RM authority -- DQ's

[Poppa Bear]

That's all on him. That's another one of those situations where we all know what's going on and if he has screwed up his speed unload, too bad. It's kinda like porn. Hard to define but I know it when I see it.

That is how I look at it too. I as the RO just need to articulate better than the shooter does about what happened.

[Micah]

Micah!

What the hell is that on your head?

Were you with your head when it got there?

I teach emotionally disturbed students in an inner city environment. That is my only defense at the arb

[West Texas Granny]

To narrow this down a bit, let's assume the RO isn't waffling ("well....I think his finger was in the trigger guard during the reload") and hasn't made an incorrect call (like DQ'ing someone for reloading on the move, or some other extreme example of a non-existent offense).

If it's a solid, rules-relevant call, can the RM overturn the DQ?

What? You can't reload while moving?

Just in case you miss it on the first review... he's saying you CAN - and DQ'ing someone is incorrect...

Yes, I know that. It's just the silliness that anyone would do such a thing and if it's happened in the past where someone has been DQ'ed for a non existent rule then maybe it's time to start over.

As far as preserving evidence and photo, film or sound is not evidence I have to ask what is.

[JAFO]

Targets.

ETA: Sorry, I didn't realize you were specifically asking about evidence in a DQ arb.

Edited May 25, 2011 by JAFO

[Schutzenmeister]

As far as preserving evidence and photo, film or sound is not evidence I have to ask what is.

The eye-witness account of the RO making the call ... 11.1.2: ... "the commission of the infraction as described by the Range Official is not subject to challenge or appeal."

[aztecdriver]

Yes, I know that. It's just the silliness that anyone would do such a thing and if it's happened in the past where someone has been DQ'ed for a non existent rule then maybe it's time to start over.

As far as preserving evidence and photo, film or sound is not evidence I have to ask what is.

Silliness is what happens when you have some people that aren't trained properly acting as RO. Let's face it- there are those that have control and superiority issues - and they exist in every single endeavor in which there is an "official", whether it be sports, security, what have you.

What you are suggesting is that the rules SUPPORTS an RO incorrectly DQing someone for a rule that doesn't exist - and they do not. In order to issue a match DQ, you really need to quote the rule support a DQ for it to be valid. Also, we have RMs and Arb committee for a reason. To stop silly people from doing silly things.

You seem to be missing a lot of the points in the rules discussion - have you considered getting to an RO Seminar? They may make some more sense after you have been through the rule book thoroughly.

[racine]

I cannot fault an RO, CRO or RM for DQs that may seem arbitrary or nebulous to some of us not so experienced shooters. Some DQs seem blatantly obvious and some not but then again I don't do 2-3 national matches a month or travel from state to state competing and know the blue book cover to cover. I'm lucky to do 2 big matches a year. That said USPSA is a game, a fun game but with rules some see as black and white while others see in technicolor. Because of the emphasis on fairness and safety I've never before disagreed any of the DQs I've received-merely debated,listened and learned. What I wanted to comment about is that ROs react to what they alone perceive and everyone perceives things differently. I work at not judging one for doing his job, very well or just adequately, because he is the one holding the timer. To expect all ROs to have a perfect grasp of USPSA rules and regs is a bit of a stretch, though we'd like to see that. That said I respect any calls they make and trust their judgement when they're in the thick of it. I will from time to time debate if they've missed something but for the most part I have to trust they're judgement as much as they'd trust me with mine. To that end, I'd rather play for the sake of sportsmanship rather than just for the sake of winning at any cost.

[Schutzenmeister]

I cannot fault an RO, CRO or RM for DQs that may seem arbitrary or nebulous to some of us not so experienced shooters. Some DQs seem blatantly obvious and some not but then again I don't do 2-3 national matches a month or travel from state to state competing and know the blue book cover to cover. I'm lucky to do 2 big matches a year. That said USPSA is a game, a fun game but with rules some see as black and white while others see in technicolor. Because of the emphasis on fairness and safety I've never before disagreed any of the DQs I've received-merely debated,listened and learned. What I wanted to comment about is that ROs react to what they alone perceive and everyone perceives things differently. I work at not judging one for doing his job, very well or just adequately, because he is the one holding the timer. To expect all ROs to have a perfect grasp of USPSA rules and regs is a bit of a stretch, though we'd like to see that. That said I respect any calls they make and trust their judgement when they're in the thick of it. I will from time to time debate if they've missed something but for the most part I have to trust they're judgement as much as they'd trust me with mine. To that end, I'd rather play for the sake of sportsmanship rather than just for the sake of winning at any cost.

Racine

I must say ... An overall balanced point of view. Thank you for your trust.