Reshoot negates bump to open?

[alma]

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.

A move to Open is something that is match specific, not stage specific, just like a DQ.

If this same shooter DQed on a stage but then the entire squad had to reshoot it he would not be reinstated and the DQ would not go away.

[pjb45]

There may exist many reasons for a move to Open. The consequences of the move are for the match. The specific cause of the action could be stage, chrono, or match specific.

Getting moved to Open, the shooter is allowed to continue the match?

Getting DQ'd the shooter is prohibited from attempting any remaining COF.

In one instance the shooter is allowed to continue the match, in the other they are not allowed to continue the match.

[aztecdriver]

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.

By far, the most poignant, and true statement I've read so far (going serially) relating to my experience. The challenge an RM has is attempting to remove grey from the match before it starts, dealing with it fairly after it starts, and debriefing and learning from it after it ends. If one thinks they know everything once that review is given, or being given the title at a state match - i feel for that person, because it's going to be a very, very miserable experience for everyone.

[pjb45]

A paradox can be created, etc. The challenge from the beginning of time has been how solve them.

We all have different methods, ways of rationalizing them and our solutions. Different does not necessarily mean wrong, but can.

BE recommends the Myers Briggs evaluation to give insight to why we think/do. Its links are on this forum.

Sometime ago, my daughter and I were having sushi in St. George while at Nationals. The other person at our table was a psychologist / psychiatrist . The discussion got around to MB. The other person said he had never met two related people with very similar categories, i.e., less than 4% & 2% of the country. We spent the next hour or so talking and yes you can get beer in St. George.

The bottom line is I just see things differently than most. I carry that baggage with me and try not to judge others because their views are different than mine.

I believe my reasoning is sound but then again............

Edited September 4, 2014 by pjb45

[grantwoodok]

Something I'm curious about. In the WSB what was the start condition of the shooter and the gun/ammo?

[Poppa Bear]

My guess is unloaded on table. Why they thought they could have the slide locked to the rear I do not know. I do get asked a couple times a year if a shooter can start that way or if they can have their starting mag in their hand.

[Poppa Bear]

There are many rules that are contingent upon other rules. The challenge is deciding which rule has precedence over others.

An interesting discussion would be what happens if they squad has to reshoot because the stage was changed. Their first attempt was legal but for reasons of competitive equity they need to reshoot. In this case I would not agree with a bump to Open being reversed .

[Skydiver]

Mark's going to kill me, but here's a more plausible scenario:

Shooter A is shooting a stage, and Shooter B in he peanut gallery shouts "Don't forget that popper that you just ran by!". Shooter A runs back to get the popper. At the end of the COF, the RO gives a procedural to Shooter A and Shooter B for coaching (8.6.2). While scoring, somebody prematurely pastes a target so a reshoot is ordered. (9.1.3) Do the procedurals given to Shooter A and Shooter B get removed?

[Ssanders224]

Mark's going to kill me, but here's a more plausible scenario:

Shooter A is shooting a stage, and Shooter B in he peanut gallery shouts "Don't forget that popper that you just ran by!". Shooter A runs back to get the popper. At the end of the COF, the RO gives a procedural to Shooter A and Shooter B for coaching (8.6.2). While scoring, somebody prematurely pastes a target so a reshoot is ordered. (9.1.3) Do the procedurals given to Shooter A and Shooter B get removed?

IMO, yes.

[beltjones]

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?

I think it does not. The DQ would stand.

The reason is that DQs are not stage-specific actions like equipment violations. In other words, I can declare "Production" and walk around all day with 17 rounds in each mag and not get bumped to Open, as long as I download them all to 10 rounds before the buzzer.

If a safety issue occurs and a competitor is DQed, the fact that a stage is thrown out or a reshoot is ordered does not change the fact that a safety issue occurred. However, if a stage is thrown out or a reshoot is ordered, then it DOES change the fact that a competitive advantage was achieved, as long as it was exclusive to that stage.

[aceinyerface]

I'm supposed to go to an RO class this weekend, looking at some of the attitudes displayed here, I'm seriously reconsidering that.

[MaraW]

I'm supposed to go to an RO class this weekend, looking at some of the attitudes displayed here, I'm seriously reconsidering that.

You should take the class. Don't let the couple people here that make a hobby out of pointing out mistakes after the fact discourage you. I posted earlier that there were some new RO's working the match. They did great and I'm sure learned a lot and will be even better next time. All of the staff was excellent and the vast majority of us appreciate their hard work so we can have good matches to shoot. Nobody on here is perfect or has all the right answers, although some would like you to think so. Some of the attitudes of a (very) few people on here are probably representative of their character in general. It's just like any other sport, group, etc....there are a$$ holes everywhere. Luckily they're the minority in USPSA.

[ZackJones]

I'm supposed to go to an RO class this weekend, looking at some of the attitudes displayed here, I'm seriously reconsidering that.

Take it. The knowledge you gain there will help you. Even if you elect not to serve as an RO having a better understanding of the rules is always a positive.

[Nimitz]

I don't remember the specific rule number but there is a rule which says the shooter can not shoot his way out of a 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, this penalty cannot be undone by a reshoot ....

He stays in open ...

[Nik Habicht]

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?

Eric,

simple reason: We might encounter this at a match, and as you pointed out RMs live in a world of Grey. (A concept I recognized as a CRO and match director, and had confirmed by a couple of RMIs.....)

So having the discussion might actually help us out when we're running a match, need to make the call, and can't get ahold of DNROI to advice, erh, advise us......

[Nik Habicht]

Mark's going to kill me, but here's a more plausible scenario:

Shooter A is shooting a stage, and Shooter B in he peanut gallery shouts "Don't forget that popper that you just ran by!". Shooter A runs back to get the popper. At the end of the COF, the RO gives a procedural to Shooter A and Shooter B for coaching (8.6.2). While scoring, somebody prematurely pastes a target so a reshoot is ordered. (9.1.3) Do the procedurals given to Shooter A and Shooter B get removed?

I'm supposed to go to an RO class this weekend, looking at some of the attitudes displayed here, I'm seriously reconsidering that.

Please don't reconsider that. If there's one underlying principle behind the passionate debate on this thread, it's that we all want to always make the right call....

....and when we hear of interesting situations, that we had not yet considered, awe do sometimes argue -- generally in an effort to better understand....

Go -- you'll be glad you did.

[38SuperDub]

Just a note. I sent an email to DNROI and will post the reply here.

[remoandiris]

I'm supposed to go to an RO class this weekend, looking at some of the attitudes displayed here, I'm seriously reconsidering that.

Go to the class and work a few majors. You will learn something new every time. I remember one L2 I worked as the stage CRO. I dorked up 2 calls at that match. One I cited the wrong rule for a DQ (AD during reload vs. AD/finger on trigger during movement) and AD at MR. Yep. My fault both shooters got to finish the match, but I friggin learned and read that rulebook 3 more times cover to cover!! DQing someone sucks, but getting the call wrong sucks more, IMO.

Don't get bent over arguments and attitudes here. You'll get plenty of arguments and attitude at matches!!

[Chris iliff]

Reshoot, such a simple word.

For me that sums it up.

11 rounds, dropped gun, broke 180, finger in trigger, ......didn't happen.

ANYTHING after the cause of the reshoot doesn't exist for me as the CRO of the stage.

There are never going to be enough rules in the rule book, we shouldn't want there to be either.

I could be wrong, if DNROI rules otherwise, so be it. I'm good with that decision. But then, I'm good with giving one guy that kind responsibility.

[alma]

Wow

[Todd7446]

I don't remember the specific rule number but there is a rule which says the shooter can not shoot his way out of a 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, this penalty cannot be undone by a reshoot ....

He stays in open ...

The one thing about this is that it has been stated multiple times - correctly, I believe - that getting bumped to Open is NOT being penalized. Thus, no shooting out of the "penalty."

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mgardner]

6.2.5.1 applies. If the competitor fails to satisfy the equipment requirements during a COF he's moved to Open. Doesn't matter if his first attempt or not.

10.1.4 applies to "shooting your way out of a penalty" while faulting a line. No other references are made to this action.

[Skydiver]

I, too, encourage you, @aceinyerface, to take the RO class. Any which way it will help you understand our sport better irregardless if you decide to go take the test, become official, and help with running matches; or if you just decide that it's not for you and just continue to compete. I know of two people who took the RO class and decided it wasn't for them, but I saw how they grew to be better competitors -- both when they are the shooter, and when they are just there helping others out. It's a win for USPSA any which way.

Don't let our sometimes acrimonious debates discourage your or scare you off. As @Nik Habicht said, often the reasons behind it is because we all strive to make the right call if/when the situation does come up. As somebody wisely put it when I first found this forum many years ago, this forum should be considered as an avenue for RO skills dry firing.

[frag316]

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?

Because it's the only way we get better and can understand how the process works in the minds of the NROI and apply similar processes to other situations.

A friend of mine who's a CRO/RM said his goal is to make sure the RM and MD never get called to his stage during a major match, so he applies a lot of reasoning to the decisions he makes. If, in the end, the MD/RM get called, he can explain his reasoning to them.

I don't have the experience he does, so I talk with him quite a bit to determine how to handle various situations I run into, to get an experienced perspective.

Lots of the calls we make are easy--procedurals for faulting or failure to follow the WSB, 180 violations, dropped guns, etc. They're very black and white and easy to call.

Situations like this almost demand that we talk them out to get different perspectives, to understand how to apply the rules when they don't neatly fit into the situation at hand.

Sarcasm and defensiveness and counteraccusations don't help that effort.

[motosapiens]

I'm supposed to go to an RO class this weekend, looking at some of the attitudes displayed here, I'm seriously reconsidering that.

Just ignore sarge. He's probably a nice guy in person. Actually almost all RO's are really nice guys in person (I've only run across 2 exceptions and they were working the same stage, probably because no one else wanted to work with them, lol.

I personally enjoy the discussions here. It's an opportunity to learn things and to hear different reasoning. Every RO will make mistakes, but most of them very much want to be educated when they do, by the CRO or the RM.