Overlay Refused

[The Antichrome]

I'm really starting to think that this "local rules" issue is a rampant problem, and the current process used to fix these problems inadequate to address it.

I'm not sure what more the NROI/RMIs can do to rectify this problem, but the more I learn about the rules and their proper application, the more disappointed I become that they are ignored, overridden, abused, disregarded, and sometimes new rules made in their place, and people don't seek to fix the problem in the interest of civility.

Most of the time, it's just silly things or poor stage design, but occasionally, we see things like this. I'm actually quite surprised to see it, too...because the RO course and recertification are excellent programs and run very well by the staff members who teach them. I learned way more than I ever imagined.

I may be drifting this further than I should. If so, sorry.

I had this discussion recently with the Nationals MD in regards to local match rules.

I originally was asking if there was a need for NROI to conduct training other than RO classes.

Specifically for stage design and match operation. We concluded that it was the Section Coordinators job to keep local clubs and MD's up to speed and in line.

So, how would a SC 'correct' a problem? Withhold their Nationals slots.

(and now you know why I will never get elected as a Section Coordinator;-)

[coldchar]

I'm really starting to think that this "local rules" issue is a rampant problem, and the current process used to fix these problems inadequate to address it.

I'm not sure what more the NROI/RMIs can do to rectify this problem, but the more I learn about the rules and their proper application, the more disappointed I become that they are ignored, overridden, abused, disregarded, and sometimes new rules made in their place, and people don't seek to fix the problem in the interest of civility.

Most of the time, it's just silly things or poor stage design, but occasionally, we see things like this. I'm actually quite surprised to see it, too...because the RO course and recertification are excellent programs and run very well by the staff members who teach them. I learned way more than I ever imagined.

Just a thought, would it not be nice to have something like Appendix A1 , to outline the allowances Level 1 matches get vs other match levels. I don't know how many dozens, hundreds of times I have heard the term Level 1 exemption when no such exemption existed.

I am a CRO and MD for a Level 1 match which is experiencing rapid growth, it would be a nice to have an appendix to be able to glance at occasionally rather than try to remember the Level 1 exemptions and where they are spread here and there thruout the rule book.

On another subject, I have developed the habit, on a close call on scoring when I am pulling out the overlay ,to say "just want to see if I can give him the benefit of the doubt" I think the shooter appreciates it and the other shooters don't seem to object figuring they also will get the same treatment. Which they do.

Jim G

Edited June 16, 2011 by coldchar

[Singlestack]

On another subject, I have developed the habit, on a close call on scoring when I am pulling out the overlay ,to say "just want to see if I can give him the benefit of the doubt" I think the shooter appreciates it and the other shooters don't seem to object figuring they also will get the same treatment. Which they do.

Jim G

IMO, this is a very bad practice. There is no such thing as "benefit of the doubt". The hit is either there or it is not. You would be better served by calling it the shooter gets what they shot.

[vluc]

I'm really starting to think that this "local rules" issue is a rampant problem, and the current process used to fix these problems inadequate to address it.

I'm not sure what more the NROI/RMIs can do to rectify this problem, but the more I learn about the rules and their proper application, the more disappointed I become that they are ignored, overridden, abused, disregarded, and sometimes new rules made in their place, and people don't seek to fix the problem in the interest of civility.

Most of the time, it's just silly things or poor stage design, but occasionally, we see things like this. I'm actually quite surprised to see it, too...because the RO course and recertification are excellent programs and run very well by the staff members who teach them. I learned way more than I ever imagined.

I may be drifting this further than I should. If so, sorry.

I had this discussion recently with the Nationals MD in regards to local match rules.

I originally was asking if there was a need for NROI to conduct training other than RO classes.

Specifically for stage design and match operation. We concluded that it was the Section Coordinators job to keep local clubs and MD's up to speed and in line.

So, how would a SC 'correct' a problem? Withhold their Nationals slots.

(and now you know why I will never get elected as a Section Coordinator;-)

Some additional drift. SC's are - at least in my case - elected by the Section's BOD (the Match Directors). By-laws are written that delineate the responsibilities and authority of the SC, how slots are distributed, etc. I do not have the individual wherewithal to simply withhold slots. That would be an issue voted on by my BOD. Our slots are distributed by me to the clubs who have earned them.

As for training and education, yes, I can highlight to the MD's the complaints I get and the issues I see, but in our by-laws, I really do not have the "power" to do anything else about it. Fortunately, my BOD is quite receptive and the MD's very good at wanting to correct issues. We have even created a Section education coordinator who's main task is training and educating new shooters (via new competitor orientation classes) so we are ahead of the game on that when they first come to a match.

NROI could help by changing the way people get certified as RO's - not everyone who is interested can travel distances or stay overnight. We have created barriers to entry for volunteers to get into that aspect of the game. Likewise, once certified, other than the on-line exam, nothing to evaluate competency is done, save by the MD's or fellow shooters who pass on issues like we are talking about here for us to address at the local level. The vast majority of people who RO local matches will not do sectionals, areas or Nats.

[ima45dv8]

....it would be a nice to have an appendix to be able to glance at occasionally rather than try to remember the Level 1 exemptions and where they are spread here and there thruout the rule book.

As far as I know the Level I exemption isn't spread out. It's spelled out in total in 1.1.5.1.

What other Level I exemptions are there?

[coldchar]

....it would be a nice to have an appendix to be able to glance at occasionally rather than try to remember the Level 1 exemptions and where they are spread here and there thruout the rule book.

As far as I know the Level I exemption isn't spread out. It's spelled out in total in 1.1.5.1.

What other Level I exemptions are there?

My apology for not being precise. What I was including in Level 1 exemptions would be something found in 1.2.2.3 which reads "Level 11 or higher matches..................". This type of wording effectively creates a Level 1 exemption.

Jim G

[coldchar]

On another subject, I have developed the habit, on a close call on scoring when I am pulling out the overlay ,to say "just want to see if I can give him the benefit of the doubt" I think the shooter appreciates it and the other shooters don't seem to object figuring they also will get the same treatment. Which they do.

Jim G

IMO, this is a very bad practice. There is no such thing as "benefit of the doubt". The hit is either there or it is not. You would be better served by calling it the shooter gets what they shot.

I understand your point, but in the end it does not change the call. For a we hope is a half way friendly Level 1 club match, it is just less officious.

[aztecdriver]

On another subject, I have developed the habit, on a close call on scoring when I am pulling out the overlay ,to say "just want to see if I can give him the benefit of the doubt" I think the shooter appreciates it and the other shooters don't seem to object figuring they also will get the same treatment. Which they do.

Jim G

IMO, this is a very bad practice. There is no such thing as "benefit of the doubt". The hit is either there or it is not. You would be better served by calling it the shooter gets what they shot.

I understand your point, but in the end it does not change the call. For a we hope is a half way friendly Level 1 club match, it is just less officious.

I'm not jumping on you - but I don't ascribe to that. I hear stuff all the time - "it's a level 1" "that's close enough", etc. Setting up a course that instead of doing the extra work to make it right, define something that violates the freestyle concept. A skinned target barely marking scored as a D because you don't want to give your "friend" a mike. Or better yet a hunk taken out of a noshoot that will need an overlay to tell and you just call it clean.

All of this is a disservice to the shooter's education and development. It CAN be fun and "officious" at the same time. You just don't have to be a jerk about making the call. (you meaning the general person - not directing it specifically at you the poster.)

[BayouSlide]

If I showed up to work a Level II match and the RM said no overlays are to be used, it would be the last time I would work that match and for that RM.

I use overlays anytime I have reasonable doubt about a call, whether or not the competitor requests it. I want competitors to get all the points they deserve, and none they haven't earned.

Curtis