Thomas H
-
Posts
1,278 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Thomas H
-
-
On 9/7/2022 at 4:56 PM, Joe4d said:
I can NOT be a member, shoot local matches and not take an RO class... RO system in my mind says the org is a money grab , offers nothing in return
Plus, why on earth should I justify NOT joining ? The Org needs to sell me on joining...
That....still makes no sense.
You can be a member without taking an RO class. There is no requirement to take an RO class.
You originally said: "I can shoot local matches,,, . and absolutely refuse to pay for or attend an RO class that has nothing top do with the game I shoot."
Correct. And you can do that WHILE being a member.
Benefits of being a member: Classification, being able to shoot major matches.
Has nothing to do with whether or not you want to take the RO class.
This is all based on your original comment of: "broke ro system..
SC market is guys like me that have gotten older and quit USPSA track meets Org needs to put a bit of effort into giving us a reason to join.. "Again: Classification, being able to shoot major matches. If you don't want to shoot majors, and don't care about a classification, then there is no reason for you to join SCSA (unless, of course, you enjoy shooting it and therefore want to support the sport).
None of that has anything to do with how ROs are trained.
-
8 hours ago, Bakerjd said:
I think we should do this stuff more often at big matches. This is the first i ever seen a side match. Maybe a shoot off of some type. I've read stories about them being done before.
Side matches are normally a ton of fun to shoot---but also require another set of staff, plus equipment/tablet. And you need to collect money (and in a lot of cases, matches these days do all of their money stuff online so they don't have to handle cash at the match any more), and so on.
So....admin hassles. If you have the staff and space (lots of people don't have enough extra bays to do this at a big match), side matches are lots of fun. (Another fun one is fastest time to run a plate rack.)
-
2 hours ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:
I have seen instances similar to both. Pistol shooters loaded and holstered facing uprange, PCC shooters with the rifle unloaded on a barrel.
No RO on that stage, including me, had any difficulty keeping it straight.
And then the people who don't like PCC shooters complain that having PCC shooters in the match makes them do stages differently---when literally THEY are the ones making the stages different.
Like I've said before---it is odd how so many people get so angry that other people have fun differently than they do. And then make up illogical nonsense to attempt to justify their idiotic actions.
Take the initial example of the PCC shooter having to stand in a different spot to start. How was that needed for safety? It wasn't, obviously, since the PCC shooter will need to step INTO the shooting box/area to shoot. Was there anything about it that was needed due to the stage design? Obviously not. So...literally, the stage designer added extra nonsense to their stage merely to make it different for PCC shooters.
People like that aren't helping the sport.
-
11 hours ago, Bakerjd said:
This was IMO a fun little side match at CO nats. Anyone know if there is a record of the fastest times before this match? And what are your thoughts on the times posted.
Details of the side match are: $20 to do 2 runs of a Bill drill. You could pay to run it as many times as you could afford.
I placed 26th out of 75 people who did it. I did my 2 runs amd walked away. I thought a 2.06 would put me in a good spot to get the prise for b class. 1.82sec was the fastest b class run.
Little disappointed that they didn't use a Commander timer so we could see draw/split times.
I'm really curious as to the draw/splits for the folks under 1.50.
-
On 9/8/2022 at 12:11 PM, Joe4d said:
Qualified officials that can do a good job is part of running the organization. Should be part of the budget to run some training every so often and not charge people willing to step up to keep the game going.
Any time there is a "should" in a comment, it means "this is my opinion regarding what other people owe."
So the question becomes, what about your opinion will convince a for-profit IDPA? Is the company able to make money doing what it is doing now? Are there long-term problems that will show up if they keep doing it this way? How much money will it cost the company to pay for the changes that you want, and is that amount of cost worth any difference it might make in the long run?
WE want a sport that is run well, with match officials who know what they are doing, in a consistent fashion across the sports.
The company wants to make money.
What in this situation will make the company interested in paying for something they aren't currently paying for now?
(I'll note that I'm a USPSA RO, CRO, and RM, along with being an ICORE RO, and an IDPA SO, CSO, and SOI. Obviously, I'd like the sport to continue and get better, with trained match officials.)
-
10 hours ago, motosapiens said:
reducing the number of pcc shooters perhaps..... as if thats a bad thing...
Never ceases to amaze me how people can't just let other people have fun in a different fashion than they have fun.
-
7 hours ago, Bigzona said:
It should matter. Our top classified shooters should be able to demonstrate match performance reflective of their ranking. Its indicative of the validity of our classification system, and reflective of my own personal experience.
And they do, so it works out.
Your classification percentage has never meant that you should get that classification percentage at a match. People who think so are welcome to cite some source that supports that idea. (But they won't find one.)
Classification ranks give a strong indicator of your relative placement in the match---relative to the other shooter's classifications. Multiple analysis of these sorts of things have happened, and unsurprisingly, have always founds that the vast majority of GMs beat Ms who beat As who beat Bs and so on. There are outliers (many of which exist because they don't shoot classifiers and are classified lower than they should be, and some of whom exist because they talked their local MD into letting them hero-or-zero classifiers multiple times until they get the score they want and thus are classified higher than they can support at actual matches) but the vast majority of people finish right within their classification group, which finishes ahead of lower classification groups.
Every time someone brings up this sort of topic, there are always some people who loudly declaim that "the classification system is broken!!1!" and yet never actually come up with any factual, statistical basis for said declamation.
The classification system works remarkably well.
The people who think that your classification percentage SHOULD match your major match finish REALLY don't seem to understand how those numbers work. After all, in a major match, your score on a stage is based on the person who did the absolute best exactly once on that stage (that in general, no one has ever shot before). And that stage score is added to other stage scores that again, are based off the person who did the absolute best on that stage (out of a large pool of people, in a single moment in time). Expecting those match finish numbers to resemble a classification percentage makes very little sense.
-
4 hours ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:
That's a suggestion from NROI, not a rule. An MD or RM can ignore it if it wants.
MDs can indeed make completely different start positions for PCC, along with setting up stages that deliberately make it harder for PCCs, in addition to verbally denigrating people who choose to shoot PCC. All are legal.
And that's how matches reduce the number of people who want to shoot their match.
-
On 8/25/2022 at 2:18 PM, Zincwarrior said:
That seems kind of thankless...
On 8/25/2022 at 11:35 PM, matteekay said:Welcome to any sort of match administration in the shooting sports.
Pretty much.
In USPSA, at least the RMIs get their hotel/travel/meals covered when they go teach classes. It isn't like it is a paying job, though. (Which is one of the reasons why not a lot of people go past the CRO level to get their RM cert, much less go for RMI. It takes time and money, and it isn't like you get any of that back.)
Similarly, SOIs don't get any help (from what I can tell) from IDPA HQ with regard to holding classes, promoting classes, etc. (Other than the set of electronic files for the classes, which come in PDF form. If you want to make a PowerPoint presentation, you have to make your own.)
As such, it doesn't surprise me that many SOIs stop doing it, because they don't get anything from it other than satisfaction that they are helping the sport (in exchange for all of the work doing it). The SOI certification is separate from the SO or CSO certs, so if you stop being an SOI that doesn't change anything else.
It did surprise me that there was no place on the IDPA website that listed SO classes, and no place to advertise classes. I plan on putting them up on Practiscore as events, so it'll be searchable in that manner, but that doesn't mean anyone else does it that way. I tried doing a search on SO class just to see if I could find one anywhere.....couldn't really at all.
-
On 9/2/2022 at 9:00 AM, zzt said:
I'll second the notion NROI USPSA RO training has little to do with SCSA. In fact, the RO training I received was entirely based around LII and LIII matches. It wasn't until I ran shooters at LI matches I realized I had to pay attention to more things than I was taught. Tip from experienced ROs and in these forums helped a lot.
Now this is interesting to me, and makes me wonder when you took the class and who taught it---because the class material has been fairly standardized for quite some time, and even though different teachers bring different viewpoints to it, significant parts of the class are LITERALLY about what ROs should be doing, paying attention to, and so on, including the differing roles ROs play on a stage (in addition to merely running a timer). There are discussions of things you need to watch, discussion of areas of responsibility, and the last part of the class is literally a practical exercise in which each student takes on all the different roles an RO might have, in addition to watching other people do it, and having discussions of what everyone does.
So....it seems odd to me that your training was specific to LII and LIII matches, and that it didn't discuss what you needed to watch.
What sorts of things specific to LII and LIII matches did the class spend time talking about?
-
22 hours ago, Joe4d said:
Alot,,,,
I am a former USPSA shooter and CRO... I see ZERO reason to join SCI can shoot local matches,,, . and absolutely refuse to pay for or attend an RO class that has nothing top do with the game I shoot.
That....doesn't actually answer the question. What does RO training have to do with being a member of a shooting organization, to compete a major matches, get classified, etc?
I mean, get a membership, be able to shoot majors and get classified in both USPSA and SCSA.....which has nothing to do with how ROs are trained.
You can be a member, shoot local matches, and not take an RO class, after all. There's no requirement that members must be ROs. So....what does the RO training system have to do with membership?
-
18 hours ago, Joe4d said:
broke ro system..
SC market is guys like me that have gotten older and quit USPSA track meets Org needs to put a bit of effort into giving us a reason to join..Joe, how is the RO system something that has to do with joining an organization?
-
On 8/18/2022 at 7:49 AM, Zincwarrior said:
I remember the state trainers (thats how I did mine). I did not know that has changed. How does it work now?
There aren't not necessarily "state" trainers---but there are people who are certified as SOIs (Safety Officer Instructors) in various areas. There's process for it--you have to be a CSO, worked sanctioned matches, submit an application, etc, to get certified as an SOI. (You can search the IDPA website for members with SOI certifications, just like searching for SOs and CSOs.)
Once you get the SOI certification, you get access to an SOI packet of information on how to run an SO class, with presentation files, handouts, etc.
Club contacts can't just say "hey, I want to make this guy a Safety Officer" and have it magically happen. People still have to go to SO classes, pass the test, pass the practical exercises, etc.
(I don't know why anyone would think they don't.)
I do agree that in many places, there AREN'T local SOIs available. I had to travel a distance to take my SO class, as did everyone else in my area. We NOW (as of the last two months) have a local SOI (who is holding a class in October, so hopefully our number of local certified SOs is about to go up sharply) and SOIs are supposed to hold a class yearly. (If there isn't interest, though, obviously that doesn't work out.)
The SOIs are not paid by IDPA HQ at all. And they are not supposed to charge much of anything for the class, other than if they have travel expenses--so local SOIs are volunteering their time and work, for the most part. If you have a local SOI, the class fee is probably about 90% range/classroom rental, 5% lunch (if provided for everyone), and 5% to the SOI to pay for the handouts and such he gives each student.
-
For me, using rifle primers in pistol loads completely depends on the gun I'm shooting.
My PCC and my SS guns both light off Winchester small rifle primers 100%, no issues.
My Glocks don't, UNLESS I switch out the striker spring for one about a half-pound heavier than stock. Without that spring, my G34/G34 CO gun is about 90%, and my G17 is about 85% in their ability to light off the primers. (And I don't like switching out the striker spring, so I did it once to test it, then took it back out and pack it with the rest of my extra parts, just in case. So I don't use SRP with my Glocks.)
I have a ton of small rifle primers, and some small pistol primers. I make both, and carefully mark them so I know which box of ammo to pick depending on what gun I am using.
-
On 8/23/2022 at 4:16 PM, zzt said:
There are clubs out there that err on the opposite end. At a Steel match, club shall remain unnamed, a PCC shooter uncase his gun behind all the shooters and swept many of them while on the way to the shooting box. The MD was apprised of this and said "We play by big boy rules here". Shooter was not DQ'd and I'll never go back.
Several years ago at an East Coast Steel Challenge Match several PCC shooters were DQ'd on one squad for 180 violations. Their offence? Carrying the PCC vertically and having the muzzle drift back a few inches. Explaining to the USPSA only RO that 'reasonably vertical' meant just that. He said no. They broke 180 so DQ. I know it was referred to the RM and DM, but don't know what the results were. I'm not confident.
At that same match I was running a permanently disabled shooter on OL. He told me the MD had allowed him to shoot OL without moving and without penalty. I ran the shooter without penalty, passed the timer to another RO and went to see the MD. He said yes. The rule was if a shooter was permanently disabled there was no penalty. However, if only temporarily disabled, as in a broken leg, the penalty applied. I said that made no sense. There was no such rule. He insisted. It isn't the first time that MD got a rule wrong.
First situation: Yeek. Yeah, that sounds like a good place to get shot by idiots. That's terrifying.
Second situation: It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't understand that the 180 is relevant during the course of fire, wherein taking a loaded firearm and pointing it vertically past the 180 IS a DQ.....and that outside the course of fire, carrying an unloaded PCC/rifle vertically is literally the best choice possible, and also literally the specifically described method for doing so from an unbagging area to the start position, and is most definitely NOT a DQ.
Most of the time, people I run into get the first part wrong (they think that in the course of fire, having it vertical then turning around and running uprange or something is a perfectly good idea). That's the first time I've heard about someone getting it wrong the other way---but I suppose it isn't surprising that people screw that up too.
Last situation: It is always fun when someone makes up a rule out of nowhere, then insists on it being true. (And then vehemently argues that they don't need to show you where it is in the rulebook.)
And to think---OUR sports are the ones where the rules are often handled BETTER than other sports.
-
On 8/21/2022 at 7:32 AM, zzt said:
I was talking about a shooter who took more than a minute and did not comply with an order to stop.
If they take over a minute, at the one minute mark you have them unload/show clear/bag and move out of the shooting area, put them at the bottom of the shooting list, and move to the next shooter, just like anyone else who isn't ready to shoot when they are called to the line. (I'll note if they attempt to ignore that or argue with an order to stop, then you can tell them their choice is to either be put at the bottom of the shooting order, OR instead receive a DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct and failing to follow the clear directions of a range official. Because if they are that stupid, then they ARE actually courting a DQ.)
If they do it upon their next try (after being at the bottom of the shooting order), you assign a procedural penalty (the make ready sequence is a rule-defined set of procedures during the course of fire, and if they don't follow it, especially after being specifically told the rule the first time, they get a procedural penalty. It doesn't have to be written in the WSB for it to be a stage procedure, IF it is defined in the rulebook as a stage procedure.) They are the last in the order, so it isn't like you can move them down again.
I suppose that technically, if they are last AND they are not ready to shoot the stage, you can DNF them, tell them to move to the next stage, and that they will need to speak to the RM about coming back at a later time to shoot the stage, just like any OTHER time a shooter comes to a stage and is not ready to shoot by the time that the squad has finished the stage. But that is being petty, and while legal, not a good way to handle things.
I personally haven't run into any shooter that took over a minute to make ready, though some have pushed it. I don't care if they push close---they get a minute. Reminding them that their minute is up in 5 seconds (at 55 seconds) works perfectly well. If after a minute they aren't ready, unload them and move on. It doesn't have to be a major problem.
-
On 8/17/2022 at 5:52 PM, motosapiens said:
no need. all the other divisions are pistols, so they didn't wreck our ability to design certain kinds of stages.
Hasn't changed how I design stages in the slightest. Nor has it changed other people's far as I can tell.
If it HAS changed someone's, perhaps they should stop changing things. Or perhaps some of their stages either weren't safe, or weren't much of a good idea in the first place.
-
On 8/11/2022 at 4:59 PM, Boomstick303 said:
On the local level I agree. I was speaking more to the actual level of the local shooter compared to the top. Put most local shooter at whatever their classification is they most likely would not shoot their classification percentage against the top shooters in the sport.
That makes sense, because the classification percentage is based on an external set of multiple known scores on standardized stages, and in a match it doesn't remotely look like that.
As someone has said, the classification system in general works very well as a predictor of approximately where people will end up in a major match---the GMs will beat the Ms, who will beat the As, who will beat the Bs, and so on. True for majors, true for Nationals.
But your classification percentage doesn't tell you what percentage you'll get at a match.
With regard to PCC and people not having realistic classifications with handguns due to it---personally, I don't like having a classification that I can't support with actual shooting skill. As such, I would be extremely annoyed if I made GM in PCC and had all of my other classifications jumped up to M, because I couldn't support several of them with M-class shooting. For handgun skills, if I made GM in Production or something, I could probably at least support an M-class ability level with every other handgun (except probably for revolver, due to reloads), because GM handgun skills translate well overall to other types of handguns. But GM-level PCC skills don't mean anything with respect to handgun skills, and so I wish those were separate.
Oh: And for those bagging on PCC again, it really is okay to let other people have fun in ways that you don't. Seriously.
-
11 hours ago, BritinUSA said:
Change Production and CO back to the original ruleset, but with 15-rounds.
It is always interesting to me to see how many people want to blithely change something that is currently extremely popular, without having any actual basis to believe that their change will be beneficial or even wanted in the first place.
Similar to all the commentary about new divisions and such being bad, when we can literally see that many people are enjoying the new divisions, and it isn't hurting the sport. (Other divisions may be reduced here and there, but since those people aren't leaving the sport, they are literally shooting a different division because they are enjoying it, that doesn't hurt the sport.)
Mostly, it just seems that many people 1) don't want other people to have fun in ways they don't approve, and 2) they want things to change to match their opinions even though they can't actual justify any of that with logical reasons for anyone else to want those changes.
Every time we get a new one of these types of threads, we again see the same old things.
-
4 hours ago, Bagellord said:
Then I had a squad start one foot in one out when I had "anywhere inside the shooting area" as the start position in order to game it.... Wasn't happy when I saw the videos after the match.
Yikes, since that ISN'T "inside the shooting area" at all. If a foot is out, you are out.
I'm not surprised you weren't happy!
For other commentary: "Outside" and "completely outside" are two separate things, and they are treated separately in the rulebook. If you want people to start "completely outside" the shooting area, then you have to specify that.
-
9 minutes ago, RePete said:
Only if you are a member.
I sent GigG the copies.
I'm not currently logged in, and I can see it just fine.
(Which is good. An organization that won't allow non-members to see its rules is...problematic.)
The Down Zero Blog is accessible by anyone.
-
16 hours ago, RangerTrace said:
Absolutely, if you know you're about to get into a shooting situation, have your hand on your gun or already out of the holster. But we can't do that in USPSA/IDPA so they try to have your hands in a standardish start position. Like I said, not too long ago, it was with your arms hanging at your side. It's changed for whatever reason. Just an observation. Do whatever you can get away with that saves you some time.......
In IDPA you can start with your hand on the pistol if the WSB allows it. (In USPSA you can't, no matter what.) Indeed, awhile back in IDPA (and USPSA) it was "hands hanging naturally at sides" but as someone who runs shooters a lot, that was a ridiculous start position because there wasn't an easy, simple way to determine if it was being done for any particular competitor. ("Arms hanging naturally" is different for different people.) That's why I much prefer "wrists below belt" because it is a simply yes/no situation, and everyone can agree on whether or not the condition is being met.
My point however, was your comment about it being "less practical." You say now: "Just an observation" ---but you literally said it was "less practical" when that's actually the opposite of true. Setting the situation so you are in the best position possible is literally more practical, and "hands hanging at sides" is something every academy and self-defense instructor tries to get people to STOP doing.
-
On 5/6/2022 at 6:08 PM, RangerTrace said:
They do. And things become less and less, practical.
And yet I'm pretty sure that pretty much every academy out there teaches you to have your hands NOT "at your sides naturally" when in a situation in which you may need to draw your gun.
Calling it "less practical" when people, within the rules, move themselves into position to more quickly access the firearm----seems the opposite of reality. Heck, isn't one of the old "standard confrontation positions" for police officers something like "one hand on the gun, the other hand outstretched in a 'stop' position?" Literally starting with a hand on the gun before it is needed? Isn't that practical?
Currently aren't people taught things like a neutral guard hand position to keep the hands up and ready to block but low enough to access the firearm quickly?
Arguing that "hands naturally at sides" is more practical seems.....odd.
-
12 hours ago, RangerTrace said:
I want your shooting to get my attention. Not your tits and ass.
Perhaps they don't care about your attention, and simply want to shoot in comfortable clothing? (Sure, tank tops may be an issue with brass, but it isn't MY problem so they can do what they want.)
I personally find that what other people are wearing has no effect on my shooting. (And oddly enough, I don't have any expectations that other people should somehow work to gain my attention.)
PCC/RFRO 180 rules
in Steel Challenge
Posted
Interesting. In my class, there weren't two ROs during the practical portions, just one. And in local matches, even if the person doing the scoring (running the tablet) isn't a trained RO, the person who IS a trained RO should talk to them about what they should be looking for. After all, the person running the timer literally CAN'T watch all of it at once, though an experienced person can get a lot of it.
I'll note that there is no requirement for the timer RO to "always watch the gun". This is something literally specifically talked about in RO classes, because a lot of people keep saying it, and it isn't true. There are plenty of times during the stage when the timer RO doesn't need to watch the gun and can look at other things.
I'm sorry to hear that your RO class didn't discuss those things. They are pretty commonly discussed in other classes.