Warnings (Can I give the shooter the "finger"?)

[Sarge]

  You make some valid points but telling a shooter to put a gun on safe is rendering assistance which is also against the rules. 

  There was a very small amount of talk at the match about the DQed shooter going up the chain to get the rule changed to where an RO could intervene if he knew something safe was potentially going to happen.

 Sorry, but good points or not, I disagree with spoon feeding experienced shooters . Like I said, I wish the rule said “inexperienced shooters at level I matches.”

[ATLDave]

7 hours ago, Hammer002 said:

 

 The way you have articulated this is to say you knew a safety violation was coming and "just watched them do it."  So you knew an unsafe situation was coming, and did nothing.  A competitor quickly holstering an unsafe gun, or while you weren't actually looking there is one thing.  To stand and watch it happen is another.  

...However "just watching them do it" seems a bit of a contradiction because you are purposely letting a safety violation occur, "watching" it happen in fact, where someone could get hurt, for the purpose of getting to the punishment phase for the sake of point making punishment rather than keeping everyone safe.  Think about it, how are you going to feel if something bad happens and you are saying to yourself, "I saw it coming.  I saw it coming, knew it was going to happen, and did nothing." ...Warning = make the change for safety sake or risk a DQ due to RO observation point/angle when maybe it actually wasn't.  So....warnings are to avoid an unsafe situation.  DQ is for when it has happened.  

A very thoughtful and well-articulated post.  I agree.  

[ATLDave]

1 hour ago, Sarge said:

  You make some valid points but telling a shooter to put a gun on safe is rendering assistance which is also against the rules. 

You are assuming that the safety rules are there for competitive reasons.  They aren't.  They are there for safety reasons.  

 

In the example given (advising the shooter to safe the SA gun before holstering), no competitive assistance is being given.  Not a single thousandth of HF will be gained.   No target will be made easier, no time will be saved, no penalties will be avoided.  A safety infraction (for which the only remedy is the end of competition for the shooter) will be avoided, which is to the non-competitive, but real-life, advantage of everyone in the match.  

[waktasz]

For the safety off and holstering bit, if you notice it before they holster, 100% you should issue the stop command and correct them/prevent them from doing something bad. 

I've done this multiple times, mostly with Production shooters about to holster a cocked gun. Sometimes they hear me and stop in time, sometimes they don't. 

 

 

As for warnings, I'm of the opinion to keep quiet during the COF. 

 

That being said, how about telling a guy he was at the 179 degree line and to be careful out there after his run. I did this this weekend at a Level 2 match. The guy was stunned that he was that close, and then went on to DQ on the next stage for the same thing.

On the other hand I heard of a shooter that received the same warning, and was not happy with the RO. 

[OPENB]

I understand all the points made, but, we used to have a local RO that would interupt my making ready to tell me to put the safety on. This was while I was still inserting and taking out the mag to make sure it was dropping free, pushing back the top round, checking chamber, etc., stuff we all do and have seen done. I wasn't even near ready to go to the holster.  It was so annoying, I avoided squading with him. I think I agree more with Sarge. After the  make ready command,  it's the shooter's time to do what he will within the rules. If he goes outside the rules, he owns it. Shooters need to put on their big boy pants. If you screw up and get DQ'd, it isn't the end of the world. Learn to never do it again, and move on. I've been DQ'd a couple times, and I corrected what was needed, and I still come back. No hard feelings.

[Youngeyes]

I may just be me, but all I would hear is "Stop". If an RO yelled, "finger" or "180", I would be confused and just lose concentration. I'd probably stop and look at the RO for clarification.

[Hammer002]

3 hours ago, Sarge said:

  You make some valid points but telling a shooter to put a gun on safe is rendering assistance which is also against the rules. 

  There was a very small amount of talk at the match about the DQed shooter going up the chain to get the rule changed to where an RO could intervene if he knew something safe was potentially going to happen.

 Sorry, but good points or not, I disagree with spoon feeding experienced shooters . Like I said, I wish the rule said “inexperienced shooters at level I matches.”

 

Fair enough.  I respect your opinion.  I was actually pointing out you might take an evaluation of your real motives.  Safety?  Or executing a DQ?   Or did the first one come first, leading to the desire for the second over time? That’s all.  And that is up to you alone.

 

1 hour ago, ATLDave said:

You are assuming that the safety rules are there for competitive reasons.  They aren't.  They are there for safety reasons. 

 

This guy gets it.  And he’s smarter than me cause he explained it in one line.  Lol

 

15 minutes ago, Youngeyes said:

I may just be me, but all I would hear is "Stop". If an RO yelled, "finger" or "180", I would be confused and just lose concentration. I'd probably stop and look at the RO for clarification.

 

.....and the timer keeps runnin

Edited July 11, 2018 by Hammer002

[Mcfoto]

17 minutes ago, Hammer002 said:

.....and the timer keeps runnin

 

Exactly! As a shooter I've experienced "warnings" during the COF which have caused me to stop and look at the RO for clarification all while the clock was running. As a newly minted RO, I appreciate the effort to give warnings particularly to new shooters but really anyone (I recently witnessed an A shooter warned "you used 179 degrees of the 180 back there.") but my preference is to issue a warning AFTER the Range is Clear command.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Mcfoto

[teros135]

2 hours ago, ATLDave said:

You are assuming that the safety rules are there for competitive reasons.  They aren't.  They are there for safety reasons.  

 

In the example given (advising the shooter to safe the SA gun before holstering), no competitive assistance is being given.  Not a single thousandth of HF will be gained.   No target will be made easier, no time will be saved, no penalties will be avoided.  A safety infraction (for which the only remedy is the end of competition for the shooter) will be avoided, which is to the non-competitive, but real-life, advantage of everyone in the match.  

 

No, he's not "assuming", he's following the rules.  The rule book doesn't say anything about the thought process of assistance or interference, it just says "don't do it".  Sarge knows this. 

[ATLDave]

16 minutes ago, teros135 said:

 

No, he's not "assuming", he's following the rules.  The rule book doesn't say anything about the thought process of assistance or interference, it just says "don't do it".  Sarge knows this. 

 

The rules explicitly allow safety warnings.  

 

 

8.6 Assistance or Interference

 

8.6.1 No  assistance  of  any  kind  can  be  given  to  a  competitor  during  a  course of  fire,  except  that  any  Range  Officer  assigned  to  a  stage  may  issue  safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

 

The reasoning for this should be self-evident: it's because safety rules (and warnings and DQ's) aren't there for competitive reasons.  They're there for safety reasons.  Safety is paramount. 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by ATLDave

[teros135]

38 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

 

The rules explicitly allow safety warnings.  

 

 

8.6 Assistance or Interference

 

8.6.1 No  assistance  of  any  kind  can  be  given  to  a  competitor  during  a  course of  fire,  except  that  any  Range  Officer  assigned  to  a  stage  may  issue  safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

 

The reasoning for this should be self-evident: it's because safety rules (and warnings and DQ's) aren't there for competitive reasons.  They're there for safety reasons.  Safety is paramount. 

 

 

What's "self-evident" is that the rules say what they say.  You're trying to "interpret" their "intent"; we're not supposed to do that.  Again, they don't say anything about "competition" vs "safety".    And yes, safety is important; so is fairness, for all present. 

[Gary Stevens]

The one thing I am prohibited from telling the competitor is that they have failed to put a magazine in the gun.

 

Not a safety issue though.

[JAFO]

I'll make the assumption that most people who don't like receiving warnings during a run are experienced shooters who don't like their stage plan/thought process being interrupted.  I don't think new competitors are to that point, which is why I tend to give on-the-clock safety warnings to new shooters.  The experienced guys know what will get them DQ'd, but may not realize how close they were to doing it.  For them, I typically give warnings after the run if I saw something really close, but I couldn't be sure.  But if I'm sure of a safety violation, it's a DQ, regardless of whether the shooter is new or not.

[Hammer002]

53 minutes ago, teros135 said:

 

What's "self-evident" is that the rules say what they say.  You're trying to "interpret" their "intent"; we're not supposed to do that.  Again, they don't say anything about "competition" vs "safety".    And yes, safety is important; so is fairness, for all present. 

 

Pot, meet kettle.  The interpretation YOU seem to favor that a safety warning (specifically outlined in the rules and allowed) is assistance or interference is absurd.  And no, you’re not supposed to do that.   And no, the rules don’t pit safety vs competition, they over and over again put safety FIRST.  You are trying to look at it in reverse order and then accuse others of doing so.  And what’s worse, is you are so hostile when you’re wrong.  The idea stopping someone from committing a safety violation before it happens, therefore keeping everyone safe is somehow coaching, is insanity.  If you want to win, shoot better, not eagerly wait for the chance to eliminate the competition by sacrificing the safety of everyone around you.  Knowingly allowing an unsafe situation is absolute negligence on your part.  It’s not coaching to keep someone from hurting themselves or another.  If you think so, your priorities are WAY out of whack and you have no place in this sport.  Guns are involved.

 

To be clear, we aren’t talking about running our cake hole the whole time about everything close.  We are talking about seeing and knowing something bad is about to happen and warning in an attempt to stop it.

 

I’ll give yet another example of what we are talking about:  Stage design calls for uprange start.  Shooter, before make ready command is showing every intention of making ready facing up range, cause he’s already standing that direction and is likely new. And let’s not play like we can’t tell the difference between an experienced shooter and someone seemingly unaware.  If you think it’s a good idea to just say make ready, knowing he is going to pull that gun out and point it at the crowd, you are worse off than him.  At least he is screwing up unknowingly, you’re doing it on purpose.  I have seen this several times and have said, when I tell you make ready, please don’t point that gun at me.  I didn’t tell him to turn to his gun side.  I didn’t tell him how turn and draw in any way.  But I warned him he was about to be unsafe. I have seen it where even the whole squad knew what was about to happen and everyone was scattering when the RO purposely ignored the warning signs of an oncoming dangerous situation and said make ready, even making some matrix move to get out of the way so the gun could be pointed at people behind him.  Do we have a shooter problem?  Absolutely.  We also have an RO problem.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Hammer002

[MikeBurgess]

8.6 Assistance or Interference

 

8.6.1 No  assistance  of  any  kind  can  be  given  to  a  competitor  during  a  course of  fire,  except  that  any  Range  Officer  assigned  to  a  stage  may  issue  safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

22 minutes ago, teros135 said:

 

What's "self-evident" is that the rules say what they say.  You're trying to "interpret" their "intent"; we're not supposed to do that.  Again, they don't say anything about "competition" vs "safety".    And yes, safety is important; so is fairness, for all present. 

How exactingly is the bold and underlined passage not clearly intended to allow warnings for safety? 

 

 

[ATLDave]

56 minutes ago, teros135 said:

 

What's "self-evident" is that the rules say what they say.  You're trying to "interpret" their "intent"; we're not supposed to do that. 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The language is very clear.   Safety warnings are expressly authorized.  There's no doubt whatsoever that the plain language of the rules permits them.  All that is open to discussion is whether they "should" be avoided or not given for some reason OTHER than the plain language of the rules.  

 

So if you want to stick with the strict rules, safety warnings are clearly, expressly, unequivocally, categorically A-OK.  If you want to go beyond that (such as how you want the rules used or how you want RO's to behave or how the rules ought to be changed), then you necessarily get into the why of rules. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by ATLDave

[ATLDave]

34 minutes ago, Hammer002 said:

I’ll give yet another example of what we are talking about:  Stage design calls for uprange start.  Shooter, before make ready command is showing every intention of making ready facing up range, cause he’s already standing that direction and is likely new. And let’s not play like we can’t tell the difference between an experienced shooter and someone seemingly unaware.  If you think it’s a good idea to just say make ready, knowing he is going to pull that gun out and point it at the crowd, you are worse off than him.  At least he is screwing up unknowingly, you’re doing it on purpose.  I have seen this several times and have said, when I tell you make ready, please don’t point that gun at me.  I didn’t tell him to turn to his gun side.  I didn’t tell him how turn and draw in any way.  But I warned him he was about to be unsafe. I have seen it where even the whole squad knew what was about to happen and everyone was scattering when the RO purposely ignored the warning signs of an oncoming dangerous situation and said mike ready, even making some matrix move to get out of the way so the gun could be pointed at people begging him.  Do we have a shooter problem?  Absolutely.  We also have an RO problem.

It's almost as though some people have never RO'ed huge numbers of new-ish shooters or something.   I'm with you - safety is first.  

Edited July 11, 2018 by ATLDave

[Hammer002]

Just now, ATLDave said:

It's almost as though some people have never RO'ed huge numbers of new-ish shooters or something. 

 

Exactly.

[wgj3]

I'm blown away that some of you are advocating for allowing a preventable safety infraction to occur so that you can then DQ the shooter.

You say that issuing a warning may allow the shooter to cause harm on a subsequent stage, but you choose to ALLOW a safety infraction to occur that could also cause an unsafe event on the range...

WTF!?!?

[CHA-LEE]

Early on in my ROing experience I would give shooters safety Warnings either during or after their stage run. But I quickly realized that warnings go in one ear and out the other. You could warn the same people many times stage after stage and they could keep doing it because there wasn't a tangible penalty for their actions. People don't learn until the punishment for their infraction is real and finite. These days I don't give warnings and simply stop and DQ the shooter when they break the safety rules. They may get pissed and throw a tantrum like a 2 year old but it really doesn't matter because they did it to themselves. I am simply there to let them know how they broke the safety rules after its all done.

 

As an MD I always like to tell my customers "Every stage provides the opportunity to make the wrong decision". This usually gets a chuckle from most then it sinks in that their match destiny is 100% in their hands based on their decisions. 

[DeweyH]

We have safety rules because something really bad can happen if you don't obey them. I will always try to stop people from doing things that can injure or kill themselves or someone else.  If I see someone about to holster a weapon that doesn't have the safety engaged I will warn them.  If I don't catch it before it happens then they are dq'd.  But to watch it happen, knowing you could stop it, is irresponsible.  Also, as an RO, you are in imminent danger if a weapon goes off while holstering.  I surely don't want a life long limp just to protect competitive equity.

[L3324temp]

We have safety rules because something really bad can happen if you don't obey them. I will always try to stop people from doing things that can injure or kill themselves or someone else.  If I see someone about to holster a weapon that doesn't have the safety engaged I will warn them.  If I don't catch it before it happens then they are dq'd.  But to watch it happen, knowing you could stop it, is irresponsible.  Also, as an RO, you are in imminent danger if a weapon goes off while holstering.  I surely don't want a life long limp just to protect competitive equity.

 

 

Exactly right, the warning IMO is to help prevent them from shooting themselves in the leg. This is also why the rule book allows warnings.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sarge]

I don’t feel like quoting everybody but suffice it to say I have ran countless new shooters . I helped Those that needed it, at locals. I have probably DQed maybe 20-25 shooters in 8ish years of working local, state and area matches so I’m certainly not out to DQ anybody. I certainly don’t try to DQ my competition. That’s about the dumbest thing I have read on the internet all day. I didn’t wait to let anybody holster off safe “so I could DQ them”. I waited because many shooters like to wait until the last second to flip the safety on and I’m not going to interrupt their make ready routine. And again, if you are going to shoot a level II or especially a level III you better know what you are doing when you step to the line.

  I remember my first match as a new shooter. Uprange start. I stood there facing uprange , the RO stood there looking at me. I said, “I have to turn around to make ready , right?” He shrugged and said , “only if you don’t want to go home early.” I guess I feel the same way now as an RO. 

  I would rather go by the book and be called whatever by the peanut gallery( i.e. forum member keyboard warriors ) than to get called out by an experienced shooter trying to win a MAJOR because I DQed him and let his competition slide.

  I hope the rule changes or gets clarified to include wording such as warnings may be issued at level I matches only or something along those lines.

[pjb45]

RO/CRO- I am with Gary.  I try to give a warning, have gotten warnings.  I have DQ'd and been DQ'd.

 

[teros135]

5 minutes ago, pjb45 said:

RO/CRO- I am with Gary.  I try to give a warning, have gotten warnings.  I have DQ'd and been DQ'd.

 

^This.  We have the rule set, we have training, we have to be fair/equitable to everyone, but we're also not omniscient and can't see everything coming.  Shooters are responsible for their conduct, we're responsible for oversight and for applying the rule set, again with safety and fairness in mind.  Not all that hard to conceptualize, but there are times you have to make a call.  That's why they pay us the big bucks