Area 5 Arb

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, Maximis228 said:

 

You know that's a 2 way street, right?

It can be ,yes. I have never personally known an RO to be out to screw a shooter, including this one. BUT, I know more than a few shooters who will go out of their way to take advantage of an RO. 

 

[Maximis228]

3 minutes ago, Sarge said:

It can be ,yes. I have never personally known an RO to be out to screw a shooter, including this one. BUT, I know more than a few shooters who will go out of their way to take advantage of an RO. 

 

 

I think you are confusing RO and Rules. Yes a shooter will game the rules 100% if they can. Why wouldn't they? The RO is just the vessel by which it is done.

[cnote]

13 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

 

However...... back to this incident..... from the pix, it looks like the shooter had plenty of room. he should have run until he was forced to stop for safety reasons. Imho he should NOT have tried to injure a volunteer RO.

X10

[walrus76]

I didn't see it with my own eye's

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[motosapiens]

12 hours ago, Sarge said:

I see him stop and look back at targets, not stopping because they were in his way. They were well back when he finally decided to move again. They did in fact get out of his way. The second RO didn't block anybody. Why would the RO's clear out when he jumped, stopped, turned all the way around, etc? 

 

I wasn't there, but this is exactly what I see, much as I hate to agree with Sarge. The video is pretty conclusive. No interference. Shooter screwed up the stage and wasn't able to game it hard enough to get a reshoot.

 

He appeared to be hesitating as if wondering if it was worth it to go back. He didn't appear to be paying any attention whatsoever to the RO's.

[Sarge]

20 minutes ago, Maximis228 said:

 

I think you are confusing RO and Rules. Yes a shooter will game the rules 100% if they can. Why wouldn't they? The RO is just the vessel by which it is done.

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.

[Sarge]

8 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

I wasn't there, but this is exactly what I see, much as I hate to agree with Sarge. The video is pretty conclusive. No interference. Shooter screwed up the stage and wasn't able to game it hard enough to get a reshoot.

 

He appeared to be hesitating as if wondering if it was worth it to go back. He didn't appear to be paying any attention whatsoever to the RO's.

You are agreeing with me more lately. Don't know whether to feel good about that yet or not.

  There was no ill intent by any of the staff in this situation. Yet even after the RM refused a reshoot and an Arb committee refused a reshoot, I'm wrong for saying there was no basis for a reshoot. I just don't understand that.

[cnote]

Actually seeing the stage on the ground is important for this discussion in some ways. 

I know on my squad, with many production shooters, perhaps one shooter actually chose to go down the corridor at all.  Every target was available without going there.  There was an popper activating a drop turner that remained visible from the end of the corridor = penalty target. It was a fast drop turner with multiple other targets available.  The time it took to take all those additional steps is a wash compared to the potential penalty of one mike on the turner, thus a waste of seconds in my opinion.   It was a good stage that perhaps should have been pre-planned a bit better by the ROs in anticipation of a returning shooter.  This could happen on any stage with a down range finish and someone realizing they forgot one paper target or similar situation.

This one just happened to have a huge potential for penalties if the popper didn't go down.  Stage planning (order of shooting that array of targets) on this one was critical.  If I'm not mistaken, he is an accomplished shooter.

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by cnote

[waktasz]

4 hours ago, Maximis228 said:

 

 

Sounds pretty Us Vs Them.

 

I'm an us and a them...CRO actually, and this case is still pretty easy for me.  The exact details of the arb I don't know so if the shooter asked for calibration or some other nonsense, that's on him, but at the moment it happened, as the CRO I'd likely have offered him a reshoot right away.  It's a pretty easy decision, IMO, and Sarge's attitude, for whatever reason, is infuriating to me. Then again, they do call me Angry Matt...

Edited June 8, 2017 by waktasz

[motosapiens]

28 minutes ago, waktasz said:

 

I'm an us and a them...CRO actually, and this case is still pretty easy for me.  The exact details of the arb I don't know so if the shooter asked for calibration or some other nonsense, that's on him, but at the moment it happened, as the CRO I'd likely have offered him a reshoot right away.  It's a pretty easy decision, IMO, and Sarge's attitude, for whatever reason, is infuriating to me. Then again, they do call me Angry Matt...

 

I'm a little confused mr Angry Matt. Are you saying that the shooter turned to look at the targets, saw RO's out of the corner of eye, and decided not to run uprange because if he had, they would have eventually been in his way? It sure looks as tho he simply turns to the targets, has a moment of indecision, then gives up and starts unloading.  I wasn't there, but just looking at the video seems pretty clear cut that there was no interference because the shooter made no attempt to get uprange even tho the path was clear for several yards.  I have offered a couple reshoots for RO interference in my time, and they don't bother me at all. I try to learn from them. From what is presented on the video, I don't think I see anything that would cause me to go that route....... -Happy Mark.

Edited June 8, 2017 by motosapiens

[BARRYJ]

Posts like this always take the same route.  Something happens and someone makes a post about it to get a reaction.  Half the people take one side and half the people take the other.  Some take it to ridiculous extremes.  Everybody ends up being mad at someone.  Nothing gets solved, since there is nothing anyone can do.  I did learn to stay out of the way and make sure I use the correct terms when I have to arb something.  And that a few people don't like RO's.

[IHAVEGAS]

22 hours ago, jester121 said:

I don't understand why the RO was so reticent to declare that there was interference and just offer the reshoot. There wasn't any gaming going on here, obviously. More of the "us vs. them" attitude on display.

 

If you give a reshoot, or a double, when you should not then you have helped one person but hosed everyone that they are competing against. You want to get the calls right in order to make things fair for everybody.

 

To me "Us" is the shooters who are willing to support the sport by helping with r.o. and other duties when needed.

 

"Them" is the people who like to shoot but are not willing to do anything to help unless forced to. 

 

Good thread for scorekeepers at local matches. If you are scoring targets with your head buried in the kindle, instead of watching the shooter, sooner or later something will happen which makes you foul your britches. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by IHAVEGAS

[not4you2know]

On 6/6/2017 at 4:06 PM, Sarge said:

Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind you can still get DQed for sweeping an RO if you outrun him and do indeed sweep him. But yes, the moral of the story is to haul ass, don't turn and ask the RO what you are supposed to do etc and then ask for a calibration, then ask for a reshoot and then Arb it. In the end that just looks like a desperate move to get a redo on a bad run

 10.5.5 Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor’s body during a course of fire (i.e. sweeping).

 

This was pointed out to us at a CRO class. It's the competitor's body, not the ROs. Sweeping is just an example, not the rule itself. There have been RO sweeping arbs won because of this. Is it right, no, but sweeping the RO is not DQable.

[alma]

2 minutes ago, not4you2know said:

 10.5.5 Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor’s body during a course of fire (i.e. sweeping).

 

This was pointed out to us at a CRO class. It's the competitor's body, not the ROs. Sweeping is just an example, not the rule itself. There have been RO sweeping arbs won because of this. Is it right, no, but sweeping the RO is not DQable.

Look at the same term in the definitions. 

[alma]

5 hours ago, Sarge said:

It can be ,yes. I have never personally known an RO to be out to screw a shooter, including this one. BUT, I know more than a few shooters who will go out of their way to take advantage of an RO. 

 

This is my biggest problem with this entire thread and with most of Sarge's comments. Mason is in no way one of those Shooters who would try to take advantage of an RO or would who would try to claim something that was untrue in order to get a reshoot that he didn't deserve. From the very beginning of this thread you were insinuating that he was not telling the truth. That's insulting for someone who is one of the most honest shooters you will meet. 

[not4you2know]

4 minutes ago, alma said:

Look at the same term in the definitions. 

The definition of sweeping is not the rule. The rule is "Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor’s body during a course of fire." This is sweeping yourself. 

 

Can argue it if you want, I'm telling you what NROI has taught me and has been won in arbitration already.

[alma]

1 minute ago, not4you2know said:

The definition of sweeping is not the rule. The rule is "Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor’s body during a course of fire." This is sweeping yourself. 

 

Can argue it if you want, I'm telling you what NROI has taught me and has been won in arbitration already.

It's been interpreted differently at various NROI training events. 

[motosapiens]

4 minutes ago, alma said:

This is my biggest problem with this entire thread and with most of Sarge's comments. Mason is in no way one of those Shooters who would try to take advantage of an RO or would who would try to claim something that was untrue in order to get a reshoot that he didn't deserve. From the very beginning of this thread you were insinuating that he was not telling the truth. That's insulting for someone who is one of the most honest shooters you will meet. 

I don't know anything about Mason except that he seems like a fine young man from the times I have RO'd him. I assume that *all* shooters are telling the truth, even the lying douchebags claiming every miss is a double. Problem is we don't go off what competitors say, we go off what they do. At least from the video, there is nothing to suggest to me that he was interfered with in any way. Even if he had actually been looking at the RO instead of the targets, and even if he had stopped where he was entirely because there were RO's in the way of where he was eventually going to go, I don't see how it could possibly support an RO-interference re-shoot.

[motosapiens]

7 minutes ago, not4you2know said:

The definition of sweeping is not the rule. The rule is "Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor’s body during a course of fire." This is sweeping yourself. 

 

Can argue it if you want, I'm telling you what NROI has taught me and has been won in arbitration already.

and i could see that happening in certain situations. otoh, the glossary defines sweeping as 'Pointing the muzzle of a firearm at any part of any person’s body'.

 

also, 10.5 starts off with 'Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:'

As an RO, I am going to issue a DQ if your gun sweeps just about anyone, but for sure if someone jumps out from behind a target, and it takes you a half second to process and move the gun away, I would be more worried about other stuff than the dq.

[Gary Stevens]

Arbitrations are not precedent setting, however can provide good guidance.

 

Our sport will probably never be absolutely clear cut on some things. Probably because it is a dynamic sport always presenting new challenges.

 

I am part of a Range Master group that discuss these types of issues. I can tell you that on very few subjects is there unanimous agreement. Unfortunately, IMO, I am often in the minority opinions

Edited June 8, 2017 by Gary Stevens

[waktasz]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

 

I'm a little confused mr Angry Matt. Are you saying that the shooter turned to look at the targets, saw RO's out of the corner of eye, and decided not to run uprange because if he had, they would have eventually been in his way? It sure looks as tho he simply turns to the targets, has a moment of indecision, then gives up and starts unloading.  I wasn't there, but just looking at the video seems pretty clear cut that there was no interference because the shooter made no attempt to get uprange even tho the path was clear for several yards.  I have offered a couple reshoots for RO interference in my time, and they don't bother me at all. I try to learn from them. From what is presented on the video, I don't think I see anything that would cause me to go that route....... -Happy Mark.

 

The actual full video shows more than this silly gif. He was a step or two uprange of the timer RO when he stopped. The "path was clear"...maybe. But the RO directly next to him was up range, flat footed and slow.

It's irritating because the discussion here is that it's better to create an unsafe situation than not, because the ROs can't be trusted to make the right call.

[motosapiens]

2 hours ago, waktasz said:

 

The actual full video shows more than this silly gif. He was a step or two uprange of the timer RO when he stopped. The "path was clear"...maybe. But the RO directly next to him was up range, flat footed and slow.

It's irritating because the discussion here is that it's better to create an unsafe situation than not, because the ROs can't be trusted to make the right call.

 

I saw the vidlet alma posted (here or on doodie, i forget), so if it left something out, I will be less informed than you. that video makes it *look* like the reason he stopped was not safety, but it's anyone's guess what was in the young man's mind.

 

I agree 100% that it is NOT better to create an unsafe situation, but as I explained above somewhere, I think probably (speculating as someone who wasn't actually there) if he had decisively turned and run uprange he could have either done it, or safely created an obvious RO interference situation. The hesitation on his part made it look very much to me like he was wondering if it was going to be mathematically worth it to go back, not that RO's were blocking his way. But that's just my armchair qb opinion. I defer to the people that were actually there.

 

As a lifelong raiders fan, i am accustomed to getting screwed over by bad officiating. My advice has always been to not put yourself in a position where a potential bad call can affect you. In shooting terms, make sure you knock down activators before leaving, and don't make dq-able offenses close enough for there to be any doubt. Everyone is going to eat an occasional double, or have some tape fall off and then get hosed on the reshoot. I hope mason (and RO's) learn from this experience and continue to strive to be safe and fair. I'll be working nationals, and i guarantee I will either stay out of your way, or offer a deserved reshoot if I don't.

 

 

[Thomas H]

3 hours ago, not4you2know said:

The definition of sweeping is not the rule. The rule is "Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor’s body during a course of fire." This is sweeping yourself. 

 

Can argue it if you want, I'm telling you what NROI has taught me and has been won in arbitration already.

 

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?

[racegun9]

9 hours ago, Sarge said:

It can be ,yes. I have never personally known an RO to be out to screw a shooter, including this one. BUT, I know more than a few shooters who will go out of their way to take advantage of an RO. 

 

I've never had a problem with the vast majority of Shooters and R.O.s.

But there is always a few on both sides that play games.

The plus 2 guy in Area 6 comes to mind and a few R.O. that don't get invited back to certain match's.

Also, some shooters seem to never had a miss, arb at the drop of hat, and want to argue anything.

Luckily we have very few of either.

[Chills1994]

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.