CRO Experience Requirement

[coldchar]

I understand that National recently bumped the requirement for a CRO to include area or national match experience. I have not been able to find it on the USPSA web site.

I am trying to understand 1. what experience are they looking for and 2. why they did it at all? I do know when I went thru the CRO course there were those who obviously did not belong. But at the same time even getting shooters to go thru the RO course let along the CRO course can be a challenge.

Even for the small match instructors , there is such a benefit from going thru the CRO course to make it worth while, but if they have no chance to get certified there goes a lot of motivation.

[JThompson]

I don't know that it's so... Maybe one of the RMI can confirm or deny. The CRO cert itself is about course design. I think what they are driving at is they want you to have worked a major before you are put in charge of running a stage at a major.

Edited May 28, 2010 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

I understand that National recently bumped the requirement for a CRO to include area or national match experience.

What is "National" ??

It sounds like, to work as a CRO at the Nationals, they may want you to have experience ?

[Pezco]

I'm in favor of "real" experience before I get my CRO certification and would like it for someone running me at a major match.

[coldchar]

I understand that National recently bumped the requirement for a CRO to include area or national match experience.

What is "National" ??

It sounds like, to work as a CRO at the Nationals, they may want you to have experience ?

Sorry, I use that term for USPSA at the national level. I certainly understand the requirement to have a CRO with major match experience work an area or higher match, but why make it a requirement of the entire program. It just torpedoes the small local matches. My source on this was someone whose credentials I would normally consider impecable.

[JThompson]

I understand that National recently bumped the requirement for a CRO to include area or national match experience.

What is "National" ??

It sounds like, to work as a CRO at the Nationals, they may want you to have experience ?

Sorry, I use that term for USPSA at the national level. I certainly understand the requirement to have a CRO with major match experience work an area or higher match, but why make it a requirement of the entire program. It just torpedoes the small local matches. My source on this was someone whose credentials I would normally consider impecable.

I would tend to agree. I think they could keep the program the way it is now, but make the stipulation you must work a major as an RO before you may CRO.

Seems easy enough...

JT

[bofe954]

I swear it was to RO 2 level 2 matches or above, but I can't remember where I read it (probably here somewhere).

I think it's reasonable, if that's what it is.

[Nik Habicht]

I understand that National recently bumped the requirement for a CRO to include area or national match experience.

What is "National" ??

It sounds like, to work as a CRO at the Nationals, they may want you to have experience ?

There's now an "experience requirement" to enroll in the CRO class, handed down by the NROI RMI group. As a Section Coordinator and former MD, I'm not certain that's a good idea -- IMHO we should be encouraging the folks who design and build stages at local (most) matches to get more education, and not make that process harder....

[ima45dv8]

....IMHO we should be encouraging the folks who design and build stages at local (most) matches to get more education, and not make that process harder....

Absolutely agree.

[Joe4d]

Are the classes filling up ? But even so I dont see an issue, Just going to major matches as an RO, scorekeeper, or other staff exposes you to alot of experience you can bring back to a local club. I dont recall ever hearing of a Match director of a major match turning down help. Especially in the summer heat, the more RO's the merrier. Actually getting into a class that is nearby is alot harder than getting to RO at a major.

[NickJ]

I swear it was to RO 2 level 2 matches or above, but I can't remember where I read it (probably here somewhere).

I think it's reasonable, if that's what it is.

May/June Front Sight, p 24.

[Sherwyn]

I understand that National recently bumped the requirement for a CRO to include area or national match experience.

What is "National" ??

It sounds like, to work as a CRO at the Nationals, they may want you to have experience ?

There's now an "experience requirement" to enroll in the CRO class, handed down by the NROI RMI group. As a Section Coordinator and former MD, I'm not certain that's a good idea -- IMHO we should be encouraging the folks who design and build stages at local (most) matches to get more education, and not make that process harder....

Think we are getting some items mixed together. There are experience requirement similar to those mentioned for completion of Range Master., but no such requirements to enter CRO program. You are required a year as an RO.

Yes we would like as many ROs and CROs as possible. And we have made the CRO course available as a correspondence course to make it easier.

Sherwyn

[rgkeller]

"... so effective June 1, 2010, prospective CRO students must work at least two level II matches or one level III match to be eligible to enroll in a CRO course."

page 24, May/June 2010, Front Sight magazine.

[John Heiter]

I understand there are probably some benefits to having more major match experience, and I know NROI wants the best staff they can get working every match, but I don't feel Nationals/Area experience should be a requirement for any of these educational programs. Some of us really do just want to help out and get better at helping out at the local level without having to travel all over the country to work Nationals and Area matches every year.

[rgkeller]

Sounds to me like initiation into the club

How many other Area Directors besides A3 were not informed of this change?

Edited May 28, 2010 by rgkeller

[juan]

I agree with John

I was looking forward to this coarse this summer, guess I will wait longer.

Maybe they got to many CRO's running around.

very rarely do I see a class come around for CRO, maybe next year I'll be there.

[JThompson]

I don't think it should be a prerequisite and furthermore, the "materials" cost of $40 could go away since it all can be loaded on CD and printed off at home. We want more people in the sport and it can be a bit off putting to "pay" to volunteer. You can burn a cd for about $1 WE want to make it easy as possible to get more guys/ladies to help out. We seem to be going the other direction on some of this stuff. I'm not bashing anyone either, I think that you guys are trying to make the sport better, by having ROs that know their shit. That's a good thing and something we can all get behind. If true, IMO, you might be able to find a better solution to the issue.

Just an FYI for my NROI friends.

Much love..

JT

Edited May 28, 2010 by JThompson

[Sherwyn]

Sounds to me like initiation into the club

How many other Area Directors besides A3 were not informed of this change?

Don't have my Front Sight Mag with me, will be checking it out. This does not match any conversation I have had with John Amidon.

Will follow up.

Sherwyn

[aztecdriver]

Devils Advocate time - I don't have a clear idea of like or dislike this change - I do agree having more people understanding stage design is important.

Do we feel it reasonable that a certified CRO have any practical major match experience? Do we feel that only CRO applicants receive an NROI course design class? I see both ends, as an NROI instructor volunteering time to help educate - I'm going to want to make sure the applicant is serious, and had some practical experience and growth as being an RO.

I also want more people endeavoring to design courses at local matches to design them correctly, within the rules, and safely - So I want more people getting into that section of the work. Some people just want to sit at the local level and have a good time, volunteer, and build COFs. To be honest, some of them rather cool setups. I applaud it.

I think we may just have to question more if the latter is best served by a CRO class - or possibly - a more focused class on course design for the non-RO. I've heard that's what the CRO class is mainly about - but should it be?

Some food for thought... I'm down for whatever.

[Gary Stevens]

Additional food for thought:

Quanity or quality?

Which is better?

[lcs]

Additional food for thought:

Quanity or quality?

Which is better?

QUALITY!!

I don't believe NROI wants to discourage anyone from becoming a CRO by adding a requirement to work 2 level II and one level III match prior to taking the CRO course.

I took the RO classroom course and by luck, took the CRO classroom course before I had a full year experience as an RO. I did not receive my CRO certification until I had my full year experience.

After receiving my CRO certification, I worked numerous Level II/III matches and one Nationals as an RO. After gaining the experience working matches as an RO with highly qualified RMs and CROs, I began to learn what being a CRO means. I learned quickly, having a "CRO Certiification" did not make me a CRO!

IMO, being responsible for a stage at a level II or higher match has little to do with course design. To be a qualified CRO, you need level II/III match RO experience.

May be NROI should look at a two step CRO processs, step (1) Take the course, step (2) Get the required match level experience and then be "certified" as a CRO.

[Dan Hefta]

I sent in my app for CRO over a month ago and am waiting for a mentor to contact me, I emailed the NROI and they said that I am on a wating list for a mentor, the only Level 2 match I have worked as an RO was the MN Sectional last year. I was not aware of an experience requirement when I sent in my app?

We need more shooters that are willing to step up and go for CRO and higher, I think that putting more requirements on it only undermines the situation. Some very good and experienced RO's could fall through the cracks.

Dan

[Gary Stevens]

I think it is two (2) Level 2 matches or one (1) Level 3 match.

I may be wrong on that though.

There is no substitute for experience. An instructor can only convey so much knowledge in a one day class or via e-mail in a correspondence course.

We want the student comes to the class/correspondence course with some basic knowledge. This includes course design, free style stages, how this works, how that works, how to eliminate 180 traps for the shooter, or traps for the RO, and how to keep a stage moving without getting backed up it makes the transfer of knowledge much easier.

We have conversations on this forum all the time about illegal stages someone has encountered. This in an experiment to try to cut down on those types of stages.

Gary

[moverfive]

Additional food for thought:

Quanity or quality?

Which is better?

Exactly as you are insinuating - quality is always preferable. Maybe better said, having experienced folks, with current experience, is what is preferable....in both obtaining CRO status and actually working as a RO/CRO at a Level II or above. Meaning, I think RO's at major matches should be regular shooters (yes, there are a lot of RO's at major matches that don't shoot often), at least have shot a level II in the previous year.

It doesn't happen often, but it happens often enough that it is seen - RO's will make "bad" calls that I feel could have been prevented if they had a little more experience. So I think having some experience requirements to obtain certain qualifications and to work major matches is a good thing.

And if those requirements keep a lot of people 'out' - think about: they really aren't participating in our sport to begin with, so what have we really lost?

[JThompson]

I think it is two (2) Level 2 matches or one (1) Level 3 match.

I may be wrong on that though.

There is no substitute for experience. An instructor can only convey so much knowledge in a one day class or via e-mail in a correspondence course.

We want the student comes to the class/correspondence course with some basic knowledge. This includes course design, free style stages, how this works, how that works, how to eliminate 180 traps for the shooter, or traps for the RO, and how to keep a stage moving without getting backed up it makes the transfer of knowledge much easier.

We have conversations on this forum all the time about illegal stages someone has encountered. This in an experiment to try to cut down on those types of stages.

Gary

I think most of us agree with you Gary. I see no problem with a guy/lady needing Level II or III time on the range. I don't agree that you should make it a requisite for the cert though. You can keep it like it is and then just require them to work the LIII before they CRO a stage at a major. Look at it this way, would you rather have two people that have passed the "stage design" intensive CRO class or would you rather have one that has ROed only and never had any training from the NROI in stage design? To me the answer is simple. I want the lady that has had the CRO course to help, she might see something that I miss, but is unlikely to do so without that training.

IS the requirement for CROing a major a good idea? Yes it can be, but there is more than one way to get the job done. There are only so many hoops a person is willing toi jump through when they aren't getting paid to do so. The NROI needs to keep that in mind. Personally I agree with the concept, I think the way it's being implemented needs to be tweaked a bit.

Best,

JT

Edited May 28, 2010 by JThompson