ATA to Cardinal Center Pay $1,100 or else - Yardage shot in question?

The story page 1 as I hear it.

Shooter Jerome Stefkovich is allegedly classified at 25 but the scoresheet is marked or signed 26 supposedly by the shooter (fact in question I think). He shoots a 99 but shoot management thinks he could have shot from the wrong yardage.

Shoot management waits for the shooter to show up for the shoot-off. That would answer all questions when he steps onto the line. He doesn't show.

My information is that the Cardinal Center decided not to award the monies for the 99.
I do not have a written rebuttal from the CC.

I do have the letter sent to the Cardinal Center from the ATA.



The report to me is the CC sent the monies to Mr. Stefkovich.

I am looking for more information. As always, thanks to you guys out there that provide this. You know who you are.

I report. You decide.

Merlo out

 

NICE, the Father of Adam, winner of the GAH in 2014.

FROM THE 18 YARD LINE

 

Was he classified wrong or just shot from the wrong yardage? Ask his squadmates, they might remember. If he shot from the wrong yardage, follow the rulebook.

 

This is interesting to me. After the outright cheating in the GAH, we now have this. Seems like a dishonest family to me. And here we are with the CC portrayed as the villain. Amazing.

IF the yardage is to be kept, did he shoot all the following events at the wrong yardage? Therefore voiding his scores and any monies?

 

It's the shooters responsibility to make sure he was properly classified. Let's say if he was handicapped at the 27 and the classifier wrongly put him on the 25, subsequently wins the shoot, then he's in deep doo-doo. Sure seems like the ATA has been coddling this guy for awhile.

 

How is the ATA coddling anyone? Explain.

 

Anytime I have worked and there was a discrepancy, Bob always called them to the entry building, no waiting on shootoffs,
to straighten it out. It is usually a very easy process. As he is looking at scores, when this happens they come in tell their side and Bob fixes it immediately. It is the shooters responsibility to be handicapped correctly, stand at the correct yardage, and sign in.
If there were errors in any of these, itshould have been fixed at the shoot, seems the score sheet would solve all the problems, yes?

 

Not sure what the situation describes? Sounds like he was a 25 yd shooter, but management thinks he shot from the 26 instead??? So, is this whole thing based on management thinking he shot from a longer distance than he was assigned, based on only the written yardage on the scoresheet?? Without any further evidence that he shot from the wrong yardage, what can you base a DQ on? Must be more to this. From what is posted, I don't see how you can DQ the guy, that is if my understanding of the underlying facts is correct?

The yardage written on the scoresheet, by itself, is not going to be proof of anything without another shooter or the scorer stating where he shot from. I think it is meaningless as far as the rules are concerned, and shooter could just say he made an error writing it. What else happened . . . Nobody would step up and officially complain?

 

This is a gentleman's sport. Yes, we usually trust what you say. The only issue would be if many came in and said it wasn't true. I have never seen this happen.
If you are called to clear something up, you show up and clear it up. If you do not it remains at odds. As former OSTA director this happened every year. You call them up, ask them what yardage they shot on. They tell you, you say ok, the scoresheet (or classified) says this.
You tell Bob and he fixes it. Super simple. Have never heard of waiting for shootoff to clear it up, and the shooter is always called as soon as Bob sees a problem.

 

Ya mean like keeping his own score at a registered shoot and claiming hundreds of targets that couldn't be verified he shot. Want more?

 

Do you have any idea why the ATA would do that?

 

Does anyone have a "copy" of "ATA Official Complaint #18-01" ????????

Was "ATA Official Complaint #18-01" filed against "Bob", or by "Bob" ???????

The "letter" could have included "has made the following determination about ??????"

 

The ATA not but a club might.

 

Who would have benefited from his disqualification?

 

From what I was told the shooter squad sheet had 26 yd marked after name, not the 25 he was handicapped. Tonya is 100 per cent correct Bob called the shooter to the office several times BEFORE the shoot off to clear it up and he didn't show so at the shoot offs when he didn't show again there is no choice but to DQ based on the only info shoot management had which was the score sheet.

I would also like to see a copy of the official complaint. My experience as Tournament Director for several years is that the ATA EC's don't always follow the rule book. That's why I call it the Book of Suggestions. If you are the buddy of one of the boys the rules get bent way to often.

I've always thought Paul Shaw was a man of honor who followed the rules and I'd like to read his take on this in the offical complaint when it is posted in Trap and Field. Brad

 

It's not what you know but who you ----. You may fill in the blanks with whatever you deem appropriate. I don't believe Dave Schaeffer or Earl Scripture were given as much consideration

 

What score did Stef break on 1st 100 and from what yardage, If yardage was earned from 1st 100 did he shoot from new yardage, or he did not earn any yardage from 1st 100, shot that yardage, and if he broke a 99 from 2nd 100 at assigned yardage and he would have earned at least 1 yard to 2 1/2 yards according to # of shooters to his new earned yardage.

Why is this being discussed approx 3 months later? How is RJ STUART INVOLVED, was it his problem? If so his Bonding Company and THEIR ATTY's would be involved in the overall situation w/ all involved at a stdown discussion.

GB.............................DLS

 

Doc, according to the RJ Stuart website he broke a 95 in the 1st event that day and did not earn any yardage.

Also according to his site he earned 1.5 yds to the 26.5.

My question is, if Shoot management thought he shot from the 26 why did they assign the earned ydg from the 25? If they were basing the DQ on the assumption he shot on the 26 rather than the assigned 25 he should have been punched from the 26 and shot the rest of the shoot from the 27.

If they allowed him to shoot from the 26.5 then shoot management seems to acknowledge he did shoot the targets in question from the 25. If that’s the case I see no other option but to pay him.

 

Sounds to me like there wasn't really any proof he shot at the longer difference, other than the marking on the scoresheet, which is really nothing as far as the rules are concerned. I don't believe it is even mentioned in the rules.Now, if the scorer stated that he/she made the yardage notation and compared to where shooters actually shot, that would be different. But it isn't unusual for a scorer to not pay any attention to that.

I would guess that was not considered good enough reason to DQ someone, even though everybody's best guess is that he did shoot at a longer yardage then he was supposed to. Would have been better if he showed up to say the marking on scoresheet was wrong and he shot from the 25, but without anyone saying the opposite, it really is not necessary, in my opinion.

 

Bat, he did show up the next day. I would think they would have cleared this up at that time.

 

All shooters scores and yardage are verified off the score sheet by the girls in the score room before the scores are posted to the board. More shooters are DQ'd each shoot than you would think. It's not just winners.

When I first became a Tournament director for the Ohio State Shoot I was amazed how many shooters shot from the wrong yardage and the reasons they did. I had to track down someone at every shoot I was tournament director at at the Cardinal.

The rule is simple if you shoot from the wrong yardage you are DQ'd and it is the shooter's responsibility to know and shoot from the correct yardage. I still want to see the official complaint and I hope Merlo can find it for us. Everything is in the rule book in black and white.

The only PROFF is what is written on the score sheet, the same as dead and lost birds. In the absence of a shooter not answering a call to the office to clear it up in my opinion the shoot management had no choice but to follow the rules and DQ which is what I would have done.

 

The rule is clear, yes. But if you really push it, the yardage written on the scoresheet by itself is not much in the way of proof of anything. Depending on the software used for the shoot, I believe it is even preprinted sometimes. Many times, shooters write it in, or tell the scorer the yardages for other members of the squad. Lots of room for errors there. And sadly, scorers cannot be relied upon to notice someone shooting at a different yardage than marked, which is what the shooter would undoubtedly say he had done if he had not avoided the investigation.

The PROOF, is the scorer saying the shooter shot from the yardage marked on the sheet. If that yardage was not his yardage, then he is DQ'd. By itself, the yardage marked in this cause is certainly grounds for investigation, which they did try to do. MY point is that without the scorer or someone on the squad providing any information, I'm not sure there is much that can be done according to the rules. That my opinion.

 

Well, I went and checked and I was wrong about the yardage marked on the score sheet as not actually being required under the rules. That will change my view of this, I think.

 

User, I'm talking about the CC trying to investigate the discrepancy between yardage marked and assigned yardage, which they tried to do by calling him in, which it appears he avoided. Not talking about ATA at all. Seems stupid of him not to talk to Stuart, all he had to do was say he shot from the 25 and the marking on the scoresheet was in error. hard to disprove without any shooters or the scorer making statements. Really surprised nobody on the squad could offer any info??

 

User1:

"I would hope the "ATA Executive Committee" would have done more than "discussed" this "complaint", before making the "determination" the "Cardinal Center" should now "forward all option and purse winnings and any trophy associated with the score" ....."

Not to worry, U1. Section XII (pages 38-45 in 2017) covers complaints and that sort of thing in a half-dozen-or-so pages. What that document requires be done is what was done; you can count on it. What the EC discussed was the evidence the Ohio Delegate put together - documents, interviews, written testimony from witnesses and his recommendation regarding further action. Which may be action or no further action, depending on what his witnesses have signed and sent him. There's nothing like making someone sign something to get to the truth.

It may be six months before you get some of the details in Trap & Field. You are just going to have to somehow control yourself until that happens. I am confident that we, finally knowing the facts, will look back at this thread with more than a little shame. And humor.

And questions. The first being "What in the devil did U1 get so worked up about? He doesn't shoot, is in no way involved, yet it seems to have driven him up the wall. Why in the world was that?

N1H1

 

"What that document requires be done is what was done"

Are things slow in the back-yard proving-grounds ol'N1H1 ?????

What makes you think I am "so worked up" ?????

I would suggest you add "ATA" to "He doesn't shoot", or you can ask "Bat" how I feel about posting incorrect information ....

And, if you were present when the "ATA Executive Committee" "discussed" this "complaint", do tell why you were included ...... Because, I can look here ...... http://www.shootata.com/Portals/0/pdf/ata_rulebook_web.pdf ...... and NOT find your name on the "ATA Executive Committee" ......

So, I hope this answers your "questions" and consider this your ONLY warning about posting things about "my shooting", or anything else, that you have no personal knowledge about .....

 

Ahem....N1H1

Are you pretending again to know something about the bylaws or rules of the ATA?

You see, I know this guy. He spent a lifetime with this narcissistic arrogant attitude (my opinion). He helped change the ATA. Ruined it. Took the sport out of the game. He bragged about his superior intellect and vast knowledge of the corporate bylaws.

Then against the all the bylaws he took this expensive K80. He never gave the gun back. Never reimbursed the corporation for the gun. He turned his back when others did it before and after him.

I'll bet you $50 you know the fellow I am talking about. Get a clue from Dysinger.

If you see the guy tell him to return the money or the gun. Tell him to remove himself from trapshooting, for the betterment of the sport.

 

To readers here:

You might have been given the wrong idea by "and NOT find your name on the "ATA Executive Committee" ..

True enough. But in 20+ years as a Delegate and 6 on the Executive Committee, I came many times in contact with the ATA disciplinary code, both as a complaint writer and a "decider" on the EC.

Complaints are handled as the Rulebook requires in the section I cited in my previous post. It's a list of actions and responsibilities and you check them off, one by one, The Delegate (or a designee if he recuses himself, as sometimes happens) does most of the work, but the EC can ask for more information or rule on the basis of documents he or she provides.

The EC uses two levels of "proof" in its deliberations. For minor stuff on the order of an alleged offence that might occasion a severe letter, "The Preponderance of Evidence" will usually suffice. Bigger cases, such a a lot of money or long-term suspension or expulsion, could require a higher standard: "Clear and Convincing Evidence." EC members apply themselves to the task and almost always get it "right" in my experience.

You won't know for several months when it appears in T&F, but you are unlikely to find a smoking gun when you read it, as you should.

Neil

PS One time at the Grand American I was called in and asked "Did shooter X on your squad shoot form the 26 yard line?" I had to confess that I did'nt specifically notice. Ask yourselves...would you? And on the basis of your memory a day later, would you sign a statement either way?

 

Many times as a Delegate I was told that shooter x had committed this or that offence. I said that the rules preclude me considering verbal or anonymous complaints. I said that the ATA justice system tries to be a balance of risk and reward. "Put your complaint in writing, send it to the Executive Director and it will be dealt with. Your written complaint will eventually show up in Trap and Field and you will be either the hero or the goat."

"I don't want to be a bad guy" was the most common response. "But you already are the bad guy," I replied, "going around to clubs making allegations you are unwilling to sign your name to. If you are sure about this, there's no reason not to put your own reputation on the line, as you have another shooter's. If you are not sure, you've no right to spread the story you have just told.me. I'll get paper and a pen; we can get this going right now."

I got very, very few written complaints. But I did get a couple. They were dealt with as I promised. Once a written complaint is in the system, there is no way the EC fail to address it. Unless it is withdrawn, which also happens.

N1H1

 

True enough. But in 20+ years as a Delegate and 6 on the Executive Committee, I came many times in contact with the ATA disciplinary code, both as a complaint writer and a "decider" on the EC.

So the "readers here" will NOT be "given the wrong idea" .....

Look here ..... http://www.shootata.com/Portals/0/pdf/ata_rulebook_web.pdf ..... "section 8: Remuneration"..... Did it begin with, "With the exception of the Presidential Honorarium", when you accepted a "Presidential Honorarium" ?????

If you CHOOSE TO IGNORE something of this nature during your "20+ years as a Delegate and 6 on the Executive Committee" for possible "self-gain", why shouldn't the "readers here" question everything about your "20+ years as a Delegate and 6 on the Executive Committee", and much of what you now post ????????

 

I appreciate the OP. I don't see Merlo taking sides. Just the facts.

N1H1
If I did not want to be the bad guy I would not take an expensive gun that was against the bylaws. That would make me a bad guy. Just like taking cash out of the cash register. A very bad guy. And watching some do it before me. And then deciding it was my turn. And turning my back.

Thanks "good guy".