Unfair DQs

[Neomet]

I've DQed my share of shooters. Almost to a person they did not believe that had committed the offense. Of course they didn't. Nobody thinks "I'll break the 180 or sweep myself or do whatever and hope nobody notices". I completely get the certainty they carry into the argument. I will also say that when I yell Stop that I have not only crapped on the shooter's day but on mine too. I hate doing it and so am at least equally as certain that I saw what I did. It is why I hate ROing certain stages where I watch shooter after shooter get way, way too close to the 180. I'm certain I've let many go that should have gone to DairyQueen. Video isn't used and I get why. It isn't available for everyone and unless it is at the perfect angle doesn't tell you anything. I will never second RO right on the 180 even if you cover me in Kevlar. The game is called by what the ROs see with a couple of rare exceptions.

Most ROs are doing the best they can making decisions in the moment as they are running along with a shooter. Having a mobile protractor and prism and 15 min to analyze it all is not an option. If you have a RO who is a bonehead that is a different issue that should be addressed with the RM or MD.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Neomet

[Yardbird]

I've DQed my share of shooters. Almost to a person they did not believe that had committed the offense. Of course they didn't. Nobody thinks "I'll break the 180 or sweep myself or do whatever and hope nobody notices". I completely get the certainty they carry into the argument. I will also say that when I yell Stop that I have not only crapped on the shooter's day but on mine too. I hate doing it and so am at least equally as certain that I saw what I did. It is why I hate ROing certain stages where I watch shooter after shooter get way, way too close to the 180. I'm certain I've let many go that should have gone to DairyQueen. Video isn't used and I get why. It isn't available for everyone and unless it is at the perfect angle doesn't tell you anything. I will never second RO right on the 180 even if you cover me in Kevlar. The game is called by what the ROs see with a couple of rare exceptions.

Most ROs are doing the best they can making decisions in the moment as they are running along with a shooter. Having a mobile protractor and prism and 15 min to analyze it all is not an option. If you have a RO who is a bonehead that is a different issue that should be addressed with the RM or MD.

Excellent post!

[tbarker13]

I generally try to point out a "dead man line" to shooters when targets are visible that could get them in trouble. Problem is WE ALL forget where things like that are when the beeper beeps

Love hearing this.

I get frustrated at matches when I run across an RO who gets cagey when asked to clarify the 180 on a particular target from a particular position.

Happened most recently at a small major. Squad was trying to get a better handle on the 180 for a target at the start of the stage.

It took way too much effort on our end to get more than: "Just don't break the 180 and you'll be fine."

Makes me really appreciate the ROs who are confident enough to help a squad understand what is and isn't a safe shooting position.

[jim v]

There is a perfect solution to this problem of '180 violations' and 'finger on the trigger' as seen by the RO(s).

Get them to wear a GoPro camera on their cap. Then anything infraction seen by them will be backed up with video evidence.

This system works quite well for umpire decisions in cricket.

The present system is adequate when used by good, competent and unbiased RO's.

It is the opposite that can mess up a sport such as ours.

The cost would be small, the administration easy and the benefits enormous

Jim

[gixxerjunky]

There is a perfect solution to this problem of '180 violations' and 'finger on the trigger' as seen by the RO(s).

Get them to wear a GoPro camera on their cap. Then anything infraction seen by them will be backed up with video evidence.

This system works quite well for umpire decisions in cricket.

The present system is adequate when used by good, competent and unbiased RO's.

It is the opposite that can mess up a sport such as ours.

The cost would be small, the administration easy and the benefits enormous

Jim

I do not have the same opinion. We are in a time where everyone is under the presumption of its not on video so I didn't happen. This is a trend that needs to be broken. The RO's word is good enough. No need in questioning all of them just because some shooter feels he didn't break a rule.

I work in a very large business where I deal with people and we recently had to spend upwards of 4 million for video cameras. My job instantly went from what I said goes to we need to watch video. It's constantly becoming worse and worse. You can't even fart without proving it on film.

People should not have to prove anything when they are placed into a position to call the shots. They are there because they have been through the training or school. Random people are not placed in these positions as they do not know what they are looking for.

Alright off of the soap box.

[George Jones]

Reply to Post #25

The first logical question would be: Was that RM certified?

Whether yes or no, NROI has a published policy for resolving scoring/ruling " discrepancies" involving certified officials. If you don't use the process, the problems can't possibly be corrected for the future.

If not certified, that's the price the shooters can pay when a major match doesn't use the best available staff. The only alibi is when there is no certified RM available.

Edited May 9, 2016 by George Jones

[bret]

There is a perfect solution to this problem of '180 violations' and 'finger on the trigger' as seen by the RO(s).

Get them to wear a GoPro camera on their cap. Then anything infraction seen by them will be backed up with video evidence.

This system works quite well for umpire decisions in cricket.

The present system is adequate when used by good, competent and unbiased RO's.

It is the opposite that can mess up a sport such as ours.

The cost would be small, the administration easy and the benefits enormous

Jim

Go pro is not going to show the same thing an R.O. see's.

This isn't cricket.

If you think am R.O. is unfair, biased or made a bad call,,report them to the RM, MD, or DNROI.

[Reshoot]

I am still ticked about an incident last month. Sorry for the drift!

Son-in-law and I are standing towards the left side of a stage. Shooter chose to shoot the stage in a way he was backing up right in front of us. He turned before he got to the target and we were staring right down the barrel of his gun. Scared the crap out of me! I look at the RO and he is looking down range.

There is one RO I will NOT squad with again! I will ask to be moved to another squad and cite my reason. Oh, and this RO had commented earlier that he just passed his recert. Been an RO for 20 years, he says. WTF!

[Maximis228]

I am still ticked about an incident last month. Sorry for the drift!

Son-in-law and I are standing towards the left side of a stage. Shooter chose to shoot the stage in a way he was backing up right in front of us. He turned before he got to the target and we were staring right down the barrel of his gun. Scared the crap out of me! I look at the RO and he is looking down range.

There is one RO I will NOT squad with again! I will ask to be moved to another squad and cite my reason. Oh, and this RO had commented earlier that he just passed his recert. Been an RO for 20 years, he says. WTF!

Why didn't you yell stop? We are all RO's when it comes to saftey.

[waktasz]

10.5.69- A shooter who knowingly posts in all capital letters (also known as CAPS LOCK) will be internet DQ'd, permanently.

[mike l m]

I like that buddy.

It did what I intended, got your attention

Thanks,

Mike

[GrumpyOne]

I like that buddy.

It did what I intended, got your attention

Thanks,

Mike

Making a well informed post, without all caps, can do the same (get someone's attention)....

LOL!

[waktasz]

I like that buddy.

It did what I intended, got your attention

Thanks,

Mike

You assume I read it

[Jake Di Vita]

I like that buddy.

It did what I intended, got your attention

Thanks,

Mike

Yeah it got my attention like the sun does when I look up. I look away immediately.

[Flexmoney]

I like that buddy.

It did what I intended, got your attention

Thanks,

Mike

I deleted it without reading it. If you "intend" to do that some more, then let me know in a PM. We can handle that off-board rather nicely. #10.5.69

- Admin.

[Miranda]

I like that buddy.

It did what I intended, got your attention

Thanks,

Mike

I deleted it without reading it. If you "intend" to do that some more, then let me know in a PM. We can handle that off-board rather nicely. #10.5.69

- Admin.

well I wondered...

thanks.

[Reshoot]

I regret, and apologize, for my post. It should have been a thread all its own. Sorry for the thread drift!

[mike l m]

Seriously guys,

I know it is a real problem at major matches. There is a lot riding on out there for the shooters and if the RO/SO can not do it right and the MD will not do anything about it, then there is a real problem with it. Of course, there is always the RO that says it's in the rule book, ok please show me where, what rule and how it applies.

I know that videos are not allowed for review. But if enough shooters in the squad see it, then it is time to get with the RM or MD and straighten out the said RO/So.

But it goes back to what I said before, the RO/So didn't DQ the shooter, the shooter did that all by themselves.

Mike

[Flexmoney]

Good points, Mike. You need to be an official at the match to make a call. If the officials aren't willing/able to make the calls, I get with match management to let them know. Often they don't know.

Ultimately, I have left a match (non-USPSA, fwiw) because of safety issues.

[bikerburgess]

I generally try to point out a "dead man line" to shooters when targets are visible that could get them in trouble. Problem is WE ALL forget where things like that are when the beeper beeps

Love hearing this.

I get frustrated at matches when I run across an RO who gets cagey when asked to clarify the 180 on a particular target from a particular position.

Happened most recently at a small major. Squad was trying to get a better handle on the 180 for a target at the start of the stage.

It took way too much effort on our end to get more than: "Just don't break the 180 and you'll be fine."

Makes me really appreciate the ROs who are confident enough to help a squad understand what is and isn't a safe shooting position.

When asked about the 180 on a target, I will always say if it is down range of the position asked about. I Will Not say "your fine shooting it from there" or "you won't be breaking the 180 there". I've seen the argument erupt after a run when the competitor gets DQed and says you said it was ok from here! When in actuality the shooter over swung the target and broke the 180.

Targets are either up or down range from any location, and that is not the same as where you point your gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Bkreutz]

There is a perfect solution to this problem of '180 violations' and 'finger on the trigger' as seen by the RO(s).

Get them to wear a GoPro camera on their cap. Then anything infraction seen by them will be backed up with video evidence.

This system works quite well for umpire decisions in cricket.

The present system is adequate when used by good, competent and unbiased RO's.

It is the opposite that can mess up a sport such as ours.

The cost would be small, the administration easy and the benefits enormous

Jim

I do not have the same opinion. We are in a time where everyone is under the presumption of its not on video so I didn't happen. This is a trend that needs to be broken. The RO's word is good enough. No need in questioning all of them just because some shooter feels he didn't break a rule.

I work in a very large business where I deal with people and we recently had to spend upwards of 4 million for video cameras. My job instantly went from what I said goes to we need to watch video. It's constantly becoming worse and worse. You can't even fart without proving it on film.

People should not have to prove anything when they are placed into a position to call the shots. They are there because they have been through the training or school. Random people are not placed in these positions as they do not know what they are looking for.

Alright off of the soap box.

Just wait, they will soon start requiring the camera to take an atmospheric sample to make sure it was an actual fart and not just an extraneous noise.

[Flexmoney]

When asked about the 180 on a target, I will always say if it is down range of the position asked about. I Will Not say "your fine shooting it from there" or "you won't be breaking the 180 there". I've seen the argument erupt after a run when the competitor gets DQed and says you said it was ok from here! When in actuality the shooter over swung the target and broke the 180.

Targets are either up or down range from any location, and that is not the same as where you point your gun.

+1

[frgood]

Targets are either up or down range from any location, and that is not the same as where you point your gun.

Agreed.

[OPENB]

Nicely put. BB!

[Gryff]

Someone has to take responsibility. If you try to do everything by committee, you destroy all efficiency.

A DQ call should be made if there is no question by the RO that the offense occurred. But sometimes the RO sees it wrong, and sometimes the shooter fervently believes they didn't commit the offense when they actually did. It's the breaks, especially when the shooter is pushing the performance limits that they approach DQ territory.

I believe though that major match directors should spend some time looking into the reputation of the people who sign up to RO their match. Personally, I know a handful of ROs who I will never let work at a match of mine because they have no objectivity and are too focused on their personal authority. It is important to keep the range nazis out of the championship matches because they cannot leave their personal biases at home.