Interference

[Sarge]

8.6.4

In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another

external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of

fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course

of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing

either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the

event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such

interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.

So, why do RO's sometimes stop the shooter when they bump into them?

AND

What exactly does "may" mean? If an RO trips a shooter and he breaks the 180 is he DQ'd or not?

Edited October 19, 2011 by Kevin Sanders

[aztecdriver]

8.6.4

In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another

external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of

fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course

of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing

either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the

event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such

interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.

So, why do RO's sometimes stop the shooter when they bump into them?

Good question. Maybe they perceive a safety issue? They shouldn't though.

[Poppa Bear]

8.6.4

In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another

external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of

fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course

of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing

either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the

event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such

interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.

So, why do RO's sometimes stop the shooter when they bump into them?

AND

What exactly does "may" mean? If an RO trips a shooter and he breaks the 180 is he DQ'd or not?

An interesting question. What does happen if the RO's interference causes a DQ'able safety infraction? Trips them so they break the 180, bump them as they are doing a reload and cause them to lose control of the gun, bump them so that they sweep themselves as they are trying to grab a prop or activation device?

I have never seen anything approaching that level. The most I have seen is an accidental bump with just enough force to distract the shooter for a second or two.

[Gary Johnson]

Barring an unsafe condition, the RO should not stop a competitor because of inadvertent contact. That said, I can remember one occasion where I stopped the COF. The competitor zigged and I thought he was going to zag. Nothing unsafe happened but it was close enough that I thought it prudent to stop and try again.

'May' is there so if the competitor says he was not affected by an inadvertent contact the RO doesn't have to order a re-shoot.

[ima45dv8]

'May' is there so if the competitor says he was not affected by an inadvertent contact the RO doesn't have to order a re-shoot.

I disagree.

"May"(and it's refence to 10.3) is there because regardless of whatever external influences may come into play, including something as egregious as RO interference, the competitor is still responsible for their weapon (it seems to piss off NROI whenever we say weapon instead of firearm, but I can't help myself). "May" enforces the provisions of 10.3 as an extension of whatever other actions may occur.

Back to the OP, I've had contact that I felt interfered with the competitor. I would immediately say Stop and require a reshoot. I've also had contact that didn't seem to impact the competitor's attempt at the course of fire. In those cases I did not require, but rather offered a reshoot.

[Gary Johnson]

'May' is there so if the competitor says he was not affected by an inadvertent contact the RO doesn't have to order a re-shoot.

I disagree.

"May"(and it's refence to 10.3) is there because regardless of whatever external influences may come into play, including something as egregious as RO interference, the competitor is still responsible for their weapon (it seems to piss off NROI whenever we say weapon instead of firearm, but I can't help myself). "May" enforces the provisions of 10.3 as an extension of whatever other actions may occur.

Back to the OP, I've had contact that I felt interfered with the competitor. I would immediately say Stop and require a reshoot. I've also had contact that didn't seem to impact the competitor's attempt at the course of fire. In those cases I did not required, but rather offered a reshoot.

Oops! I was looking at the wrong 'may'.

[aztecdriver]

'May' is there so if the competitor says he was not affected by an inadvertent contact the RO doesn't have to order a re-shoot.

I disagree.

"May"(and it's refence to 10.3) is there because regardless of whatever external influences may come into play, including something as egregious as RO interference, the competitor is still responsible for their weapon (it seems to piss off NROI whenever we say weapon instead of firearm, but I can't help myself). "May" enforces the provisions of 10.3 as an extension of whatever other actions may occur.

Back to the OP, I've had contact that I felt interfered with the competitor. I would immediately say Stop and require a reshoot. I've also had contact that didn't seem to impact the competitor's attempt at the course of fire. In those cases I did not require, but rather offered a reshoot.

The difference between a body check vs. touching the competitors arm on the draw with the clock?

[ima45dv8]

'May' is there so if the competitor says he was not affected by an inadvertent contact the RO doesn't have to order a re-shoot.

I disagree.

"May"(and it's refence to 10.3) is there because regardless of whatever external influences may come into play, including something as egregious as RO interference, the competitor is still responsible for their weapon (it seems to piss off NROI whenever we say weapon instead of firearm, but I can't help myself). "May" enforces the provisions of 10.3 as an extension of whatever other actions may occur.

Back to the OP, I've had contact that I felt interfered with the competitor. I would immediately say Stop and require a reshoot. I've also had contact that didn't seem to impact the competitor's attempt at the course of fire. In those cases I did not required, but rather offered a reshoot.

Oops! I was looking at the wrong 'may'.

I thought that might be the case.

[pjb45]

interference does not have to be a bump. The RO could impede the progress or movement of the shooter and would constitute interference.

If the RO caused the DQ, the reasonable man rule should be used and no DQ.

[Nik Habicht]

'May' is there so if the competitor says he was not affected by an inadvertent contact the RO doesn't have to order a re-shoot.

I disagree.

"May"(and it's refence to 10.3) is there because regardless of whatever external influences may come into play, including something as egregious as RO interference, the competitor is still responsible for their weapon (it seems to piss off NROI whenever we say weapon instead of firearm, but I can't help myself). "May" enforces the provisions of 10.3 as an extension of whatever other actions may occur.

Back to the OP, I've had contact that I felt interfered with the competitor. I would immediately say Stop and require a reshoot. I've also had contact that didn't seem to impact the competitor's attempt at the course of fire. In those cases I did not required, but rather offered a reshoot.

Oops! I was looking at the wrong 'may'.

Both "may's" are really there, to permit for the imposition of 10.3 penalties.....

No getting out of the DQ, by bumping the RO and claiming interference.....

If the first "may" instead said "shall," that could be a problem....

[Nik Habicht]

interference does not have to be a bump. The RO could impede the progress or movement of the shooter and would constitute interference.

If the RO caused the DQ, the reasonable man rule should be used and no DQ.

While I find it difficult to see how an RO could cause a DQ, the onus for safely handling the gun always rests on the shooter, no exceptions.....

There's this in 11.1.2:

...Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification....

That would need to be an extreme situation....

[ima45dv8]

While I find it difficult to see how an RO could cause a DQ, the onus for safely handling the gun always rests on the shooter, no exceptions.....

I can see how it could happen, but it would have to be an extreme circumstance.

I admit I've interfered with a few shooters. I'd like to think that number is more a function of how many shooters I've run, than it would be a matter of technique. Numbers add up, and I've run more than a few. Still, I'm pretty sure I've never caused a shooter to commit an unsafe act due to my presence.

So...what if I did accidentally screw someone up?

So what if I did something that caused a competitor to violate a safety rule and bring themselves under penalty of a DQ?

I'd be mortally ashamed to issue a DQ.

A DQ should rightfully be issued for competitor actions. I don't think it would be right to issue a DQ for something that was the direct result of the RO's action(s).

If no one was looking who'd object, that shooter would get a free pass at that attempt at the course of fire and would get a reshoot. And even if such a person were watching, I'd fight for the shooter continuing in the match.

No, I can't point to a rule that says so, but that's what would happen.

[High Lord Gomer]

I think that last "may" allows you that flexibility.

[Nik Habicht]

While I find it difficult to see how an RO could cause a DQ, the onus for safely handling the gun always rests on the shooter, no exceptions.....

I can see how it could happen, but it would have to be an extreme circumstance.

I admit I've interfered with a few shooters. I'd like to think that number is more a function of how many shooters I've run, than it would be a matter of technique. Numbers add up, and I've run more than a few. Still, I'm pretty sure I've never caused a shooter to commit an unsafe act due to my presence.

So...what if I did accidentally screw someone up?

So what if I did something that caused a competitor to violate a safety rule and bring themselves under penalty of a DQ?

I'd be mortally ashamed to issue a DQ.

A DQ should rightfully be issued for competitor actions. I don't think it would be right to issue a DQ for something that was the direct result of the RO's action(s).

If no one was looking who'd object, that shooter would get a free pass at that attempt at the course of fire and would get a reshoot. And even if such a person were watching, I'd fight for the shooter continuing in the match.

No, I can't point to a rule that says so, but that's what would happen.

Yup, I understand and sympathize with your line of thinking. And I'm pretty sure, in that situation, you'd call the RM for guidance/counsel.....

Last but not least, you could always file the arbitration to try to get the shooter reinstated....

[Nik Habicht]

I think that last "may" allows you that flexibility.

As a shooter, you've navigated 100s of stages safely, sometimes in close proximity to an RO or three, right? We hold you responsible for safety, in the absence of interference, right? While the RO should of course make every effort not to interfere, in that dynamic situation, is interference solely the RO's fault? Even if we were to accept that -- and I don't -- does that entitle the shooter to a pass?

I'm not certain it does. The shooter also has options.....

[pjb45]

I was at Nationals in Quincy a few years ago. The stage required the shooter to open a door engage targets then move to either side of the wall containing the door to engage targets to the left and right. Some shooters found it faster to run to the back and engage the targets to the left and right without having to move left or right.

Had the shooter(s) not stop they would have run over the RO and in doing so, their guns would probably broken the 90 degrees. This is a circumstance that the DQ was caused by the RO.

It seems with every stage where the shooter must proceed backward, there is always the opportunity for the shooter and RO to defy the rules of physics.

[aztecdriver]

I think that last "may" allows you that flexibility.

As a shooter, you've navigated 100s of stages safely, sometimes in close proximity to an RO or three, right? We hold you responsible for safety, in the absence of interference, right? While the RO should of course make every effort not to interfere, in that dynamic situation, is interference solely the RO's fault? Even if we were to accept that -- and I don't -- does that entitle the shooter to a pass?

I'm not certain it does. The shooter also has options.....

Short of an unsportsmanlike attempt at a reshoot by forcing a situation to cause interference, no, the competitor has the course of fire. As someone once said, the RO is a piece of range equipment. It's supposed to stay out of your way. Interference not deliberately caused by the shooter is owned by the RO, completely.

[JFlowers]

Backing out of a dead-end alley is one of my pet peeves when ROing. If the stage forces you into the alley behind the shooter to stay close enough to control the shooter, its very easy for a shooter to run over you on the way out if he gets started before you do. Older ROs and fast young shooters come to mind. That could easily result in a fall, and possibly an unsafe action. But I would find it hard to DQ a shooter knowing I was a significant contributor to the action.

I watched an older RO plow over a young fast top-ranked shooter one time. The RO knew the shooter was going to explode out of the starting position and was trying to position himself to keep up. Course the shooter did not explode quite as fast as the RO thought! Everyone stayed safe, no one was hurt, very funny after the fact.

[Dan Hefta]

I feel that yelling "MUZZLE" or FINGER is interference but it happens all the time.

[aztecdriver]

I feel that yelling "MUZZLE" or FINGER is interference but it happens all the time.

I would agree, except, there are rules that say it's not. I don't like it - I can't do anything about it.

Edited October 20, 2011 by aztecdriver

[steel1212]

I feel that yelling "MUZZLE" or FINGER is interference but it happens all the time.

I would agree, except, there are rules that say it's not. I don't like it - I can't do anything about it.

Really? Those are range commands for USPSA?

[aztecdriver]

I feel that yelling "MUZZLE" or FINGER is interference but it happens all the time.

I would agree, except, there are rules that say it's not. I don't like it - I can't do anything about it.

Really? Those are range commands for USPSA?

8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

Tell me, do you read this a different way?!? Love to understand that, because I'd like reshoots everytime someone yelled muzzle at me - for real..

[Singlestack]

Backing out of a dead-end alley is one of my pet peeves when ROing. If the stage forces you into the alley behind the shooter to stay close enough to control the shooter, its very easy for a shooter to run over you on the way out if he gets started before you do. Older ROs and fast young shooters come to mind. That could easily result in a fall, and possibly an unsafe action. But I would find it hard to DQ a shooter knowing I was a significant contributor to the action.

I watched an older RO plow over a young fast top-ranked shooter one time. The RO knew the shooter was going to explode out of the starting position and was trying to position himself to keep up. Course the shooter did not explode quite as fast as the RO thought! Everyone stayed safe, no one was hurt, very funny after the fact.

There is no such thing as "controlling a shooter". If you believe otherwise you are dreaming. If you are close enough to where you think you can "control a shooter", you are too close and inviting trouble.

[lcs]

8.6.4

In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another

external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of

fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course

of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing

either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the

event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such

interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.

So, why do RO's sometimes stop the shooter when they bump into them?

AND

What exactly does "may" mean? If an RO trips a shooter and he breaks the 180 is he DQ'd or not?

What do you do Kevin--sit home and think of situations not in the book ? Just kidding

I think the first part of your question was answered.

If the RO is the cause of a shooter to DQ?. (RO trips said shooter and 180 is broken). I would not DQ the shooter. The "cause" was outside the shooters control. I would be surprised if the DQ was ARB'd and not overturned. We are talking non-local matches here.

[Sarge]

8.6.4

In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another

external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of

fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course

of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing

either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the

event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such

interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.

So, why do RO's sometimes stop the shooter when they bump into them?

AND

What exactly does "may" mean? If an RO trips a shooter and he breaks the 180 is he DQ'd or not?

What do you do Kevin--sit home and think of situations not in the book ?

Actually, yes.

Every match I shoot I generally see something worthy of discussion. And every discussion will result in at least a few opposing views.

Heck, I can think of another one right now but I'll wait till later.