range master auth?

[Sarge]

I have only been MD for one major so my experience is limited, BUT, when a guy was DQ'ed at my match he was considering going to ARB. He walked up to me and asked what I thought of the situation. I told him he was within his rights to ARB and did not say another word. I was not going to get involved in the process because he could use what I said later. To some that may seem like blowing him off.

[Chuck Anderson]

I there is an issue with an NROi official take the time to fill out the NROI incident report. Get the process started. One of a couple things will probably happen. Either way more information will be gained. Either we're going to find out the RM was wrong and he needs some additional training or to not be an RM. or there was a legit reason the RM did what they did that the crowd isn't aware of.

I've talked to ROs after a DQ before that weren't sure what they saw. They say they are pretty sure this happened but not 100% I've also talks to ROs that DQd someone and didn't really see it, but it must have happened because... While I've never overturned one as RM info ask them to be sure before sending someone home.

[whitedog]

Don't think so....his option was presented. At that point things become "legal". From what I read this situation was not an arb....it was a shooter stamping his feet because he did not want the DQ he earned. And the person in charge let it happen.

I prefer Sarge's way....here's yer options, yer call.

[MarkCO]

Contact the area director at a minimum and probably Nroi. There is a match I won't work primarily because a dq where a loaded gun was pointed at an ro and the match allowed him to shoot the remainder of the match for no score. I can't accept that kind of disregard for safety and the liability it brings. No one else should either, in my opinion.

[aztecdriver]

RM...MD. Semantics. Bottom line is its unsafe...and who ever was in charge was not able, or refused to see it. It could have been Bobo the widget salesman..does not change the fact that a very dangerous act was condoned...and possibly encouraged. I would possibly contact NROI.....

Dude, no offense to you but when someone says an md can do what ever they want, in a discussion about a safety incident, it's not semantic. The match officials make decisions. Lets talk about the right ones or you can just stop talking???

It's a sport with guns. It's not "if its safety I don't give a dang if its deputy dog". If you think that the safety issue is beyond all of that please quit competing.

There's a problem. Fix the problem. Do it right. Stop thinking that just because its a safety concern you trump everything.

[whitedog]

My apologies...I was under the impression safety does trump everything. But of course we need range lawyers to dot every I and cross every T, that's real important while muzzles are pointed up range. I'll stop talking, would not want my ignorance concerning safety to affect any ones thought process.

[Gary Stevens]

Words mean things.

[whitedog]

My statements were only meant to say whoever stops the shooter in a dangerous scenario...by all means stop them. And be it RM , who I am aware has authority here, or MD...and usually at locals it's the same person....for the love of god uphold the DQ under these circumstances.

Safety trumps everything, period.

If I ruffled feathers by not giving the proper authority to the proper post, I apologize.

[gp100man]

Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification.
However, the commission of the infraction as described by the Range Official is not subject to challenge or appeal

I was there waiting to shoot when this happened. It sure looked to me like the shooter had turned uprange while engaging the target, but I figured that the RO had the best angle to make the call. The RO called it as 180 degree violation. But when the competitor started to complain voraciously, the RO asked the other RO's to see if there was a consensus. Now to me, the RO that made the call had the best angle. It was his responsibility. It is human nature to back off and not want to get involved in a dispute, especially if one of the persons is being very animated "Hey, I don't know, you had the best view...." So unless one of the other RO's can unequivocally state that they say the infraction did NOT happen, the ruling should stand. You are done...man up. It happens to the best. It blew my mind that the RM even was called. I believe that the rule says there has to be exceptional (surprising, rare, unprecedented,...) circumstances to warrant reconsideration. That means that you don't get to appeal just because you don't like it. I don't know what exceptional circumstances are, maybe if the RO's get's a bug in his eye, or he trips or his glasses fall off before the call is made or something like that.

I saw this happen on another stage at that same match too. The RO made the call. The shooter that was DQ'd was a Range Official that jumped into our squad to shoot through. The call was overturned by the MD. That really stank after another shooter, who was not a Range Official, was DQ'd and made to go pack up (and rightly so).

Chuck mentioned in an earlier post that he has "talked to ROs after a DQ before that weren't sure what they saw. They say they are pretty sure this happened but not 100%" I'm sure that has happened. Who hasn't doubted themselves just a little bit when asked about what they saw. It happens so fast. It is not like you can pull a target and put an overlay on it. There often is no "hard" evidence. You make the best call you can and then go on.

Steve

• Quote

[remoandiris]

I was running the timer and dq'd a shooter for a 180 violation. Shooter said he's been shooting for umpteen years and never been dq'd and didn't feel he broke the 180. Other staff on the stage were not watching the shooter for various reasons. None of the shooter's squad mates jumped to his defense, which in my experience, is a bit unusual if the shooter is right.

RM arrived, I said my piece and the shooter said his. RM overruled me. Said there was a chance the shooter didn't break the 180. I told the RM I know what I saw. Shooter got a reshoot and I continued working that match, but I will never work another match that RM is involved with.

[atbarr]

From reading thru this, it sounds like friendship is more important that safety.

[Jim Norman]

Was not there, wherever there was, but the RM should, rather MUST, be reported to NROI.

This person should not be in a position as an RO let alone an RM if all I read is true.

We play a game that could easily go bad in so many ways. That we have a remarkable safety record is due to the fact that we have redundant rules and we enforce them.

[aztecdriver]

<p>

Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification.

However, the commission of the infraction as described by the Range Official is not subject to challenge or appeal

I was there waiting to shoot when this happened. It sure looked to me like the shooter had turned uprange while engaging the target, but I figured that the RO had the best angle to make the call. The RO called it as 180 degree violation. But when the competitor started to complain voraciously, the RO asked the other RO's to see if there was a consensus. Now to me, the RO that made the call had the best angle. It was his responsibility. It is human nature to back off and not want to get involved in a dispute, especially if one of the persons is being very animated "Hey, I don't know, you had the best view...." So unless one of the other RO's can unequivocally state that they say the infraction did NOT happen, the ruling should stand. You are done...man up. It happens to the best. It blew my mind that the RM even was called. I believe that the rule says there has to be exceptional (surprising, rare, unprecedented,...) circumstances to warrant reconsideration. *snip*

1. The rm is informed of every dq, regardless of circumstance.

2. The shooter always has opportunity to appeal. Regardless of why.

[scooter doc]

I was running the timer and dq'd a shooter for a 180 violation. Shooter said he's been shooting for umpteen years and never been dq'd and didn't feel he broke the 180. Other staff on the stage were not watching the shooter for various reasons. None of the shooter's squad mates jumped to his defense, which in my experience, is a bit unusual if the shooter is right.

RM arrived, I said my piece and the shooter said his. RM overruled me. Said there was a chance the shooter didn't break the 180. I told the RM I know what I saw. Shooter got a reshoot and I continued working that match, but I will never work another match that RM is involved with.

[/

dude, i felt really bad for you, and said so to peter. I dont think I could of finished up like you did. youv'e got more character than me. And i do appreciate you sweating your ass off, so we could shoot this.

dave

[remoandiris]

I was running the timer and dq'd a shooter for a 180 violation. Shooter said he's been shooting for umpteen years and never been dq'd and didn't feel he broke the 180. Other staff on the stage were not watching the shooter for various reasons. None of the shooter's squad mates jumped to his defense, which in my experience, is a bit unusual if the shooter is right.

RM arrived, I said my piece and the shooter said his. RM overruled me. Said there was a chance the shooter didn't break the 180. I told the RM I know what I saw. Shooter got a reshoot and I continued working that match, but I will never work another match that RM is involved with.

[/

dude, i felt really bad for you, and said so <snipped)> I dont think I could of finished up like you did. youv'e got more character than me. And i do appreciate you sweating your ass off, so we could shoot this.

dave

Don't feel bad for me. I did the job I was asked to do. Let's do everyone a favor and keep names and locations out of it. No need to create ill will. It is what it is and we learn from it.

Edited September 2, 2013 by remoandiris

[motosapiens]

I was running the timer and dq'd a shooter for a 180 violation. Shooter said he's been shooting for umpteen years and never been dq'd and didn't feel he broke the 180. Other staff on the stage were not watching the shooter for various reasons. None of the shooter's squad mates jumped to his defense, which in my experience, is a bit unusual if the shooter is right.

RM arrived, I said my piece and the shooter said his. RM overruled me. Said there was a chance the shooter didn't break the 180. I told the RM I know what I saw. Shooter got a reshoot and I continued working that match, but I will never work another match that RM is involved with.

I've only worked two major matches, so take my experience with a grain or two of salt, but you have to call what you see. I was unlucky enough to have to call a couple dq's earlier this year, but there was no doubt whatsoever in my mind. They weren't 180 violations, more like 240, and the other RO's concurred, and even the competitors (while obviously not pleased) were as gentlemanly and sportsmanlike as I hope I will ever be if I ever dq myself in a major match.

Whichever side you're on, don't take it personally. Just learn from it and strive to improve. If you're the *only* RO that saw a dq offense, then that's an opportunity for the other RO's on the stage to wake the hell up. We had had one called at Area 1 that I personally might not have been aware or expierienced enough to call, but I saw the same things the timer RO saw, and was confident in backing him up. I also vowed to pay more attention to that particular facet of safety in the future.

Matches and competition and winning are fun, but getting shot sucks ass (ask my little brother, who has thankfully fully recovered). Don't screw around with gun safety.

Edited September 2, 2013 by motosapiens

[Morphire]

I have a bit of familiarity with that stage as I ran it as CRO the following day. I'm not going to comment on the event. I wasn't there to witness it so basically I know as little about it as 99% of you commenting do.

I do know this. If I'm the CRO on a stage and I have one of my RO's make a call, be it an FTE or a 180 violation, one of the first things I ask them is this. Are you certain beyond doubt that you saw the violation? I'll then check their observations of the event and compare them to my own observation and ask my other ROs if they have any reason to dissent. If after that, I don't have any other evidence to shake their confidence in the call, then I'll back them up 100% and reiterate the call to the competitor if needed. If the calling RO isn't certain, then I'll politely apologize to the shooter and offer them a corrected score or a reshoot as is necessary according to the situation.

[BillChunn]

I was there waiting to shoot when this happened. It sure looked to me like the shooter had turned uprange while engaging the target, but I figured that the RO had the best angle to make the call. The RO called it as 180 degree violation. But when the competitor started to complain voraciously, the RO asked the other RO's to see if there was a consensus. Now to me, the RO that made the call had the best angle.

<snip>

I saw this happen on another stage at that same match too. The RO made the call. The shooter that was DQ'd was a Range Official that jumped into our squad to shoot through. The call was overturned by the MD. That really stank after another shooter, who was not a Range Official, was DQ'd and made to go pack up (and rightly so).

This is a volunteer sport. That being said, it sounds like the RM should be reported to NROI for these two specific instances. Preferencial treatment of one shooter over another cannot be tolerated. If it continues to happen, it will be the death of this sport.

It doesn't matter that you are working the match and "shooting through". Personally, to me that just says that this match was improperly setup or there were special favors being handed out to people that were RO's.

{Personal Opinion Mode ON} If you are working the match, you shoot when the staff shoots which is normally the day before the rest of the competitors are shooting. This allows the RM and MD to iron out any problems in the stages so they don't get thrown out during the competition.

{Personal Opinion Mode OFF}

We have ONE set of rules and they apply to everyone who competes in this sport. If you don't want to follow the rules and throw a temper tantrum (and obliviously want to save the C-Note on the Arbitration forum submission) then take up pairs figure skating.

I watched a CRO at a Level 2 match DQ his business partner. I heard about another CRO that DQ'ed a competitor after he had fired his last shot on his last stage for not following the ICHD&H command. He had turned uprange with the gun still in his hand, unholstered.

Again, this is a volunteer sport but you can never whistle a bullet back. Safety first, foremost and always.

BC

[Poppa Bear]

Without having been their to witness it, one of my criteria as both a CRO and as our clubs unofficial RM for our monthly matches would be does the evidence fit the call. I had a stage that I shot that included a No Shoot. The RO noticed a hole in the NS, but because it did not line up with any of my shots I was able to argue, and he accepted, that it was an unpasted hole from a previous shooter.

In this case one of the first things I would look for would be the possibility of the shooter engaging the target from the alleged location and the angle of the hits on the target. Do the hits substantiate the call, or is the angle such that the shots had to have been taken from a different location farther to the rear? I do not see a rule that can be overturned due to the RO misinterpreting the rules meaning. That leaves the DQ being overturned because the RM was not convinced of the shooters breaking the 180. I will not comment on whether the decision was right or wrong because I was not there to witness it myself.

[sfchorn]

Everything that follows presumes the RO and RM have calmly and rationally tried to work things out in a professional manner with the rule book in hand.

The RM has the overall authority for the APPLICATION of the rules (7.1.6). Nothing in the rulebook gives the RM the authority to break or ignore a rule.

If I was an RO, and absolutely, positively, SURE of an infraction, I would stand by that. If I applied the correct rule and was overturned by a RM, I would ask what specific rule gives him the authority to do that? Sure, if I waffle, or have incorrectly applied a rule, or applied the wrong rule, I take the lesson and try to be a better official for it. But if I can point to the correct rule and say "I am SURE the competitor did this, and it is a DQ offense", then I pretty much have the last word (11.1.2). Only if exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration does the RM or arb committee get to say otherwise.

If I am also a competitor (such as at a local match), I might consider a third party appeal to get the DQ reinstated by an arb committee(based on the fact the RM had no authority to overturn a valid DQ.)

At the very least, I would notify the NROI.

Edited September 4, 2013 by sfchorn

[Shadyscott999]

Sounds like a bad situation all the way around.

[Poppa Bear]

Another thought for consideration. I do not know when this took place, but for arguments sake let's say that it happened during staff day. The objective of shooting the stages by staff the day prior is to troubleshoot the stages. The shooter breaks the 180 but it is also determined that the 180 should not have been breakable. They adjust the stage by adding, or moving parts to remove the ability to see that target past the 170. Does the DQ stand?

[GuildSF4]

Another thought for consideration. I do not know when this took place, but for arguments sake let's say that it happened during staff day. The objective of shooting the stages by staff the day prior is to troubleshoot the stages. The shooter breaks the 180 but it is also determined that the 180 should not have been breakable. They adjust the stage by adding, or moving parts to remove the ability to see that target past the 170. Does the DQ stand?

The DQ stands, the DQ would stand even if the stage was thrown out.

11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the following rules for any matter except where

specifically denied by another rule. Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to

determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification. However, the commission

of the infraction as described by the Range Official is not subject to challenge or appeal. Challenges to the construction

or layout of the course, safety, or shooting conditions may not be submitted after the competitor attempts the course of fire.

Should a course of fire be changed after the competitor completes the stage, he is entitled to the process under appeals

providing that no DQ has occurred.

[Poppa Bear]

Should a course of fire be changed after the competitor completes the stage, he is entitled to the process under appeals

providing that no DQ has occurred.

That is the part i was looking for. It is buried at the end so it is easy to overlook.

How many shooters have gotten a free pass on a DQ because the match officials decided to change the stage rather than enforce the DQ.

[Morphire]

Another thought for consideration. I do not know when this took place, but for arguments sake let's say that it happened during staff day. The objective of shooting the stages by staff the day prior is to troubleshoot the stages. The shooter breaks the 180 but it is also determined that the 180 should not have been breakable. They adjust the stage by adding, or moving parts to remove the ability to see that target past the 170. Does the DQ stand?

Actually if they did that the stage would likely be arb'd and possibly thrown out due to 2.3

This did occur during staff day but I disagree that staff day is for troubleshooting the stages. It's a competitive day for the staff and anyone else squadded that day. Stages are troubleshooted before the match starts. The notion that the 180 should not have been breakable is a fallacy. 3.1