Optional Reshoots at Nationals?!?!

[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.

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.

Yeah.. I was just screwing around.

Like Chuck pointed out, the facts of this particular situation aren't really clear at this point. With BOD types being aware of it I am confident this issue will get resolved.

[outerlimits]

i thought i remember a precedent for this, not that it mattered. IAC, reference the optional re-shoots from the 1993 nationals, as explained by moverfive's post,

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=127473&p=1438677

[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.

Yeah.. I was just screwing around.

Like Chuck pointed out, the facts of this particular situation aren't really clear at this point. With BOD types being aware of it I am confident this issue will get resolved.

Yep, I know you was screwing around, I'll wait and I'm sure it'll get sorted out.

[beltjones]

... With BOD types being aware of it I am confident this issue will get resolved.

Now that is A+ level trolling. Other trolls, take note.

[beltjones]

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.

Chuck, can you PM me the link to the "A call to troll" Doodie thread you're referencing? It has been about a year since I've posted on Doodie, so maybe I'm slow, but I just don't see the thread you're referring too.

[Chuck Anderson]

On my phone which doesn't like copying links. But it's the one from less than a week ago about Some AR lowers. Facebook, not the forum.

[38SuperDub]

Well seems like you don't have your info straight - you need better 1st hand info - you first said forum - now facebook - which is it?

Can we get back on optional reshoot topic? I'm not quite sure I see where AR lowers come in here

[Chuck Anderson]

Actually Brandon, go back a page and re read what I wrote. I said Doodie. No mention of a forum. That's an example of someone's bias interfering with their perception.

The reason I mentioned it is because this seems like a thread designed primarily to troll for a response. Filled with people who often troll for responses. In fact Andy even talked about trolling in this thread.

[38SuperDub]

Im actually just amazed at the making of rules by RMs. Not the first time this year ive seen it

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

[Ben Stoeger]

The reason I mentioned it is because this seems like a thread designed primarily to troll for a response. Filled with people who often troll for responses. In fact Andy even talked about trolling in this thread.

Time to shut it down.

[beltjones]

Actually Brandon, go back a page and re read what I wrote. I said Doodie. No mention of a forum. That's an example of someone's bias interfering with their perception.

The reason I mentioned it is because this seems like a thread designed primarily to troll for a response. Filled with people who often troll for responses. In fact Andy even talked about trolling in this thread.

I commented about Ben trolling. Any other mention of trolling is a member of the BOD trying to deflect criticism of a serious issue at a Nationals level match.

And speaking of deflecting, you mentioned "a call to troll" which is a specific subforum on the Doodie Project. You said people on this thread were posting in both forums. Which forums, Chuck? I specifically asked. If it's not Doodie Project forums, then is it Doodie Project Facebooke? If so, is there such a thing as an "a call to troll" thread on that page? In fact there is not. So what, specifically, are you talking about, because it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. So I must say Chuck Anderson, Area 1 Director, is the troll on this thread. Ban him!!!!

Edited September 30, 2013 by beltjones

[Flexmoney]

Knock off the rhetoric, name calling, and general disrespect. Have enough sense to check yourself so that the discussion can continue here. - Admin

[CDPMatt]

The shooter before me and also myself had to shoot a popper twice in the calibration zone to make it fall. Both of us elected to shoot it again as the popper activated 3 "peek a boos". On our way back through from shooting the next stage they were working on the popper. No other squad had shot yet. We were not offered reshoots. If I would've known there were "optional" reshoot a I would've taken one. As Ben would say we were prop F'd.

[Gary Stevens]

Well to get back on subject a bit, I hope we all find out what process was used in this decision.

I would like to know what rules were used to justify "optional" reshoots, if that is what happened. When I was an RMI I always instructed, as did others, that the only optional reshoot was RO interference, and that had to be made before the shooter knew their score or time. It now appears that that may not be true.

The problem with going away from the rulebook is it then puts decisions in the hands of individuals. When I first started shooting, back in the flintlock days, I would go from club to club and find different rules. What you had done forever at one club, was not allowed at another club. No reason, just because. The rulebook solved that to a great extent.

Our rulebook should be the glue that holds our sport together. Everyone knows what is expected of them according to the rules and can expect to be treated fairly regardless of their name, classification, or where they shoot.

If, and I say if, shooters were given an "option" to decide on a reshoot after they knew their times and score makes me scratch my head because it goes against everything I know. It opens a door to an area that we don't want to venture, IMO.

This is a situation that seems to call for an arbitration based on the limited information available.

[motosapiens]

Im actually just amazed at the making of rules by RMs. Not the first time this year ive seen it

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

you're making some assumptions based on hearsay.

[motosapiens]

The problem with going away from the rulebook is it then puts decisions in the hands of individuals.

No argument there. However I think we all know that the vagaries of mechanical contrivances and also weather sometimes mean that results are significantly affected by pure chance. I have personally been involved in a couple RO situations where doing what we all knew was the right thing to do was not 100% and unequivocally covered in the rules. While I don't know jack about this particular situation, I have some experience with the RM's involved, and I have ALWAYS seen them use the rulebook, and think pretty carefully about it in order make a call on a complicated situation. I have never seen or heard any 'making up' of rules. That doesn't mean it didn't happen in this case, but I certainly would need more than hearsay and assumptions in order to believe it happened.

I'm not sure anyone outside of this forum even really cares. Nobody at all seemed to be talking about it at the match. There were many much more interesting and dramatic issues to gossip about.

[38SuperDub]

Im actually just amazed at the making of rules by RMs. Not the first time this year ive seen it

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

you're making some assumptions based on hearsay.

You're right. Hearsay from individuals involved. I guess if Troy tells you what happened and you come here its all hearsay and we shouldn't believe you. Paup Hyland was there and he said optional twice. Guess that's hearsay also right?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

[motosapiens]

Im actually just amazed at the making of rules by RMs. Not the first time this year ive seen it

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

you're making some assumptions based on hearsay.

You're right. Hearsay from individuals involved. I guess if Troy tells you what happened and you come here its all hearsay and we shouldn't believe you. Paup Hyland was there and he said optional twice. Guess that's hearsay also right?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

Correct. That is exactly the definition of hearsay. Frankly, I have run enough shooters that I would be more likely to take troy's version of a situation as complete and accurate, but if I repeated it here, it would still be hearsay.

I would not have a cow based on hearsay. I understand that you feel differently. We can agree to disagree on that point. Better yet, we can agree that I don't really care about this issue at the moment, so I'll bow out until more info is available.

[38SuperDub]

You sure posted a lot for not caring.

[pkm]

So, I was on squad 13 and we didn't realize that the activator popper was one of the MGM forward or reverse falling ones and were just setting it like a normal popper. We made it about 8 people through our 10 person squad when one shooter hit it three times in the scoring area and just stopped himself from the COF (balzy). Luckily when Troy came over he inspected the target instead of just shooting it and noticed it was set impropperly. He asked how we had been resetting it and we all said we weren't putting the little front stop up (not sure what it is actually called). He ordered a reshoot for our whole squad after setting it propperly and having to recalibrate it. We all reshot the stage, after our reshoots we talked to the R.O. and stated our concern that the popper still wasn't activating consistantly for all competitors and she declided to call Troy over. The ladies squad was up behind us and had an issue with the activator/swinger and were given the option to reshoot a the stage. After hearing about that ruling myself and and a couple of competitors went to Troy and we were given the option of doing a second reshoot on the COF if we felt that the popper activated the swinger slowly. I didn't hear a rule number cited nor did I ask.

Edited September 30, 2013 by pkm

[Poppa Bear]

I have stayed out of this to this point. My way of looking at the issue is can we justify a number of reshoots and save the stage, or do we toss the stage? Either option affects the overall results. The problem here is a sticky popper. How do you know who took multiple shots to put it down? This is also training for all of us. If you see a target that is causing problems then request the RM attend to it even if the CRO/RO is not willing to call them.

I do not know how many squads shot the stage before the ruling but if it was more than a couple the likelihood of the stage getting tossed increases and fixing it to save the stage decreases.

[lawboy]

Hearsay: Out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Just thought I would provide that so people can understand what it really means.

Plenty of exceptions to the hearsay rule, of course.

Just having some fun. LOL.

[38SuperDub]

So now that we have FIRST HAND PROOF that there were "optional" reshoots given. Thoughts?

It bothers me that a match this close and you give folks the OPTION of reshooting based on a rule that does not exist. Every shooter paid the same price to shoot a FAIR match. This was a major fail on the RM's part.

Edited September 30, 2013 by bsdubois00

[pkm]

I have stayed out of this to this point. My way of looking at the issue is can we justify a number of reshoots and save the stage, or do we toss the stage? Either option affects the overall results. The problem here is a sticky popper. How do you know who took multiple shots to put it down? This is also training for all of us. If you see a target that is causing problems then request the RM attend to it even if the CRO/RO is not willing to call them.

I do not know how many squads shot the stage before the ruling but if it was more than a couple the likelihood of the stage getting tossed increases and fixing it to save the stage decreases.

This was Stage 10 on my Day 3 so I would say atleast a third. I honestly figured the stage would be tossed but I am by no means a rule expert.

[38SuperDub]

So, I was on squad 13 and we didn't realize that the activator popper was one of the MGM forward or reverse falling ones and were just setting it like a normal popper. We made it about 8 people through our 10 person squad when one shooter hit it three times in the scoring area and just stopped himself from the COF (balzy). Luckily when Troy came over he inspected the target instead of just shooting it and noticed it was set impropperly. He asked how we had been resetting it and we all said we weren't putting the little front stop up (not sure what it is actually called). He ordered a reshoot for our whole squad after setting it propperly and having to recalibrate it. We all reshot the stage, after our reshoots we talked to the R.O. and stated our concern that the popper still wasn't activating consistantly for all competitors and she declided to call Troy over. The ladies squad was up behind us and had an issue with the activator/swinger and were given the option to reshoot a the stage. After hearing about that ruling myself and and a couple of competitors went to Troy and we were given the option of doing a second reshoot on the COF if we felt that the popper activated the swinger slowly. I didn't hear a rule number cited nor did I ask.

The bold part is what bothers me. When did a competitor get to decide if they want a reshoot or not? At Area 4 a competitor thought his time was wrong - talked to the RM who then discussed it with Troy. The next day he was given a reshoot. Because he THOUGHT his time was wrong!!!!