mhs

These are contradictory.

As far as I can tell 8.2.5 would allow you to reholster an unladed, cocked but not locked 1911.

If you just keep repeating "If you are finished, unload and show clear" until they show clear, at least some of them seem to get the message. OMG! What a long and miserable day that would be. Imagine doing that at Nationals. (Not that I disagree with the concept - I wholeheartedly agree.) Best, ac If everyone who ran a stage would do it, the shooters would learn pretty fast. There are a lot of competitors who follow the rules as best they can; there are a lot who like to see what the RO will let them get away with. Every time I see an RO let a competitor do this I wish for a perfect world, with only competent ROs.

If you just keep repeating "If you are finished, unload and show clear" until they show clear, at least some of them seem to get the message.

The RO is specifically mentioned in reference to inadvertent contact. That reference does not state or even imply a limit for the rule, it just gives an example.

That's true, offerring the reshoot is optional from the RO's perspective. In this case it would seem the majority of people here (many, if not all, of whom I assume to be ROs) have agreed that a Stop command wouldn't be warranted and could be RO interference. What happens if you don't offer the shooter a reshoot and they want one? Do they take it up with the CRO/RM? I think it would follow the standard RO-CRO-RM-committee chain. As far as seeing your hits vs knowing your score, the rule says "prior to seeing either the time or the score". If we're talking about one string in a Standards CoF where you've probably only got a few targets downrange, wouldn't you consider seeing your targets pretty much knowing your score? It's not a 32 round field course. Or is the rule intended to just mean that the targets won't be scored prior to the RO offerring the reshoot and the competitor accepting or declining? My interpretation would be that the competitor isn't allowed to see the scoresheet before deciding. In 8.6.4 "inadvertent" applies only to physical contact. The situation under discussion here would be "another external influence".

If you meant can he finish the CoF (as in, the remaining strings) after a Stop command where the competitor felt a re-shoot was not necessary (ie, declines the optional reshoot for RO interference), I'd say yes, as long as he does not continue down to see his targets after the stop command. 8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply. If the shooter walked down to see the targets, was issued a stop command and complied, but was able to see his hits, I'm thinking the reshoot becomes mandatory instead of optional since the option couldn't be given prior to the competitor seeing the hits. "May offer" leaves it up to the RO, so under this rule it's never mandatory. Seeing your hits doesn't equal knowing your score.

Again, what rule supports you telling them "no"?

Not fair, which is why the RO shouldn't say "stop". It's on the RO.

During the COF it does.

I'm guessing that we've both seen equally, or even less likely things happen on the COF. If the RO said anything beyond "If you are finished return to the box" or at least something giving the competitor the option of continuing, I think a reshoot is reasonable.

You're making one assumption - that is that one's finger must be in the trigger guard to raise the gun and aim it at a target (or the place where the target will appear) for the action to be effective. The move from finger outside the trigger guard to shot fired is ridiculously quick - so quick as to almost be non-existant with a skilled shooter. Again, to someone who knows what they're doing, the difference between a mesh wall and a solid wall is pretty minimal. It's definitely there, no doubt - but it's not the huge advantage everyone is imagining it to be for a skilled and knowledgeable shooter. Actually, I didn't make that assumption, I specified "prep the trigger". To a skilled and knowledgeable reader this should have been obvious. Just because you can get away with knowingly violating the rules doesn't make it right. Your choice, of course.

If you have nowhere to go what compels the RO to have to follow you when the shooting box is 3x3? You have to be under the supervision of the RO and there is no reason for you to go forward. There's also no reason not to, if you feel like it. Freestyle.

It specifically states "vision barrier" in the stage diagram. It should be built with a true vision barrier. (opps...XRe beat me to that one.) I'll just add that, if you know what you're doing as a shooter, you're setting up on the target and breaking the shot as soon as the target appears whether you've got a mesh wall or a solid wall anyway, so... If you put your finger in the trigger guard during movement, but before you're aiming or shooting at targets, it's a DQ. With a mesh wall you don't have to wait until you see the target around the wall before you prep the trigger.

Does anyone see a rule supporting option 3? Anything?

It's excluded only if it has gone to the RM. If a scoring dispute has not advanced to the RM, 9.6.6 does not limit it. Nope, sorry. Read all of section 9.6. It lays out the procedure for scoring. If an appellant doesn't choose to elevate to the RM, he accepts the decision of the CRO. The scoring call cannot then be elevated to an arbitration on the logic of "Well, the RM didn't make a call." Any arb committee should immediately question if the matter was appealed to the RM. If it wasn't, then game over.... If the RM was asked to rule and refused to examine the target -- then we might have a situation for arbitration.... I did read it. It applies specifically to competitor/delegate appellants, with the possible exceptions of 9.6.6 and 9.6.8.

It's excluded only if it has gone to the RM. If a scoring dispute has not advanced to the RM, 9.6.6 does not limit it.

Nah...for that it would simply need to state Arbs. instead of appeals. It doesn't say that at all. There is nothing about a written document, nothing about specifying an arb. If that is what it meant, it would be really easy to say it that way. Read Chapter 11 again. There are no "arbs", only appeals. An appeal submitted to an arbitration committee is what we commonly call an arb. An appeal is only submitted if it is to a committee, if it is to an RO, CRO, or RM it is "asked". Your contention that "If that is what it meant, it would be really easy to say it that way." is particularly disingenous, considering your experience with the rulebook.

I like this reading, since it allows a third party to appeal what they think is wrong, but would require them to do it in writing and submit a fee, keeping down numbers. I also think that this reading is supported by the rules since: Appeals may be made verbally (11.1.3 says "asked") to the RO, CRO, and RM. Several rules help in defining how an appeal goes to the next step by submission to an arbitration committee (11.1.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.8). What I think really supports Gary's reading is that 11.7.1 says: "Appeals may also be submitted by other persons on a “third party appeal” basis." This wording implies the submission of a written document, rather than a verbal request. In Chapter 11 submission, submitting and submitted are used in several other places, and in those cases exclusively in regard to written documents.

9.7.4 A score sheet signed by both a competitor and a Range Officer is conclusive evidence that the course of fire has been completed, and that the time, scores and penalties recorded on the score sheet, are accurate and uncontested. The signed score sheet is deemed to be a definitive document and, with the exception of the mutual consent of the competitor and the signatory Range Officer, or due to an arbitration decision, the score sheet will only be changed to correct arithmetical errors or to add procedural penalties under Rule 8.6.2. Why do you think that 9.7.4 does not apply to scoring disputes? It seems to me to specifically apply to them, basically saying that once the sheet is signed the score is carved in stone (with two exceptions).

The rules seem somewhat unclear. 11.1.3 and 11.1.4 state that you appeal to the RO, if you're not happy then the CRO, and then if you're not happy the RM, and then if you're not happy you appeal to an Arb Committee. 11.1.7 implies that the RM may be passed in the chain. 9.7.4 specifies "arbitration decision", which seems to require a formal written summission, fee, and committee.

Why do you think the reloads were mandatory?

I looked at that rule, but I don't think it applies. There would have been the correct number of entries, just not the ones JA thought were correct.

I was just looking through the new Front Sight, and don't understand how the reshoot described on page 40 is supported by the rules. The scorecard was already signed, and there is no mention of an arb. What am I missing?

If 10.5.6 doesn't apply here, anyone using a back-raked holster would be very likely to commit a DQ offense either as the trigger becomes accessible or as the the gun comes up towards the target.