What's your call?

[Sarge]

Side note-- define frustration. Someone with (verified) 20/10 vision arguing a perf hit with someone that has to break out their reading glasses just to read the timer... "Trust me-- that's an Alpha."

I don't get it. Reading glasses give perfect vision also if they are the right magnification for the distance. I also have better than 20/20 vision, outside of three feet. My reading glasses give me at least 20/20 up close.

Weak argument.

[EkuJustice]

I agree 2 alpha. You got hosed the grease ring and hole definatly show 2 hits

[mactiger]

Somebody remind me to write an article for Front Sight on how to use overlays. We had one a few years ago that Troy wrote, but we need another, I think.

BTW, save that target.

How about they just reprint mine? And pin it here as well?

[Skydiver]

Troy do you know which issue of FrontSight? Remember, we now have the FrontSight archive online on the USPSA website, so a link can be easily made.

[mactiger]

The original article is in FrontSight May/June 2008

Edited October 3, 2012 by mactiger

[Thomas H]

On a related note, on my stage at Ga State, we had 2 calls to the RM for hits on a target about 1 hour apart. When the RM showed up the 2nd time, both targets were laying on the table. The RO waiting for the RM to show up (I was busy running shooters) new which target was which, but in hindsight there was an opportunity for confusion. Once the call has been made the target needs to go away, or be marked in some way. I guess you could just paste it.

Hm. Considering that 9.6.7. says:

"During a scoring challenge, the subject target(s) must not be patched, taped or otherwise interfered with until the matter has been settled. The Range Officer may remove a disputed paper target from the course of fire for further examination to prevent any delay in the match. Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge."

....since the target is signed, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem to tell the difference.

Though I do agree that once the challenge is finished, I'd just throw the target away, because it isn't like it would be useful for anything else.

[a.roberts]

On a related note, on my stage at Ga State, we had 2 calls to the RM for hits on a target about 1 hour apart. When the RM showed up the 2nd time, both targets were laying on the table. The RO waiting for the RM to show up (I was busy running shooters) new which target was which, but in hindsight there was an opportunity for confusion. Once the call has been made the target needs to go away, or be marked in some way. I guess you could just paste it.

Hm. Considering that 9.6.7. says:

"During a scoring challenge, the subject target(s) must not be patched, taped or otherwise interfered with until the matter has been settled. The Range Officer may remove a disputed paper target from the course of fire for further examination to prevent any delay in the match. Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge."

....since the target is signed, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem to tell the difference.

Though I do agree that once the challenge is finished, I'd just throw the target away, because it isn't like it would be useful for anything else.

...So... My target wasn't signed by either of us and the hit in question wasn't indicated...?

[beltjones]

I don't want to "out" anyone, and I know that's not the point of this thread. But somehow I knew which stage and which RO made this call, and I just had it confirmed via email.

I had a more blatant one-hole "double" on the same stage, and the RO called charlie-mike. I asked him to overlay it, because the hole was oblong with two obvious grease rings. He got out his overlay and put it over the center of the hole. I guess I got lucky that the whole thing didn't fit within the circle of the overlay, because the RO very begrudgingly called two charlies. He also made a bunch of snide comments about doubles the rest of the time our squad was on his stage.

[Sin-ster]

Side note-- define frustration. Someone with (verified) 20/10 vision arguing a perf hit with someone that has to break out their reading glasses just to read the timer... "Trust me-- that's an Alpha."

I don't get it. Reading glasses give perfect vision also if they are the right magnification for the distance. I also have better than 20/20 vision, outside of three feet. My reading glasses give me at least 20/20 up close.

Weak argument.

20/20 ≠ perfect; it's the normal range, and acceptable. 20/10 would be twice as good-- and still not the best recorded (20/8, IIRC). And I find it hard to trust something that's "corrected" (and has to be re-corrected every few years as the vision continues to deteriorate) over something that's working optimally without any subjected-to-human-error device. Especially when it's conditional-- as per "inside 3 feet", etc.

It gets more complicated when the poor guy doesn't put the glasses on to inspect...

And the frustrating part is exemplified in what you posted. "I can see well enough, so now I'm sticking to my guns!"

But most importantly of all... that instance was verified as an Alpha, by the RM (and about a dozen other people who looked at it). Chances are that you would have called it an A without the drama; the Rx may have needed adjusting.

Back on topic-- Andy's 2 Alpha are WAY more obvious than that perf hit...

[sperman]

On a related note, on my stage at Ga State, we had 2 calls to the RM for hits on a target about 1 hour apart. When the RM showed up the 2nd time, both targets were laying on the table. The RO waiting for the RM to show up (I was busy running shooters) new which target was which, but in hindsight there was an opportunity for confusion. Once the call has been made the target needs to go away, or be marked in some way. I guess you could just paste it.

Hm. Considering that 9.6.7. says:

"During a scoring challenge, the subject target(s) must not be patched, taped or otherwise interfered with until the matter has been settled. The Range Officer may remove a disputed paper target from the course of fire for further examination to prevent any delay in the match. Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge."

....since the target is signed, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem to tell the difference.

Though I do agree that once the challenge is finished, I'd just throw the target away, because it isn't like it would be useful for anything else.

Yes, I need to do better on this in the future.

[Thomas H]

On a related note, on my stage at Ga State, we had 2 calls to the RM for hits on a target about 1 hour apart. When the RM showed up the 2nd time, both targets were laying on the table. The RO waiting for the RM to show up (I was busy running shooters) new which target was which, but in hindsight there was an opportunity for confusion. Once the call has been made the target needs to go away, or be marked in some way. I guess you could just paste it.

Hm. Considering that 9.6.7. says:

"During a scoring challenge, the subject target(s) must not be patched, taped or otherwise interfered with until the matter has been settled. The Range Officer may remove a disputed paper target from the course of fire for further examination to prevent any delay in the match. Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge."

....since the target is signed, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem to tell the difference.

Though I do agree that once the challenge is finished, I'd just throw the target away, because it isn't like it would be useful for anything else.

Yes, I need to do better on this in the future.

Don't we all.

[warpspeed]

I don't want to "out" anyone, and I know that's not the point of this thread. But somehow I knew which stage and which RO made this call, and I just had it confirmed via email.

I had a more blatant one-hole "double" on the same stage, and the RO called charlie-mike. I asked him to overlay it, because the hole was oblong with two obvious grease rings. He got out his overlay and put it over the center of the hole. I guess I got lucky that the whole thing didn't fit within the circle of the overlay, because the RO very begrudgingly called two charlies. He also made a bunch of snide comments about doubles the rest of the time our squad was on his stage.

Sounds like someone needs to do something beside RO.

[justaute]

Yep. And, technically, the readily apparent "figure-8" shape with two grease rings should not be considered a "double." They are just two very closely placed shots. A "double" should not be readily apparent -- hence it is a cause of consternation to a few.

I don't want to "out" anyone, and I know that's not the point of this thread. But somehow I knew which stage and which RO made this call, and I just had it confirmed via email.

I had a more blatant one-hole "double" on the same stage, and the RO called charlie-mike. I asked him to overlay it, because the hole was oblong with two obvious grease rings. He got out his overlay and put it over the center of the hole. I guess I got lucky that the whole thing didn't fit within the circle of the overlay, because the RO very begrudgingly called two charlies. He also made a bunch of snide comments about doubles the rest of the time our squad was on his stage.

Sounds like someone needs to do something beside RO.

[sperman]

On a related note, on my stage at Ga State, we had 2 calls to the RM for hits on a target about 1 hour apart. When the RM showed up the 2nd time, both targets were laying on the table. The RO waiting for the RM to show up (I was busy running shooters) new which target was which, but in hindsight there was an opportunity for confusion. Once the call has been made the target needs to go away, or be marked in some way. I guess you could just paste it.

Hm. Considering that 9.6.7. says:

"During a scoring challenge, the subject target(s) must not be patched, taped or otherwise interfered with until the matter has been settled. The Range Officer may remove a disputed paper target from the course of fire for further examination to prevent any delay in the match. Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge."

....since the target is signed, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem to tell the difference.

Though I do agree that once the challenge is finished, I'd just throw the target away, because it isn't like it would be useful for anything else.

Yes, I need to do better on this in the future.

Don't we all.

I just put a sharpie in my range bag with the overlays. When the overlays go in the pocket, the sharpie will too.

[kevin c]

Side note-- define frustration. Someone with (verified) 20/10 vision arguing a perf hit with someone that has to break out their reading glasses just to read the timer... "Trust me-- that's an Alpha."

I don't get it. Reading glasses give perfect vision also if they are the right magnification for the distance. I also have better than 20/20 vision, outside of three feet. My reading glasses give me at least 20/20 up close.

Weak argument.

20/20 ≠ perfect; it's the normal range, and acceptable. 20/10 would be twice as good-- and still not the best recorded (20/8, IIRC). And I find it hard to trust something that's "corrected" (and has to be re-corrected every few years as the vision continues to deteriorate) over something that's working optimally without any subjected-to-human-error device. Especially when it's conditional-- as per "inside 3 feet", etc.

It gets more complicated when the poor guy doesn't put the glasses on to inspect...

And the frustrating part is exemplified in what you posted. "I can see well enough, so now I'm sticking to my guns!"

...

If the shooter thinks he can see it, and the RO does not, then the target should get pulled. There is a difference in opinion on what is on the target. A third opinion, definitive, will be forthcoming. No need to personalize it by saying the RO is deficient in some fashion (and I'd like to see the shooter say that to the RM: "He can't see to score, he wears glasses!", and then have the RM whip on a pair to render judgement).

eta: And no, he can't trust you that it's an alpha. It is HIS call, not yours. Your recourse if you don't agree is to get the RM's opinion.

Edited October 5, 2012 by kevin c

[Sin-ster]

If the shooter thinks he can see it, and the RO does not, then the target should get pulled. There is a difference in opinion on what is on the target. A third opinion, definitive, will be forthcoming. No need to personalize it by saying the RO is deficient in some fashion (and I'd like to see the shooter say that to the RM: "He can't see to score, he wears glasses!", and then have the RM whip on a pair to render judgement).

eta: And no, he can't trust you that it's an alpha. It is HIS call, not yours. Your recourse if you don't agree is to get the RM's opinion.

And that's what happened-- with the correct call being the end result.

Typically, however... in light of a scoring challenge, the RO has always offered to pull the target and/or call the RM. In this case, the request had to be made directly; it seemed rather confrontational.

Point of fact, said RM does have corrected vision (contacts); he didn't break out the overlays and called the Alpha in about 10 seconds.

I typically don't varnish my opinion-- character flaw or strength of character, it depends on who you ask. But I could care less if the RM is legally blind, provided that he makes the right call when he shows up.

If you really wanna get technical though, a comment about the RO's obviously troubled vision is less personal than questioning what the untrammeled eyes of the shooter perceive. By not graciously recognizing the possibility for a mistake, the scorer is effectively saying one of two things: "My bad eyes are better than your good ones," or "You're trying to get a hit that you didn't earn."

Them's fightin' words, even when they're unspoken!

[justaute]

Hey... English major, how much less?

[but I could care less if the RM is legally blind...l:

[Bunchies95]

Hey... English major, how much less?

[but I could care less if the RM is legally blind...l:

He's from down in the Bayou. That's as good of English as your going to get.

In my RO class, Troy showed us a double that I had to squint really hard and blur my vision a bit just to see it. In the end I just trusted his experienced eyes. Haven't seen a double that close since then. This target looks like it needed no overlays.

[justaute]

I just expected more from a Tulane-boy. It's not as though he went to LSU or ULM.

He's from down in the Bayou. That's as good of English as your going to get.

[Nik Habicht]

If the shooter thinks he can see it, and the RO does not, then the target should get pulled. There is a difference in opinion on what is on the target. A third opinion, definitive, will be forthcoming. No need to personalize it by saying the RO is deficient in some fashion (and I'd like to see the shooter say that to the RM: "He can't see to score, he wears glasses!", and then have the RM whip on a pair to render judgement).

eta: And no, he can't trust you that it's an alpha. It is HIS call, not yours. Your recourse if you don't agree is to get the RM's opinion.

And that's what happened-- with the correct call being the end result.

Typically, however... in light of a scoring challenge, the RO has always offered to pull the target and/or call the RM. In this case, the request had to be made directly; it seemed rather confrontational.

Point of fact, said RM does have corrected vision (contacts); he didn't break out the overlays and called the Alpha in about 10 seconds.

I typically don't varnish my opinion-- character flaw or strength of character, it depends on who you ask. But I could care less if the RM is legally blind, provided that he makes the right call when he shows up.

If you really wanna get technical though, a comment about the RO's obviously troubled vision is less personal than questioning what the untrammeled eyes of the shooter perceive. By not graciously recognizing the possibility for a mistake, the scorer is effectively saying one of two things: "My bad eyes are better than your good ones," or "You're trying to get a hit that you didn't earn."

Them's fightin' words, even when they're unspoken!

It's up to the RO to make the call. It's up to the competitor to request the second (CRO) and third (RM) opinions if he/she disagrees with the call. Some ROs may offer, but the onus is on the competitor to ask....

[Sin-ster]

I just expected more from a Tulane-boy. It's not as though he went to LSU or ULM.

He's from down in the Bayou. That's as good of English as your going to get.

I use conversational English on forums!

Do as I say, not as I do! Or in this case... Not as I say, either?

[pbosik]

Double-2alpha

[Mo Hepworth]

2 alpha...I would not even come close to bring out an overlay. You get good and bad RO'ing all the time. I am not perfect, having been corrected a few times myself.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Mo Hepworth

[Sudden Death]

2 Alpha to me, was the RO in your division....lol