RO..bravo mike. CRO 2Mike

[Sarge]

I thought the CRO was only supposed to look at the hit in question. Because a lot of times the other hit gets pasted before he gets there.But I do see the point about an extra hit in the D zone. But in my case it was only 2 shots fired.

If the hit is pasted then he can't do anything about it. If not, however, again, I still see no rules against it.

Personally if there is a questioned hit the target should be left alone, in my opinion. Also I really find it pretty sad that people don't want the correct score if it hurts their score. You shot what you shot. I would expect the same from the RO staff for every shooter.

I agree to taking the correct score also. That's why I asked for the CRO. I didn't feel the RO was holding the overlay over the center of the bullet hole. On a side note I have told Ros that they missed a no-shoot. My hits are my hits good or bad.

I must be the minority because I like to be the one doing the work when I'm working a stage.

Me too, but I have to keep reminding myself to let the other RO's on the stage get needed experience. Letting RO's run the stage get's me CRO practice as well. Such as being called to double check at target. Also, when I do get called to look at a target I only like to here minimum info such as what hole to look at. I don't want to hear all about he said, she said before I even throw an overlay on it. I don't want to have a clouded opinion going into it.

[Nik Habicht]

So what would you have me do if I notice an error in how the score was called, that involves one of the hits that was not challenged? Do I ignore what I plainly see?

Keep in mind that an imperfectly scored target affects not only the competitor who engaged it, but every other competitor in the division......

You're correct that under 9.6.7 the hit or hits subject to challenge need to clearly indicated -- because some time might elapse between the moment the target is pulled and the time the RM arrives to settle the dispute.

You're inferring though that no indication = no challenge.....

I see nothing that limits me to only evaluate the challenged hit......

If the rulebook writers had wanted to be that restrictive, they could have taken care of that....

[steel1212]

I see nothing that prevents me from re-scoring the entire target. I also see nothing that requires that I look at anything other than the challenged hit. But here's my question for the folks who are fairly in the "can't do that" camp:

Do you believe that each competitor is entitled to have each target scored accurately for not only him or herself, but for every other competitor in the match?

I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice.

9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge.

Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially.

So just because the hit wasn't challenge it means it's ok to score it incorrectly?

[mhs]

So what would you have me do if I notice an error in how the score was called, that involves one of the hits that was not challenged? Do I ignore what I plainly see?

Keep in mind that an imperfectly scored target affects not only the competitor who engaged it, but every other competitor in the division......

You're correct that under 9.6.7 the hit or hits subject to challenge need to clearly indicated -- because some time might elapse between the moment the target is pulled and the time the RM arrives to settle the dispute.

You're inferring though that no indication = no challenge.....

I see nothing that limits me to only evaluate the challenged hit......

If the rulebook writers had wanted to be that restrictive, they could have taken care of that....

If they didn't want to be that restrictive, why did they say "...and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge."? You excuse this away by guessing that their intent was to let officials know which hit was challenged, should a significant amount of time pass. If the entire target may be rescored, why would it matter if they knew which hit was challenged? Your added interpretation makes the final clause of the rule worthless.

[mhs]

I see nothing that prevents me from re-scoring the entire target. I also see nothing that requires that I look at anything other than the challenged hit. But here's my question for the folks who are fairly in the "can't do that" camp:

Do you believe that each competitor is entitled to have each target scored accurately for not only him or herself, but for every other competitor in the match?

I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice.

9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge.

Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially.

So just because the hit wasn't challenge it means it's ok to score it incorrectly?

No, it means that there's not a mechanism under 9.6.7 to correct it if it is not challenged.

[steel1212]

All it says is you need to indicate which hits you are challengeing. Nowhere does it say that the hits can't be CORRECTLY scored if not done so.

[Sarge]

Seems the shooter and RO are pretty clear on which hit or hits are in question. If everybody is happy with the other hit it tickles the poop out of me. But if I walk up to a target I generally am looking from a distance at the hits. A non issue hit does not get any more than a cursory glance from me.

Nik is pretty wrapped around the axle on this one as are others on the other side of the fence. If you walk up to a target and one hole is patched you shrug your shoulders and score the hit in question. If you walk up and see the other hit has clearly been scored correctly, again, move on to do what you were called upon in the first place. By walking up to a target that the shooter and RO are in agreement on as to the other hit and start second guessing your staff by carefully inspecting it you make it seem you don't have faith in them. Sure nothing says you can't do it but but other things besides the rule book tell you should not worry about it.

What about the hundreds of targets shot that don't get questioned? Should the RM be freaking out because so many calls are being made that he is not verifying?

I say let the Staff do their job until they prove they can't. Until then don't openly question their calls that are already agreed upon.

[mhs]

All it says is you need to indicate which hits you are challengeing. Nowhere does it say that the hits can't be CORRECTLY scored if not done so.

The scoring policy is defined fairly clearly, as is the challenge policy. What rule or rules support having a CRO or RM rescore non-challenged hits?

[spanky]

All it says is you need to indicate which hits you are challengeing. Nowhere does it say that the hits can't be CORRECTLY scored if not done so.

The scoring policy is defined fairly clearly, as is the challenge policy. What rule or rules support having a CRO or RM rescore non-challenged hits?

The rule book is not a one way street.

[steel1212]

All it says is you need to indicate which hits you are challengeing. Nowhere does it say that the hits can't be CORRECTLY scored if not done so.

The scoring policy is defined fairly clearly, as is the challenge policy. What rule or rules support having a CRO or RM rescore non-challenged hits?

I guess the part that says the stage isn't final until the score sheet is signed.

[steel1212]

Seems the shooter and RO are pretty clear on which hit or hits are in question. If everybody is happy with the other hit it tickles the poop out of me. But if I walk up to a target I generally am looking from a distance at the hits. A non issue hit does not get any more than a cursory glance from me.

Nik is pretty wrapped around the axle on this one as are others on the other side of the fence. If you walk up to a target and one hole is patched you shrug your shoulders and score the hit in question. If you walk up and see the other hit has clearly been scored correctly, again, move on to do what you were called upon in the first place. By walking up to a target that the shooter and RO are in agreement on as to the other hit and start second guessing your staff by carefully inspecting it you make it seem you don't have faith in them. Sure nothing says you can't do it but but other things besides the rule book tell you should not worry about it.

What about the hundreds of targets shot that don't get questioned? Should the RM be freaking out because so many calls are being made that he is not verifying?

I say let the Staff do their job until they prove they can't. Until then don't openly question their calls that are already agreed upon.

The way I see it is the RO is supervised by the CRO. The CRO by the RM. The CRO/RM is letting the ROs run shooters and score them all day just fine. If there is a target challenged and you call for the CRO and there happens to be 2 close hits what is the harm in verifying both. I would say 99% of the time the CRO will agree with what the RO called on the non challenged hit any way. If the CRO over turns the not challenged hit how is it any different from him over turning the challenged hit? There is a chain of command, so to speak, for a reason. It's not to hurt anybody's feeling it's to get the target scored correctly. I've lost matches by a single Charlie...your match Kevin :-)

[Nik Habicht]

For the record -- what I say here online may or may not reflect my actual thinking......

Sometimes I'm arguing my deeply help belief......

Sometimes, like in this instance which I hadn't considered before, I'm taking a Devil's Advocate position. My initial thought was "Why wouldn't you want the correct score on the target to be called?" Isn't that why we keep score -- to do it correctly so the standings at the end of the day actually mean something....

The discussion -- and what some people read into it -- have been really enlightening. Kevin -- going to distrust of the match staff, wow that was quick! I trust the folks working with me to put on a match, and I hope I treat them as such. If I'm "a little wrapped around the axle" when it comes to these things while working as an RM, it's only to ensure that all credit for a successful match falls on the match staff (me excluded) and that any errors or shortfalls rest solely on my shoulders.

The conversation's been enlightening -- and may continue to be....

[Nik Habicht]

I see nothing that prevents me from re-scoring the entire target. I also see nothing that requires that I look at anything other than the challenged hit. But here's my question for the folks who are fairly in the "can't do that" camp:

Do you believe that each competitor is entitled to have each target scored accurately for not only him or herself, but for every other competitor in the match?

I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice.

9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge.

Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially.

So just because the hit wasn't challenge it means it's ok to score it incorrectly?

No, it means that there's not a mechanism under 9.6.7 to correct it if it is not challenged.

OK, so tell me why does Chapter 9 exist in the rule book at the length it does? Summarize it's purpose in a sentence or two.....

[mhs]

I emailed JA:

Hello,

There’s been a discussion on the BE forum concerning scoring challenges, and I would appreciate your input to post to the forum.

During a scoring challenge, should the CRO or RM score the entire challenged target, or only the specific hit or hits that have been challenged? The last sentence of 9.6.7 implies that only challenged hits are to be scored:

“Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge.”

Thanks, Mark

He replied:

The competitor is not challenging the entire target, just disagreeing with the RO’s call on a specific hit, if for an example the hit in question is close to the next scoring line, the RO may call a C and the competitor disagrees as he/she thinks it is an A. Most calls are for the perceived double, and the RM is called to make the call on that hit as to if there is one or two bullet marks to either call an A and Mike or two A’s.

John

[Sarge]

Seems the shooter and RO are pretty clear on which hit or hits are in question. If everybody is happy with the other hit it tickles the poop out of me. But if I walk up to a target I generally am looking from a distance at the hits. A non issue hit does not get any more than a cursory glance from me.

Nik is pretty wrapped around the axle on this one as are others on the other side of the fence. If you walk up to a target and one hole is patched you shrug your shoulders and score the hit in question. If you walk up and see the other hit has clearly been scored correctly, again, move on to do what you were called upon in the first place. By walking up to a target that the shooter and RO are in agreement on as to the other hit and start second guessing your staff by carefully inspecting it you make it seem you don't have faith in them. Sure nothing says you can't do it but but other things besides the rule book tell you should not worry about it.

What about the hundreds of targets shot that don't get questioned? Should the RM be freaking out because so many calls are being made that he is not verifying?

I say let the Staff do their job until they prove they can't. Until then don't openly question their calls that are already agreed upon.

The way I see it is the RO is supervised by the CRO. The CRO by the RM. The CRO/RM is letting the ROs run shooters and score them all day just fine. If there is a target challenged and you call for the CRO and there happens to be 2 close hits what is the harm in verifying both. I would say 99% of the time the CRO will agree with what the RO called on the non challenged hit any way. If the CRO over turns the not challenged hit how is it any different from him over turning the challenged hit? There is a chain of command, so to speak, for a reason. It's not to hurt anybody's feeling it's to get the target scored correctly. I've lost matches by a single Charlie...your match Kevin :-)

Corey, I certainly hope you didn't lose by one unjustified charlie! I would never want that to happen to anyone, let alone a friend. But if I am getting the sense that everybody is in agreement on a hit and that same shooter called for a challenge on another hit, then the hit not in question must be presumed to be accurate.

Nik- maybe trust issues was a quick jump. I admit that. But if I call you to my stage and you walk up and look at the unchallenged hit and say something like, "yep, that's scored right" I might be inclined to look at you and say "DUH".

[Sarge]

I emailed JA:

Hello,

There’s been a discussion on the BE forum concerning scoring challenges, and I would appreciate your input to post to the forum.

During a scoring challenge, should the CRO or RM score the entire challenged target, or only the specific hit or hits that have been challenged? The last sentence of 9.6.7 implies that only challenged hits are to be scored:

“Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge.”

Thanks, Mark

He replied:

The competitor is not challenging the entire target, just disagreeing with the RO’s call on a specific hit, if for an example the hit in question is close to the next scoring line, the RO may call a C and the competitor disagrees as he/she thinks it is an A. Most calls are for the perceived double, and the RM is called to make the call on that hit as to if there is one or two bullet marks to either call an A and Mike or two A’s.

John

I like it, but remember it's only an opinion from another RMI. It is a very common sense opinion though.

[mhs]

I see nothing that prevents me from re-scoring the entire target. I also see nothing that requires that I look at anything other than the challenged hit. But here's my question for the folks who are fairly in the "can't do that" camp:

Do you believe that each competitor is entitled to have each target scored accurately for not only him or herself, but for every other competitor in the match?

I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice.

9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge.

Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially.

So just because the hit wasn't challenge it means it's ok to score it incorrectly?

No, it means that there's not a mechanism under 9.6.7 to correct it if it is not challenged.

OK, so tell me why does Chapter 9 exist in the rule book at the length it does? Summarize it's purpose in a sentence or two.....

Off the top of my head, without reference:

Chapter 9, apart from the challenge-related areas, covers the gigantic majority of scoring situations. Challenges apply to a very small subset, and focus on disputed calls. The people who wrote the rules assumed the general competency of the ROs, and did not see the need to review their non-challenged calls.

[Sarge]

I'm still trying to figure out where this whole line of questioning is coming from.

It just dawned on me that a shooter could be agreeing on one hit that he is afraid, if checked, might be found to be wrong. So in view of that possibility, like I said, I give it a glance on the way to the target. If it looked just as close as the hit in question then I may ask the RO how it was scored. If he says "A" then I may look at it closer just like I'm going to look at the other hit if I think the shooter may be trying to get one over on the RO.

This is the only scenario where I see a shooter complaining about the CRO or RM looking at a non challenged hit.

[Nik Habicht]

Seems the shooter and RO are pretty clear on which hit or hits are in question. If everybody is happy with the other hit it tickles the poop out of me. But if I walk up to a target I generally am looking from a distance at the hits. A non issue hit does not get any more than a cursory glance from me.

Nik is pretty wrapped around the axle on this one as are others on the other side of the fence. If you walk up to a target and one hole is patched you shrug your shoulders and score the hit in question. If you walk up and see the other hit has clearly been scored correctly, again, move on to do what you were called upon in the first place. By walking up to a target that the shooter and RO are in agreement on as to the other hit and start second guessing your staff by carefully inspecting it you make it seem you don't have faith in them. Sure nothing says you can't do it but but other things besides the rule book tell you should not worry about it.

What about the hundreds of targets shot that don't get questioned? Should the RM be freaking out because so many calls are being made that he is not verifying?

I say let the Staff do their job until they prove they can't. Until then don't openly question their calls that are already agreed upon.

The way I see it is the RO is supervised by the CRO. The CRO by the RM. The CRO/RM is letting the ROs run shooters and score them all day just fine. If there is a target challenged and you call for the CRO and there happens to be 2 close hits what is the harm in verifying both. I would say 99% of the time the CRO will agree with what the RO called on the non challenged hit any way. If the CRO over turns the not challenged hit how is it any different from him over turning the challenged hit? There is a chain of command, so to speak, for a reason. It's not to hurt anybody's feeling it's to get the target scored correctly. I've lost matches by a single Charlie...your match Kevin :-)

Corey, I certainly hope you didn't lose by one unjustified charlie! I would never want that to happen to anyone, let alone a friend. But if I am getting the sense that everybody is in agreement on a hit and that same shooter called for a challenge on another hit, then the hit not in question must be presumed to be accurate.

Nik- maybe trust issues was a quick jump. I admit that. But if I call you to my stage and you walk up and look at the unchallenged hit and say something like, "yep, that's scored right" I might be inclined to look at you and say "DUH".

If I were to make that comment it would be in a broader context -- such as the competitor implying that the RO didn't know what he was doing.....

I generally ask questions, rather than make statements in these situations. So after determining that the hit near the Charlie-Delta line is actually a Charlie, and seeing seven Alphas in the center of the target, I might ask the score keeper "So the recorded score is 7 alpha, 1 charlie, right?" And that's really just my way of ensuring that the entire score got captured correctly -- since there was an interruption to the scoring process....

[Nik Habicht]

I see nothing that prevents me from re-scoring the entire target. I also see nothing that requires that I look at anything other than the challenged hit. But here's my question for the folks who are fairly in the "can't do that" camp:

Do you believe that each competitor is entitled to have each target scored accurately for not only him or herself, but for every other competitor in the match?

I normally view you as a sort of font-of-rule-knowledge/voice-of-reason, but this reply bothers me, twice.

9.6.7 requires that the hits subject to challenge be clearly indicated. Not ambiguous. No indication = no challenge.

Our beliefs don't matter. Lots of very good ROs believe things that contradict rules, yet they adhere to the rules. If you RO, you have (or should have) agreed to enforce the rules, and to do so impartially.

So just because the hit wasn't challenge it means it's ok to score it incorrectly?

No, it means that there's not a mechanism under 9.6.7 to correct it if it is not challenged.

OK, so tell me why does Chapter 9 exist in the rule book at the length it does? Summarize it's purpose in a sentence or two.....

Off the top of my head, without reference:

Chapter 9, apart from the challenge-related areas, covers the gigantic majority of scoring situations. Challenges apply to a very small subset, and focus on disputed calls. The people who wrote the rules assumed the general competency of the ROs, and did not see the need to review their non-challenged calls.

I think the entire purpose of the Chapter 9 is to ensure that the RO and scorekeeper accurately capture the score (points and time) the competitor shot, so that it can be utilized in the calculation of stage and match scoring. The rest of it just deals with all of the many things that might affect that process -- from scoring methods, to prematurely patched targets, shoot throughs or edge hits on steel, and disputed calls.

But the bottom line is to capture an accurate score.

I see nothing in that chapter that prevents a reasonable effort being made to do that. While we normally only score the disputed hit, the door is wide open for us to correct an obvious error. To wit I give these rules:

9.7.2 If corrections to the score sheet are required, these will be clearly entered onto the original and other copies of the competitor’s score sheets. The competitor and the Range Officer should initial any corrections. Corrections are defined as modifications to the score sheet before the RO and Competitor sign off on the score sheet.

9.7.3 Should a competitor refuse to sign or initial a score sheet, for any reason, the matter must be referred to the Range Master. If the Range Master is satisfied that the course of fire has been conducted and scored correctly the unsigned score sheet will be submitted as normal for inclusion in the match scores.

The competitor's score is not official and locked down until such time as the scorecard is signed by both the range officer and the competitor, or in the event of a competitor declining to sign the scoresheet, until the RM is satisfied that the score correctly reflects the competitor's attempt at the COF.

[steel1212]

I emailed JA:

Hello,

Theres been a discussion on the BE forum concerning scoring challenges, and I would appreciate your input to post to the forum.

During a scoring challenge, should the CRO or RM score the entire challenged target, or only the specific hit or hits that have been challenged? The last sentence of 9.6.7 implies that only challenged hits are to be scored:

Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge.

Thanks, Mark

He replied:

The competitor is not challenging the entire target, just disagreeing with the ROs call on a specific hit, if for an example the hit in question is close to the next scoring line, the RO may call a C and the competitor disagrees as he/she thinks it is an A. Most calls are for the perceived double, and the RM is called to make the call on that hit as to if there is one or two bullet marks to either call an A and Mike or two As.

John

And where does he say that the CRO/RM can't score the other hit? Sure you challenged one hit and are asking who ever to look at it. At no point does it say they can't look at the other.

In the end I really don't care. What bugs me is the fact that people would rather have a incorrect score than the one they earned.

[steel1212]

Kevin, absolutely not I earned all the hits I got and so did they guy that beat me. I was just pointing out how close it can come say if the RM wasn't allowed to look at another hit that was a Charlie but scored a A when I called him to look at my Charlie that was scored a delta.

[MarkCO]

In the end I really don't care. What bugs me is the fact that people would rather have a incorrect score than the one they earned.

That is a statement I agree with. Driving away integrity and new shooters is not something I can abide with regardless.

[spanky]

I emailed JA:

Hello,

There’s been a discussion on the BE forum concerning scoring challenges, and I would appreciate your input to post to the forum.

During a scoring challenge, should the CRO or RM score the entire challenged target, or only the specific hit or hits that have been challenged? The last sentence of 9.6.7 implies that only challenged hits are to be scored:

“Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge.”

Thanks, Mark

He replied:

The competitor is not challenging the entire target, just disagreeing with the RO’s call on a specific hit, if for an example the hit in question is close to the next scoring line, the RO may call a C and the competitor disagrees as he/she thinks it is an A. Most calls are for the perceived double, and the RM is called to make the call on that hit as to if there is one or two bullet marks to either call an A and Mike or two A’s.

John

Is it just me or did he not answer the question? Or maybe the question wasn't asked correctly? I'd have asked if the CRO/RM is allowed by the rules to re-score the entire target or is he only allowed to score the hit(s) in question.

The change in verbiage from should to can/could changes the question entirely. Same way must versus may would.

[Poppa Bear]

Give me a target with a solid Alpha Hit and a borderline A/C hit and I will always determine the A/C hit to be the one challenged. Give me two borderline A/C hits and I would figure both hits to be challenged unless the RO and competitor agree on one of the scores. I would never expect the competitor to challenge a higher score so it comes down to did the overlay touch the perf or not. I had one this weekend that was very borderline. How you held the overlay was the difference between touching the perf or not. I measured a couple of times and determined the circle to touch 2 out of 3 times so I gave them the higher score.

People are getting worked up over the whole target being scored but 999 time out of 1000 the second hit is very obvious so we are only concerned about one hit. I will call the score as I see it. "I see a(n) _________ ______________" If it agrees with the RO's call fine. If it is different than the RO's call I will explain why I scored it that way.