Intentionally running into the RO - why not DQ?

[Nik Habicht]

In my experience as an RO for quite a few years, the average shooter will not try this, simply because they don't think about it in time to not be obvious. The ones you have to look for are the guys that are in contention for match or division win and they are usually well known. I just watch the guys really close and if their squad comes up when one of the other RO's on the stage is scheduled for the timer, I just tell them "I'll take this squad" and they know what I am talking about because we discuss this in advance before the first squad arrives. Intention or deliberate is almost impossible to prove. You have to rely on experience and be prepared.

My .02 cents.

Yup. And I keep this in mind too:

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire.

If I overrun a position and bump the competitor that's one thing. If he reverses and bumps me, that's conceivably not inadvertent contact -- but it creates another issue -- if I need to issue the Stop command, for safety's sake, the reshoot is assured....

So, be on your toes when you pick up the timer or clipboard....

With experience this gets easier...

[beltjones]

I don't know the historical reason for rule 10.6.3, but I would guess it's because competitors could simply dislodge their eye or ear protection and claim a reshoot under 5.4.4. Sure, an RO could have issued a DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct, relying on the "not limited to" verbiage in 10.6.1, but I doubt many arb committees would uphold the DQ. A specific rule granting a reshoot is better than "not limited to," so it makes sense that they would write 10.6.3 to counter the rule that grants reshoots for displaced eye/ear protection.

I think this is exactly the same. The RO could be confident that a shooter intentionally ran into him to get a reshoot, and he could issue a DQ under 10.6.1, claiming cheating and relying on "not limited to." But the shooter would simply reference 8.6.4 on his arb form, and I'm guessing 99% of the time he will be reinstated in the match and would be entitled to reshoot the stage. Again, a specific rule allowing a reshoot is better than "not limited to."

Thus, I think some specific verbiage in the rule book is warranted to protect ROs and to keep shooters from cheating their competition.

[Yagi]

I have spoken to one of the RO's in the past regarding this matter and he told me that no matter how "wise" the shooter maybe in fishing the RO to make contact from the Range Officer - it will never happen if the RO to begin with knows where to place himself during the course of fire...

[PKT1106]

The way I see most ROs is that if the shooter really wants to initiate contact, they will probably trip over a fault line and break the 180 to do it. I can see this being a problem with new ROs who think they need to be right on the shooter to make sure everything is safely shot.

[JimmyZip]

If the range officer is paying attention to the shooter and keeping a safe distance, wouldn't it just be obvious that you were purposely run into. I mean now that I have been really thinking about this thread and all the times I have run a shooter on stages from classifiers to field courses, I have yet to have any contact with the shooter either accidental or purposely. I maintain proper space and if I was run into while running a shooter they would probably have to run me down to make contact.

[beltjones]

If the range officer is paying attention to the shooter and keeping a safe distance, wouldn't it just be obvious that you were purposely run into. I mean now that I have been really thinking about this thread and all the times I have run a shooter on stages from classifiers to field courses, I have yet to have any contact with the shooter either accidental or purposely. I maintain proper space and if I was run into while running a shooter they would probably have to run me down to make contact.

Yes. That is the whole point of the thread. Not ROs who are crowding the shooter or who are out of position - if they get run into that seems like an obvious case for a reshoot.

The whole point is that sometimes shooters run into the RO on purpose. And when they do, yes, it's obvious. So why isn't it specifically against the rules? Why is there a rule about intentionally knocking off ear protection but not about running into the RO?

[sperman]

IMO, it is specifically against the rules. 10.6.1 lists cheating and dishonesty as a reason to DQ a shooter for unsportsman like conduct. Intentionally running into the RO in an attempt to get a reshoot is a clear example of cheating.

[beltjones]

You can make an argument that it is cheating, but in no way is it specifically against the rules. Knocking off your ear pro to get a reshoot is specifically against the rules. Breaking the 180 is specifically against the rules. Being drunk is specifically against the rules. Intentionally running into the RO is definitely not specifically against the rules.

[Sin-ster]

how do you prove intent to the satisfaction of the CRO/RM/Arb Committee?

I'd say the immediate lowering of the shoulder, the single aggressive step to the exact point of contact, and the not-quite-Grammy-Award-Winning "WTF" face are all probably pretty solid evidence...

Then again... Picking up on these things was my job, for a long time. What I know to be obvious evidence might be questionable to the right/wrong Arb CRO/RM/Arb Committee...

[justaute]

In what world does it make sense, pretty much after finishing the last array, to pause, reload, and then having to take at least 3 large steps backward (up-range) to make-up C/D hits on a target? It wouldn't even make sense to make-up a mike.

how do you prove intent to the satisfaction of the CRO/RM/Arb Committee?

I'd say the immediate lowering of the shoulder, the single aggressive step to the exact point of contact, and the not-quite-Grammy-Award-Winning "WTF" face are all probably pretty solid evidence...

Then again... Picking up on these things was my job, for a long time. What I know to be obvious evidence might be questionable to the right/wrong Arb CRO/RM/Arb Committee...

[remoandiris]

In what world does it make sense, pretty much after finishing the last array, to pause, reload, and then having to take at least 3 large steps backward (up-range) to make-up C/D hits on a target? It wouldn't even make sense to make-up a mike.

At an area match I shot a close target on the move. Noticed the 2nd shot was in the hardcover, but I was already moving to the final array. Looking back on it, I should/could have yelled to the RO that I was backing up, but I didn't think of it at the time. I also didn't expect the RO to be on me so close. RO offered and I accepted the reshoot. Similar thing happened at a local match. I thought I forgot a target and moved back, running into the RO. RO offered a reshoot. I declined since I had shot the target. In neither case do I think leaving a miss was a good choice, but that is just me. I'm not smart enough to calculate hit factor and stage score on the fly.

[justaute]

Your scenario is perfectly understandable. I, too, had something similar in that I had forgotten an entire array and ran back, up-range, which put the RO down-range from me.

In this case, it's making up C/D hits by having to pause, reload, and run backward up-range -- this would add several seconds to the run. My point is that in this scenario the justification is rather weak, especially for a very experienced shooter.

In what world does it make sense, pretty much after finishing the last array, to pause, reload, and then having to take at least 3 large steps backward (up-range) to make-up C/D hits on a target? It wouldn't even make sense to make-up a mike.

At an area match I shot a close target on the move. Noticed the 2nd shot was in the hardcover, but I was already moving to the final array. Looking back on it, I should/could have yelled to the RO that I was backing up, but I didn't think of it at the time. I also didn't expect the RO to be on me so close. RO offered and I accepted the reshoot. Similar thing happened at a local match. I thought I forgot a target and moved back, running into the RO. RO offered a reshoot. I declined since I had shot the target. In neither case do I think leaving a miss was a good choice, but that is just me. I'm not smart enough to calculate hit factor and stage score on the fly.

Edited June 14, 2013 by justaute

[beltjones]

Your scenario is perfectly understandable. I, too, had something similar in that I had forgotten an entire array and ran back, up-range, which put the RO down-range from me.

In this case, it's making up C/D hits by having to pause, reload, and run backward up-range -- this would add several seconds to the run. My point is that in this scenario the justification is rather weak, especially for a very experienced shooter.

In what world does it make sense, pretty much after finishing the last array, to pause, reload, and then having to take at least 3 large steps backward (up-range) to make-up C/D hits on a target? It wouldn't even make sense to make-up a mike.

At an area match I shot a close target on the move. Noticed the 2nd shot was in the hardcover, but I was already moving to the final array. Looking back on it, I should/could have yelled to the RO that I was backing up, but I didn't think of it at the time. I also didn't expect the RO to be on me so close. RO offered and I accepted the reshoot. Similar thing happened at a local match. I thought I forgot a target and moved back, running into the RO. RO offered a reshoot. I declined since I had shot the target. In neither case do I think leaving a miss was a good choice, but that is just me. I'm not smart enough to calculate hit factor and stage score on the fly.

Point of order: There is no "case" in this thread. This is simply a discussion of whether intentionally running into an RO is DQ-able, or if there is anything else that can be done about an obviously dangerous and unethical practice.

[Nik Habicht]

I don't know the historical reason for rule 10.6.3, but I would guess it's because competitors could simply dislodge their eye or ear protection and claim a reshoot under 5.4.4. Sure, an RO could have issued a DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct, relying on the "not limited to" verbiage in 10.6.1, but I doubt many arb committees would uphold the DQ. A specific rule granting a reshoot is better than "not limited to," so it makes sense that they would write 10.6.3 to counter the rule that grants reshoots for displaced eye/ear protection.

I think this is exactly the same. The RO could be confident that a shooter intentionally ran into him to get a reshoot, and he could issue a DQ under 10.6.1, claiming cheating and relying on "not limited to." But the shooter would simply reference 8.6.4 on his arb form, and I'm guessing 99% of the time he will be reinstated in the match and would be entitled to reshoot the stage. Again, a specific rule allowing a reshoot is better than "not limited to."

Thus, I think some specific verbiage in the rule book is warranted to protect ROs and to keep shooters from cheating their competition.

I'm pretty sure 10.6.3 was written at the same time as the revisions to the rules that allowed for competitors to stop themselves without penalty if they lost their hearing or vision protection, or were allowed to start without them....

[Nik Habicht]

The whole point is that sometimes shooters run into the RO on purpose. And when they do, yes, it's obvious. So why isn't it specifically against the rules? Why is there a rule about intentionally knocking off ear protection but not about running into the RO?

Balance. We decided it was good idea for aging shooters to be able to see and hear. At the same time, we didn't want to open the door to letting people pick up a reshoot at will, if they trashed a stage.....

In the running into an RO scenario, the reshoot is totally RO discretion. We're trying to balance a fine line: The RO has an obligation not only to stay out of the competitor's way, but to get out of it if the competitor suddenly moves in an unexpected direction -- because it's the shooter's stage. By the same token, we don't want to open the "reshoot on demand door." I don't see this happening often enough to consider it a problem....

[Nik Habicht]

In what world does it make sense, pretty much after finishing the last array, to pause, reload, and then having to take at least 3 large steps backward (up-range) to make-up C/D hits on a target? It wouldn't even make sense to make-up a mike.

how do you prove intent to the satisfaction of the CRO/RM/Arb Committee?

I'd say the immediate lowering of the shoulder, the single aggressive step to the exact point of contact, and the not-quite-Grammy-Award-Winning "WTF" face are all probably pretty solid evidence...

Then again... Picking up on these things was my job, for a long time. What I know to be obvious evidence might be questionable to the right/wrong Arb CRO/RM/Arb Committee...

The fact that it's a bad idea doesn't equate intent. I've laughed at too many buddies bad ideas on stages over the years.....

[Nik Habicht]

Your scenario is perfectly understandable. I, too, had something similar in that I had forgotten an entire array and ran back, up-range, which put the RO down-range from me.

In this case, it's making up C/D hits by having to pause, reload, and run backward up-range -- this would add several seconds to the run. My point is that in this scenario the justification is rather weak, especially for a very experienced shooter.

In what world does it make sense, pretty much after finishing the last array, to pause, reload, and then having to take at least 3 large steps backward (up-range) to make-up C/D hits on a target? It wouldn't even make sense to make-up a mike.

At an area match I shot a close target on the move. Noticed the 2nd shot was in the hardcover, but I was already moving to the final array. Looking back on it, I should/could have yelled to the RO that I was backing up, but I didn't think of it at the time. I also didn't expect the RO to be on me so close. RO offered and I accepted the reshoot. Similar thing happened at a local match. I thought I forgot a target and moved back, running into the RO. RO offered a reshoot. I declined since I had shot the target. In neither case do I think leaving a miss was a good choice, but that is just me. I'm not smart enough to calculate hit factor and stage score on the fly.

Point of order: There is no "case" in this thread. This is simply a discussion of whether intentionally running into an RO is DQ-able, or if there is anything else that can be done about an obviously dangerous and unethical practice.

It's dq-able under 10.6.1. It may be dqable under 10.5.x, depending on the situation.....

[beltjones]

Your scenario is perfectly understandable. I, too, had something similar in that I had forgotten an entire array and ran back, up-range, which put the RO down-range from me.

In this case, it's making up C/D hits by having to pause, reload, and run backward up-range -- this would add several seconds to the run. My point is that in this scenario the justification is rather weak, especially for a very experienced shooter.

In what world does it make sense, pretty much after finishing the last array, to pause, reload, and then having to take at least 3 large steps backward (up-range) to make-up C/D hits on a target? It wouldn't even make sense to make-up a mike.

At an area match I shot a close target on the move. Noticed the 2nd shot was in the hardcover, but I was already moving to the final array. Looking back on it, I should/could have yelled to the RO that I was backing up, but I didn't think of it at the time. I also didn't expect the RO to be on me so close. RO offered and I accepted the reshoot. Similar thing happened at a local match. I thought I forgot a target and moved back, running into the RO. RO offered a reshoot. I declined since I had shot the target. In neither case do I think leaving a miss was a good choice, but that is just me. I'm not smart enough to calculate hit factor and stage score on the fly.

Point of order: There is no "case" in this thread. This is simply a discussion of whether intentionally running into an RO is DQ-able, or if there is anything else that can be done about an obviously dangerous and unethical practice.

It's dq-able under 10.6.1. It may be dqable under 10.5.x, depending on the situation.....

You go ahead and DQ someone stating an implied DQ-able offense based on an accusation of cheating, and reliance on the words "but not limited to..." They'll arb it stating a specific rule that grants them a reshoot. My money is on them winning the arb.

[Nik Habicht]

You go ahead and DQ someone stating an implied DQ-able offense based on an accusation of cheating, and reliance on the words "but not limited to..." They'll arb it stating a specific rule that grants them a reshoot. My money is on them winning the arb.

What specific rule grants the competitor a reshoot, absent the words "Stop" from the RO? A clever RO won't issue the stop command unless a violation of Section 10.5 has occurred. At that point the collision is moot, the competitor is done. If a violation of 10.5 does not occur, the only words to leave the RO's mouth should be "If you are finished, unload and show clear." Proceed with the rest of the range commands, and make a decision on whether or not to offer a reshoot -- obviously not going to happen if you believe you were deliberately run into.

I'd be shocked if a collision occurred, and the competitor was able to keep his muzzle pointed downrange and his finger out of the trigger guard -- but then I haven't run into this situation (deliberate collision/attempt to run into the RO) in more than a decade of officiating....

How many times have you been run into by competitors?

[beltjones]

I've never been run into, but it happened once that I saw, and twice that I heard credible reports of, at a major match last weekend. All three were done by different GMs who tanked stages and were trying to get a reshoot.

But that is not the point, and bringing up specific examples of people doing it is only going to get the thread locked.

I've never seen anyone intentionally knock off his eye or ear protection, but I understand why a rule is needed. I don't understand why a rule isn't needed for something far more dangerous than knocking off a set of Peltors.

Edited June 14, 2013 by beltjones

[beltjones]

One more thing:

"I'd be shocked if a collision occurred, and the competitor was able to keep his muzzle pointed downrange and his finger out of the trigger guard -- but then I haven't run into this situation (deliberate collision/attempt to run into the RO) in more than a decade of officiating...."

Why on earth would you find that shocking? If a competitor instigates contact with an RO then it's not exactly a surprise collision. It would be more surprising if the competitor couldn't control his muzzle direction and trigger finger placement during a collision he instigates.

[Flatland Shooter]

I've never been run into, but it happened once that I saw, and twice that I heard credible reports of, at a major match last weekend. All three were done by different GMs who tanked stages and were trying to get a reshoot.

Just out of curiosity, did they get their reshoots?

If so, that just encourages the problem.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Flatland Shooter

[38SuperDub]

Sure did get one.

[GuildSF4]

Just to note RO interference is not limited to physical contact, it can be verbal (as Nik alludes to). I haven't had anyone deliberately run into me in a decade of ROing. I did inadvertently contact the shooter a couple times in the early years.

I would also note that if you are going to offer a re-shoot for this it should be done before the competitor knows the time or score.

[Sin-ster]

I've bumped the RO at least twice, and refused both Reshoots as the contact was a non-issue in both cases. (I honestly never noticed, either time.)

I've been more interfered with by the RO when I just *see* them standing in my way. Because on a subconscious level, I'm trying to NOT run into them-- and I take action to avoid it. Talk about grounds for a Reshoot-- but it's impossible to prove.

What's the point? It should be pretty obvious in 99 out of 100 cases to anyone with a brain whether the contact was incidental, or intentional. And though not explicitly worded, the rules DO allow for action based on those perceptions. (And of course as usual, when there's any doubt, you gotta side with the shooter.)