Sarge Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, Chills1994 said: For there to be interference, does there actually have to be physical contact between the RO and the shooter? Granted, I haven't read the rulebook in a while. ( ha ha LOL!), but is impeding a competitor's path or direction of travel considered interference? Because in my opinion, seeing how quickly the "timer stand" and the scorekeeper jumped back or jumped out of the way shows that they knew they would be impeding the shooter's intended path. (to continue with the MMQBing) did the RO and scorekeeper realize that the steel had not fallen? Maybe using this situation as a learning opportunity for other future RO classes, make it point to address stage design, and from a TTP perspective for RO's to pay attention to when a steel (activator?) has not fallen and to expect a shooter to back up, so the RO and SK should position themselves according. Physical contact is not necessary. There are several ways to interfere with a cof. Yes, the RO's new the steel did not fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 9 hours ago, Sarge said: For sake of clarification I'll clarify. I know shooters who will admit they will try to physically contact an RO For a reshoot if they tank a run. There was a shooter at a major match within the last 24 months that deliberately steam rolled a very young (13) RO after he was done shooting. At A5 a shooter asked for overlays on edge hits on multiple targets and insisted the calls were wrong but didn't go as far as to call RM. Later I overhear him being asked why he didn't ask for the RM back on stage xx. His reply was, "because they were mikes". That's NOT gaming. Insisted the calls were wrong before or after the overlay was applied? I've disagreed with a scoring call or two in my time, but in most cases, was satisfied once an RO overlaid the target. Looking over the RO's shoulder at the overlaid target, made it clear the hit didn't contact the perf, or that it wasn't a double. I wasn't gaming the system...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 1 minute ago, Nik Habicht said: Insisted the calls were wrong before or after the overlay was applied? I've disagreed with a scoring call or two in my time, but in most cases, was satisfied once an RO overlaid the target. Looking over the RO's shoulder at the overlaid target, made it clear the hit didn't contact the perf, or that it wasn't a double. I wasn't gaming the system...... Knew they were mikes all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeOfToren Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Thomas H said: I would be curious to hear where this was arbed and won. Apparently my RO and CRO classes are too far in the past, because I certainly wasn't taught anything like that. As such, if things have changed, I'd like to know. Where was a situation in which the competitor swept a non-competitor, was DQed, and the DQ was overturned in arbitration? Details? I have seen videos where someone was taping targets downrange while the competitor was shooting the stage. I don't think the competitor got DQed for that. The same situation applies here. If the ROs cannot stay "up range" relative to the competitor, it's the RO's fault, as long as the competitor does not break 180. Edited June 9, 2017 by JusticeOfToren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 1 hour ago, JusticeOfToren said: I have seen videos where someone was taping targets downrange while the competitor was shooting the stage. I don't think the competitor got DQed for that. The same situation applies here. If the ROs cannot stay "up range" relative to the competitor, it's the RO's fault, as long as the competitor does not break 180. My question wasn't about uprange or not---it was specifically about sweeping. I'm curious as to a specific situation in which the competitor swept someone, was DQed, and had the DQ overturned on arbitration. That's what he said had happened, more than once. So that's what I'd like to hear details about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 4 hours ago, Thomas H said: My question wasn't about uprange or not---it was specifically about sweeping. I'm curious as to a specific situation in which the competitor swept someone, was DQed, and had the DQ overturned on arbitration. That's what he said had happened, more than once. So that's what I'd like to hear details about. +1 I could understand it if the competitor did not directly cause the other person to be up range and was surprised as he swept the person. Something like - I forget a port on my right, I safely return up range to the port and address a close target through it, I reload immediately and the muzzle sweeps the r.o. who had not gotten fully up range of me when I returned to the target. You could sort of say I caused the r.o. to be up range momentarily because I returned to the target, but you couldn't expect me to be watching him and to know that he would be in an unsafe location as I started the reload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJE Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 On 6/7/2017 at 9:35 PM, Sarge said: And note how far back the scoring RO actually is. He is basically at the end of the three walls and the shooter is now indexing on the turner that has not been activated. And I still saw the RO (s) get out of the way plenty fast when shooter finally decided to move back. This is an excellent example of why video is not allowed as evidence in uspsa. I don't understand how you can have this position in the same thread where you had to post this: The scoring RO is in the shooting area. I stand corrected! But he appears to be way uprange from the shooter and was not in the way. Your recollection of the event was clearly not correct in your first post. This seems like a perfect example of why it should be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWLAZS Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 The interference occurred when the shooter had to be concerned about the ro safety in regards to his movement. If they were not standing n his way he would not have stopped. The interference took place prior to him speaking to the ro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, AWLAZS said: The interference occurred when the shooter had to be concerned about the ro safety in regards to his movement. If they were not standing n his way he would not have stopped. The interference took place prior to him speaking to the ro. that is not what I see on the video. it looks like the shooter was looking directly at the targets, and stopped because he was considering whether it was worth it to go back. he did not *appear* to be paying any attention to the RO, who did not appear to be in his way at that time anyway. This seems like a classic case of 'not enough to overturn the call on the ice'. If the RO really thought he had interfered, I'd be cool with that. If he doesn't think so, based on the vid, I'm cool with that too. At any rate, stopping because the RO *might* later be in the way of something you haven't done yet doesn't seem like interference to me, and I could easily see people claiming that was the case on lots of stages where they knew they had screwed up and were just trying to get a reshoot. Edited June 9, 2017 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted June 9, 2017 Author Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, Sarge said: Yes, the RO's new the steel did not fall. Then either they are liars, or just terrible ROs. Edited June 9, 2017 by waktasz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 5 hours ago, waktasz said: Then either they are liars, or just terrible ROs. Wow, way to show respect and appreciation for those who make it possible for others to shoot and scoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 11 hours ago, AJE said: I don't understand how you can have this position in the same thread where you had to post this: Your recollection of the event was clearly not correct in your first post. This seems like a perfect example of why it should be allowed. At the end of Third wall is well uprange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Sarge said: At the end of Third wall is well uprange. It's okay to admit you are wrong occasionally. Anyone who has eyes and who has read through this knows that you were wrong here. Continuing to dig in just makes you look all the more contemptible. Edited June 9, 2017 by alma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortBus Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, alma said: It's okay to admit you are wrong occasionally. Anyone who has eyes and who has read through this knows that you were wrong here. Continuing to dig in just makes you look all the more contemptible. Id have to agree here. Dude was down range lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortBus Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, waktasz said: Then either they are liars, or just terrible ROs. I agree too. Either they knew the steel fell and didn't care to act like he was gonna possible come back and get it, or they never saw it. Edited June 9, 2017 by ShortBus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Let's keep the personal attacks out of this if you guys want it to stay open for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 1 hour ago, GrumpyOne said: Let's keep the personal attacks out of this if you guys want it to stay open for discussion. I hope it gets closed. Kind of tired of the insults and attacks. I talked with the RM of the match today. The consensus still is it was not interference. It's been arbed and lost. The match is over. I have moved on to working yet another level II match in support of the sport. There truly is nothing left to argue about. It can't be changed. Nothing to be gained by name calling and bitching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, Sarge said: I hope it gets closed. Kind of tired of the insults and attacks. I talked with the RM of the match today. The consensus still is it was not interference. It's been arbed and lost. The match is over. I have moved on to working yet another level II match in support of the sport. There truly is nothing left to argue about. It can't be changed. Nothing to be gained by name calling and bitching. The reason is because I felt like you were belittling the shooter and insinuating that the ROs at no time did anything that was wrong or even that could have been improved on. You arrogantly stated in a matter-of-fact way several details which have been shown to be false from the video provided, but still offered no concession. When cornered then you shift your tactic to that of a victim, the noble RO who everyone should just stop picking on. I am very, very grateful for the ROs and CROs who work matches. I don't even have any problem with the individuals in the video; however, this seems like a good learning opportunity for shooters, ROs, RMs, and perhaps even BoD should anyone see fit to revisit current arbitration restrictions. How about we stop taking extreme sides of the ROs versus the Shooters and starting discussing the path forward to ensure more a equitable experience for all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJE Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Sarge said: At the end of Third wall is well uprange. Your statement before picture or video were posted was that the RO never passed the wall. A picture of the RO at the end of the wall was posted and you had to refine your statement. He was nearly to the 2nd portion of the wall, meaning he was 8' past the point where you remembered he was, after you had to be corrected. You were an eye witness to this and were clearly proven wrong in your recollection. That's exactly why we should allow video for these situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWLAZS Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Looks like the ro may have wanted him to do something when he help his free hand up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Scott Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Its easy for me to see from watching this over and over that after his last shot in that position he turned and took about a step and a half(maybe two) uprange which put him damn near level with the timer RO, at that point comes his "pause" and assessment that some seem to think happened before he was close enough to an official for there to be any interference. If If I'm headed uprange in the ROs direction and get that close of course I am going to "slow my roll" or else I am going to pass them. Its simple, a human running forward is going to beat a human running backward or human turning and running forward every time. So.. yes, I think the call was wrong. Yes, I agree it can not be fixed now. But.. I think we should try to learn from this not point fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted June 10, 2017 Author Share Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, GrumpyOne said: Let's keep the personal attacks out of this if you guys want it to stay open for discussion. It's not a personal attack if it's true. edit: maybe they aren't terrible ROs...more likely they just made a mistake, but Sarge covering for them makes him a terrible person. True or false? Edited June 10, 2017 by waktasz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 36 minutes ago, AWLAZS said: Looks like the ro may have wanted him to do something when he help his free hand up. The RO looks to just be motioning for everybody behind to stay clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted June 10, 2017 Author Share Posted June 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Sarge said: The RO looks to just be motioning for everybody behind to stay clear. And he should have noticed the steel up and done that WAY earlier, and the second RO shouldn't have been in the hallway at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Scott Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Right here, at his turn, he has to be able to see them no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts