CRO Experience Requirement

[JThompson]

Do we need to be training CRO's after 13 months of shooting?

Yes, if there is a need for them at the local level.

Hell yes Sarge! I took the class as soon as it was available to me. Hell, I've only been in the USPSA since 6/14/07. I've setup/design hundreds of stages and worked/shot a bunch of majors. I started my CRO course on 3/16 and finished it on 4/6. I have MD locals and assisted in a major, RO/CROed a boat load of shooters. There are a couple of rules changes in the book which I had a part in, or at least I brought up here and spoke to John and others about which now reside in our little blue book. Now I'm up to my ass in MDing an Area match that was homeless because some a_-hole went AWOL on it. I called our Area D and said, hell, we'll take it rather than "possibly" not having an Area 5 match. If the rules were in effect now, I wouldn't be a CRO and I wouldn't be Co-MD for the one of the largest Area matches and THE largest ever Area 5. I've spend literally thousands of hours working for this sport. I'd say for a 1 year wonder, I have a pretty good understanding of the rules of the sport. Do you really want to keep guys like me from stepping up? I can guarantee you if you had set that requirement I would not be a CRO now. Would the sport or the CRO list be any better for it?

To address the availability or CRO/RO, having just had to fully staff a major, I can tell you it's not easy to get enough staff as it is, you reduce that number and we are going to have serious problems. Some Areas have a lot less people to draw on. Some Areas have a lot less volunteers to draw on. Some times there are matches that are close to the same time and you split the available staff between those matches. It's dicey at best...

My thoughts as a, "One year wonder" and the Co-MD of the Area 5 Championship Match.

*** Side note, I had a kick ass mentor who responded to all my questions and emails quickly. In some cases we worked real time via email. I would send one off and had an answer in minutes.

Thanks Ray, you were the best!

JT

OK, Jim, you may not have wanted to work the matches to make the CRO requirements, but that certainly wouldn't have stopped you from working or producing any matches. The rules aren't set up that way. Availability of people is something that we all have to contend with, regardless of match level, and most levels don't require certified staff in all positions. It's always better to have certified staff, but it's not a requirement that the entire staff be certified for all matches.

Something to consider: it may not be a shortage of staff, but an overabundance of major matches that makes it hard to staff one. Everybody is always looking for help.

Good luck on the A5, it's not easy inheriting a match on short notice. As for being a "one year wonder", there's nothing wrong with that, and congratulations on your achievements.

Troy

Thanks Troy... I can use all the luck I can get.

Wish you were going to be here my friend. I sure could have used you. That big ass stogie of yours could have cleared the skeeters from one range maybe two!

JT

[mactiger]

Likewise, it's not my intent to bash anyone who's holding a CRO card. With reference to "paper" CRO's, we all know them, just like there are "paper" GM's. Neither one can perform at that level when called upon. That's all I meant.

I understand your comments and desire for input, but we didn't make this decision in a vacuum. Perhaps we (the instructors) can solicit more input from the certified range officers out there, and should do so somehow. It's hard to work with a 14,000 member committee, though. We could probably form an informal discussion area just for range officer issues, and float new ideas there. I'll see what I can do in that regard.

We have been actively soliciting feedback from the classes we teach, both in the evaluation and through post-seminar surveys sent from USPSA. One of the comments we frequently get, and it was made here, is lack of range time. We can't possibly spend enough time on the range to get a new student the experience he needs, but we can encourage new RO's get get out and work and not just at the local level. That's part of the reason behind the new requirement. It's one thing to work your local matches, but if everyone there is making the same mistakes, nobody ever learns differently.

At any rate, this is an ongoing process, and I'm sure we'll be making adjustments as time goes by. We have to start somewhere, though.

Troy

Troy,

I don't think either of us actually thought they would retro it... hence, the goof face at the end of my response.

We do want to get our opinions out there because the first we ever here of some new rule/decision coming down the pike is when we read about it in Front Sight. Then we look it over and see potential issues to late to do anything constructive about it. When we point them out it comes off like we are bashing you guys and that's not the intent, but rather a symptom of not looking at it with a larger audience. We are all volunteers here and I can't speak for everyone, but it would be nice to have some input on such maters "before" they are decided. Ultimately, it will be up to you guys, but it's nice to at least have the illusion of involvement.

I think we all know and agree with what you guys are trying to do. I get tired of hearing AYR when my hand is still on my pistol, but there is always more than one approach to get it done. The more people who look at something the more good ideas you can have.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

Yes, you do and so do we. The RMIs have not reached this point in a vacuum. We have MD, SC, AD perspectives too. So your perspective is not unique to you. We share it. It's just that in weighing the cost/benefit of improving the process, we have come to our current conclusion.

I think you will find (from page one of this thread) that this was news to one of our AD's. And, I am a (major) MD and SC and hadn't heard a whif of it (until just recently).

Just saying...

Sounds like a done deal, so I guess we are where we are.

[JThompson]

Likewise, it's not my intent to bash anyone who's holding a CRO card. With reference to "paper" CRO's, we all know them, just like there are "paper" GM's. Neither one can perform at that level when called upon. That's all I meant.

I understand your comments and desire for input, but we didn't make this decision in a vacuum. Perhaps we (the instructors) can solicit more input from the certified range officers out there, and should do so somehow. It's hard to work with a 14,000 member committee, though. We could probably form an informal discussion area just for range officer issues, and float new ideas there. I'll see what I can do in that regard.

We have been actively soliciting feedback from the classes we teach, both in the evaluation and through post-seminar surveys sent from USPSA. One of the comments we frequently get, and it was made here, is lack of range time. We can't possibly spend enough time on the range to get a new student the experience he needs, but we can encourage new RO's get get out and work and not just at the local level. That's part of the reason behind the new requirement. It's one thing to work your local matches, but if everyone there is making the same mistakes, nobody ever learns differently.

At any rate, this is an ongoing process, and I'm sure we'll be making adjustments as time goes by. We have to start somewhere, though.

Troy

Troy,

I don't think either of us actually thought they would retro it... hence, the goof face at the end of my response.

We do want to get our opinions out there because the first we ever here of some new rule/decision coming down the pike is when we read about it in Front Sight. Then we look it over and see potential issues to late to do anything constructive about it. When we point them out it comes off like we are bashing you guys and that's not the intent, but rather a symptom of not looking at it with a larger audience. We are all volunteers here and I can't speak for everyone, but it would be nice to have some input on such maters "before" they are decided. Ultimately, it will be up to you guys, but it's nice to at least have the illusion of involvement.

I think we all know and agree with what you guys are trying to do. I get tired of hearing AYR when my hand is still on my pistol, but there is always more than one approach to get it done. The more people who look at something the more good ideas you can have.

Jim

I understand about not being able to deal with a large number of people. I would imagine it's hard enough to get stuff passed with the limited number you have in the room.

One thing you guys need to keep in mind is we all respect and appreciate all you're doing for the sport. Sometimes that gets lost when it seems like the only feedback you get is us bitching about one thing and another. I would feel the same if I were in your guy's position. If you can find a way to be more inclusive and receptive to feedback, you will not only get some good ideas, but will have allies on the forum who can help explain the thinking and to help smooth over and ruffles from whatever it is. If you ever start a group to help vet or for ideas, count me in. I don't have a ton of time, in, but I try and keep current.

I like the idea of a group of experienced guys looking at, or helping form, the decisions which affect us all. I believe it would take a great deal of pressure off you guys too. As I said, if you start something and feel I could help, I'm there for you guys.

Now, I have a date with a lovely woman, who for some unknown reason, loves me. We're going to load some ammo for her, test it, and then head out on the town for a bit. Let's call it A5 stress management. I think I've said all I had on my mind here and don't want to flog it, so this is my last on the matter. Remember guys, we appreciate you no matter how much shit you get from us here. We are just passionate about the sport too!

Best,

Jim

Edited May 31, 2010 by JThompson

[MoNsTeR]

I gotta say after 6 pages I am REALLY confused.

1. When I have asked about what the CRO course covers, the answer I get is uniformly "oh it's about stage design." Comments in this thread suggest that's overly narrow. The only official material I can find is at http://www.nroi.org/cro.html which says:

What exactly is covered in this program?

This course furthers the training you received during the level I course. There is some rule review as well as in-depth exercises in Stage Design, Arbitrations, and Squadding. The challenging final requires two original courses of fire.

Sure sounds like it's mainly about stage design! "Arbitrations" sounds interesting and advanced. "Squadding" makes me think I don't know what that words means, because what I think of as "squadding" is really simple.

So if there are people out there who want to take the CRO course because they want to learn stage design, and it's actually about something else and maybe that's why they don't complete the course, sounds like there's a problem with popular perception that NROI could take some simple steps to remedy.

2. Local concerns are not the same as area or national concerns, in fact they often conflict. I think I see the NROI's perspective, which is that there are under-prepared individuals beginning the course, and either not finishing it or finishing it and not rising to the level of CRO that we would like, and this wastes instructors' time. Is that correct? As a large-organization perspective this is fully understandable, but the local perspective is quite different. Local operations are starved for trained individuals, and are severely constrained by the frequency of courses. I've personally desired to take the CRO course but am unwilling to take it as correspondence, because to me that seems like utter folly (same reason I never EVER took online courses in college). Given the average level of internet savvy among shooters, and the pain of doing anything by snail mail, I imagine at least a few others share my position.

When a new class of ROs graduates, not everyone goes on to actually be an RO. We all know the guys who took the course yet never pick up the clock or clipboard/Palm. But that's ok! Maybe they don't want to, but they'll do it in a pinch. At the very least they've learned the rules better and have a heightened understanding of what's going on around them. Along the same lines, a student who fails to finish the CRO course, or finishes it and doesn't put it into practice much, was not a waste! They have learned something and that is a positive thing. I think Flex is more correct than Troy in estimating how many course-finishers will become "kick-ass" CROs. It won't be 100%. Nothing ever is. I respect Troy's opinion, and thank him for teaching the RO class that I took myself, but he's just wrong here. The new policy will cause a net decrease in quality graduates.

3. Not every part of the country is the same, and not every shooter is the same. From some places you can reasonably drive to lots of big matches. Some folks don't mind flying with guns. Colorado generally holds one Level II match per year. In addition to that there is one regularly held Level II within a 500 mile drive of Denver. Our own Area match is 850 miles away. It's hard for me to arrange to shoot these matches, much less RO them. Further I'll admit that I'm hesitant (ok, "scared") to RO a big match at a foreign club. It's unlikely I'd ever volunteer to work an Area match before at least shooting a few of them, and that's going to take me years. Meanwhile I, and others like me, are prohibited (not just discouraged, prohibited!) the training to better serve our local clubs. If (if!) people like me who will not or cannot officiate large matches are not desired as CROs, that's understandable, but please say so. I built a stage twice a month at a local club for maybe 8 months (before it burned me out but that's another story). I wanted the training. Why tell me no?

4. I don't quite understand the benefit that RO'ing a Level II+ match is suppose to confer. "Mentoring" has been mentioned. I don't see it. You get paired with a buddy, handed a timer and scorekeeping gear, and put in charge of a stage. If you never need the assistance of the RM or MD, when exactly does the mentoring happen? Seems like there's more opportunity for it when running squads at local matches, where you're among friends, and the RM and MD are guys whose names you know (they might be on your squad!). Is what I've observed locally not representative? Am I just missing something (seems likely!)? Like I said I haven't personally worked a big match, even a nearby one, but I've shot a few, and I'm just going by what I've seen. I did work a GSSF match once, and aside from basic instruction in the rules I can't recall receiving much in the way of mentoring.

I want to state explicitly that I'm not attacking anyone, just peacefully expressing disagreement and an alternative viewpoint. I genuinely think the NROI is making a mistake by instituting this policy, and that it will hurt USPSA on net.

[wide45]

I've got to wonder why someone who never works a level II, or III, needs the CRO credential.

You can learn just about everything you need to know about stage design, by attending matches, paying attention, and asking questions.

[Charles Bond]

After having read this thread, I wonder if everyone is missing the point.

What we have at matches are CROs leading ROs on stages. The problem is that here to fore what we have done before we pin a "CRO" label on someeone is we train them to design stages. If what NROI is trying to do is produce CROs who can lead ROs and run stages better than those that are designated as ROs, some adjustment in the elgibility to become a CRO might be in order. But unless the training for CROs is going to be revised to product CROs what know the rules better than ROs and to produce those who can lead other ROs, we may have a solution looking for a problem.

I can not avoid the comment made by George Jones in which he set out very correctly the need for face to face time in training which is an opinion I share completely. It does however escape me that if the CRO designation is going to be elevated how we can just identify and train these people by correspondance no matter how many level whatever matches they have worked.

In the real world of producing matches, SCs and MDs and ADs know who is competent and who is not and we assign our staff accordingly. And if I need staff I do not know I am going to call someone and check them out before I put them on a stage at all much less make them the stage leader. Sometimes that might mean that there is an RO working for a CRO. It might mean that the CRO on a stage is only an RO on paper and have CROs functioning as ROs. And there are still a few darn good range officers who have never had any course of any kind who can run stages as well as any RM I have ever seen.

Now would I like the designations these folks carry to match their abilities? Sure I would but in reality that is just about as possible as is is to make all lawyers honest and make all preachers faithful to their wives.

[Flexmoney]

I've got to wonder why someone who never works a level II, or III, needs the CRO credential.

You can learn just about everything you need to know about stage design, by attending matches, paying attention, and asking questions.

Yeah...

For that matter, only Level III matches require certified CRO's. (So, that is about a dozen matches, other than the Nationals.)

I do agree that those that work majors gain a lot of experience from working them. It does help to get out of the small pond.

[LChico]

3. Not every part of the country is the same, and not every shooter is the same. From some places you can reasonably drive to lots of big matches. Some folks don't mind flying with guns. Colorado generally holds one Level II match per year. In addition to that there is one regularly held Level II within a 500 mile drive of Denver. Our own Area match is 850 miles away. It's hard for me to arrange to shoot these matches, much less RO them. Further I'll admit that I'm hesitant (ok, "scared") to RO a big match at a foreign club. It's unlikely I'd ever volunteer to work an Area match before at least shooting a few of them, and that's going to take me years. Meanwhile I, and others like me, are prohibited (not just discouraged, prohibited!) the training to better serve our local clubs. If (if!) people like me who will not or cannot officiate large matches are not desired as CROs, that's understandable, but please say so. I built a stage twice a month at a local club for maybe 8 months (before it burned me out but that's another story). I wanted the training. Why tell me no?

4. I don't quite understand the benefit that RO'ing a Level II+ match is suppose to confer. "Mentoring" has been mentioned. I don't see it. You get paired with a buddy, handed a timer and scorekeeping gear, and put in charge of a stage. If you never need the assistance of the RM or MD, when exactly does the mentoring happen? Seems like there's more opportunity for it when running squads at local matches, where you're among friends, and the RM and MD are guys whose names you know (they might be on your squad!). Is what I've observed locally not representative? Am I just missing something (seems likely!)? Like I said I haven't personally worked a big match, even a nearby one, but I've shot a few, and I'm just going by what I've seen. I did work a GSSF match once, and aside from basic instruction in the rules I can't recall receiving much in the way of mentoring.

I will agree that it is VERY different in my part of the country. Most of the shooters in our section and neighboring sections (SC, GA & NC) shoot and help RO at matches at more that one club. There is a small handful that does not ever venture away from the home club, but most of us travel within a 2 to 3 hour radius from home to go to other matches on a regular basis. I cannot think of a single shooter who signed up for a CRO class (actual class or online) without work experience as an RO from at least 4 section or area matches.

As the person who makes the staff assignments at our section match, mentoring is the primary consideration. I will literally tell the new RO's & CRO's about the experience level of the person they are paired with. I want to pair new RO's and CRO's with the "old guys" (experienced CRO's ), so that they will learn the finer points of running a stage at a major match. Done properly, after one major match the new guys "get" the importance of the WSB read to each squad exactly the same way. They learn time management, patience under pressure, and when to call the RM. Most importantly, the new guys know we are not "throwing them in over their heads." I'd like to think this is one of the reasons our section match is usually fully staffed before the application posts, and why we have a waiting list for staff. It is certainly not because the work is easy. The next section match is May 2011 & I already have emails that say "put me down to work."

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

Edited June 1, 2010 by LChico

[hf219]

For what its worth, as someone who took the CRO course through the mail, it certainly wasnt a breeze. After reading some funny stuff in this thread from a few not so funny people, why argue a point that is fixable. Its been said and reinforced by greater a person then me, just because you graduated school, certainly doesnt make you a teacher. After all arent we all still students in this sport, learning from other students of the sport. My best experiences have come from working major matches and designing, building and troubleshooting stages at the local level. The sport already acknowledges that there are more desirable and or competent range officers out there than some others. Certainly information can be handed out, tests passed and shiny name tags worn. The real test of an official is how they respond to situations that arise. The proffesional demeanor they instill among competitors and other range officials alike. Is this not the real test, is this not the person we all seek to be running a stage that you walk onto. Someone impartial to each and every competitors stigmas, personalities and reputations. A proffesional range officer, huh, our sport expects it, our competitors demand it, our organization trains us for it. I guess it just comes down to one silly thing, human nature, you will either do or do not, act accordingly. For me its that simple, maybe its something I learned from those who I have worked with at matches or those who have instructed me. Maybe, just maybe its because some of us saw something in the sport that made us enjoy our first experience. We are all representatives of the sport, sometimes we just need to be reminded of that simple fact.

[rgkeller]

After having read this thread, I wonder if everyone is missing the point.

What we have at matches are CROs leading ROs on stages. The problem is that here to fore what we have done before we pin a "CRO" label on someeone is we train them to design stages. If what NROI is trying to do is produce CROs who can lead ROs and run stages better than those that are designated as ROs, some adjustment in the elgibility to become a CRO might be in order. But unless the training for CROs is going to be revised to product CROs what know the rules better than ROs and to produce those who can lead other ROs, we may have a solution looking for a problem.

I can not avoid the comment made by George Jones in which he set out very correctly the need for face to face time in training which is an opinion I share completely. It does however escape me that if the CRO designation is going to be elevated how we can just identify and train these people by correspondance no matter how many level whatever matches they have worked.

In the real world of producing matches, SCs and MDs and ADs know who is competent and who is not and we assign our staff accordingly. And if I need staff I do not know I am going to call someone and check them out before I put them on a stage at all much less make them the stage leader. Sometimes that might mean that there is an RO working for a CRO. It might mean that the CRO on a stage is only an RO on paper and have CROs functioning as ROs. And there are still a few darn good range officers who have never had any course of any kind who can run stages as well as any RM I have ever seen.

Now would I like the designations these folks carry to match their abilities? Sure I would but in reality that is just about as possible as is is to make all lawyers honest and make all preachers faithful to their wives.

Charles,

Were you aware of this change before the Front Sight Article?

Before this thread?

[Charles Bond]

Charles,

Were you aware of this change before the Front Sight Article?

Before this thread?

I read all of every issue of Front Sight and I missed it.

I was unaware of the change until another shooter asked me about this thread.

But let me also be clear on something about NROI. NROI is managed independently of the BOD of USPSA. We fund them and select their leader but they do not require BOD approval of their tasks.

[rgkeller]

Charles,

Were you aware of this change before the Front Sight Article?

Before this thread?

I read all of every issue of Front Sight and I missed it.

I was unaware of the change until another shooter asked me about this thread.

But let me also be clear on something about NROI. NROI is managed independently of the BOD of USPSA. We fund them and select their leader but they do not require BOD approval of their tasks.

From the USPSA By Laws

>>5.1 Business:

The Board of Directors shall be responsible for directing the overall policies of the corporation. A primary responsibility of the Board is to provide strategic planning and leadership on key issues to ensure the long-term health and viability of the organization. Specific areas of Board responsibility include, but are not limited to: ...

... vi.) review and ratification of National Range Officer Institute (NROI) policies and procedures.<<

[mactiger]

One thing I've been considering with regards to experience requirements is this: since we'd have to confirm the experience anyway, probably through references, I don't see why a prospective CRO candidate couldn't provide some references regardless of his level of match experience. In other words, if you just don't have a chance, or the money or time, to work a Section or Area match, but you've been producing (or highly involved in) local matches for a year or so, perhaps we could use that verified experience in lieu of the other requirements. Experience is what we are seeking, after all.

I worked the Single Stack last year with a guy that had recently completed the level one seminar, but because of his intense involvement at the local level, he was an excellent RO, and could have CRO'd any stage there. He'd certainly qualify for the CRO program due to the level III work, but I think he would qualify based on local work, too. Something to think about, and I'll bring it up with the instructors.

Troy

[Charles Bond]

One thing I've been considering with regards to experience requirements is this: since we'd have to confirm the experience anyway, probably through references, I don't see why a prospective CRO candidate couldn't provide some references regardless of his level of match experience. In other words, if you just don't have a chance, or the money or time, to work a Section or Area match, but you've been producing (or highly involved in) local matches for a year or so, perhaps we could use that verified experience in lieu of the other requirements. Experience is what we are seeking, after all.

I worked the Single Stack last year with a guy that had recently completed the level one seminar, but because of his intense involvement at the local level, he was an excellent RO, and could have CRO'd any stage there. He'd certainly qualify for the CRO program due to the level III work, but I think he would qualify based on local work, too. Something to think about, and I'll bring it up with the instructors.

Troy

Troy since every MD who is worth their salt checks references on staff they do not know, I believe the course of action you are suggesting is exactly the correct approach. I prefer it to the extent that IMO it should be used in every case since just because you have worked a few matches of any level does not necessarily make you ready for more responsiblity.

Charles

[Jadeslade]

One thing I've been considering with regards to experience requirements is this: since we'd have to confirm the experience anyway, probably through references, I don't see why a prospective CRO candidate couldn't provide some references regardless of his level of match experience. In other words, if you just don't have a chance, or the money or time, to work a Section or Area match, but you've been producing (or highly involved in) local matches for a year or so, perhaps we could use that verified experience in lieu of the other requirements. Experience is what we are seeking, after all.

I worked the Single Stack last year with a guy that had recently completed the level one seminar, but because of his intense involvement at the local level, he was an excellent RO, and could have CRO'd any stage there. He'd certainly qualify for the CRO program due to the level III work, but I think he would qualify based on local work, too. Something to think about, and I'll bring it up with the instructors.

Troy

This is a really good idea.

[ima45dv8]

One thing I've been considering with regards to experience requirements is this: since we'd have to confirm the experience anyway, probably through references, I don't see why a prospective CRO candidate couldn't provide some references regardless of his level of match experience. In other words, if you just don't have a chance, or the money or time, to work a Section or Area match, but you've been producing (or highly involved in) local matches for a year or so, perhaps we could use that verified experience in lieu of the other requirements. Experience is what we are seeking, after all.

That sounds just like what Nik suggested before. I think it's a great idea. It would expand the pool of good candidates and gives you RMI's some feedback from locals that at least one of you probably knows.

[LPatterson]

I think the CRO recertification tests should be expanded to 20 questions and cover more of the rules situations that arise during major matches. Might be a good agenda item for nest years NROI conference.

[mactiger]

One thing I've been considering with regards to experience requirements is this: since we'd have to confirm the experience anyway, probably through references, I don't see why a prospective CRO candidate couldn't provide some references regardless of his level of match experience. In other words, if you just don't have a chance, or the money or time, to work a Section or Area match, but you've been producing (or highly involved in) local matches for a year or so, perhaps we could use that verified experience in lieu of the other requirements. Experience is what we are seeking, after all.

That sounds just like what Nik suggested before. I think it's a great idea. It would expand the pool of good candidates and gives you RMI's some feedback from locals that at least one of you probably knows.

Yeah, I probably stole it from him, although I never read his posts....

Actually, we talked about it, I think. We'll talk about it some more. If the program needs to be tweaked, I'm sure we'll tweak it. Like I said before, and so did George and Gary, we have to start somewhere.

Troy

[John Heiter]

First let me say thank you to Troy, George, and others who have been willing to have an open debate about this topic here. I know you can't do this for every decision NROI makes or you would never decide anything, but I appreciate your willingness to participate in the discussion of a subject that so many of us are passionate about.

Second, I agree there is no substitute for experience, I just don't think everyone has to have had the same experience in order to be "experienced". While I have no idea how you formalize it into a rule, I completely agree with Troy, Nik, and others on the "alternative experience" allowance. It's no different than when I'm looking for a good candidate for a job opening. I'll list the sort of experience a typically well qualified candidate will likely possess, but I leave myself an out by saying "blah blah blah OR EQUIVALENT EXPERIENCE". If I'm willing to put in the work to get my CRO certification, (or RM, TD, etc.) then I certainly wouldn't mind having to get my SC or AD to review my experience or qualifications and write recommendation letters on my behalf IF they feel I meet the spirit of the qualification requirements.

[Chuck Anderson]

If there was an unlimited pool of RMI's and an unlimited amount of RO's that could run through the CRO program this would be different. Open it up to whoever wants to go through, regardless of whether they will complete the course, act as a CRO or even if they have never acted as an RO at a local match. It wouldn't really matter. But there is not an unlimited supply of that stuff. The RMI's are limited in number, they can only take a certain number of students, and there are only so many ranges that have enough students willing to come in for a CRO course. There has already been one poster that is on the waiting list to get in on the CRO course. I'm sure there are more. If we get to a point where there aren't enough candidates for the CRO course maybe they will reevaluate. But until that time, why not maximize the chances for successfully completing the course?

I guess we run enough major matches in my neck of the woods that I can't imagine somone wanting to get RO experience and not being able to. If I was an MD and had 10 more RO's than I needed that were trying to get their CRO cert, I would certainly find room for them. If I was a local MD with a bunch of my guys that needed the experience, I'd figure out a way to bump a local match to Level II. We used to run our Section matches at Level 3, in large part for the staff to get the experience working level 3 matches. If anyone in Area 1 needs the experience to be eligible to take the CRO course, let me know and I'll work on it for you.

[TreblePlink]

It seems to me that the common thread of this topic is that paper credentials do not make a seasoned official, very much like having a degree without experience. Evaluating a prospective RO or CRO for a responsible position in a match should always include looking at actual experience. Seems like installing a gatekeeper just for class entrance could easily retard an enthusiastic RO's ambition and motivation.

In my humble opinion, what is needed is a general purpose RO / CRO one-day refresher course focused on the more common difficult issues, and one that reviews recent interpretations not found in the blue book. And / Or this course could be edited and published in written form each year.

I would find that very helpful.

[Flexmoney]

First let me say thank you to Troy, George, and others who have been willing to have an open debate about this topic here. I know you can't do this for every decision NROI makes or you would never decide anything, but I appreciate your willingness to participate in the discussion of a subject that so many of us are passionate about.

Yes. Sooooo much better than what I have seen in...other places.

Thank you Gentlemen !

[Flexmoney]

If there was an unlimited pool of RMI's...

... The RMI's are limited in number...

I think the folks posting here get that (I know I do).

Like I said, unless we get folks into the pipeline, these same guys will have to be teaching from their hover-scooters when they are 90.

Here is something I hit my AD up with from time to time... When possible, make it easier for me to "sell" USPSA to our customers.

Sell me. Why would I want to get certified as a CRO ?

[Chuck Anderson]

If there was an unlimited pool of RMI's...

... The RMI's are limited in number...

I think the folks posting here get that (I know I do).

Like I said, unless we get folks into the pipeline, these same guys will have to be teaching from their hover-scooters when they are 90.

Here is something I hit my AD up with from time to time... When possible, make it easier for me to "sell" USPSA to our customers.

Sell me. Why would I want to get certified as a CRO ?

For the same reasons you would want to get certified now, nothing changes about the motiviation of the people looking to take the class. People take the CRO course to get more familiar with the rules. To earn a level of comfort with the rules that goes along with their experience as an RO. To gain valuable experience in stage design and management. Not jut to help with stage design at home. This knowledge also comes with the ability to look at stages you are shooting as a competitor in a fresh light. One of the things the CRO course stresses is viewing each stage with a critical eye. You'll find that most C/D class shooters will view a stage and find the way to shoot it. Most GM shooters will look at stages, even simple ones and find multiple, maybe even dozens of ways to shoot them. They won't walk through each one but they'll see it, maybe just subconciously and throw it out. The CRO course will allow you to look at this stage and see all these different ways. It's part of bulletproofing courses. It will teach you how to set up a squad model for bigger matches. How important it is to build a larger match schedule that allows time for all the shooters to get through. Being a CRO will make you the default go to guy for rules questions. Few ranges will have a certified RM that shoots there on a regular basis. The means the CRO is going to get most of the questions as the most "knowledgable" guy there.

Bottom line, at least for me, though. Being familiar with the rules will make you a better competitor.