RO interference or not?

[mildot1]

Shooter starts in seated position, gets up and grabs pistol and engages to the left two steel and one paper. Moves FORWARD to engage 4 paper. Then makes a short retreat to get to the right side to engage 4 paper targets.

RO (me) standing outside shooting area.

On the retreat the shooter either caught the chair leg or fault line and fell backwards out of shooting area, he actually hit me at knee level. I was watching him and gun and put my hand out and caught his shoulder to keep him from falling farther backwards trying to maintain control of shooter and gun. He jumped up and finished stage.

Upon completion of stage I offered a Re Shoot due to RO interference.

Upon reflection I feel I screwed up.

My reasons

1. I was trying to maintain a safe shooting environment and control the firearm.

2. I did not "IMPEDE" him in anyway from engaging targets.

3. When I touched him he was outside of the fault lines and only getting farther away.

After thinking it over.

1. Make no effort to control. Could be dangerous?

2. Control shooter, no reshoot due to he was out of shooting area and forward progress not hindered.

What is your call??????????

[Sarge]

Interference.

Also, even though it may feel like the safe thing to do, I never, ever reach for a shooter or grab a shooter when they have a gun in their hand. I personally feel it adds to the danger level.

Then if the gun goes off, who caused it, you or the shooter?

I have reached out to shooters who had their gun holstered and tried to leave the start location to get something from their range bag but that's a different situation. If somebody is falling, let them fall.

Not only did you interfere but you assisted the shooter. Did you give yourself a procedural?

[whitedog]

Interference...reshoot.

I understand yer wanting to attempt to control the gun, and also maybe keep the shooter from getting hurt. Can't say I would not have attempted the same. But Sarge's points are valid also..liability rears its ugly head.

[foxriver6]

Twice I have reacted to shooters swinging beyond the 180. On one of those occasions I touched the shooter by blocking there forearm and preventing them from going further. The other time the shooter reacted after seeing me react and stopped his movement. Both resulted in DQ's! Although NOT the ideal way, in both situations I believe I did the thing in preventing the shooter from making a bad situation worse. To OP's question, IMHO no reshoot!

[Poppa Bear]

If he came out of the box and fell into me I would have probably grabbed him myself just to keep both of us from going down. I would have then stopped him, reset the stage, and then started him again.

If i was far enough away that he would not have fallen into me, I would have watched to make sure we did not have any 180 violations and then let him either proceed or stop on his own.

[Solvability]

I think you acted in the interest of safety and yes I would have given a reshoot - it is not all cut and dried you have to make an instant judgement call - just letting things play out to avoid liability is pretty lame.

[Cy Soto]

There really is no right or wrong answer in the particular example. According to rule 8.6.4, you, as an RO, had the discretion of offering a reshoot prior to scoring the COF. However, since you were standing outside the shooting area and all you did was help prevent what could have been a fall resulting in injury, I would not have offered a reshoot myself.

As an RO, your main duty is to try to keep both the shooter as well as the spectators safe and this is exactly what you did. Allowing the shooter to fall down (possibly losing control of the gun in the process) when you could have easily prevented this is not only unsafe but also irresponsible.

Rule 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. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.

[Kahai808]

i would have caught him as well. I think that falling could have made situation more dangerous.

[aztecdriver]

Two things. If your actions were in the course of maintaining safety, then STOP is the command you need to utilize, and if you felt the need to assist in keeping the situation safe (the exact position of using your hand to further assist in keeping the course safe - I'll let other people argue about)

Being that you did feel further action (catching) to maintain the course safely, stop him immediately and reshoot.

Let's remove the case of you using your hand to stop him. In the course of his falling, he hit you at knee level. That's interference in and of itself. Recovering from a fall can be part of the competitive problem if someone falls, they should have been capable of navigating that problem without your being there. It's not a slam - it happens, sometimes we get caught in the wrong spot when these things happen.

If he had simply fallen and hit you and gets up and continues - not violating any safety rules in the process, the proper action is to offer a reshoot for interference before advising of time or scoring hits. As you took action to stop a course from becoming unsafe, issue the STOP command, and reshoot from there, assuming no other safety infractions took place.

The shooter has a right to fall and navigate the course without you being in the way. That's the interference piece. If you feel you have to take further action to keep the course from becoming unsafe - taking that action requires you to stop the course, and then order the reshoot. (there is no offering, you stopped the course, it must be done)

BTW, being outside the shooting area has nothing to do with this. We know that shooters are permitted to leave the shooting area - so you're position outside of it has no bearing. Shooters are free to engage outside the shooting area - they might not like the results, but, it has no bearing on whether it's interference or not.

Edited August 20, 2013 by aztecdriver

[MarkCO]

In the situation you described, I would not have offered a reshoot. IMHO, doing so is giving all the other competitors a penalty since the shooter at issue made some mistakes and cost himslef some time. Your contact was inadvertant and not impeding. We also have to be consistent. While a D shooter may reshoot and end up in the same place, there are numerous occurances of higher levels shooters creating contact in order to get a reshoot since they are in the process of tanking a stage.

[kevin c]

Aztecdriver described very well how I would call it.

[lcs]

No reshoot, no foul on your part. You did not interfere with his COF. Hard to stop a natural instinct to save someone from falling. Could have been a lot worse if he fell.

[aztecdriver]

In the situation you described, I would not have offered a reshoot. IMHO, doing so is giving all the other competitors a penalty since the shooter at issue made some mistakes and cost himslef some time. Your contact was inadvertant and not impeding. We also have to be consistent. While a D shooter may reshoot and end up in the same place, there are numerous occurances of higher levels shooters creating contact in order to get a reshoot since they are in the process of tanking a stage.

Mark, I'm going to push back a little in that I don't agree with you - necessarily. It's hard to tell from the description of being run into, but if I'm constrained in getting up from a fallen position by having an ROs body in the way of either scrambling, placement of my arms, what have you, it can still be interference.

Keep in mind, that the rules state "In the event that 'inadvertent contact'.. has interfered with the competitor." We're not talking about deliberate contact designed to deliver a reshoot. Regardless of how little contact there is, it could have affected the competitors response to dealing with the situation. I've stepped on an ROs foot backing out of positions and it's enough to take my thought from doing what I need to do. I've had people tell me it's not interference because it didn't impede me, but it did cause me to think a second about what was going on when I stepped on and why it was there.

Still the other component to this is the action taken by the RO to avoid a potentially unsafe situation. That action requires a stop and reshoot as whether it was advised or not, the action was more than inadvertent contact.

[MarkCO]

Good points for discussion.

I would think stepping on a foot backing up is more interference than harder contact if I am already biffing on the ground. The RO may have helped him a tad, but due to safety. I still think a reshoot granted when someone falls down, provided they have maintained safe firearm control, is a penalty for every other shooter in the match. If they did not maintain safe control then it is a DQ. We don't stop people for getting close to the 180, we DQ then when the break it.

I thought I heard stop on a stage at the CTC match, so I stopped, we then had a conversation, and I got a reshoot. Did not do as well as I was doing halfway through the first try. Turns out the peanut gallery was just yucking it up during my first run. So yes, I see how a small thing can be a disruption.

[mildot1]

Kind of hard to make heads or tails of this!

One says give him a reshoot and myself a procedural for aiding You have to be kidding? You would allow someone falling out of control to keep going and possibly injure themselves or take you down also? Just step back a little more and watch the crash?

Another says interference, reshoot. While another says no interference and no reshoot.

Since I did give the reshoot I am torn between not screwing the shooter since I touched him and the fact that he improved his run greatly over what he would have had if he was not given the reshoot. Now he has gained from his own error.

I am 110% sure that he did not fall on purpose so there is no gaming to be considered.

I have read this thread over and over and still am not sure.

I think if I had it to do over I would have asked the shooter if he honestly thought that my actions had caused him any impediment in completing his run. His conscience can be his guide!

[MarkCO]

mildot1, you are to be commended for your OP and careful consideration. There are a few replies on here that would make me consider asking for a new RO if I came line and they were the RO. But, an open forum and everyone with an opinion and internet gets their comments. If I end up with a question that is not clear, ultimately I ask Amidon. Usually, one of the RMIs or my AD can get me the correct answer, or at least the right guidance to decide without having to go to Amidon.

Best,

[PKT1106]

This is a situation where I wish we had video so we could see exactly what happened. As I read the OP, the shooter started his COF, at one point retreating up-range to engage a target array and got caught up in the range equipment on his path and fell and hit you at knee level, while you were outside the shooting area. IMO, it is not a reshoot. Sounds like the shooter had a body control/awareness issue and should have been more cognizant of the equipment.

[aztecdriver]

mildot1, you are to be commended for your OP and careful consideration. There are a few replies on here that would make me consider asking for a new RO if I came line and they were the RO. But, an open forum and everyone with an opinion and internet gets their comments. If I end up with a question that is not clear, ultimately I ask Amidon. Usually, one of the RMIs or my AD can get me the correct answer, or at least the right guidance to decide without having to go to Amidon.

Best,

I'd like to assume that just because I differ with you in application of the rules, that your comments about asking for a new RO are not directed at me. Your previous comments about the effect of a reshoot is a penalty to anyone else shooting the course concern me. When we make a decision on applying a reshoot for interference, we can only make our decision on that shooter and the affect of the inadvertent contact. Did the contact materially alter the shooters execution of solving the problem? It doesn't matter if the contact comes from them falling person, someone that overshot a retreat and put a shoulder into you, or as I suggested stepping on you.

Falling can be part of the competitive problem. The competitor should be able to deal with recovering from the fall without the RO being in the way, whether it is helping or hurting his problem. The RO being there materially changed what happened during the fall. The only rule we have to deal with this is the interference rule. It may suck that it wipes out a bad score and gives him another run at it - but I don't see that we have the ability to apply the judgement that says because you were going to have a bad score we don't offer a reshoot for being in the way.

Was there inadvertent contact? Did said contact affect how the competitor dealt with the course? Offer the option of the reshoot if the rm agrees. If he accepts score it and discuss it with the rm and let them decide how to proceed.

Like I said, I hear what you are saying. Who after falling that gets a chance to reshoot won't accept it? But then again, we as the RO should have been out of the way. There's plenty of examples such as non patched targets that can lead to the same competitive issues. We still need deal with it within the course and the rules.

Our disagreement is determining whether the contact is interference. I'm interested in what other rmi might have to say.

This is a situation where I wish we had video so we could see exactly what happened. As I read the OP, the shooter started his COF, at one point retreating up-range to engage a target array and got caught up in the range equipment on his path and fell and hit you at knee level, while you were outside the shooting area. IMO, it is not a reshoot. Sounds like the shooter had a body control/awareness issue and should have been more cognizant of the equipment.

How does whether a shooter has a problem navigating an obstacle negates his ability to solve the problem ( whether he created it himself or not) without an RO being in the way? Again, the shooting area has nothing to do with it. How many times have we seen competitors fall out off the shooting area engaging tHeir last target. If we step up there close enough to touch them as they fall out but they intended to retuRn and make up the shot they just threw - did we not interfere?

Mildot, don't get frustrated, its a great question. I'm hoping Troy or some others come in to weigh in. I'm perfectly fIne with being wrong. I just can't get behind using how it affects other competitors as a judgement.

[Joe4d]

theh rule says "MAY" as the RO on the scene you are supported by rule to make that judgement. Reshoot, no reshoot. Both are the correct answer. You are the RO you have to make that decision before showing the shooter the score or the time.
If I was unsure Id offer the reshoot., if I didnt think what I did hurt him, I wouldnt . But either way its up to the man with the timer to decide.

[MarkCO]

I'd like to assume that just because I differ with you in application of the rules, that your comments about asking for a new RO are not directed at me. Your previous comments about the effect of a reshoot is a penalty to anyone else shooting the course concern me.

If I was unsure Id offer the reshoot., if I didnt think what I did hurt him, I wouldnt . But either way its up to the man with the timer to decide.

Aztecdriver, your assumption is correct. Let me clarify my point about the reshoot being a penalty to the other shooters. When you give a shooter a reshoot because you are "unsure" like Joe4D said he would do, or when it is not supported by a rule, then you are gifting the shooter something he did not earn nor do the rules afford it. That is why we must be SURE, when we offer a reshoot, assess a penalty, issue a DQ etc. The rulebook is not about how we feel, it is about competition and ensuring an equal playing field for all competitors to test their combination of skill and equipment. Every other major sport treats contact by the official as inconsequential and the competitors just have to deal with it.

When a competitor falls, he has NOT solved the challenge suitably given the course and his set of skills. Therefore, the "redo" is out of place and the reshoot elevates his score over others who only got one chance to do it right. Reshoots, especially on disaster stage runs, almost always go better than the first run. We don't do Mulligans in USPSA.

[whitedog]

MarkCo....color me dense, but are you saying RO interference depends on how it happened? I have been led to believe by the rules and more experienced RO's that its black and white.

Also, how is a reshoot bad for other shooters? They happen all the time for a host of reasons.

[stick]

Kind of hard to make heads or tails of this!

One says give him a reshoot and myself a procedural for aiding You have to be kidding? You would allow someone falling out of control to keep going and possibly injure themselves or take you down also? Just step back a little more and watch the crash?

Another says interference, reshoot. While another says no interference and no reshoot.

Since I did give the reshoot I am torn between not screwing the shooter since I touched him and the fact that he improved his run greatly over what he would have had if he was not given the reshoot. Now he has gained from his own error.

I am 110% sure that he did not fall on purpose so there is no gaming to be considered.

I have read this thread over and over and still am not sure.

I think if I had it to do over I would have asked the shooter if he honestly thought that my actions had caused him any impediment in completing his run. His conscience can be his guide!

I think k you did the right thing. I would have done it the same way.

[Chris iliff]

"FEEL", no room for "feel", only rules. In my best Yoda voice.

RESHOOT

[PKT1106]

This is a situation where I wish we had video so we could see exactly what happened. As I read the OP, the shooter started his COF, at one point retreating up-range to engage a target array and got caught up in the range equipment on his path and fell and hit you at knee level, while you were outside the shooting area. IMO, it is not a reshoot. Sounds like the shooter had a body control/awareness issue and should have been more cognizant of the equipment.

How does whether a shooter has a problem navigating an obstacle negates his ability to solve the problem ( whether he created it himself or not) without an RO being in the way? Again, the shooting area has nothing to do with it. How many times have we seen competitors fall out off the shooting area engaging tHeir last target. If we step up there close enough to touch them as they fall out but they intended to retuRn and make up the shot they just threw - did we not interfere?

This situation was not a "last target falling out of the box" moment, it was a moment where the competitor tripped over a prop/obstacle and fell on their own accord into the RO, who may have been standing a good ways away. This is where video comes in handy. How far was the RO away from the shooter when this happened? How did the competitor react when they tripped over the range equipment?

If I trip over my own feet, I wouldn't expect a reshoot, even if I fell into the RO's feet, because I didn't not have proper body control.

[Nik Habicht]

If I trip over my own feet, I wouldn't expect a reshoot, even if I fell into the RO's feet, because I didn't not have proper body control.

Nor would I accept a reshoot in these circumstances -- keep in mind this is the only reshoot a competitor may decline.....