots were on the correct targets.

That's why I came up with idea of maximum one P in each shooting string for sequence errors. In your example, it would still result in one P only.

 

I guess the crux of the matter is also the magnitude of all the time penalties. I guess those values were chosen back when average stage times were quite longer. As I heard (I began CAS in 2018), the game changed a lot due to bigger and closer targets, short stroked guns, and probably a higher level of practiced skills. The game changed but the time penalties didn't and may become a mismatch? A ten second penalty seems like an eternity these days, so people don't want to even think about multiple Ps. But what if a P was only a 5 second penalty? (While a miss could be 3 seconds, MSV still 10 seconds, and SOG still 30 sec)

Edited February 1 by Equanimous Phil

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

I do think this was important to bring up, for clarity if nothing else, but if someone actually has the intent to take an advantage (cheat) on a stage after they have earned a P, then they are just as likely to "claim ignorance" and say they just forgot the sequence. Yes, we are pretty sure why they did it but do we really know for sure. Mattie Ross said it best, "who knows what's in a man's heart?". If someone actually heard them state why they were gaming the stage, THEN they earned the SOG.

[Lone Spur Jake SASS #7728]

Don't know about other folks, but in 28yrs of shooting SASS, in 9 different states, I have never seen a TO tell a shooter who got out of sequence to just "dump" the remaining rounds.   If I had seen it, that TO and shooter would be talked to and need to understand that you don't do that.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

I'm curious.

 

When did the SOG penalty become a SASS rule/guideline and when was the penalty defined as our guide to 

warrant the penalty.

 

Thanks to anyone who might know this answer.

 

..........Widder