Reshoot negates bump to open?

[Nik Habicht]

... the entire (RO) squad shot the COF with the slide locked back. Since 8.1.3 was not met the COF should never have been started per 8.3.1. Since that condition was not met the competitor should not have been started. On that note, since there was no competitive advantage gained on a scored COF there was no bump to open. This also happened all at once, he technically never got bumped to open, the situation was explained to me and the entire squad was ordered to reshoot.

I also discussed this issue with the 3 other RMs on the range including the new DNROI and ALL agreed that this was the correct action for this situation.

Sorry, this whole sorry tale sounds like a BS rationalization for giving a do-over to an RO. He was given the correct range commands, the start signal was given, and he shot the course of fire. The moment the start signal was given while he had 11 rounds in the magazine, he was breaking the rules. No amount of range lawyering can change that fact.

As match officials, we police our own and so every call we make should be above board and whiter-than-white. This kind of thing is very disappointing and unprofessional IMHO.

OK. so what do we do with the match official who started the shooter on the stage? 'Cause starting the competitor when he wasn't in the correct start position wasn't "above-board and whiter-than-white;" it was the wrong call......

I can support that call because the rule book tells me that safety violations that occur during a run that requires a reshoot are not subject to being overturned; I can't find similar language for procedural penalties or moves to Open.

The competitor did not shoot the stage for score with 11 rounds in the mag; there is no effect on competitive equity......

[High Lord Gomer]

If it had been me that was bumped to open on stage X, on the subsequent stages I would have been loading my mags up to capacity and could not have been moved back to Production.

[ZackJones]

Oh don't even go there Kevin - how many times have you heard "Shooter do you understand the course of fire" lol

Too many! Good point but DAMN, slide locked back?!? Come on, that sounds made up! A whole squad of RO's?!?

Mistakes happen. Given this was a squad of RO's the match was obviously not your local level 1 match. Therefore the COF is required to be reviewed by the NROI and submitted to the Area Director, per Appendix A1. I know what happens when you assume, but as an RO and competitor competing at a level 2 or higher match I would assume the COF is legit and most likely wouldn't question the slide locked back start.

I do think this is a very interesting discussion and that DNROI should publish some sort of guidance on how to deal with it in the future.

[Nik Habicht]

Wow, defensive much?

I don't see anyone bitching. I see a bunch of people discussing the issue, with the information given, and trying to determine a rational outcome.

If anyone here has been unprofessional, it's you--because you came crashing into the thread, spring-loaded into the pissed-off position and started leveling accusations and generally throwing a hissy fit. My 13-year old acts more rationally than that on most occasions.

Once you explained the entire situation, I can see where it would be very confusing, so I don't know that I really have an issue with the way you handled the situation at the match.

How you handled the situation on this thread? That's a whole 'nother story.

You should really take a deep breath before you post. If you can't do that, then you probably shouldn't bother responding to stuff like this, because you can't discern between a rational conversation and people bitching.

And since we're now really posting at each other, I'd like to take a moment and remind everyone of the Prime Directive from the Forum Guidelines:

Posting Guidelines

Attitude

Please be polite. Or if not polite, at least respectful.

No bickering. Regardless of the subject matter.

Antagonistic, offensive, or quarrelsome tones are not acceptable.

No trolling. No alternate accounts.

Make the arguments -- can the talk about lack of professionalism. Thank you!

[Poppa Bear]

I can see how this entire situation can be blown out of proportion. The OP makes it sound like ONE person got a reshoot which negated his bump to open. It sounds like the reshoot was because of an incorrect start position. The facts would appear to be now that the entire squad had to reshoot due to an illegal start condition. Namely having the slide locked to the rear for an unloaded start.

Giving one RO a reshoot that miraculously reverses his bump to open would be appear "Very unprofessional". Making the entire squad reshoot because they as RO's do not know that you CANNOT start with the slide locked to the rear is "very unprofessional" and reflects badly on them as RO's. You would hope that at least one would have known the rules better than that. The fact that it reversed a bump to open was just luck on the part of the shooter. He screwed up, but the entire squad screwed up worse by using an illegal start condition.

Edited to change incorrect start to illegal start.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Poppa Bear

[38SuperDub]

Again - from the beginning I don't see anywhere where people were pointing fingers that someone made a bad call or a wrong call but more so for future reference how should this be handled. There are no rules at all in the rule book that support ruling EITHER way. If there is please point it out. This is a place for a discussion about rules right? I actually felt this was pretty tame compared to MANY (read EVERY) rule discussion I've been involved in. I personally know the shooter - he owned the mistake and didn't ask to be put back - it was your call to make and you made it.

For FUTURE issues - it would be nice to be able to cite a rule that states - YAY or NAY why a shooter would get moved back or why they would stay - and by knowing that rule it would make everyone a better RO.

And I agree - starting with an open slide is pretty crazy!

But you see this is the problem, there are too many variables at play to make a hard rule for this issue.

The resounding thing I remember from my RM review is this statement "RO's and CRO's deal in black and white, RM's live in a world of grey" My take on that statement is that while we have a rule book we can't have a rule for every situation. There has to be someone to advice (just for you sarge) on the grey areas.

I'm not sure I agree. I would think this is actually a pretty black and white situation.

If a shooter shoots a stage and later has to reshoot the same stage, then the first run did not occur and any penalties or division violations would have not occurred and the shooter shall remain in the declared division.

There shouldn't be any grey area on this one.

Now a side question - what if the stage gets thrown out later for something not related to him. Does he get moved back now also?

[Poppa Bear]

I'm not sure I agree. I would think this is actually a pretty black and white situation.

If a shooter shoots a stage and later has to reshoot the same stage, then the first run did not occur and any penalties or division violations would have not occurred and the shooter shall remain in the declared division.

There shouldn't be any grey area on this one.

Now a side question - what if the stage gets thrown out later for something not related to him. Does he get moved back now also?

Penalties are stage specific, divisional requirements are match specific. Violating the divisional requirements would be hard to reverse especially if the shooter was notified several stages later AND had started loading to capacity being as they were in Open anyways. The only way I could see it being reversed is if it was like this situation were the stage was reshot by the entire squad because their error was bigger than the shooters error that bumped him to Open.

The closest analogy I can find that fits a situation like this would be APP C: Chronograph. If the chronograph is pulled for what ever reason the results from prior to that removal stand. The only exception I would be able to come up with would be if there were an error on the part of the chrono staff. Their mistake should not penalize you as a shooter.

[frag316]

Wow, defensive much?

I don't see anyone bitching. I see a bunch of people discussing the issue, with the information given, and trying to determine a rational outcome.

If anyone here has been unprofessional, it's you--because you came crashing into the thread, spring-loaded into the pissed-off position and started leveling accusations and generally throwing a hissy fit. My 13-year old acts more rationally than that on most occasions.

Once you explained the entire situation, I can see where it would be very confusing, so I don't know that I really have an issue with the way you handled the situation at the match.

How you handled the situation on this thread? That's a whole 'nother story.

You should really take a deep breath before you post. If you can't do that, then you probably shouldn't bother responding to stuff like this, because you can't discern between a rational conversation and people bitching.

And since we're now really posting at each other, I'd like to take a moment and remind everyone of the Prime Directive from the Forum Guidelines:

Posting Guidelines

Attitude

Please be polite. Or if not polite, at least respectful.

No bickering. Regardless of the subject matter.

Antagonistic, offensive, or quarrelsome tones are not acceptable.

No trolling. No alternate accounts.

Make the arguments -- can the talk about lack of professionalism. Thank you!

And why didn't the guy I quoted get the same treatment?

[1v3t0x0]

Again - from the beginning I don't see anywhere where people were pointing fingers that someone made a bad call or a wrong call but more so for future reference how should this be handled. There are no rules at all in the rule book that support ruling EITHER way. If there is please point it out. This is a place for a discussion about rules right? I actually felt this was pretty tame compared to MANY (read EVERY) rule discussion I've been involved in. I personally know the shooter - he owned the mistake and didn't ask to be put back - it was your call to make and you made it.

For FUTURE issues - it would be nice to be able to cite a rule that states - YAY or NAY why a shooter would get moved back or why they would stay - and by knowing that rule it would make everyone a better RO.

And I agree - starting with an open slide is pretty crazy!

But you see this is the problem, there are too many variables at play to make a hard rule for this issue.

The resounding thing I remember from my RM review is this statement "RO's and CRO's deal in black and white, RM's live in a world of grey" My take on that statement is that while we have a rule book we can't have a rule for every situation. There has to be someone to advice (just for you sarge) on the grey areas.

I'm not sure I agree. I would think this is actually a pretty black and white situation.

If a shooter shoots a stage and later has to reshoot the same stage, then the first run did not occur and any penalties or division violations would have not occurred and the shooter shall remain in the declared division.

There shouldn't be any grey area on this one.

Now a side question - what if the stage gets thrown out later for something not related to him. Does he get moved back now also?

No, he does not get moved back .

Per the Arb process in section 11, specifically rule 11.6.2 Implement Decision – It will be the responsibility of the Range Master to implement the Committee’s decision. The Range Master will advise the appropriate match personnel who will post the decision in a place available to all competitors. The decision is not retroactive and will not affect any incidents prior to the decision.

Therefore if someone gets DQ'd or bumped to open on a stage that gets thrown out only the person who files and wins the Arb gets the benefit and no one who previously was DQ'd or moved to open are not affected because the decision is not retroactive.

[1v3t0x0]

If DNROI let the guy carry on in Production then truly, not much has changed on that end. I have never believed the DNROI should hold such power. We are letting one person, ONE, make a call that will stand as the law of the land based simply on his opinion or interpretation of a rule.

So since everyone seems to have an opinion on this situation let me put my .02 in since I am the RM that made this call. This wasn't even the most interesting issue at this match so I am astounded that this is what you are all choosing to focus on.

Let's get the situation straight first. This was on staff day, and the entire (RO) squad shot the COF with the slide locked back. Since 8.1.3 was not met the COF should never have been started per 8.3.1. Since that condition was not met the competitor should not have been started. On that note, since there was no competitive advantage gained on a scored COF there was no bump to open. This also happened all at once, he technically never got bumped to open, the situation was explained to me and the entire squad was ordered to reshoot.

I also discussed this issue with the 3 other RMs on the range including the new DNROI and ALL agreed that this was the correct action for this situation.

What is more interesting to me is the fact that people, certified ROs included, don't understand the ready conditions as laid out in the rule book. Why do things have to be spelled out in lengthy detail when they are in the book?

My advise is to go through the RM course, run a few LIII matches and make these decisions for yourself.

Regardless of your opinion, do something about it and STOP BITCHING ON THE INTERWEBS!!

... the entire (RO) squad shot the COF with the slide locked back. Since 8.1.3 was not met the COF should never have been started per 8.3.1. Since that condition was not met the competitor should not have been started. On that note, since there was no competitive advantage gained on a scored COF there was no bump to open. This also happened all at once, he technically never got bumped to open, the situation was explained to me and the entire squad was ordered to reshoot.

I also discussed this issue with the 3 other RMs on the range including the new DNROI and ALL agreed that this was the correct action for this situation.

Sorry, this whole sorry tale sounds like a BS rationalization for giving a do-over to an RO. He was given the correct range commands, the start signal was given, and he shot the course of fire. The moment the start signal was given while he had 11 rounds in the magazine, he was breaking the rules. No amount of range lawyering can change that fact.

As match officials, we police our own and so every call we make should be above board and whiter-than-white. This kind of thing is very disappointing and unprofessional IMHO.

It seems that the RM corps would disagree with you, but what do we know.

Seeing people running off at the mouth on the internet is "very disappointing and unprofessional IMHO."

Wow, defensive much?

I don't see anyone bitching. I see a bunch of people discussing the issue, with the information given, and trying to determine a rational outcome.

If anyone here has been unprofessional, it's you--because you came crashing into the thread, spring-loaded into the pissed-off position and started leveling accusations and generally throwing a hissy fit. My 13-year old acts more rationally than that on most occasions.

Once you explained the entire situation, I can see where it would be very confusing, so I don't know that I really have an issue with the way you handled the situation at the match.

How you handled the situation on this thread? That's a whole 'nother story.

You should really take a deep breath before you post. If you can't do that, then you probably shouldn't bother responding to stuff like this, because you can't discern between a rational conversation and people bitching.

Not defensive at all Kent, just tired of people arguing issues that have simple solutions.

There is a process to deal with these issues, email dnroi@uspsa.org and ask for a ruling.

Once again, why argue an issue that you have no authority to rule on?

[38SuperDub]

You and I must have way different definitions of arguing. To me this is a discussion. In a forum. For rule discussions.

[MaraW]

If DNROI let the guy carry on in Production then truly, not much has changed on that end. I have never believed the DNROI should hold such power. We are letting one person, ONE, make a call that will stand as the law of the land based simply on his opinion or interpretation of a rule.

Let's get the situation straight first. This was on staff day, and the entire (RO) squad shot the COF with the slide locked back. Jesus! Where did you dig up the staff for this match? An RO that thought that was a legal ready condition should have had his card pulled right there on the spot!

Really? An RO that made a mistake should have his card pulled on the spot? People make mistakes, and hopefully they learn from them and become better RO's. I am sure that everybody on here knew the rule book inside and out from day one out of their level 1 class and has never made a mistake or a bad call. If that was the case this forum would be a ghost town and there wouldn't be much to discuss There were several new RO's working this match and I hope they gained a lot of experience and will continue to help and volunteer at other matches. ALL of the staff at this match was extremely professional and did a great job. Newer RO's worked with more experienced RO's and CRO's and will be better for it. We should thank everyone that puts in so much time and effort and not bash them if they aren't perfect all the time. Everybody has to start somewhere.

[MaraW]

... the entire (RO) squad shot the COF with the slide locked back. Since 8.1.3 was not met the COF should never have been started per 8.3.1. Since that condition was not met the competitor should not have been started. On that note, since there was no competitive advantage gained on a scored COF there was no bump to open. This also happened all at once, he technically never got bumped to open, the situation was explained to me and the entire squad was ordered to reshoot.

I also discussed this issue with the 3 other RMs on the range including the new DNROI and ALL agreed that this was the correct action for this situation.

Sorry, this whole sorry tale sounds like a BS rationalization for giving a do-over to an RO. He was given the correct range commands, the start signal was given, and he shot the course of fire. The moment the start signal was given while he had 11 rounds in the magazine, he was breaking the rules. No amount of range lawyering can change that fact.

As match officials, we police our own and so every call we make should be above board and whiter-than-white. This kind of thing is very disappointing and unprofessional IMHO.

It seems obvious from the discussion going on here that making the right call was not that black and white. Not every scenario is exactly addressed by the rule book. Work enough matches and you will see some weird ones. Not everybody is going to be happy with 100% of the calls 100% of the time. What IS obvious is that the RM took the time to carefully consider the situation, discuss it with other RM's and make a well thought out decision. This is what should happen. I hope that you get the same consideration from RO's, CRO's and especially RM's at every match you shoot. I don't believe for a second that this decision had anything to do with the fact that this involved an RO squad. Calling into question the honesty and integrity of the people involved because you don't agree with the call that was made has nothing to do with a "rules discussion" and is simply in bad taste.

[38SuperDub]

Mara,

Not trying to argue but just a question - how is this not a Black / White issue? IMO if you say - the original run didn't happen due to the reshoot - there should NEVER be a situation where the bump should stand. This out of all things that I've seen / argued / discussed - is one of the more black and white ones there. The only issue is the rule book just doesn't give guidance on which way to rule - this is the confusing part.

[Poppa Bear]

Same situation but two scenarios. One involves a reshoot, the other the stage is thrown out. The rule should be the same for both, and it is. Once the RM bumps you to Open it stays. The only saving grace here is that the stage had to be reshot before the bump was officially entered. The RM ruled that the illegal start negated the run so there was no official first attempt.

The fact that it took a group meeting of RM' s and RMI's to make this decision says it had a lot of gray to it.

[jester121]

You answered your own question -- it's not a black & white issue because the rule book doesn't give guidance on which way to rule.

This is bound to happen, it happens in all sports, all the time. The rules get massaged, tweaked, etc. We have a procedure for making rulings on the spot, which was apparently followed.

[MaraW]

Mara,

Not trying to argue but just a question - how is this not a Black / White issue? IMO if you say - the original run didn't happen due to the reshoot - there should NEVER be a situation where the bump should stand. This out of all things that I've seen / argued / discussed - is one of the more black and white ones there. The only issue is the rule book just doesn't give guidance on which way to rule - this is the confusing part.

I never said one way or the other what I thought. It just seemed that from the differing of opinions on here that it wasn't that clear cut. In the space of 2 sentences you just implied you think this IS a black and white issue, but then said the rule book doesn't give guidance on which way to rule. I think you made my point for me, although if you read my post, that is the least important point I was making. The important thing IMO is that RM's make calls with the by the book when they can, but if it ISN'T that clear that they put some thought and consideration into it.

[38SuperDub]

I guess let me try again:

I think the ruling should be black or white - if X happens then B - I don't think the reshoot is a case where you should under some circumstances get back in your original division and others you stay bumped. I've thought a while and can't think of a situation where it would be OK to allow a shooter back for 1 type of reshoot but not for another. The RM stated that not every situation is black and white but in retrospect this situation is 100% black and white:

Shooter Shoots stage with illegal equip

Shooter gets bumped to open

Shooter has to reshoot the stage that bumped him to open

XXXXXX Happens

Its the XXXXXX that there is no support for in the rule book either way - once that is determined - there should be ZERO grey area - and I'm a fan of having as little grey area as possible.

[2MoreChains]

When the shooter who got bumped to Open was ordered to reshoot the stage, in what division was he at that time?

[Nimitz]

I don't remember the specific rule number but there is a rule which says the shooter can not shoot his way out ofa penalty with a subsequent action ...

Since he was already penalized and moved to open by failing to comply with the equipment rules of his division, ths penalty cannot be undone by a reshoot ....

He stays in open ...

[jester121]

I don't remember the specific rule number but there is a rule which says the shooter can not shoot his way out ofa penalty with a subsequent action ...

I think that's actually a bullet point concept in the Level I RO seminar, not an numbered rule.

I also happen to disagree with it -- given enough ammunition, I feel reasonably certain I can cause some sort of range equipment failure downrange on nearly any stage, leading to a reshoot.

I would also expect to receive a 10.6 DQ for intentionally shooting up the props, but a better marksman might be able to make it look unintentional.

[aztecdriver]

If DNROI let the guy carry on in Production then truly, not much has changed on that end. I have never believed the DNROI should hold such power. We are letting one person, ONE, make a call that will stand as the law of the land based simply on his opinion or interpretation of a rule.

Until the board disagrees, requests a rule change and votes it in. This is how interpretation issues are handled.

[pjb45]

The rule book does not cover every variation of what can happen in a match. It tries to the best of its ability to provide 'reasonable man' rationale to governing a match.

A reshoot negates any action occurred during the original COF/shooting of the stage; scores, penalties, time, etc no longer count or exist.

A reshoot treats the stage as if it is being shot for the first time, again, no residual effects from the previous action.

This should be the governing principle. If residual effects from the original running of the stage exist for the move to Open, then so do scores, penalties, time etc. Otherwise you are being capricious and arbitrary , which allows for any aberration of the rule book.

Sorry, reshoot means the shooter is shooting his original declaration.

[motosapiens]

The rule book does not cover every variation of what can happen in a match. It tries to the best of its ability to provide 'reasonable man' rationale to governing a match.

A reshoot negates any action occurred during the original COF/shooting of the stage; scores, penalties, time, etc no longer count or exist.

A reshoot treats the stage as if it is being shot for the first time, again, no residual effects from the previous action.

This should be the governing principle. If residual effects from the original running of the stage exist for the move to Open, then so do scores, penalties, time etc. Otherwise you are being capricious and arbitrary , which allows for any aberration of the rule book.

Sorry, reshoot means the shooter is shooting his original declaration.

so does that apply to dq's as well? If not, why?

[pjb45]

Please explain your question or add more detail.