Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Reshoot on this classifier?


rowdyb

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, PatJones said:

If I'm the RO, it's a reshoot. That's how it was called when it happened to me on a short course.

On a field stage it's a safety concern. On a classifier it's also an equity concern. Are all the chairs used at all the clubs the same? In a classifier it's definitely not the same for everyone, but a minimum level of competitive equity should be the goal.

 

If you’re the RO, you’re dead wrong.  ROs not fluent with rules are becoming more and more prevelant.  There is no reason for this to be a reshoot.  Classifier, field course, whatever.  The fact you would differentiate a call based on the type of course is telling that you don’t know what you are doing as an RO.  I’ll also address what also seems to be becoming more common, and seemingly present here, is the assertion because someone is an RO it’s “their call” as though they have the ability to interpret rules on the fly.  The chair is not a safety concern for the RO to interfere with until the competitor actually does something specifically unsafe.  You don’t get to deem someone’s actions unsafe by your standards, that’s why we have rules.  The chair, like everything else is up to the competitor on how to deal with it, just like anything else on the course.  If someone is or does something unsafe, it’s not a reshoot, it’s a DQ.  If someone’s belt falls to their ankles or even pants for that matter, it’s not the concern of the RO nor is it a reshoot.  Even if a competitor falls, maybe not even because of some exaggerated reason to make a point here, maybe just due to a trip or even tripping over a fault line (cause not every club uses the same things for fault lines) it’s still not an RO concern unless the competitor does something that violates a rule.  And falling isn’t a reshoot either.  ROs are servants of the rules, not dictators of them.  Know the rules and act within them, not what you think they should be, especially if at an inexperienced level.  If someone called it incorrectly on you, it’s still wrong.  However, as a competitor, surely you wouldn’t argue with a call in your favor.  But that doesn’t mean you blindly pass on the misinformation from then on, especially in the capacity of being an RO, thereby actually giving a competitor an advantageous “redo” when he doesn’t deserve it nor is there a rule to support it.  You may get some serious grief from the other competitors, and they’d be right..  Rules are meant to be known and followed consistently for the integrity of the match, the club, and the uspsa.  I absolutely cannot stand this seemingly growing attitude of, when I’m the RO I will do what I want.

 

And as far as “equity,” where I think you mean “equality,” either way it’s irrelevant.  Of course chairs are not the same for every club.  The expectation is to be a seated position in a common type chair and all that really matters is everyone shooting that match uses the same one or style if replaced because broken.

 

if you were actually going to make the argument for a reshoot it would be to claim a stage malfunction.  But that doesn’t fly either if it’s the competitor that caused the malfunction.  If that were true, someone could miss a disappearing swinger, walk out and push it over, and claim a reshoot.  Competitor error is not a reshoot.  If, while manipulating the chair the competitor breaks 180 or sweeps himself, I.e. violating a safety concern rule, it’s a DQ with no excuse to be made about the style of chair.

 

if you should intend to argue anything I have said, quote a rule to support it.  If you choose the unsafe competitor actions, explain if unsafe, why not a DQ.

Edited by Hammer002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
If you’re the RO, you’re dead wrong.  ROs not fluent with rules are becoming more and more prevelant.  There is no reason for this to be a reshoot.  Classifier, field course, whatever.  The fact you would differentiate a call based on the type of course is telling that you don’t know what you are doing as an RO.  I’ll also address what also seems to be becoming more common, and seemingly present here, is the assertion because someone is an RO it’s “their call” as though they have the ability to interpret rules on the fly.  The chair is not a safety concern for the RO to interfere with until the competitor actually does something specifically unsafe.  You don’t get to deem someone’s actions unsafe by your standards, that’s why we have rules.  The chair, like everything else is up to the competitor on how to deal with it, just like anything else on the course.  If someone is or does something unsafe, it’s not a reshoot, it’s a DQ.  If someone’s belt falls to their ankles or even pants for that matter, it’s not the concern of the RO nor is it a reshoot.  Even if a competitor falls, maybe not even because of some exaggerated reason to make a point here, maybe just due to a trip or even tripping over a fault line (cause not every club uses the same things for fault lines) it’s still not an RO concern unless the competitor does something that violates a rule.  And falling isn’t a reshoot either.  ROs are servants of the rules, not dictators of them.  Know the rules and act within them, not what you think they should be, especially if at an inexperienced level.  If someone called it incorrectly on you, it’s still wrong.  However, as a competitor, surely you wouldn’t argue with a call in your favor.  But that doesn’t mean you blindly pass on the misinformation from then on.  Rules are meant to be known and followed consistently.  I absolutely cannot stand this seemingly growing attitude of, when I’m the RO I will do what I want.
 
And as far as “equity,” where I think you mean “equality,” either way it’s irrelevant.  Of course chairs are not the same for every club.  The expectation is to be a seated position in a common type chair and all that really matters is everyone shooting that match uses the same one or style if replaced because broken.
 
if you were actually going to make the argument for a reshoot it would be to claim a stage malfunction.  But that doesn’t fly either if it’s the competitor that caused the malfunction.  If that were true, someone could miss a disappearing swinger, walk out and push it over, and claim a reshoot.  Competitor error is not a reshoot.  If, while manipulating the chair the competitor breaks 180 or sweeps himself, I.e. violating a safety concern rule, it’s a DQ with no excuse to be made about the style of chair.
 
if you should intend to argue anything I have said, quote a rule to support it.  If you choose the unsafe competitor actions, explain if unsafe, why not a DQ.
I never said I'd call it differently on one type of stage over another. Someone said it's "the same for everyone." I was pointing out that in classifiers, it's not.

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes ...the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

The chair is a stage prop. It is not intended to hang off the belt when the competitor stands up, therefore it's a range equipment failure.

At Nationals doesn't Troy instruct the ROs "Don't be a dick"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not being a dick,, shooter just screwed up. Equipment worked as designed.
So if a competitor trips over a fault line its a reshoot ?
If the leg collapsed,, yeh reshoot, but because ur gear got snagged ? There was no failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PatJones said:

I never said I'd call it differently on one type of stage over another. Someone said it's "the same for everyone." I was pointing out that in classifiers, it's not.

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes ...the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

The chair is a stage prop. It is not intended to hang off the belt when the competitor stands up, therefore it's a range equipment failure.

At Nationals doesn't Troy instruct the ROs "Don't be a dick"?
 

Ok, well then it confused me when you seemed to be differentiating between a "short course" and a "field course."  I guess I dont understand why mentioning that was relevant then.  My mistake for assuming that was your point in doing so.

 

 First, let me say this - being an RO is a thankless job and completely made up of volunteers.  Though I am very grateful to those who do it on a regular basis, or manage matches, my personal issues lie with the motivations of some for doing it.  I dont think you fit this, but possibly partially programmed by it.  Meaning, yes, the exact people Troy referenced in his comment about not being a dick.  Those motivated by ego to RO and use their positions as a bludgeon upon other competitors have no place in this game.  Those are usually the ones saying things relative to their position making them the end all, be all and even become aggravated when the MD is requested.  With that said, it sounds like you are just trying to be fair. 

 

Here's the issue, and you quoted the exact rule that would make your call incorrect.  As I said in my first post, as long as the stage is presented equally to competitors, its good to go.  If 200 other competitors were presented with the exact same scenario and seemed to pay enough attention not to hook themselves on chairs, walls, targets, barrels, etc, then the one who didn't pay close enough attention, or made a mistake, certainly isn't entitled to a redo.  Area 3 pushed this further last year to say, well, stages where presented randomly equal to all competitors.  As someone posted above, if the chair malfunctions in some way such as breaking, or collapsing upon being sat on, that could constitute a stage malfunction.  However if the competitor is able to assume the starting position, as everyone else has without failure, and the stage is started by the audible beep, what the competitor does with that chair is on him.  If he did not pay attention to not hooking whatever equipment he chose to wear for the match that day on the chair, that's his problem.  The same as if the chair was a starting position and the competitor later in the stage ran by it again and tripped over it.  No, its not intended to be hung from the belt, but its the competitor who put it there.

 

What you really have to realize, is the integrity of the call has more to do with the other competitors.  They are the ones you are "not being a dick" to.  Every person in that squad standing there watching, or later hears about it, likely has something during the match they would have liked to have a redo or mulligan on.  And you just gave one to someone who didn't deserve it.  Also, you would really hope you weren't the lone RO making the call that way and it happened to other competitors during the match and were not given a reshoot.  You and the match director, if it were a level II or higher, would be having a very uncomfortable conversation during arbitration.  So, its the other competitors you are being fair to, even though you think the poor guy should get some help.

 

Last, you have to watch pandora's box of gaming.  If the call is as you say, if a competitor stands up and fumbles the draw, or didnt load a round, or for whatever reason he determines he would like a reshoot, he could just sit back down, allow the mags on his back of which he earlier made sure not to hook, to hook and stand up again.  You would then be in the position to treat him the same and give the same call you may have just given to the guy right before him.  For all these reasons, you have to know the rules the best you can, ESPECIALLY if you are going to RO, and ESPECIALLY if you are going to RO a major match, which is the perspective I usually view all these rule type discussions.  What you do at your home range is your business.  But in a major match, you kinda gotta have it right.

 

Final thought, there would be nothing wrong with correcting the situation as the RO before you started the competitor, so long as you and all the ROs are consistent with the practice.  The reason some would disagree with this statement, is then it kinda would be a reshoot, cause if you warned/helped competitors before, and forget one it happens to, you have again put yourself in position to be fair to all.  The other practice I have seen is a little warning during stage brief by the RO = hey, watch out for "this." and an upfront notification of how its going to be called.

Edited by Hammer002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PatJones said:

I never said I'd call it differently on one type of stage over another. Someone said it's "the same for everyone." I was pointing out that in classifiers, it's not.

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes ...the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

The chair is a stage prop. It is not intended to hang off the belt when the competitor stands up, therefore it's a range equipment failure.

At Nationals doesn't Troy instruct the ROs "Don't be a dick"?
 

 

the chair works the same for everyone. that's equitable. it didn't fail. the competitor screwed up. Giving reshoots to people who screw up is basically punishing people who pay attention. It's not fair or sporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree that it wouldn't be a reshoot.  The chair did what chairs are designed to do, you know, chair stuff.  It wasn't the chairs job to do anything other than being a chair...so unless the chair failed to be a chair IE it broke while big john was sitting on it, then whatever the competitor does to the chair after the buzzer is their problem.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year at double tap there was a stage with a chair, and it rained the day I shot.  By the time I got to the chair is was sunk 6 inches or more in the mud.  I had the RO call the range master and they fixed the chair.  As long as the chair is the same for everyone I say its good to go.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like this is settled, so let me parlay this into another question that crossed my mind while reading this thread. If a  chair were to give way (break) while a competitor is sitting in it after the make ready command, and during the fall, his pistol comes out of the holster (now loaded). Is this still a dq? I'm not an RO but am planning to take an RO course in August so this one has me wondering. And in the same light, how about if the wind blows over a card table on a table start with a pistol on top? Just some food for thought so I can learn more and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scffacenter1 said:

Seems like this is settled, so let me parlay this into another question that crossed my mind while reading this thread. If a  chair were to give way (break) while a competitor is sitting in it after the make ready command, and during the fall, his pistol comes out of the holster (now loaded). Is this still a dq? I'm not an RO but am planning to take an RO course in August so this one has me wondering. And in the same light, how about if the wind blows over a card table on a table start with a pistol on top? Just some food for thought so I can learn more and more.

 

I think in general the RO is obligated to call these things a DQ, however as a competitor I would arbitrate it, and if I were on an arbitration committee I would vote to override the dq for extenuating circumstances. In general, I think the RM and the arbitration committee have special powers that the stage RO may not. Similar discussions have been held in the past about a wall blowing over and smacking a competitor upside the head, for example. The below rule is the reason I believe the arb committee can overturn the dq. I'm not sure whether the stage RO can legitimately make that call. I suspect that most RMs would want to be apprised of the situation before doing anything drastic.

 

Quote

11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by another rule. Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infrac-tion will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circum-stances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

I think in general the RO is obligated to call these things a DQ, however as a competitor I would arbitrate it, and if I were on an arbitration committee I would vote to override the dq for extenuating circumstances. In general, I think the RM and the arbitration committee have special powers that the stage RO may not. Similar discussions have been held in the past about a wall blowing over and smacking a competitor upside the head, for example. The below rule is the reason I believe the arb committee can overturn the dq. I'm not sure whether the stage RO can legitimately make that call. I suspect that most RMs would want to be apprised of the situation before doing anything drastic.

 

 

Perfect! Thanks moto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scffacenter1 said:

Seems like this is settled, so let me parlay this into another question that crossed my mind while reading this thread. If a  chair were to give way (break) while a competitor is sitting in it after the make ready command, and during the fall, his pistol comes out of the holster (now loaded). Is this still a dq? I'm not an RO but am planning to take an RO course in August so this one has me wondering. And in the same light, how about if the wind blows over a card table on a table start with a pistol on top? Just some food for thought so I can learn more and more.

 

If I were the RO in this position, and we are talking about a level II or above, I would involve the MD in both cases.  I think Moto summed it up well.  The first one is a DQ.  Discretion by the MD on it, so I wouldn’t be quick to call it.  Black and White? = DQ cause technically it doesn’t matter how the safety violation occurred.  Second scenario would be hard to call a DQ with the difference being the competitor has control of the firearm and looses it in the first scenario versus possibly being nowhere near it in the second.  Going from shooters hand or holster is different from falling from a table.  Articulation would have to be made to specifically support either way.  If the competitor could be described as doing something that contributed to the situation, it’s a DQ.  If it were things completely out of the competitors control, would be hard to DQ.  Moto suggested letting arbitration work it out, which is a good idea and I would definitely pony up the 100 bucks if I were the shooter.  I think even the RO has the position to evaluate and call the second one.  It’s a good question.  Wouldn’t want to be in either shoes!

Edited by Hammer002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to put it in perspective, i've worked 4 nationals, 4 area matches, a few sectionals and a few hundred local matches as an RO, and never seen a dq that wasn't entirely the shooter's fault, so i wouldn't lose too much sleep about situations that are pretty hypothetical (even tho they do actually happen from time to time, just very rarely).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hammer002 said:

Not all matches have both, and some are one in the same, but yes.

 

Every match has both, and the RM is the one who's in charge of everything, as soon as the match actually starts.   It may be only one person,  but he/she becomes the RM.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, teros135 said:

 

Every match has both, and the RM is the one who's in charge of everything, as soon as the match actually starts.   It may be only one person,  but he/she becomes the RM.  

That’s.....um....exactly what I just said, just that by both I meant separate people, which is what I clarified...and what...you...clarified...too.  Do you do anything but engage in weird arguments?  Cause that’s the only thing I ever see you post.  Do you even shoot?  Or is this kinda, your thing now?  Like, if I just post, “white.”  Will you immediately start to type, “well, actually, black” out of reflex?

Edited by Hammer002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, motosapiens said:

my advice is to use the word 'clip' instead of magazine. that is even more triggering than saying MD when you mean 'MD acting as RM after the match starts'. Then just sit back and watch the show.

 

1 hour ago, teros135 said:

Or, better, talk about putting some bullets in your clips.  That'll get the more sensitive ones going, for sure ?

 

Lol. Ok, fair enough.  Point taken.  Lesson learned.  Damn semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...