CRO Experience Requirement

[Dan Hefta]

From my experience, I feel that when we run into MD's that setup illegal stages it wouldn't matter how many classes or matches he/she could or would attend, they would still set up stages that break the rules, when you point it out to them they just say that you are a DRL.

The point that I am making is that those of us that are willing to take the CRO course are not the problem, we have the right attitude already, we want to learn and run matches that abide by the rules. It's the other guys that the NROI needs to worry about.

[Joe4d]

I think RO, CRO and designing stages are not quite the same thing, I dont see any reason stage design cant be spun off RO/CRO. I dont think you can really be a CRO without major match experience. As a certified RO at a local match you may be the only one or one of only a few there that has read and fully understands the rule book. At an Area match you better bring your A game. Your gonna have a big chunk of shooters that have been there done that and know every angle of the book, Especially if you are wearing CRO hat, a close call or issuing a DQ is not the time to be unsure of your self or himming and hawing about where to find a rule.

[sperman]

I think RO, CRO and designing stages are not quite the same thing, I dont see any reason stage design cant be spun off RO/CRO.

I agree. Maybe I did it the wrong way, but I was designing stages for local matches long before I was comfortable running the timer. I'm not saying they were great stages, I learned a few lessons the hard way. But I don't think being an RO and being a stage designer are necessarily related.

I haven't taken the CRO course yet, so I'm not sure what all is covered. I would have been eligible in early July, but with the new requirement it will be September before I get in my second section match as an RO.

[Gary Stevens]

All good points, and I don't doubt that many who apply are exactly what we are looking for.

Remember that being a CRO is more than just designing courses. When you wear that title you are in charge of everything that happens, good or bad, on that stage. It belongs to you. Often you are not the stage designer, you simply get assigned a stage. That stage may look great on paper, but if it is not set up properly it is doomed for disaster.

Being able to look at a stage and project where the problems are likely to occur can only be obtained from experience. Finding shoot thoughs, bottle necks, shots that may go over the berm or in another unsafe direction, areas that can be attacked through arbitration that may get your stage thrown out of the match. All of this comes with a combination of training, knowledge, and experience.

When I CRO a stage it is my duty to provide opportunities for my RO's to learn. That is why I insist that they all run shooters, that they understand what we are doing and why we are doing it. I ask for their input because a fresh set of eye can see things I might miss. Two heads or three or four are always better than one.

Bottom line is we have tried it several ways in the past trying to reach the best conclusion possible. This might not be the perfect solution, and it may need to be adjusted, but shouldn't we at least give it a chance before we kill it?

Gary

[JThompson]

All good points, and I don't doubt that many who apply are exactly what we are looking for.

Remember that being a CRO is more than just designing courses. When you wear that title you are in charge of everything that happens, good or bad, on that stage. It belongs to you. Often you are not the stage designer, you simply get assigned a stage. That stage may look great on paper, but if it is not set up properly it is doomed for disaster.

Being able to look at a stage and project where the problems are likely to occur can only be obtained from experience. Finding shoot thoughs, bottle necks, shots that may go over the berm or in another unsafe direction, areas that can be attacked through arbitration that may get your stage thrown out of the match. All of this comes with a combination of training, knowledge, and experience.

When I CRO a stage it is my duty to provide opportunities for my RO's to learn. That is why I insist that they all run shooters, that they understand what we are doing and why we are doing it. I ask for their input because a fresh set of eye can see things I might miss. Two heads or three or four are always better than one.

Bottom line is we have tried it several ways in the past trying to reach the best conclusion possible. This might not be the perfect solution, and it may need to be adjusted, but shouldn't we at least give it a chance before we kill it?

Gary

I don't want to kill it, just tweak it a bit.

Looking forward to seeing you at 5 Gary.

Best,

Jim

[twodownzero]

I don't quite understand why CRO certification is connected to stage design. The majority of what we, as shooters, need from range officials is found in the level I RO class.

I am continuing to volunteer my time and gain experience, and of course one day I will seek CRO certification. But it seems that what we need most from our CROs has very little to do with what it takes to become certified.

I definitely remember seeing the training videos of bad stages that are 180 and/or RO traps and those should definitely be as rare as possible. I do agree with previous posters, however, that some people just like designing dangerous and/or illegal stages, and it's a real challenge to get through to these people.

Perhaps as I gain experience, my opinion on what a good CRO should be and what experience they ought to have would change. But I fail to see the relevance of stage design as the primary component of certification when most of the disputes are about the rules in the first place.

[juan]

My whole motivation at this time was to gain proper stage design. Help out our local club.

I was not going to run out and try to RO the nationals

maybe they should offer a course in stage design and not attached to the CRO course.

I am one who would do this, but right now I have to take the CRO course to gain this information.

[JThompson]

As an aside, the RO class could use a good deal more time on the range learning how to run shooters. Basically, at the end of the class you run one shooter on a short course. If you manage not to trip over your feet and remember the range commands, you pass. If you really want to improve the ROs out of the box, give them some more range time. I think a lot of the material that is taught in the class with verbage could be given out on CD form. You are resposible for working through it BEFORE the class. You would then review it and test on it with the instructor. That way, you could still cover all of the data, but be able to spend some more time on the range without extending the class or leaving out needed data.

You might also do something like have them watch videos and write down what they see., then review the video with the class and analize it.

Again, not trying to bash anyone or reinvent the wheel... may be just put some new rubber on it.

The RO class is lacking a great deal in the way or actually learning what it takes to run a shooter.

Best,

JT

[NickJ]

I don't quite understand why CRO certification is connected to stage design. The majority of what we, as shooters, need from range officials is found in the level I RO class.

I agree. I think that the reason CRO is tied to course design is like a lot of other things in life- because that's the way it's always been. I got mine in 91, course design was part of it then. I agree with the idea floated here regarding seperate course design seminars, they would benefit every level of our sport.

[Ed K]

The CRO course is not only connected with stage design, it also goes deeper into the match management areas of the rule book. Yes for the final you do have to design 2 courses, but you also have to research some arbitrations, and responsibilities of various match officials.

Is it a good idea to require Level II and/or III experience? I don't believe so. There are still alot of clubs out there who rely on CRO's to act as RM's. Some of them may never go to a Level III match for various reasons.

[Dan Hefta]

There are still alot of clubs out there who rely on CRO's to act as RM's. Some of them may never go to a Level III match for various reasons.

Ed, that is exactly the point I was trying to say, by requiring Level 2 and Level 3 matches for CRO certification you are unqualifing a lot of good local club RO's and we need CRO's at local matches.

[MoNsTeR]

Additional food for thought:

Quanity or quality?

Which is better?

At the local level, QUANTITY. If the same 4 guys design and build stages every month, you get burnout plus haven't-I-seen-this-stage-before? syndrome.

I'll echo others' confusion as to why CRO is about stage design anyway, and that the basic RO class needs more range time.

[Nik Habicht]

Additional food for thought:

Quanity or quality?

Which is better?

I don't believe they're mutually exclusive. I don't have the requisite major match experience to be accepted into the CRO program today. (If I do, the experience is ~ 8 years old....)

I have had an awful lot of exposure to an RMI locally, to CROs and RMs at a bunch of Sectional, Area and National matches, to some very experienced local stage designers and match directors -- folks who on a monthly basis put on a match to rival any sectional and many an area match.....

It's hard to recruit and keep volunteer help motivated. Do we really want to make it harder to have CROs at local matches?

[Nik Habicht]

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

Cool -- in theory. You willing to give a pass to anyone who's actually designed and built a stage every month at a local for a year? To someone who's been an MD for a year? I'll guarantee those folks will have some experience, and will need some help (which NROI could provide). I know I learned a lot when I took the CRO course from John -- and I'd been match directing for ~ 3 years at that point and designing 1 or 2 stages every month for two matches for ~ 3.5 years....

Has anyone on the NROI RMI staff (other than George) run a local match in the last five years? Has anyone grown a program recently? For what it's worth, I don't want that to read as an attack --- while I have a passionate point of view on this topic, I'm still trying to understand the thinking behind the change.....

[Gary Stevens]

Yes, me, in addition to all the other "stuff" I do.

I believe the thinking behind the move is that just like having paper GM's we also have paper CRO's and RM's.

Working at your local club is a basic, I do it every month. I review stages, set up stages, do stats, answer questions at the match (sometimes this doesn't win many friends), and do whatever else needs to be done that I can do.

The bottom line is you can design multiple stages at your home club but if they are not legal stages you are not doing your members any service. I can't tell you how many times I hear "well that is not the way we do it at my home club". If the home club is not doing it right, then the entire program suffers.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Gary Stevens

[rgkeller]

Why would anyone believe that "working" at a level II or level III match result in that worker designing better stages?

They might become better at running/bossing stages but the supposed stage design improvement escapes me.

[Gary Stevens]

Post 29 describes more than "running/bossing" a stage.

[rgkeller]

Yes, including critiquing a stage - an essential talent for a good CRO.

But nothing about designing one - from scratch.

[Gary Stevens]

IMO, the knowledge base is one in the same.

[George Jones]

This may be a bit long.....

As Nik hinted, I have run a local match, and I sure have worked my way "up the ladder" over the years. I think I have multiple perspectives on this subject - MD, RO, CRO, RM, at all levels, and just as importantly, as a shooter.

I also have a perspective as an instructor (RMI). I teach RO classes, I teach CRO correspondence classes, I also have taught the RM course. RO classes are all "in-person". Although it's only over a weekend, I have direct contact with the students and continue that contact as they complete the final exam. The experience level of those students varies, but at this level that's not a problem.

When it comes to the CRO class, it changes a bit. Since the CRO correspondence course was initiated a number of years ago, many of our CRO students use that route. Via correspondence, there is a lot more time devoted to each student by the instructor - it's basically one-on-one for the whole course. And, it's not just a "pass this quick test and you're done". It takes discussion, problem solving, etc. In other words, no quick rubber stamp.

The CRO student's individual experience makes a big difference in the amount of instruction he/she will require to meet the standard. Yes, I agree (and have for some time) that we focus a bit too much on stage design and not quite enough on stage management - but that's just my opinion. Regardless, no matter what the course contains, it has become quite obvious (to me at least) that the background experience of each student has a major affect on his/her ability to absorb the CRO-level instruction. One of the most difficult and frustrating problems (to both the student and instructor) is a student's inability to move beyond the "local match" mindset. What I mean is that if a student has only ever experienced a local match, as a shooter, as an RO, his perspective can be rather narrow. The challenge, to both the student and the instructor, is to move the student past the "box-to-box-to-box" mentality and appreciate the freestyle approach to stage design and a broader and more correct view of rules enforcement. This is toallty unrelated to the student's motivation. As eager a one might be, it still helps to have a sound foundation at the beginning to ultimately display the necessary skills and knowledge.

If (IF) a student has never even seen a legitimate Level II or Level III match, either as a shooter or as a RO, it can be quite a chellenge to teach those concepts if the student has never experienced them. If the student has difficulty adapting and quits the course, both the student and one of the instructors have just wasted significant personal time and effort with no benefit to USPSA. We only have so many instructors. We are volunteers and our availability is not infinite. Everytime we waste intruction time, we do not get it back. It'a an issue of available resources and how do we put them to best use.

I am one of those who thinks that a CRO student needs to begin the course with more than just "I've had a RO card in my pocket for one year". It depends on the individual's specific experience. Has he shot a major match? Has he worked a major match? If the answers are "YES", than I expect that he is more prepared to absorb the instruction than someone who has not.

It would be great if we could evaluate every potential student based upon his individual experience. But that's not likely. So, we need to publish a set of realistic prerequisites, whatever they are, so that potential students have the best possible opportunity to succeed.

I support some level of experience for CRO students. Yes, I agree that this is a generalized, rather than individual approach, and that there are a number of potential students who have the ability to learn the CRO skills without that requirement. But, there are also quite a number who cannot. It's not about intelligence or desire, it's about experience and the way it helps you to more readily reach a higher level of expertise.

These are my opinions and perspectives and not NROI policy. I hope, however, that you appreciate that NROI has to manage all it's policies to maximize the end product.

[JThompson]

You make some good points George and I don't disagree.

Let's see where this goes...

Premise: ROs at the local level have a much tougher job than those at a major. In fact, the local level is where an ROs skills are tested the most.

Anyone care to expound, debate, scoff?

JT

Edited May 29, 2010 by JThompson

[MoNsTeR]

Yes, me, in addition to all the other "stuff" I do.

I believe the thinking behind the move is that just like having paper GM's we also have paper CRO's and RM's.

Working at your local club is a basic, I do it every month. I review stages, set up stages, do stats, answer questions at the match (sometimes this doesn't win many friends), and do whatever else needs to be done that I can do.

The bottom line is you can design multiple stages at your home club but if they are not legal stages you are not doing your members any service. I can't tell you how many times I hear "well that is not the way we do it at my home club". If the home club is not doing it right, then the entire program suffers.

So denying those folks access to the class that will teach them proper stage design helps the situation... how?

[aztecdriver]

You make some good points George and I don't disagree.

Let's see where this goes...

Premise: ROs at the local level have a much tougher job than those at a major. In fact, the local level is where an ROs skills are tested the most.

Anyone care to expound, debate, scoff?

JT

JT,

Great premise question. Here's how I look at it - both majors and locals are equally challenging, for different reasons. This is going to box me into a corner and I'll explain that at the end. Basically, I concur that at local matches when you are running newer shooters, people with less confidence (or overconfident, take your pick), lack of resources for putting on the match, etc. - yes, locals are more challenging in that sense. Safety is our #1 objective - and there is nothing that will keep your attention more than a person that is just learning to run with scissors. BUT - I will say that at majors, you have to really on your game as far as the rules, making calls, having confidence in those calls, match management, etc. Basically, the word "professional" comes to mind. Your often running people you don't know, you're a little out of the comfort zone of having your buddies around, etc. I will say that the 4 majors I've worked since becoming an RO in July has taught me a tremendous amount about being "professional" and knowing the rulebook better than ever before.

The corner that I mentioned is that at locals - you have to have that professional portion AND running on the raged edge with those that may not have full grasp of what they are doing yet. Therein, I believe, lies the rub - how do you get the professional level experience back into the locals without running majors?

(NOTE: please don't take my comment to mean that locals don't put on professional matches. Those that I have been to are great matches - but they also have the benefit of people working with them that have been to the dance more than a few times.)

[mactiger]

I'll echo what George and Gary have said, and add a few things.

First, while the CRO course does focus on stage design, that's not it's sole purpose. We also want to teach stage management, stage critique, some arb principles, and hopefully that will all add up to competence on the stage. It doesn't really matter if you hold a CRO card when it comes to being assigned to work a stage at a level 2 or higher match. We have several RM's that work as CRO's at Nationals, and some that work as RO's. On the other hand, you can hold an RO certification and work as a CRO and be a damn good one--it all depends on your "presence" on the range and your experience level.

Second, like all the other instructors, I've had several correspondence students lately that simply just didn't "get it". It's tough to get someone through the course if that's the case.

Since we do far more correspondence courses than in-person seminars for level II, we felt like there should be some experience requirement in order to complete the CRO certification. There is no substitute for experience. None.

Third, I teach a lot of classes around the country, like the rest of the instructors. I always, always hear stories about what went on at this Section match, or Area match, etc. They aren't pretty most of the time, and it makes me wonder why the people at those matches freely ignore (or are ignorant of) the rules, especially course design and safety rules. Maybe with more people needing or wanting to work level II matches, more of them will get sanctioned, and at least have some objective eyes looking at the courses. Perhaps the extra effort will improve the quality of both the stages and the match staff.

We don't want to reduce the number of people wanting to get CRO certified. We need to make sure that those people can do the job, and not just be paper CRO's with no match experience.

I agree that this may not be the best solution, and I'm sure we'll end up tweaking it some over the year. We may be able to use past experience, if it can be verified somehow. I don't have a problem with that. What we want is experience.

I also agree that we could use more range time in the level one seminar. We have to cover the rules, however, and self-study prior to the class probably isn't going to happen, no matter what we make available or how it's delivered. Most of the time, the students don't do the homework assignment when they're pretty much dedicated to the class for a weekend. It's a fact of life--this is a game, we try to teach the rules and how to use them, but it isn't real life for the majority of our members. Range time without some grounding in the rules is useless. If you practice the wrong thing, you'll always be wrong. We see a lot of that already.

We are constantly working to update and improve both seminars, and member suggestions are always welcome. We especially like pictures and video that we can incorporate into the seminar. But, there has to be some balance between providing the necessary training in the rules and range time. Couple that with the need to travel and get home for work on Monday, and it sort of limits the amount of time available for a seminar at any level, so we work what we can into them. I always tell my students after they are done that there is no substitute for experience, none. (Where did I hear that before?) I (and I believe the rest of the instructors do as well), always encourage new RO students to get behind the timer, get behind the clipboard, and get some experience. If you think you want to be a CRO but can't find a level 2 match, encourage and help your local clubs to put one on. They really aren't hard to find--most section championships are level II, and Area Championships are generally level III. Nationals needs good RO's too, and it's a great learning experience. Every match needs help--volunteer. It's what the sport is all about.

I probably out-typed George here, but this is a subject I feel very strongly about. I'd like to not hear horror stories about matches, and know that the people that I certify at least have some range experience and can do the job.

If you just want to bitch about the changes, I'm not listening. If you want to make suggestions about how to improve NROI's training programs, or better yet, want to submit materials for them, feel free to PM, email, whatever. You can send your thoughts to any of the instructors--you can find us at www.nroi.org.

Troy

[LChico]

You make some good points George and I don't disagree.

Let's see where this goes...

Premise: ROs at the local level have a much tougher job than those at a major. In fact, the local level is where an ROs skills are tested the most.

Anyone care to expound, debate, scoff?

JT

I disagree. The challenges are different, but it is wrong to assume one is easier than the other.

Local Challenges: It is usually a very small group of the same people who do most of the work. The local RO can be confronted with really new people who may require a lot of help, ask a lot of questions, and occasionally pose a safety problem. They help with stage design, set-up, help run shooters while trying to shoot themselves, then tear down. They tend to be the recognized authority at the local match, and their squad will often rely on their interpretation of the rules without calling the match director. They will burn out fast without new shooters stepping up to help or take on RO chores themselves.

Local Advantages: It is pretty easy to become a part of the core group: show up and work hard; attend a level one RO class; and learn the rules and local priorities. It often offers opportunities to try out ideas for stages, with no severe consequences if the idea flops. There is usually less time pressure, so there is time to mentor new shooters and learn from the more experienced RO's or CRO's. And you get the most contact with the truly new shooters (My personal bias is that this is the biggest plus).

Major Match Challenges: The pace is usually fast, furious and non-stop. There is a schedule and a "get it done" mentality. The RO will only know a small fraction of the shooters personally, and may face some challenging competitors (the super squad, the first big match for a junior shooter, the squad of 'experts,' or the overly critical). There is a structure, a hierarchy, and one RO is just a small part of it. The RO is expected to know the rules and apply them correctly. Any errors or screw ups tend to be broadcast to a larger audience (forums, YouTube, etc).

Major Match Advantages: Because of the hierarchy, there is always a RM to call. Working as a team on a stage can teach the new RO about time management and even application of the rules. The importance of "bullet proof" stage designs and consistency is stressed, and an RO can learn a lot about stage design even by working a stage at a major match. Rules may be referenced and applied that never come up on the local level.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

Edited May 29, 2010 by LChico