Reshoots At Nationals

[BritinUSA]

In all the years that I have been shooting IPSC I've only ever seen two occasions where someone has won the calibration contest.

One of them was mine; At a match in Missoula there was a big popper that had to be shot first that activated a whole bunch of stuff. My first shot hit the popper and it did not fall. I unloaded the gun and called for a calibration (my match was sucking badly at that point so I had gone past caring).

I knew it would fail the test, the bloody thing looked like it had been run over by a tank (twice). It had a profile like a banana

[SteveZ]

One of them was mine; At a match in Missoula there was a big popper that had to be shot first that activated a whole bunch of stuff. My first shot hit the popper and it did not fall. I unloaded the gun and called for a calibration (my match was sucking badly at that point so I had gone past caring).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was that by chance, Area 1 stage 3 at Missoula? I had a shooter hit a popper and thought it fell....while scoring the targets, we found that it was still standing. The shooter debated about letting it go as a mike and I said "if it was me, I'd call for calibration...what have you got to loose?" (actually I tell everyone that when they leave a popper standing). So we called the RM to the stage....bang! Popper was still standing! Reshoot!

[Chuck Anderson]

It's interesting that there are so many people that seem to think that it's fair to tell a shooter, you got good hits on the steel, you're easily making your power factor, the steel is clearly out of adjustment, tough luck, go away. As an RO I've always given the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. If it's a question and I'm not sure that he was faulting a line, no procedural. If I'm not sure that he broke the 180, keep going. But to have people with a straight face say, well yeah it sounds like the popper was broken and should have been fixed, but the guy already shot it down during the course of fire so tough. Speaking as the shooter who went right after the wind popper, I'm glad they came up and fixed it before I shot.

[driver8M3]

lawman,

i completely agree that what you said is the "right" thing to do.

BUT, that's not what the rules say...and that's not what was told to every shooter at the shooters meeting. you can't have some shooters getting the benefit of what is "right," while others get what the rules say.

[BritinUSA]

One of them was mine; At a match in Missoula there was a big popper that had to be shot first that activated a whole bunch of stuff. My first shot hit the popper and it did not fall. I unloaded the gun and called for a calibration (my match was sucking badly at that point so I had gone past caring).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was that by chance, Area 1 stage 3 at Missoula? I had a shooter hit a popper and thought it fell....while scoring the targets, we found that it was still standing. The shooter debated about letting it go as a mike and I said "if it was me, I'd call for calibration...what have you got to loose?" (actually I tell everyone that when they leave a popper standing). So we called the RM to the stage....bang! Popper was still standing! Reshoot!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats the one....

[XRe]

lawman,

i completely agree that what you said is the "right" thing to do.

BUT, that's not what the rules say...and that's not what was told to every shooter at the shooters meeting. you can't have some shooters getting the benefit of what is "right," while others get what the rules say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

++

[bgary]

Thats the one....

Musta been the 2000 Area-1 match. I don't remember seeing you at the 2005 match.

Bruce

[TDean]

It's interesting that there are so many people that seem to think that it's fair to tell a shooter, you got good hits on the steel, you're easily making your power factor, the steel is clearly out of adjustment, tough luck, go away.

How then do we explain the steel being downed with one shot of minor 9mm?

[BritinUSA]

It's interesting that there are so many people that seem to think that it's fair to tell a shooter, you got good hits on the steel, you're easily making your power factor, the steel is clearly out of adjustment, tough luck, go away.

How then do we explain the steel being downed with one shot of minor 9mm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once the popper has been hit it is no longer in the same state as it was when the buzzer sounded. This has always been the flaw of the calibration procedure.

Either we need a better design of activating steel target or we need to change the calibration process.

[TDean]

This entire debate should have taken place behind closed doors during an arbitration hearing.

The rulebook clearly covers this whole scenario.

[Chuck Anderson]

"How then do we explain the steel being downed with one shot of minor 9mm?"

Simple, they fixed the steel between when the three shots were fired and the calibration shot was fired.

[driver8M3]

The rulebook clearly covers this whole scenario.

and if the rulebook is not going to be followed at Nationals, when should it be followed?

[zhunter]

I am not a shooter of national caliber, but......

It seems to me that loose rule interpratations should be better left to the local matches and follow the letter of law at Nationals

Just my .02

[driver8M3]

lawman,

you were on the same squad right? didnt the shooter on stage 6 eventually take the problem popper down? i didnt think it was standing when he was done...but i didnt have a good view, and i could be wrong.

[TDean]

"How then do we explain the steel being downed with one shot of minor 9mm?"

Simple, they fixed the steel between when the three shots were fired and the calibration shot was fired.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not according to this account....

OK, straight skinney about the wind driven pepper popper.

The RM was called to the stage for a calibration check.  He checked out the popper and observed 3 dead center hits on the popper, which was still standing.  He also observed that the lock nut had worked lose and the bolt had backed out causing the popper to have a very heavy set.  The RM fully expected the popper to stand up during calibration because of the heavy set.  When struck it went back, waivered, and fell over.  The RM stated that at the time he shot it the air was dead calm.  The CRO stated to the RM that when the shooter had been running the stage the wind was blowing fairly hard.  The RM made a decision that it was possible that a combination of the wind and a heavy set on the popper due to a lock nut backing off, and 3 observable center hits, deserved a reshoot.

I feel sure that had the popper not have had a lose lock nut, a backed out set bolt, and a heavy set, the wind would not have came into play during the calibration decision.

The RM also told me that another reshoot discussed in this thread was granted not because of a popper issue, but that the score sheet had no time recorded and the timer had already reset.

Gary

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Chuck Anderson]

Yep, the shooter knocked it down during the course of fire. I believe the RM actually showed up after it was reset, but not painted. I only remember him firing one calibration shot at the target, and I'm pretty sure that was after they looked at it and fixed it. I'm not sure if the RO fixed it before the RM got there or what. Since it wasn't a calibration issue per the rule book he may have gone ahead and fixed it.

I don't think the rule book covers ever single, possible eventuality. If it did we'd all need to go to law school to know all the rules. The popper sucked, the RM saw that it sucked, and rather than give the shooter the shaft he gave the shooter a re-shoot. Is this a "super squad" issue? If a D class shooter had the same thing happen and Ray was called, do you really think that he would have said tough? From the times that I've met Ray I really doubt the shooters class had anything to do with it.

[SteveZ]

Moved to a different thread.....

[stevepitt]

I'll try not to offend anyone with my reply, but I probably will.

While I'm not one to ignore the rule book, I'm also not one to use it at expense of doing the right thing. This whole discussion reminds me of a discussion I've had about obeying the law....

If there is a stop sign at a "T" in the desert, AND you can see both ways, nothing is coming, do you stop, or yield? I'll yield ever time.... even though it's illegal.

(Note: it's a theorical discussion- GIVEN that you CAN see both ways).

If others want stop, fine, but I'll never understand the logic....

I don't want to live in a world that as free adults, we are not allowed to use our brains. Gary Stevens and others got it right... attempt to do the right thing... If I'm wrong then, I can live with it! If I'm blindly following rules when I KNOW it's the wrong thing, I'm nothing more than a robot.....

From previous replies, it's obvious not everyone will agree with me

Steve Pitt

[XRe]

I don't want to live in a world that as free adults, we are not allowed to use our brains.  Gary Stevens and others got it right...  attempt to do the right thing...  If I'm wrong then, I can live with it!  If I'm blindly following rules when I KNOW it's the wrong thing, I'm nothing more than a robot.....

From previous replies, it's obvious not everyone will agree with me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I'd be one of them. The problem is two-fold, here. First, there were at least two methods *within* the scope of the rules that would/could/should have resulted in the "right thing" happening. I fail to see how taking *either* of those paths constitutes doing the "wrong thing", or how doing so implies that I'm a robot blindly following rules. In fact, I'd posit that "doing the right thing" involves following a solution as allowed within the rulebook - doing otherwise may be doing the "right thing" for that shooter, but is, in actuality, doing the "wrong thing" for everyone else in the match.

The second problem is that, failure of the officials to stick to the rulebook in making their judgements results in inconsistent application of those rules - which generally results in someone getting treated unfairly. The purpose of the rules, amongst other things, is to insure that the competitive field is treated fairly and consistently. Generally speaking, following the letter of the rules *DOES* result in the "right thing" happening, as hard to believe as that may be for you. There are, of course, exceptions occasionally...

There is a mechanism within the rules that allows for exceptions to be made, if the situation warrants it. That mechanism is called "Arbitration", and is defined quite clearly in Chapter 11 of the rulebook. Arbitration allows for members of the competitive field to officially participate in the decision and insures that a fair solution is reached for *everyone*, if the rules are not sufficient for the situation.

How is any of that doing the "wrong thing"??? Tell me, please.

[LPatterson]

If we become so totally locked into the rules and only the rules then maybe we should be lawyers or maybe you already are.

If the RO/CRO/Range Masters are not allowed to use their judgement to decide if something is or is not right or did or did not happen then maybe we should merge with IDPA so we can have failure to do right penalties.

This has become a total debacle that no longer serves a purpose.

[CRubio]

If the RO/CRO/Range Masters are not allowed to use their judgement to decide if something is or is not right or did or did not happen then maybe we should merge with IDPA so we can have failure to do right penalties.

I think Xre has re-stated the points very eloquently ($2 word ) The idea behind all the rules is to minimize as many of the subjective calls as possible in an effort to ensure that every competitor is treated the same to the greatest extent possible.

This has become a total debacle that no longer serves a purpose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that this thread has probably already outlived its usefullness but I think the debate has been courteous and professional. Maybe NORI will pick up on this and we will see something addressing this issue on the next Front Sight.

[stevepitt]

XRE,

Since I wasn't there to witness the "wind" call first hand, I wasn't commenting on whether there were other ways to make the call "within" the rules.

I agree with you on that part.... make the call via the rules.

My comments were directed more to the replies that indicated a RO should NEVER make a call outside of the rules. As you noted, there are exceptions. Does this call fall into one of the "exceptions"? I don't know, since I wasn't there.

It would seem to me that there were enough extenuating circumstances to understand why the call was made the way it was. This doesn't seem to be a case of blatant ignoring the rules, as the tone of some replies imply.

Steve Pitt

[Carmoney]

If we become so totally locked into the rules and only the rules then maybe we should be lawyers or maybe you already are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No profession trains its practitioners to consider both sides of an issue more than the law. People sometimes don't realize that because their only exposure to lawyers is when we're in advocacy mode.

Many folks do have the luxury of seeing the world in black and white terms. Lawyers are forced to see infinite shades of gray. (Not sure if that's a blessing or a curse!)

[Caspian_45]

Thread drift mode ON:

So how many competitor set steel and noticed that they were getting out of adjustment? Now how many bothered to tell a RO, or anyone else for that matter?

The RO's have there hands full running competitors. Checking poppers for proper adjustment is sometimes way down the "to do" list.

When I RO I try to check the poppers every squad or two. But even then I don't always get it done. When I am a competitor I check every popper I reset, at least once per stage.

A little preventive maintance, checking the set of the stage for the next competitor, would be appreicated by all squad mates.

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled....................

[Rob Boudrie]

There is a mechanism within the rules that allows for exceptions to be made, if the situation warrants it. That mechanism is called "Arbitration", and is defined quite clearly in Chapter 11 of the rulebook. Arbitration allows for members of the competitive field to officially participate in the decision and insures that a fair solution is reached for *everyone*, if the rules are not sufficient for the situation.

An arbitration committee's job is to make sure the rules are properly implemented, not step outside the rules.

For example, although an arb committee might be tempted to grant a reshoot on a popper if a competitor took 5 hits to knock it over, such a decision would be in direct contraction to the rules.

There is a difference between something not explicitly covered by the rules, and decidig that rule is to be ignored because the arb committee thinks doing so would be fairer.