Abuse of Referees

[schmokinn]

"They're" is i think the word you're after above?

Bit of a dumb mistake. 

I have yet to meet a shoot captain who would tell me how to shoot the birds.............................

There's always time I guess. 

I always feel that the grammar police are a bit sad as they use it for diversion and never actually answer directly.

I'll do it for you IF he told you not to do it you would not and if you did you would likely be invited to leave and not be allowed back....easy eh?

Glad to see you also addressed the safety of other shooters on the ground and the following of rules,regulations and instructions....

 

[Guest]

"They're" is i think the word you're after above?

Bit of a dumb mistake. 

I have yet to meet a shoot captain who would tell me how to shoot the birds.............................

There's always time I guess. 

Grammar...really? In that case, there are only three ... in an ellipsis...

 

[Jeremy Baker]

I always feel that the grammar police are a bit sad as they use it for diversion and never actually answer directly.

I'll do it for you IF he told you not to do it you would not and if you did you would likely be invited to leave and not be allowed back....easy eh?

Glad to see you also addressed the safety of other shooters on the ground and the following of rules,regulations and instructions....

I am always sad.

 

[schmokinn]

Grammar.......really? In that case, there are only three .......... in an ellipsis...........

Really,i learn new things on a daily basis.

And then i don't "ellipsis, 'omission' or 'falling short') is a series of dots (typically three, such as "…" ",so typically but not definitely 3.

Defined and then not so................i am disappointed.

Though the general opinion seems to favour 3 ... so i shall attempt to steady my punctuation finger  :angel:

 

[Jeremy Baker]

Really,i learn new things on a daily basis.

And then i don't "ellipsis, 'omission' or 'falling short') is a series of dots (typically three, such as "…" ",so typically but not definitely 3.

Defined and then not so................i am disappointed.

Though the general opinion seems to favour 3 ... so i shall attempt to steady my punctuation finger  :angel:

Seems everyday is a school day.

 

[Westward]

I've reffed a lot of reg sporting over the last 5 or 6 years along with a few Fitasc, Sportasc, Supersporting and Sportrap shoots and I tend to agree with Jeremy's basic point. Obviously  I'm there for several different things, but safety and good practice is always up there and if I don't have specific instructions about how a driven should be taken - which is mostly the case - then it's down to my judgement. I'm not easily intimidated and if I consider it unsafe to turn in the cage then I say so, but what worries me is the youngsters of 14 or 15. Do they have enough experience and can they stand up to assertive adults?

Personally I don't think it's best practice to leave this to the refs and IMO the shoot organiser/target setter should be aware of any stands where this might occur and put signs up accordingly as well as issuing instructions to the appropriate refs. How a major shoot such as the Perazzi can overlook such a simple thing amazes me.

The few members of the snarky and angry brigade may not be aware that running a stand at a busy reg sporting shoot can get quite demanding and sometimes for several hours non stop.  I well remember the first 120 bird shoot at Westfield with over 270 entries.  Shooting started on my slow 5 pair on report stand at 9:50 a.m. and I didn't get a break of any kind until 4.15 p.m. Patience with awkward punters can wear thin under such circumstances.

 

[Jeremy Baker]

I've reffed a lot of reg sporting over the last 5 or 6 years along with a few Fitasc, Sportasc, Supersporting and Sportrap shoots and I tend to agree with Jeremy's basic point. Obviously  I'm there for several different things, but safety and good practice is always up there and if I don't have specific instructions about how a driven should be taken - which is mostly the case - then it's down to my judgement. I'm not easily intimidated and if I consider it unsafe to turn in the cage then I say so, but what worries me is the youngsters of 14 or 15. Do they have enough experience and can they stand up to assertive adults?

Personally I don't think it's best practice to leave this to the refs and IMO the shoot organiser/target setter should be aware of any stands where this might occur and put signs up accordingly as well as issuing instructions to the appropriate refs. How a major shoot such as the Perazzi can overlook such a simple thing amazes me.

The few members of the snarky and angry brigade may not be aware that running a stand at a busy reg sporting shoot can get quite demanding and sometimes for several hours non stop.  I well remember the first 120 bird shoot at Westfield with over 270 entries.  Shooting started on my slow 5 pair on report stand at 9:50 a.m. and I didn't get a break of any kind until 4.15 p.m. Patience with awkward punters can wear thin under such circumstances.

I applaud all referees for their contribution. 

There is no way that I would be able to do the job let alone put up with competitive shooters all day long. 

 

[MDP]

In my mind,, the menu displaying the target information is describing the presentation, not the shooting style. A 'driven'  means a clay that mimics a driven game bird so I would expect it to be coming towards me; possibly with a curl to the left or the right. I'm with Jeremy on that point. 

The only occasion where a constraint should be put on to a shooters approach is for safety. In this case, taking as a driven and not a crosser in case there is an issue with shot fallout. OR another example would be shooting a rabbit before a marker to avoid shot going towards another area of the course if the rabbit was left too late. I'm agreed with the referees on this point (as long as it is consistently enforced!)

I too thought the menu was for describing the target type, not the method for shooting it. Having said that, there's no excuse for arguing or being abusive to refs, or anyone else for that matter. 

 

[shootinguru]

After 50 years in the game I wonder where it's all going? Shooters with 5 minutes experience seem to know it all!

When I have put on a driven target in the past I ensure that it's not a problem with fallout whether broken or missed!

I put on the menu STD DRIVEN. this means shot driven!  I never had the time to write freaking essays on the menu for pillocks?  If they had insisted to shoot it as a crosser I would have publicly Fooked them off the ground!

 

[Bebo]

There have been occasions in the past at Registered shoots where I have seen targets that lend themselves to being taken either as a driven or as a crosser (ie they are coming in and overhead, but slightly to the side of the shooting position).  If I've wanted to shoot them as a crosser I have always asked the ref if that is OK before I start.  Always been told that it was fine, my choice how to take the target.  This has been at both Southdown and AGL.

Edited to add:  If I'd been told driven only, then that's how I would have shot them.  Any swearing would have been under my breath and at myself for missing them (my ability to hit driven targets is best described as inconsistent).

 

[El Spavo]

Interestingly, I have no idea what driven means though!

Try googling it, it isn't as easy as you think to get an explanation of that and other terms without someone in the know to tell you.

 

[diver682]

I've reffed a lot of reg sporting over the last 5 or 6 years along with a few Fitasc, Sportasc, Supersporting and Sportrap shoots and I tend to agree with Jeremy's basic point. Obviously  I'm there for several different things, but safety and good practice is always up there and if I don't have specific instructions about how a driven should be taken - which is mostly the case - then it's down to my judgement. I'm not easily intimidated and if I consider it unsafe to turn in the cage then I say so, but what worries me is the youngsters of 14 or 15. Do they have enough experience and can they stand up to assertive adults?

Personally I don't think it's best practice to leave this to the refs and IMO the shoot organiser/target setter should be aware of any stands where this might occur and put signs up accordingly as well as issuing instructions to the appropriate refs. How a major shoot such as the Perazzi can overlook such a simple thing amazes me.

The few members of the snarky and angry brigade may not be aware that running a stand at a busy reg sporting shoot can get quite demanding and sometimes for several hours non stop.  I well remember the first 120 bird shoot at Westfield with over 270 entries.  Shooting started on my slow 5 pair on report stand at 9:50 a.m. and I didn't get a break of any kind until 4.15 p.m. Patience with awkward punters can wear thin under such circumstances.

In the eye of the law if they are under the age of 16 they are classified as a child

Employers have a duty of care to ensure their safety and wellbeing....... are they being provided with the correct eye protection, hearing protection, have they received adequate training, are they being supervised by an adult?

Should they be exposed to aggression from an adult? ............ Think we will all agree the answer is no

After all said should they be working there at al  

 

[wynno]

Diver.

If the youngsters were not there you would Not be able to shoot !!!

my advice,if you see a young ref being abused then say something, don’t stand back and watch it

 

[Salopian]

This has been a lively debate .

If we employ youngsters they should be trained and paid a sensible wage , but if you paid a sensible wage you should be able to employ adults, if you employ adults you should train them and they should be conscientious.

Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the RUFC Rule book , we don't see any arguing with those referees !

 

[OlafUK]

This has been a lively debate .

If we employ youngsters they should be trained and paid a sensible wage , but if you paid a sensible wage you should be able to employ adults, if you employ adults you should train them and they should be conscientious.

Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the RUFC Rule book , we don't see any arguing with those referees !

True! Perhaps we should bring a sin bin in?

 

[Richard59]

Well I have thought long and hard before writing this , but offer it for discussion.

We are all spending a lot money on pursuing our hobby because of increasing prices on the various elements , cartridges , guns , fuel , entries etc.

That being said we rely on Referees giving their time and being unable to compete to monitor our sport .

But I am becoming increasingly concerned about the vile foul mouthed abuse that some of us are being subjected to often brought about by the competitors target incompetence and the referee observing the rules.

Last weekend I refereed the Perazzi Gran Prix at Mid Wales , stand 9 Red Course was a Driven pair off a telehoist . It clearly stated 4 Pairs Sim Driven . In addition I politely informed every squad that the targets must be shot Driven not as crossers by turning sideways in the cage . Two competitors used foul and abusive language  because they were unable to shoot clay driven towards them and implied it was all my fault .

May I point out that The Referee is in charge of the stand and the competitor will comply with the referees instruction.

It was later found out that one of the ' Gentlemen ' had entered as a 'C' class shooter but was subsequently found to be 'A' class and in view of his conduct was disqualified.

For those of you who quote CPSA rules , make sure that you are conversant with them.

I am.

Abuse needs to be reported & acted upon, hopefully you had the full support of the ground whatever you decided to do. As this shoot was CPSA registered beggars that a competitor would knowingly enter in the “wrong class” 

 

[Salopian]

The Perazzi was not a CPSA registered. You should have witnessed the delight on the faces of people who shot poorly and then found out it wouldn't affect their class !

 

[Sian]

The Perazzi was not a CPSA registered. You should have witnessed the delight on the faces of people who shot poorly and then found out it wouldn't affect their class !

Well half the score is on my list of personal scores on the cpsa site, don’t know what happened to the the other half

 

[Richard59]

The Perazzi was not a CPSA registered. You should have witnessed the delight on the faces of people who shot poorly and then found out it wouldn't affect their class !

Well 1/2 the course is showing on CPSA, same as it did in 2017, 

Irrespective,  the treatmeant you endured as a referee is uncalled for, as is an entrant declaring themselves in a “lower class” 

 

[Jeremy Baker]

The Perazzi was not a CPSA registered. You should have witnessed the delight on the faces of people who shot poorly and then found out it wouldn't affect their class !

Its showing on the shooters averages same as last year.