Singlestack

The more I think about it, the more I like this. Makes sense on several levels. (I didn't think of it because I just want to wack shooters with match-killin procedurals )

Shouldn't we strive to have consistent rules, and RO's that apply them appropriately? You're the 2nd person in as many weeks that told me that it's too bad the CRO blew the call. The shooter should have asked for the RM. How about we do our best to get it right the first time? Sure, we should strive to get it right the first time -- experienced ROs, CROs, and RMs do that..... How do they get to be experienced? Generally by blowing a call, and having the shooter appeal it. Then the call makes its way up the chain, and is eventually overturned -- at which point the RO generally gets an explanation of why the call was overturned, and what the thinking was behind the decision. Essentially it becomes a teachable moment.... That's the only way it works with volunteer officials of diverse backgrounds.... Doesn't mean we should dumb down the game, to make it easier to officiate.... I don't think anybody is wanting to dumb the game down. What I'm seeing is a desire to remove the subjectivity and add consistency.

Uh, World Shoot, Defending Champion ??? it's a long match, but 10 points is a lot more than separated 1st from 4th going into the last day of Open. I'm thinking he was trying pretty hard not to give away points like that. And B, even if it were a 100 foot dropoff right at the other side of the fault line, he'd have been fine. It was only one toe over. We have "off-limits areas" to simulate 100 foot drops. There's a reason they have to be preceeded by fault lines. Uh, yep. Defending World Champion and all. If it were a per shot penalty his toe would not have been over. He would have been a lot more careful.

Travis didn't know he'd done it until the stage was over and the RO called it, confirmed by witnesses in the squad. There was zero advantage. If the reigning World Champion can't tell if he was over a fault line or not at the World Championship without asking witnesses, then saying "well, just make sure you don't fault the line...." is naive. Fault lines are currently used to guide shooters like rumble strips on the highway. The 'off-limits' area of the guardrail is well outside the driving area. A mandatory per-shot penalty would significantly change the game. He couldn't tell because he didn't try hard enough to. I don't think it is naive at all to believe a shooter should know where his feet are. What if the ground on the outside of the fault line was not there? Like a 10 foot drop off? Would it be naive to believe he would know where his feet were? Put me in the ready for significant change camp.

There is no such thing as "give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter". You score what is on the target. There is no "zing". It is what it is. You score the target. The hit is there or it is not. If you can't tell, it's not there. To do anything else is to "zing" every other shooter...

There is no such thing as "give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter". You score what is on the target.

We are debating the same point. We don't "remove" scoring hits. We don't score barrels. If the barrel is "swiss cheese" we don't even look at it for evidence of any kind. We only score what is on the target face.

Grease rings do mean something. Read 9.5.5 again. Only if he is trying to determine whether a bullet or bullet fragment passed through the target. Granted, if there is one round that went through the barrel and the other that didn't (and I paint my barrels) I'll use the alignment and the difference in marks to determine which round passed through the barrel. I *think* they've stated they were normal round hits. Well duh. Of course we are trying to figure out whether the bullet passed through the barrel first. No crown or grease ring = no hit.

Grease rings do mean something. Read 9.5.5 again.

There is no such thing as "controlling a shooter". If you believe otherwise you are dreaming. If you are close enough to where you think you can "control a shooter", you are too close and inviting trouble. Unfortunately that is where the RO should be. If not then they might as well sit in the stands and yell commands from there. And what would you possibly base that statement on? Have you attended an NROI RO seminar? Recently? Or is this just "how you imagine it should work?" Oh nothing more than watching a RO block a shooters arm before they could have swept others. That's why they need to be close. For the sake of everyone's safety and I don't need a seminar to understand it. Right. Cause nothing bad could ever happen, when an RO blocks a shooter holding a gun. No way that ever ends in an accident.... in the case I pointed out had the RO not been close enough to block the shooter with loaded firearm and finger on the trigger from sweeping others who knows what damage would have occurred. Anyway I see the RO as part of the COF. In essence a moving fault line you don't cross. After all you must be aware of your surroundings and if not you should not be shooting. Just my belief. It sounds to me like you are operating under the premise that a RO can control a shooter physically when the truth is, they can not. Only bad things can happen if you try to prevent a hard indexing shooter from breaking the 180. Only bad things can happen if you are even close enough to try.

Hmm. This runs counter to what I'd been told/taught, that the RO's main job is to insure safety, and to that end needs to be close enough to the shooter to make that happen. If the shooter is really given enough space to be able to "do his thing" without chance of RO interference, might that not be also too far to be effective for preventing unsafe actions? Part of this goes back to the issue of whether the RO should intervene to prevent a shooter from doing something unsafe. I was taught that it was reasonable to block somebody if they were about to break the 180. Should that really be that I only should block them from breaking the 180 "too much", ie, not just pointing the muzzle at the side berm at 181 degrees, but back at the squad uprange? Should I deliberately let a developing unsafe situation go unchecked, waiting until a violation has occured, so as to avoid having to offer the reshoot, but thereby getting closer to a potentially more dangerous situation? Should I be issuing/offering an RO interference reshoot because I touched the shooter's arm before an infraction actually happened? The verbal warnings are deliberately addressed in the rules. Methinks I will be asking NROI for an opinion on this (we all have our own, of course, but what matters is what we are supposed to do per NROI). You might be able to prevent a brand new shooter from breaking the 180. Do you really think you could stop a fast shooter from doing it? You got some awesome reflexes... More than likely what will happen is you get a gun pointed at you. Your best defense for preventing someone from completely pointing uprange is your voice. If you are running a fast shooter close enough to make an attempt at preventing him from breaking the 180 you are probably going to run into him or get caught down range when he throws on the breaks and backs up to get the target he missed. Things happen way to fast to try to physically intervene. What if he moves back as he is getting close to the 180 and you are putting your hand up to prevent him from breaking it and you stick your hand if front of his gun? Or, hit the gun and knock it out of his hand? I'll ride newbs real close and I have grabbed them to prevent them from turning uprange, but an experienced shooter, no way.

This does not belong here,

There is no such thing as "controlling a shooter". If you believe otherwise you are dreaming. If you are close enough to where you think you can "control a shooter", you are too close and inviting trouble.

Happy Birthday, Brother BOZ!

It all pays the same...

Well of course. I voted for that too.

I voted for everything. I like voting.

Music,BEER and Whiskey.

At your age you'll need more than a minute.

You are gonna have a problem getting a .40 caliber round to fit in your 9mm breechface.

This Hate rant has turned into a discussion, which is beyond the bounds of the rules for the Hate Forum. Thus, it must be closed. Please review the Hate Forum Rules: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8097 [note: this is a generic response]

^^ That's why I gave up Open in 3-Gun.

Why the Tac Sol barrel? Is the factory barrel junk? Light weight.

I'm a die hard Open pistol shooter. If I had to pick only one Division to shoot in forever, it would be Open. Having said that, I quit shooting Open in 3-Gun due to the shotgun.

Put him on the TSCR squad.