Retroactive Rules Decisions / Cheating

[Nik Habicht]

The clipboard RO should be watching the shooter running the stage -- let's remember he has an important job to do there, and no time to check the on deck shooter's gear.

??? Why wouldn't he/she have any time. They don't have time for a glance?

As far as I can tell the RO with the timer is the primary in watching the shooter. The clipboard RO was doing other stuff --- watching the flying clay targets get hit/missed, watching the primary RO call for procedurals, etc. At the start the timer RO should be looking at the shooter during the LAMR with his/her gun handling and in at the same time the clipboard RO can glance at the shooter's equipment and given the division that's written on the label see if their compliant.

What could be more simple?

And if you take a look at Blockhead's post... from the class he took it apparently is already encouraged. If it's already encouraged... why wasn't it caught? The RO's either were either complacent or they weren't taught?

You mentioned the clipboard RO looking at the on deck competitor's equipment. I was trying to point out that when a competitor is "shooting the stage" to include making ready, and clearing afterwards, the clipboard RO needs to be focused on the active competitor, not the on deck shooter. Sure, clipboard ROs have time for all kinds of glances -- I noticed another competitor loading mags at a safe table, while on the clipboard; and another competitor switching guns without RM approval, at matches I've worked in the last year, while on the clipboard....

In both cases those glances occurred moments prior to Make Ready -- once the timer RO gave that command I was solely focused on him/my section of the range....

I'm not arguing that ROs should be encouraged to be vigilant -- but do want folks to be aware of what they should be attention to while a competitor runs a stage...

[gose]

I think 3 gun divisions need to be paired way, way back. Is it really a "National Title" when there are only a handful of competitors in the event?

Like revolver?

[springy]

I did the RO and the CRO schools. I built Area 6 pistol stages in the back yard, tested them, painted them, and then loaded them up on a trailer and hauled them 200 miles to the range, reassembled them, and then ran them. I'm just saying this wasn't my first rodeo.

Back in the day (that's intended as a ha ha, so have at it) my CRO instructor (John Hurst) taught us that the Score Keeper called out the Shooter and Division as the shooter came to the line. That caused several things: the RO could address the shooter by name, the shooter and the score sheet matched, and the Score Keeper and the RO knew what division the shooter was competing in. A quick glance at the shooters equipment along with knowing the declared division was all it took to keep everyone straight.

Are today's RO/CRO's not taught that procedure? If not, what did they replace it with?

[GrumpyOne]

While the RO crew has a responsibility, and a large one at that, the shooter is responsible for their equipment. Unless NROI provides a shooter the equipment they use, it can only be the resposibility of the shooter.

Now, that makes the most sense....Does it really matter if it was an intended violation of the rules or just a brain fart? The shooter is the one who put the optic on the gun, and the one who entered into a division where is was not allowed, and signed his scorecard after he knew that he was in violation...

[warpspeed]

While the RO crew has a responsibility, and a large one at that, the shooter is responsible for their equipment. Unless NROI provides a shooter the equipment they use, it can only be the resposibility of the shooter.

When a shooter comes up and he in a division called "Limited" anything in USPSA, I know for a fact he cannot have an optic of any kind on any firearm. I would hope that a NROI trained RO would know that too.

[Mbauer67]

While the RO crew has a responsibility, and a large one at that, the shooter is responsible for their equipment. Unless NROI provides a shooter the equipment they use, it can only be the resposibility of the shooter.

When a shooter comes up and he in a division called "Limited" anything in USPSA, I know for a fact he cannot have an optic of any kind on any firearm. I would hope that a NROI trained RO would know that too.

Not quite, in multi gun the limited class shooters use a 1X optic or iron sights. It is a fairly new rule change with the new rule book. As opposed to the limited heavy metal shooters that must use iron's. This is probably what caused the confusion with the shooter.

[Jaxshooter]

Springy

The latest crop of CROs did a one day class. I sure don't see how they covered everything we did in a single day. That may be part of the problem. Two of the ROs that attended that CRO class did not know how to give the range commands properly before they took the class.

[Chuck Anderson]

While the RO crew has a responsibility, and a large one at that, the shooter is responsible for their equipment. Unless NROI provides a shooter the equipment they use, it can only be the resposibility of the shooter.

When a shooter comes up and he in a division called "Limited" anything in USPSA, I know for a fact he cannot have an optic of any kind on any firearm. I would hope that a NROI trained RO would know that too.

Not quite, in multi gun the limited class shooters use a 1X optic or iron sights. It is a fairly new rule change with the new rule book. As opposed to the limited heavy metal shooters that must use iron's. This is probably what caused the confusion with the shooter.

Not exactly new. I think this is the third or fourth MG Nats we've run with Limited having 1x optics allowed. I know Charles Bond was still on the BOD when the decision was made. But I'm sure Ward will find a way to blame the BOD for it. I'm sure we must be on the take from EO Tech or something. He does know "for a fact he cannot have an optic of any kind on any firearm"

[BritinUSA]

I think that this thread is just going around in circles now. I am sure that all the members of the BOD are aware of this issue, as is NROI. I think that USPSA and NROI are always looking for ways to improve the sport, and I for one am confident that both groups will address this problem and determine an effective solution/policy to ensure that reduces the likelihood of this occurring again.

[Jesse Tischauser]

Wait when did this thread go from being a roast to a rules discussion.

Boring!

[ael911]

Back to roast it is....!

First off, I'm a long time lurker on this forum and a first time poster. This is not exactly the way I'd imagine I'd make my first post, but right is right and wrong is wrong.

I was the shooter that first became aware that the suspected shooter was using illegal equipment. It was Day 2, Stage 7, when I learned of this. I was one of the last shooters of Stage 7 and Squad 11 was well arrived to shoot Stage 7 after me. As I was waiting to shoot my stage, I overheard the suspect shooter mention to an "RO" (Yes, you heard me right, an RO) that he will need to hold his "RED DOT" a certain amount of perceived inches high, when engaging the head-shot Larues at known distances.

I thought this statement was odd as I recalled my fellow friends in my division clearly told me earlier this year that electronic optics were again not authorized in HML. I didn't actually see the suspect's rifle at this time to verify that he was using an electronic red dot sight. End of story for Day 2...

After Day 2 ended and my friends and I are back at the hotel and stuffing our face, I mention the odd statement I heard as I wanted to verify that electronic 1x red dot sights were not allowed in the new HML rules. My friends and I didn't immediately explode into anger and decided we'll just see if the suspected shooter did indeed have a equipment misunderstanding. We all thought this highly-skilled, and sponsored shooter simply joked about something he didn't have, or that I heard him wrong.

Day 3... As we open the morning shooting on Stage 2, yours truly is too curious to concentrate on anything else other than if the suspect individual was indeed in equipment violation territory. So I walk to Stage 1 to watch suspect shooter. As the suspected individual's turn on Stage 1 approached, I observed him retrieve his rifle from his drag bag that was on a table. Sure enough, I see an Aimpoint Comp M4 on top of his rifle. I then walk back to my friends and advise what I had just witnessed.

One of the HML shooters overheard our conversation, and agreed that electronic sights were not legal in HML. He was also a very accomplished shooter in the division and said to us, "Hmmm, I know XXXXX pretty well.... I will go and talk to him." So our diplomat walks over to the Stage 1 and then returns to tell us that he spoke with the shooter. The response told by this shooter to us was, "XXXXX said that he had no idea that it was illegal, but he will take care of it."

So we were all satisfied at this point. We felt that any competitor, especially one that is a shooter of this caliber, would never risk his reputation, integrity, and his honor as a top competitor by not doing the right thing. We felt no need to make the issue known to any ROs or the match director.

I then heard at the awards banquet that the suspected shooter still accepted the divisional title, but did not pick the obvious first place prize at the prize table.

Hearing the actions of this individual just really made me lose all respect for him. Yes, he is a very skilled shooter and I am pretty certain he still would have won the title even with iron sights. However, his character is one that isn't even close to par with his shooting ability. I understand there is a certain expectation of top sponsored shooters to do well and bring home wins for their sponsors, but at what point does that include compromising one's own morals and integrity. I simply don't get it.

As for the ROs, I can't really place any blame on them. HML is the smallest division and probably the least interested in all of 3 gun. So I'd imagine most, if not all of the RO's were in the dark on the equipment rule change. All of the ROs worked hard at this match and I believe the only goals on their mind was to get everyone safely through their stage and make sure they ran their stage professionally and effectively. It wasn't about catching anyone trying to use equipment that wasn't legal in their division.

Bottom line, this thread isn't about how rules should be enforced or how ROs need to do a better job. It's about that if there is no integrity in our sport, why even bother to compete in the first place? An earlier poster said it right about Lance Armstrong... Look where he ended up...

[LChico]

I wasn't at the match, but what I am getting from another forum is that the divisions weren't listed on those scoresheets at that particular match.

Well if we are talking about the 2013 USPSA MG Nationals the shooter's labels have the shooter's name, their squad, their shooter # and their division.

The labels with that info is standard practice in a lot of big matches.

At the MG Nationals they were stuck on the top of each score sheets, the shooter's envelope and a yellow piece of paper saying "It's YOUR responsibility to correct this information. Check the label on this page. Make sure you are listed in the correct division: OPEN LIMITED...."

That label is right in front of the RO with the clipboard.

And every stage had an updated squad list that named the competitor's division, in cases where the competitor changed the division at registration.

But, as I wrote on the yellow paper "It's YOUR responsibility to correct this information. . ."

When every major Multigun match in the country runs using slightly different rules, and most rules can be changed at the whim of match administrators, it is inconceivable to me that any top shooter would not double check the rules regarding equipment. I love the shooters in this sport & there are so many I admire. It is incomprehensible that anyone would willfully accept an award they did not earn. I was counting on mature adults with integrity. Clearly, I'm too naive.

Linda Chico

Edited May 5, 2013 by LChico

[outerlimits]

Back to roast it is....!

First off, I'm a long time lurker on this forum and a first time poster. This is not exactly the way I'd imagine I'd make my first post, but right is right and wrong is wrong.

I was the shooter that first became aware that the suspected shooter was using illegal equipment. It was Day 2, Stage 7, when I learned of this. I was one of the last shooters of Stage 7 and Squad 11 was well arrived to shoot Stage 7 after me. As I was waiting to shoot my stage, I overheard the suspect shooter mention to an "RO" (Yes, you heard me right, an RO) that he will need to hold his "RED DOT" a certain amount of perceived inches high, when engaging the head-shot Larues at known distances.

I thought this statement was odd as I recalled my fellow friends in my division clearly told me earlier this year that electronic optics were again not authorized in HML. I didn't actually see the suspect's rifle at this time to verify that he was using an electronic red dot sight. End of story for Day 2...

After Day 2 ended and my friends and I are back at the hotel and stuffing our face, I mention the odd statement I heard as I wanted to verify that electronic 1x red dot sights were not allowed in the new HML rules. My friends and I didn't immediately explode into anger and decided we'll just see if the suspected shooter did indeed have a equipment misunderstanding. We all thought this highly-skilled, and sponsored shooter simply joked about something he didn't have, or that I heard him wrong.

Day 3... As we open the morning shooting on Stage 2, yours truly is too curious to concentrate on anything else other than if the suspect individual was indeed in equipment violation territory. So I walk to Stage 1 to watch suspect shooter. As the suspected individual's turn on Stage 1 approached, I observed him retrieve his rifle from his drag bag that was on a table. Sure enough, I see an Aimpoint Comp M4 on top of his rifle. I then walk back to my friends and advise what I had just witnessed.

One of the HML shooters overheard our conversation, and agreed that electronic sights were not legal in HML. He was also a very accomplished shooter in the division and said to us, "Hmmm, I know XXXXX pretty well.... I will go and talk to him." So our diplomat walks over to the Stage 1 and then returns to tell us that he spoke with the shooter. The response told by this shooter to us was, "XXXXX said that he had no idea that it was illegal, but he will take care of it."

So we were all satisfied at this point. We felt that any competitor, especially one that is a shooter of this caliber, would never risk his reputation, integrity, and his honor as a top competitor by not doing the right thing. We felt no need to make the issue known to any ROs or the match director.

I then heard at the awards banquet that the suspected shooter still accepted the divisional title, but did not pick the obvious first place prize at the prize table.

Hearing the actions of this individual just really made me lose all respect for him. Yes, he is a very skilled shooter and I am pretty certain he still would have won the title even with iron sights. However, his character is one that isn't even close to par with his shooting ability. I understand there is a certain expectation of top sponsored shooters to do well and bring home wins for their sponsors, but at what point does that include compromising one's own morals and integrity. I simply don't get it.

As for the ROs, I can't really place any blame on them. HML is the smallest division and probably the least interested in all of 3 gun. So I'd imagine most, if not all of the RO's were in the dark on the equipment rule change. All of the ROs worked hard at this match and I believe the only goals on their mind was to get everyone safely through their stage and make sure they ran their stage professionally and effectively. It wasn't about catching anyone trying to use equipment that wasn't legal in their division.

Bottom line, this thread isn't about how rules should be enforced or how ROs need to do a better job. It's about that if there is no integrity in our sport, why even bother to compete in the first place? An earlier poster said it right about Lance Armstrong... Look where he ended up...

IMHO, great first post. and this thread continues to get deeper.

Edited May 5, 2013 by outerlimits

[warpspeed]

While the RO crew has a responsibility, and a large one at that, the shooter is responsible for their equipment. Unless NROI provides a shooter the equipment they use, it can only be the resposibility of the shooter.

When a shooter comes up and he in a division called "Limited" anything in USPSA, I know for a fact he cannot have an optic of any kind on any firearm. I would hope that a NROI trained RO would know that too.

Not quite, in multi gun the limited class shooters use a 1X optic or iron sights. It is a fairly new rule change with the new rule book. As opposed to the limited heavy metal shooters that must use iron's. This is probably what caused the confusion with the shooter.

Not exactly new. I think this is the third or fourth MG Nats we've run with Limited having 1x optics allowed. I know Charles Bond was still on the BOD when the decision was made. But I'm sure Ward will find a way to blame the BOD for it. I'm sure we must be on the take from EO Tech or something. He does know "for a fact he cannot have an optic of any kind on any firearm"

I stand corrected.

Damn, that is twice today I was wrong about something. Hope that is not a trend starting.

And I'm honored that another Area Director knows my name.

[Jesse Tischauser]

I heard the guy that won HMO used a bipod on stage 14.

[springy]

I heard the guy that won HMO used a bipod on stage 14.

He did, but it was a stage gun.

[Chuck Anderson]

I heard the guy that won HMO used a bipod on stage 14.

Lets see, 12 stages in the main match, but there were two side matches in between there. Did he use it on the Remington or the Beretta side match? Or is Hollywood trying to stir the pot again?

[Bob Hostetter]

Don't know who did it and don't want to know, but, regardless of any prior misunderstanding once the competitor was informed (or it was suggested) that his equipment was illegal(?) for the division he was shooting he should have confirmed this with match staff. Once confirmed he should have immediately been moved to Open. He under no circumstances should have accepted the title, the trophy, or the prize table award. The idea that since he didn't take the "best" prize off the table its ok is silly. First of all it is an admission of guilt and is kind of like only stealing the small bills from a robbery?

[Jesse Tischauser]

No he had a bipod on his rifle during the all shotgun stage. I saw it. Match DQ. I wouldn't ask for his trophy back cause you never know what's been in that thing at this point. I'd guess a combination of gerbils and cheap schnapps.

[J.Schmitt]

I disagree with the moving to Open part. The shooter should be moved to the division his equip fits into first. Now that might end up being open but. Heavy optic would. Have worked here.

At the DPMS tri gun years ago a shooter had 10 in the shotgun In this case he was moved from tac ops to open

Jay

[Steve RA]

This is probably a stupid question, since I haven't shot in a 3 gun match since the 3rd USPSA Nationals, but why would it matter in an "all shotgun stage" since my assumption is you would not be shooting your rifle in that stage ???

[waktasz]

That's not how it works. If you load 12 into a mag in your Production pistol you get moved to Open, not Limited.

[Religious Shooter]

Man... is this trying to be funny really needed? Especially since a number of people aren't getting it?

[Jesse Tischauser]

Of course it is because this is an ugly nerdy boring discussion. Loosen up!

It's not like the USPSA is going to come out and say..."well as per the thread on Enos we have decide this"

Edited May 5, 2013 by Jesse Tischauser

[Steve RA]

Have I been "trolled" ???