RO interference or not?

[aztecdriver]

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.

The point is they are the same. There are no rules that say "if the competitor screws up, don't use this rule." Proper body control is not a component in this. The only rule that has bearing is whether your contact altered the shooters run. Video is not used for evidence. It's irrelevant, so lets forget it.

[CZinSC]

I've refrained a couple of times from responding, but I have to chime in now. I agree with every point Aztec has made. I pretty much disagree with the rest of you that say this isn’t interference, etc. Let's look at it this way:

1 – Did YOU as the RO make contact with the shooter? In this case, the RO did. The RO needs to ask the shooter if he feels he was interfered with. The rulebook doesn’t specify “if the shooter is having a crappy run and you make contact it doesn’t count as contact”.

2 – The shooter DOES NOT have to take the reshoot. This is one of the only examples ( I think there are only two ) of an optional reshoot. A shooter with class would say “No, you didn’t interfere, I don’t need a reshoot”.

A – Yes, there will always be shooters that will take the reshoot….these are the same shooters that call for perfect doubles on 25 yard swingers, don’t paste or reset steel, and “shoot-N-scoot” at their local matches.

3 – Just because a shooter is having a crappy run and you interfere, most of you are making the assumption that because it was a crappy run, your interference is OK because he wouldn’t have scored well anyway.

A – What if the shooter, while falling, put his hand out to brace himself, would have been able to spring back up and continue on his run. BUT, you got in the way, he wasn’t able to get up as quick. You INTEFERED with him. You caused his crappy run to be Crappier. You need to offer him a reshoot.

4 – Yes, the shooter is catching a break, but only because YOU interfered with him.

A – Just like when a score sheet is signed, it’s found to have missing data on it, competitor gets a reshoot and does better. The other competitors got screwed for a paperwork issue.

B – Shooter plugs a no shoot, then comes to an activator that doesn’t activate. Gets a reshoot for REF and doesn’t hit the not shoot the second time. The other competitors got screwed.

C – Shooter has 4 mikes, two no shoots, and during scoring, someone inadvertently pastes a target before it was scored by the RO. Competitor gets a reshoot and does much better. The other competitors REALLY got screwed.

It happens. It’s part of the game. It’s covered in the rulebook. If you touch a shooter and you’re the RO, offer him a reshoot. If in your opinion the interference had no bearing on the outcome of his run, you know he is “one of those shooters”. If he doesn’t take the reshoot, pat him on the back and tell him what a class act he is.

[sperman]

IMO the key word in 8.6.4 is "interfered". I can see a scenario where the shooter, while falling, ran into the RO, but this contact did not interfere with the shooters attempt at the course of fire. Now if the RO grabs the shooter, that's a different story, but banging into his shins on the way to the ground doesn't qualify as interference.

This is another good example of why the RO shouldn't be right on top of the shooter during the course of fire (I call these guys "velcro ROs" because they feel like they need to be right next to the shooter at all times.) The RO can do his job without risking contact with the shooter.

[CZinSC]

IMO the key word in 8.6.4 is "interfered". I can see a scenario where the shooter, while falling, ran into the RO, but this contact did not interfere with the shooters attempt at the course of fire. Now if the RO grabs the shooter, that's a different story, but banging into his shins on the way to the ground doesn't qualify as interference.

This is another good example of why the RO shouldn't be right on top of the shooter during the course of fire (I call these guys "velcro ROs" because they feel like they need to be right next to the shooter at all times.) The RO can do his job without risking contact with the shooter.

It may not look like you interfered with the shooter, but if for one second, after the shooter makes contact, he is thinking in his head “why was the RO there, I fell and bumped him, why didn’t he get out of the way”, you in essence are interfering with how he is shooting the remainder of the COF. Is it subjective? Hell yes. If you don’t want to be put in a situation where you need to offer a reshoot for making contact / intference, then like Scott says…don’t be a Velcro RO.

[MarkCO]

Sperman has it right. The rule says the RO "may" offer a reshoot, NOT "shall". Based on the OP, one can NOT assert the shooter was "interfered" with. Even subsequent posts make it seem like there was no interference. Some of you might drag out the dictionary and read the definition of the words I put in quotes.

[Poppa Bear]

The fact that he sprang up and finished the COF says to me he did not let the contact interfere with the run. I would guess that most of us would only be run into in the above situation if we as RO's had nowhere else to go because we had some form of an obstacle behind us. I have seen many a shooter lose their balance going sideways and even running forward. I have never seen one fall out of the box going backwards. But I did see one back into a set of barrels held by a post. They held and he bounced off.

Unless i feel my actions affected his attempt at the stage I would not offer the reshoot.

[Thomas H]

People seem to be forgetting the part of the OP where he said: "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."

Prior to this, the competitor fell and hit the RO at approximately knee level. However, this was followed with the RO deliberately placing hands on the shooter.

Offering them a reshoot isn't based on whether or not the shooter had a good run, a bad run, or could continue their run. It is based on whether or not your interference made a difference to the run---did your interference have an affect.

I'm thinking that it was obvious that it did---not necessarily when the shooter hit the RO's knee (depending on the circumstances, which none of us know), but when you caught him.

Whether or not your action was needed from a safety viewpoint is immaterial, and a different topic. (And whether or not it should have been done is also immaterial, and the arguments regarding that are also a separate topic.) The RO's actions made a difference to the shooter's run.

Therefore, offer of reshoot prior to the shooter learning their time and points.

PoppaBear said: "The fact that he sprang up and finished the COF says to me he did not let the contact interfere with the run."

...I don't see that at all. I've had to stand and wait for an RO to get behind me so that I could continue shooting---after which I continued shooting. Of course I kept going---the shooter isn't allowed to stop themselves. But obviously it made a difference to my run, and the RO offered a reshoot at the end of that stage.

In the same mode, just because the OP's shooter finished the run doesn't mean that the RO's actions didn't interfere----because the shooter isn't going to stop himself. (After all, isn't that what we tell everyone? Don't stop for anything other than the RO's command or losing your eye/ear protection?)

[old506]

It is a reshoot, the RO reached out. Hind sight is always 20/20 but "Stop" probably should have been called when contact was made.

There isn't anything in the rule book that says you can't fall down and get back up and shoot, or shoot from the ground. The RO happened to be in the way.

If I fell back and hit the RO, I would be worried that I hurt them, I might even stop myself. In this way, the competitor (although blowing their stage) was impeded by the RO, either physically or mentally (by the thought of having hit someone else during their run). That's why I think "Stop" should be called and then a Reshoot offered.

I don't think that the RO should try to "break a fall". People are capable of maintaining a safe muzzle/gun during a fall. I think it is more of a safety concern for an RO to try to step in, more chance for both to get hurt or the RO to "mess" up the shooters attempt to keep a safe muzzle. What if one RO reaches out because he is a strong guy and holds a person up from falling and the next competitor falls and gets a 16 year old or slight person and they too fall back?

The RO was out of position, I know the RO didn't expect to be out of position but they ended up being out of position. This is why the rule is there to offer a reshoot.

[MarkCO]

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.

I went and read the definitions of "Interference" in 6 different professional sport rule sets. It is consistently defined as anything which alters, modifies, or disrupts the equitable play. FWIW, contact with an official by ball or player is not interference in ANY pro sport except ours. The rules are clear that the RO "may" offer a reshoot. I have offered a reshoot when I got stepped on by a shooter and the shooter did not even know it. Another brushed my shoulder on a stage with an "RO trap" and asked for a reshoot, I did not offer one. It is one area of the rulebook that is NOT black and white and left to the discretion of the RO. Some ROs offer a reshoot if someone in the peanut gallery yawns, others will never offer a reshoot.

All reshoots are to be avoided IMHO. When the RO fails to ensure the COF is reset, the RM fails to calibrate steel, the RO interferes, that diminishes the competitors ability to complete the course of fire the first time through. USPSA specifically does not reshoot courses of fire sans classifiers and when a competitor gets to "practice" a stage in live fire and then re-run it, they will usually improve their score. So, when someone screws up and a reshoot occurs, that competitor has the opportunity to improve their score that was not afforded to the other competitors. That removes the level playing field and gives the reshoot competitor a better chance at a good score. When I was new, my reshoots were worse. Every reshoot I have had in the last 5 years, my score went up except once, and then it was the same. I was allowed to improve my score because someone made a mistake. That is unfair to the competitors that I passed as a result of those reshoots.

There is one top GM shooter who is well known for getting reshoots. Malfunctions provided guns, runs into ROs, pretty much every trick in the book. The other top GMs know who it is. Most ROs are oblivious because he is so fast and good at it. Many other GMs consider him to be a cheater, not an, "oh, he got a lucky reshoot."

You think if Manning, Brady, Big Ben, etc. could get another down out of "bumping" an official that we would not see it happen a lot on 3rd down and then also end up with extending drives. Anytime the RO offers a reshoot that should not be offered, he is hurting every other competitor in that shooters division. Offering reshoots is not polite, nor about how you feel, it is about did you really interfere. That is did you REALLY hurt the competitors score. If the answer is yes, then you as the RO probably made a mistake and the only way to fix the issue as afforded by the rulebook is to offer a reshoot. OTOH, if you did not affect the competitors score, then you should not offer a reshoot.

This is one of those HUGE areas where my personal opinion is that if you are not a competent competitor who is quick on their feet and understands how top shooters gameplan and shoot, you should NOT have a timer in your hand. I don't care how well you know the sport or the rules, if your physicality and attention can not maintain pace with the top shooters, don't pick up a timer!

Just this past week, at the Crimson Trace match, SHOOTER'S shotgun literally broke in half after a few shots. I gave him room, he dumped it safely (both halves) and went to pistol. However, there were 5 plates behind him that he could clean up with pistol and save a 15 second penalty per target. I was watching and had to be close to pick up his shots on the timer, but also had to be ready to book it back 20 yards if he remembered those 5 targets. He did and when he turned, I stayed well in front of him so he could get to a safe angle to shoot those 5 plates. There was a nice cluster around his broken shotgun, and I yelled "Get back" which they did. My actions prevented having to offer SHOOTER a reshoot, which he dearly would have loved. Sure I felt bad for him, but if I had screwed up and he got a reshoot, I would have effectively moved him from 13th to 9th in the match. I like SHOOTER, but I like the 4 guys in front of him I would have "penalized" if he had to be given a reshoot because I did not RO correctly.

And for anyone who cries "local vs. major" we should run all matches the same when it comes to officiating!

Edited to replace named shooter with SHOOTER.

Edited August 22, 2013 by MarkCO

[Sarge]

LOCAL VS MAJOR!!!!!!!

Couldn't help it. We don't all run [x] every weekend brother. A better argument would have been that any RO needs to be able to get out of the way of the shooters he is running.

But I still say, if a shooter is falling, let him fall. What if you are falling and in an instant you decide oh hell I'll just finish up from the ground but then you are caught by an RO. He just screwed up your plan B right? Reshoot.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Flexmoney

[MarkCO]

Kevin, i assume you meant [x]?

Yes, I agree with you. Personally, I am not breaking the fall or assisting the shooter either, I am focused on the gun and it would be a very rare circumstance to block an arm or gun, especially if falling.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Flexmoney

[Flexmoney]

Lets leave names out of the discussion. Thanks. - Admin.

[MarkCO]

Sorry Kyle. It was not a bad reference, just to a top shooter who moves very fast. I will take his name out of my post above for you.

[old506]

We all hate reshoots, that's a fact.

I just can't see a case where there wouldn't be interference of the shooter during a COF if the shooter comes into contact with the RO. Is it necessarily "physical" interference, where they miss a shot or their movement is impeded? No, but it certainly is "mental" interference, every time. If I have a heater and am running around with it and touch someone or someone touches me, I guarantee my focus on the COF will break off into "safe mode". It would happen especially if I am retreating, worrying if I am going to out run someone and that would put them down range of me.

Now, if the RO asks the shooter if they "felt" or even "realized" they made contact with the RO and the Shooter says "I didn't feel anything", then I don't think that the RO is obligated to offer a reshoot. If it is major contact like this case, or where the RO reaches out, then I think it is a "Stop" by the RO and then an offer to reshoot.

[MarkCO]

If I have a heater and am running around with it and touch someone or someone touches me, I guarantee my focus on the COF will break off into "safe mode". It would happen especially if I am retreating, worrying if I am going to out run someone and that would put them down range of me.

So, if you fall, would not you already be in "safe mode"? I would! Since you are already in "safe mode" because you screwed up and fell down, the RO interaction is in the same realm, and therefore not an issue. Nowhere in the rules is the RO afforded the option to "stop" a competitor other than for safety or REF. If the "fall-ee" maintained safe muzzle direction with the finger off the trigger during the fall, then stopping him would be a violation of the rules. Plus, you can not really "stop" and then "offer" a reshoot.

We can easily go off on tangents about contact without the fall, and that is another matter. But THIS case is not that at all.

[Thomas H]

If I have a heater and am running around with it and touch someone or someone touches me, I guarantee my focus on the COF will break off into "safe mode". It would happen especially if I am retreating, worrying if I am going to out run someone and that would put them down range of me.

So, if you fall, would not you already be in "safe mode"? I would! Since you are already in "safe mode" because you screwed up and fell down, the RO interaction is in the same realm, and therefore not an issue.

No. At least not like you mean it. If my focus is on the course of fire, then that is different than if my focus is suddenly forced to change to "course of fire PLUS the RO".

When I'm running a course of fire, I shouldn't notice the RO unless he/she starts yelling due to a safety issue. They should be behind me, out of the way, and not affecting my run at all.

If the RO is suddenly a part of the course, and changing how I'm dealing with the course of fire, then indeed we have a difference, and my focus on safety has changed from "safe trigger, safe muzzle direction, etc" to "....AND where the heck is the RO."

This is interference.

I find that I quite completely disagree with your contention that whether or not the RO has interfered with the shooter depends on what mindset the shooter currently has.

If the RO places themself into the course of fire through contact with the shooter to the level of something as obvious as "put my hand out and caught his shoulder" then how is this NOT interference?

The shooter had not broken any rule. The RO grabbed the shooter. So---you are saying that since the shooter had fallen, the RO wasn't interfering when they changed the shooter's movement even though the shooter was still moving and attempting to complete the course of fire?

Nowhere in the rules is the RO afforded the option to "stop" a competitor other than for safety or REF. If the "fall-ee" maintained safe muzzle direction with the finger off the trigger during the fall, then stopping him would be a violation of the rules. Plus, you can not really "stop" and then "offer" a reshoot.

We can easily go off on tangents about contact without the fall, and that is another matter. But THIS case is not that at all.

So are you arguing that this is obviously interference, or not?

The OP never said that the gun wasn't in a safe direction, nor that a finger was in the trigger guard. As such, the OP reacted to a potential safety issue that at that time didn't exist. And there are cases in which someone says "stop" for a potential safety issue, finds that one didn't exist, and then gives a re-shoot.

(After all, isn't that rather the definition of how we deal with potential squibs?)

So, let's see---in the OP, the shooter did not break any safety rules. The RO grabbed the shooter and changed their movement. What about that would NOT require a reshoot?

[MarkCO]

You are taking THIS situation out of context. The competitor biffed, he was not (or should not have) been thinking about shooting, but rather 100% on keeping safe. That occurred due to HIS mistake, not the ROs. The RO was apparently in a good position, and then the SHOOTER screwed up and altered his path, NOT THE RO!

Contact does not mean interference! Interference means that the score the competitor posted was hindered by the RO interjection. In this case, there is no evidence that the score was hindered, in fact the RO may have benefited the shooter. I have a really hard time when someone gets a score benefit due to their mistake, and that is exactly what a reshoot in this case would be.

Require a reshoot?...read the rule, the RO may offer, but there is NO requirement.

[old506]

I think you are taking the fall out of context. The fall doesn't have anything to do with it. The shooter was negotiating his COF (albeit pulling a Gerald Ford) and the RO reached out, touching the shooter (with good intentions, I will give him that) and the shooter fell on his legs.

The reshoot should be offered, I guess it doesn't have to be taken though if the shooter doesn't feel they were interfered with?

[MarkCO]

Sure it does. If the shooter did not screw up and fall, we would not be having this conversation. The entire situation was CREATED by the shooter's mistake, not the RO. Most of you want to reward the shooter with a second chance due to HIS error. If the RO had created the condition, I would certainly be in the reshoot camp, but that is not what happened.

[CZinSC]

Sure it does. If the shooter did not screw up and fall, we would not be having this conversation. The entire situation was CREATED by the shooter's mistake, not the RO. Most of you want to reward the shooter with a second chance due to HIS error. If the RO had created the condition, I would certainly be in the reshoot camp, but that is not what happened.

True...however, if the RO had not been touched...ie: stayed out of the way, the shooter wouldn't be offered a reshoot. The shooter may have created the situation, but the RO exacerbated it.

[MarkCO]

The RO "may" have exacerbated it. There is a chance the competitor did not even know he contacted the RO. It would be nice to see video and hear what the instance competitor felt/saw during his tumblitis.

[CZinSC]

I agree. That is why i said before, if you ask him and he says no don't worry about it. Case closed. If he says yes, you interfered with me getting up, then he should get a reshoot. You made his crappy performance crappier.

[motosapiens]

You are taking THIS situation out of context. The competitor biffed, he was not (or should not have) been thinking about shooting, but rather 100% on keeping safe. That occurred due to HIS mistake, not the ROs. The RO was apparently in a good position, and then the SHOOTER screwed up and altered his path, NOT THE RO!

Contact does not mean interference! Interference means that the score the competitor posted was hindered by the RO interjection. In this case, there is no evidence that the score was hindered, in fact the RO may have benefited the shooter. I have a really hard time when someone gets a score benefit due to their mistake, and that is exactly what a reshoot in this case would be.

Require a reshoot?...read the rule, the RO may offer, but there is NO requirement.

I can see both sides, but I tend to agree with the above opinion. I personally would feel like a lamer asking for a reshoot if I were the shooter. By the time the shooter has fallen, he is already screwing up, I just don't see significant *additional* problem coming from the pretty mild contact with the RO (unless they really got tangled up and it significantly slowed his return to action). As was mentioned earlier, most serious sports do NOT change anything for interference by an official (although admittedly their officials are professionals, but then so are the players, and the stakes are much higher than what we play for).

I take a very dim view of people who try to take advantage of the rules to cover up their own mistakes. I think that kind of stuff is borderline cheating (not that this instance necessarily is an example of that).

[aztecdriver]

Look guys, you are judging his screw up as negating his right to safely navigate the cof. It's freestyle. Means if he wants to stand there and do jumping jacks for 30 sec then shoot the course that's his choice, and his right. He also does not need to be dealing with contact with the RO while doing so. Period. You are judging his performance. You don't have the job of doing so. Safety, and score. That's it.

If we weren't allowed to screw up, comstock wouldn't exist.

[motosapiens]

Look guys, you are judging his screw up as negating his right to safely navigate the cof. It's freestyle. Means if he wants to stand there and do jumping jacks for 30 sec then shoot the course that's his choice, and his right. He also does not need to be dealing with contact with the RO while doing so. Period. You are judging his performance. You don't have the job of doing so. Safety, and score. That's it.

If we weren't allowed to screw up, comstock wouldn't exist.

The RO *may* offer a reshoot.

I don't think it's as black and white as you do, but I would be happy to let the RM decide, if the competitor felt that strongly about it. I personally would only take the reshoot if the interference significantly affected my run, but I want my scores to reflect my ability and performance, not luck or range-lawyering.