R.O. Got in the way

[Nik Habicht]

Gary, Dominic --

if you need to post "at each other" please take that conversation to PMs, ok. Please remember the prime directive:

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.

[d_striker]

Understood.

I've been told that my typing sounds like a real jerk. Will work on that.

[Nik Habicht]

I have only been recently certified as an RO so I'm not trying to pretend that I have all the answers. You have a lot of experience. You might in fact be entirely correct in your approach. In either case, I participate in these discussions as I have the sincere intent to call it correctly as an RO.

When I say "it's not automatic, it's RO discretion" I'm trying to make a point -- namely that the decision shouldn't be a pre-programmed response, of "if this, then that." I've programmed it more as "If this, Warning: Decision Point!" The decision might well be to call "Stop" because there's a safety concern following the contact, or you can see that the competitor will outrun you as he backs up -- in which case of course a reshoot is mandatory.

I've had a shooter lightly brush my arm on a course of fire, step on my foot, and bounce their shoulder off the timer. In all of those cases I offered a reshoot and got a "I never noticed it happened" in response......

And I've experienced a shooter backing up -- who may have been angling for a reshoot. If I knew for certain what was in his mind, that would have been a 10.6 DQ if it happened; but I managed to avoid him. Would I have offered a reshoot there? Don't know but it might have depended on the level of contact. Seriously don't know as it didn't happen.....

But then I hate binary thinking for most situations.....

[Nik Habicht]

Understood.

I've been told that my typing sounds like a real jerk. Will work on that.

Happens to the best of us sometimes....

[9x45]

so my take is that a newbie shooter at a Level 1 match is denied a re-shoot from RO interference. So assuming there was no safety issues, here are two possible outcomes. Scenario 1: newbie probably finished dead last in all stages, but then is denied a re-shoot. He comes away with, It was my first match, nervous as heck, had no idea what was going on, and then this A-hole IPSC RO bumps into me and say you are SOL. So newbie goes home, telling his homies they warned him about ISPC guys (doesn't even know it's USPSA), and says I will never go back, in fact I'm going to go shoot the Tactical Practical match (Gasp!) or................

Scenario 2: RO bumps into newbie and says, stop, sorry dude, my fault, you get a re-shoot. Put you down in the stack, give you some clues about the stage, you know, a D class plan, shoot what you can see, reload on the move, remember what your A hits look like, yada. So then the newbie has a re-run, makes some A hits and a few C-s, but no mikes and no procedurals. And then the RO tells him he has a good run, lots of A-s, you will do well. Newbie comes back and tells his homies, yea, I sucked, but there was there really cool RO, who helped me, and I had a smoking run! And he told me to get a good holster, belt and more mag pouches. Man, I cant wait to come back next week! Difference is???

[Sarge]

Bwahaha ha this is too funny. Is it really so hard to use a little common sense? I can spot interference when I see it whether I'm shooting or ROing. If I'm RO I personally have no idea how well a shooter does until I score the targets. Sure I can see him having gun problems and getting flustered etc but I just can't see that having anything to do with me calling interference or not.

On another note be careful how you word your emails to Troy. Some of the real whiners on here will even call you on that!

[sundevil827]

I guess I interpret the rule a little differently than some folks.

As an RO if I feel a shooter is intentionally looking to bump into me so he can get a re-shoot, then I'm pretty unlikely to offer it, of course that's got to be a pretty obvious case, if there is doubt, I'm going to offer the re-shoot.

How they are shooting a stage has absolutely nothing to do with my call, if I was the shooter, I'd definitely want to go to arbitration in that case, because to me, I'm not keen on how someone it going to choose to apply the rules. Someone else's version of lousy just might by my version of passable. (I kinda hate saying that, but my point being subjective based on how they shoot would not be grounds for me to choose how to apply the rule.)

Edited July 14, 2015 by sundevil827

[d_striker]

If it's obvious that they intentionally bumped into you, shouldn't you just 10.6 them?

[Sarge]

Dstriker I sent you a pm

[9x45]

I saw blatant intentional at a Superstition 3 gun years ago. Shooter popped a couple of no shoots and then ripped his ears off, winky, winky, RO gave him a re-shoot. Next run, same drill, but we had it on video and pointed it out to the RO. Totally intentional. He was allowed to continue because the RO did not witness it, but he put it out on the radio to all the other RO's, and guess what? 2 stages later, DQ'd for the same action.

Cheating never pays. Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Watch gonna do when Sheriff Brown comes for you!

Edited July 14, 2015 by 9x45

[thermobollocks]

That's why at 3gun events with really long field stages I really try to yell "BACKINUP" if I need to haul backward. I'm trying to complete the course of fire honestly even if it's not going well

[sundevil827]

If it's obvious that they intentionally bumped into you, shouldn't you just 10.6 them?

That's a fair point.

I think it depends, and that's where you can get subjective. There are a couple reasons I can think of where I'd use 10.6, and there are a couple that I would not. Without getting too deep into it, my thought process is based on more on prior experience. I know a few guys who think that would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do, and would call it "gaming it", to me, then I'd be thinking 10.6.

[cnote]

Understood.

I've been told that my typing sounds like a real jerk. Will work on that.

I keep telling my kids and my wife, written words back and forth (text/email/forum) can be interpretated differently by the same person just depending on circumstances or the mood when reading it

" Yes "could be perceived as yes, YES loud

ya whatever or a progressive band from back in the day...

Edited July 14, 2015 by cnote

[Sarge]

Understood.

I've been told that my typing sounds like a real jerk. Will work on that.

I keep telling my kids and my wife, written words back and forth (text/email/forum) can be interpretated differently by the same person just depending on circumstances or the mood when reading it

" Yes "could be perceived as yes, YES loud

ya whatever or a progressive band from back in the day...

Agreed! Almost all the arguments on here would be non issues at all if we were sitting in a wings joint after a match talking about a rule.

[aceinyerface]

I took the RO class with the DNROI, I was RO for a shooter and he took and unexpected turn and I had to jump out of his way. No contact, no disturbance of the shooter, but me being in his vision was enough to warrant offering a reshoot.

[cnote]

I took the RO class with the DNROI, I was RO for a shooter and he took and unexpected turn and I had to jump out of his way. No contact, no disturbance of the shooter, but me being in his vision was enough to warrant offering a reshoot.

this was during the class???

Jay made "guys" do " various things" during the practical part of our class too. For me he had a advanced shooter purposely (SAFELY) let two loose way early on a transition....but they were at a target...... looked a lot like a AD, but....

He was pushing the AD aspect

[d_striker]

Response from Troy pretty much is what Nik was saying.

The word "May" is in that rule for a reason, and that is to allow the RO some discretion if the circumstances of the interference are questionable. We always recommend that the RO offer the reshoot if there was contact of any kind, but it's not automatic. If the rule were to say "must", it would not allow for RO judgment on occasion. The competitor is always free to ask for a reshoot, or to request that the RM be called if they don't agree with the range officer's decision.

Regards,

Troy

[aceinyerface]

The Practical.

I don't think it was prearranged.

[twodownzero]

I wasn't the R.O. just helping with the tablet to score.

If you were keeping score, you were also a range officer.

[MAC702]

I wasn't the R.O. just helping with the tablet to score.

If you were keeping score, you were also a range officer.

Can you help me with a rule that confirms this? I agree that the scorekeeper assists the RO (Defined at 7.1.1) and the RO would be smart to listen to a scorekeeper, but I don't see where the scorekeeper has equal authority.

Interestingly, though, the rules discuss scoring as if the RO is the one doing it. (9.7.1)

Edited July 15, 2015 by MAC702

[bdpaz]

I wasn't the R.O. just helping with the tablet to score.

If you were keeping score, you were also a range officer.

Can you help me with a rule that confirms this? I agree that the scorekeeper assists the RO (Defined at 7.1.1) and the RO would be smart to listen to a scorekeeper, but I don't see where the scorekeeper has equal authority.

Interestingly, though, the rules discuss scoring as if the RO is the one doing it. (9.7.1)

Why do you think it is not the a Range Officer doing the scoring? 7.1.1 and 9.7.1 both refer to an RO doing the scoring - "scorekeeper" is not mentioned anywhere. At a major match there may be multiple ROs on a stage while a local match typically has a "Timer RO" and "Clipboard RO" (probably need a new term for the latter thanks to Practiscore).

Edited July 15, 2015 by bdpaz

[Gary Stevens]

Someone has to be in charge on a stage. The CRO normally runs the timer unless they delegate that function to an RO. The CRO is still responsible and in charge of that stage.

[d_striker]

I wasn't the R.O. just helping with the tablet to score.

If you were keeping score, you were also a range officer.

Can you help me with a rule that confirms this? I agree that the scorekeeper assists the RO (Defined at 7.1.1) and the RO would be smart to listen to a scorekeeper, but I don't see where the scorekeeper has equal authority.

Interestingly, though, the rules discuss scoring as if the RO is the one doing it. (9.7.1)

Why do you think it is not the a Range Officer doing the scoring? 7.1.1 and 9.7.1 both refer to an RO doing the scoring - "scorekeeper" is not mentioned anywhere. At a major match there may be multiple ROs on a stage while a local match typically has a "Timer RO" and "Clipboard RO" (probably need a new term for the latter thanks to Practiscore).

Our NROI instructor referred to the RO with the nook/clipboard as the assistant RO.

[Gary Stevens]

One of the issues we always run into is a rule book that covers all levels of competition, but Level 1 matches don't always mesh with the rule book.

At Level 2 and above you expect range specific RO's. At Level 1 matches most likely the RO's are floating with a squad. We use phrases like refer the call to the RM, but many Level 1 matches don't have a RM or even a certified RO.

What they do have though are people who care enough to step up and act the part of an RO even if they are not certified. That part is great. If you do act as an RO though, own it. Read the rule book. Ask questions of those who might know the rulebook better than you. Don't say "I'm just running the timer" or "I'm just recording scores. That is a disservice to your club, your shooters, and ultimately to your selves.

[ima45dv8]

Well said, Gary, as always.