What rule is this?

[mhs]

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?

[AzShooter]

Good point. I wondered the same thing. I'm interested in the answer.

[AlamoShooter]

When the target was pulled - that put a hold on any score- Rule 9.7.5 the part of "insufficient or recess entries"

That is what "I think" he used = I was not at the shoot and its hard pressed to find any place in the rule book that someone other than the shooter or his delegate may challenge a score. 9.6

and to quote a grouchy friend's wisdom "Sometimes the harder we try to fix something the worst it gets"

[mhs]

When the target was pulled - that put a hold on any score- Rule 9.7.5 the part of "insufficient or recess entries"

That is what "I think" he used = I was not at the shoot and its hard pressed to find any place in the rule book that someone other than the shooter or his delegate may challenge a score. 9.6

and to quote a grouchy friend's wisdom "Sometimes the harder we try to fix something the worst it gets"

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.

[coldchar]

That was an interesting couple of calls. I too scratched my head on that one. Sure do not remember anything in the book about competiting shooters be able to challenge and have the call reversed after the score card was signed. Then the reshoot being ordered to "fix" the problem?

Jim G.

[Skydiver]

Is this question going to be in the RO re-certification test? If it is, I, too, would love to know what rule number to cite that authorizes the reshoot so that I can expand my knowledge.

If the stars aligned just right... the original signed score sheet was lost; the duplicate got eaten by a dog; the Palm shorted out; and original scores had not yet been put into EzWinScore, then 9.7.7 could probably be invoked to get a reshoot.

[Flatland Shooter]

There has to be some details missing in the article.

Per Rule 9.6.4, only the competitor or his delegate can challenge a target. So, comments on hits and misses from other competitors should be ignored.

Per Rule 9.7.4, once the score sheet is signed, "The scoresheet is deemed to be a definitive document". But there is an "out" (there's always an "out" somewhere). The signed score sheet is a definitive document "with the exception of the mutual consent of the competitor and the signatory Range Officer".

Its possible that once the score sheet has been signed, the competitor looks one more time at the target and decides that it might not be a double. So we have the competitor and the RM calling it a miss and the CRO and RO calling it a hit.

Though 9.1.3 refers to prematurely patched targets, in this case we may have a situation where the RO cannot determine the actual score and calls for a reshoot.

Probably not what happened, but its possible.

Bill

[Skydiver]

I'm surprised that the RO even entertained the appeals of the other people in the squad. As noted by Flatland Shooter, 9.6.4 only provides for the competitor or his delegate to challenge the score.

If there were any appeals from the squad, they should had somebody file a 3rd party arbitration. Even if there was a 3rd party arbitration, the committee will have to consider 9.6.6 (RM's ruling will be final. No further scoring appeals allowed.)

Per Rule 9.7.4, once the score sheet is signed, "The scoresheet is deemed to be a definitive document". But there is an "out" (there's always an "out" somewhere). The signed score sheet is a definitive document "with the exception of the mutual consent of the competitor and the signatory Range Officer".

Yes, 9.7.4 provides an "out", but it only provides for fixing the scoresheet, not a reshoot. See the last clause of 9.7.4:

9.7.4 ... the score sheet will only be changed to correct arithmetical errors or to add procedural penalties under Rule 8.6.2.

Though 9.1.3 refers to prematurely patched targets, in this case we may have a situation where the RO cannot determine the actual score and calls for a reshoot.

Bill

My reading the article is that the target was pulled. If it was pulled, then it's not a case of a prematurely patched target. Additionally, I'm assuming that Olhasso would have been cagey enough not to sign the scoresheet until at least the RM had made a ruling.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Skydiver

[Skydiver]

... Or maybe Olhasso was cagey enough to sign the scoresheet as soon as favorable ruling was made by the RO and the scoresheet was offered to him for a signature. :-)

[Skizeks]

Just another mystery?

Ican't find anything in the rule book where he should have gotten a reshoot?

must have been the the moon's gravity pulling on the earth,

causing a slight wobble that made everyone dizzy and thought the rule book was from mars

and you don't have to use it.

I hope I'm wrong and someone will have a better explanation.

[sgtis108]

Must be more to the story.

[mpolans]

Alright, I'll say it. Maybe Amidon just blew the call in Front Sight.

[professor]

This was my take on the situation as explained in Front Sight, along with the applicable rules to support my reasoning.

Bottom line... no reshoot warranted.

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.

Note: It requires the mutual consent of the competitor and the RO who signed the score sheet, not the RM.

Note 2: The scoring could be modified as the result of an arbitration decision, which starts with an appeal to the RO.

The target was pulled, and there were plenty of witnesses, so an an appeal and arbitration request could have been made.

What is the usual state of affairs is a competitor questioning the scoring, which is then referred to the CRO, then to the RM, as per the following rules.

9.6.4 Any challenge to a score or penalty must be appealed to the Range

Officer by the competitor (or his delegate) prior to the subject target

being painted, patched, or reset, failing which such challenges will not

be accepted.

9.6.5 In the event that the Range Officer upholds the original score or penalty

and the competitor is dissatisfied, he may appeal to the Chief Range

Officer and then to the Range Master for a ruling.

9.6.6 The Range Master’s ruling will be final. No further appeals are allowed

with respect to the scoring decision.

9.6.7 During a scoring challenge, the subject target(s) must not be patched,

taped or otherwise interfered with until the matter has been settled. The

Range Officer may remove a disputed paper target from the course of

fire for further examination to prevent any delay in the match. Both the

competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate

which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge.

Note, other competitors do not have standing to question a scoring decision under these rules. However, any third party can initiate an appeal and take almost anything to arbitration. And that would apply to this scoring decision.

11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with

the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by

another rule...

11.7 Third Party Appeals

11.7.1 Appeals may also be submitted by other persons on a “third party

appeal” basis. In such cases, all provisions of this Chapter will otherwise

remain in force.

It appears that Jerry did make a third party appeal to the scoring by the RO crew, which then led to the RM getting called. The target was pulled as a result of that appeal, apparently on the authorization of the CRO. It appears that these actions taken are authorized by rule 11.1.3 and 11.1.5.

11.1.3 Appeals – the Range Officer makes decisions initially. If the appellant

disagrees with a decision, the Chief Range Officer for the stage or area

in question should be asked to rule. If a disagreement still exists, the

Range Master must be asked to rule.

11.1.5 Retain Evidence – An appellant is required to inform the Range Master

of his wish to present his appeal to the Arbitration Committee and may

request that the officials retain any and all relevant documentary or

other evidence pending the hearing. Photos, audio and/or video recordings

will not be accepted as evidence.

When the Range Master was called, he apparently ruled "Alpha-Mike". That should have been the end of it, as per 9.6.6 above.

I couldn't find anything in the rules that would allow the RM to offer a reshoot as an option in this situation.

Edited January 25, 2011 by professor

[sperman]

Sorry for the thread drift....

How long have you guys had the latest copy of Front Sight? I don't have mine yet.

[AlamoShooter]

Sorry for the thread drift....

How long have you guys had the latest copy of Front Sight? I don't have mine yet.

over two weeks no just one week

Edited January 26, 2011 by AlamoShooter

[whitedog]

Being new I always look at this part of the magazine. I could not find it in the rules either. Glad I'm not alone, I was beginning to feel a little dumb. :-)

[outerlimits]

JA needs to provide his thought process on this one. I am stumped...

[adively]

Sorry for the thread drift....

How long have you guys had the latest copy of Front Sight? I don't have mine yet.

Sperman,

There evidently was a snafu with USPSA's printer. USPSA Announcement

[Corey]

first hand account from Cliff here: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=121384&view=findpost&p=1372492

as for the rules behind it?

[Gary Stevens]

I posted this in the I think Revolver section, but I think it should be here.

The one part of this original thread that still bothers me is the request by someone other than the shooter to pull a target.

A 3rd party appeal (arbitration) can be filed, but apparently that wasn't the case.

Can any competitor have someone else's target pulled now for an RM look over? If so, I can see a lot of room for mischief.

Gary

[BritinUSA]

...also, is a reshoot an option in this situation ? If the score-sheet has been signed but the miss was not recorded then can the shooter get a reshoot or is the score-sheet just amended with the change ?

[Nik Habicht]

I posted this in the I think Revolver section, but I think it should be here.

The one part of this original thread that still bothers me is the request by someone other than the shooter to pull a target.

A 3rd party appeal (arbitration) can be filed, but apparently that wasn't the case.

Can any competitor have someone else's target pulled now for an RM look over? If so, I can see a lot of room for mischief.

Gary

I'm not certain that a third party arbitration can be filed -- wouldn't 9.6.6. still apply?

9.6.6 The Range Master’s ruling will be final. No further appeals are allowed with respect to the scoring decision.

I'd probably support denying an arbitration in that instance with the following:

11.7 Third Party Appeals

11.7.1 Appeals may also be submitted by other persons on a “third party appeal” basis. In such cases, all provisions of this Chapter will otherwise remain in force.

and with:

11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by another rule.

[Nik Habicht]

All that said, while there were only two options under the rulebook -- Amend the scoresheet with the consent of both RO and competitor or let the score stand -- I can see a Solomon like decision in this particular situation getting us to the reshoot....

[Skydiver]

I posted this in the I think Revolver section, but I think it should be here.

The one part of this original thread that still bothers me is the request by someone other than the shooter to pull a target.

A 3rd party appeal (arbitration) can be filed, but apparently that wasn't the case.

Can any competitor have someone else's target pulled now for an RM look over? If so, I can see a lot of room for mischief.

Gary

I'm not certain that a third party arbitration can be filed -- wouldn't 9.6.6. still apply?

9.6.6 The Range Master's ruling will be final. No further appeals are allowed with respect to the scoring decision.

I'd probably support denying an arbitration in that instance with the following:

11.7 Third Party Appeals

11.7.1 Appeals may also be submitted by other persons on a "third party appeal" basis. In such cases, all provisions of this Chapter will otherwise remain in force.

and with:

11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by another rule.

I think if the sequence of events was: RO: "Range is Clear" ... RO: "Alpha Mike"... Shooter: "Please overlay"... RO: "Alpha Mike"... Shooter: "Please have the CRO look with an overlay"... CRO: "2 Alpha"... RO: "Please, sign here"... then a 3rd party arb can be requested without 9.6.6 kicking in to deny the arbitration.

Now if the sequence of events were: RO: "Range is Clear" ... RO: "Alpha Mike"... Shooter: "Please overlay"... RO: "Alpha Mike"... Shooter: "Please have the CRO look with an overlay"... CRO: "Alpha Mike"... Shooter: "Please have the Range Master look with an overlay"... RM: "2 Alpha" (or "Alpha Mike")... RO: "Please, sign here"... then a 3rd party arb should be denied right out of the gate.

Reading Cliff's account on the other thread, it sounds like what happened was: RO: "Range is Clear"... RO: "Anyone got an overlay?"... RO: "CRO, can you take a look?" CRO: "2 Alpha"... RO: "Please sign here..." 3rd Party: "Please pull the target, and have the RM take a look." RM: "Alpha Mike. You got 3 choices: score stands, amend the score, or reshoot." Shooter: "I'll take the reshoot.".

What should have happened was 3rd Party says: "I'd like to appeal the score. I would like to have the target pulled as evidence, while I fill out the arbitration form. Here's my $100." 3rd Party: "Mr. Range Master, here is my appeal, and the RO's have the target as evidence." RM: "Alpha Mike. No need for committee. Here's your $100 back. Amend the scoresheet."

[sorry, mouse button slipped while I was flipping tabs.]

Edited January 26, 2011 by Skydiver

[Gary Stevens]

I posted this in the I think Revolver section, but I think it should be here.

The one part of this original thread that still bothers me is the request by someone other than the shooter to pull a target.

A 3rd party appeal (arbitration) can be filed, but apparently that wasn't the case.

Can any competitor have someone else's target pulled now for an RM look over? If so, I can see a lot of room for mischief.

Gary

I'm not certain that a third party arbitration can be filed -- wouldn't 9.6.6. still apply?

9.6.6 The Range Master's ruling will be final. No further appeals are allowed with respect to the scoring decision.

Your third option is the one I would expect and the one I hope happened. Unfortunately we are operating on limited information in the story and in posted accounts here.

Gary

I'd probably support denying an arbitration in that instance with the following:

11.7 Third Party Appeals

11.7.1 Appeals may also be submitted by other persons on a "third party appeal" basis. In such cases, all provisions of this Chapter will otherwise remain in force.

and with:

11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by another rule.

I think if the sequence of events was: RO: "Range is Clear" ... RO: "Alpha Mike"... Shooter: "Please overlay"... RO: "Alpha Mike"... Shooter: "Please have the CRO look with an overlay"... CRO: "2 Alpha"... RO: "Please, sign here"... then a 3rd party arb can be requested without 9.6.6 kicking in to deny the arbitration.

Now if the sequence of events were: RO: "Range is Clear" ... RO: "Alpha Mike"... Shooter: "Please overlay"... RO: "Alpha Mike"... Shooter: "Please have the CRO look with an overlay"... CRO: "Alpha Mike"... Shooter: "Please have the Range Master look with an overlay"... RM: "2 Alpha" (or "Alpha Mike")... RO: "Please, sign here"... then a 3rd party arb should be denied right out of the gate.

Reading Cliff's account on the other thread, it sounds like what happened was: RO: "Range is Clear"... RO: "Anyone got an overlay?"... RO: "CRO, can you take a look?" CRO: "2 Alpha"... RO: "Please sign here..." 3rd Party: "Please pull the target, and have the RM take a look." RM: "Alpha Mike. You got 3 choices: score stands, amend the score, or reshoot." Shooter: "I'll take the reshoot.".

What should have happened was 3rd Party says: "I'd like to appeal the score. I would like to have the target pulled as evidence, while I fill out the arbitration form. Here's my $100." 3rd Party: "Mr. Range Master, here is my appeal, and the RO's have the target as evidence." RM: "Alpha Mike. No need for committee. Here's your $100 back. Amend the scoresheet."

[sorry, mouse button slipped while I was flipping tabs.]

Well somehow my response appears in the middle of the quote.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Gary Stevens