Wrong call? I lost out!!!

Was at an ATA shoot last weekend shooting leadoff position. On second post I lost count and mistakenly shot 6 targets, breaking all, as scorekeeper failed to turn off speakers or call for a change. Moving to next post I was told I had to reshoot that target which I reluctantly did, and missed. So, I got cheated out of a target by people not applying the rules correctly.

 

Does this mean you shot a 99..Maybe take Math 101.again

 

Means I actually shot 100 but just got credit for 99.

 

You are right about the rules, you should not have had to shoot the target over, why did you?

 

The SIXTH target was yours once you called for it, hit or miss you bought it ... If the score keeper does not know the rules, you should, I carry the rule book in my pocket in case there are any questions ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

What shoot were you at?

 

A case of less than good help IMO.
Phono pulls eliminated 50% of concentration. Scorer should have been on it after the 5th shot.
I've shot 20yds on squads where the scorers chair is back of the 27yd line.
I've also called targets for shooters only to get the "Cocker Spaniel look"
I guess rules don't mean a hill of beans anymore.

Regards.....Gerald

 

It is not uncommon for the scorekeeper to not be on top of the rules or even the number of targets you shot at, its more the shooters job to know how many shots they fired in my opinion ... I always know because if that layer of shells is gone I know its time to move ... Its not rocket science but the majority of scorekeepers are only going to be temporary until they can get a real job at McDonalds or Wal Mart ... Look at it this way, It cost you , not the score keeper, so who paid the price ..? WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

It may have been a wrong call, but was it a bad call? I don't think you got cheated, the referee/scorer inadvertently (though by rule "shall not") threw a target in excess of required amount in which you knew by rule was the amount that "must" be shot on the station. Then the referee/scorer inadvertently applied a rule in which you thought was wrong, then it seems you purposefully decided not to challenge the ruling. One thing though, you said you had to re-shoot that target, assuming you missed the first target (6th target on previous post) on the next post, it seems that would have been missed anyway.

When a change is done after shooting the 6th target, is the referee/scorer to call, 6,5,5,5,5? That seems odd, then on the next post, 4,5,5,5,5?

You did get 5 legitimate targets on each post, correct? That is the game.

 

When in doubt read the rule book.

SECTION VII OFFICIAL SCORING
A Procedure:
7. It is the duty of the referee/scorer to see that the shooters change posts at the proper time; however, any targets shot after failure to move at the proper time shall be scored.

Keep the rules book in your bag for just these instances. And, don't expect the scorekeeper to know the rules.

 

You are correct, that is a rule. It may even be for a specific situation, but there is another rule that also covers the situation.

Could you cite the rule which allows a competitor to shoot 4 from any given post? I can cite at least 2 rules that call for contestants "must shoot 5 per post" one is following the rule you cite.

There is another rule for the referee/scorer that says, "shall not throw a target until the contestants are in the correct position."

Do you think sporting events should have contestants attempting the same amount from each station?

It is an inserted rule of convenience, outside of fair play, that is not needed and does not make sense.

The contestant (nudie) did get 5 legitimate attempts on each post, that is the game.

 

jhunts, one of the deficiencies of the internet is one cannot see or hear the other person(s) in the conversation in order to digest the nuances of body language, facial expressions or tone....so..I am not sure how to interpret your post.

Operating under the premise that we are trying to reach a conclusion based on ATA rules for the situation "nudie" found himself in, I cited the first rule I came upon that meets the situation.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you were to identify the rules you speak of so that we can digest the arguement based on the actual rules rather that what you think.

"Do you think sporting events should have contestants attempting the same amount from each station?" Seems reasonable to me...you?

"It is an inserted rule of convenience, outside of fair play, that is not needed and does not make sense." Which rule are speaking of? Please elaborate?

 

Jammer,

I also agree it seems reasonable, more than reasonable to expect a sporting event in which each contestant, in this game, would shoot the same amount of targets from each post. Of course that is the game, "This event must be shot 5 or 10 shots at each post from 16 yards with each shooter in order shooting at one target until all have shot 5 or 10 times, and then rotating in a clockwise manner to the next post."

Can you think of a sporting, or fair play reason to allow a contestant or more than one contestant to shoot at more and less targets per post than most, if not every other contestant?

Assuming you would expect a contestant after shooting 6 or more on one post to shoot 4 or less on the next post. Is there a rule that allows for a contestant to take only 4 or less shots from any post?