RO vs Shooter Mindset

[Paul B]

Despite all that has been written in Front Sight and numerous protestations to the contrary, most shooters I talk to truly believe there is a really separate mindset between the two disciplines. True shooting competitors at the higher levels and RO's at the higher levels are not the same people and this is creating a we vs them attitude in some.

There is some evidence of this separation in terms of how many Grand Masters are actually RO's. If you look at the top 20 lists you will see very few Grand Masters who are currently certified as RO's of any kind. Likewise, how many CRO's and RM's are Masters and above?

I'm not sure this is bad. After all, baseball and most other sports operate better because of a professional cadre of umpires or referees who are not competitors in any way.

On the other hand we are an amateur sport where there is more gamesmanship being practiced by competitors than in other more structured amateur sports (it's much easier to game a stage than a baseball game). Is the degree of gamesmanship due to a we vs them attitude? For example it's common on this forum to see vastly different opinions of what should happen in a given scenario of gun handling on a stage.

I guess this brings up a few questions:

1. Is there truly a we vs them attitude prevalent in USPSA?

2. Is it bad or good?

3. If it is bad how can it be changed?

4. If it is good, how can we develop it further?

[Vince Pinto]

Paul,

I don't understand what you refer to as the "Us vs Them" attitiude. Please cite specific examples of how this has manifested itself at matches you've attended.

In other words, what events have you personally experienced or witnessed where you believe that a Range Official has acted improperly. It would also be useful if you could identify the level of match (e.g. local club match, state championship, area championship, nationals etc.) where you experienced or witnessed such behaviour.

[mactiger]

I guess this brings up a few questions:

1. Is there truly a we vs them attitude prevalent in USPSA?

2. Is it bad or good?

3. If it is bad how can it be changed?

4. If it is good, how can we develop it further?

1) I think, sad to say, that there is still something of a "we vs. them" attitude, although I believe that NROI has made great strides in erasing some of it.

2) Because it's an amateur sport, and because a lot of RO's also shoot pretty regularly, I think it's a bad thing, but is generally self-correcting, at least at the local level. Maybe not at bigger matches.

3) I believe that education is the key. We (NROI/USPSA/IPSC/IROA) should be educating our membership, not only in the rules, but in how to apply them, and how to act on the range. It's a two-edged sword. As you say, a lot of people try to game a stage, and that's fine. But, since we allow for that, and it is a dynamic sport, with changing courses and various ways of "solving the problem", there will always be areas where the RO must make a judgement call. This is where, IMO, "we vs. them" is most prevalent. Or, say a competitor has been shooting somewhere that is pretty lax on the rules, and then goes to a match where the RO's know and enforce the rules. He's going to feel like the range officers are really out to get him.

4) I don't think it's good. I do think the fact that some members are better at ROing than shooting is good, but like I say in my classes--nobody joined USPSA because they wanted to be a range officer. Some people see the need, and "feel the call", so to speak. Somebody has to do it, --some just do it better than others.

I personally think that USPSA should make it a condition of membership that all new members take a level one seminar within their first year. Not to force them to become RO's, but to get them to at least go through the major portions of the rule book, so that they have a basic understanding of the sport, and the rules it's played by, taught by somebody other than the local range lawyer. (Not intended as a slur, just a descriptive term.) I know a lot of GM's who have probably never opened a rule book. They concentrate on shooting, not learning the fine points of the rules. Others, who like to shoot, (like me), but will never have the time, money, whatever, to make it to GM level, function well as RO's.

I guess I'm trying to say that we all have a niche in the sport--some RO well, some shoot well, some do both. As for differences of opinion on the rules, and their interpretation, well, what else is new?

Troy

[j1b]

That's really a great observation. I've never really looked at it like that.

I've personally never witnessed an us vs. them attitude. At the club level I have to believe most all shooters RO at some time or another. It is a simple must in order for the club to operate. Ultimately I think we all know that an RO at any level is only there to do the best job they can. While every shooter will argue a negative call (Are you sure that's not a perfect double?) once we leave the line I think we take the personal involvement out of our performance and are left with wanting RO's with the integrity to make the right call. We want it for our sake, and for the sake of the competition.

At any form of a bigger match I think its clear you have to have designated RO's and I have to say many of those RO's are consistently the same. That is so positive - without them we wouldn't be able to do any of this and all of them work their butts off. For those dedicated soldiers who do RO at the Area and National matches I first say Thank You! Clearly those individuals take pride in doing what they do. I'd liken it to being a teacher. While there is not much glamour in the job, it keeps the sport whole, growing, and there is a tremendous amount of pride that comes with those things.

Same with making GM, or winning an area match (or national title I would assume - clearly I wouldn't know )There's a lot of pride in that as well. I have personally never pursued, or desired to pursue the RO road. I am a shooter. All I want to do is shoot.

I think the relationship is sound - and good. It exists for what it is - and for many years it has worked well.

Like I said - we couldn't do it without the RO's. Ironically - we wouldn't need them without the dedicated shooters, or for that matter - the highly skilled shooters that make us all want to be better.

JB

[Vince Pinto]

Or, say a competitor has been shooting somewhere that is pretty lax on the rules, and then goes to a match where the RO's know and enforce the rules.  He's going to feel like the range officers are really out to get him.

Troy,

You've made an interesting observation and I think that might well be a big part of "the problem" (if one actually exists). If the rules are applied consistently at every single match, it's unlikely that Joe Bloggs will feel as if he's being treated unfairly for doing the same thing he does at his home club, where the rules may well be applied erratically.

This is why I'm a stickler for the rules, and I know you are too. As you often say, we certainly shouldn't beat competitors over the head with the rulebook, but if we apply the rules consistently, and with a friendly attitude, this should help to eliminate any "Us vs Them" feeling which may exist in some quarters.

To that end, people serving as local club ROs are not doing their buddies any favours by only applying the rules they personally like

[Paul B]

Vince Says "I don't understand what you refer to as the "Us vs Them" attitiude. Please cite specific examples of how this has manifested itself at matches you've attended."

Vince, I know you've been in the US so I think it's disingenuous to act like you have never heard of this before. I also have to believe it happens elsewhere in the world but I cannot attest to it.

As for how it manifests itself, I've seen many examples. I saw a nationals stage in which a stage was poorly set up and when a competitor took advantage of the loopholes, they were disallowed by the RO staff who closed ranks giving a competitor poor advice and trying to talk him out of an arb.

Likewise I've see RO's (the RO's who really like to RO more than shoot) at local matches interpreting a stage description not as written, but as they "think" is right.

By the same token, and maybe even more numerous are the situations where competitors now are very aggressive in trying to game out the rules to the nth degree. I remember a lot of questions on this forum such as "can I run up on the berm to take a shot?" This kind of "how can I fool this RO" happens at every match, luckily by a relatively small group of competitors, but for some it's like shooting spitballs at the teacher in school and for others the RO is just an obstacle in their quest to win.

I don't condone any of these attitudes and it may be that they come from a we vs them attitude which we may or may not need. I thought it might be interesting to discuss the issue.

[Paul B]

Troy, just re-read your comments and thank you for your observations. I think if your attitude were pervasive there would be no perception of a we vs them?

[eric nielsen]

Paul

It's there. It was a LOT worse before we voted Mike Voight as USPSA President.

Back then it was considered "the thing to do" to put lots of range rules, tournament rules and so on that showed who was boss. Perhaps they were making up for lax enforcement of safety and sportsmanship elsewhere, could be something to that.

It was also common to put things in the course designs to "slow down the Open shooters" or otherwise just screw with your head, encourage fear of the stage, whatever.

That attitude has [thankfully] become much less common lately. Communication is the key - you understand them, they understand you...

[L9X25]

I agree with what Eric said above but want to add one more example.

When we have a State, Area or other LARGE match in our area, we will see several ROs that we do not see at any other time of year. These folks are not shooters (at least not USPSA/IPSC shooters) and we often joke that they are the professional ROs. These are not out of state folks that come to RO & shoot the match ... they live right here and just don't shoot our sport. When they come out they often do not look at the match from a shooters perspective. They are the ROs and we are the shooters ... adversaries from the start. They look at ROing the way shooters look at shooting ... they look for ways to compete with the shooter and get the advantage.

Leo

[JFlowers]

Having just come from staffing Stage 8 "The Barrel Yard" of the 2004 Area 6 Match, I can say that I saw none of this from the 4 ROs who worked the stage (We had extras after they close Stage 9 and it helped due to the weather conditions. Only two DQs were given on the stage, one for a 180 and one for a round out of the berm. Both shooters hung their heads, shook our hands, and took their knocks. A third 180 DQ was given but the RO changed the call to RO Interference after he realized the competitor had come close but not broken the 180. All four ROs gave the competitors as much leeway as possible keeping safety always in mind with the sloppy weather conditions.

The only "contention" generated by the stage were from scoring hits that became misses due to passing through hardcover. Most competitors when shown the holes in the hardcover accepted the misses, though some got upset about them. Many competitors asked for (and all recieved) overlays on single hole targets. Ocassionally the call did not go the shooters way and the shooter thought it should, but that is just the nature of the game.

Out of approximately 300 competitors I think I saw 5 people leave the stage upset about an officiating call. Thats not us vs. them, thats just human competitive nature. I think that considering the ankle deep mud, bagged targets, and miserable conditions the match ran as smoothly was possible.

I actually saw more of an "us for you" attitude. The Stage staffs had lunch brought to them and ate on the run, shot squads as soon as they showed up, anything that was needed to get the squads through the stages in a timely fashion. We ran Stage 8 from 8am til 6:45pm, non-stop to get the Sat squads through due to the weather related slowdowns.

And I had a lot of fun doing it!!!!!!!! But the wife has always thought I was nuts!

James Flowers

[BDH]

If you look at the top 20 lists you will see very few Grand Masters who are currently certified as RO's of any kind. Likewise, how many CRO's and RM's are Masters and above?

Paul, you are correct (but as always, there are a few exceptions....). To do either function well, it is matter of committment and dedication AND probably some amount of knack or skill for the job. If I worked my ass off eight hours a day, 7 days a week trying to get to GM, I don't think I could ever do it. I started too late, my eyes aren't very good, and I don't have the necessary quick reactions. All that said, I enjoy working with people, being outdoors, and especially enjoy being around gun owners and the shooting sports. For these reasons, I have chosen to try to become a 'GM' in the RO corps, otherwise known as a Range Master. Personally, I feel that each of us can contribute in different ways.

I hate the us vs. them thing. Not saying that some of it does not occassionally go on. It's just that if I make an unpopular call, I am trying to do it to the best of my abilities, but maybe more importantly, it is the exact same call I would expect to be made if I was the shooter! Here is a great example with me as a shooter at a local match.....

LAMR, AYR?, Standby, Beep. I take off running, gun flies out of my holster, hits the ground. Of course I am stopped and DQ'd. However, once we get the range cleared etc., I am told 'That's okay, your gun did not go off so you can continue'. Well, that is a bad call, so I DQ'd myself and packed it up. This example tends to emphasize the point that both Troy and Vince made regarding 'lack of rule enforcement' creating some of the us vs them thing at the bigger matches. I don't think that anyone here would take the position that I should have been re-instated for such a serious safety violation, but it happened. One thing that might have been different here was that before the gun hit the ground I knew I was DQ'd, but was just hoping like hell that it did not go off and hurt someone. I screwed up, and the DQ was the correct call. If a local shooter had the same thing happen to him, and then showed up at a big match where the rules are enforced, I could see why they would be frustrated and think that maybe the RO was out to get them.

It's calls like these that have me in the camp of always preferring to shoot local matches, rather than to RO them. I don't want to be the 'bad guy' if I make a call according to the rulebook, that goes against local club policy. OTOH, if someone asks me to work as an RO, I am always willing to pitch in and help out.

One other thing, I would love it if USPSA received 500 staff applications from qualified RO's (and it would be even better if they were all M or GM shooters) for each of the big matches. That would allow the MD/RM to pick not only the most qualified, but also those that have the right attitude. Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever have the benefit of that happening.....

The match staff needs the shooters, and the shooters need the match staff, or there simply will be no matches. We are in this thing together. That said, the match staff needs to be conscious of their behavior on the range, as do the shooters.

I personally think that USPSA should make it a condition of membership that all new members take a level one seminar within their first year.

Great idea, but not sure how doable it is. It seems like we have a tough enough time growing membership, that I would hate to see that we now would be adding L1 certification as a condition of membership.

At any form of a bigger match I think its clear you have to have designated RO's and I have to say many of those RO's are consistently the same. That is so positive - without them we wouldn't be able to do any of this and all of them work their butts off. For those dedicated soldiers who do RO at the Area and National matches I first say Thank You! Clearly those individuals take pride in doing what they do. I'd liken it to being a teacher. While there is not much glamour in the job, it keeps the sport whole, growing, and there is a tremendous amount of pride that comes with those things.

JB, you're welcome! Also, I think you are correct that most of us that work the big matches DO take pride in this (and if they don't, they probably should not be there). It's a lot of work, but also a lot of fun, and it is always good to get an occassional pat on the back.

[mactiger]

I personally think that USPSA should make it a condition of membership that all new members take a level one seminar within their first year.

Great idea, but not sure how doable it is. It seems like we have a tough enough time growing membership, that I would hate to see that we now would be adding L1 certification as a condition of membership.

Ah, Jedi PFC, here's the thing: I just think you should have to take the class. You wouldn't have to become certified if you didn't want to. We could perhaps even do the "non-certification" or "audit" students for a lower fee.

As for enforcing the rules consistently at all levels: it's the only way to ensure that you, as an RO, are treating everybody the same, and that's what we are looking for.

Range officers that act professionally and consistently enforce the rules as written, are the best defense against an "us vs. them" attitude. Like I said before, NROI has been working hard to get this point across, and I think we've been succeeding.

Troy

[Vince Pinto]

Vince, I know you've been in the US so I think it's disingenuous to act like you have never heard of this before. I also have to believe it happens elsewhere in the world but I cannot attest to it.

Well thanks for the spanking Bucko, but I don't act (or sing, for that matter, but I'm not too shabby a dancer).

Yes, I've been to the USA about 25 times, but I've only ever attended two IPSC matches, both in Y2K. The first was in Quincy (where I could only spend less than 2 hours at the range), and the other was in Oregon (where I voluntarily spent the entire time patching targets so that I could talk to as many people as possible).

Having said that, yes, I've heard of the "Us vs Them" attitude but, no, I don't understand it, because I didn't experience it at the two matches above, nor have I ever witnessed the problem in any of the other 15 regions where I've shot and/or worked matches.

And from the comments made herein thus far, it seems the real problem are a handful of pain-in-the-ass individuals (competitors and ROs alike). In other words, it certainly doesn't sound like "Us" or "Them", as a whole, are the issue.

But I could be wrong.

[Ron Ankeny]

I agree it's the individual and their approach to the task at hand, not the position they hold. As for requiring a class for membership, me thinks not.

[MBaneACP]

Troy;

That's one heck of a post, and I for one truly wish you were still involved with USPSA on a "political" level! Of course, neither am I, so who am I to speak?

I do think the situation has gotten a lot better in the last few years, but I think the credit rightly belongs to John Amidon, match directors like Troy and people like Dave Thomas, Gary Stevens, Charles Bond, the Rob-ster and the other members of the Board who made it clear that "Range Nazism" would simply not be tolerated. I like the idea of requiring an RO course...a lot of clubs are already requiring a "safety" course that varies from a couple of hours to a full day; the basic RO class covers the same safety issues in a much more structured way than some of hte safety classes I've seen.

I'd like to see a requirement that to RO at a national championship, you'd have to have attended a Nationals *as a shooter* within three (or even five) years. I see a lot less of the "professional RO" cadre than I did five years ago, but it's still worth actively breaking up what's left.

Michael "Always an Opinion" B

[Phil Dunlop]

I think Vince hit the nail on the head with the word 'Attitude'

We've had problems over here in NZ with NROA and peoples perceptions of the organisation.

Shooters quickly forget the courteous, efficient and polite majority, but always seem to recall RO's with bad attitude.

I'm a qualified RO and a pretty keen shooter and I don't think I would get as much from the sport if I didn't have a good understanding of the rules.

[mactiger]

Thanks, Michael. Phil, I agree with you and Vince--the key word here is attitude. I think you can be a good RO, and enforce the rules fairly and consistently, and still not have a bad attitude toward the competitors, which is basically the heart of the "us vs. them" perception.

Freestyle course design has removed a lot of the "gotcha" factor from major matches, too, IMO.

Troy

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Qualified and aspiring Range Officers should read this thread.

[Gary Stevens]

My way of running a stage, and setting up a stage, is to make it safe, shooter friendly (no 180 traps), and able to maintain consistancy for every shooter. I think those who have worked with me as a CRO and as a RM will tell you that I always told the crew to treat shooters like you would like to be treated, up to the point they won't let you be good to them, then call me. That was why I got the big bucks, to handle the problems.

IS there the US vs THEM attitude? Maybe, but from a Range Official view and a shooter view, it is so miniscule that it is insignificant in the big picture. Quiet honestly these people don't last at the bigger matches because no one including the staff wants them around. What happens at the local level should also be handled at the local level, unless they are not following NROI guidelines, then it should be reported to NROI. We now have a complaint process to handle that.

The great thing about our sport is it is fun. I tell RO's to get out and shoot more, don't become a professional RO. I also tell shooters to step out on the line and have to make the hard calls for a while. Each area supports the other. Without one the other will wither and die.

My 2 cents.

[kimel]

Requiring the L1 course is a great idea but in order to make this fly NROI will need to quadruple (at a minimum) the number of instructors and spread them around the country. I waited for a long time and still had to travel 350 miles to attend a L1 class. Last I checked all the NROI Instructors lived east of the Rockies yet we have an awful lot of shooters out here in the west.

There should be an L1 course in every state, every year, as a minimum. Geographically larger states should have a couple seminars scattered around the state.

I fully understand the need for highly qualified NROI instructors but I wonder if this issue should not be re-examined.

It would seem to me that someone who has been a CRO for x years (3? 5? 10?) and has major match experience (3 majors minimum?) would be capable of teaching a Level 1 seminar...especially after going through an instructor course. This could potentially increase the number of NROI Level 1 seminars available and thus, increase the pool of ROs.

IMHO RM certification is not a prerequisite for being able to teach the L1 seminar. CRO still needs to stay like it is.

No, I am not a CRO...yet. Only been an RO for 6 months but will be applying for my CRO course this Fall. After that? Who knows.

[mactiger]

I fully understand the need for highly qualified NROI instructors but I wonder if this issue should not be re-examined.

It would seem to me that someone who has been a CRO for x years (3? 5? 10?) and has major match experience (3 majors minimum?) would be capable of teaching a Level 1 seminar...especially after going through an instructor course. This could potentially increase the number of NROI Level 1 seminars available and thus, increase the pool of ROs.

IMHO RM certification is not a prerequisite for being able to teach the L1 seminar. CRO still needs to stay like it is.

You're not the first person to suggest that qualified CRO's could teach Level One, and frankly, it's not a bad idea. I'll bring it up with John and the current instructors corps.

We currently have one Instructor in training on the West Coast--hopefully we'll get another soon. I agree that it would be optimal to have at least one Level one per state each year, and having it be sort of "local" for some shooters would probably guarantee we'd get the number of students we need.

Thanks for the feedback.

Troy

[LPatterson]

MB

I think we have enough problems growing the membership without requiring everyone to become a Range Officer. I don't understand why you think people should have to shoot a Nationals before they RO one. Is this so there is no "us vs them" because we are all them. Rules are rules and if you understand them and apply them to the best of your ability, what difference does it make what type of match you have shot or even if you are a current shooter. I volunteered for last years Race Gun Nationals to try to better understand how to shoot a stage by watching other shooters. If there were an "us vs them" it was because I couldn't give a major well known GM shooting an Open gun a perfect double on a 7 yard target. If there was a question about a shot, out came the overlay, there was not an I think that is or could be a double.

//RANT ON//

If you want to require everyone to take a Range Officer course to be come a member, then how about requiring everyone to spend 2 years in the active military before they can get a college degree. Might make for a better President or leader when you know how the other side does something.

101st Airborne & 20 year USAF retiree

// RANT OFF//

[Ron Ankeny]

Graywolf_69:

I wouldn't worry about the notion of requiring a class for membership. The idea isn't feasible and it would destroy USPSA. Ain't never going to happen.

[Liota]

//RANT ON//

If you want to require everyone to take a Range Officer course to be come a member, then how about requiring everyone to spend 2 years in the active military before they can get a college degree. Might make for a better President or leader when you know how the other side does something.

101st Airborne & 20 year USAF retiree

// RANT OFF//

I agree totally with your rant. Two years of military service would be good for most people.

Liota

[Barrettone]

Sorry for the long post, but I've held back on this issue long enough.

Kimel:

I have been trying to get someone at USPSA to agree to allow seasoned and QUALIFIED (by this I mean that they posess certain attributes, teaching, and cognitive skills) to teach level 1 classes. Troy and I have talked about it at length. Unfortunately, I have heard through the grapevine (other RMI's), that the current NROI leadership feels that the consistency and quality of teaching would suffer as they would not be able to insure quality control due to the large numbers of instructors. While I understand this philosophy, I disagree with it, as it GREATLY hinders the availability of classes, and, quite frankly dooms USPSA to never grow. The success of an organization is in it's ability to delegate things if it is to grow. Because the upper echelons feel that they need to keep the teaching ranks small, they are not providing the education necessary to grow the sport. Rather, they should establish (IMHO) an evaluation process by which CROI candidates are selected, and have an annual re-evaluation of their instructing skills. This would be a huge force-multiplier for USPSA, but they are balking at the idea partly due to some rogue instructors that they have had to deal with in the past. It is paranoia run amuck in my opinion. CROI's would allow USPSA to offer level 1's in every state, and then people could get their level 2 via correspondence or at one of the proposed "mega-seminars" that Troy is trying to set up. RM criteria would need to remain the same, but I agree with that. If we want better range staff, that is regionalized so we don't have to spend exhorbanent amounts of money mobilizing people from every corner of the country to work a Nationals, then we need to get the NROI leadership to get over their past negative experiences, and rather than close ranks, expand them. Eight RMI's CANNOT service USPSA in the educational arena. It is unfair to the membership, and to the RMI's as they are going to burn out early, long before their time if USPSA keeps this up. I know that there are many seasoned CRO's out their that are untapped resources. They only show up at matches, CRO a stage, and then they are gone like a fart in the wind. Why do we not utilize them to their fullest, as they are a wealth of knowledge and information. E-mail John Amidon and let him know how you feel. It is the only way that change can occur. I empathize with what NROI has gone through in their "house cleaning" in the past few years, but this "closed ranks" approach really hurts USPSA as it hinders its growth (IMHO). If we want to foster good range staff, then we have to trust in the abilities of others and OVERSEE, not micro-manage. Take it from a guy who knows business, and if you don't believe USPSA needs to be run as a business, then you are mistaken. We can only lose money on so many nationals before it catches up with us. That is why we are only hosting one this year (2 if you count 3-Gun). Mobilization and accomodations for staff is the largest cost for these nationals. Look at the reports. Localized, high quality officials is the answer...and the only way to get that is to offer more classes in more areas. RMI's can't get it done...we need CROI's to take the level 1's so we can better utilize our RMI's for big matches, setting policy, instructing RM's, RMI's, and teaching CROI classes (damn they already have a lot...WITHOUT level 1 classes!!!). Let'shear what you think.

Jeff