Overlay Refused

[Nik Habicht]

the unfair advantage is only if the CRO only did for one but not the other competitors. I would have done this for any that made the request. Does not slow anything down that much.

The unfair advantage is when only the CRO on your stage (you, if I read correctly) decided to ignore this mandate (as you should have).

If the RO's and CRO's on the rest of the stages didn't similarly ignore it, a strong possibility of inequity exists.

Not really, right? Stage 1 (overlays) may not be congruent with stages 2-8, but all competitors shooting Stage 1 are treated the same, as are all competitors on stages 2-8. That's a little like suggesting that when the staff on Stage 1 decides that faulting a line results in a single procedural, while the staff on Stage 2 decides to assess 1 per shot fired while faulting, that the competitors are being treated inequitably.....

Separate stages, separate issues....

[George Jones]

Here's the bottom line on this one -

If the scenario as described (illegal MD mandate) indeed happened, the situation should be reported to NROI. The RO discipline policy (which applies to match officials) spells out the various processes which may be used to address this. The policy and process are available on the NROI site.

Although all the "this happenned at a match recently" reports on this forum serve a valuable educational purpose for all the readers here, they do not address the fundamental problem of match official who either do not know or chose to ignore the rules. MDs and RMs are supposed to be the knowledgeable ones, charged with assuring that the stage crews do the job right. If the top leadership is the problem, it falls upon the CROs and shooters to report the problem. NROI can educate the folks who need re-educatin'.

Many years ago, as a relatively new shooter, I ran into similar matches which ran by their own rules. There was no policy at the time so I chose never to go back to these matches if the same people were in charge. We now have a better way.

[sperman]

the unfair advantage is only if the CRO only did for one but not the other competitors. I would have done this for any that made the request. Does not slow anything down that much.

The unfair advantage is when only the CRO on your stage (you, if I read correctly) decided to ignore this mandate (as you should have).

If the RO's and CRO's on the rest of the stages didn't similarly ignore it, a strong possibility of inequity exists.

Not really, right? Stage 1 (overlays) may not be congruent with stages 2-8, but all competitors shooting Stage 1 are treated the same, as are all competitors on stages 2-8. That's a little like suggesting that when the staff on Stage 1 decides that faulting a line results in a single procedural, while the staff on Stage 2 decides to assess 1 per shot fired while faulting, that the competitors are being treated inequitably.....

Separate stages, separate issues....

I disagree. Sooner or later there is going to be a hit on a target that you need an overlay to make the call. If you choose not to use the overlay, you are either giving a shooter points he doesn't deserve, or taking points away that the shooter earned. It doesn't matter if that is happening on 1 stage or on all stages, it isn't fair to the competitor, or those shooting against him.

[ima45dv8]

the unfair advantage is only if the CRO only did for one but not the other competitors. I would have done this for any that made the request. Does not slow anything down that much.

The unfair advantage is when only the CRO on your stage (you, if I read correctly) decided to ignore this mandate (as you should have).

If the RO's and CRO's on the rest of the stages didn't similarly ignore it, a strong possibility of inequity exists.

Not really, right? Stage 1 (overlays) may not be congruent with stages 2-8, but all competitors shooting Stage 1 are treated the same, as are all competitors on stages 2-8. That's a little like suggesting that when the staff on Stage 1 decides that faulting a line results in a single procedural, while the staff on Stage 2 decides to assess 1 per shot fired while faulting, that the competitors are being treated inequitably.....

Separate stages, separate issues....

Yes, really. Your suggested example of foot faults is a subjective call. The use of overlays attempts to remove subjectivity.

[Nik Habicht]

the unfair advantage is only if the CRO only did for one but not the other competitors. I would have done this for any that made the request. Does not slow anything down that much.

The unfair advantage is when only the CRO on your stage (you, if I read correctly) decided to ignore this mandate (as you should have).

If the RO's and CRO's on the rest of the stages didn't similarly ignore it, a strong possibility of inequity exists.

Not really, right? Stage 1 (overlays) may not be congruent with stages 2-8, but all competitors shooting Stage 1 are treated the same, as are all competitors on stages 2-8. That's a little like suggesting that when the staff on Stage 1 decides that faulting a line results in a single procedural, while the staff on Stage 2 decides to assess 1 per shot fired while faulting, that the competitors are being treated inequitably.....

Separate stages, separate issues....

Yes, really. Your suggested example of foot faults is a subjective call. The use of overlays attempts to remove subjectivity.

No, it's really not. It's an objective decision before the first shot of the match is even fired. Similarly, the decision of whether to use overlays on one stage or another would be objective -- if an RO decided it was his duty to ignore the MD instructions, and then implemented that for the entire match....

All that said -- it's a totally boneheaded move to not want to use overlays, pull targets, or kick things up the chain for a ruling. Nothing hurts a match's reputation more than ignoring parts of the rulebook and in the process hosing shooters....

[beltjones]

the unfair advantage is only if the CRO only did for one but not the other competitors. I would have done this for any that made the request. Does not slow anything down that much.

The unfair advantage is when only the CRO on your stage (you, if I read correctly) decided to ignore this mandate (as you should have).

If the RO's and CRO's on the rest of the stages didn't similarly ignore it, a strong possibility of inequity exists.

Not really, right? Stage 1 (overlays) may not be congruent with stages 2-8, but all competitors shooting Stage 1 are treated the same, as are all competitors on stages 2-8. That's a little like suggesting that when the staff on Stage 1 decides that faulting a line results in a single procedural, while the staff on Stage 2 decides to assess 1 per shot fired while faulting, that the competitors are being treated inequitably.....

Separate stages, separate issues....

Yes, really. Your suggested example of foot faults is a subjective call. The use of overlays attempts to remove subjectivity.

No, it's really not. It's an objective decision before the first shot of the match is even fired. Similarly, the decision of whether to use overlays on one stage or another would be objective -- if an RO decided it was his duty to ignore the MD instructions, and then implemented that for the entire match....

All that said -- it's a totally boneheaded move to not want to use overlays, pull targets, or kick things up the chain for a ruling. Nothing hurts a match's reputation more than ignoring parts of the rulebook and in the process hosing shooters....

I see your point, and I absolutely agree that it was a boneheaded move.

However, consider that we use a "shotgun" start in this sport. Each squad starts on a different stage, and thus it's possible that each squad got different instructions at different times. That would create competitive inequity.

For example, if Squad one was told on stage 1 that they couldn't call for an overlay, do you think they would call for it by the time they got to stage X where the overlay was in play?

[bbbean]

Putting aside for a moment the USPSA hierarchy and competitive inequity, what would be the logic behind not using the overlay?

[Flexmoney]

Here's the bottom line on this one -

If the scenario as described (illegal MD mandate) indeed happened, the situation should be reported to NROI. The RO discipline policy (which applies to match officials) spells out the various processes which may be used to address this. The policy and process are available on the NROI site.

Although all the "this happenned at a match recently" reports on this forum serve a valuable educational purpose for all the readers here, they do not address the fundamental problem of match official who either do not know or chose to ignore the rules. MDs and RMs are supposed to be the knowledgeable ones, charged with assuring that the stage crews do the job right. If the top leadership is the problem, it falls upon the CROs and shooters to report the problem. NROI can educate the folks who need re-educatin'.

Many years ago, as a relatively new shooter, I ran into similar matches which ran by their own rules. There was no policy at the time so I chose never to go back to these matches if the same people were in charge. We now have a better way.

Agreed.

Before one gets there though, they should certainly exhaust the appeals process at the match first.

I have seen CRO at <big match> change their tune when the shooter requested the RM be called. (for instance..."MD said no sight pictures...")

[Flexmoney]

For example, if Squad one was told on stage 1 that they couldn't call for an overlay, do you think they would call for it by the time they got to stage X where the overlay was in play?

Hopefully, through threads like this and other means, the word gets out and nobody is told not to use an overlay. And/or they immediately address that faulty mandate at the match and gt it corrected.

[Flexmoney]

Putting aside for a moment the USPSA hierarchy and competitive inequity, what would be the logic behind not using the overlay?

I can only guess...

- The belief that it would speed up the match. Which is faulty. Shooters, of course, deserve the score they earned. It's not about match speed.

or

- The idea that...if you gotta look that close..just give them the higher score. Again, shooter deserve the score they earned.

or

- The opposite of the above. (If you gotta look that close, it ain't there )

This is a great example why the Match Director and the Range Master need to be separate jobs. (even locally)

[whitedog]

Are not the rules supposed to be followed across the board? I was not aware people could leave some out. Can we use overlays and leave FTE out instead?

[George Jones]

Are not the rules supposed to be followed across the board? I was not aware people could leave some out. Can we use overlays and leave FTE out instead?

That's the point of this whole thread.

Matches are NOT allowed to pick and chose which rules they will enforce. That applies to everyone who takes on a staff position, from the newest RO to the CROs, to the MD, and to the RM.

There is a reason the MD has no authority when it comes to the rules of the match. MDs have a vested interest in how the match runs. The RM, who may or may not have been part of the match planning, is the one who runs the match from first shot to last and until the final scores are posted. Between those times the MD has very little authority and that little authority is in the rules. He cannot simply kidnap part of the job that rightfully belongs to the RM. And shame on the RM who lets it happen.

[mpolans]

the unfair advantage is only if the CRO only did for one but not the other competitors. I would have done this for any that made the request. Does not slow anything down that much.

The unfair advantage is when only the CRO on your stage (you, if I read correctly) decided to ignore this mandate (as you should have).

If the RO's and CRO's on the rest of the stages didn't similarly ignore it, a strong possibility of inequity exists.

Good on you, by the way...

I wouldn't think that would be unfair as long as every one running through that stage would have the opportunity for an overlay. The problem would come up if he went on break and his replacement was unwilling to use an overlay.

[aztecdriver]

Here's the bottom line on this one -

If the scenario as described (illegal MD mandate) indeed happened, the situation should be reported to NROI. The RO discipline policy (which applies to match officials) spells out the various processes which may be used to address this. The policy and process are available on the NROI site.

Although all the "this happenned at a match recently" reports on this forum serve a valuable educational purpose for all the readers here, they do not address the fundamental problem of match official who either do not know or chose to ignore the rules. MDs and RMs are supposed to be the knowledgeable ones, charged with assuring that the stage crews do the job right. If the top leadership is the problem, it falls upon the CROs and shooters to report the problem. NROI can educate the folks who need re-educatin'.

Many years ago, as a relatively new shooter, I ran into similar matches which ran by their own rules. There was no policy at the time so I chose never to go back to these matches if the same people were in charge. We now have a better way.

Agreed.

Before one gets there though, they should certainly exhaust the appeals process at the match first.

I have seen CRO at <big match> change their tune when the shooter requested the RM be called. (for instance..."MD said no sight pictures...")

Flex, you know, I'm hearing you on using the proper process at a match - but the larger point though is getting appropriate corrective action for certain individuals and thought processes.

You know, in this specific example, I don't know what my reaction to being told overlays are not to be used through scoring process at a major match. I think shock, and disbelief followed by an immediate escalation, and given the RM's call is final on matters of scoring - and still not having the target overlayed after I point out the appropriate rules, I'm sure I'm loading my mags and dialing a particular phone number in my phone and requesting appropriate people at NROI contact numbers.

The reason being, is I've heard way to many stories recently by people I actually know and trust regarding appropriately trained staff at majors acting in a way or making calls in *this* alleged manner that I feel brings dissrepute to the sport. I believe that NROI should take corrective action, and admittedly it's going to be after the match is well over, but these actions will help our overall staff skill and professionalism in the long run. It's not about getting "someone" in trouble - but with some people if you give them an inch...

Let's face it - all to often in the middle of the match - it's a long haul. We don't want to stop progress on a stage, backup squads and so a lot of times a call is taken without more than a little bit of argument - and then a post appears here - and jaws drop - but nothing to fix the problem occurs. So what is that official that made this call's experience - that the call was right because it was upheld and they go on making calls and comments - all based off of that experience. If something isn't done to fix it - it's going to continue to go downhill until matches are run to whatever standard they want - as long the stages are approved by NROI. That's just not good.

As a shooter, I'm paying a match fee to shoot a match run to the rule book - and that includes overlays. If I'm taking a 15 point swing on a stage because someone determined that overlays aren't needed - and it costs me placing - something will be said. Then again, I must be fortunate, because none of these scenarios have happened in my presence.

[Flexmoney]

You know, in this specific example, I don't know what my reaction to being told overlays are not to be used through scoring process at a major match. I think shock, and disbelief followed by an immediate escalation, and given the RM's call is final on matters of scoring - and still not having the target overlayed after I point out the appropriate rules

I don't know how you make the jump. We are getting worked up over the assumption that the RM wasn't going to use overlays. I think that is a pretty unlikely assumption.

Flex, you know, I'm hearing you on using the proper process at a match - but the larger point though is getting appropriate corrective action for certain individuals and thought processes.

That is just my point. The appropriate corrective action is to use the appeal process at the match. With respect to our opening poster, if that process isn't followed at the match then the shooter (USPSA member) has dropped the ball as well.

You will hear the RMI's talk about this (I know Troy, George and Gary have mentioned it here)... Taking the class and passing the test doesn't give a person all they need to be a good official. Working Major matches helps officials gain experience and knowledge. This was a learning opportunity for the staff. It seems to have been missed.

We can talk about things here, and reach a good number of people. But, we might not reach the people that were directly involved. The opportunity to do that is at the range.

And, how do we skip to calling in NROI, when we haven't used the appeal process that they have put into place already in the rule book?

BTW.. "the Match Director said"... that might have just been a line that the RO threw out there because he, himself, didn't believe in using overlays. If nobody calls his bluff...

==================

I didn't really want to get specific before, but I am going to expand a bit on the situation that drove this home for me.

Our squad is on a speed shoot stage at the Nationals and we are listening to the CRO read off the Written Stage Briefing. At the end, he said something to the effect that we weren't to do sight pictures. It was obvious that he wasn't reading that off the paper, so somebody asked about that (likely me, but I don't recall). He said something along the lines of the Match Director said we weren't allowing sight pictures, since the World Shoot is coming up and IPSC doesn't allow them and we don't want our shooters getting into a bad habit." (Knowing the MD, I doubt he said that, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and guess there was a misunderstanding.)

As I recall, our squad contained two Area Directors and at least one other Level III Match Director besides myself...along with some seasoned rules people. There were some comments, and in the Q&A after the reading of the WSB and I recall the CRO kinda backing off that.

My turn to shoot comes up kinda early in the rotation. The stage was just one position, but with fairly wide transitions. So, like I would do at Steel Challenge, as I am making ready, I swing the gun to the far left target and then to the far right target to check make sure I am properly positioned. The RO running me (not the CRO) says something...I am kinda in the zone and don't really hear him. But, having my concentration broke a bit, I start over.

So, he then says something again... about sight pictures.

We have a little conversation about that, and I simply unload and show clear and turn around and ask him to call the Range Master. Now the CRO sees something is up and asks what is going on. The RO tells him and he tells the RO to just run me.

So, we have a moehill that turned into a mountain... Like I need that in my head when I am getting ready to shoot.

Fast forward to the next year at the Nationals, different location, same CRO. He does this "no sight picture" thing...again!!

This time I make sure to call in the RM...who schools him.

[sperman]

If I had it to do all over again, I would call for the RM. At the time the incident occurred, I was under the assumption that this decision was made by the match staff, and calling for the RM would be a waste of time. In hindsight, it could have just been an overzealous RO, or a bad call by the MD that the RM would not have supported. There are a few more details that lead to my mindset at that point, but I don't think it's appropriate to get into specifics here on BE.

[Skydiver]

Are not the rules supposed to be followed across the board? I was not aware people could leave some out. Can we use overlays and leave FTE out instead?

I've seen an occasional mag measurement, but when was the last time you saw a production or single stack gun being weighed, and an inspection done to see if all their safeties (i.e firing pin blocks) are still installed and operational?

[Coach]

Are not the rules supposed to be followed across the board? I was not aware people could leave some out. Can we use overlays and leave FTE out instead?

I've seen an occasional mag measurement, but when was the last time you saw a production or single stack gun being weighed, and an inspection done to see if all their safeties (i.e firing pin blocks) are still installed and operational?

Several times in the last year. I have seen people bumped for these violations. I don't see a lot of ignoring of the rules but there can be cases of ignorant of the rules.

[twodownzero]

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.

Edited June 15, 2011 by twodownzero

[MarkCO]

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.

Sorry to say, but I think you are correct.

[vluc]

Are not the rules supposed to be followed across the board? I was not aware people could leave some out. Can we use overlays and leave FTE out instead?

I've seen an occasional mag measurement, but when was the last time you saw a production or single stack gun being weighed, and an inspection done to see if all their safeties (i.e firing pin blocks) are still installed and operational?

Last two sections I shot, WPA last year, Ohio this year. In both, people got bumped for illegal mag length or gun weight.

[aztecdriver]

Are not the rules supposed to be followed across the board? I was not aware people could leave some out. Can we use overlays and leave FTE out instead?

I've seen an occasional mag measurement, but when was the last time you saw a production or single stack gun being weighed, and an inspection done to see if all their safeties (i.e firing pin blocks) are still installed and operational?

Last two sections I shot, WPA last year, Ohio this year. In both, people got bumped for illegal mag length or gun weight.

You beat me to it. I was going to say Western PA sectional last year. It was an impressive chrono inspection to say the least.

[aztecdriver]

I don't know how you make the jump. We are getting worked up over the assumption that the RM wasn't going to use overlays. I think that is a pretty unlikely assumption.

As I tried to imply - not using the example in the specific - but the example in the general - but I would go to the RM and then being told that overlays aren't being used. If I don't get rulebook-proper vindication at the match - there is no other recourse available to me.

Also - I'm probably a bit punchy because of a situation I was made aware of recently about a CRO actually insulting shooters as well as a match sponsor as well as verbally denigrating their company openly during a match because a ruling was overturned. I find this unprofessional behavior, that most likely was not acted upon at the match because the ruling went correct eventually, to be appalling and requiring NROI action as well. I lump all of these situations into unprofessional behavior (ie, local or changing rules to suit themselves). Maybe I shouldn't, but I do. I consider myself lucky and unfortunate for not having experienced these things first hand, because a) I havn't had to deal with it but also b.) I would love to be the one to help fix it.

Again - everything you said - I absolutely agree with, I was using the example generalized to jump on a soapbox. I'll get off of it now - thank you!

[bluenite]

I am sad to say that we had a club like that.

But I am happy to say it is changing.

A big thanks goes out to the Ro course and those that teach it and developed it.

We now have over 8 “new, first time” RO’s and average 40/60 shooters a match so it is a good ratio, and we now have a lot of rulebooks at a match.

Before a lot of weight was given to what was said by the upper class shooters that go to a lot of big matches, with a few mouse clicks I was able to find that none of these were RO’s and told the other new RO’s at the club my findings.

Last weekend I was told repeatedly by one such shooter that overlays should not be used.

Well, I used overlays anyway, only seen to use them a few times in the match, but it did change one hit from a miss to a d.

It will take time but our club is changing and we will get there.

So again I would like to thank all of those that teach the RO course.

[Skydiver]

Are not the rules supposed to be followed across the board? I was not aware people could leave some out. Can we use overlays and leave FTE out instead?

I've seen an occasional mag measurement, but when was the last time you saw a production or single stack gun being weighed, and an inspection done to see if all their safeties (i.e firing pin blocks) are still installed and operational?

Last two sections I shot, WPA last year, Ohio this year. In both, people got bumped for illegal mag length or gun weight.

Ah! That's good to hear! So the chrono folks printed out the big production gun list and were comparing weights against that list. How many CZ's and Tanfoglio's were there with missing FPB's that got bumped to open?