Obligation to Discuss REF with RO During Stage?

[Jadeslade]

You would have loved Major Hassle at Area 6 Multigun. He was so crabby and authoritarian and was mixing IPSC rules with USPSA rules. But after I licked his ear he was better.

[MarkCO]

I guess I know another RO to have replaced if I step to the line. Yikes!

[blueeyedme]

I guess I know another RO to have replaced if I step to the line. Yikes!

Feel free, nothing personal either way. Good shooting!

[MarkCO]

I guess I know another RO to have replaced if I step to the line. Yikes!

Feel free, nothing personal either way. Good shooting!

Um, post #26, whoever that RO is.

[Nik Habicht]

I actually would say that it is not wholly inappropriate to 'offer' a reshoot in such an instance. I think it falls under 8.6.4, somewhat similar to a banner coming loose and flopping around, potentially distracting the shooter or obstructing a target.

As spanky pointed out, it sounds like the equipment failure was after the target had been engaged, so that external influence may or may not have affected the shooter. It would be normal and reasonable for the shooter to think that his shots had broken the stick, and therefore want to re-engage the swinger, which is no longer available. If he made that claim and had noticeably paused during the stage looking at the swinger, I don't really see how you could really deny it.

I'll disagree Moto -- it's simply REF when a target comes off the sticks/leans out of normal position due to one broken or dislodged stick. Now, if it occurred after "If clear, hammer down, holster" I might rule differently -- since at that point the COF is "essentially over", in that the competitor may not start shooting again.....

Up to that point, it's REF; it's not up to the RO to divine whether or not the competitor might have wanted to back up and reengage that target; the only thing that matter is that the competitor does knot have that chance.

[Nik Habicht]

I didn't even read your post vlad. I would probably do the same as you at a local. BUT, still, if the shooter wanted to zoom back over to make sure he hit it and it was not visible that would be a reshoot in my mind.

Sorry, I may have overreacted, I had a bizarre morning.

It's not a big deal. Lifes to short to argue with somebody from New jersey!

But it's almost never too short to argue with Vlad -- that's simply entertaining!

[Nik Habicht]

IF the target lathe had failed after the competitor was past the target and it had no influence on him, then I can see an argument for no reshoot. That may have been the thinking of the RM if he did not get a complete set of facts on which to rule.

What if he had completed the COF but wanted to slide back over to make sure his hits were there? If the target is not visible like it is supposed to be, that's REF.

Different set of circumstances. We can play what ifs all day long. Fact is, there were two rules that could be used to either "offer" or require a re-shoot, which I quoted above. I did not say an argument for no re-shoot should prevail, just that I could potentially see the argument and the RM may, or may not have been given all the information. Any RO who observed that the competitor even noticed the sticks had failed prior to his completion of the course of fire, should have understood the potential impact and offered a re-shoot.

And I'll disagree with your logic as well. I think only the REF rule applies as it is specific to the situation; the interference rule is a more general catch-all bucket, nice to have, but not appropriate for this situation as we have a more specific rule.

[Nik Habicht]

We do have a rulebook...

The rules I would look to:

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt.

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

Both of these rules can be applied to the described situation. Technically, if I had to make a call, I would use 4.6.1. In any event, the RO was not correct in telling you to talk to her on the clock. I also do not think the RM needed to be called. The competitor had two different rules that should have afforded a reshoot. IF the target lathe had failed after the competitor was past the target and it had no influence on him, then I can see an argument for no reshoot. That may have been the thinking of the RM if he did not get a complete set of facts on which to rule.

8.6.4 is subjective. The RO may offer a reshoot - which assumes the RO determines if the external influence qualifies for a reshoot. From the original post, the shooter paused and was then instructed to continue. To me, the fact that he was instructed to continue (by the RO?) after a pause, is enough to offer the reshoot after a quick discussion with the shooter and before the time is announced. As a timer RO focused on the gun, I probably would not have seen the swinger self-destruct and would rely on the scoring RO to call the REF if they saw it and thought it applied.

4.6.1 not sure I agree that it applies here since the shooter engaged the target before it failed which in my opinion meets the fair & equitable standard.

At a match, I call it as I see it and the the shooter has the right to appeal to the RM - that's why they are there. At a major match I don't have time for a rules discussion as the squad times are very tight and delays turn into bottlenecks which nobody likes.

Um, a rules discussion is your job, your obligation as an RO. If you don't know the rules, sure, that is what the RM is there for.

Remember this?

Range Officer's Creed

<snip>

Nowhere in your lengthy creed post does it say a rule discussion is part of my job. I make the call fairly and impartially based on my interpretation of the rules and explain that to the shooter. If you disagree, you are welcome to take it up with the RM, it's nothing personal...but we are not going to hold up shooters and have a rules 'discussion' while I am running a squad. That's my RM's job.

Yup. On the rare occasions I act as an RM, one of the things I instill in my ROs and CROs is that their job is to move the competitors through the stage. Sure they should slap an overlay on a target, or pull out a rulebook to quickly verify they're making the correct call, but if it's anymore involved than that, they should call me. I've typically got all the time in the world for problem resolution. Usually calibrating steel at the beginning of each session is my largest time suck once the match starts.....

[MarkCO]

IF the target lathe had failed after the competitor was past the target and it had no influence on him, then I can see an argument for no reshoot. That may have been the thinking of the RM if he did not get a complete set of facts on which to rule.

What if he had completed the COF but wanted to slide back over to make sure his hits were there? If the target is not visible like it is supposed to be, that's REF.

Different set of circumstances. We can play what ifs all day long. Fact is, there were two rules that could be used to either "offer" or require a re-shoot, which I quoted above. I did not say an argument for no re-shoot should prevail, just that I could potentially see the argument and the RM may, or may not have been given all the information. Any RO who observed that the competitor even noticed the sticks had failed prior to his completion of the course of fire, should have understood the potential impact and offered a re-shoot.

And I'll disagree with your logic as well. I think only the REF rule applies as it is specific to the situation; the interference rule is a more general catch-all bucket, nice to have, but not appropriate for this situation as we have a more specific rule.

Go read my OP Nik, that is what I said I would apply.

[motosapiens]

I actually would say that it is not wholly inappropriate to 'offer' a reshoot in such an instance. I think it falls under 8.6.4, somewhat similar to a banner coming loose and flopping around, potentially distracting the shooter or obstructing a target.

As spanky pointed out, it sounds like the equipment failure was after the target had been engaged, so that external influence may or may not have affected the shooter. It would be normal and reasonable for the shooter to think that his shots had broken the stick, and therefore want to re-engage the swinger, which is no longer available. If he made that claim and had noticeably paused during the stage looking at the swinger, I don't really see how you could really deny it.

I'll disagree Moto -- it's simply REF when a target comes off the sticks/leans out of normal position due to one broken or dislodged stick. Now, if it occurred after "If clear, hammer down, holster" I might rule differently -- since at that point the COF is "essentially over", in that the competitor may not start shooting again.....

Up to that point, it's REF; it's not up to the RO to divine whether or not the competitor might have wanted to back up and reengage that target; the only thing that matter is that the competitor does knot have that chance.

I'm not suggesting I would try to divine anything. The way I'm imagining what went down, I would tend to use 8.6.4 and *offer* a reshoot, rather than ordering a mandatory one that might screw the shooter over if he had a good run and didn't feel like it affected him. If it's a mandatory reshoot, you should probably stop the shooter right then and not let him finish the course of fire.

If you don't stop the shooter, and the shooter doesn't want to reshoot, I think it's kinda dumb to force him to. But if it came down to any disagreement, I'd just call for the RM and continue running shooters. It's really no big deal to me either way. If there's a reasonable and fair way to interpret the rules that avoids screwing over the shooter for something beyond his control, then that's how I would normally interpret the rules. I have (thankfully) observed a similar attitude among national-level RM's. Maybe that's where I learned it.

Heck i shot a stick out at our local match last weekend, on a static target, but put 2 good shots on it before it could fall over, so I just ignored it and kept on shooting. I think it would have been dumb to order a re-shoot, although if I were a weasel I probably could have used one, since I ended up taking a make-up on steel and doing a standing SS reload.

Edited March 12, 2015 by motosapiens

[Nik Habicht]

I'm with you on the attitude about avoiding screwing over a shooter......

My take is though that when we start thinking about "the competitor" we're not seeing the larger "divisional pool" forest. We are treating the one differently than the many -- he shot the stage with a different presentation than anyone else.

Ordering a reshoot may result in a better run for the competitor. Or a worse performance. that may raise or lower the relative standing of other competitors in class/division.

Therefore, since its established elsewhere that an equitable presentation of targets is essential to the competition, the only ethical thing to do is to order the reshoot when there's a case of REF. If we don't order it, then someone got to shoot a different COF than the other competitors. (I realize that there people regularly shoot different courses of fire on the same stage, due to weather, daylight, and other conditions we have no control over -- this isn't about that though....)

[MikeRush]

Thank you for the interesting discussion! It clearly was not an equitable presentation. At the end of the day the lesson to me is to politely seek answers from the rule book and decline to sign until we have reached an understanding.

I hate to delay the match or other competitors, but we could have discussed it further while the new target and sticks were prepared. Now I know for next time!

[motosapiens]

I'm with you on the attitude about avoiding screwing over a shooter......

My take is though that when we start thinking about "the competitor" we're not seeing the larger "divisional pool" forest. We are treating the one differently than the many -- he shot the stage with a different presentation than anyone else.

Ordering a reshoot may result in a better run for the competitor. Or a worse performance. that may raise or lower the relative standing of other competitors in class/division.

Therefore, since its established elsewhere that an equitable presentation of targets is essential to the competition, the only ethical thing to do is to order the reshoot when there's a case of REF. If we don't order it, then someone got to shoot a different COF than the other competitors. (I realize that there people regularly shoot different courses of fire on the same stage, due to weather, daylight, and other conditions we have no control over -- this isn't about that though....)

I think it's totally a matter of opinion as to whether the stage was shot with a different presentation than anyone else. For starters, it's *always* different, just a matter of degree. Position of the sun, amount of wind, number of pasters on targets, outside noise, how chewed up the ground is, etc... If something external influences the shooter, but doesn't give an advantage, then I see no reason to force a reshoot. If it causes a disadvantage, then a reshoot might be warranted. This *sounds* like one of those cases. If a stick breaking doesn't distract the shooter, and the shooter has no intent of going back to those targets, then why not drive on? OTOH, if the shooter is distracted and loses time, or is denied the opportunity to revisit the target, then offer a reshoot, but I personally probably wouldn't order one.

Of course in this situation, I think ordering one when the shooter doesn't really want it is not as bad as denying a reshoot that the shooter desires and apparently deserves by the rules.