No conflict of interest - PA Delegate investigates complaint against PA - recommended letter apology

According to ATA minutes….

Van-Blargan Hensel alleges that Wyatt Readler (#1853544) was allowed to see one pair of doubles on each post as he led a doubles shoot off with her son, Thomas Hensel (#1518589) on June 19 at the Pennsylvania State Shoot. Van-Blargan Hensel claims violation of Section IV-H- 5-a of the ATA rules and Section VII-D-4. The complaint was sent to the Pennsylvania Delegate for investigation on July 18. The delegate recommended no disciplinary action on the complaint and that a letter of apology be sent to Ms. Van-Blargan Hensel and that the ATA office be copied on the letter. The Vice President accepted the recommendation and the Executive Committee voted unanimously to accept also. A copy of the letter from PSSA President Ken Darroch to Ms. Van-Blargan Hensel was received at the ATA office on September 12.

So why didn’t the PA Delegate have a conflict of interest?

I report. You decide.
merlo out

 

Why would there be a conflict of interest?

 

The shoot was the PA State Shoot. Shoot-offs were supervised by PA. Delegate represents at least one of those parties. Delegate was doing the investigation. Sounds like a conflict to me. If I felt was cheated out of a win I might want more than a letter. Jmho

 

My understanding is Mrs. VanBlargan Hensel received a recommendation she volunteer her services in future shootoffs since she obviously knows more about rules than many delegates.

 

I believe what po'd Mrs. VanBlargan Hensel to file a complaint was shoot management denied a rules violation actually occurred.until witnesses came forward and verified she was correct. An immediate apology was not forthcoming therefore her actions were justified. Should the rules violator have been dq'd? Not my call!

 

From what I hear Mrs. VanBlargan Hensel under no circumstances would recommend Mr Readler suffer any consequences for his actions and accepted the ATA's apology. Anyway, I fail to see any provisions in the ATA rulebook that would include do-overs in shootoffs or apologies for rules violations that negate further action.

 

Who expected the Delegate from PA to recommend punishment for PSSA shoot management? What was the role of the delegate during shoot offs? Why did the complaint have to reach the ATA hierarchy? Why couldn’t the matter be solved while shooting?

 

So no one supervising the shoot off knew you CAN’T see a pair every time you change stations?

If I was Thomas it would have happened ONCE. Then I would have had every “official” called to that trap before I shot one more target.

“OK, people, show me where this shooter gets to look at a pair every time they change stations. They got away with it on the first change but that’s it. I’ll stand here all day. I don’t have to be anywhere so you all figure it out and when someone that knows the rules stops it, I will continue. And BTW, when we do start back up I want to see a pair”

 

The referee during the shootoff did not immediately apply the rule until the final station. Of course, the damage was already done, not saying Mr. Hensel would have prevailed anyway. I doubt many 15 yo competitors would know the actual rule or willing to interrupt the shootoff for a PA championship under the circumstances. Since shoot management originally decided there was no infraction of the rules I'm afraid they might have dq'd Thomas for disrupting the harmony of a shoot. Stranger things have happened in the past.

 

Unfortunately this became a he said she said situation where one party, who was warned after the referee noticed an offense was accused of doing it multiple times prior to this. After Mr Hensel brought it to my attention, I immediately spoke with our Delegate and Tournament Director. After interviewing all involved there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue a possible disqualification or a loss of targets based on the ATA failure to fire rule. At that time I informed Mr Hensel of this and recommended that if he wished to pursue it further he should file the above mentioned complaint. Since there was no additional evidence to be presented the Delegate sent the recommendation back to the ATA Vice-President. So even if a another state delegate had followed up on the complaint, the result would have been the same in my opinion. I feel bad for all involved and hopefully they’ll both be back again this year and for many to come. Both are great shooters and lucky to have parents willing to stand up for them!!

 

Maybe get a ref watching the shoot off that knows the rules?
Maybe someone that watches every target, from the first one to the last one?

The next time there is a shoot off at the state shoot I’ll bet whoever is running it lets the shooters know in advance what the rules are. That way there isn’t any “he said, she said”.

 

After speaking to the ref, he did speak to Mr Readler when he saw the infraction. As for watching every target, the ref in question along with the other 3-4 that regularly help are good guys and generally know the rules and are very attentive. I quoted this, as you would be correct if Mr Readler was guilty of what he’s accused of in the complaint. It since you had the word of our ref and Mr Readler, against Mr Hensel and Mrs Vanblagen- Hensel this is what the PA delegate recommended and was approved by the ATA.

 

I seem to have missed that part of the rulebook that allows a contestant to declare more than two "failure to fires" in any ATA sub event. According to witnesses there were three. I also missed that part of the rulebook that allows a contestant to deliberately call for additional pairs in a shootoff to help establish target location. I suppose we need a new rule that allows the leadoff person in doubles to call for a free pair on every post change. No wonder some shooting venues are having financial difficulties-not mentioning any names.

 

First, I think it's about time that PSSA admit there was a deliberate, calculated rules violation. Jeff should stop blowing smoke and acknowledge shootoff officials screwed up (it happens) and forget coverup attempts. Admitting the referee corrected the violation on the shooters 5th post negates anything other than the violation actually occurred. Since a credible witness testified on Thomas's behalf in the complaint there can be no doubt the violation happened as Mrs. VanBlargan-Hensel concurred. I also suggested to Mrs. VanBlargan-Hensel she work harder on being one of the chosen ones in the future.

 

Lead off shooter called for a target and doesn’t shoot? Loss!

Was that corrected?

 

That might be similar to the leadoff shooter shaking or kicking the speaker and not shooting? Sometimes the coverup is worse than the infraction.

 

[QUOTE="DEDPAIR, post: 151524, member: 2277" As for watching every target, the ref in question along with the other 3-4 that regularly help are good guys and generally know the rules and are very attentive. I quoted this, as you would be correct if Mr Readler was guilty of what he’s accused of in the complaint. It since you had the word of our ref and Mr Readler, against Mr Hensel and Mrs Vanblagen- Hensel this is what the PA delegate recommended and was approved by the ATA.[/QUOTE]


"After speaking to the ref, he did speak to Mr Readler when he saw the infraction."

When he saw it?

"It since you had the word of our ref and Mr Readler, against Mr Hensel and Mrs Vanblagen- Hensel"

WHY in the world did it get that far? Was the ref blindfolded when the shoot off started? He said something when he saw it ?

The most telling part,

"generally, know the rules and are very attentive".

Generally

 

A properly trained scorekeeper would have prevented this whole incident.

 

Unfortunately, not everyone knows the rules like Mrs. VanBlargan Hensel. I certainly wouldn't want to be a student in her 4th grade classroom. She's mastered the "B" word I hear.

 

Oleo, Why is Mrs V being criticized for knowing the rules? She did
what every parent should do is this case and that is question why
this was allowed. The rules were broken and it should have been
addressed when it happened. You are fast to criticize.

 

Ed, please tell me how I criticized Mrs. Hensel. If I did I'd be dead/

 

What is the post right above mine about then?

 

A bit of good natured humor that Mrs. Hensel will appreciate.I often suggested she wears a 1950's nun's habit and carry a wooden ruler in class for Halloween. And yes, she does know the rulebook.

 

Ok, I misunderstood. It’s just too bad when something like this happens especially to a young shooter.

 

As fortunate as we are to see a participation of the youth- both they & thier parents are often in need of thouroughly reading & comprehending of the rules!
Recently was at classification table as a father kept insisting his son was D class- young man had an honest A class average on the previous 800 singles and an honest B average for prior year.
Have stopped multiple squads in last few years, politely asking young men if they intended to shoot my target for me or what? Because have seen several mount and track prior shooters target. Had 1 of those who’s mother approached me later all critical looking referring to the rule book and how it said he could hold his gun any damned way he wants etc until I pointed out that sections on pointing gun to create a distraction & tracking targets behind a squad etc with her state delegate and several local state officials sitting around my area to shoot the bull.

 

Now you know what the umpires or refs go through at a kids sports event.
Not my little Johnny.

That kind of crap has been going on for years in kids sports.
When my now 51 year old son was 16 he earned a few bucks by umpiring the baseball games for the little squirts.
There was always one loud mouth dad in the crowd. It got so bad one day that our son stopped the game and told the guy to leave the stands. I taught him well.

The guy laughed and wasn’t going to leave. Until 4 other fathers stood up and told him he didn’t have a choice.
The next time this guy showed up, he didn’t say a word.