Rules question

[Axel1841]

Sounds like the RO didn't like the other guy.

[Nimitz]

Hmmm if they worked several days in the sun it sounds like maybe A6? There should have been only certified RO'S on the stages if that's the case.

As for incorrect range commands, all you have to do is watch enough videos to see all kinds of hokey stuff.

I stand by my opinion that the RO corps needs some tougher standards

some sort of mandatory recertification for everyone every few years doesn't seem out of line ....

[motosapiens]

Hmmm if they worked several days in the sun it sounds like maybe A6? There should have been only certified RO'S on the stages if that's the case.

As for incorrect range commands, all you have to do is watch enough videos to see all kinds of hokey stuff.

I stand by my opinion that the RO corps needs some tougher standards

some sort of mandatory recertification for everyone every few years doesn't seem out of line ....

There's already a mandatory recertification test every year.

Rules are complicated, and even smart people who care about rules and make an effort to learn them and apply them correctly have been proven wrong in this forum before. I don't see any need to complicate things by making it more difficult to become an RO or to stay an RO. All of us have a responsibility to help fix mistakes so that everyone can learn from it.

[GrumpyOne]

Hmmm if they worked several days in the sun it sounds like maybe A6? There should have been only certified RO'S on the stages if that's the case.

As for incorrect range commands, all you have to do is watch enough videos to see all kinds of hokey stuff.

I stand by my opinion that the RO corps needs some tougher standards

some sort of mandatory recertification for everyone every few years doesn't seem out of line ....

There's already a mandatory recertification test every year.

Rules are complicated, and even smart people who care about rules and make an effort to learn them and apply them correctly have been proven wrong in this forum before. I don't see any need to complicate things by making it more difficult to become an RO or to stay an RO. All of us have a responsibility to help fix mistakes so that everyone can learn from it.

Those are some very good and true words, moto.

[Sarge]

Not knowing a holstered gun is inert is far from complicated. Yes complicated rules can be a challenge and that's what RMs are for.

Yes we take an easy open book exam every year to stay certified but maybe that's not enough for everybody?

[motosapiens]

Not knowing a holstered gun is inert is far from complicated. Yes complicated rules can be a challenge and that's what RMs are for.

Yes we take an easy open book exam every year to stay certified but maybe that's not enough for everybody?

I nominate you to pilot a more intensive program at your club and report back on the results. It will be important to know if it leads to more consistent rules application and also if it has an effect on the number of available ROs.

Edited April 14, 2015 by motosapiens

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

Hmmm if they worked several days in the sun it sounds like maybe A6? There should have been only certified RO'S on the stages if that's the case.

As for incorrect range commands, all you have to do is watch enough videos to see all kinds of hokey stuff.

I stand by my opinion that the RO corps needs some tougher standards

some sort of mandatory recertification for everyone every few years doesn't seem out of line ....

I agree, I have paid for and taken the RO course 2 times. Second time was for a self imposed refresher. Main reason was John Amidon was teaching it.

It made me a better RO and I continue to keep taking the tests and reading the book, but I no longer run a timer. Too slow on my feet for it now to be effective and keep the range safe. I understand that. Some don't

[Sarge]

Not knowing a holstered gun is inert is far from complicated. Yes complicated rules can be a challenge and that's what RMs are for.

Yes we take an easy open book exam every year to stay certified but maybe that's not enough for everybody?

I nominate you to pilot a more intensive program at your club and report back on the results. It will be important to know if it leads to more consistent rules application and also if it has an effect on the number of available ROs.

So you are saying a bunch of so-so ROs is better than fewer better trained ROs?

[Nimitz]

although not exactly the same thing ... when I was actively flying I had to continually demonstrate that I could execute the procedures via annual check rides even though I'd done it a thousand times, not just take a simple test & call it good ... I know its a volunteer sport but given the number of times I've seen & heard the wrong thing applied from what most would consider basic rules info (like not knowing 'by definition' it's impossible to sweep yourself when the gun is holstered) I would think some kind of refresher is important .... but what do I know, I ain't a certified RO ....

Edited April 14, 2015 by Nimitz

[motosapiens]

Not knowing a holstered gun is inert is far from complicated. Yes complicated rules can be a challenge and that's what RMs are for.

Yes we take an easy open book exam every year to stay certified but maybe that's not enough for everybody?

I nominate you to pilot a more intensive program at your club and report back on the results. It will be important to know if it leads to more consistent rules application and also if it has an effect on the number of available ROs.

So you are saying a bunch of so-so ROs is better than fewer better trained ROs?

I don't think I'm saying that, but I do think it's worth thinking about. For sure, you have to have a minimum number of RO's to even hold a major match.

I think it's worthwhile to think things through and gather data to make an informed decision rather than just reacting to a perceived problem by creating more rules and programs.

For sure, it seemed clear to me that RO certification was the very minimum starting point, and that to actually become a decent RO it would take experience, especially experience working majors with more experienced folks.

If there actually is a problem, I'm not sure what the solution is. Perhaps it's more training, perhaps something else.

Edited April 14, 2015 by motosapiens

[motosapiens]

but what do I know, I ain't a certified RO ....

So if it became more difficult and time-consuming to be certified, would you become a certified RO?

[motosapiens]

oops.

Edited April 14, 2015 by motosapiens

[whitedog]

A properly holstered gun, in a proper holster is inert. Period. RO really screwed the pooch there.

Now.....as far as a refresher or whatever.

As an RO I constantly ask questions when I don't understand something. And I think more RO's should. Instead of applying what makes sense to them or their opinions into the rules.

Poor Sarge, I beat him with questions about no shoot shoot throughs. He was patient and I finally "got it".

[motosapiens]

As an RO I constantly ask questions when I don't understand something. And I think more RO's should. Instead of applying what makes sense to them or their opinions into the rules.

Poor Sarge, I beat him with questions about no shoot shoot throughs. He was patient and I finally "got it".

Excellent. that's (imho) how it's supposed to work. So are you guys having problems in your area with completely wacked calls? I bet not. So maybe the solution is for people to act like you (try to learn, ask questions, etc...) rather than more training programs and standardized testing.

Edited April 14, 2015 by motosapiens

[Nghthwk1911]

I know that I and others have suggested setting up an official mentor program, and if you want to be an RO you get a sponsor. Sponsor can be designated by Clubs, Sections Coordinators or Area directors. This at least puts some vetting on the Mentors. Prospective RO's work for a time with the Mentor, then take the class, this will also allow the instructor to move the class along, assuming that the Mentor was providing actual guidance and experience to the prospective RO along the way.

But I am not sure that really got legs, as that is just to much work, and well stuff and junk.

[Gary Stevens]

I don't RM a match that I don't get a few rules questions from shooters who just walk up. I love that. It shows interest in our sport.

I want to add one thing from an RM perspective. When an RO/CRO makes a bad call, don't just tell them "no", take the time to teach them. Show them the rule in the book and explain what it means and why it is there.

Chances are they will not make that same mistake again.

[Nimitz]

but what do I know, I ain't a certified RO ....

So if it became more difficult and time-consuming to be certified, would you become a certified RO?

of course not ... but you've hit on one of many reasons that I'm not an RO ... being a good one takes a lot of effort, effort I'm unwilling to expend and so since I can't do it right I'm not going to do it ...

I haven't shot enough majors to know if there are a lot of these kinds of issues at those matches but at the local level it's a lot harder since at least where I shoot we have a lot of folks who have no plans to shoot anything other then locals and expecting a large pool of highly qualified ROs to appear every month is probably not realistic

the problem is if you're going to have rules then they need to be understood and enforced equally so that it's fair for everyone ... or we could all just go shoot IDPA, their rules are pretty straightforward ....

Edited April 14, 2015 by Nimitz

[whitedog]

I can say this about my local club. Sarge is the MD, yes he can be tough and such, but he knows the rules. Ask the question you get the answer. Others at the club are also very knowledgeable. I believe if yer going to do a thing, you should be as best as you can at that thing. If that takes admitting yer unsure of something then you should do that.

As of late I've been backing off as an RO because I'm trying to advance a class....And trying to do that takes focus away from being a good RO. If I do make it to B, I'd like to get back to being an RO more consistently. If that's ok with Sarge, that is. Lol

[Poppa Bear]

Maybe what is needed is a longer recertification exam. Say 50 questions with rule # notation, with the question spread throughout the book to ensure basic knowledge of ALL aspects of being an RO. A greater chance of getting a question wrong will improve the RO's knowledge in areas they are weak.

[2MoreChains]

Just so I am tracking... we periodically hear about some goofy call made by a "RO" at a match. This leads to a thinking that higher standards are required to be an RO. Statistically speaking, just how rampant are these bad calls to warrant increasing the standard?

In the same vein, we quite often hear about screw-ups made by competitors, either as self-admissions or somebody who was witness to one. Should that spur us to say there needs to be a minimum competency level to compete, and do such minimum standards need to be enforced thru periodic refreshers?

Compared to the thousands of RO calls made at a hundred or so matches every weekend, what is the incident rate for f'ed up calls to justify this? 1 in a 1000, 500, 100? And what is, if it can even be quantified, the acceptable level?

[Sarge]

One shitty call can make many look bad in my opinion. I think the overwhelming majority of calls are perfect but we all know what would happen if a poor RO call got somebody hurt or killed. Within a month there would be tougher standards in place across the board. Why should we be complacent until that happens?

I'm far from perfect but it bugs me when I make bad calls and I don't rest until I figure out what I did wrong to try to prevent it from happening again. I try to learn from my mistakes

[frag316]

Guys, there's a reason the test is open-book. We're not supposed to memorize every rule, we're supposed to know where to find the information if we think the rule's been broken.

The only rules we really have to know with absolutely no prompting are the ones that keep everyone safe. Everything else you can look up if you have a question.

If you're ROing and you mess up, fess up. If you misapply a rule, learn from it. I've seen guys who are experienced multi-major match and IPSC World Shoot CROs misremember a rule and then have to admit they were wrong when the rulebook comes out. And they were grown-ups about it. And we all learned from it.

It's not the fact that someone makes a shitty call that makes us look bad, it's the fact that someone who makes a shitty call doesn't get challenged to pull out the rulebook and show what their basis for the call is, so guys like us wind up Monday morning quarterbacking them on BENOS, when someone should have thrown a BS flag at the range instead and talked about the issue and its resolution.

[motosapiens]

<many outstanding points snipped, leaving only the MOST outstanding point below>

It's not the fact that someone makes a shitty call that makes us look bad, it's the fact that someone who makes a shitty call doesn't get challenged to pull out the rulebook and show what their basis for the call is, so guys like us wind up Monday morning quarterbacking them on BENOS, when someone should have thrown a BS flag at the range instead and talked about the issue and its resolution.

Very well stated. Everyone should know the rules. There's no excuse for playing a game and not knowing the rules.

It's not at all unusual at our matches for newer (or non-certified) RO to be unsure of a call, and when that happens they ask for someone more experienced to help.

Before I started making it more difficult and time-consuming to become an RO, I'd consider making rules knowledge a prerequisite for classification. But I don't think that's necessary either. In my observations at local matches and at the major matches I've attended, there is not a problem.

[bikerburgess]

It's also pretty common for some of us that have been arround the sport a while to remember the way a rule used to be in a previous rule book. There are many small changes in the various editions over the years and it's easy to quote now defunct rule language

[motosapiens]

It's also pretty common for some of us that have been arround the sport a while to remember the way a rule used to be in a previous rule book. There are many small changes in the various editions over the years and it's easy to quote now defunct rule language

That's why you should be required to take a week-long refresher class at uspsa hq every time a new rulebook comes out. Problem solved by more regulation and organizational overhead!! What other problems can we solve with big government today?