DQing a shooter on another squad?

[motosapiens]

I don't think the rulebook differentiates between ROs on a particular stage/squad. If you're ROing at the match, you're a match official. Same as if I walk by you chamber testing rounds at the safe table -- even if I don't know who you are, you're going home.

That is a valid point concerning safety infractions outside a COF, but 8.3.5 (stop command) seems to state that "Any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue this command at any time during the course of fire. " That would appear to preclude an RO *not* assigned to the stage from doing so.

So, to follow your logic, if I'm serving as RM at a match, I can't issue a DQ that I see because I'm not assigned to the stage?

Don't follow what you think is my logic, follow the rules. The rules appear to specifically give the RM ultimate control over just about everything. They don't appear to give RO's assigned to other stages (or non-RO's) the authority to call STOP. I personally think it's reasonable to call stop for something that appears to be an egregious safety issue however, or obvious REF.

[motosapiens]

Couple have it right. The rest, not so much.

IMHO

Gary Stevens is correct.

Alma is correct.

If I was the RO and did not see this and the "peanut gallery" caused my shooter to STOP. Shooter gets a reshoot. EVERYTIME.

This is such s slippery slope. SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY is first and foremost in my mind as I RO. Are RO's perfect? Of course not, and I applaud the peanut gallery and would never discourage anyone from speaking up. But, as Gary pointed out, I can not make a call (DQ) on what I myself did not see OR ANOTHER ASSIGNED RO. I WILL NEVER DO THAT.

I am sure that in the aftermath of an incident like this that there would be plenty of "learning" going on,

RESHOOT

Good points, but if the RO really didn't see the infraction, and everyone else did, I think it would be good to consider why, and to address that issue if necessary (with better positioning, etc...). Sometimes the peanut gallery is wrong, so the RO really needs to see the infraction and be certain of it.

[Thomas H]

Someone brought up a good point, there.

Situation: RO stays with their squad (squad 2). RO, along with their squad, comes up to a stage where the previous squad (squad 1) is still shooting. Squad 2 RO sees a 180 break during a shooter's run from squad 1, and calls stop. The squad 1 RO (currently running the shooter) didn't see it. Squad 2 RO explains the infraction, and calls a DQ.

There is no RO officially "assigned" to this stage. All squad ROs will be running all stages for their respective squads. (Therefore, arguably, all ROs are assigned to all stages, all are certified ROs just to make that clear.)

Given that, it seems reasonable that the DQ will be upheld, yes?

Or do only the ROs on that squad have jurisdiction? Does the RO of any squad not have jurisdiction over anyone but his/her own squad, even though he may be on a stage with other squad's shooters?

Note: I'm not arguing for group concensus of DQ ("All the shooters agreed they saw it!"), I'm saying that the RO who will be running that stage next saw a DQ offense, called it, and DQed the shooter.

Legal, or not?

[Chris iliff]

Couple have it right. The rest, not so much.

IMHO

Gary Stevens is correct.

Alma is correct.

If I was the RO and did not see this and the "peanut gallery" caused my shooter to STOP. Shooter gets a reshoot. EVERYTIME.

This is such s slippery slope. SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY is first and foremost in my mind as I RO. Are RO's perfect? Of course not, and I applaud the peanut gallery and would never discourage anyone from speaking up. But, as Gary pointed out, I can not make a call (DQ) on what I myself did not see OR ANOTHER ASSIGNED RO. I WILL NEVER DO THAT.

I am sure that in the aftermath of an incident like this that there would be plenty of "learning" going on,

RESHOOT

Good points, but if the RO really didn't see the infraction, and everyone else did, I think it would be good to consider why, and to address that issue if necessary (with better positioning, etc...). Sometimes the peanut gallery is wrong, so the RO really needs to see the infraction and be certain of it.

Good points. This is why I used the phrase, "there would be plenty of "learning" going on"

Everyone, including the RO, has something to learn from such an incident.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Chris iliff

[SonOfSpartans]

The discussion of the rules and how they work is very helpful. It has been an educational read. My local club uses floating RO system. They are imbedded in the squad. There are usually multiple people that fill this role as the primary RO is likely shooting as well.

A similar situation happened during an IDPA classifier. The turning draw segment. (Don't go all crazy about different games yet. Stick to the concept) The shooter pulled his gun before the turn and I got a look at the wrong end of the bore. So did several others. The RO did not see/call it. I was the one that spoke up on the spot. Yes, the shooter was DQ and he was a gentleman about it. (New shooter to boot)Perhaps even this was not allowed by the rules of that sport I will have to read now.

I will say this, and it may cause me some grief. Some have pointed out that there will be a lot of learning going on and I agree. Shooters learn from rules and actions. We should learn from safety issues. Perhaps there should be a rule in regard to the RO that does not see what seems to be a serious issue of safety. Perhaps an RO DQ is in order in the rules...........

[jester121]

Hopefully this sort of sloppy verbiage is one of the fixes that Troy's been working on to improve the rules.

[motosapiens]

I will say this, and it may cause me some grief. Some have pointed out that there will be a lot of learning going on and I agree. Shooters learn from rules and actions. We should learn from safety issues. Perhaps there should be a rule in regard to the RO that does not see what seems to be a serious issue of safety. Perhaps an RO DQ is in order in the rules...........

lol, you are welcome to dq me from RO-ing if I make a serious mistake.

[JAFO]

Say you're waiting for a squad to finish up a stage. A guy on that squad breaks the 180 by a good 45 degrees. That guy's RO either doesn't see it or doesn't call it, but the RO on our squad, as well as half of our squad, all yell stop and tell the guy he's done for the day. Of course, the guy isn't exactly happy about being DQed by a bunch of bystanders.

I think the part in bold above is the important part. A floating RO assigned to the other squad was present and witnessed the safety infraction. He may not have been actively running the shooter, but if the RM came over and asked all of the ROs present at the stage what they saw, and that RO said, "I definitely saw him break the 180," that should be grounds for a DQ. If it was solely bystanders and neither the RO or scorekeeper on the squad saw the infraction, it would be a reshoot, after discussing what the shooter had allegedly done wrong.

If the RM or another RO-certified Range Official at a LII or III match is observing a run and sees a DQ'able infraction, is he not going to DQ the shooter because the permanent stage RO didn't see it?

[MarkCO]

Unfortunately JAFO, opinions like the one Gary Stevens has that safety falls in line behind the rulebook is more and more prevalent. At a major, if the stage RO/CRO did not see it, then there is little to no chance there will be a DQ. I was standing next to the Nationals RM at a match having a conversation when a shooter broke the 180. The ROs were both directly behind the shooter as he was reloading going right to left. The RM actually winced, but did not DQ the shooter because the stage ROs had not seen it. He had a discussion with the shooter and both ROs, but that was it. I did not then, nor do I now think that is okay.

Safety rules are there for a reason and the range lawyers are constantly peeling away the safety layers. The frequency of DQs is increasing and the stigma of them is beign lessened all the while people are arguing the letter of the rulebook and ignoring that safety rules are there for a reason.

[Gary Stevens]

Unfortunately JAFO, opinions like the one Gary Stevens has that safety falls in line behind the rulebook is more and more prevalent. At a major, if the stage RO/CRO did not see it, then there is little to no chance there will be a DQ. I was standing next to the Nationals RM at a match having a conversation when a shooter broke the 180. The ROs were both directly behind the shooter as he was reloading going right to left. The RM actually winced, but did not DQ the shooter because the stage ROs had not seen it. He had a discussion with the shooter and both ROs, but that was it. I did not then, nor do I now think that is okay.

Safety rules are there for a reason and the range lawyers are constantly peeling away the safety layers. The frequency of DQs is increasing and the stigma of them is beign lessened all the while people are arguing the letter of the rulebook and ignoring that safety rules are there for a reason.

Mark I'm not exactly sure what I said that ruffled your feathers. I have never addressed you by name or directly quoted one of your post. I often try to advance a discussion by asking general questions and making general comments.

I have not expressed my views on this discussion only made comments to move things along. Yes I am a rules guy but also believe in common sense when applying them.

If and when I give my personal view on this situation I will preface it with "this is my opinion for what it is worth".

[GrumpyOne]

In the case of being DQ'ed by only the RO running the stage, think of the case of a dropped gun outside the course of fire...Do you go and get your stage RO to pick it up? Or do you find any nearby RO to pick it up? They are called Range Officials for a reason..

thats not a DQ, this thread is about stop = DQ

Of course any RO could do that, or escourt a shooter to function test a gun-or bag/exchange on an open berm with permission of RM

The point being, they are Range Officials, not area officials, or stage officials, or any other nomenclature.

[GrumpyOne]

In the case of being DQ'ed by only the RO running the stage, think of the case of a dropped gun outside the course of fire...Do you go and get your stage RO to pick it up? Or do you find any nearby RO to pick it up? They are called Range Officials for a reason..

thats not a DQ, this thread is about stop = DQ

Of course any RO could do that, or escourt a shooter to function test a gun-or bag/exchange on an open berm with permission of RM

The point being, they are Range Officials, not area officials, or stage officials, or any other nomenclature.

At the risk of being banned from another range because of my opinion I'll offer this.

Having an RO card in your pocket is different from being a match RO. Dropping your gun and stopping a shooter who you know is also an RO to pick up your gun for you is a bad situation.

That was kind of my point, Gary. You could have a squad of RO's, but only a few are RO's for the match.

[MarkCO]

Gary, I did not say "issue a DQ". I said "stop someone for a safety infraction." Safety first, rules second. If that is not something you agree with, feel free to not shoot at my range.

I play by the rules first last and always.

Thanks for the friendly disinvite to participate in a USPSA match at "your" range.

Not ruffled at all Gary. This is what you said, and for me and the range I belong to, it is wrong. Safety is always first, and you have stated otherwise. But now you are saying you did not quote me when you in fact did. Not cool Gary.

Edited May 27, 2015 by MarkCO

[MarkCO]

Mark I'm not exactly sure what I said that ruffled your feathers. I have never addressed you by name or directly quoted one of your post.

You did quote one of my posts, which is exactly what I responded to. Safety first, you do not agree based on the words you wrote.

[Gary Stevens]

Mark I'm not exactly sure what I said that ruffled your feathers. I have never addressed you by name or directly quoted one of your post.

You did quote one of my posts, which is exactly what I responded to. Safety first, you do not agree based on the words you wrote.

You are 100 percent cottect and I am sorry. I was referring to post 23 which led to post 24 dis-inviting me from your range.

Again my apologies.

[ima45dv8]

Now the discussion has moved to people posting at one another instead of sharing information on the OP's subject.

Stay the course, guys.

Thanks in advance...

[Chris iliff]

The discussion of the rules and how they work is very helpful. It has been an educational read....................................I will say this, and it may cause me some grief. Some have pointed out that there will be a lot of learning going on and I agree. Shooters learn from rules and actions. We should learn from safety issues. Perhaps there should be a rule in regard to the RO that does not see what seems to be a serious issue of safety. Perhaps an RO DQ is in order in the rules...........

As a RO/CRO of many matches, including locals, big type matches, sectionals and Area's over an 11 year period, I think I have enough experience to say that there IS NO POSITION in which an RO can maintain that enables them to see everything 100% of the time. This is easy enough to understand after some experience is gained in the "arena". Shooters can and do make erratic movements at completely unpredictable moments. RO's are not granted "clairvoyant" abilities. I have had shooters stop abruptly, change directions, back up, turn unexpectedly, etc....... All this can and does sometimes momentarily remove the view of the gun.

Slippery slope has been discussed in this thread and there can be no more slope as slippery as ROing the RO's. IMHO that would be a huge mistake.

I maintain that as the acting RO, shooter reshoots, unless the RM overturns my ruling. You can bet I'd learn everything I could from the situation so as to avoid similar occurrences in the future.

[rowdyb]

Is there a way to find out at your local club/match who is a certified RO?

There is a listing by state on the USPSA website under Club Support.

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-lookup-ro.php

Have to b logged in, though. You have to do a little sleuthing because it is by state, not club or section.

Yikes, that list was over 100 people long and only first names. Makes my eyes numb trying to go through that list. But thank you for the link! There is more to the site than what I know.

[alma]

Although I don't have a hard fast rule to point to for this one, at a Level I match there are two ROs running the stage at any given point and time: one is holding a timer and the other is holding a clip board or Nook. These are the two people who are authorized to issue commands (including stop) and penalties. It is my opinion that everyone else's call (outside of the RM) doesn't count. Not to say that they cannot advise the ROs but it's the ROs' call.

[MarkCO]

If the MD were to, in the shooters meeting, say everyone is hereby granted RO authority for this match, then anyone can DQ anyone?

On the converse, if a certified RO, CRO, RM sees a DQ, but does not have a timer or nook in his hand, but two un-certified shooters are running the shooter, then no DQ can be issued?

[gng4life]

Although I don't have a hard fast rule to point to for this one, at a Level I match there are two ROs running the stage at any given point and time: one is holding a timer and the other is holding a clip board or Nook. These are the two people who are authorized to issue commands (including stop) and penalties. It is my opinion that everyone else's call (outside of the RM) doesn't count. Not to say that they cannot advise the ROs but it's the ROs' call.

+1...this is my opinion also except anyone can issue a "Stop" for certain situations that the ROs can't see(kid climbing over the berm, etc.). There have been times where a shooter got close to a DQ but did not break a DQ rule and I would hear ohhs and awws from the peanut gallery. If I'm running the timer, my focus is on the firearm and my vantage point is much better than the shooters in the rear. No, you can't see everything but given your proximity, the RO running the shooter should have the best angle with the scorekeeper having the second best view. Given this, you should be able to make the best call. Remember angles from the rear can be very different than being right up on the shooter.

[alma]

If the MD were to, in the shooters meeting, say everyone is hereby granted RO authority for this match, then anyone can DQ anyone?

On the converse, if a certified RO, CRO, RM sees a DQ, but does not have a timer or nook in his hand, but two un-certified shooters are running the shooter, then no DQ can be issued?

Correct on the second account. The authority to DQ has nothing to do with certification.

[gng4life]

...On the converse, if a certified RO, CRO, RM sees a DQ, but does not have a timer or nook in his hand, but two un-certified shooters are running the shooter, then no DQ can be issued?

Really? You have plenty of certified ROs, CROs, and RM standing around but no one certified running shooters?

[MarkCO]

hypothetical gng4life...

[alma]

...On the converse, if a certified RO, CRO, RM sees a DQ, but does not have a timer or nook in his hand, but two un-certified shooters are running the shooter, then no DQ can be issued?

Really? You have plenty of certified ROs, CROs, and RM standing around but no one certified running shooters?

It's better to have them NROI certified and it is recommended for Level I according to Appendix A1 but not required.

The non certified RO with the timer has more authority than the CRO on the sidelines at a Level I.