Interference

[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.....

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.

For purposes of a reshoot for interference, I agree completely....

For purposes of sections 10.3 and 10.4 -- it's the shooter's job to do things like hang onto the gun, control the muzzle direction, not let a round go unintentionally, etc.

Really good shooters, shooting non-standard plans, have briefed me on their intentions on a number of occasions -- to avoid just such a situation....

Evaluating a stage for potential "danger zones" where a DQ is possible, is part of a shooter's prep for the stage....

[DarthMuffin]

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..

If, before the stage, you kindly ask the RO not to give you safety warnings and to just stop and DQ you outright if they see something and explain that you're cool with it that way I don't see why they wouldn't oblige. I would.

Edited October 21, 2011 by DarthMuffin

[kevin c]

...

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.

Hmm. This runs counter to what I'd been told/taught, that the RO's main job is to insure safety, and to that end needs to be close enough to the shooter to make that happen. If the shooter is really given enough space to be able to "do his thing" without chance of RO interference, might that not be also too far to be effective for preventing unsafe actions?

Part of this goes back to the issue of whether the RO should intervene to prevent a shooter from doing something unsafe. I was taught that it was reasonable to block somebody if they were about to break the 180. Should that really be that I only should block them from breaking the 180 "too much", ie, not just pointing the muzzle at the side berm at 181 degrees, but back at the squad uprange? Should I deliberately let a developing unsafe situation go unchecked, waiting until a violation has occured, so as to avoid having to offer the reshoot, but thereby getting closer to a potentially more dangerous situation? Should I be issuing/offering an RO interference reshoot because I touched the shooter's arm before an infraction actually happened?

The verbal warnings are deliberately addressed in the rules. Methinks I will be asking NROI for an opinion on this (we all have our own, of course, but what matters is what we are supposed to do per NROI).

[MarkS_A18138]

Well I just saw this happen! The stage is laying on fake bed all mags and gun on table at buzzer get up and start engaging targets. four target in the room now open the door and keep shooting. Shooter forgets ammo on table, holds gun down range and runs back to retrieve the mags. Everything is good until the RO and Score keeper are caught off guard and freeze. Now both are looking at the muzzle and yell, shooter moves the gun away from them and break the 180!!!! Now what!!!!!

[Nik Habicht]

Well I just saw this happen! The stage is laying on fake bed all mags and gun on table at buzzer get up and start engaging targets. four target in the room now open the door and keep shooting. Shooter forgets ammo on table, holds gun down range and runs back to retrieve the mags. Everything is good until the RO and Score keeper are caught off guard and freeze. Now both are looking at the muzzle and yell, shooter moves the gun away from them and break the 180!!!! Now what!!!!!

Match DQ for the shooter is most likely the right call, unless there were exceptional circumstances.....

[MarkS_A18138]

Might be the right call but we all would have beat the RO and Taken the timer! Just kidding! The RO was so embarrassed he told him to take a break and get reloaded! We did change score keeper, to give him a chance to change underpants....

[aztecdriver]

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..

If, before the stage, you kindly ask the RO not to give you safety warnings and to just stop and DQ you outright if they see something and explain that you're cool with it that way I don't see why they wouldn't oblige. I would.

I could do that - it doesn't mean the RO has to oblige - and it doesn't give me a resolution in the rules if they don't accommodate me. For a lot of people, it's natural for them to utter them out of habit.

[Skydiver]

...

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.

Hmm. This runs counter to what I'd been told/taught, that the RO's main job is to insure safety, and to that end needs to be close enough to the shooter to make that happen. If the shooter is really given enough space to be able to "do his thing" without chance of RO interference, might that not be also too far to be effective for preventing unsafe actions?

Part of this goes back to the issue of whether the RO should intervene to prevent a shooter from doing something unsafe. I was taught that it was reasonable to block somebody if they were about to break the 180. Should that really be that I only should block them from breaking the 180 "too much", ie, not just pointing the muzzle at the side berm at 181 degrees, but back at the squad uprange? Should I deliberately let a developing unsafe situation go unchecked, waiting until a violation has occured, so as to avoid having to offer the reshoot, but thereby getting closer to a potentially more dangerous situation? Should I be issuing/offering an RO interference reshoot because I touched the shooter's arm before an infraction actually happened?

I've heard of that, but only within the context of the NRA Instructor course. Somebody jokingly called it the "Praying Mantis" stance where the instructor is read to take control of the shooter's arm/hand. I don't recall hearing that when I took the RO class. What I recall is standing behind and to the side of the competitor to keep a view of the gun.

[Singlestack]

...

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.

Hmm. This runs counter to what I'd been told/taught, that the RO's main job is to insure safety, and to that end needs to be close enough to the shooter to make that happen. If the shooter is really given enough space to be able to "do his thing" without chance of RO interference, might that not be also too far to be effective for preventing unsafe actions?

Part of this goes back to the issue of whether the RO should intervene to prevent a shooter from doing something unsafe. I was taught that it was reasonable to block somebody if they were about to break the 180. Should that really be that I only should block them from breaking the 180 "too much", ie, not just pointing the muzzle at the side berm at 181 degrees, but back at the squad uprange? Should I deliberately let a developing unsafe situation go unchecked, waiting until a violation has occured, so as to avoid having to offer the reshoot, but thereby getting closer to a potentially more dangerous situation? Should I be issuing/offering an RO interference reshoot because I touched the shooter's arm before an infraction actually happened?

The verbal warnings are deliberately addressed in the rules. Methinks I will be asking NROI for an opinion on this (we all have our own, of course, but what matters is what we are supposed to do per NROI).

You might be able to prevent a brand new shooter from breaking the 180. Do you really think you could stop a fast shooter from doing it? You got some awesome reflexes...

More than likely what will happen is you get a gun pointed at you. Your best defense for preventing someone from completely pointing uprange is your voice. If you are running a fast shooter close enough to make an attempt at preventing him from breaking the 180 you are probably going to run into him or get caught down range when he throws on the breaks and backs up to get the target he missed. Things happen way to fast to try to physically intervene.

What if he moves back as he is getting close to the 180 and you are putting your hand up to prevent him from breaking it and you stick your hand if front of his gun? Or, hit the gun and knock it out of his hand?

I'll ride newbs real close and I have grabbed them to prevent them from turning uprange, but an experienced shooter, no way.

[Nik Habicht]

Might be the right call but we all would have beat the RO and Taken the timer! Just kidding! The RO was so embarrassed he told him to take a break and get reloaded! We did change score keeper, to give him a chance to change underpants....

I don't see any way -- short of an arb -- to let the shooter continue AND follow the rules.....

I might issue/uphold the DQ, and file the arb for the shooter at the same time.....

[wide45]

...

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.

Hmm. This runs counter to what I'd been told/taught, that the RO's main job is to insure safety, and to that end needs to be close enough to the shooter to make that happen. If the shooter is really given enough space to be able to "do his thing" without chance of RO interference, might that not be also too far to be effective for preventing unsafe actions?

Part of this goes back to the issue of whether the RO should intervene to prevent a shooter from doing something unsafe. I was taught that it was reasonable to block somebody if they were about to break the 180. Should that really be that I only should block them from breaking the 180 "too much", ie, not just pointing the muzzle at the side berm at 181 degrees, but back at the squad uprange? Should I deliberately let a developing unsafe situation go unchecked, waiting until a violation has occured, so as to avoid having to offer the reshoot, but thereby getting closer to a potentially more dangerous situation? Should I be issuing/offering an RO interference reshoot because I touched the shooter's arm before an infraction actually happened?

The verbal warnings are deliberately addressed in the rules. Methinks I will be asking NROI for an opinion on this (we all have our own, of course, but what matters is what we are supposed to do per NROI).

The blocking thing was taught when I first took the RO class around '97. When I retook the class from the same instructor in '08, it was taught that you should not do it.

[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?

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..

That kind of sound contradictory to coaching? I didn't ask for the RO to help me through the stage warning me of something I may or may not do. Yup don't like it. Either DQ me for doing it or shut up politely

[kevin c]

...

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.

Hmm. This runs counter to what I'd been told/taught, that the RO's main job is to insure safety, and to that end needs to be close enough to the shooter to make that happen. If the shooter is really given enough space to be able to "do his thing" without chance of RO interference, might that not be also too far to be effective for preventing unsafe actions?

Part of this goes back to the issue of whether the RO should intervene to prevent a shooter from doing something unsafe. I was taught that it was reasonable to block somebody if they were about to break the 180. Should that really be that I only should block them from breaking the 180 "too much", ie, not just pointing the muzzle at the side berm at 181 degrees, but back at the squad uprange? Should I deliberately let a developing unsafe situation go unchecked, waiting until a violation has occured, so as to avoid having to offer the reshoot, but thereby getting closer to a potentially more dangerous situation? Should I be issuing/offering an RO interference reshoot because I touched the shooter's arm before an infraction actually happened?

The verbal warnings are deliberately addressed in the rules. Methinks I will be asking NROI for an opinion on this (we all have our own, of course, but what matters is what we are supposed to do per NROI).

The blocking thing was taught when I first took the RO class around '97. When I retook the class from the same instructor in '08, it was taught that you should not do it.

Looks like a refresher would be good for me to take.

SS - It is newbies that are probably the ones who might need the blocking the most, as they are the most likely to blatantly violate the 180 through ignorance, and keep on bringing the gun uprange to bear on living/breathing flesh. Yer right, Mr. Lightning fast GM I'm not going to be able to stop, but such a competitor's 180 violation, while meriting a DQ, is much less likely to continue to the point where people get swept. The former, I'll stick to, the latter, I can see giving them space and observing what happens.

I'm just observing that, if an RO does have deliberate contact with a competitor in the first case, it seems that a reshoot will have to be offered, since no DQ occurred, as the RO prevented through that contact, but that the RO has interfered with the shooter. Better not to have the contact at all? May be, but I'll have to think on it, since I think some situations may warrant it.

Edited October 21, 2011 by kevin c

[Jaxshooter]

As a CRO I would not attempt to touch the shooter or firearm as it could cause far worse things to happen as a result. If you startle the shooter there is no telling where the muzzle could end up as well as the possibility of a round being touched off.

[Skizeks]

10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle

of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from

the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop,

allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the handgun is loaded or

not (limited exceptions: 10.5.6).

10.5.6 While facing downrange, allowing the muzzle of a loaded handgun to

point uprange beyond a radius of 3 feet from a competitor’s feet while

drawing or re-holstering.

Excuse me if my interpitation of the rules don't agree with yours,

or if my views have been duplicated on the second page of this topic (I couldn't read through anymore of the muck)

In rule 10.5.2 & 10.5.6 you can include all the other rules that deal with a DQ.

Not one of them says anything about an exception to RO interference.

You break the 180, sweep yourself or whatever it's a DQ.

[aztecdriver]

10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle

of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from

the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop,

allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the handgun is loaded or

not (limited exceptions: 10.5.6).

10.5.6 While facing downrange, allowing the muzzle of a loaded handgun to

point uprange beyond a radius of 3 feet from a competitor’s feet while

drawing or re-holstering.

Excuse me if my interpitation of the rules don't agree with yours,

or if my views have been duplicated on the second page of this topic (I couldn't read through anymore of the muck)

In rule 10.5.2 & 10.5.6 you can include all the other rules that deal with a DQ.

Not one of them says anything about an exception to RO interference.

You break the 180, sweep yourself or whatever it's a DQ.

Let me just pose this scenario, as it may or may not happen, but it's possible. The RO, in the mud, tries to keep up with someone, slips and falls as the competitor is attempting navigate something that has the gun in his strong hand out to side. If the RO runs into his arm, let's say flailing to keep himself upright, and by chance literally knocks the gun out of his hand - would you fault the competitor for not being able to anticipate the karate chop that was coming?

Yes, it's a little devils advocacy and a huge "what if", but does expose a way that an RO could possibly cause a DQ. Personally, I think after that - I might just want to sit down and not finish the match.

[Nik Habicht]

10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle

of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from

the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop,

allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the handgun is loaded or

not (limited exceptions: 10.5.6).

10.5.6 While facing downrange, allowing the muzzle of a loaded handgun to

point uprange beyond a radius of 3 feet from a competitor’s feet while

drawing or re-holstering.

Excuse me if my interpitation of the rules don't agree with yours,

or if my views have been duplicated on the second page of this topic (I couldn't read through anymore of the muck)

In rule 10.5.2 & 10.5.6 you can include all the other rules that deal with a DQ.

Not one of them says anything about an exception to RO interference.

You break the 180, sweep yourself or whatever it's a DQ.

Let me just pose this scenario, as it may or may not happen, but it's possible. The RO, in the mud, tries to keep up with someone, slips and falls as the competitor is attempting navigate something that has the gun in his strong hand out to side. If the RO runs into his arm, let's say flailing to keep himself upright, and by chance literally knocks the gun out of his hand - would you fault the competitor for not being able to anticipate the karate chop that was coming?

Yes, it's a little devils advocacy and a huge "what if", but does expose a way that an RO could possibly cause a DQ. Personally, I think after that - I might just want to sit down and not finish the match.

They stress this in the RO classes: The shooter is responsible for the gun.

The rules do provide for a possible exception -- by way of an arbitration.

That said, I've seen a fair number of stages, and competitor's runs on those stages, and I've never seen anything like this....

I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over this scenario....

[kevin c]

I, at least, was not talking about not issuing a DQ if the shooter, before being interfered with by the RO, had already broken the 180. I was bringing up the (perhaps unlikely, perhaps, to some, unwise) decision of the RO to physically block the shooter, and, in doing so, prevents the 180 DQ but also is forced to offer a reshoot because of interference.

Nik is probably right. Time to go to bed, so's I can help put on a charity match this weekend.

[West Texas Granny]

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.

Unfortunately that is where the RO should be. If not then they might as well sit in the stands and yell commands from there.

Funny thing. I just realized why I'm never one of the first shooters. I'm being used as a time out after dealing with all of the young Warp 13 shooters. They move very fast through a COF whereas I kinda of meander through giving the RO a chance to catch their breath. Hmmm. I think some special dispensation is called for..

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Unfortunately that is where the RO should be. If not then they might as well sit in the stands and yell commands from there.

And what would you possibly base that statement on? Have you attended an NROI RO seminar? Recently? Or is this just "how you imagine it should work?"

[lcs]

For purposes of sections 10.3 and 10.4 -- it's the shooter's job to do things like hang onto the gun, control the muzzle direction, not let a round go unintentionally, etc.

Really good shooters, shooting non-standard plans, have briefed me on their intentions on a number of occasions -- to avoid just such a situation....

Evaluating a stage for potential "danger zones" where a DQ is possible, is part of a shooter's prep for the stage....

In your opinion there would never be a case where an RO action could be the cause of a shooter to break the 180 or AD? If so, I for one disagree. A shooter can not anticipate the actions or lack of action of a moveable object such as the RO. How easy would it to be for an inexperienced RO to "be in the way" and not visible to the shooter and hit the shooters arm causing an AD? 99.9% I would agree it is the shooter's responsibility to do all things right.

There is no way I would use 10.3 or 10.4, if I as the RO I caused the shooter to DQ. I have worked Nationals, Area, and local matches so I am speaking from experience and I am also one who believes in the rules.

BTW---How does a shooter prep for the actions of an RO?

Edited October 22, 2011 by lcs

[aztecdriver]

They stress this in the RO classes: The shooter is responsible for the gun.

The rules do provide for a possible exception -- by way of an arbitration.

That said, I've seen a fair number of stages, and competitor's runs on those stages, and I've never seen anything like this....

I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over this scenario....

I'm 100% behind the shooter being 100% responsible for the gun. I'm not advocating a different position, for clarity, but in the world - "stranger things could happen".

I won't lose sleep either...

[West Texas Granny]

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.

Unfortunately that is where the RO should be. If not then they might as well sit in the stands and yell commands from there.

And what would you possibly base that statement on? Have you attended an NROI RO seminar? Recently? Or is this just "how you imagine it should work?"

Oh nothing more than watching a RO block a shooters arm before they could have swept others. That's why they need to be close. For the sake of everyone's safety and I don't need a seminar to understand it.

Edited October 22, 2011 by West Texas Granny

[Poppa Bear]

WTG there is close and there is close. The good RO is close enough to watch for infractions etc. without being so close that they interfere with the shooter. Admittedly part of the learning curve to being an RO is determining how close is close enough. A C class shooter and above is generally comfortable enough with his ability to run the stage that the RO does not need to be an arms distance away just for the oft chance that they might break the 180 and point the gun at the gallery. The brand new shooter tends to be uncomfortable already so it is not out of line for them to unwittingly break the safety rules which might necessitate the need for the RO to grab an arm prior breaking the 180.

A newby that tends to walk the stage as they learn can be followed a lot closer than the GM that is running the stage quicker than you can even run, and they are getting their hits to boot. If that same GM puts on the brakes to came back to engage a target they ran by it is possible for the RO to run into them before they can react to the sudden change of direction.

[juan]

Oh nothing more than watching a RO block a shooters arm before they could have swept others. That's why they need to be close. For the sake of everyone's safety and I don't need a seminar to understand it.

I hope you dont block my arm because I am at 179.9 call me on it or dont. but lets not get physical.