What's your call

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

The SOG penalty is a hold over remnant from the old way of running the game which included the mindset of, "how dare you do it differently than how I think it should be done - so you must be wrong".

 

How about we default to the shooter "owns the stage" after the first shot goes down range and let them figure out the best way for them to complete the course of fire.

 

Unless you implement a "Required Default" sequence (say a single tap Nevada sweep) to revert to in the case of a brain fade - the field will never be level anyway.

And what happens if your desired default is slower than the correct sequence?

Or the target array does not lend itself to the default?

 

Or even answer this - currently what is acceptable after a brain fade?

You don't want me to dump, so can I triple tap? 

Double tap? 

Single tap alternate?

 

Unless those answers are implemented and codified into rules - every "choice" of sequence is inconsistent and potentially advantageous for X shooter vs Y shooter.

 

The shooter has already earned a penalty - let them complete the stage to the best of their ability.

There is NO competitive advantage to taking a "P" - and if there is; that is a failing of the stage writer - not the shooter.

 

Everyone does not have to engage a stage in the exact same manner - but everyone must have the OPTION to do so.

The shooter earns a "P" and then dumps - so what?

As long as every shooter in the same situation has the same option - the problem is solved.

[Tennessee williams]

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

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.

   I'd wager there's a Butt-ton of people that have seen/heard this or even said this for one reason or another. I agree it shouldn't be instructed for the very reason of this thread.

 

  It's funny the people who only look for a dump to call a SOG. One of my favorite scenarios is 5 targets with shooting these targets in this order.

1,3,3,2,3,3,4,3,3,5 (it shoots better than it reads).

 For me as a duelist, a single tap sweep is the same as a dump time-wise. If my 1st 2 shots were on target 1 I'd have a P. Now the question comes to this: Can I single or double tap sweep instead of dump and not get a SOG? No Sir. Not if I do it with the intent of gaining an advantage. That is why it doesn't matter if you gain an advantage or not. What matters is if you shoot differently to try to. 

  My Daddy always said take a man as a man...until you find out he's an azzhole. That may be why I usually give folks the benefit of the doubt. Atleast until I find them out.

  

 

 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

   I'd wager there's a Butt-ton of people that have seen/heard this or even said this for one reason or another. I agree it shouldn't be instructed for the very reason of this thread.

 

  It's funny the people who only look for a dump to call a SOG. One of my favorite scenarios is 5 targets with shooting these targets in this order.

1,3,3,2,3,3,4,3,3,5 (it shoots better than it reads).

 For me as a duelist, a single tap sweep is the same as a dump time-wise. If my 1st 2 shots were on target 1 I'd have a P. Now the question comes to this: Can I single or double tap sweep instead of dump and not get a SOG? No Sir. Not if I do it with the intent of gaining an advantage. That is why it doesn't matter if you gain an advantage or not. What matters is if you shoot differently to try to. 

  My Daddy always said take a man as a man...until you find out he's an azzhole. That may be why I usually give folks the benefit of the doubt. Atleast until I find them out.

  

 

 

 

Golly TW, that's poetry:

 

"Benefit of the doubt

until you find them out".

 

You might earn a blue star from PWB for that one.   Or not!

 

..........Widder

 

[Griff]

3 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

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

In the 2006 SHB, the language & penalty for the SOG was delineated from the FTE language to read:

Quote

A “spirit of the game” infraction occurs when a competitor willfully or intentionally disregards the stage instructions in order to obtain a competitive advantage (i.e., taking the penalty would result in a lower score or faster time than following the instructions) and is not assessed simply because a competitor “makes a mistake.” In such a case, in addition to any penalties for misses, a 30-second failure to engage/Spirit of the Game penalty is assessed.
Shooting ammunition that does not meet the power factor or minimum velocity is also a “spirit of the game” infraction. Two “spirit of the game” penalties within a match will result in a Match Disqualification.

SHB Ver 12, 2006

 

Prior to this, the SHB had read :

Quote

Failure to Engage
A "failure to engage" occurs when a competitor
willfully or intentionally disregards the stage instructions
in order to obtain a competitive ad-
Copyright, Single Action Shooting Society, Inc. 23
SASS Shooters Handbook 2/00
Ninth Edition
vantage (i.e., taking the penalty would result in a
lower score or faster time than following the instructions)
and is not assessed simply because a
competitor "makes a mistake". In such a case, in
addition to any penalties for misses, a 3D-second
failure to engage/Spirit of the Game penalty is assessed.
For example, a shooting problem at a club match
had the competitor start the stage by knocking a
"stick of dynamite" over with a bullwhip. This
procedure required swinging the whip across the
dynamite stick just a few feet away. It was possible
to miss, and many did. You had to keep swinging
until you got the dynamite.
One shooter, determining he could shave some time
by taking a penalty rather than attempting to knock
over the dynamite, simply threw the bullwhip on
the ground and went after the targets.
In Cowboy Action Shooting" we call this "failure
to engage." And, it definitely is not in keeping
with "Spirit of the Game".

SHB, Ver 9, 2000

 

While I'm missing several earlier versions, my 1997 Handbook doesn't detail an exact penalty for a SOG, nor does my earliest, from 1989.

Edited February 1 by Griff
went back to look at SHBs 12-14, all have the above language.

[Griff]

Actually, I need to correct the above, separation of the FTE & SOG didn't happen until, SHB 22.3, 2017, when it was changed to read:

Quote

FAILURE TO ENGAGE/SPIRIT OF THE GAME
A Failure to Engage or a Spirit of the Game infraction carries a 30 second penalty. The accumulation of two Failure to Engage/Spirit of the Game penalties in the same match results in a Match Disqualification Penalty.
- Willfully shooting a stage other than the way it was intended in order to gain a competitive advantage (Spirit of the Game).
- Shooting ammunition that does not meet the power factor or minimum velocity.
The penalty is applied for each stage a competitor is checked and their ammunition is found to not meet the power factor or minimum velocity (Spirit of the Game).
- Willfully refusing to make an attempt to complete any non-shooting procedure written within the stage instructions (Failure to Engage).

SHB 22.3, 2017, pg 23.

[Billy Boots, # 20282 LTG-Regulator]

4 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

The SOG penalty is a hold over remnant from the old way of running the game which included the mindset of, "how dare you do it differently than how I think it should be done - so you must be wrong".

 

How about we default to the shooter "owns the stage" after the first shot goes down range and let them figure out the best way for them to complete the course of fire.

 

Unless you implement a "Required Default" sequence (say a single tap Nevada sweep) to revert to in the case of a brain fade - the field will never be level anyway.

And what happens if your desired default is slower than the correct sequence?

Or the target array does not lend itself to the default?

 

Or even answer this - currently what is acceptable after a brain fade?

You don't want me to dump, so can I triple tap? 

Double tap? 

Single tap alternate?

 

Unless those answers are implemented and codified into rules - every "choice" of sequence is inconsistent and potentially advantageous for X shooter vs Y shooter.

 

The shooter has already earned a penalty - let them complete the stage to the best of their ability.

There is NO competitive advantage to taking a "P" - and if there is; that is a failing of the stage writer - not the shooter.

 

Everyone does not have to engage a stage in the exact same manner - but everyone must have the OPTION to do so.

The shooter earns a "P" and then dumps - so what?

As long as every shooter in the same situation has the same option - the problem is solved.

EXCELLENT.  Thank you.

I have thought about this tread far to much over last few days.  It just seems to be going down the wrong road to me, but that's me. 

I believe most every shooter, especially the competitive ones, shoot with indent/purpose and when a mistake or confusion happens, then with every intention to get threw stage best they can.  If the intent is orally voiced in a manner that sounds like in bad spirits, even to a trusted fellow shooter, then so be it.  They should have been quiet on the intent.  But, if their action was within rules as per the dump, IMO, they did what they thought best at the" spur of the moment".    Perhaps that shooter might have later thought that there could have been a different action not to offend someone.  Would this particular incident been perfectly correct if TO said dump...shooter is on the clock and little time for discussion, 10 second P is already in place.  I know it is just time and simply a game.

And, do we need to use the word "cheater" for this shooter.

[John Kloehr]

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

... do we need to use the word "cheater" for this shooter.

Completely different sport, first rounds were long range shots at distant targets. Misses cost 5 seconds, and 5 of these targets.

 

Took several rounds and about 10 seconds for non-optics shooters to hit them, if they could.

 

Much faster to throw five rounds sorta in the direction of the targets, and then go for the rest of targets.

 

Those who stuck to hitting each of the first targets no matter how long it took ended up not getting a chance at all the easy targets as total time of stage was capped.

 

So this stage had double penalties built into it. The next time I shoot this competition, I will game it. Many shooters did. And this other sport has no gaming penalty.

 

SASS does have a gaming penalty (SOG) but I have never seen SASS stages written to penalize shooters who  don't game it either.

[Tennessee williams]

1 hour ago, Billy Boots, # 20282 LTG-Regulator said:

 

And, do we need to use the word "cheater" for this shooter.

  In my opinion SOG is Synonymous with CHEATER. I've never been too good at not offending people. Cheaters cheat on purpose. Wondering after the fact if you cheated or not in my opinion proves you didn't.

   If you cheat, you know you did. I've known people to cheat. From supposedly not mentioning a dropped gun that wasn't seen to taking 2 big steps back to bump a TO after earning a P on a shooting string. I have zero use for that. 

 

39 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

 

Those who stuck to hitting each of the first targets no matter how long it took ended up not getting a chance at all the easy targets as total time of stage was capped.

  Our stage total times have a max time limit as well, we just don't stop the shooter. I don't know why I mentioned that. 

[Ozark Huckleberry]

17 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

How about we default to the shooter "owns the stage" after the first shot goes down range and let them figure out the best way for them to complete the course of fire.

 

Stage: 5 pistol knockdown, 5 rifle knockdown, 1 dump plate. (shotgun irrelevant for the example)

 

Stage description, Order is shooter's choice. With pistols engage 5 near knockdowns until down, then dump remaining rounds on plate. With rifle, engage 5 far knockdowns until down, then dump remaining rounds on plate.

 

Shooter steps up, starts with rifle. Knocks down 5 pistol knockdowns, then 5 rifle knockdowns. With pistol 1, shooter dumps 5 shots over tops of 5 pistol knockdowns (shooting where they were), then dups pistol 2 into the plate.

 

What's the call, if you don't consider SOG?

[Captain Bill Burt]

37 minutes ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

 

Stage: 5 pistol knockdown, 5 rifle knockdown, 1 dump plate. (shotgun irrelevant for the example)

 

Stage description, Order is shooter's choice. With pistols engage 5 near knockdowns until down, then dump remaining rounds on plate. With rifle, engage 5 far knockdowns until down, then dump remaining rounds on plate.

 

Shooter steps up, starts with rifle. Knocks down 5 pistol knockdowns, then 5 rifle knockdowns. With pistol 1, shooter dumps 5 shots over tops of 5 pistol knockdowns (shooting where they were), then dups pistol 2 into the plate.

 

What's the call, if you don't consider SOG?

Do misses on the dump target count? If so I would call 5 misses.

[Ozark Huckleberry]

15 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Do misses on the dump target count? If so I would call 5 misses.

Why? Dump target was ‘remaining rounds’. Where did shooter have remaining rounds?

[Eyesa Horg]

How about a P for shooting the pistol knockdowns with the rifle?

[Captain Bill Burt]

25 minutes ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

Why? Dump target was ‘remaining rounds’. Where did shooter have remaining rounds?

It's a simple question, do misses on the dump target count as misses?  If so, then once the shooter finished with the rifle there were no remaining targets to be shot other than the dump, which the shooter 'missed' five times.  Shoot where it was applies to prop failures, which this wasn't.

 

3 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

How about a P for shooting the pistol knockdowns with the rifle?

No, shooting the wrong target with the wrong gun is a miss.

Edited February 2 by Captain Bill Burt

[Ozark Huckleberry]

22 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

If so, then once the shooter finished with the rifle there were no remaining targets to be shot other than the dump, which the shooter 'missed' five times.  Shoot where it was applies to prop failures, which this wasn't.

I must be misreading this:

 

SHB p. 13: In the event a target fails or is downed, the shooter should “shoot where it was.”

 

But I’m more than certain you know more than I do, so let me adjust the shooter’s outcome to bring the example to the point — so instead of 5 pistol rounds over the knockdowns, the shooter puts all 10 on the dump plate. 
 

In either case, let’s  avoid getting twisted up on the non sequiter of how to deal with downed targets. The shooter finds a way to avoid the more difficult pistol shots and dump the pistols, instead of actually engaging the stage as intended. Without an SOG, it becomes a clean stage. 

Edited February 2 by Ozark Huckleberry

[Ozark Huckleberry]

19 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

No, shooting the wrong target with the wrong gun is a miss.

And the rifle misses were made up. 

[Captain Bill Burt]

22 minutes ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

And the rifle misses were made up. 

Respectfully, if I were the TO I would not consider the shooter to have made up the rifle misses.

Edited February 2 by Captain Bill Burt
Overly blunt

[Eyesa Horg]

35 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

It's a simple question, do misses on the dump target count as misses?  If so, then once the shooter finished with the rifle there were no remaining targets to be shot other than the dump, which the shooter 'missed' five times.  Shoot where it was applies to prop failures, which this wasn't.

 

No, shooting the wrong target with the wrong gun is a miss.

I went with that due to my getting a P for clipping a pistol target after a rifle malfunction and sort of an AD when I brought it back up after clearing the jam.

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

 

Stage: 5 pistol knockdown, 5 rifle knockdown, 1 dump plate. (shotgun irrelevant for the example)

 

Stage description, Order is shooter's choice. With pistols engage 5 near knockdowns until down, then dump remaining rounds on plate. With rifle, engage 5 far knockdowns until down, then dump remaining rounds on plate.

 

Shooter steps up, starts with rifle. Knocks down 5 pistol knockdowns, then 5 rifle knockdowns. With pistol 1, shooter dumps 5 shots over tops of 5 pistol knockdowns (shooting where they were), then dups pistol 2 into the plate.

 

What's the call, if you don't consider SOG?

Five misses with rifle... (shooting incorrect target with rifle), then 5 misses with pistol (available dump target negates the "shooting where they were" guidance.  And I'd ask why the shooter shot the stage the way they did.

 

If the TO, I'd have tried to redirect the shooter from shooting any more pistol KDs with rifle after 1st shot, instructing them to continue with rifle KDs, then place remaining rounds on dump plate with rifle, proceed to pistol and lastly to dump remaining rounds on dump plate, thereby preserving a clean stage.  Clearly a little coaching is warranted.

 

This might actually be a case where I'd stop the shooter, directing them to the unloading table, hand off the timer, and attempt to explain why I stopped him.  Offer a reshoot, & continue on with life.  

[Hoss]

2 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

How about a P for shooting the pistol knockdowns with the rifle?

Not a p. 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

4 hours ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

 

Stage: 5 pistol knockdown, 5 rifle knockdown, 1 dump plate. (shotgun irrelevant for the example)

 

Stage description, Order is shooter's choice. With pistols engage 5 near knockdowns until down, then dump remaining rounds on plate. With rifle, engage 5 far knockdowns until down, then dump remaining rounds on plate.

 

Shooter steps up, starts with rifle. Knocks down 5 pistol knockdowns, then 5 rifle knockdowns. With pistol 1, shooter dumps 5 shots over tops of 5 pistol knockdowns (shooting where they were), then dups pistol 2 into the plate.

 

What's the call, if you don't consider SOG?

Doing away with the "subjective" and inconsistently applied "SoG" penalty by allowing the shooter to own the stage does NOT exempt the shooter from earned penalties. 

It simply applies the SAME penalties to each shooter that performs the SAME action without requiring "intent".

 

In your initial example:

Your shooter earns five MISSES for the rifle rounds that enaged the pistol targets.

Shooters eats 25 seconds based on their objective shooting result - no need for a SoG or any need to ascertain intent.

 

In your second example:

Your shooter earns FIVE misses for the rifle rounds that engaged the pistol targets AND they earn a PROCEDURAL for engaging the dump target 10 times as five pistol rounds should have engaged AIR above the pistol rack and THEN five rounds should have engaged the dump.  

Targets that do not match the firearm type are "invisible and unaffected" when engaged by the wrong firearm. 

The pistol KD's that were downed by the rifle are STILL IN PLAY for the pistol and must be engaged by shooting where they were for the minimum number of expected engagements (minimum engagement would be five rounds for the five KD's - same as if the KD targets had fallen by wind or rack vibration).

 

As the shooter does not have any pistol misses - (all pistol rounds struck a pistol target) - the assignable penalty is engaging/ striking pistol targets in the wrong order.

 

Shooter eats 35 seconds worth of penalty for their objective shooting result - no need for a SoG penalty or for anyone to ascertain intent.

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

3 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

As the shooter does not have any pistol misses - (all pistol rounds struck a pistol target) - the assignable penalty is engaging/ striking pistol targets in the wrong order.

 

Shooter eats 35 seconds worth of penalty for their objective shooting result - no need for a SoG penalty or for anyone to ascertain intent.

What pistol targets did they engage in the wrong order?

They engaged 5 "shoot where they were" targets then 5 on the plate.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

5 minutes ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

What pistol targets did they engage in the wrong order?

They engaged 5 "shoot where they were" targets then 5 on the plate.

In the second example posted by Ozark - he changed the question to dumping 10 pistol on the dump plate.

 

So I responded as initial example and 2nd example.

Two differing results based on two different parameters.

Edited February 2 by Creeker, SASS #43022

[Tennessee williams]

Getting back on target pun intended, lets use Ozarks question changed up a bit in a more relevant to the topic manner. I believe I know what he was getting at(if not, he can correct me). His new question is this:

   10,10,2+

Stage consists of 5 small knockdowns and 1 dump plate.

2 sg kd

Stand and deliver. Gun order is sg last.

  Using the pistols and rifle in any order Knock down the 5 p/r kds. Any rounds leftover after clearing the pistol and rifle knockdowns are to be put on the dump plate(misses on the dump count). Pistol and rifle knockdowns can be made up with shotgun if needed.

  Using the sg, engage the 2 sg kd in any order.

 

  Shooter A shoots pistols blazingly fast at the KDs, knocking one down and then shoots rifle blazingly fast at the KDs knocking the other 4 over with 2 rounds left which are put on the dump plate. The shooter knocks down the 2 sg kds with sg for a time of 15.5 seconds and goes to the unloading table and unloads.

 

  Shooter B dumps both pistols into the berm, then shoots rifle and clears the KDs with 5 rounds left which he put on the dump plate. The shooter knocks down both sg KDs for a total stage time of 17.2 seconds and goes to the unloading table to unload. While he is there the unloading table officer asks why he dumped his pistols into the berm. He replies with, "I knew I'd probably miss with my pistols anyway so I used them first so the misses wouldn't count and just dumped them toward the berm somewhere as fast as I could to save time with them, then use the rifle to aim with."

What's yer calls for A and B? Ozark wants to know.

 

[Ozark Huckleberry]

5 hours ago, Tennessee williams said:

I believe I know what he was getting at(if not, he can correct me). His new question is this:

   10,10,2+

There ya go -- you're a helluva lot better at putting it to a workable hypothetical than this ol' lead-chunker. 

 

For the whole plugged nickel my agreement might be worth -- I agree with your point -- SOG = cheater. Violating SOG in ignorance (guilty ) isn't cheating, but there still needs to be something in the holster to pull out for someone who deliberately takes gaming the stage to the dark side.

 

Sorry for the thread drift -- it was intended to keep with the SOG theme, but then it got into the whole tar baby of plates, misses, 'shoot where it was ', along with a coupla  'If I was TO . . .' thrown in for good measure.

 

What would a 'What's Your Call?' thread be without all that?

 

Besides -- you're almost to 4 pages now.

 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

If the SAME result is achieved - the SAME penalties are recorded.

 

It is nobody's business "why" anyone did anything - the only thing that matters is the objective measurable result of their actions.

 

Our goal should always be to eliminate subjective and opinion based calls.

When we hear a spotter say "I THINK"; we immediately reject their input as it applies to calling misses and Procedurals.

 

But for a THIRTY second penalty - labeling someone a "cheater"; suddenly subjectivity, opinion and "I THINK" have validity?

 

Score on objective results - nothing else.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Howdy JEDI Creeker.

 

I do like your reasoning and your post above about 'subjectivity'.

 

But I gotta ask this...... with the words "Willfully". and "Intent" given to all of us

in the definition of SOG, in which we are expected to use as a guideline, doesn't

those words actually put parameters around 'subjectivity'?

 

Or should I say, it puts constraints on subjectivity.

I think the definition of SOG and what is required to warrant the SOG penalty should

be looked at, probably more to the reasoning of what you, Billy and a couple others

have posted on this thread.

 

I will admit, if the occasion occurred in front of me (TO or Spotter) and a shooter

did a few shot dump because of his/her confusion, I would not think of a SOG penalty.....

UNLESS that shooter openly made a comment as to their intent.  That's just me.

 

..........Widder

 

 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

1 hour ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

Howdy JEDI Creeker.

 

I do like your reasoning and your post above about 'subjectivity'.

 

But I gotta ask this...... with the words "Willfully". and "Intent" given to all of us

in the definition of SOG, in which we are expected to use as a guideline, doesn't

those words actually put parameters around 'subjectivity'?

 

Or should I say, it puts constraints on subjectivity.

I think the definition of SOG and what is required to warrant the SOG penalty should

be looked at, probably more to the reasoning of what you, Billy and a couple others

have posted on this thread.

 

I will admit, if the occasion occurred in front of me (TO or Spotter) and a shooter

did a few shot dump because of his/her confusion, I would not think of a SOG penalty.....

UNLESS that shooter openly made a comment as to their intent.  That's just me.

 

..........Widder

 

 

That's kind of my point - why should there be a subjectively applied penalty that disregards the actual offense and depends on "intent"?

The observable action is the same - but the scoresheet reflects different results?

 

Driving 75 in a 55 is 20 over - whether I'm doing it deliberately or just failing to pay attention.  Same ticket.

 

My electricity gets turned off if I don't pay the bill - it doesn't matter whether I had to use the money to buy groceries or I lost the money playing poker.

 

A rock breaks my windshield - whether that rock came from an uncovered load, a tire or Dennis the Menaces slingshot - the replacement cost of my windshield is exactly the same.

 

A target sequence shot out of order is a procedural penalty - whether the shooter has brain fade or they just decide they would rather shoot a Nevada sweep instead of the prescribed sequence.

 

It is immaterial "Why" something happens - it is results we should be concerned with and only those results that should be reflected upon the scoresheet.

 

Afterall - my "intent" is to win every single shoot I go to; but yet I don't.

Folks keep scoring me on my results; but since I try REAL HARD - maybe my intent should be taken into consideration when determining my score?

Edited February 3 by Creeker, SASS #43022

[Widder, SASS #59054]

 I felt my post would bring out a good reply from you.   Thanks

 

..........Widder

 

[Tennessee williams]

11 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

If the SAME result is achieved - the SAME penalties are recorded.

Not with our defined SOG criteria. 

11 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

It is nobody's business "why" anyone did anything - the only thing that matters is the objective measurable result of their actions.

This is the only penalty that jumps out at me with "why" being relevant. I think there's a place for it, and the SOG penalty is in my opinion the proper place. When it is misapplied though, someone is calling someone else a cheater and they'd better not be guessing intent when they do it. 

11 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

 

When we hear a spotter say "I THINK"; we immediately reject their input as it applies to calling misses and Procedurals.

I wholeheartedly disagree with some TOs on this in some situations. Some people, especially people with less assertive personalities just can't speak without using the word think, or I guess. There's also when the shooter asks which target they missed and the spotter says, I "think" it was 3rd shot 2nd target etc.

  Now, I'm not confusing the spotter saying I think they got a P, or I think they shot it wrong. I disregard those.

11 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

But for a THIRTY second penalty - labeling someone a "cheater"; suddenly subjectivity, opinion and "I THINK" have validity?

That's why in my opinion, there can be no doubt and it goes back to what PWB says.

 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

@Tennessee williams

I fully agree the current rule IS the current rule.

But is no one else disturbed by the basis or implementation?

 

IF I were a shooter that was willfully disregarding the instructions to gain an advantage - why on Earth would I self incriminate and admit to it?

 

So we have yet another layer of subjectivity and inconsistent application.

 

The shooter that looks like they did it deliberately - but didn't.

The shooter that did it deliberately and denys it.

The shooter that did it deliberately and admits it.

 

So wouldn't it be better to simply apply real world observable results instead of accusations and hoping the shooters suddenly feels guilty between the firing line and unloading table?

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Its kinda funny (ironic)  in that this SOG penalty triples the penalty time earned by the 'P',

BUT...  the only way it was earned is because of the 'P'.

 

If there really anything to gain after the initial 'P'?

 

 

..........Widder

 

 

 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

1 minute ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

Its kinda funny (ironic)  in that this SOG penalty triples the penalty time earned by the 'P',

BUT...  the only way it was earned is because of the 'P'.

 

If there really anything to gain after the initial 'P'?

 

Consider the scenario I posted in which the shooter committed a procedural by inadvertently skipping the middle target in the first sweep.
(compounded by the time factor for holstering the 1st revolver, then having to redraw and fire it to avoid the miss penalty)

 

He then proceeded to commit multiple additional procedurals in an attempt to offset his error:

The 2nd procedural violation was intentionally (by his own admission) ignoring the stage instructions and quickly dumping the next 5 rounds on the large middle target.
The 3rd procedural violation was for doing so using a faster method than required for his category (two-handed instead of Duelist-style).

IMO, the second and third "P" violations gave him a significant time advantage over any other shooters in the same category who committed a single "P" for engaging the targets "out of order" but who did NOT attempt to "make up the time for the first procedural".

[Tennessee williams]

 

24 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

So wouldn't it be better to simply apply real world observable results instead of accusations and hoping the shooters suddenly feels guilty between the firing line and unloading table?

  So, to me we have a penalty for unintentionally shooting a stage other than the way it is intended. That is a P in the handbook as a brain fade. You didnt mean to do it and you may only earn one P per stage. 

  Then we have a penalty for intentionally shooting a stage other than the way it was intended to try and gain an advantage. This one is the SOG penalty. I think we need to keep this one. 

   I'd be open to listening to a change, but for me to vote for it, it would need to keep the "intentional" aspect of it. It's a pretty hefty penalty to not include a safety infraction but deservedly so.

   I think education of the rules can go a long way toward eliminating bad/no calls by the TO as well as making the shooter less likely to give the occasionally overzealous TO reason to call it in the first place. We know what to do if a target falls down(shoot where it was). It would be easy enough to slip in the RO1 manual the instruction "if you get lost in a sequence, shoot some kind of sweep". As it stands now, the shooter only learns from experience. If their first experience is a TO saying just dump it, that's all they know(that was my first experience).

Just my opinion for what it's worth.

 

[Griff]

I just don't see the subjectivity in the SOG:  You shoot a stage in a manner other than the stage instructions,   I ask "why";  you say, "my way was faster."  No subjectivity,  No guessing or assuming required on my part,   Earning a "P" from "brain fade" is not a prerequisite for earning a SOG penalty, in fact, that would be least likely cause for me to question a shooter on the "why".  And yes, if one has recovered their wits sufficiently after the brain fade, I suppose the astute competitor would forego any incriminating statements.  Maybe why there are so few SOGs handed out.  Does the concept of "better that a 100 guilty men go free, than one innocent man go to prison, not have a place in our game?

 

I sorta dislike, no... in all honesty, I despise traffic cams due to their impartiality... give me the rational, maybe sympathetic officer to listen to my story before giving me a ticket or warning.  (As an officer, I always liked hearing what creative tales folks could come up with).