Proposed rule change for discussion

Hi All,

Thank you to those that read the proposed new rule book either on line, handed out at Batemans Bay or Canberra.

Most of the changes/corrections/suggestions have been of a simple administrative nature and have been adopted in to the draft.  This one however is potentially more than administrative.

A suggestion that I consider very worthy was made to me about a rule that incorporates a "spirit of the competition".  Much like a "Spirit of Cricket" or as used in Military Rifle events.  An example was made where there is no rule specifically excluding or restricting a spotter and coaching to some degree is therefore allowed....... but if an occasion occurred where several very experienced shooters were there calling conditions, winding the scope and calling when to fire....would that be "In the Spirit of Fly" ?  I think not....  There are things other than coaching that may be against the spirit of competition.... this is only one example.

The proposed change would be the bold section below (the rest already existed).

 
2.4.2      Sportsmanship
Competitors shall behave in a sportsmanlike manner as befitting membership of the SSAA. In the observation of any competitor behaviour that the Range Officer or match organisers deem contrary to the spirit of the event, the Range Officer shall caution the offender once, and, if there is any repetition of the conduct, the competitor may be asked to immediately leave the firing line and may also be disqualified.  Excessive coaching may come under this provision.
 
2.4.3      Behaviour
Competitors should refrain from boisterous conduct on the firing range during the conduct of an event.  A competitor failing to observe this fact will be disciplined by the Range Officer.  In the event of boisterous or unsportsmanlike behaviour by a competitor the Range Officer shall caution the offender once, and, if there is any repetition of the conduct, the competitor may be asked to immediately leave the firing line and may also be disqualified.  
 
Any disqualification made under 2.4.2 or 2.4.3 may be appealable under the procedure set down in Rule 2.8 for the Protest and Appeals Committee.
.........................................................

Please take the time to comment either for or against this change.

Cheers,

Anthony
 

Hi Anthony whilst i support the spirit of the sport and the other initiatives you have mentioned i think that allowing an interpretation of what is in the spirit of the sport a grey area that can be exploited and will be by some individuals.

Rules are the fabric of events and without clear and concise guidelines (rules) there is often conflict. As for the up coming national event i can assure all that the event will be run in direct parallel with the rule book for a National Event as sports have grown so has the knowledge of how shoots are run and what constitutes a National Event under the SSAA National body.

What all shooters need to be aware of is the rules governing your sport is being decided in Perth WA this coming Easter at this meeting decisions will be made the have a direct impact on fly shooting and will remain for the next 5 years. It is very important more so now, that each shooter reads the proposed rule changes and learns the impacts of changes and how it affects the sport and the individual respectively.

After the meeting is decided on in Perth the proposed changes will then go to National for Ratification prior to going to print but time is short learn about your sport.

Regards Les

Hi All,
            in discussing this issue about coaching with Anthony it was my idea to try and capture this concept in the place that Anthony has proposed it in the rulebook, and thanks to Anthony for having a go at drafting the proposal.

As the rulebook will stand for 5 years after this review I think it is timely to again discuss this matter. It would also be nice to settle the issue once and for all.

I also agree with Les that rules that are left open to interpretation can be a problem, however I think that once a precedence is set then it can be worked with.

Essentially I am in favor of the whole concept of people working as a team to achieve good scores for each other, so previously I did not support the proposal that a "spotter" was only allowed to call fall of shot. That would change the fundamental principles that Fly has always operated under for all these years.

What I wouldn't like to see is somebody winding the scope of another competitor and telling them when to shoot, which I perceive as being contrary to the "collaboration" we want to allow in Fly. I would like to at the very least rule that option out - but wording it is hard.

How much assistance from a spotter is allowed before it is actually coaching your shooter and can we define when is too much?

I try to limit my advice to my friends to calling fall of shot, alerting them to changes in mirage or flags or telling them to stop shooting because I've seen a change whilst they have been preparing for a shot. I have also told my friends "righto, that condition is back" and I suppose even that is starting to get towards the blurry line of helping too much.

So let's discuss it, if we can't come to an agreement I suppose we leave the status quo, but I would really like to nail it down so it can be put to rest.

Cheers.

Dave.

Hi,
An interesting and timely discussion here I guess. Good to see people are thinking about this.
I agree with the principles of what is suggested by Anthony. But I also agree that leaving it as an undefined "grey" area or  in any rulebook can or could create havoc.
It's a tough call.

There could be a couple of ways to improve things.
1) First gain consensus of what actually is the limits of "not in the spirit of competition"
2) Define some specific things (which are agreed) "that would be examples of going too far".
3) Add an option for any competitor or spotter, so notified by an RO, to have the option of continuing to shoot under protest (fee would be to be paid) and a properly formed protest committee would later hear the matter after the final cease fire. Both could be disqualified if their protest fails.

The reason for this is it allows the match to continue without delay of conducting an immediate protest meeting.


In my own opinion the adjusting of scope turrets or .... otherwise indicating where the shooter should aim, or loading the cartridges in the gun etc is going too far as the role of a "spotter".
For me the spotter can call the shots (indicate where they land on the target) by talking or showing on a target or similar, Talk with the shooter about wind conditions changing or not. Or say "the area (or flags) out the back hasn't settled yet" etc, etc Things like that.
But, Not touch the gun or ammunition specifically or use anything to indicate where the person doing the shooting should aim. By that I mean one way is clicking the turrets, another is maybe using a pen to point on a spotters target where the shooter should aim. Or use a simple crosshair reticle diagram on a clear sheet which is being moved over a target by the spotter to indicate the same (even if no words are spoken) is something that I think all would agree is not allowed.

An area that is more grey may be about the spotter telling the shooter when to start shooting and when to shop or to wait etc. Need some discussion about this and if decided that is "not on" then how to police it.

So yes I think now is the time to make some things clear because there are already other events being shot that use a coach. F class teams, Match Rifle events all include a wind coaching. Palma teams actually includes a few team members calling wind on spotting scopes, plotting and all these people are "wired up" on closed radio circuits. They will be Using the wind coach to click the turrets and calls the shooter to fire etc. In their teams match they may call for one shooter to fire and see the result before making corrections for the other team members to fire. In other words they may do this to sacrifice one shooters score to improve the overall team score. This is all well and good for their events. Its just their strategy.
This "Fly match" is a bit different.
So there is a variety of stuff going on out there and  these people could or will come and shoot a Fly match they could easily misunderstand everything if we all don't make the boundary fence clear. That means in a rule book , written word, where they is no arguments or "interpretation". Or no excuse like "we had no idea this is different to Match Rifle coaching" etc.

I have always put it this way to people. "In a Rally car the navigator does the navigating and the talking about the route and the driver does the driving and decides what gear, where to steer and when etc".

I need to double check all the proposed rules about "spotters" again but, just saying, in my opinion they should actually also be competitors. In other words also competing in the event on other relays. I would personally say that a spotter who is not entered and also shooting is not in the spirit of competition. Because if any spotter is not also a competitor then ANY potential discipline action is meaningless and no enforcement against their own scores could be applied.  

Just my thoughts,
Stuart Elliott

Hi All,

Good discussion so far.  I do understand regarding the "Grey" area, but I think that it is preferable to the current "Open Slather".  I am against selective legislating for such a large and open area.  You either define it as "Call of Shot only" .... which we already know was not what the majority wanted, leave it open as it is, or allow a "Spirit of the Competition" rule.  

There are examples of where specific actions would not breach the spirit....for example if say a total newbie was shooting and missed the plate to the left with their first sighter shot and had no idea how to adjust for that and an experienced competitor like Dave Groves reached over and wound on 3 minutes of windage for them and told them to fire again..... Or if someone is teaching a Junior, or assisting an older person who is struggling with eyesight or dexterity in their hands etc...."Spirit of the Fly" allows for this, legislated rules do not.

I believe that the "Spirit of the Competition" will be effective, as it calls for a warning before any further action, and additionally allows the competitor to lodge a protest which needs to be determined by a committee (of at least 3).  This negates any one individuals interpretation, and the disputes committee usually comprises of two very experienced competitors plus the appointed rules delegate.

I have seen the "Spirit of Cricket" rule effectively applied and a conviction enforced where someone had not broken any specific defined law of the game....but had manipulated and deceived to a level that it was determined they had breached the spirit.  It is quite a powerful statement.  Also a very effective tool in that if a competitor is warned that their actions may be breaching the spirit of the competition, they will think very hard about wether to continue that particular action.

To me even if not used a lot (or at all) it would be effective enough to have it in the rule book and in the same paragraph specifically mention excessive coaching.

Or do we just leave it totally alone ?

Would love to hear more opinions.

Cheers

Anthony

My last thoughts on this, anything that changes the fundamental appeal of the fly is changing how people think and act at shoots. There is no way that any real adherence can be achieved by tying down or grey scaling the spotter's role. Only last year a shot was placed on a  scoring target  as an extra shot and then a committee had to decide if the shot was the shooter who owned the target or from next door even though there were shots equal on the splash plate and also on the target except from this shot that appeared from nowhere. When it was put to the committee it was ruled in the shooters favour and no penalty was applied. Someone was spotting and obviously someone cheated so to narrow it all down too, do spotters call fall of shot or touch scopes or tell the shooter where to aim to achieve this it would rely on complete honesty of the shooter and spotter. We are all grown ups shooting this sport and we know right from wrong if we won't the spotter issue to go away then only one person on the bench at any time the shooter is on the line.

But that is not the appeal of the fly for probably the last 3 years i have not enjoyed the fly as much as i used to last weekend at Canberra taking the piss out of Cameron and shooting alongside Anthony is what the sport is about. Some shooters coming to the fly it's not about winning it is about the mates sitting beside you having a blast of a good time.

Stick with rule 10 and lets get on with it.

Les

Well…It's a curly one for sure.
 My instincts direct me towards firm & concise rules for every conceivable possibility, but I also realise the nature of humanity prohibits this as we are simply not able to clearly see into the future sufficiently to understand all these possibilities….I think, though, that eventually someone will try one on & attempt to gain an advantage for themselves in a way that isn't covered, specifically, in the rules.
 If people understand there is no rule to prevent them from taking a certain course of action then it will only be a matter of time before something is attempted.
With this in mind I believe a covering ( albeit vague ) "spirit of competition" clause could certainly be a positive, if only to give power to the match committee in circumstances that cannot be yet foreseen!

Regards,
Belly

Hi All,

I witnessed first hand competitors telling each other when to fire by the spotter taping the shooter on the shoulder and the shooter fires. (To be honest it really pissed me off to see what I believed to be unsportsman like conduct.)
When i brought this up at the time on the line with the range officer i was advised that there was nothing that could be done as there was nothing in the rule book to stop it.

Grey areas will always come back to the way a shooter, range officer ect interperates the grey area.

I understand we cant capture every single thing that a shooter might do either intentionally or by accident.

Unacceptable
A rule that states "a spotter must not intentionally touch the shooter or the shooters equipment including rifle or scope.
As a spotter at no time are you to tell the shooter when to fire"

Acceptable
A spotter advising the shooter on where the shot landed, tails of flags or sudden wind change should in my opinion all be allowed.

I F we have a rule such as above in the rule book and we have the newbie shooter situation, the range officer should be advised before a relay that (Dave Grovesas an example) is going to help someone get on target, which means Dave may need to turn a turret or advise the shooter to turn the turret. The management of that situation should be up to the range officer to manage.

In my opinion the range officer should be able to interperate a situation and then use the rule book to decide if there has been a breach. If a breach is determined then a warning should be issued if the shooter or spotter do not recognise the range officers authority the 3 member protest committee should be notified and the shooter should be advise that the target he or she are shooting at will score zero. Give the shooter the option to protest but keep the shoot going. If there are further breaches by that shooter the target that the shooter is on at that time will also be marked as zero.

Just some ideas that have been floating around in my head since the shoulder tapping incident.

Peter

Hi All,

Discussion is going well.  I have had several emails and phone calls in addition to what is on here.  It seems that the consensus if for something rather than nothing.  I have also taken a note from Peter Merrimans suggestion and added a possible tier of action (zero on the subject target) before disqualification.  Deliberate crossfires to an adjacent target to either help or hinder that competitor is another possible event covered under this clause (that would probably result in disqualification).

I think simply having the tool available to match organisers in the rules will be sufficient to ensure that it never progresses past a warning anyway.

Proposed wording is as below
2.4.2 Sportsmanship
Competitors shall behave in a sportsmanlike manner as befitting membership of the SSAA. In the observation of any competitor behavior that the Range Officer or match organisers deem contrary to the spirit of the event, the Range Officer shall caution those involved once, and, if there is any repetition of the conduct, the competitor/s may be asked to immediately leave the firing line and or the target being shot scored as a zero or the competitor/s may be disqualified. Excessive coaching or deliberate crossfires to gain an advantage may come under this clause.

2.4.3 Behaviour
Competitors should refrain from boisterous conduct on the firing range during the conduct of an event.  A competitor failing to observe this fact will be disciplined by the Range Officer.  In the event of boisterous or unsportsmanlike behaviour by a competitor the Range Officer shall caution the offender once, and, if there is any repetition of the conduct, the competitor may be asked to immediately leave the firing line and may also be disqualified.  

Any disqualification made under 2.4.2 or 2.4.3 may be appealable under the procedure set down in Rule 2.8 for the Protest and Appeals Committee.

Cheers

Anthony

to me all a spotter should do is call where the shot lands and not tell a shooter when to shoot etc .. takes away the skill of the shooter
i also hate it when a spotter tells the bloke shooting what to do and when to do it, where is the skill from the shooter in that

Hi Stuart,

Fundamentally I agree,  but you have to reflect the history (and success) of the Fly.

People help each other....and 500m is a long way. A spotter can stuff you up as much as help you sometimes.

I took the issue to the floor publicly 5 years ago in Canberra, and the idea of a spotter calling fall of shot only had some support.... but when it came to the vote the majority did not want to change the way it was.  I respect that and we move on, democracy rules.

We could not now just change it, it would have to be publicly debated and voted to make that big of a change in my opinion..... But as things progress it might be worth taking back to the floor at a Nationals in 4 years and see what the majority want in the next rendition of the rule book.  They are open for change every 5 years.

What we can do is add the rule mentioned to stop it progressing to full team coaching, that is not in the spirit of the fly.

Cheers

Anthony

I think minimal change would probably be better..
But if not to introduce any more grey areas or confusion then Peters 3 basic rules sound like the best option. There is no grey areas in those 3 suggestions, they seem pretty straight forward to me..
Thats just my thoughts and have not being in the sport long i prefer to sit back and let the more experienced decide on these things, but as i say you make the rules and i will follow.

See you all at Wagga

Cheers
Rob.V

For those who might be interested ,in terms of “fly history”, it was through necessity that ” spotting” originated in the initial fly shoots (back in the very early 1990’s) because the optics at the time were so poor.

Spotting scopes were ordinary and rifle scopes were even worse.

I can remember early 10 target matches in which shooters had to wait for the targets to be hung on the clubhouse wall  before they could be sure, if and where they hit the target.

Basically the five targets before the lunch break were shot blind and after lunch with the sun behind, we were able to then see holes on the targets.

(By the way in those days, personal wind flags were virtually nonexistent and silhouette rams were used as sighter plates until large calibres started to ‘drill holes through them” which resulted in the necessary introduction of the bisalloy sighter plates.)

During these times the “spotter” did not coach or assist the shooter, the only communication being the indication of the shot location on a reduced scaled down target or verbally explaining “6 at 7 o’clock” or the like.

I am pretty sure that the attitude in those days (except for juniors or new shooters) would have been to disapprove of any coaching, time monitoring, wind assessment or any direct or indirect aiming analysis for the shooter by the spotter.

Once optics improved and Night Force scopes became the norm, quite a few shooters made the decision to shoot without spotters, although spotters were still an option if required by others.

In fact it was considered quite an achievement if shooters shot the match without any assistance from others, spotting or otherwise.

In reference to the present discussion and debate on this matter, provided the appropriate communication and consultation is undertaken and all who wish to, are  given the opportunity to contribute, then, whatever decision is reached (provided it is or was supported by a majority ) should be accepted and implemented by all.

In my opinion, rules should be drafted and formulated in a manner which ensures equitable competition for all shooters.

If not, as we have seen in the Australian 1000yd BR discipline, the majority of shooters will not accept, recognise or respect the application of any rules or rule book in which they were not consulted or given the opportunity to contribute.

cheers
dave goodridge

 PS -my opinion only, but in regard to this discussion topic, i agree with Stuart Pethy.
 

Provided the spotter doesn't touch the shooter or their equipment or be distracting in any way to those around him/her what does it matter what they say to their shooter.
If the shooter is new to the sport they may need to receive a lot of coaching.
It won't be very encouraging to a newby if they are told they are on their own, figure it out for yourself.
Having spent nearly 20 years shooting silhouette, the spotter is very important but ultimately, the shooter takes the shot.

Hi Dan, have a look at the proposed wording for the rule book that I have posted in a separate thread at Anthony's request.

The intent is to have the opportunity to help new shooters always, you just have to ask the RO to allow it at the start of the shoot, the proposed rules are to deal with these and other instances where the allowable actions need to be better clarified.

Cheers.

Dave Groves

I believe that the spotters role is just what it says in the name ie spotter
The spotter is there to aid in identifying fall of shot only.
The shooter is required to watch the flags to detect wind or mirage changes,  a spotter certainly should not tell a shooter if conditions have stayed or changed or when to shoot or when to hold fire all of these things are the shooters skill sets.

As Dave G points out and I am sure some of us remember we shot plenty of blind targets in the past.
In fact in some regards the old days of not seeing your fall of shot forced you to trust your gear and technique which was a good thing.

And before its asked 'Yes the fish are biting up here'  but that and the fact I have not shot fly for a few years does not mean I am not still following the event or that I may turn up on the range again one day. I will have a say on an open forum anytime I like and anyone who has issue with that can  F$@%  off hey ..  no names needed