Rulebook Re-write?

[remoandiris]

I am suprised with all the technology out there, that we can't just take an interactive online course, and get certified.

I have taken a number of online classes for BS and MA degrees. IMO, initial RO training this is not something that can be done online at a reasonable cost. Part of the curriculim is running shooters and determining what the shooter did wrong during the CoF. Plus, the interaction between NROI trainers and students in the classroom is important to the learning process. Online training doesn't offer that immediate feedback yet. Recert is done online already, but the initial...I don't see it. It will probably happen someday, just not today.

Edited October 18, 2012 by remoandiris

[D.Hayden]

I can't get my CRO card because we have to now have a class full of RO that want to take the CRO class.

[Thread drift mode on]

Can't this still be taken through correspondence courses?

And this thread made me check my USPSA profile, and see my CRO expired at the end of them month.. It's nice having that on-line, 5 minutes, passed 100%

[CZinSC]

I can't get my CRO card because we have to now have a class full of RO that want to take the CRO class.

[Thread drift mode on]

Can't this still be taken through correspondence courses?

And this thread made me check my USPSA profile, and see my CRO expired at the end of them month.. It's nice having that on-line, 5 minutes, passed 100%

They have not offered the CRO correspondence course for a while now. I gave up looking at the website for more info. I guess they don't want more people being CRO's. The one in person class we tried to get in this area back in May couldn't draw enough people, so looks like I won't become an CRO any time soon either.

[sperman]

When did that change? It wasn't too long ago that I took the CRO course via e-mail. If I had to wait for an in-person class, I would never have made it to CRO either.

[sperman]

I found a linkt to the correspondence course: The link is no longer valid.

[remoandiris]

The CRO correspondence course was canxed several months ago. They offered it last year and this year just prior to Nats. Will probably offer it next year for Nats, too.

[lawboy]

Brandon,

Take an RO course. I think that will satisfy your curiosity. We don't want a rule book as thick as the US tax code.

Robert

The idea that taking an RO course is the answer to understanding the rulebook is ... regrettable. The purpose of a rulebook is to explain the rules so people can compete competently and safely. If a course is required to understand the rulebook, then that course should be a MANDATORY prerequisite to beginning competition in the sport.

And I do not mean a club level course, I mean USPSA should require that everyone take an RO course before they compete. Otherwise, the liability monster is huge. I am a trial lawyer and I will tell you right now, if I got ANY high level USPSA official to say in a deposition on a personal injury case that to understand the rules someone would need to take the RO course, I would crucify USPSA and get paid. The idea is simply irresponsible and silly. The rulebook should be self explanatory and if you need a multiple day course to understand the rules, require the course or rewrite the rulebook so the course is no longer necessary.

[sperman]

If simply being able to read a rulebook meant you understood all the nuances of applying said rulebook, then the replacment officials wouldn't have and any problem in the NFL.

Did you become an attorney by reading a few law books, or did you go to school for many years, and then spend some time under an experienced lawyer before you were ready to appear in court?

Did reading Brian's book make you an instant GM?

[Stampedeboss]

Please keep in mind that there are really two different things in play. One are the rules themselves, the other is the philosophy behind enforcing rules. Many other non-shooting sports have two documents. Case in point is the NFL refs are taught never to throw a flag on a hail mart at the end of the game. Philosophy not rule.

[Nik Habicht]

I completely understand, but not having been through RO class isn't a reason to put down someone's opinions. I have taken the time to read and try to understand the rules as best I can. since I have lived in Texas there has only been one chance for an RO class and I'm still waiting reply if there is room left. When I was in Ms for 8 months, zero chance for an RO class. You see sometimes someone not becoming an RO isn't because they don't have an understanding and desire to understand the rules, it's just RO classes are not like local matches that are held every month on a regular basis.

Neither are Nationals or area matches.....

I fail to see you point here.

RO classes and Major matches aren't easy to get to. The second to last RO class I sat in on was held in northern NJ -- and attendees drove down from Maine, and up from either North or South Carolina. Unfortunately, you really need to want it.....

I'd be happier if we could hold at least 3-6 classes per area per year, in locales that would enable most area shooters to attend within a year of joining. That's hard though -- and the instructor corps is small....

[38SuperDub]

Nik,

Curious what would it take to add to the instructors? Maybe qualify a couple instructors per area? This may be something the BOD could consider

[sirveyr]

When I took the RO course, I wasn't issued a secret book or anything special. Everyone has access to the same materials. Being an RO or not should have no bearing on ones ability to read, comprehend and possibly question the clarity of a rule.

[Nik Habicht]

Nik,

Curious what would it take to add to the instructors? Maybe qualify a couple instructors per area? This may be something the BOD could consider

That's a very long path. RO -- CRO -- RM -- Nationals Experience -- then Selection, and RMI training....

There are very few folks in the country who are qualified, and even fewer who can also make the time commitment. Time not just to teach the classes, but also to continue to put in the work hours required to maintain RM or RMI certification....

[lawboy]

If simply being able to read a rulebook meant you understood all the nuances of applying said rulebook, then the replacment officials wouldn't have and any problem in the NFL.

Did you become an attorney by reading a few law books, or did you go to school for many years, and then spend some time under an experienced lawyer before you were ready to appear in court?

Did reading Brian's book make you an instant GM?

That is a fair point. However, nobody is talking about nuances. The question presented is not a nuance. It is a HUGE, major, plain as day issue: This action is prohibited but no penalty is specified. I challenge you to find a single on-field prohibited action in NFL football that does not have a penalty plainly stated in the rules. I double dog dare you. Go ahead. Do it.

I thought not.

Again, nobody is talking about judgment call things here. We are talking about issues called out in the rulebook but for which no penalty is specified.

Yes, I do believe simply reading the rulebook should allow an average person to UNDERSTAND how to safely and competently play the game. I do not believe that reading the rulebook will allow every average person to safely and competently play the game. We are talking about intellectual/cognitive recognition of what is required/allowed, not the ability to perform any physical act.

I stand by what I said: If any USPSA official were to say that that rulebook is insufficient to allow people to UNDERSTAND how to play the game, then I would crucify them because you should not have people running around on gravel, loose dirt, etc. with loaded guns, in a hurry, based on a set of rules that cannot be understood without a class you have not required them to take. You may find it distasteful, but it is basic general negligence law. And, I might add, even though this is an ultra hazardous activity by definition and all clubs I have ever been to require you to sign an ultra hazardous activity liability waiver, that kind of statement I mentioned could very well nullify the protections of such a waiver. You betcha there is precedent for it.

As for my practice, I was appearing in court and winning while still in law school. I did so based on reading the law. Written rules should be capable of being understood and where the law is concerned, to the extent they are not so written, they suck and should be replaced. I've won a few of those battles too.

Edited October 19, 2012 by lawboy

[remoandiris]

I do not believe that reading the rulebook will allow every average person to safely and competently play the game.

I disagree, but I guess the definition of "average person" needs to be understood. There are average people who don't know you could burn yourself if you hold a cup of hot coffee while driving and jam on your brakes.

We are talking about intellectual/cognitive recognition of what is required/allowed, not the ability to perform any physical act.

Please provide a few examples.

[lawboy]

I do not believe that reading the rulebook will allow every average person to safely and competently play the game.

I disagree, but I guess the definition of "average person" needs to be understood. There are average people who don't know you could burn yourself if you hold a cup of hot coffee while driving and jam on your brakes.

We are talking about intellectual/cognitive recognition of what is required/allowed, not the ability to perform any physical act.

Please provide a few examples.

On your first point, I concede. Average person can mean a lot of things. I am simply talking about a person literate in English with a 12 grade education. I think the rulebook should be written so that such a person can understand how to safely and competently play USPSA from reading the book.

One Example: The rulebook states that reloading with your finger on the trigger results in a DQ. I think most people can understand that cause and effect relationship based on what the written rule says. I have seen a lot of average people new to shooting and particularly action shooting who were unable to consistently do this in orientation courses and at matches and during private tutoring sessions to introduce them to the game. They intellectually understood the rule based on the rulebook. They were not able to perform the specified task, ie., remove finger from trigger when reloading. The rulebook is perfectly adequate on this issue.

Edited October 20, 2012 by lawboy

[Chuck Anderson]

Lawboy, can you provide an example of one of these negligent issues you're talking about? If its the belt thing that caused this thread to start, that is pretty clear to anyone with a 12 th grade education and a basic level of reading comprehension. The penalty for failing to comply with divisional requirements is spelled out. Just not for every single instance. If you don't comply you go to open. If you don't comply with open you shoot for no score.

As far as winning a lawsuit on what division somebody shoots in. Well good luck with that. I believe the safety rules would likely have a higher potential for litigation. And a you pointed out. They are very clear, without takin a class.

[38SuperDub]

Chuck - not stirring the pot here - but let me ask you a question,

Earlier this year I was threatened by multiple RO's that if I showed up at their major sectional match wearing a certain holster in production I would be bumped to Open because it is a "RACE HOLSTER". I spent a week worth of emails back and forth with John Amidon hopefully getting it cleared up (although it was just his opinion and not an official ruling at the time)

The first line in Appendix D under production Item 20 says :

"Suitable for everyday use. “Race gun” type holster prohibited."

Tell me what that means. Tell me where in the rule book someone new to shooting can figure out what that means. Don't you agree that this is VERY VERY VERY un clear and should be spelled out more?

Edited October 20, 2012 by bsdubois00

[lawboy]

I Have not claimed there is any negligence issue. I simply saying that the idea stated in this thread that a person would have to take an RON class to understand the rules is regrettable. I further stated ghat if an official representing Uspsa stated that at a deposition they would get the organization hammered. I base that on the legal duty which is part of general negligence law which states that if you are subjecting people to foreseeable harm and not taking reasonable diligent steps to safeguard them taking into acct the totality of the circumstances and damage results, you are liable for your negligence.

[Chuck Anderson]

I Have not claimed there is any negligence issue. I simply saying that the idea stated in this thread that a person would have to take an RON class to understand the rules is regrettable. I further stated ghat if an official representing Uspsa stated that at a deposition they would get the organization hammered. I base that on the legal duty which is part of general negligence law which states that if you are subjecting people to foreseeable harm and not taking reasonable diligent steps to safeguard them taking into acct the totality of the circumstances and damage results, you are liable for your negligence.

And nowhere has there been an example of any rule that is unclear regarding any safety issue. The fact that some people don't bother to read and comprehend the rule book before spouting off about needed changes does not negligence make. The safety rules are clearly defined and as a result USPSA has an enviable safety record. Making statements such as you have are merely posturing to try and make a point. There is no need to take an RO class to safely compete in USPSA. However, if you want to fully understand the rules the class is helpful. No different than saying a lawyer only needs to read law books in order to practice law. Or did you have to take a class or two before taking the Bar?

[Chuck Anderson]

Chuck - not stirring the pot here - but let me ask you a question,

Earlier this year I was threatened by multiple RO's that if I showed up at their major sectional match wearing a certain holster in production I would be bumped to Open because it is a "RACE HOLSTER". I spent a week worth of emails back and forth with John Amidon hopefully getting it cleared up (although it was just his opinion and not an official ruling at the time)

The first line in Appendix D under production Item 20 says :

"Suitable for everyday use. “Race gun” type holster prohibited."

Tell me what that means. Tell me where in the rule book someone new to shooting can figure out what that means. Don't you agree that this is VERY VERY VERY un clear and should be spelled out more?

So you tried something that had never been tried before and the RO questioned it? OK. What's your point. I've had ROs make incorrect rulings before. There is a process fr resolving disputes. Arbitration and or doing what you did which was contact DNROI. Without getting into an approved holster list, or taking three pages to describe what a race holster is this will remain a bit fuzzy to you. It's crystal clear to me based on conversations with John.

Brandon, the reason you are catching crap on this is because most of what you complain about is clear to most people that have been to an RO class. A read of the book would clear things up. But some people need an RMI to explain stuff as well.

[Nik Habicht]

Chuck - not stirring the pot here - but let me ask you a question,

Earlier this year I was threatened by multiple RO's that if I showed up at their major sectional match wearing a certain holster in production I would be bumped to Open because it is a "RACE HOLSTER". I spent a week worth of emails back and forth with John Amidon hopefully getting it cleared up (although it was just his opinion and not an official ruling at the time)

The first line in Appendix D under production Item 20 says :

"Suitable for everyday use. “Race gun” type holster prohibited."

Tell me what that means. Tell me where in the rule book someone new to shooting can figure out what that means. Don't you agree that this is VERY VERY VERY un clear and should be spelled out more?

If folks really don't understand the difference, send 'em my way. I can educate them in about five minutes at a match.....

And no, I don't think it's unclear -- I understood it from the moment I read it for the first time around 2001. Then again I'd been competing in IDPA for more than a year at that point, so maybe I was just really well educated at that point....

[Nik Habicht]

But some people need an RMI to explain stuff as well.

And all people can probably benefit from having an RMI explain stuff......

.....partly because of the wealth of experience, from working everything from club matches to national championships, an RMI brings with him into the classroom....

[spanky]

I can't get my CRO card because we have to now have a class full of RO that want to take the CRO class.

[Thread drift mode on]

Can't this still be taken through correspondence courses?

And this thread made me check my USPSA profile, and see my CRO expired at the end of them month.. It's nice having that on-line, 5 minutes, passed 100%

They have not offered the CRO correspondence course for a while now. I gave up looking at the website for more info. I guess they don't want more people being CRO's. The one in person class we tried to get in this area back in May couldn't draw enough people, so looks like I won't become an CRO any time soon either.

how long is "for a while?" i did it last year...

[38SuperDub]

Chuck - not stirring the pot here - but let me ask you a question,

Earlier this year I was threatened by multiple RO's that if I showed up at their major sectional match wearing a certain holster in production I would be bumped to Open because it is a "RACE HOLSTER". I spent a week worth of emails back and forth with John Amidon hopefully getting it cleared up (although it was just his opinion and not an official ruling at the time)

The first line in Appendix D under production Item 20 says :

"Suitable for everyday use. “Race gun” type holster prohibited."

Tell me what that means. Tell me where in the rule book someone new to shooting can figure out what that means. Don't you agree that this is VERY VERY VERY un clear and should be spelled out more?

So you tried something that had never been tried before and the RO questioned it? OK. What's your point. I've had ROs make incorrect rulings before. There is a process fr resolving disputes. Arbitration and or doing what you did which was contact DNROI. Without getting into an approved holster list, or taking three pages to describe what a race holster is this will remain a bit fuzzy to you. It's crystal clear to me based on conversations with John.

Brandon, the reason you are catching crap on this is because most of what you complain about is clear to most people that have been to an RO class. A read of the book would clear things up. But some people need an RMI to explain stuff as well.

See my issue was it was crystal clear to me that it wasn't a race holster. It was a couple certified ROs that were claiming that it was. I could in a couple of sentences define what a race holster is. Even more so why is suitable for everyday use there? Hasn't it been said that production is not a ccw type division, so why is that wording there and who wears a holster to compete that they would every day?