Palmetto Traveller Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 (edited) We have had a couple of instances lately where a single spotter is calling a P while the other 2 spotters called the shooter clean yet the penalty was assessed. I read the SHB and it does not offer guidance as to whether a majority of the spotters is required to call a P as it is with misses. In one example the shooter is shooting Gunfighter style and double cocks. During the course of the pistol string one spotter says they think the shooter did not shoot the string correctly while the other 2 spotters called the shooter clean. Ignoring the obvious statement of "I don't think he shot that correctly" the benefit of doubt should have gone to the shooter. Is a majority required to assess a P? Edited April 28 by Palmetto Traveller 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Culpepper 32827 Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 The TO has the final say on Ps. And yes a single skitter can call a P. However “I think” is not a call to be considered. 8 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widder, SASS #59054 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Like CC stated, its up to the TO to make a final call on the 'P'. But, a spotter can let the TO know that he/she saw the 'P' and tell the TO what exactly caused the 'P'. Its still up to the TO of make the 'P' official. And also as CC stated, the ...."I think" should never precede a penalty call. ..........Widder 9 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original Lumpy Gritz Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 1 out of 3, BOD goes to the shooter.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 18 minutes ago, Palmetto Traveller said: We have had a couple of instances lately where a single spotter is calling a P while the other 2 spotters called the shooter clean yet the penalty was assessed. I read the SHB and it does not offer guidance as to whether a majority of the spotters is required to call a P as it is with misses. In one example the shooter is shooting Gunfighter style and double cocks. During the course of the pistol string one spotter says they think the shooter did not shoot the string correctly while the other 2 spotters called the shooter clean. Ignoring the obvious statement of "I don't think he shot that correctly" the benefit of doubt should have gone to the shooter. Is a majority required to assess a P? There is NO PENALTY for "double cocking". Recommend RO Course refresher courses for EVERYONE involved. 7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 2 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said: 1 out of 3, BOD goes to the shooter.... That only applies to the spotters' miss count. 7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palmetto Traveller Posted April 29 Author Share Posted April 29 No argument on the BOD issue. In this instance the shooter who double cocks (and no argument about that not being an issue) shot 2 seperate targets and the spotter thought the shooter put both rounds on one target. The other 2 spotters called it clean but one called for a P and the TO went along with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Bill Burt Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 30 minutes ago, Palmetto Traveller said: We have had a couple of instances lately where a single spotter is calling a P while the other 2 spotters called the shooter clean yet the penalty was assessed. I read the SHB and it does not offer guidance as to whether a majority of the spotters is required to call a P as it is with misses. In one example the shooter is shooting Gunfighter style and double cocks. During the course of the pistol string one spotter says they think the shooter did not shoot the string correctly while the other 2 spotters called the shooter clean. Ignoring the obvious statement of "I don't think he shot that correctly" the benefit of doubt should have gone to the shooter. Is a majority required to assess a P? The TO may unilaterally assign penalties for safety violations and procedural errors SHB page 23. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 4 minutes ago, Palmetto Traveller said: No argument on the BOD issue. In this instance the shooter who double cocks (and no argument about that not being an issue) shot 2 seperate targets and the spotter thought the shooter put both rounds on one target. The other 2 spotters called it clean but one called for a P and the TO went along with it. Shooter had the option to appeal that call. First level in the chain would be for the PM to take the discussion off the line and question all parties involved to determine the correct call. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original Lumpy Gritz Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 16 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said: That only applies to the spotters' miss count. Thanks for the reminder I honestly think it should be the same, for both calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hells Comin Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 If the spotter is watching the shooter cock there pistols who's spotting? 4 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Chapo Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 41 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said: There is NO PENALTY for "double cocking". Recommend RO Course refresher courses for EVERYONE involved. If there was, I'd have a P on literally every stage I've ever shot 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palmetto Traveller Posted April 29 Author Share Posted April 29 There never was an issue with double cocking. I added that to give a little background. My point is the TO is supposed to be watching the guns, counting rounds, and seeing the shooter safely through the stage, not watching the targets so the TO really did not "see" the supposed procedural. I agree with OLG in that it should require a majority for Ps as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 As a double cocking GF I know what @Palmetto Traveller is talking about. Because I double cock I can change leads with “relative ease” and it can confuse spotters. It can be very frustrating. Because the counters don’t know or see what I did, “it must be wrong” and “I think” is used often. People think spotting is easy. It’s an important job that few of us take seriously. Sure, it’s for fun and all but I make enough errors all by myself. I don’t need my Posse mates giving me ones I did not, in fact, earn. Big hugs! Scarlett 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hells Comin Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 16 minutes ago, Scarlett said: As a double cocking GF I know what @Palmetto Traveller is talking about. Because I double cock I can change leads with “relative ease” and it can confuse spotters. It can be very frustrating. Because the counters don’t know or see what I did, “it must be wrong” and “I think” is used often. People think spotting is easy. It’s an important job that few of us take seriously. Sure, it’s for fun and all but I make enough errors all by myself. I don’t need my Posse mates giving me ones I did not, in fact, earn. Big hugs! Scarlett Gunfighters are the reason I pick brass. 3 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 7 hours ago, Palmetto Traveller said: No argument on the BOD issue. In this instance the shooter who double cocks (and no argument about that not being an issue) shot 2 seperate targets and the spotter thought the shooter put both rounds on one target. The other 2 spotters called it clean but one called for a P and the TO went along with it. That detail would have been helpful in the OP. 5 hours ago, Palmetto Traveller said: There never was an issue with double cocking. I added that to give a little background. My point is the TO is supposed to be watching the guns, counting rounds, and seeing the shooter safely through the stage, not watching the targets so the TO really did not "see" the supposed procedural. I agree with OLG in that it should require a majority for Ps as well. See all references to "INPUT" SHB pp.23-24 RO1 p.25 RO2 p.8 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts