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" 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? Brian Thanks Day 2 was just a little better than day 1 huh? I fully understand the current rules and glad its addressed in new rule book. Yes I guess some will cheat but I think unsportsman like conduct call is not out of line for that behavior. I know its not a perfect answer but people that would "pull" that kind of behavior don't need to be around. As you and I know that was "interference" and when its not. Oh I can't believe I said that. I hate when officials must use "judgement" to make a call I wish I could come up with a better answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 Thanks Day 2 was just a little better than day 1 huh? Yes, it was... and at the Summer Blast, I am going to shoot all A's!!! Well, I could drop a point or two, but as I learned from Steve A, I HAVE to see myself shooting ALL A's.... so right now, that is all I am seeing.... Sorry for the drift..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 My guess is if you yell DUCK! that might get the RO to yell STOP! and then you're good to go on the reshoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 <Slight thread drift w/ a little rant thrown in for good measure mode on> I remember reading a post several months ago that addressed the touchy issue of Us vs. Them. This story from BDH reminds me of that post. When the RO is asked, I'll assume with a polite tone, by the shooter for a reshoot based on the actions of the RO and the RO is either stubborn or too embarassed to admit they made an error, this is how the Us vs. Them keeps going. I know we have rules that must be followed and not make or add them as we see fit, but unless this was a match with $ or prizes involved, give the shooter the break and let him reshoot. Otherwise, I think next time this lefty has this happen he will initiate contact. <Slight thread drift w/ a little rant thrown in for good measure mode off> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Sounds like the new rule will be an improvement. But, the question still seems to remain... What rule supports a reshoot under the current USPSA rulebook (red 14th edition)? From what has been posted (too late for me to dig out my red book), I don't think the interference call supports the reshoot? However, Reshoot - Range Malfunction I think the shooter could make a valid arguement that he wsn't presented with the same COF as the rest of the shooters (who didn't have an RO act as a hurdle)?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 What rule supports a reshoot under the current USPSA rulebook (red 14th edition)? 8.6.3. No physical, verbal, visual or any other assistance or interference ...... The RO clearly and unjustifiably hindered the competitor, and this is evident by the competitor yelling "get out of my way". The ancient 8.6.3 just gave one example (i.e. physical contact), but Rule 8.6.1 set the tone for Section 8.6. There has also never previously been a specific rule which says "If a tornado is heading straight for the range, the RM can suspend shooting and get everybody the hell outta there" either, but I'm sure you'll accept that it's a given Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 There has also never previously been a specific rule which says "If a tornado is heading straight for the range, the RM can suspend shooting and get everybody the hell outta there" either, but I'm sure you'll accept that it's a given As long as I get a reshoot (Sorry couldn't resist) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Arvid, Anybody who can holster a shotgun is a star in my book so, yes, I'd give you a reshoot if you were hit by a tornado, but I'd like to see a real Flying Dutchman first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 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 Just a comment, I think that this is a GOOD rule change. To those that think I find only problems, here is one I did not see, and you know what? I like the change. Not all rules are bad, not all changes are bad. THis is the type of correction we as shooters want to see. I thnk it is generally called Common Sense, and while we all know it cannot be legislated, it is nice to see positive change. Vince, You said this came out of an Arb you were involved in, Well hang on to your hat! Good Job! Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Vince...again, good change in the NEW book. But, the current (Red, 14th edition) USPSA rule book doesn't seem to allow the reshoot on those particular grounds. 8.6 is the section for Assistance or Interference. 8.6.1 defines it. 8.6.2 deals with what to do in case of... (no mention of reshoots) 8.6.3 addresses "physical contact" I don't see where we can give a reshoot under 8.6.x for anything other than actual "physical contact". But, I agree the shooter is getting the short end of the stick under those rules, and should get a reshoot. We still have quite a few Major matches (and tons of locals) that wil be run under the red book...lets dig thru it and find a way to grant a reshoot? I think L2S was half-joking and half-serious when he said REF, but I think it could apply. Our current 4.5.1 Range Equipment and other issues starts: Range equipment shall present the challenge as fairly as possible to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes but in not limited to... I think I would look to give the reshoot under 4.5.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 As a Range Officer, I resent the implication that I'm a just piece of range equipment, which can be used, abused and discarded like so many paper targets or a broken popper. ROs have feelings too, ya know? Seriously, it's up to you, but you've got Troy McManus (USPSA RMI) and I (IROA RMI) both advising you that the subject case was indeed RO interference which justified the offer (not ordering) of a reshoot. If you'd like a third opinion (and definitive ruling in respect of the current USPSA rulebook), then obviously John Amidon is your man. In fact, if you ask him quick enough, he might even publish the Q&A in the next issue of Front Sight or, worst case, in his NROI section of the USPSA Member's Guestbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 The 8.6 section of the 14th USPSA rule book, as Vince has cited, pretty much deals with this question, although it does not specifically list a remedy for interference other than physical contact by the RO. But, in the case of interference, as noted in 8.6.1 and 8.6.2, being initiated by the RO, who cannot be penalized with a procedural, common sense dictates that the competitor MUST be offered a reshoot, because he did not get the same opportunity to "solve the problem" as the other competitors that the RO did not interfere with. The competitor does not earn a procedural for this, either. Since, under 8.6.2, the RO can issue a procedural to the competitor, at his discretion, it stands to reason that he can issue a reshoot when the competitor was interfered with by the RO (or a sonic boom, or bolt of lightning, or a bee sting, or anything else that interferes with his opportunity to shoot the course of fire.) And, that discretion has to cut both ways. If the RO suspects that the competitor is trying to gain a reshoot because he was having a bad run, the RO must make that decision, too. It's not always cut and dried, we do have to think from time to time. Just my opinion, of course. JA would have the final say. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Vince and Troy, I don't see it. (it's not in the verbage) You are using common sense and reason. Heck, if that were the case, we wouldn't need the rule book. If I were sitting on an arb committee and the shooter was asking for a reshoot under 8.6.x, and the RO insisted there was no contact, then I can't see where I could vote for a reshoot. (No matter how much sense it made.) If they asked under 4.5 Range Equipment Failure and other issues, then I could see granting the reshoot. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 If they asked under 4.5 Range Equipment Failure and other issues, then I could see granting the reshoot. ??? Yea, Like I said originally, if the RO is in the way, regardles of contact, it is a range malfunction. The RO being in the way can change the range significantly and present the shooter with a totally different shooting challenge than the other competitors. The RO is part of the range equiptment as far as I'm concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Well, except for the part about being called "part of the range equipment", I suppose you could lump RO being in the way in with the rest of that. But, you'd then be using common sense again. Damn, I hate when that happens. I personally don't consider myself part of the range equipment. Part of the stage, yes, but not one of the props. Of course, there are competitors that think the RO's are part of the props. Of course, you could always say, "Sorry, bud, but I bumped you back there when I was getting out of your way. Would you like a reshoot?" It'll all be moot once the new rules are in effect, anyway. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Y'all don't have to be Range Equipment...you can be an "other issue" . (I don't think anybody is reading that part??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Potayto, Potahto. Either way, it's a reshoot, right? Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 I dunno? I can't see it as a reshoot under 8.6.x I would hope we could give the reshoot under 4.5.1, but if nobody wants to be called Range Equipment...nor "other issues"...then where else can we grant the reshoot? (Yeah...tater/toter...just looking to iron out the details...we have a Major Match in 5 days...looking to cover the bases) 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