DQ after the fact

[hlpressley]

Curious as to your thoughts of a DQ after a shooter has completed a stage? Is this common? Every DQ that I've seen to this point has came instantly once the offense occurred. Seen one initiated recently that was after the shooter completed the stage and both RO's discussed his position when engaging a specific target and decided it was a DQ due to a 180 break. Thoughts? 

 

For the record, it was not me. I'm just curious what you all think. If it's truly about safety, shouldn't he have been stopped immediately and not allowed to continue?  

[outerlimits]

I think that's a BS call.  In RO boot camp you are told to be sure of everything.  If you are not sure, STFU.

[teros135]

Sounds like an arbitration situation.  If they had to have a conference about it, how sure were they?  If not sure (like 100%), shouldn't make the call.

[Flatland Shooter]

Sounds like the ROs discussed it first so they must have been sure about their call.

 

The RO will try to stop the shooter as soon as possible when a infraction occurs, but sometimes the shooter does not respond and continues shooting.  I've seen a shooter or two make the same argument.  If they were not stopped immediately, they felt they should not be held accountable.  That "exception" is not found in the rule book.

 

In this case, it sounds like the shooter may have got creative and found a new location to engage the target.  If so and shooting from that spot breaks the 180, then it is a DQ.

 

Bill

[Trent1k1]

Not a lot of details here.

 

For a 180 call, wouldn't you want the ROs to confer at least a little bit?  It is often the side RO that calls those as they may be the one in the better position to call it. (for a 181 degree DQ which is usually very hard to be 100% positive of)

 

As a CRO, I believe the roles of all ROs is to facilitate the match as fairly and safely as possible and not try to determine the outcome of the match.  The CRO should work with the MD prior to the 1st shot to eliminate 180 traps.  We are either testing shooting skills, or setting up traps that result in DQs which makes some of the RO's feel powerful, but isn't good for the match or sport.

 

One more thing....I believe ALL ROs should be ACTIVE shooters (at least have shot a match in the last 12 months). 

 

 

[Flatland Shooter]

3 minutes ago, Trent1k1 said:

 

As a CRO, I believe the roles of all ROs is to facilitate the match as fairly and safely as possible and not try to determine the outcome of the match.  The CRO should work with the MD prior to the 1st shot to eliminate 180 traps.  We are either testing shooting skills, or setting up traps that result in DQs which makes some of the RO's feel powerful, but isn't good for the match or sport.

 

One more thing....I believe ALL ROs should be ACTIVE shooters (at least have shot a match in the last 12 months). 

 

 

 

Very well said Trent.  And on the last line "I believe ALL ROs should be ACTIVE shooters (at least have shot a match in the last 12 months)", I'd like to add that I would like to see all active shooters be ROs.  

 

Even monthly club matches need trained ROs to insure all of the rules are being applied in a fair and even manner.  And there is no quicker way for the shooter to learn the rules than by taking an RO class.

[Ultimo-Hombre]

A 180 infraction should be an immediate "STOP" sort of DQ

 

if you as an RO even the back up guy running scoring weren't sure enough to call it immediately then it's probably not proper to send someone home for it. 

 

At a local with casual ROing I'm quick to chime in but with dedicated ROs it seems appropriate to not piss in the well. 

 

At at this years area 1 I saw (what I thought were)  half a dozen PCC 180 violations but because I respect our voulenteers RO corps I kept my mouth shut and watched them roll their eyes at each other. 

 

 

[IronArcher]

If he broke 180, STOP and DQ.
If you are "pretty sure", don't discuss it afterwords, and DQ, STOP, if you must discuss, discuss... but if no DQ, reshoot.
DQ after he has finished the stage is pretty weak, and doesn't make it look like you were 100% sure.
I had this at a match once, no DQ, but they hemmed and hawed for a few minutes when we were scoring about whether or not I may have broke 180.
You can "remember" everything in perfect detail. The whole "well, I think you were standing about here or so for that Target, hmmm that's pretty close" is BS. Call it the instant it happens, or don't call it at all.
For the record, I am 100% sure I did not break 180... but that's what they all say LOL!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[waktasz]

I've done it.  Shooter engaged a target that appeared to be uprange. It was a fast moving hoser stage and I couldn't be sure at the time, but I looked down and noticed where his feet were at the time, just as the shooter took off to shoot the last three targets around a wall. I moved with him to capture his last shots on the timer, then returned to the spot where he shot from and observed the angle of the shots.  At that point it was obvious it was a 180 break and the shooter did not disagree with me as to where he was standing when he fired those shots (it was easy to tell because there was a piece of different colored 2x4 that he was standing on that I used as my reference point).  He appealed to the RM, solely on the fact that I didn't stop him immediately, not that he did not commit the infraction. The DQ was upheld. 

[JAM]

Personally

19 hours ago, IronArcher said:

If he broke 180, STOP and DQ.
If you are "pretty sure", don't discuss it afterwords, and DQ, STOP, if you must discuss, discuss... but if no DQ, reshoot.
DQ after he has finished the stage is pretty weak, and doesn't make it look like you were 100% sure.
 

 

I think exactly the same.  180 is a safety rule if the shooter breaks 180 and the RO keeps letting him shoot RO has done nothing to stop the safety issue.  

[zzt]

Interesting comments.  I was taught that if you are not 100% sure the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter.  That being said, I do recognize there may be an instance where a delayed call may be necessary.   Some stage designs (local matches) are a nightmare to RO.  At a recent shoot we had to use four ROs stationed at strategic points to watch for foot faults, 180s and the like.  Even so, the RO running the shooter had to move like lightning to avoid becoming an obstacle, or ending up uprange of a rapidly retreating shooter. 

[davsco]

if it's not clear or blatant enough at the time of the supposed infraction that you don't call it then and there, it shouldn't be called later.  the only exception i can think of would be where the action wasn't necessarily unsafe but the rules need to be consulted (eg, shooter lays down his gun to tie his shoe, and the RO forgets the exact rules on this).

[motosapiens]

26 minutes ago, davsco said:

if it's not clear or blatant enough at the time of the supposed infraction that you don't call it then and there, it shouldn't be called later. 

 

that's an interesting opinion. Is it supported by anything in the rulebook or NROI guidance?

[ChuckS]

16 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

that's an interesting opinion. Is it supported by anything in the rulebook or NROI guidance?

Here is something that may apply:

 

From: NROI Level I Range Officer Seminar - 2008v4c Page 81

 

"15 When you make a call be sure of what you Saw. " THINK IT WAS CLOSE"
is just not a good enough observation to DO someone. If you see a safety
violation, call it, but don't call something you didn't actually see. For
example, there is a big difference between "I saw the finger in the trigger
guard" and "I didn't see the finger out of the trigger guard"."

 

 

[motosapiens]

1 minute ago, ChuckS said:

Here is something that may apply:

 

From: NROI Level I Range Officer Seminar - 2008v4c Page 81

 

"15 When you make a call be sure of what you Saw. " THINK IT WAS CLOSE"
is just not a good enough observation to DO someone. If you see a safety
violation, call it, but don't call something you didn't actually see. For
example, there is a big difference between "I saw the finger in the trigger
guard" and "I didn't see the finger out of the trigger guard"."

 

 

I don't think it necessarily applies here, but I think it's still good information. In general, I can easily imagine situations where you might be 100% sure, after the fact, that a safety violation had occurred, particularly with regards to engaging a target from a particular location. 

 

But yeah, if you're like 'i think he might have broken the 180 back there, but I wasn't sure enough to call it', and the other RO is like  'i thought the same thing, but also didn't call it', well you obviously weren't sure enough to call it

[davsco]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

 

that's an interesting opinion. Is it supported by anything in the rulebook or NROI guidance?

is a delayed call supported anywhere in the rulebook or guidance?  there's not much a shooter can do to contest a 180 or other DQ call, but still, making the call then and there at least gives both parties the best opportunity to demonstrate/recreate/identify exactly what went wrong.  something akin to due process.  and how long a delay is allowed or reasonable?  after the shooter finishes that stage, after it is scored, after other shooters shoot?

[IronArcher]

When you wait to decide if he broke 180 (in this example) you are now relying on your memory of the events...which may not be accurate.
When you say stop. There is a potential for you, and the shooter to see where exactly you are in relation to the targets (if you indeed stop).
Letting someone finish the run THEN deciding if you broke 180 just is not the right way to do it IMO.
If you weren't sure then, how are you sure now? 
If after a few other shooters go, I decide that I was sure the 1st guy broke 180, should he be DQed then?

[zzt]

Most of the time when an RO yells stop the shooter has moved a bit before it registers and he complies.  So calling it immediately in an "iffy" situation does no better than a delayed call.

[IronArcher]

Still less time for the memory to corrode in your brain.
What is the time limit for changing your mind?
"You know, now that I think of it, that shooter that went though 5 minutes ago... I'm pretty sure he broke 180. Get him back here so I can DQ him".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[cas]

On 4/16/2017 at 11:38 AM, outerlimits said:

In RO boot camp you are told to be sure of everything.  If you are not sure, STFU.

 

Sounds like that was exactly what they did.  And when they were sure, they acted. 

 

 

 

I've seen it happen and for sure, no one was happy about it. I don't even remember what it was about but it caused quite a fuss. 

 

You could have a 180 call where a shooter is shooting around a wall or barrels and because of that and RO location it isn't obvious or looking unsafe. But afterwards the RO remembers "Wait... you can't shoot that target from there without breaking the 180"?". They confirm they both saw him shoot them from there, DQ. (too late to argue poor stage design) 

Edited April 18, 2017 by cas

[IronArcher]

You shouldn't have to discuss it to be sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[pjb45]

The Desert Classic has some stages with the other ROs are at either side/end watching for the 180.  With some shooters moving quickly, they could be down range by the time the side RO is heard.

I believe I know a shooter who had somewhat of a delayed DQ at a regional championship.  Seems the RO conferred with another RO before making the call.

Sounded like a BS call.

 

As a RO/CRO I would make the DQ call as soon as possible.  I am woefully uncomfortable with a delayed DQ.

[George Jones]

My comments are general in nature and not directly related to the original posting scenario since we all probably have a somewhat different mental image of what happened in that instance.

 

However, there is nothing in the rulebook which applies a time limit for calling a violation.  At least not until the scoresheet is signed.  Less experienced ROs commonly take a bit longer to process what was observed and get the appropriate command out.  Some ROs detest making that hard call and it results in hesitation. 

 

I would consider it reasonable practice for ROs to confer to assure they are making the right call if they were both in position to see the act.  Confirming the correct number of procedurals or that the correct rule is being applied are examples.  If the scorekeeper disagrees, he can speak up.  Only the certain call should ne made.  The conference should not be to go "fishing" for a penalty.

 

I think it can be even more important if it was for a DQ.  Many times, only one RO is in a position to see it, but I see nothing wrong with confirming it with another RO witness (if there was one).  If they both agree, great.  If only one RO sees it, so be it.  If they disagree, that is where the CRO comes in (and potentially the RM).  The process should work it out.. 

[IronArcher]

Then call the DQ, stop the shooter, and have your conference.
Being a DQ doesn't require a signature on a score sheet... and there is no time limit, let's take it to the illogical extreme. In 5 minutes you get a phone call telling you that you have been DQed from your last match. Fair?
The longer you wait, the more the detail in your memory fades or changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro