Should Snitches Get Stitches?

[AFH]

My question, then, is whether it is appropriate for competitors to make other competitors and/or match staff aware of infractions when they see them. How would YOU feel if one of your squadmates told you that your holster was illegal, for example... would you thank them or tell them to MYOB? What would you think about a match where there was a way for you to anonymously report infractions you became aware of?

I agree with everything in your OP in the lead-up to your questions. Most equipment infractions are "minor and unintentional" in my experience also. However, we all know that there are cases where the infractions can be shown to be intentional. Match staff often doesn't 'catch' the infraction because of all the things you mention. So my answer to your question is YES, it is appropriate for other competitors to make the offending shooter AND match staff aware of the problem. Also, we ARE ALL responsible to help create an equitable competition. I'm sure 99% of all staff members I've been around would discuss such a violation with a shooter if they noticed a problem or one is reported to them. I'm also sure that 95% of competitors would be glad to be told of their infraction by a squad mate and given the chance to correct it.

Obviously, if match staff doesn't know of the possible infraction, nothing can or will be done. One can't blame the match staff for not dealing with an issue they don't know about. In my experience when the staff gets involved, the offending competitor is just asked to correct the problem and/or moved to another division (depending on circumstances), and their match often goes on without any repercussions. However, in a case where there is an willful violation of the rules that is considered cheating or unsportsmanlike conduct, then other, perhaps severe, options should be considered.

Over the years, several instances of suspected equipment violations have been brought to my or my staff's attention. In each case the matter was investigated and dealt with as needed, and probably half the time there was no violation found. All of these were handled anonymously with respect to the person reporting the issue.

There are many rabbit trails that can be gone down with this thread such as other rules, specific equipment, etc. What underlies the original question and the appropriate response is the integrity of the offending competitor. And, that is often hard to determine. Unless there are repetitive problems or the "if you didn't get caught, it never happened" attitude surfaces, I think most match staff gives the shooter the benefit of the doubt.

Doug summed it up well.

Andy

[Matt1]

Big boy rules - talk to the shooter, not the officials. If the shooter is a dick about it though then all bets are off.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alaskapopo]

We all know that 3-gun equipment division rules can be complicated, and often vary from match to match. I occasionally hear (legitimate) concerns expressed that some competitor or other is "getting away" with using illegal equipment. In the vast majority of cases I have found this to be a minor and unintentional infraction, which we never the less punish appropriately.

Unfortunately, catching such infractions can be hit or miss. The staff at major 3-gun matches have a lot to on their plate just running their stages safely, equitably and on schedule. I don't ever recall undergoing the kind of formal equipment checks that are common at USPSA and IPSC handgun matches. When I am running a stage I do the best I can to eyeball the equipment the shooter brings to the line, but I don't always feel confident I can give it as much attention as I do at a handgun-only match. Competitors, on the other hand, have much more time to watch their peers throughout the event, and may be in a better position to spot infractions.

My question, then, is whether it is appropriate for competitors to make other competitors and/or match staff aware of infractions when they see them. How would YOU feel if one of your squadmates told you that your holster was illegal, for example... would you thank them or tell them to MYOB? What would you think about a match where there was a way for you to anonymously report infractions you became aware of?

At the heart of the question is whether we all have an obligation to help create an equitable competitive environment, or is it a case of "if you didn't get caught, it never happened"?

Oh, and this thread is NOT about "we need a standardized set of rules"... take that nonsense elsewhere

I think if your ethical you will do the right thing and let the officials know.

Pat

[Chuck Anderson]

I bet if we had a standardized set of rules match staff would have an easier time catching that stuff. That's a great idea from the OP.

[StealthyBlagga]

I agree with the consensus here that the vast majority of infractions are minor and unintentional, and my experience is that competitors are anxious to comply when the error is pointed out. However, I also get the sense that there is a reluctance to directly address issues with fellow competitors; not everyone wants to initiate a confrontation with a stranger that they have to spend several days with in the same squad. Furthermore, we all know that society frowns on "snitches". This leaves a significant potential for a rules enforcement gap.

If a match website had a simple, anonymous "report a problem" option, would you consider it appropriate for other competitors to report potential violations? Something like "Joe Blow on Squad 24 is using an illegal holster/magazine/optic etc.... might want to check it out". Anonymity may encourage people to speak out, but could also create the risk of harassment/malicious reporting, so a delicate touch from match staff would definitely be required.

Like others here, I have an instinctive distaste for the idea of "ratting out" fellow competitors, but on the other hand I do want to create the best possible environment for ensuring competitive equity.

Edited April 6, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[Stlhead]

Unfortunately the rule we really need is the "No asshats allowed to shoot the match." rule. If we had and enforced that rule we would not even be having this discussion. 3 gun is not a right, it is a privilege, and people who detract from the sport should not be allowed to play. If those that refuse to reset stages, whine all the time, cheat, or generally piss off or annoy the match staff and or other shooters where asked to leave and not come back, I think that we would see far less of those sorts of behaviors.

[ChuckS]

Unfortunately the rule we really need is the "No asshats allowed to shoot the match." rule.

I bet if we had a standardized set of rules match staff would have an easier time catching that stuff. That's a great idea from the OP.

hmmmmmm

[RiggerJJ]

The doc eliuded to what I feel is the answer. Its on the CRO of each and every stage to ensure equipment compliance. Most matches see 3-4 ROs per stage so there is NO reason why someone on the stage staff cannot have equipment compliance as a responsibility. The ROs ensure all other rule compliance, why not the equipment as well? This means the RO staff MUST be familiar with and even (gasp!) know ALL the rules in the match they are working. If this was the case everywhere, this would be a non-issue.

jj

Edited April 6, 2016 by RiggerJJ

[thermobollocks]

[Ask] me about being the designated mag gauge fascist at a level 2.

[fishsticks]

The doc eliuded to what I feel is the answer. Its on the CRO of each and every stage to ensure equipment compliance. Most matches see 3-4 ROs per stage so there is NO reason why someone on the stage staff cannot have equipment compliance as a responsibility. The ROs ensure all other rule compliance, why not the equipment as well? This means the RO staff MUST be familiar with and even (gasp!) know ALL the rules in the match they are working. If this was the case everywhere, this would be a non-issue.

jj

I think this is the answer.

Without a chrono stage (as in uspsa handgun) it makes the most sense. Even then above level 1 the staff should be looking at this on every stage. Using practiscore makes this easy as the clipboard RO can compare declared division to equipment.

I'm not above making a comment/suggestion to a fellow competitor, but it should really fall to match staff.

[Stlhead]

JJ, I can see a problem finding 10 more volunteers. Some matches struggle to find 2 ROs for each stage. Do we spread our already overtaxed match staff with more duties? At what point do those that still volunteer get fed up and throw in the towel.

Chuck, you write the rule book and I will help you vet it. You could set up a gofund me site to help defray the costs.

[RiggerJJ]

JJ, I can see a problem finding 10 more volunteers. Some matches struggle to find 2 ROs for each stage. Do we spread our already overtaxed match staff with more duties? At what point do those that still volunteer get fed up and throw in the towel.

Rule compliance is ALREADY the ROs responsibility. They just need to execute ALL of it. whether 1 or 4 on a stage, equipment compliance is part of the job description, along with KNOWING the rules. It's not that hard to do a visual shakedown of each competitor as they report to the start position. If a problem is susected during the course of fire, its not that hard to investigate after finished. Ie; let me that pistol mag, and count out the contents. If it's a 10 round division and you get more, there is a problem... If the magtube is suspect too long, check it. Do a steel projectile check before AND after the run... Etc...

jj

Edited April 6, 2016 by RiggerJJ

[Chuck Anderson]

JJ, I can see a problem finding 10 more volunteers. Some matches struggle to find 2 ROs for each stage. Do we spread our already overtaxed match staff with more duties? At what point do those that still volunteer get fed up and throw in the towel.

Chuck, you write the rule book and I will help you vet it. You could set up a gofund me site to help defray the costs.

http://uspsa.org/document_library/rules/2015/RifleShotgunMultigunRules.pdf

[Benelli Chick]

It's always a problem trying to get RO's to check equipment etc as they really do have a LOT to do.

Ours are finally getting the hang of it, mostly!

But, we haven't changed our divisions substantially in years. Last year, we did let supporting devices into He-Man, but we just reminded everyone at our big - day long - RO briefing where we walk through the stages and cover rule changes and concerns etc.

At SMM3G, all the long range rifle stages checked my ammo...most twice, before and at the end. Glancing at equipment for verification shouldn't take that much longer...but as I said, we don't have too many "only this long" rules except on pistol...so...it isn't a measuring issue. They can catch most issues visually without a tape measure.

[Stlhead]

JJ, I can see a problem finding 10 more volunteers. Some matches struggle to find 2 ROs for each stage. Do we spread our already overtaxed match staff with more duties? At what point do those that still volunteer get fed up and throw in the towel.

Chuck, you write the rule book and I will help you vet it. You could set up a gofund me site to help defray the costs.

http://uspsa.org/document_library/rules/2015/RifleShotgunMultigunRules.pdf

That joke was too easy Chuck, I expect better from you.

[Chuck Anderson]

Unfortunately the rule we really need is the "No asshats allowed to shoot the match." rule.

I bet if we had a standardized set of rules match staff would have an easier time catching that stuff. That's a great idea from the OP.

hmmmmmm

Hey wait a minute...yeah, that sounds about right.

[Chuck Anderson]

JJ, I can see a problem finding 10 more volunteers. Some matches struggle to find 2 ROs for each stage. Do we spread our already overtaxed match staff with more duties? At what point do those that still volunteer get fed up and throw in the towel.

Chuck, you write the rule book and I will help you vet it. You could set up a gofund me site to help defray the costs.

http://uspsa.org/document_library/rules/2015/RifleShotgunMultigunRules.pdf

That joke was too easy Chuck, I expect better from you.

Sorry, I only mess with people who come shoot my matches, not wimps who can't leave Washington to go to Texas to shoot in the dark.

[Stlhead]

Chuck, I am hurt. Your words cut me like a knife, but Fortunatley I have been able to pull myself together. I am sure that your night match will be great, I just don't like night matches all that much. I like to shoot during the day, then drink beer, then sleep. Night matches are just too disruptive to my normal routine, and you know that simple minds like mine rely heavily on routine. How about you let people shoot the stages during the day wearing dark glasses?

[Chuck Anderson]

That's why we moved to November. Should be done shooting by 10:30 or so and there will be plenty of beer at the range afterwards. Not Miller though, we like our shooters too much.

[Benelli Chick]

That's why we moved to November. Should be done shooting by 10:30 or so and there will be plenty of beer at the range afterwards. Not Miller though, we like our shooters too much.

Ouch!

[Doug H.]

That's why we moved to November. Should be done shooting by 10:30 or so and there will be plenty of beer at the range afterwards. Not Miller though, we like our shooters too much.

Yea, it kind of sucks when you have to stop shooting because the sun is coming up!

Doug

[Chuck Anderson]

That's why we moved to November. Should be done shooting by 10:30 or so and there will be plenty of beer at the range afterwards. Not Miller though, we like our shooters too much.

Yea, it kind of sucks when you have to stop shooting because the sun is coming up!

Doug

That was only the one year. Other than that we were usually done around the same time the bars close. Which was also bad timing.

[adamge]

I like the Puscifer reference.

[JOThompson]

There are some interesting math questions buried in here as well when it comes to rules compliance.

If you say a shotgun barrel must be no longer than 21", that implies 21.49" is allowed. If a pistol barrel must not be longer that 4.453", then 4.4534" is allowed. From a math and legal perspective, significant figures, rounding and truncating are defined.

So for "1x" optics, are you going to check magnification with an optical comparator and allow anything up to 1.49X? There are some that with the right glasses and diopter adjustment can get pretty darn close to 1.3X that are labeled as 1x optics.

Some matches say only 2 3/4" shells allowed, so if I open the crimp on a 3" prarie storm, trim, put in an overshot card and roll crimp it, they are only 2.55" long and 2.75" fired. Those would then be, under the rules, legal.

The part in bold kinda blows my mind.

What if you say the barrel has to be 21.00 inches or less?

I don't quite get or understand the how or why behind saying "no longer than 21 inches", but then it is supposedly universally accepted that 21.49 inches is A-okay.

If you say 21.0 vinculum, that makes it so it can not be over 21" by any amount. The reason that the USPSA rulebooks have blown up is that common sense is not as common as it used to be and the twisting of words has become common. When we let the lawyers rule the banks, the insurance companies and the politics, it was bound to go south. It is a mixing of meanings that usually causes the problems and with whiners and gamers it is a problem. While this is a little drift from the OP, it is a part of the problem with the rulesets and some personalities that get mixed in to the action shooting sports.

20 years ago, everyone knew waht 21" meant. But today, with Clintonian English vs. common usage vs. actual definitions, we can get into a mess with some rule verbiage.

I'm a lawyer and would read that differently. For example, the law in most states makes it a crime to operate a motor vehicle above .08. People are regularly prosecuted for being .081 BAC (assuming the unit of measurement here is one one-hundredth).

Had a client with an illegal SBR not too long ago, prosecuted by the feds. He was under 16" but not by much. If we argued that 15.9 inches is not a full measurement unit (inch) below 16 inches, I think we would have been in even more trouble.

[Alaskapopo]

There are some interesting math questions buried in here as well when it comes to rules compliance.

If you say a shotgun barrel must be no longer than 21", that implies 21.49" is allowed. If a pistol barrel must not be longer that 4.453", then 4.4534" is allowed. From a math and legal perspective, significant figures, rounding and truncating are defined.

So for "1x" optics, are you going to check magnification with an optical comparator and allow anything up to 1.49X? There are some that with the right glasses and diopter adjustment can get pretty darn close to 1.3X that are labeled as 1x optics.

Some matches say only 2 3/4" shells allowed, so if I open the crimp on a 3" prarie storm, trim, put in an overshot card and roll crimp it, they are only 2.55" long and 2.75" fired. Those would then be, under the rules, legal.

The part in bold kinda blows my mind.

What if you say the barrel has to be 21.00 inches or less?

I don't quite get or understand the how or why behind saying "no longer than 21 inches", but then it is supposedly universally accepted that 21.49 inches is A-okay.

If you say 21.0 vinculum, that makes it so it can not be over 21" by any amount. The reason that the USPSA rulebooks have blown up is that common sense is not as common as it used to be and the twisting of words has become common. When we let the lawyers rule the banks, the insurance companies and the politics, it was bound to go south. It is a mixing of meanings that usually causes the problems and with whiners and gamers it is a problem. While this is a little drift from the OP, it is a part of the problem with the rulesets and some personalities that get mixed in to the action shooting sports.

20 years ago, everyone knew waht 21" meant. But today, with Clintonian English vs. common usage vs. actual definitions, we can get into a mess with some rule verbiage.

I'm a lawyer and would read that differently. For example, the law in most states makes it a crime to operate a motor vehicle above .08. People are regularly prosecuted for being .081 BAC (assuming the unit of measurement here is one one-hundredth).

Had a client with an illegal SBR not too long ago, prosecuted by the feds. He was under 16" but not by much. If we argued that 15.9 inches is not a full measurement unit (inch) below 16 inches, I think we would have been in even more trouble.

Most states its at .080 or above it does not have to be .081 and in most states you can get DUI s under that limit if you can prove impairment. Only lost one DUI trial and that was when I was new.

Pat

Edited July 10, 2016 by Alaskapopo