Dustin, I agree that we all go to these matches to have fun. I just want to clarify my position and maybe you'll see my point.
We have a lot of shooters here in Pa. Back in the early days of silhouette we had a huge amount of shooters. A lot of clubs would get over 100 entries at a local match. Not 50 shooters shooting 2 guns, there was no hunter rifle back then. There'd be 100 or more shooting 1 standard rifle.
In 1986 Ridgway held the first HP National here in PA. Because of the amount of local shooters who could now attend nationals we stressed the importance of complying with the equipment specifications and shooting procedures. We did not want any of our guys to go to Nationals and have a bad experience like you had. We just have always done this. We also do have a non sanctioned deer rifle class for shooters who just want to come and shoot.
I rarely have to deal with protests.I have only ever had one protest filed against my decisions as a match director. That was because I gave someone the benefit of the doubt and was lenient with a decision. That won't happen again. I guess I have a sixth sense for some of this stuff and I head it off before it happens. That I guess comes with experience, I don't think I'm that smart.

Al Foust

cslcAl wrote:I guess I have a sixth sense for some of this stuff and I head it off before it happens.

Now THAT is artful match directing!

Every MD should aspire to that goal if possible.

Some of you should reread some of your statements. Sarcasm and or being jovial doesn't translate well typed in a forum. I'd hope if some of the thoughts expressed in the last few pages are as written, you'd rethink your positions or attitude towards them. This thread actually would synch well with the "Does silhouette need a overhaul thread". If you don't see it or don't get it then feel free to dismiss this post.

That is all...

cedestech wrote:Some of you should reread some of your statements. Sarcasm and or being jovial doesn't translate well typed in a forum. I'd hope if some of the thoughts expressed in the last few pages are as written, you'd rethink your positions or attitude towards them. This thread actually would synch well with the "Does silhouette need a overhaul thread". If you don't see it or don't get it then feel free to dismiss this post.

That is all...

cedestech,
With the exception of a few posts on the first page that were eventually pulled by their author, I think this has been a really helpful and informative thread with excellent communication among those involved. I am dismayed that you see it so differently.

I also don't see the thread to which you refer either. I am certainly not arguing for an overhaul of silhouette - at least not the versions that I play.

BrentD wrote: I also don't see the thread to which you refer either. I am certainly not arguing for an overhaul of silhouette - at least not the versions that I play.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9291

Okay. I don't see a parallel at all. dustinflint's opening post on that thread was a very good one. The rest of the thread seems about par for the course where the NRA and Connor are being discussed with respect to promoting the games. The thread concludes in about the same way all such threads on this topic conclude.

I do not see anything remotely similar in this thread, which is about what is a legal barrel and why and how protests should be handled.

Also, if the protestor is not happy I will gladly forward the protest on to Greg Connor within 48 hours so that it can be lost forever in NRA-land. We just keep the protest private and wait till after the match to bring the jury together to decide the issue (I bring every protest to the jury - I don't decide protests unless it is a very specific question for the MD). I don't see anything in the rule that disallows my procedure (or forbids requiring a protest fee).

This is a comment from an individual that phoned Greg Conner immediately upon hearing the juries decision at the air rifle match, and reported that Greg reversed the jury decision(totally against the NRA rules). Come on Dustin, may you be blessed with dealing with a shooter like you at one of your matches. But then I have always objected to the way Greg appoints a jury after a protest has been made at the nationals, and each protest may get a different jury. Again something that contradicts the rules of appointing and announcing the jury prior to the first shot.

Mary

Innocent wrote:This is a comment from an individual that phoned Greg Conner immediately upon hearing the juries decision at the air rifle match, and reported that Greg reversed the jury decision(totally against the NRA rules). Come on Dustin, may you be blessed with dealing with a shooter like you at one of your matches.

Mary,

That of course was part of the same match that I talked about earlier; very soon after I started shooting. I clearly remember being so upset and taken aback at being disqualified! Of course, being one of my first matches and the first time I had ever been involved in anything like that I asked if there was anything I could do and I was told that the only person that could undo the decision was Greg Connor and that I should call him. At that time, I had no clue who Greg Connor was - if I had I'd never have done that. That debacle was just another part of that nightmare match for me. I was in a place I had never been around a bunch of people I didn't know being told that I was disqualified because of a rule I was confused about and I didn't know what to do. The sad thing was that not one of the experienced shooters there pulled me aside and told me how to handle that situation. I came VERY CLOSE to giving up on silhouette that day; I'm glad I didn't, but I almost did. THAT''S why nothing like that will EVER happen to a new shooter at one of my matches!

So I agree with you, I too hope one day I am blessed to deal with a shooter like I was back then at one of my matches; I'll be able to take that shooter under my wing and make sure he/she does not leave my match thinking about quitting the game.

Dustin

Dustin,

I take the immediate part of the protest to be as written immediate, not at the end of the match. I can give one good reason why this is important. A few years back at the national several protests were submitted at the beginning the the match. Bill Motl's rifle was used as an example. The results of the protest were the rifle was declared illegal (why it was not caught during tech is another story). But being that he has not fired a round, he was able to switch out for a rifle that was not illegal and shoot. The way you are running protests the only option would be to DQ him from the match.

This is one reason to interpret immediate, as immediate.

Greg

Greg,

In certain situations like that one, I agree with you. That's what I was talking about when I wrote this:

dustinflint wrote:One clarification, if someone files a protest BEFORE the match and it's something that can be easily changed before the match starts, we will let the shooter know so that the change can be made.

The ultimate goal is to make sure everyone gets to shoot and everyone has a good time. If the more sensible thing to do is knock something out before the match starts, then so be it. It happens all the time.

Dustin

Dustin,

Just a clarification for me. I was under the impression that a protest cannot be filed until the match is started. This was defined to me to be when the first relay was call to the line. Before the match is started (first relay called) a protest cannot be filed. Is this true?

One more point, I think the rules should be changed that if the rifle passes tech then it should be legal for the match (i.e. no protests allowed).


Greg

GregG wrote:Dustin,

Just a clarification for me. I was under the impression that a protest cannot be filed until the match is started. This was defined to me to be when the first relay was call to the line. Before the match is started (first relay called) a protest cannot be filed. Is this true?

Greg,

I don't know whether a shooter is prohibited from filing a protest before the match has started, but it doesn't really make sense to do so. Until the match has started, as shooter has done nothing that can be protested. For instance, I can warm up at a cowboy match with a chin gun if I want, but I'm not allowed to shoot it in a match. Or, more realistically, we are allowed to shoot off the bench in warmups - it wouldn't make much sense to protest a shooter for shooting off the bench before the match has started, he has done nothing wrong. If the shooter is shooting off the bench DURING the match, different story.

I try not to define anything as a protest if I don't have to. Here is an example: at one of our cowboy silhouette state championships, during warmup a shooter told me that another shooter was shooting a circle insert on his front sight. Circle inserts are clearly illegal -- only posts or beads are allowed. the shooter told me he wanted to protest it and I told him to wait till the match started since no one had done anything wrong - yet. I told the shooter with the circle insert that someone had pointed it out and that he was going to get protested and probably be disqualified. He started to tell me why that insert was in there (it was a post or bead during tech) and I told him that he didn't owe me any explanation - he hadn't broken any rules, yet. He shot a legal insert during the match and everything was fine.

This is basically the same situation as the junior warming up with the glove - nothing illegal has happened until the match has started.

Personally, if I was not the match director and I had a problem with a shooter's equipment during warmup, I'd just go tell the shooter about it so he/she could fix it instead of getting in trouble.

Here is an example on the other side of things: At Winnsboro last year, a shooter came to me and wanted to protest another shooter for scoring his own targets. He cited rule 10.5 which prohibits shooters scoring their own targets. I told him that it didn't look like the shooter had a spotter. He said that didn't matter because he was breaking rule 10.5 and should be disqualified. He REALLY didn't want to pay that $25 but I think he felt committed at that point. So he paid the $25 and I told him that the jury would be called at the end of the match. He said he wanted the issue decided now (during the match). I told him too bad. After the match, the jury came together and looked at the rule and decided to ignore it and not to disqualify the shooter for scoring his own targets. I told the protestor that he could send a written protest to the NRA but he declined to do so.

The second example is exactly the type of situation that has led me to my policy of charging $25 and waiting until the end of the match to have the jury decide protests.

Dustin

well, we have an answer. Greg Connor called while I was driving down the interstate this morning. Now I'm sitting in a rest stop and thought I would send you his reply.

According to Greg, the spirit of the rule is all about preventing the building of heavy, tricked out, match rifles. He confirmed that Hugh Wilson is the guy that had the most to do with this rule.

It is Greg's opinion that rifles with barrels made by the manufacturer would be legal even if they were not the first rifle barrel on that gun. Howeve, he did not sound one hundred and ten percent certain of this. He said that my email, which I posted above, would be brought to the committee for discussion in November. So, there you have it. I think that if you were to buy a barrel off of ebay from somebody parting out an original rifle and you wanted to swap that barrel onto your rifle, I believe that would be legal as I understand Greg.

By the way I did not ask him about the interpretation of the word immediate as it pertains to protest I'll leave that to you guys.

This is one of the things I love about the NRA (please read lots and lots of sarcasm). Any request for a rule review is request accepted it will be next year before the rule committee meets, discussing, send out a request for response and then sometime in the next year or the year after you get your answer. The NRA has never heard of a conference all, email, etc. Why does it take so long other than they are still living in the 1960s.

Greg

Brent, Thanks for posting Greg's reply. Based on his hesitance and my past discussions with several committee members, I would advise shooters to wait till the committee clarifies this.
I am almost certain they will not be in favor of rebarreling of any kind. But I could be wrong if they have gotten pressure from a lot of folks. This subject resurfaces every few years. The last time one of the committee members was informally asking for opinions. I know this because I received a phone call .

Al Foust