RO's should provide good customer service

[A45100]

At the risk of starting a real firestorm I'm going to throw this out there and see what happens, but after reading some of the "rules" posts today I think this might be a timely topic.

I've been an RO since 2002 and a CRO since 2007, in that amount of time I managed to find myself being known for DQing a lot of shooters at the majors. All were legitimate DQ's but did some of them need to be called. I had to pleasure of working with a Range Master Instructor at the Multi-Gun this year and it really opened my eyes and has changed the way I think. Legitimate safety DQ's will still get called but now I got about officiating a match more like a Flight Attendant. The first job a flight attendant has is SAFETY of the the passengers and crew, second is Customer Service, ensuring everyone has an enjoyable flight. I took that philosophy to a recent area match where I was a CRO. Yes I DQ'd a legitimate safety violation but I let some questionable violations slide, if they had gone a bit further they would have taken care of themselves anyway. I worked more on stage management, keeping the squads flowing, rotating the RO's between chores and helping each shooter feel like they were welcomed and appreciated on our stage.

Now for the question, how would you respond to officiating like this, would you be more willing to work the stage, taping, resetting steel, etc and would that make you want to shoot more major matches? Your comments are appreciated.

[Jammer1911]

Controversial to say the least. Customer Service is part of ensuring the safety of all the competitors, staff and visitors. I think that if you are paying attention and providing for safety, most (Not all) issues can be caught and remedied before they become DQable offenses. I say most because some shooters are just to fast. "Not hatin just sayin!"

"stage management, keeping the squads flowing, rotating the RO's between chores and helping each shooter feel like they were welcomed and appreciated on our stage." These things must always happen regardless of anything else. The competitors paid good money to be at the match. (Does not mean they can abuse the staff either)

JMHO

[TreblePlink]

I've always felt that serious safety issues are priority one, minor/uncertain issues can be a judgement call, but one certainly should not be spring-loaded to zing shooters. It's my job to manage the stage / squad.

[MarkCO]

It all hinges on what you mean by "questionable violations". Some go too far with being a Rules Nazi, some go to far by letting things go that should be called or DQ'd because they don't want to make anyone feel bad.

At a major last year, an MD allowed a shooter with an egregious DQ to shoot the remainder of the match for "no score" oblivious to the libility bought in the hope of making someone feel better. WRONG!

At another major last year, I watched an RO actually use a port-a-pottie as a shield while trying to land himself a DQ on a group of shooters. WRONG!

Don't be extreme, be just, impartial and polite. Customer service can be looked at differently when you are officiating vs. before and after a squad runs your stage. A good squad who works and does not have to be "yelled at" to work makes everything better and improves the customer service aspect for all.

Some examples of "poor" customer service include; changing the walk through to point out mistakes made by previous shooters thereby altering the consistency, using inconsistent (and wrong) range commands, running stages with in a match in varying ways, getting baited into an argument with a competitor, caving in to whining, especially from a "top" shooter.

[blairmckenzie1]

Rules are rules. Every shooter should know the rules and it's the RO's job to enforce them. That being said there is no reason why an RO cant be cordial, friendly and efficient. Good RO's add to a match. Poor RO's ( those who are hesitant to hand a shooter a ticket home) take away from their own credibility and the credibility of the match.

Edited May 22, 2012 by blairmckenzie1

[ac4wordplay]

Rules are rules. Every shooter should know the rules and it's the RO's job to enforce them. That being said there is no reason why an RO cant be cordial, friendly and efficient. Good RO's add to a match. Poor RO's ( those who are hesitant to hand a shooter a ticket home) take away from their own credibility and the credibility of the match.

Well said. Although I have a hard time believing that we can expect a shooter to know all the rules, much less every shooter know all the rules. Anything that can send them home? Yes, they should know that list.

As a CRO/RO, for every competitor:

Was there a violation (even if it's outside the CoF)?

if "yes", then apply the penalty (e.g.: procedural, bump to Open, DQ, etc.) per the rule book.

To do anything else unethically influences match results (even if it's down at 120th place). Any competitor who doesn't receive the rulebook stipulated penalty for his/her violation is receiving an unfair advantage over everyone who competes without violating rules (how's that for customer service?!).

One should be courteous - there's no need to be an ass - but it needs to be done. If an official thinks there are 'insignificant' or 'non-safety' violations (which the rulebook penalizes with a DQ), and that official doesn't want to issue the DQ (i.e.: doesn't want to enforce the rulebook), then that official should take action to change the next rulebook so that the (perceived) 'insignificant'/'non-safety' actions are not defined as violations warranting a DQ, AND either enforce the current rulebook, OR step down as an official until he/she can consistently enforce the rulebook in these (and all) issues..

This has nothing to do with customer service in terms of running the stage efficiently, consistently, working well with your ROs, getting competitors to re-set the stage (well... see below), etc.

In response to the OP's question:

As a competitor, if I witnessed an official disregard a violation and fail to apply the rulebook penalty, I may be less inclined to put effort into re-setting the stage. Particularly if the recipient of this benefit was my direct competition. Additionally, even if I was the recipient of the benefit, I would now believe the RO's knowledge of the rules and/or compliance with the rulebook, and/or consistency, was less than desirable - not a good official. I may also be less inclined to participate in majors.

Respectfully,

ac

[Poppa Bear]

It is a fine line between being courteous and meddling in the matches outcome. You notice that the shooters gun is on the edge of being knocked out of the holster as they move into the start position, or that the holster has come unlocked. Do you warn them, or do you let it go and prepare to DQ them? Just as the buzzer goes off the wind kicks a big cloud of dust and debris up in the middle of the COF. Do you stop the shooter until it clears or do you let them go and hope nothing gets knocked over and that the shooter can see OK when they shoot in or through the middle of the dust cloud? How is that different than the morning squad shooting in the rain and the afternoon squad shooting in perfect conditions?

[High Lord Gomer]

One ofr the things I like about the USPSA rules are that they are clear and don't create the possibility for borderline DQ-able offenses. Either an action is a DQ-able offense or it isn't.

Along the lines of what Poppa Bear posted, I do try to keep shooters from DQing themselves as long as it is outside the COF and doesn't provide one an advantage not afforded another. As an example, if a shooter comes to the line and in the confusion of activities starts to reach for his gun, if the range is clear and it is OK to make ready, I will say Make Ready before they have a chance to draw their gun and DQ themselves. Afterwards I will warn them about what almost happened but I won't watch and wait for someone to commit an offense if it can be avoided.

[AlamoShooter]

Its the Shooter that DQs the RO only provides the witness. In the case of a 180 violation it should be called at the instant it happens Not after the shooter finishes the stage.

I can not think of any action on the ROs part that causes a shooter to DQ.

When I decide to pick up a timer or score pad I will do it to the best of my ability or I will not do it.

It must be fair for every one or its not a fair match.

its not Fun when the shooters can see someone get away with rule & safety violations to make that one shooter happy.

Edited May 22, 2012 by AlamoShooter

[Graham Smith]

We have had this discussion at my club on more than one occasion. Most RO's will say that they hate to DQ a shooter. Yes, they know that THEY are not doing it - the shooter is. But they still feel bad about doing it. And that last is the key. You penalize someone when you must. Be it a procedural or a DQ, you do it if you have to, not because you can.

[Chuck Anderson]

At the risk of starting a real firestorm I'm going to throw this out there and see what happens, but after reading some of the "rules" posts today I think this might be a timely topic.

I've been an RO since 2002 and a CRO since 2007, in that amount of time I managed to find myself being known for DQing a lot of shooters at the majors. All were legitimate DQ's but did some of them need to be called. I had to pleasure of working with a Range Master Instructor at the Multi-Gun this year and it really opened my eyes and has changed the way I think. Legitimate safety DQ's will still get called but now I got about officiating a match more like a Flight Attendant. The first job a flight attendant has is SAFETY of the the passengers and crew, second is Customer Service, ensuring everyone has an enjoyable flight. I took that philosophy to a recent area match where I was a CRO. Yes I DQ'd a legitimate safety violation but I let some questionable violations slide, if they had gone a bit further they would have taken care of themselves anyway. I worked more on stage management, keeping the squads flowing, rotating the RO's between chores and helping each shooter feel like they were welcomed and appreciated on our stage.

Now for the question, how would you respond to officiating like this, would you be more willing to work the stage, taping, resetting steel, etc and would that make you want to shoot more major matches? Your comments are appreciated.

The funny thing is I knew who posted this, even without having to look up his name in the D-base. Same Area match I had a shooter I was running. I was 95% sure he had his finger on the trigger when clearing a malfunction. (for like 20 seconds, it was a loooooonnnnnngggg time). The way the stage was laid out, I couldn't see the right side of his gun because of a wall, and I couldn't get around to the left side because I'd be looking down the muzzle, not where I want to stand with someone doing what I thought he was doing. He stayed in the match with a brief mention once he was done shooting. If it's a safety violation I'm sure of, that person will receive a DQ. If I'm not sure it's a violation, no DQ.

But yes, Customer Service is a great way to look at that. RO's should ensure safety first and that everyone is having a good time second.

[Nuke8401]

It's a competition with known rules.

Failure to enforce those rules affects the outcome.

I know I want the outcome of every match I shoot to be based on my performance (time-penalties).

The time part is easy, but the penalties part can be affected by the RO, which is not what I want. My experience is more with IDPA where the SO can really impact the outcome.

I don't think ROs are seen as good/bad when they make hard calls supported by the rules as long as they are professional, treat all shooters the same and with respect.

If I wanted to compete in a judged competition I would enter a beauty pageant.

[whitedog]

I just became an R.O. My belief is that safety comes first. After that I apply the rules to the actions of the shooter. If I know with certainty that an infraction occured, we apply whatever rule covers it. If I'm not positive, then no call. I also believe as an R.O. it is my job to not make a shooters day worse. I believe in smiling and saying hello. Be nice. And if he did well, after range is clear, I will say nice shooting. Everyone likes to hear it now and again.

[MarkCO]

If I'm not positive, then no call.

If you are not positive, then no call is good for some things, but for most, you are supposed to make the call and then the RM can support the call or overturn it.

[sfchorn]

If I'm not positive, then no call.

If you are not positive, then no call is good for some things, but for most, you are supposed to make the call and then the RM can support the call or overturn it.

Not completely sure I agree with you there. I have to be positive I saw an infraction before I'll stop a competitor.

The competitor either committed the infraction or he didn't - not ALMOST committed it. I either saw the infraction, or I didn't - not ALMOST saw it.

I will agree that if at any point I believe safety to be compromised or the competitor's ability to have a fair run is compromised, stopping the run is a good idea. As much as we hate reshoots, it is better than some possible alternatives.

[aztecdriver]

If I'm not positive, then no call.

If you are not positive, then no call is good for some things, but for most, you are supposed to make the call and then the RM can support the call or overturn it.

Yeah - I'd have to see what these things would be. I'm thinking you are referring to scoring issues, sig. advantage procedural calls, and the like.

Still, you need to be 100% of the call. Make the initial call, then support it by referring to the rulebook. My least favorite discussion comes when an RO comes back and says "I think you faulted back there."

I'm going to give you benefit of the doubt on your post and assume you weren't referring to a DQ call. I don't want to be the RM that has to question my RO and hear something "I'm 90% sure his finger was on the trigger, blah" It will be my job to deal with it, but I'd rather have the confidence that the RO is absolutely certain a safety violation occurred.

BTW, The customer service portion of the entire sport comes when you consider one word, professionalism. It encompasses everything that match officials need, from efficiency and stage management (be prepared) to dealing with issues and disagreements, as well as knowledge. If one keeps in mind the match is not about being an official but providing a professional environment for the match, the rest falls into place. Whether you are an RO, CRO, RM or MD. I always think about that line from Oceans 11 - "He's got to like you then forget you the moment you've left his side."

[Mitch Harrington]

I couldn't agree more about "customer service" and professionalism. As an RO, it is my job to make sure the shooter is given what he is needed to be successful on the stage I am working. It is my job to make sure every shooter has the EXACT same opportunity on my stage as every other shooter. It is also my job to make sure there are no rules violations, which include safety AND equipment.

I had a very recent experience at a Level II match that was pretty bad. It had been raining so we were bagging targets all morning. The rain had let up when we got to our third stage of the day and the bags had been removed. About half the targets had the heads cut-off. After the ad hoc stage briefing (half read and half adlibbed), the "RO" asked for any questions. I asked if they were about to replace targets. He stated they weren't and turned around to walk off. I mentioned the heads were missing from the targets and he called for the other "RO" to get a "hurt feelings report" for me to fill out. I made a few comments that were in no way helpful to the situation and asked him to call for the MD. The MD was very professional and promptly replaced the targets.

At ULSC, the "RO" rattled through his ad hoc commands. I held the slide open for around 45 seconds before he finally told me to hammer down and holster. The "RO" then "accidently" hit the review button instead of calling out the time like he had for the previous shooters. As he reviewed the timer, the low battery warning popped up. A few seconds later he "accidently" hit the start button which erased my time, so I had to reshoot the stage.

I had every intent of filing a complaint with NROI until I found out this guy isn't a certified RO. This didn't come as a big surprise.

ETA: This was not a Level II match as I originally thought. This was a Level I "specialty" match with dedicated RO's and a prize table.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Mitch Harrington

[pjb45]

A45100

Your question: Now for the question, how would you respond to officiating like this, would you be more willing to work the stage, taping, resetting steel, etc and would that make you want to shoot more major matches? Your comments are appreciated.

Personally, I like the approach. More CROs like you are needed. Good judgement always make for a better match.

Considering the squad I usually shoot with during A2 and WSSSC, there is no question about working the stage. We all work the stage there is no question about it. The RO/CRO has nothing to do with it. Everyone is motivated to help.

During SMM3G, we did have an individual that did not work. I brought it to his attention in what many considered a very polite manner. After the next shooter, he took issue with my request of him to help with working the stage. Unfortunately, I shocked some of my close friends with the tone and tenor of my response, I was quite emphatic that all squad members participate in the working of a stage. Even the ROs explicitly expressed their appreciation of my interaction.

[MarkCO]

If I'm not positive, then no call.

If you are not positive, then no call is good for some things, but for most, you are supposed to make the call and then the RM can support the call or overturn it.

Yeah - I'd have to see what these things would be. I'm thinking you are referring to scoring issues, sig. advantage procedural calls, and the like.

Still, you need to be 100% of the call. Make the initial call, then support it by referring to the rulebook. My least favorite discussion comes when an RO comes back and says "I think you faulted back there."

I'm going to give you benefit of the doubt on your post and assume you weren't referring to a DQ call. I don't want to be the RM that has to question my RO and hear something "I'm 90% sure his finger was on the trigger, blah" It will be my job to deal with it, but I'd rather have the confidence that the RO is absolutely certain a safety violation occurred.

We are in agreement. I would not DQ someone unless I was POSITIVE the safety violation occurred. I "think" I have seen a shooter or two sweep themselves here or there, etc. but did not DQ them. Afterwards I will tell them that it is possible some ROs may have stopped them...and it looked close so just be careful. The vast majority are thankful and re-run it in their head and are appreciative. Basically, any "STOP" had better be right whether it is a DQ, REF, or other. Scoring issues that are again judgement...falling out of the box for a shot and the shot and foot touch looked simultaneous...tie goes to the runner. But the issue of making a call if not positive and then getting help is for things like significant advantage, or is it a penalty per shot or just one. Is that a full diameter hit through the wall or not might even be a spot where I would suggest a newer RO get assistance in the call. But, MAKE THE CALL, and then learn from what the CRO or RM decides or rules. These are all calls which can be retracted and made right. The "STOP" can never be made right if you were wrong.

[dqshooter]

Great topic, is it the RO's fault that a shooter is on the bus,NO! It is the shooters, as an RO i have been put in situations that have caused some discussion about a questionable DQ. What are you to do, it seems like there are three kinds of RO's

1. RO's that won't warn a shooter of anything even new shooters. It has been my experience that they are on a power trip and do nothing to promote our sport. Usually not welcomed back at our range to RO.

2. Middle ground(rigid flexability) sees that someone has made a mistake, fixes it by either DQ or warning taking them aside and letting them know what they did. These RO's ussually know the current rule book and enforce the rulles fairly.

3. Those RO's that are everybodies buddy and let just about anything slide.

I guess the question is wherd do you want to fall into the spectrum at. At major matches within 5 min of being on a stage I can tell as i feel most shooters can, just by the walk thru of how the RO is going to be. Sometimes you have to be the hard ass and but you must always be fair and equal. This goes for a new shooter or GM. My2cents

[jdphotoguy]

An RO does not make a competitor DQ himself, he/she does that all on their own, so this business about RO's laying in wait to DQ someone is BS. I know that during a match if I'm safe and abide by the rules I have nothing to worry about, just like I know if the police setup a speed trap I have nothing worry about unless I'm speeding.

[Poppa Bear]

A lot of how you act is also determined by what level you are working at. Something that you might let slide at a level 1 match with a new shooter learning the game, could be an immediate DQ at a level III match where everybody is now playing with the big boys. Level 1's usually still have time for the RO's to instruct the new guys a bit because they already know all the shooters. Level III it is about moving the shooters through the stage and the RO does not have time to instruct because 90% of the shooters are people they might see once a year if even that.

Sometimes it comes down to how the RO views the shooter. When I run a new shooter I am watching everything to ensure they are keeping it safe, did they put the safety on etc. I try to catch the mistakes before they become a DQ'able offense. The long time shooter I will notice their MR procedure peripherally because it is an automatic thing for them. As the two shooters move through the course I am watching at different levels. The new shooter I am more concerned with safety violations like finger on the trigger, sweeping and 180's as they move. The old shooter I am watching more for 180's around props and getting ahead of the gun as they run past targets. It is harder to DQ the established shooter because by the time you think they did something they have already moved on. The new shooter is so much slower at executing their plan that all their mistakes are readily apparent.

I think if we were to list the DQ's at different levels we would see most established shooters being DQ'ed for dropped guns and high speed 180 violations, and most newer shooters for AD's during loading, unloading or clearing, sweeping themselves while working props, and 180 violations while reloading because muzzle control and USPSA gun handling procedures are not automatic yet.

I should also say that the last 3 DQ's issued in my presence were all for AD's. Established shooter; slide did not go fully into battery so they smacked the slide forward. BANG Established shooter; had a mag malfunction at MR. Dropped the mag and a loose round came out with it. Out of habit they went hammer down. BANG Newer shooter; forgot to drop mag at show clear until AFTER they racked the slide. BANG before I could stop him.

[StealthyBlagga]

Discretion is the mark of an experienced RO. In many non-safety related situations, I may take the Admiral Nelson approach ("I see no ships"). I prefer to give the competitor every chance to get into compliance.

Example: I see a lot of folks who's gun or mags hang away from their body in borderline violation of 5.2.5. I check this using a scoring overlay to eyeball the gap - if the gap looks wider than the short side of the overlay, then I warn them their equipment may need adjusting. One of my ROs once asked "do you want me to get a ruler so we can measure exactly?", to which I replied NO. If I know the exact measurement, then I am obliged to issue a DQ for what is, at the end of the day, a silly and likely inadvertent violation.

Without exception, folks are anxious to adjust their equipment in order to be in compliance. Of course, repeated or egregious violations are a different matter.

[BillD]

I've always apologized to every shooter I've DQ'ed. And I was always certain of what I saw before I shouted STOP

[MarkCO]

I've always apologized to every shooter I've DQ'ed. And I was always certain of what I saw before I shouted STOP

I think I would enjoy your approach to ROing...