Question about arbitration...

[GrumpyOne]

First, let me start off by saying "Any similarities to actual persons, either alive or dead, or any event, be it in the past, present, or future, in the following scenario, is pure coincidence."

If, at a level 1 match, you recognize that a stage is not legal, for one reason or another, doesn't matter what was not legal about it, you mention it to the RM/MD, and they decide not modify the COF or the stage, and you shoot it, ignoring the WSB stating that it was a procedural for not engaging a target in a certain way, as in through a port, when the target was available from another position, and legal to be shot from that other position, per the rule book. When it's scored, you hear and see the procedurals being called out for you not engaging the target through the port, you protest the call, and the RM/MD upholds the penalties, even though he knows the stage was illegal. You call for an arb committee, pay your $100, and you are proven right, and the RM/MD proven wrong. Where does it go from there? Do you get your $100 back? Does the RM/MD get reprimanded? Do you get your money back for the match? Or do you just get the satisfaction of knowing you were proven right, and the frustration of knowing that the RM/MD just cost you $100, when they knew you were right to begin with?

Again, this has not happened, it is just a scenario.

I know there will be those that say, well, it was just a local level 1 match, and you should just let it go.... There will be the ones that say, what are you doing calling for an arb for a level 1 match issue... But the question remains, what happens after?

[sperman]

The fee for a Level 1 match shouldn't be $100.

11.4 Fees

11.4.1 Amount – As set by the Match Organizers, the appeal fee to enable an appellant to appeal to arbitration will be US$100.00 or the equivalent of the maximum individual match entry fee (whichever is lower). An appeal brought by the Range Master in respect of a match issue will not incur a fee.

[ima45dv8]

First, let me start off by saying "Any similarities to actual persons, either alive or dead, or any event, be it in the past, present, or future, in the following scenario, is pure coincidence."

If, at a level 1 match, you recognize that a stage is not legal, for one reason or another, doesn't matter what was not legal about it, you mention it to the RM/MD, and they decide not modify the COF or the stage, and you shoot it, ignoring the WSB stating that it was a procedural for not engaging a target in a certain way, as in through a port, when the target was available from another position, and legal to be shot from that other position, per the rule book. When it's scored, you hear and see the procedurals being called out for you not engaging the target through the port, you protest the call, and the RM/MD upholds the penalties, even though he knows the stage was illegal. You call for an arb committee, pay your $100, and you are proven right, and the RM/MD proven wrong. Where does it go from there? Do you get your $100 back? Does the RM/MD get reprimanded? Do you get your money back for the match? Or do you just get the satisfaction of knowing you were proven right, and the frustration of knowing that the RM/MD just cost you $100, when they knew you were right to begin with?

Again, this has not happened, it is just a scenario.

I know there will be those that say, well, it was just a local level 1 match, and you should just let it go.... There will be the ones that say, what are you doing calling for an arb for a level 1 match issue... But the question remains, what happens after?

First....congratulations for one of the longest run-on sentences in recent history.

Second...the arb fee isn't always $100. It's the match fee or $100 - whichever is lower (see 11.4.1).

Third...1.1.5.1 Level I matches may use shooting boxes and specify where or when specific target arrays may be engaged, and may specify mandatory reloads in short and medium courses only (not in a long course).

The Level I exemption allows a match to specify from where a certain target may be engaged.

Granted, it's poor stage design (that old saw again) if the target was available from somewhere else, but the LI exemption trumps poor stage design.

Having said all that, if the stage was a Long Course (1.2.1.3), it's accepted that the exceptions of 1.51.5.1 don't apply. Shoot 'em as you see 'em.

[Flatland Shooter]

The Level I exemption allows a match to specify from where a certain target may be engaged.

Granted, it's poor stage design (that old saw again) if the target was available from somewhere else, but the LI exemption trumps poor stage design.

Having said all that, if the stage was a Long Course (1.2.1.3), it's accepted that the exceptions of 1.51.5.1 don't apply. Shoot 'em as you see 'em.

Agreed that Rule 1.1.5.1 applies allowing the WSB to limit where specific targets may be engaged, but respectfully disagree with your interpretation that the rule does not apply to a Long Course. I've understood that the Long Course exception only applied to the mandatory reloads and not the use of shooting boxes or requirements on where targets can be engaged.

Rule 1.1.5.1 Level I matches may use shooting boxes and specify where or when specific target arrays may be engaged, and may specify mandatory reloads in short and medium courses only (not in a long course).

Bill

[Poppa Bear]

The general consensus from above is that it only applies to short and medium courses. Long courses do not have the exemption. The comma and the AND have been heavily debated as to its level of restriction.

[Sarge]

The comma and the AND have been heavily debated as to its level of restriction.

That's because the way it is written leaves too much to interpretation. I read it to mean everything applies to all courses except for reloads. That IS how the sentence is written.

[Flatland Shooter]

The general consensus from above is that it only applies to short and medium courses. Long courses do not have the exemption. The comma and the AND have been heavily debated as to its level of restriction.

In a thread on Rule 1.1.5.1 you started last month Skydiver shared a COF named Bonnie or Clyde. Per Skydiver, this was an approved Level 2 stage with 32 rounds that limited which areas you could engage some targets even though they could be seen from additional shooting areas.

I guess I'm asking why they would allow the the WSB to stipulate where the shooter could engage the targets on this stage and we cannot, per your interpretation of the rule, do so in a Level 1 match.

Bonnie or Clyde 20110517.pdf

[ima45dv8]

The general consensus from above is that it only applies to short and medium courses. Long courses do not have the exemption. The comma and the AND have been heavily debated as to its level of restriction.

In a thread on Rule 1.1.5.1 you started last month Skydiver shared a COF named Bonnie or Clyde. Per Skydiver, this was an approved Level 2 stage with 32 rounds that limited which areas you could engage some targets even though they could be seen from additional shooting areas.

I guess I'm asking why they would allow the the WSB to stipulate where the shooter could engage the targets on this stage and we cannot, per your interpretation of the rule, do so in a Level 1 match.

So what does a :Level II-approved CoF have to do with a Level I exemption? Nothing...

This issue has been beat to death and the consensus (including cites from multiple RMIs) is that the Level I exemption/Limitation extends to Long Courses.

Poorly worded -- yes. Fact of life -- yes.

[remoandiris]

If, at a level 1 match, you recognize that a stage is not legal, for one reason or another, doesn't matter what was not legal about it, you mention it to the RM/MD, and they decide not modify the COF or the stage, and you shoot it, ignoring the WSB stating that it was a procedural for not engaging a target in a certain way,

Considering the hypothetical shooter intentionally ignored the WSB in protest of the RM/MD not modifying the course, I might be inclined to DQ him for unsportsmanlike conduct.

[Poppa Bear]

The general consensus from above is that it only applies to short and medium courses. Long courses do not have the exemption. The comma and the AND have been heavily debated as to its level of restriction.

In a thread on Rule 1.1.5.1 you started last month Skydiver shared a COF named Bonnie or Clyde. Per Skydiver, this was an approved Level 2 stage with 32 rounds that limited which areas you could engage some targets even though they could be seen from additional shooting areas.

I guess I'm asking why they would allow the the WSB to stipulate where the shooter could engage the targets on this stage and we cannot, per your interpretation of the rule, do so in a Level 1 match.

The WSB stipulated that the STEEL had to be engaged from a certain distance. Optimal design would have had the steel always available at a safe distance, or hidden once the distance became unsafe. Optimal design would also hide or obscure all targets once the potential for a 180 violation became possible. It is hard enough designing good stages let alone childproofing all of them to a point where it is impossible to commit an unsafe act.

Perhaps 1.1.5 needs to be modified:

Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible available” basis.

1.1.5 (Freestyle) will always be trumped by 10.5 (Unsafe Gun Handling)

Edited August 2, 2012 by Poppa Bear

[GrumpyOne]

If, at a level 1 match, you recognize that a stage is not legal, for one reason or another, doesn't matter what was not legal about it, you mention it to the RM/MD, and they decide not modify the COF or the stage, and you shoot it, ignoring the WSB stating that it was a procedural for not engaging a target in a certain way,

Considering the hypothetical shooter intentionally ignored the WSB in protest of the RM/MD not modifying the course, I might be inclined to DQ him for unsportsmanlike conduct.

How could following the rules per the rulebook be considered unsportsmanlike? If the COF was illegal, you can't DQ someone for unsportsmanlike conduct if the COF should have been thrown out, and it was proved to be illegal by the Arb committee.

Several questions remain unanswered: What happens after the Arb committee rules in your favor?

[GrumpyOne]

First, let me start off by saying "Any similarities to actual persons, either alive or dead, or any event, be it in the past, present, or future, in the following scenario, is pure coincidence."

If, at a level 1 match, you recognize that a stage is not legal, for one reason or another, doesn't matter what was not legal about it, you mention it to the RM/MD, and they decide not modify the COF or the stage, and you shoot it, ignoring the WSB stating that it was a procedural for not engaging a target in a certain way, as in through a port, when the target was available from another position, and legal to be shot from that other position, per the rule book. When it's scored, you hear and see the procedurals being called out for you not engaging the target through the port, you protest the call, and the RM/MD upholds the penalties, even though he knows the stage was illegal. You call for an arb committee, pay your $100, and you are proven right, and the RM/MD proven wrong. Where does it go from there? Do you get your $100 back? Does the RM/MD get reprimanded? Do you get your money back for the match? Or do you just get the satisfaction of knowing you were proven right, and the frustration of knowing that the RM/MD just cost you $100, when they knew you were right to begin with?

Again, this has not happened, it is just a scenario.

I know there will be those that say, well, it was just a local level 1 match, and you should just let it go.... There will be the ones that say, what are you doing calling for an arb for a level 1 match issue... But the question remains, what happens after?

First....congratulations for one of the longest run-on sentences in recent history.

Second...the arb fee isn't always $100. It's the match fee or $100 - whichever is lower (see 11.4.1).

Third...1.1.5.1 Level I matches may use shooting boxes and specify where or when specific target arrays may be engaged, and may specify mandatory reloads in short and medium courses only (not in a long course).

The Level I exemption allows a match to specify from where a certain target may be engaged.

Granted, it's poor stage design (that old saw again) if the target was available from somewhere else, but the LI exemption trumps poor stage design.

Having said all that, if the stage was a Long Course (1.2.1.3), it's accepted that the exceptions of 1.51.5.1 don't apply. Shoot 'em as you see 'em.

Sory, I faled Inglissh.

[sperman]

If, at a level 1 match, you recognize that a stage is not legal, for one reason or another, doesn't matter what was not legal about it, you mention it to the RM/MD, and they decide not modify the COF or the stage, and you shoot it, ignoring the WSB stating that it was a procedural for not engaging a target in a certain way,

Considering the hypothetical shooter intentionally ignored the WSB in protest of the RM/MD not modifying the course, I might be inclined to DQ him for unsportsmanlike conduct.

How could following the rules per the rulebook be considered unsportsmanlike? If the COF was illegal, you can't DQ someone for unsportsmanlike conduct if the COF should have been thrown out, and it was proved to be illegal by the Arb committee.

Several questions remain unanswered: What happens after the Arb committee rules in your favor?

11.4.2 Disbursement – If the Committee’s decision is to uphold the appeal, the fee paid will be returned. If the Committee’s decision is to deny the appeal, the appeal fee and the decision must be forwarded to the National Range Officers Institute (NROI).

[Flexmoney]

I think Grumpy owes you guys $100 !!

[Flatland Shooter]

The general consensus from above is that it only applies to short and medium courses. Long courses do not have the exemption. The comma and the AND have been heavily debated as to its level of restriction.

In a thread on Rule 1.1.5.1 you started last month Skydiver shared a COF named Bonnie or Clyde. Per Skydiver, this was an approved Level 2 stage with 32 rounds that limited which areas you could engage some targets even though they could be seen from additional shooting areas.

I guess I'm asking why they would allow the the WSB to stipulate where the shooter could engage the targets on this stage and we cannot, per your interpretation of the rule, do so in a Level 1 match.

So what does a :Level II-approved CoF have to do with a Level I exemption? Nothing...

This issue has been beat to death and the consensus (including cites from multiple RMIs) is that the Level I exemption/Limitation extends to Long Courses.

Poorly worded -- yes. Fact of life -- yes.

I've always assumed the L1 exemptions were in place so that clubs with limited assets could still put on challenging stages. I've shot at clubs that a window was represented by a 12" by 12" hole in a piece of carboard stapled to a target stand. We could either stipulate in the WSB that certain targets must be engaged through that window or allow true freestyle and let the shooter engage the entire COF from the shooting box.

My reason for pointing out the Level 2 approved COF is that on that stage target engagement on a long course was limited/stipulated within the WSB. Why should that not be permitted at a Level 1 match?

Bill

[remoandiris]

If, at a level 1 match, you recognize that a stage is not legal, for one reason or another, doesn't matter what was not legal about it, you mention it to the RM/MD, and they decide not modify the COF or the stage, and you shoot it, ignoring the WSB stating that it was a procedural for not engaging a target in a certain way,

Considering the hypothetical shooter intentionally ignored the WSB in protest of the RM/MD not modifying the course, I might be inclined to DQ him for unsportsmanlike conduct.

How could following the rules per the rulebook be considered unsportsmanlike? If the COF was illegal, you can't DQ someone for unsportsmanlike conduct if the COF should have been thrown out, and it was proved to be illegal by the Arb committee.

Several questions remain unanswered: What happens after the Arb committee rules in your favor?

So you're saying two wrongs make a right? The shooter PURPOSELY VIOLATED the WSB. How is the NOT unsportsmanlike?

[aztecdriver]

The general consensus from above is that it only applies to short and medium courses. Long courses do not have the exemption. The comma and the AND have been heavily debated as to its level of restriction.

In a thread on Rule 1.1.5.1 you started last month Skydiver shared a COF named Bonnie or Clyde. Per Skydiver, this was an approved Level 2 stage with 32 rounds that limited which areas you could engage some targets even though they could be seen from additional shooting areas.

I guess I'm asking why they would allow the the WSB to stipulate where the shooter could engage the targets on this stage and we cannot, per your interpretation of the rule, do so in a Level 1 match.

So what does a :Level II-approved CoF have to do with a Level I exemption? Nothing...

This issue has been beat to death and the consensus (including cites from multiple RMIs) is that the Level I exemption/Limitation extends to Long Courses.

Poorly worded -- yes. Fact of life -- yes.

1. I avoid level-1 exemptions like the plague. So mostly this doesn't bother me.

2. The consensus is anti english, and as much as I hate to say it until its a ruling, it's merely that. I don't have consensus on the range, I have the rule book and words and the words do not apply that way, at least not how my college English classes applied. This really needs to be addressed as if I need the level 1 exception, it's most likely a long course indoors. Letter to ad forthcoming.

[aztecdriver]

If, at a level 1 match, you recognize that a stage is not legal, for one reason or another, doesn't matter what was not legal about it, you mention it to the RM/MD, and they decide not modify the COF or the stage, and you shoot it, ignoring the WSB stating that it was a procedural for not engaging a target in a certain way,

Considering the hypothetical shooter intentionally ignored the WSB in protest of the RM/MD not modifying the course, I might be inclined to DQ him for unsportsmanlike conduct.

How could following the rules per the rulebook be considered unsportsmanlike? If the COF was illegal, you can't DQ someone for unsportsmanlike conduct if the COF should have been thrown out, and it was proved to be illegal by the Arb committee.

Several questions remain unanswered: What happens after the Arb committee rules in your favor?

So you're saying two wrongs make a right? The shooter PURPOSELY VIOLATED the WSB. How is the NOT unsportsmanlike?

It's not, they took the risk on their score to make a statement. They didn't cheat. You're welcome to call it, I'll gladly arb that at the same time and risk the 20-40 dollars to put it on paper. I'd argue that putting an illegal stage on the ground is unsportsmanlike and the shooter was attempting to rectify it, sacrificing they're own match to do so. That's the definition of sportsmanship as well as fixing issues that bring the sport into disrepute.

You just made the case for adherence to the rule book as what power does your authority under 10.6 come from is you can't follow 1.5?

[Skydiver]

I don't think you can file an appeal about the course design after you've shot the course.

11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by another rule. Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification. However, the commission of the infraction as described by the Range Official is not subject to challenge or appeal. Challenges to the construction or layout of the course, safety, or shooting conditions may not be submitted after the competitor attempts the course of fire. Should a course of fire be changed after the competitor completes the stage, he is entitled to the process under appeals providing that no DQ has occurred.

So the only thing you can appeal after shooting the course is the penalties that you received. I feel that it comes down to: did you follow the WSB or not? (I'll bypass the discussion of bringing in the RM to determine "forbidden actions" which should have happened before getting to the point of needing to arb.)

[LPatterson]

I don't think you can file an appeal about the course design after you've shot the course.

11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by another rule. Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification. However, the commission of the infraction as described by the Range Official is not subject to challenge or appeal. Challenges to the construction or layout of the course, safety, or shooting conditions may not be submitted after the competitor attempts the course of fire. Should a course of fire be changed after the competitor completes the stage, he is entitled to the process under appeals providing that no DQ has occurred.

So the only thing you can appeal after shooting the course is the penalties that you received. I feel that it comes down to: did you follow the WSB or not? (I'll bypass the discussion of bringing in the RM to determine "forbidden actions" which should have happened before getting to the point of needing to arb.)

I'm not sure "after" is the word you wanted to highlight because of the thread where a name shooter was DQed and the COF was thrown out during arb.

The thing empressed upon me several times is that I have a choice of doing things as they were written or be prepared to suffer the consequences. Sometimes knowing you are right is just not worth it. If anyone went to that much trouble just to prove they were right, they would jump to the top of my S list.

[sperman]

I don't think you can file an appeal about the course design after you've shot the course.

11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by another rule. Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification. However, the commission of the infraction as described by the Range Official is not subject to challenge or appeal. Challenges to the construction or layout of the course, safety, or shooting conditions may not be submitted after the competitor attempts the course of fire. Should a course of fire be changed after the competitor completes the stage, he is entitled to the process under appeals providing that no DQ has occurred.

So the only thing you can appeal after shooting the course is the penalties that you received. I feel that it comes down to: did you follow the WSB or not? (I'll bypass the discussion of bringing in the RM to determine "forbidden actions" which should have happened before getting to the point of needing to arb.)

I'm not sure "after" is the word you wanted to highlight because of the thread where a name shooter was DQed and the COF was thrown out during arb.

The thing empressed upon me several times is that I have a choice of doing things as they were written or be prepared to suffer the consequences. Sometimes knowing you are right is just not worth it. If anyone went to that much trouble just to prove they were right, they would jump to the top of my S list.

Larry,

I think the wording of 11.1.2 was changed due to the incident you are referring to.

[remoandiris]

You just made the case for adherence to the rule book as what power does your authority under 10.6 come from is you can't follow 1.5?

That is a VERY good point.

[diehli]

If anyone went to that much trouble just to prove they were right, they would jump to the top of my S list.

If you're saying that if someone went to great lengths to see the Rulebook upheld that you wouldn't be able to be impartial as an RO, I'd ask the NROI to reconsider whether you can fulfill your duties as an RO. That's my job as a fellow RO.

[LPatterson]

If anyone went to that much trouble just to prove they were right, they would jump to the top of my S list.

If you're saying that if someone went to great lengths to see the Rulebook upheld that you wouldn't be able to be impartial as an RO, I'd ask the NROI to reconsider whether you can fulfill your duties as an RO. That's my job as a fellow RO.

That is not what I said, I just wouldn't RO them a second time! There is nothing in the RO Creed that requires me to RO someone that I consider is a flaming Ahole. When you go up the food chain as far as you can go and are told to forget it but you need that last little step and spit in someones face trying to get your own way then that is not fulfilling your job. The proper way to have handled it would have been to shoot it as directed and then written NROI about the RM/MD circumventing the rules for ease of setup. Don't get me started on fulfilling my duties as I did that for 23 years and I got in trouble several times because I thought someone was telling me to do something that I thought was an unlawful order. My instructions were to do as I was told then complain about it later. Oh, I got busted because I didn't follow a drunk supervisors order to GI the latrine floor with my toothbrush at 2AM in the morning.

[aztecdriver]

If anyone went to that much trouble just to prove they were right, they would jump to the top of my S list.

If you're saying that if someone went to great lengths to see the Rulebook upheld that you wouldn't be able to be impartial as an RO, I'd ask the NROI to reconsider whether you can fulfill your duties as an RO. That's my job as a fellow RO.

That is not what I said, I just wouldn't RO them a second time! There is nothing in the RO Creed that requires me to RO someone that I consider is a flaming Ahole. When you go up the food chain as far as you can go and are told to forget it but you need that last little step and spit in someones face trying to get your own way then that is not fulfilling your job. The proper way to have handled it would have been to shoot it as directed and then written NROI about the RM/MD circumventing the rules for ease of setup. Don't get me started on fulfilling my duties as I did that for 23 years and I got in trouble several times because I thought someone was telling me to do something that I thought was an unlawful order. My instructions were to do as I was told then complain about it later. Oh, I got busted because I didn't follow a drunk supervisors order to GI the latrine floor with my toothbrush at 2AM in the morning.

The military is not the USPSA match management structure. It's completely different, so while I highly respect your valiant service to our country - and I'm dead serious about that - with all due respect, lets leave the "chain of command" discussion in USPSA to the relevant, here and now.

Actually, going to the RM isn't "as high as you can go" in our system of appeals. The arbitration committee is. Maybe, the shooter could have arbitrated before shooting the course, but there is nothing except in the case of safety concerns (DQ'able issues) that requires it. Maybe it's a d(*& move... but so is not dealing with an illegal stage. There's two ways to deal with it. 1. Ignore it and just shoot it - in which case the poor behavior of the match staff is reinforced, much the same way allowing shooters to get away with safety violations. 2. Make enough stink such that it has to be dealt with... in the case of arbitration, it forces the issue to have a committee of other shooters look at the issue. Chances are that the MD will put together "good ol' boys" and you'll be out the match fee again having to write your AD to deal with issues at the affiliated match. In either case, I'd rather have a shooter willing to stand up for the rules regardless of whether he arbs first or shoots the course the way it's supposed to be shot by the rules and then deals with the consequences over the match staff that has a chip on it's shoulder about people calling them out on the rule book.

That being said - you are completely wrong about the RO creed requiring you to RO people you consider "flaming Aholes". Here's some quotes that directly contradict that stance.

I will always strive to be totally fair and impartial in my judgments.

It is my duty to assist all competitors in their attempts to accomplish their goals and not to hinder them by undue harassment and authoritarian behavior.

I shall put aside personal prejudices and act as an impartial judge at all times.