Optional Reshoots at Nationals?!?!

[beltjones]

I spoke to a person who received a reshoot, and that person said the squad was asked who was affected, and everyone who raised his or her hand was given a reshoot. So whether those people who raised their hand were ordered to reshoot or not, the fact is the shooters were allowed to opt into the reshoot.

[Ben Stoeger]

I think it would be cool if they gave every competitor a "mulligan" card they can play at any point in the match.

[whitedog]

A "mulligan" card....that's a great idea. And seems to be the case here.

Edited because when it comes down to it, it's over. A rule was manipulated...that at face value, is a fact. Nothing will come of it.......

Edited September 28, 2013 by whitedog

[motosapiens]

There are alot of assumptions being made here, by people who were far far away, doing whatever is more important to them than shooting or working the nationals.

I don't see any reason to believe that anything was done that contravened any rules, at least based on what I know (which is not all that much more than is posted in this thread). Certainly, if someone wasn't affected by it, there would be no reason to reshoot. If someone was affected by it, and it could be ascertained with reasonable certainty which people those were, it makes sense for them to reshoot.

[Vlad]

I see that you are not familiar with how we work this sewing circle.

[JakeMartens]

I see that you are not familiar with how we work this sewing circle.

LOL

[Sarge]

by people who were far far away, doing whatever is more important to them than shooting or working the nationals.

That's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. You think if we have jobs that don't allow us two weeks to shoot/work Nationals or don't have the money for it, or couldn't get a slot, that we are disinterested and should keep comments to ourselves?

[motosapiens]

by people who were far far away, doing whatever is more important to them than shooting or working the nationals.

That's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. You think if we have jobs that don't allow us two weeks to shoot/work Nationals or don't have the money for it, or couldn't get a slot, that we are disinterested and should keep comments to ourselves?

I think if you weren't there and don't know what happened, then you would look less foolish if you didn't shoot off your mouth before you knew exactly what happened. You, of course, are free to act in whatever manner makes you happy (and deal with whatever mockery is directed at you in return). I'm going to drink beer, watch football, clean my gun, and get ready to shoot again tomorrow. You should probably go chase the neighbor kids off your lawn.

[Sarge]

Drink beer and clean your gun. Figures..

Sounds like you have all the answers. Funny....

Nobody dares walk on my lawn!

[motosapiens]

Sounds like you have all the answers. Funny....

I'm trying to convey the exact opposite. I *don't* have the answers, and I don't think anyone else here does either, so I think it would be wiser to wait before passing judgement when all you have to go on is speculation and hearsay.

Gun is clean, now I'm going to drink beer and clean my magazines, and be glad I'm not wound very tight.

[whitedog]

I'm not working nationals.

I'm not shooting nationals.

Hence my thoughts on a rule obviously bent, if not broken, means nothing?

Duly noted.

I've heard every so called reason. RM made the call. It's the nationals. You weren't there. Who was affected? But right now I understand.

I respect the views of those that think this is acceptable, will you defend the call if it happens again? At any match, any where? If so, yer conviction on this matter has merit. If not, then it's elitist nationals crap.

[Gary Stevens]

I know what happened. There simply was a whole lot of RO interference on that squad.

[Nik Habicht]

That's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. You think if we have jobs that don't allow us two weeks to shoot/work Nationals or don't have the money for it, or couldn't get a slot, that we are disinterested and should keep comments to ourselves?

by people who were far far away, doing whatever is more important to them than shooting or working the nationals.

I've never had a job that allowed or didn't allow me to do something. I get to make choices every day -- some of those choices have consequences. If you choose to work rather than take two weeks off for Nationals, well that choice has consequences: Not shooting Nationals, earning a paycheck during those days, no potentially looking for a new job -- but it's still a choice you make.....

And no -- I do think that the opinions of USPSA members matter, whether those members were at the match or not.

I also know that we don't have the full story on what happened. If Troy chimes in in a couple of weeks, we may get to hear the rest.....

I also know that our rulebook -- while pretty thorough -- does not and cannot address every eventuality that might come up on a range. When considered in its entirety however, it generally provides an RM with guidance on how to resolve situations that are not specifically addressed....

[Chuck Anderson]

I spoke to a person who received a reshoot, and that person said the squad was asked who was affected, and everyone who raised his or her hand was given a reshoot. So whether those people who raised their hand were ordered to reshoot or not, the fact is the shooters were allowed to opt into the reshoot.

This information is different than what was originally posted about it. It makes a significant difference to me. If the shooters who said they were affected were made to have reshoots it's not an optional reshoot. The method of determining who had REF's may be questionable but the reshoot sounds warranted.

To Moto's point. I did not take away that he was saying if you weren't there your opinion doesn't matter. What I got was getting upset about a violation of rules posted second hand or more by someone who was not at the match and has already been contradicted by another second hand report might not be the most productive use of time. I don't know what happened because I wasn't there and haven't talked to anyone directly involved. Therefore I'm not going to get my undies in a wad.

I don't think that calling someone, or their idea stupid is productive.

[38SuperDub]

So saying "who had an issue you have to re shoot" sounds like the option for a shooter to decide if they want a reshoot to me.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

[Chuck Anderson]

Depends on what question was asked. If it's asked the way you say sure. If I ask "Who had an issue?" Then tally the results and decode that reshoots need to be completed by the people who had issues that's different. Kind of the point I was making that getting info passed along by someone who wasn't there may not be the most reliable way of finding out what happened.

And that totally leaves out that at least a couple folks participating in this thread also seem to be participating in the " Call to Troll" thread on Doodie. But I'm sure that's completely unrelated.

[38SuperDub]

Chuck what part of "I spoke with a shooter on squad 17" do you not get.

It was specifically implied that if you raised your hand you get a reshoot. So you give everyone the option to raise their hand.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

[Chuck Anderson]

There's a difference between your original post and what Andy posted. And no offense but you talking to one shooter and then relaying what was implied by that statement is not a first hand account.

I'm not saying it was right or wrong. I don't know. I'm not there. But I'm willing to wait a couple days until the folks who were there say what happened.

[beltjones]

I don't think anyone is arguing that reshoots weren't warranted, the point is the shooters were allowed to opt in to getting a reshoot. If they couldn't determine who was affected they should have made the whole squad reshoot. Simply asking "who was affected?" (With the obvious implication that reshoots would be given) is giving shooters the option to reshoot. Shooters who were not affected but had a good run may have opted into the reshoot, and shooters who weren't affected but who didn't have a good run may have opted in as well. That's not fair to the rest of the competitors, and it's a situation the rule is meant to avoid.

Edited September 29, 2013 by beltjones

[Chris iliff]

I think it would be cool if they gave every competitor a "mulligan" card they can play at any point in the match.

Per match? Or maybe USPSA hands "mulligans" out yearly. 2 per year, use as needed. That's some funny stuff.

As far as the reshoot, I'll wait and hear from the powers that be, I'm sure someone will chime in with first account knowledge. I will add, doing what is "right" isn't always in the rules. If it was, well then, the rule book would be volumes, like the Encyclopedia Britannica, instead of the manageable size it currently is. I basically trust the powers that be, mostly.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Chris iliff

[38SuperDub]

Also Paul said optional twice

Guess what Chuck

Paul was there!!!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

[Chuck Anderson]

The assumption is that the reshoot was implied. That's a sticking point and is the reason I'm not getting worked up till someone there says what was actually said. I've heard RMs ask questions before with no intention of granting reshoots. Looking at the question, with the hindsight of having the reshoots granted after, makes it easy to say that's the implication. In reality I don't know what the actual intent was. I don't even know which RM did it.

[JakeMartens]

The assumption is that the reshoot was implied. That's a sticking point and is the reason I'm not getting worked up till someone there says what was actually said. I've heard RMs ask questions before with no intention of granting reshoots. Looking at the question, with the hindsight of having the reshoots granted after, makes it easy to say that's the implication. In reality I don't know what the actual intent was. I don't even know which RM did it.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=182188&p=2010771

Troy

[38SuperDub]

Question chuck. if the reshoot was implied and the competitors were given the choice. Do you agree with this?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

[Chuck Anderson]

Based on the hypothetical situation you put forth. No. But I also don't think "implied" is in the rule book either. I'm also not an RM, or at this point even certified as an RO anymore (expired). What I do know is that I can ask a question lots of different ways and get a response that may not necessarily reflect reality. If I ask someone about something that occurred I get their perception filtered by my own perception. If I ask the question from a perspective that I believe something was done wrong. I'll probably get a response that supports my previous belief.