Interference

[Nik Habicht]

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?

Cause has nothing to do with it. The shooter is responsible for the gun -- always. Doesn't matter if he drops the gun after a double charge goes off, if debris hits him from another bay and causes him to break the 180, or if a collision with an RO does the same thing. He has a way back into the match -- by way of an arbitration.

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.

I agree with that, but from looking at the rules dispassionately, it really doesn't matter.....

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.

Can't have it both ways Larry -- either you believe in and uphold the rules, or you decide to make stuff up on the fly, because you feel bad about contributing to the situation. If the latter, where does that stop? What other rules do you decide not to enforce? Bare minimum, if you're the RO or CRO on a stage and this situation happens, I'd expect you to confer with the RM.....

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

Sorry, I didn't get that across well. Shooters make a plan for the stage. Occasionally one may decide to approach the stage differently -- i.e. by taking a shortcut, out of bounds, or there may be a very quick but tight position, allowing for a potential sweep of an RO, if the RO's timing isn't impeccable....

I've done the former -- and told an RO to make sure to either follow me out of bounds, or to be very careful in coming around a wall if staying inbounds -- and I've had GMs who were fleeter of foot and had an aggressive plan warn me about the latter. That stage involved lateral movement into a position where three close targets could be engaged. The position was very tight, and the first target was available from entry. Said GMs point blank told the ROs running the stage that if they weren't right on the shooter's heels coming into that position, they'd better stay slightly uprange in the central hallway, so they wouldn't get swept when the shooter came out.....

The shooter gets to make the plan, but the shooter is also responsible for the gun and the ammo it contains. I'd argue that the shooter has the "highest responsibility" to look out for safety on the stage, and that the RO is there to assist the competitor in completing the stage safely...

[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?"

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.

Right. Cause nothing bad could ever happen, when an RO blocks a shooter holding a gun. No way that ever ends in an accident....

[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?

Cause has nothing to do with it. The shooter is responsible for the gun -- always. Doesn't matter if he drops the gun after a double charge goes off, if debris hits him from another bay and causes him to break the 180, or if a collision with an RO does the same thing. He has a way back into the match -- by way of an arbitration.

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.

I agree with that, but from looking at the rules dispassionately, it really doesn't matter.....

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.

Can't have it both ways Larry -- either you believe in and uphold the rules, or you decide to make stuff up on the fly, because you feel bad about contributing to the situation. If the latter, where does that stop? What other rules do you decide not to enforce? Bare minimum, if you're the RO or CRO on a stage and this situation happens, I'd expect you to confer with the RM.....

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

Sorry, I didn't get that across well. Shooters make a plan for the stage. Occasionally one may decide to approach the stage differently -- i.e. by taking a shortcut, out of bounds, or there may be a very quick but tight position, allowing for a potential sweep of an RO, if the RO's timing isn't impeccable....

I've done the former -- and told an RO to make sure to either follow me out of bounds, or to be very careful in coming around a wall if staying inbounds -- and I've had GMs who were fleeter of foot and had an aggressive plan warn me about the latter. That stage involved lateral movement into a position where three close targets could be engaged. The position was very tight, and the first target was available from entry. Said GMs point blank told the ROs running the stage that if they weren't right on the shooter's heels coming into that position, they'd better stay slightly uprange in the central hallway, so they wouldn't get swept when the shooter came out.....

The shooter gets to make the plan, but the shooter is also responsible for the gun and the ammo it contains. I'd argue that the shooter has the "highest responsibility" to look out for safety on the stage, and that the RO is there to assist the competitor in completing the stage safely...

Nik,

I understand your position and what seems a "strict" interpretation of the rule. Stuff happens and that is why rules change or get added to. I may be wrong, but I still would not DQ someone if my action as the RO caused the problem.

[Nik Habicht]

Larry,

I understand, and respect that position. I find the debate interesting -- but suspect that the risk of occurrence in just this manner is extremely low....

And I'm all in favor of the RO/CRO/RM filing/funding (funding not necessary for the RM) the arbitration.....

Depending on circumstances, and the presence of extreme circumstances accompanied by an "appropriate for the situation, even if in violation of rules, response" from the shooter, I might even vote to reinstate if on an arb panel....

It would depend on the examination of the evidence....

[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.

Right. Cause nothing bad could ever happen, when an RO blocks a shooter holding a gun. No way that ever ends in an accident....

in the case I pointed out had the RO not been close enough to block the shooter with loaded firearm and finger on the trigger from sweeping others who knows what damage would have occurred. Anyway I see the RO as part of the COF. In essence a moving fault line you don't cross. After all you must be aware of your surroundings and if not you should not be shooting. Just my belief.

[remoandiris]

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.

Right. Cause nothing bad could ever happen, when an RO blocks a shooter holding a gun. No way that ever ends in an accident....

in the case I pointed out had the RO not been close enough to block the shooter with loaded firearm and finger on the trigger from sweeping others who knows what damage would have occurred. Anyway I see the RO as part of the COF. In essence a moving fault line you don't cross. After all you must be aware of your surroundings and if not you should not be shooting. Just my belief.

An RO has to know the course and their own capabilities. An RO is NOT a fault line. A shooter typically stays BEHIND a fault line. An RO should NEVER get in front of a shooter. And since you agree a shooter "must always be aware of your surroundings", you agree the shooter should know where the 180 is.

And we all have beliefs. Just like we all have opinions. USPSA trained ROs have rules to guide their conduct. Not beliefs, not opinions, just rules.

[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.

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.

Right. Cause nothing bad could ever happen, when an RO blocks a shooter holding a gun. No way that ever ends in an accident....

in the case I pointed out had the RO not been close enough to block the shooter with loaded firearm and finger on the trigger from sweeping others who knows what damage would have occurred. Anyway I see the RO as part of the COF. In essence a moving fault line you don't cross. After all you must be aware of your surroundings and if not you should not be shooting. Just my belief.

It sounds to me like you are operating under the premise that a RO can control a shooter physically when the truth is, they can not. Only bad things can happen if you try to prevent a hard indexing shooter from breaking the 180. Only bad things can happen if you are even close enough to try.

[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.

Right. Cause nothing bad could ever happen, when an RO blocks a shooter holding a gun. No way that ever ends in an accident....

in the case I pointed out had the RO not been close enough to block the shooter with loaded firearm and finger on the trigger from sweeping others who knows what damage would have occurred. Anyway I see the RO as part of the COF. In essence a moving fault line you don't cross. After all you must be aware of your surroundings and if not you should not be shooting. Just my belief.

It sounds to me like you are operating under the premise that a RO can control a shooter physically when the truth is, they can not. Only bad things can happen if you try to prevent a hard indexing shooter from breaking the 180. Only bad things can happen if you are even close enough to try.

Well all I can do is pass on to you what I have seen. If it wasn't for the RO I would have been swept by the muzzle of a loaded gun with a finger on the trigger.

[LT45]

Out of the thousands of shooters that I have run... I can only recall having the opportunity a few times to be in a position to touch the arm of the shooter and prevent them from doing something stupid with their muzzle.. and that was at the end of the C.O.F. after they had stopped moving through the course. I've been swept on several occasions, all of which I let the muzzle pass by me before stopping the shooter. I couldn't have stopped them if I wanted to.. 99% of the time, human reaction times aren't fast enough to catch them before they break the 180.

Now on a stand and shoot stage it could be easier to prevent.

[Skydiver]

For advocates of being close enough "to control the shooter", does that mean that if you hear the shooter fire a squib, you are going to grab the gun from the shooter, or try to put your thumb between the hammer and slide to prevent them from firing that next shot? Or is "control" exerted only in terms of muzzle direction?

I believe in standing back and giving the shooter enough room to shoot the stage because that is how it's supposed to be in the USPSA/IPSC context.

[ I will admit to having witnessed an incident when a SO/RO controlled a shooter and was really glad that he did. It was an indoor man-on-man plates shoot. SO/RO are stationed to make sure shooters unload and show clear, and hammer down after each run. A new shooter was so happy to clear the plate rack and win a heat for the first time after a series of losses that he started to turn towards the peanut gallery to acknowledge the cheers. The SO/RO was a martial artist, does a lot of the instruction for armed and unarmed combat, and very skilled in disarming techniques. He instinctively grabbed the gun and got it out of the shooter's hands before the shooter got past 45 degrees from pointing downrange. The shooter got a very stern talking to about muzzle discipline, followed by a congratulations on his win. ]

[Graham Smith]

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.

Here is a case where this did happen. A shooter was just leaving the shooting box and the RO stepped on the back side of the box. Unfortunately, the box was setting on a hump and the front was not solidly nailed down and it came up and caught the shooters foot and down he went. And when he landed, he lost control of the gun. The RO called it a DQ and then they sent for the MD.

When it was explained to the MD, he was stuck with the issue that the shooter would not have tripped had the shooting box been level and properly nailed down - that was on him and the guys who set up the stage. Technically, it was indeed a DQ because as has been pointed out, the shooter is ultimately responsible for the gun regardless. The MD decided to chalk it up to equipment and RO interference and overrule the DQ. This was a Level I match.

Was this according to the book, I just don't know. 8.6.4. says "However, in the event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply." Note, it says "may" not "shall".

[Skydiver]

Well, off the top of my head, it wasn't run by rulebook because it's the RM, not the MD, who should be making those kinds of calls...

[ima45dv8]

Well, off the top of my head, it wasn't run by rulebook because it's the RM, not the MD, who should be making those kinds of calls...

Not necessarily. See 7.3.1

[ima45dv8]

The MD decided to chalk it up to equipment and RO interference and overrule the DQ.

Given the circumstances, I probably would have done the same thing.

[Skydiver]

Well, off the top of my head, it wasn't run by rulebook because it's the RM, not the MD, who should be making those kinds of calls...

Not necessarily. See 7.3.1

Good point, Mark, about one person wearing both the RM and MD hat!

The RM is concerned with CoFs, safety, and rules including DQ's and arbs (7.1.6), while the MD is concerned with match administration (7.1.7).

[ima45dv8]

And the same person can handle both roles at a Level I.

[Skydiver]

And the same person can handle both roles at a Level I.

And Level II as well.

I'm glad that there are people who step up to be Match Directors. Thanks for all the hard work!

[ima45dv8]

And the same person can handle both roles at a Level I.

And Level II as well.

Made you look!

(which was the point)

[Skydiver]

And the same person can handle both roles at a Level I.

And Level II as well.

Made you look!

(which was the point)

[West Texas Granny]

For advocates of being close enough "to control the shooter", does that mean that if you hear the shooter fire a squib, you are going to grab the gun from the shooter, or try to put your thumb between the hammer and slide to prevent them from firing that next shot? Or is "control" exerted only in terms of muzzle direction?

I believe in standing back and giving the shooter enough room to shoot the stage because that is how it's supposed to be in the USPSA/IPSC context.

[ I will admit to having witnessed an incident when a SO/RO controlled a shooter and was really glad that he did. It was an indoor man-on-man plates shoot. SO/RO are stationed to make sure shooters unload and show clear, and hammer down after each run. A new shooter was so happy to clear the plate rack and win a heat for the first time after a series of losses that he started to turn towards the peanut gallery to acknowledge the cheers. The SO/RO was a martial artist, does a lot of the instruction for armed and unarmed combat, and very skilled in disarming techniques. He instinctively grabbed the gun and got it out of the shooter's hands before the shooter got past 45 degrees from pointing downrange. The shooter got a very stern talking to about muzzle discipline, followed by a congratulations on his win. ]

One must understand the context upon which my remarks are based. For over 20 years one gentleman has been running what amounts to an introductory course to competitive shooting. We lovingly call it IPSC 101. This is not a match where everyone has experience in fact we have many first time shooters regularly at our monthly matches just like the one I pointed out in a preivous post. Therefore when these new shooters are on the COF the RO's are a little closer then what you may see in a sanctioned IPSC or USPSA match.

All I can say is a format like this is a great way to get people interested in the sport of competitive shooting and it's something clubs should consider starting for themselves.

[Thomas H]

One must understand the context upon which my remarks are based. For over 20 years one gentleman has been running what amounts to an introductory course to competitive shooting. We lovingly call it IPSC 101. This is not a match where everyone has experience in fact we have many first time shooters regularly at our monthly matches just like the one I pointed out in a preivous post. Therefore when these new shooters are on the COF the RO's are a little closer then what you may see in a sanctioned IPSC or USPSA match.

All I can say is a format like this is a great way to get people interested in the sport of competitive shooting and it's something clubs should consider starting for themselves.

So, what you are saying is that in the case of an introductory unsanctioned match, the RO treats new shooters as new and helps them through the stage? Sounds perfectly reasonable.

(I note that plenty of clubs do this.)

This, however, is different from official USPSA matches. Which is the context in which your original comments were said.

[remoandiris]

One must understand the context upon which my remarks are based. For over 20 years one gentleman has been running what amounts to an introductory course to competitive shooting. We lovingly call it IPSC 101. This is not a match where everyone has experience in fact we have many first time shooters regularly at our monthly matches just like the one I pointed out in a preivous post. Therefore when these new shooters are on the COF the RO's are a little closer then what you may see in a sanctioned IPSC or USPSA match.

It would have been MUCH better if you had provided this explanation as a precursor to your remarks instead of telling us more than a month after the fact.