Rules for scoring level 2 matches

[bret]

2 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

The shooter owns the full 180 degrees, so if someone is hollering at him at level 2 match while he is within the 180, isn't that interference?

 

Seems like you either dq or allow the shooter to continue. 

IMO if an R.O. says to watch your 180 when close, it is R.O. interference, you can ride the 180 all you want, when you break it, that is a problem.

If an R.O. gave me a warning on a 180 during my COF and I screwed up the stage, I would ask for a reshoot.

At a match a couple of years ago an R.O. runs up and whoa whoa whoa'd a shooter, that startled the shooter, causing him to break 180, after it was over, the shooter asked him why he ran up on him and yelled at him, he said, You were getting close to 180.

The R.O. that was back chatting with the squad reacted to what the squad thought they saw, yet the 2 R.O.'s running the shooter and were watching didn't stop the shooter until after the R.O. on break interfered and was not in a position to see if he broke 180.

If someone breaks 180, stop them, if they are close, they are well within the rules, leave them alone.

[motosapiens]

16 minutes ago, bret said:

IMO if an R.O. says to watch your 180 when close, it is R.O. interference, you can ride the 180 all you want, when you break it, that is a problem.
If an R.O. gave me a warning on a 180 during my COF and I screwed up the stage, I would ask for a reshoot.

your opinion is clearly in contradiction with the rulebook (8.6.1).

 

I have heard of situations where it was more than a 'muzzle' warning tho that did lead to a reshoot; for example if the RO physically touches or restrains you but you haven't broken the 180. that would generally be grounds for RO interference. You screwing up your stage is generally NOT grounds for RO interference.

Edited May 4, 2017 by motosapiens

[bret]

Just now, motosapiens said:

your opinion is clearly in contradiction with the rulebook (8.6.1).

How is giving a safety warning applicable when the shooter is not violating a safety rule?

What safety rule does a competitor need to be warned of when they have not violated a safety rule?

 

8.6.1  No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

[motosapiens]

3 minutes ago, bret said:

How is giving a safety warning applicable when the shooter is not violating a safety rule?

Seriously?

 

It seems obvious to me that if the shooter *is* violating a safety rule, you don't warn, you stop and dq. OTOH, if the shooter is getting close to violating a safety rule, or might be violating it but you can't tell for sure, then a warning such as 'muzzle' or 'finger' may be appropriate. Seems to me this is normally a topic of discussion in RO classes.

 

Like others on this thread, I am generally a fan of the RO not saying anything, especially at majors, or to more experienced shooters, but...... that doesn't mean it's interference if an RO *does* say something, even if you don't like it, or it distracts you.

Edited May 4, 2017 by motosapiens

[IHAVEGAS]

24 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

your opinion is clearly in contradiction with the rulebook (8.6.1).

 

I have heard of situations where it was more than a 'muzzle' warning tho that did lead to a reshoot; for example if the RO physically touches or restrains you but you haven't broken the 180. that would generally be grounds for RO interference. You screwing up your stage is generally NOT grounds for RO interference.

 

 Good discussion I think.

 

Seems like 8.6.4 would give the shooter an excellent case for a reshoot?

[dvrdwn72]

Meaning each competitor scored a target for the "ro"

[dvrdwn72]

I know the other guy that was there, and he is a uspsa cro, but nothing more than a paid shooter at this match. don't want to call him out by name and put him on the spot but could see the frustration in him, he worked his ass off and eventually stepped up to keep things running. Ro ing and scorekeeping.

[Schutzenmeister]

48 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

It seems obvious to me that if the shooter *is* violating a safety rule, you don't warn, you stop and dq. OTOH, if the shooter is getting close to violating a safety rule, or might be violating it but you can't tell for sure, then a warning such as 'muzzle' or 'finger' may be appropriate. Seems to me this is normally a topic of discussion in RO classes.

 

Thank you ... 100% spot on.

 

27 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 Good discussion I think.

 

Seems like 8.6.4 would give the shooter an excellent case for a reshoot?

 

Except that 8.6.1 EXPRESSLY states an RO issuing a warning IS NOT grounds for a reshoot.  (Physical contact is another topic ...)

[IHAVEGAS]

51 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Except that 8.6.1 EXPRESSLY states an RO issuing a warning IS NOT grounds for a reshoot.  (Physical contact is another topic ...)

 

Seems like one of those places where the rules contradict. You can give a warning to a shooter who is not breaking any rule, but you can not interfere with the shooter .

 

 

[Schutzenmeister]

3 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Seems like one of those places where the rules contradict. You can give a warning to a shooter who is not breaking any rule, but you can not interfere with the shooter .

 

 

 

No contradiction WHATSOEVER ... It is an express exemption built into the rules in the name of SAFETY!

[IHAVEGAS]

Just now, Schutzenmeister said:

 

No contradiction WHATSOEVER ... It is an express exemption built into the rules in the name of SAFETY!

 

Respectfully.

 

[dvrdwn72]

I think it was because the shooter,, HAD his finger ON the trigger while NOT engaging targets,,,, ie, during reloading, etc.

[bret]

1 minute ago, dvrdwn72 said:

I think it was because the shooter,, HAD his finger ON the trigger while NOT engaging targets,,,, ie, during reloading, etc.

That is not a safety warning that is a DQ.

 

 

1 hour ago, dvrdwn72 said:

Meaning each competitor scored a target for the "ro"

sounds like a mess, where was the RM?

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

No contradiction WHATSOEVER ... It is an express exemption built into the rules in the name of SAFETY!

this is entirely correct. still a good topic for discussion, but the rule is cut and dried.

[tanks]

Heck, it annoys me even when the score keeper looks at the targets and scores them without the RO yelling them out with me watching. At Area 2 on two instances I caught them calling close Alphas out as Charlies when they were in a rush. I drop enough points on my own without needing help ;).

 

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by tanks

[IHAVEGAS]

24 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

this is entirely correct. still a good topic for discussion, but the rule is cut and dried.

 

Yes, absolutely, if you only read the one rule, but the other rule is cut and dried as well, and I think you have to do your best to follow the entirety of the rulebook even when there is contradiction. 

 

Not something to get irritated about. If I have the timer and I judge that a warning interfered with the competitor I am going to offer them a re-shoot, it was my choice to shout a warning rather than allow them to proceed & either dq or not. I would error on the side of safety, as I am allowed to, but would not want someone's match result to be dependent upon my correct or incorrect judgement. 

 

A rule book update could show 8.6.1 under exceptions to 8.6.4 and remove the contradiction. 

 

 

 

 

[JAFO]

The last statement of 8.6.1 eliminates what you feel is a contradiction:

 

8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

[dvrdwn72]

Don't have the rule book in front of me, but isn't it a dq for finger on trigger while not actively engaging targets?

[JAFO]

Yes:

10.5.10 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during movement in accordance with Section 8.5.

 

with

 

8.5.1 Except when the competitor is actually aiming or shooting at targets, all movement (see Appendix A3) must be accomplished with the fingers visibly outside the trigger guard and the safety should be engaged. The handgun must be pointed in a safe direction.

 

I've given finger warnings to new shooters when I'm on their weak side and can't tell if their finger is hovering just out of the trigger guard or in it.  If I'm not sure, I will try to reposition myself to the other side so I can see more clearly.  But if it is clearly inside, that's when you issue STOP, not another finger warning. 

 

I also try to encourage people at new shooter's briefings to lay their finger up on the frame, clearly out of the guard, when moving or reloading.

[bret]

8 minutes ago, dvrdwn72 said:

Don't have the rule book in front of me, but isn't it a dq for finger on trigger while not actively engaging targets?

Depends on the R.O. and RM.

[IHAVEGAS]

14 minutes ago, JAFO said:

The last statement of 8.6.1 eliminates what you feel is a contradiction:

 

8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

 

You need to look at both rules in order to see the contradiction. I agree that as a stand alone both rules are clear. 

[JAFO]

I seem to recall there was a discussion on whether you could be considered "aiming" at a target without being able to shoot at it for score, as in having your finger on the trigger as you approach a target around a mesh wall.  The shooter can't shoot it yet, but they know it's there and start aiming and prepping their shot as they move around the wall.  And there would be those who would argue you could do the same when it's a solid wall, since you know it's there and you are "aiming" where you know it will be.

[dvrdwn72]

Ok, what about while reloading?

[JAFO]

5 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

You need to look at both rules in order to see the contradiction. I agree that as a stand alone both rules are clear. 

 

I guess it comes down to the word "may" in 8.6.4.

 

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire.

 

If you feel your warning interfered, as the RO you have the option of offering a reshoot.  There's nothing that says you can't.  But if I give a warning and I don't perceive that it interfered with your run, I would not be inclined to offer one after you finish the run.

[bret]

3 minutes ago, dvrdwn72 said:

Ok, what about while reloading?

Per the rules it is a DQ.