BDH Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 The following incident happened at a local match yesterday. I was not RO'ing, nor was I asked to comment, nor did I volunteer an opinion (following Steve's A's great advice from Saturday that I really needed to occassionally take off my RO hat and put on my shooter's hat. Thanks Steve ). This stage required you to run forward from a start box to grab your gun off a table, then engage a bunch of targets through a port in a big wall segment. However, when you ran forward, you lost the ability to engage six targets on the outsides of the wall segments. Because you had to move forward to get your gun, once you were done at the wall, one plan was to run backwards to be able to engage the targets on the outside of the wall. Nearly everyone on my squad choose this method, and let the RO know what they intended so that he was aware that they would be coming back at him. Everything was running fine until a left handed shooter steps into the start box..... BEEP... shooter runs forward, grabs his gun, engages targets through the wall segments, and then looks over his left shoulder as he starts to run back toward the left rear side of the shooting area (the right handed shooters generally retreated slightly toward the right side of the shooting area). While he immediately started backwards, when he looked over his shoulder the RO was almost right there, so he had to visibly slow down while yelling 'get the hell out of my way!' Anyway, this seriously screwed up his run (in fact it screwed it up enough that he forgot about two low center targets and got whacked with four Mikes, two FTE's, ). The shooter says 'I get a re-shoot right?'. The RO says 'Nope. No contact, no re-shoot'. The shooter is pissed, but just decides that it isn't worth arguing about. So, here is my question, does he deserve a re-shoot or not, but more importantly, what rule applies? In both the 14th and 15th edition rulebooks 8.6.3 covers 'inadvertant physical contact' between the RO and the competitor. In this case, there was NO physical contact, but it was clear to everyone who saw this, that the RO did 'interfere' with the competitors run. I know how I would have handled it, but I am not sure that I have a rule that I can back up my decision. On one hand, we can not have RO's getting in the way of shooters and screwing up their run.... OTOH, we can't have shooters saying we 'interfered with them' when there was no contact, and no real interference.... I would hate to think that the only solution for the shooter is not to slow down and just knock the RO down, but I don't see any other way around this. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Tough call. While I agree in principle that he was "interfered" with, the rule is physical contact and therefore, no reshoot. Just my two Lincolns. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glockman30 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 If I was the RO, I would give the Reshoot. Because I caused him to slow down, and he was being safe. GIVE THE RESHOOT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerT Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Boy, that is a tough call. I would say the shooter showed good judgment by not making contact, when it sounds like he could have, and then gotten the reshoot for sure. By slowing down, and not running into the RO, he avoided what could be a dangerous situation. Comes down, once again, to since I didn't see it I can't say. However, I think I would have given him the reshoot, rather than encourage the shooter to play NFL lineman with a hot gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Reshoot - Range Malfunction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Just FYI... in the approved-but-not-yet-in-effect 2004 rules for USPSA, the word "physical" was removed from 8.6.3 for specifically this reason. If the RO sneezes, or falls, or ... in some other way affects the ability of the shooter to have a fair run at the stage, he may offer a reshoot whether there was physical contact or not. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Hi guys, My esteemed colleague, Mr. Gary, the Distiguished Gentleman from the great State of Washington, is correct - a reshoot should be offered. The current rule is: 8.6.3 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. "Another external influence" would include an animal running onto the stage while the competitor is making his attempt at the course of fire or a spectator yelling something too loudly, and the competitor in either case noticeably hestitates or is visibly distracted etc. The case at hand is a no-brainer and, if the RO refused to offer a reshoot, the competitor should have appealed to the CRO and/or RM (and I hope it would not need to go to Arbitration). Hope this helps. POSTSCRIPT: For the history buffs, the rule amendment was driven by an Arbitration on which I served at a Level III match in the Philippines a fews back. A contender for the Open Division title was having a blazing run, when his coach screamed out something like "RUN FORREST, RUN". The competitor stopped and looked at the RO who he thought had said something. At that time, we could not award a reshoot due to the "physical contact" requirement in the rule. Obviously we're cognizant of the possibility that people may try to manipulate the new rule by yelling out "GO GONZO" when a competitor is having a bad run, and this is why the words "may offer" are used. It's a case-by-case call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herky Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 I happened to shoot this match, which was a very good overall match, the stage was one that did require backing up. While not an unsafe act, the RO should be aware that the shooter is going to do just that. I vote re-shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 I agree with Vince; even under the old rules a reshoot should be offered in this case. While the interference was not physical, there was interference in the competitor's attempt at the course of fire. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 Bruce/Vinnie/Troy, okay, the four of us are ALL on the same page and in full agreement. However, when I was walking to the next stage with the shooter (and he asked my opinion), I did tell him that I would have made a different decision. However, under the 14th edition, what rule supports my re-shoot position? Also, I want someone to define what 'inadvertent contact' is (maybe this should be a seperate post?). Last year at the Bend Nats I had 'inadvertant contact' twice between a very experienced shooter, and inexperiencd RO. After the second re-shoot there was no more 'inadvertent contact' but that was because I took the timer and ran the shooter..... So, what is (and is not) considered 'inadvertent contact'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 After the second re-shoot there was no more 'inadvertent contact' but that was because I took the timer and ran the shooter.....So, what is (and is not) considered 'inadvertent contact'? Bruce's opinion? After the second occurance, the question changes to "what is (and is not) considered unsportsmanlike conduct?" Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 (edited) IMO, inadvertent contact means that the RO and competitor collided somehow, either because the RO was following too closely, or the competitor did something sudden and unexpected. The RO has to watch more than just the gun, especially when the competitor is moving and NOT shooting. Most of the cases I've seen have been when the competitor went prone and accidentally kicked the RO or something like that. Most of the time, the competitor doesn't notice it, but the RO should still offer a reshoot. I'll second Bruce on the unsportsmanlike conduct thing. There is a point when the contact is not inadvertent. Troy Edited June 8, 2004 by mactiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul B Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 I also shot the stage BDH is talking about and knowing the physical set up of the stage, getting an RO in your sight line would certainly be a cause for the shooter to pause because there were some other obstacles in the stage (namely a large table) that you had to avoid. I would certainly give a reshoot in those circumstances. It's to everyones benefit to not get the RO near your sightline and I would rather the stage got shot again than have some form of accident occur - letter of the law or not. I really like the way the new rule is written as it will hopefully slow down on some of the "trigger" or "muzzle" shouts I still hear every once in a while. I don't believe the RO should be saying anything to the shooter except the range commands or "stop" for a DQ. By the way BDH no one in my squad backed up to shoot this stage. Was it faster that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 By the way BDH no one in my squad backed up to shoot this stage. Was it faster that way? Paul, most of us followed Uncle Bill's recommendation of 'running back is faster than going to both sides because it is one movement vs. two movements'. Since I don't generally move fast in ANY direction, I moved back to the right side, and then across to the left side. Dave has the scoresheets, so he should be able to tell us which was faster. One thing I will say is GREAT stage (and if I am not mistaken, it was yours!).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul B Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Glad you enjoyed it, but it wasn't my stage. Mine was the one with all the steel that bit me in the a$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 Glad you enjoyed it, but it wasn't my stage. Mine was the one with all the steel that bit me in the a$$. Okay Paul, THAT stage I shot slow and made sure I got my hits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 So, what is (and is not) considered 'inadvertent contact'? For "inadvertent" read "any contact other than the RO intentionally stopping a competitor" (i.e. as a prelude to a match DQ). I'll second Bruce on the unsportsmanlike conduct thing. There is a point when the contact is not inadvertent. Quite possibly, but on this I must reserve judgement. As BDH explained, he took over the timer and managed to avoid contact with the same competitor, eventhough BDH confesses he's not exactly "fleet of foot" (due to a heavy light sabre) Sometimes it's the competitor, sometimes it's a slow RO. Tough call, but we probably all know which it is when we see it. I really like the way the new rule is written as it will hopefully slow down on some of the "trigger" or "muzzle" shouts I still hear every once in a while. I don't believe the RO should be saying anything to the shooter except the range commands or "stop" for a DQ. Your dislike of warning calls noted, however such calls are specifically exempted from subsequent appeals for a reshoot: 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. Of course application of this rule varies from RO to RO but, when used, the RO is trying to prevent the competitor from causing danger to others and getting disqualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul B Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Yeah Vince, I know what the rule is and I live with it, but I can't help lobbying whenever I can because I think it is potentially unsafe. Sorry to take this thread on a tangent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 I'll second Bruce on the unsportsmanlike conduct thing. There is a point when the contact is not inadvertent. Quite possibly, but on this I must reserve judgement. As BDH explained, he took over the timer and managed to avoid contact with the same competitor, eventhough BDH confesses he's not exactly "fleet of foot" (due to a heavy light sabre) Sometimes it's the competitor, sometimes it's a slow RO. Tough call, but we probably all know which it is when we see it. I agree, Vince. I would not be too quick to call a DQ for it, but there have been some suspicious "inadvertent contact" incidents. But, most of the time, the RO is too close. Besides, running into BDH on purpose would be counter productive--probably hurt, too. You'd have to look back and up to see where he was looking, anyway. That would be way too obvious. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Troy, Hell, given the reported size of BDH, we may need to amend the interference rule to deal with "Competitor stops due to suspected solar eclipse" Sorry, Brian, I couldn't resist ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Ok, now you owe me $5 for pants cleaning! I can just see some shooter saying: "WTF, who turned out the lights!" Brian, love ya man, but you do make a better door than a window. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman33_99 Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 "Competitor stops due to suspected solar eclipse" ROFLMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 I would have granted reshoot because the shooter was saying "get out of my way" then resumed shooting Do we really want a shooter shooting with a RO downrange? PS I got a reshoot once when this happened to me. I backed up and being kind of fleet of foot had the RO about 1 foot forward of me. I kept gun pointed to left and when he backed up, I engaged target on right. He backed up in a kind of "C"shape real fast. When I completed stage I asked him, you know I had to wait to re-engage that target. After he checked his pants, I got a reshoot. I think Steve should have got a re-shoot. My 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 As BDH explained, he took over the timer and managed to avoid contact with the same competitor, eventhough BDH confesses he's not exactly "fleet of foot" (due to a heavy light sabre) Heavy light saber? Oh boy, could I comment here. Vince, we have got to talk some time as I can't comment online! And preferably over cold adult beverages..... Brian, love ya man, but you do make a better door than a window. Troy, love you too man... but you do 'talk funny'... One of the funniest things I have ever heard (and of course, YOU had to be there) was when Gary was strapped in watching his big NASCAR race, and you were checking email on my machine. Not sure if you remember or not, but I walked back into my office and said "Troy, you're missing it. There was a big crash." Your response was something like "F*ck em, I hope they all crash!" I know you did not mean it, but with no hesitation that rolled off you tongue in that 'Loosianna' drawl..... That almost cost you $5 bucks but I was able to maintain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 I would have granted reshoot because the shooter was saying "get out of my way" Speedy Seevers, GREAT shooting with you two days in a row, and glad to see you back! Regarding this issue..... how do we deal with a shooter yelling 'get out of my way' and then requesting a re-shoot when the RO really was not in their way? I think Steve should have got a re-shoot. And I fully agree.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now