Having gone back and looked I cannot see where Bill's statement applies to my statement.
Could be that I am twisted on the wording & intent then, will ask the instructor at the Silver Creek class this month.
Having gone back and looked I cannot see where Bill's statement applies to my statement.
If I see the unload and show clear why should I make someone redo it because I have not gotten to say all the commands?
As pertains to logic or to written procedure?
I guess on the logic side somebody could make the argument that forcing folks to follow the sequence cuts down on the number of a.d.'s .
If someone has sped through the unload and show clear it is already over. They either got it right or they did not. I just see the redo has people enforcing their power as RO for the sake of doing so. The AD is on the shooter.
Just trying to keep you off Doodie.
I thought it was diddily .
Really just trying to learn what I ought to do and not imply that I know how it ought to be done.
That said, I was thinking more about the next times than the this time. If I know you are going to make me follow the sequence then I'm going to do it by the numbers, which gets you involved and in a position to keep me from screwing up.
Let's talk about the flip and catch
How do you and I do at following directions.
I'm leaning toward the don't RO option.
Got another one today.
A target covered by a no shoot like this
The hit was middle (I placed a tiny black dot) on no shoot, right at the edge inside the perf.
The no shoot was placed where the edge was touching the perf of A zone. The no shoot perf is basically on C zone.
The hit was on no shoot inside the perf and touching the perf. The 2 ROs scored it a C, rather than A. I thought that whatever the no shoot covers (since it's a hard cover) the area behind it doesn't exist. I wanted to say that but they both sound absolutely correct. And they're basing it on how the no shoot was placed (poorly placed since you can see the C zone).
Shouldn't the proper placing of the no shoot is the perf of the not shoot should be in line with the A zone perf?
If I RO'd, I would have called it A and a no shoot. why would you call an A? the hole never touched the A/C line
Discuss.
Got another one today.
A target covered by a no shoot like this
The hit was middle (I placed a tiny black dot) on no shoot, right at the edge inside the perf.
The no shoot was placed where the edge was touching the perf of A zone. The no shoot perf is basically on C zone.
The hit was on no shoot inside the perf and touching the perf. The 2 ROs scored it a C, rather than A. I thought that whatever the no shoot covers (since it's a hard cover) the area behind it doesn't exist. I wanted to say that but they both sound absolutely correct. And they're basing it on how the no shoot was placed (poorly placed since you can see the C zone).
Shouldn't the proper placing of the no shoot is the perf of the not shoot should be in line with the A zone perf?
If I RO'd, I would have called it A and a no shoot. why would you call an A? the hole never touched the A/C line
Discuss.
Hence my reasoning that would have called it an A NS during that match today.
Got another one today.
A target covered by a no shoot like this
The hit was middle (I placed a tiny black dot) on no shoot, right at the edge inside the perf.
The no shoot was placed where the edge was touching the perf of A zone. The no shoot perf is basically on C zone.
The hit was on no shoot inside the perf and touching the perf. The 2 ROs scored it a C, rather than A. I thought that whatever the no shoot covers (since it's a hard cover) the area behind it doesn't exist. I wanted to say that but they both sound absolutely correct. And they're basing it on how the no shoot was placed (poorly placed since you can see the C zone).
Shouldn't the proper placing of the no shoot is the perf of the not shoot should be in line with the A zone perf?
If I RO'd, I would have called it A and a no shoot.
Discuss.