Stages getting Thrown Out at Major Matches..... Lets fix this problem

[EEH]

Believe me how well I know how it is to be out there for 10 hours.

[IHAVEGAS]

1 hour ago, EEH said:

Believe me how well I know how it is to be out there for 10 hours.

 

Not to distract from the thread, but fighting brain death after x hours and y days and z shooters and a crappy noisy motel room is part of the quality of decisions thing. 

[echotango]

17 hours ago, jhgtyre said:

Actually we had RO's on a different stage state that it had to be palms and not fingers on the X's for their start position.  I just googled "anatomy of the hand" (just to make sure there wasn't some wording that says fingers are attached to but not part of the hand) and the fingers are part of the hand so just fingers would suffice unless the WSB specifically said palms. 

I agree.  I didn't feel like arguing/fighting it  and let it go on the specific stage I am sure you are talking about. The RO was incorrect. 

[IHAVEGAS]

29 minutes ago, echotango said:

I agree.  I didn't feel like arguing/fighting it  and let it go on the specific stage I am sure you are talking about. The RO was incorrect. 

 

Sometimes "Don't be a dick" is a great rule for competitors too  

[George Jones]

On the other hand.....

 

Politely and calmly asking for the rule which supports the (alleged) incorrect call is not being a dick.

The less than knowledgeable RO will never learn otherwise and continue making the same error.

Part of being a certified RO is to pass on the knowledge.

 

[MikeBurgess]

Issue- inconsistent calling of shots through hard cover (walls, barrels,etc) I've been at many L2+ matches where every wall or barrel was not inspected after every shooter, and holes were  later discovered with no knowledge of when they happened or were assumed to be from the last shooter without being positive. I have been guilty of this as a CRO on a stage finding holes in barrels that I had no idea when they happened, I have also had to defend myself from calls of hard cover shoot through misses that were fired from a location making the the hardcover hit impossible. at another recent high level match there was a space between 2 walls where poppers needed to be engaged, when I cam to the stage there were multiple full diamiter holes in the thin plywood edges to the opening, I can only assume from the lack of reshoots on the stage that pass through shots were not being called and resshoots were not being issued for any popper hit through the hard cover.

 

solution- at stage set up special attention needs to be payed whatever props are concealing targets and how the target becomes available. In my experience there are 4 reasonable solutions.

1 If a target is concealed by both a down range prop and a prop close to the shooter, ensure that the target is fully visible from the down range prop when it becomes visible from the prop closest to the shooter.  shooters are much less likely to shoot through a wall in their face than a wall or barrel 10yd down range. also a shot through a prop close to the shooter and RO is more likely to be noticed by the RO at the time it happens.

2 provide a soft cover buffer to any down range prop. At my home club we normally place a soft cover barrel stack (declared as such in the wsb) at the end of down range walls concealing targets this does 2 things, first it makes for consistent scoring, second it greatly reduces the wear on walls. 

3  add a noshoot to the edge of down range props that guarding paper targets, hits on noshoot targets are much more likely to be seen and correctly scored, also if during setup you find that you need to put a lot of no shoot targets up to ensure the stage is scored correctly you may decide to move some targets around to eliminate some of the potential shoot throughs.

4 do not place steel targets in locations where a hard cover pass through is anything more than extremely unlikely

[CHA-LEE]

MikeBurgess> Nice addition to the thread!!! I too have seen that situation happen quite often and not be handled properly.

[MikeBurgess]

47 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

MikeBurgess> Nice addition to the thread!!! I too have seen that situation happen quite often and not be handled properly.

thanks, 

 

and thank you for the thread, it is important for us to share the knowledge most of us have gained the hard way so we are not doomed to repeat it.

 

 

[MikeBurgess]

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

Issue- inconsistent calling of shots through hard cover (walls, barrels,etc) I've been at many L2+ matches where every wall or barrel was not inspected after every shooter, and holes were  later discovered with no knowledge of when they happened or were assumed to be from the last shooter without being positive. I have been guilty of this as a CRO on a stage finding holes in barrels that I had no idea when they happened, I have also had to defend myself from calls of hard cover shoot through misses that were fired from a location making the the hardcover hit impossible. at another recent high level match there was a space between 2 walls where poppers needed to be engaged, when I cam to the stage there were multiple full diamiter holes in the thin plywood edges to the opening, I can only assume from the lack of reshoots on the stage that pass through shots were not being called and resshoots were not being issued for any popper hit through the hard cover.

 

solution- at stage set up special attention needs to be payed whatever props are concealing targets and how the target becomes available. In my experience there are 4 reasonable solutions.

1 If a target is concealed by both a down range prop and a prop close to the shooter, ensure that the target is fully visible from the down range prop when it becomes visible from the prop closest to the shooter.  shooters are much less likely to shoot through a wall in their face than a wall or barrel 10yd down range. also a shot through a prop close to the shooter and RO is more likely to be noticed by the RO at the time it happens.

2 provide a soft cover buffer to any down range prop. At my home club we normally place a soft cover barrel stack (declared as such in the wsb) at the end of down range walls concealing targets this does 2 things, first it makes for consistent scoring, second it greatly reduces the wear on walls. 

3  add a noshoot to the edge of down range props that guarding paper targets, hits on noshoot targets are much more likely to be seen and correctly scored, also if during setup you find that you need to put a lot of no shoot targets up to ensure the stage is scored correctly you may decide to move some targets around to eliminate some of the potential shoot throughs.

4 do not place steel targets in locations where a hard cover pass through is anything more than extremely unlikely

I forgot one other solution,

if you have a target concealed by a down range prop where the down range prop will still conceal a portion of the target when it becomes available from a location in the shooting area make the portion of the target that is concealed hardcover that way if a shot goes through the hard cover prop and hits the target it will hit in a hard cover area on the target so no scoring issues arise.

[ATLDave]

I would add this regarding the hard-cover calls: Watching for holes/splatter/spall on hardcover near the line of shot is a perfect thing for the other RO - the guy with the pad - to watch while the timer-running RO is watching the gun.  If a stage has one or more locations where wall or other hardcover hits are probable, then the non-timer RO should put their attention there at the appropriate time (just as they might pay particular attention to the shooter's feet if there is a portion of the stage where faulting is especially likely).  

 

 

[JAFO]

3 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

 

2 provide a soft cover buffer to any down range prop. At my home club we normally place a soft cover barrel stack (declared as such in the wsb) at the end of down range walls concealing targets this does 2 things, first it makes for consistent scoring, second it greatly reduces the wear on walls. 

 

 

We have used no-shoots on walls before, but I would think a soft cover barrel stack might cause some scoring issues due to misshapen holes/tears for shots passing through a barrel.  Do you see those types of issues with a soft cover stack?

[MikeBurgess]

4 minutes ago, JAFO said:

 

We have used no-shoots on walls before, but I would think a soft cover barrel stack might cause some scoring issues due to misshapen holes/tears for shots passing through a barrel.  Do you see those types of issues with a soft cover stack?

it happens but not very often, most often you see some evidence of a bullet in the hole, I have seen just a tear in the target with no bullet marks whatsoever and issued the mike, but this is rare and especially at the local level the scoring consistency is much better than having hardcover calls missed.

 

 

[ima45dv8]

Great thread, Cha-Lee. This one might get "stickied".

 

I've had the honor of being invited to perform RM duties at many local matches, and a good number of LII's. When a clubs match team has spent months working on hundreds or thousands of small details to produce a quality State or Sectional championship event, my actions (or lack thereof) could cause failures that reflect poorly on them. I've seen it happen at many matches I've shot. For this reason, the LII's caused me nights of bad sleep on many occasions. I approached these duties very seriously. I offer these suggestions to anyone who may find themselves faced with such a weighty task.

 

Even though it might cause an additional expense for the match funds, I always insisted on being there for the last couple of days of setup. Helping build them gave me a chance to inspect the stages before they were finished and many issues were resolved before it was time to "bless the stages".

 

When the blessing time came, I walked every stage 3 times with a different mind-set each time.

 

First, I put on my Gamer hat and tried to find any/every hole in the design that I could exploit as a competitor. If someone was on-hand that I knew was even more 'gamey' than me, I would enlist their help to identify holes. Some options were deliberately left in (after discussion with the match staff) as it's sometimes fun to watch shooters over-game a solution to the problem. I've corkscrewed myself into the ground with cleverness and it provided some great entertainment for my fellow shooters 

 

Second, I would put on my RO/CRO hat and imagine running shooters through the stage. How would it likely flow? Where were the pinch-points for me while running the timer? What would be the best and most efficient way to manage resetting props, and scoring and pasting of the targets and props? Where were edge-hits likely to occur, and how to handle them? Etc.

 

Lastly, I put on my RM hat, and with WSBs (and a pen for editing) in hand, I looked at potential scoring and penalty issues. I tried to determine in advance whether, at a likely spot that someone might fault a line while shooting, should it be considered a 'significant advantage' per-shot penalty or a single penalty? Did a prop have the robust construction needed to survive 400 activations over the course of the match (I've broken a few that caused rebuilds)? Did the start position need clarification or demonstration? Were the stage instructions for the competitors clear, or clear as mud? Etc.

 

Armed with all that I had learned, I would have an RO walk-thru on staff day with a trusted rep from each squad. These usually were imbedded ROs shooting with the rest of their mates. Yes, dedicated Stage ROs during staff shoots would be awesome, but almost always impossible to arrange due to not having enough bodies. The walk-thru would go stage to stage, pointing out what I had learned from my own activities. I encouraged the imbedded ROs to confer at the end of the day with the stage-dedicated ROs to pass along any insights they had gleaned during the staff shoot.

 

The next morning I would have another RO walk-thru with the stage ROs to cover the specifics for each stage.

 

I know it sounds like a lot, but the goal was safe and consistentent officiating, for every shooter, for the entire event. The effort was worth it. 

 

Slight drift...

A few years ago, at an LII, I was giving the competitor briefing at the start of the first relay (half-day format), and on the fly added a warning to the shooters when I recognized a few whose consistent demeanors included bad behaviour towards match staff. I reminded the entire group that USPSA is a small community and many of the shooters would at some point be match staff at another event, and I expected the shooters to treat our staff with the same level of respect they would wish for themselves. I finished by saying that if I caught anybody being abusive to match staff, I would DQ them on the spot for unsportsmanlike behaviour and they would be leaving the range soon after. Disagreement with staff is fine, and expected, but everyone was reminded that they were expected to act like an adult. There were a few faces that betrayed that they knew this applied to them, but most of the audience smiled and nodded their agreement.  

 

This warning was of course included in the remaining shooter briefs for the rest of the weekend.

[herky]

You and Charlie have it right.  I have been involved with this sport in excess of 25 years, from locals to Nationals.  I wish your dedication was the norm, especially at the local level concerning  design and execution.  I am not slamming the effort that goes into setting up and running matches as I know what it takes. Thank you both for your efforts.

[George Jones]

Great post by our favorite deviate.  

 

I would add one item to the pre-match approach.  The toughest challenge is on staff shoot day where the problems/weaknesses first get identified.  The issues can be minimized/avoided by having the entire stage staff shoot together and be on the squad which shoots their stage first.  That gives them ownership right away and makes it more likely that any problems will be identified on the first go round, not later in the day when it adds additional problems (reshoots, etc)..

For example:  10 stages and 5 squads (adjust as necessary) -  The staffs for Stage 1 and 2 shoot on the same squad and start on Stage 1.  The staffs for Stage 3 and 4 shoot together and start on Stage 3.  Etc, etc.

I have used this approach for years and found this to be effective.

The only complaint you might get is that working staff may not be able to shoot with their friends.  Might make for better focus, however.

Just my .02

 

[ima45dv8]

2 hours ago, George Jones said:

Great post by our favorite deviate.  

 

I would add one item to the pre-match approach.  The toughest challenge is on staff shoot day where the problems/weaknesses first get identified.  The issues can be minimized/avoided by having the entire stage staff shoot together and be on the squad which shoots their stage first.  That gives them ownership right away and makes it more likely that any problems will be identified on the first go round, not later in the day when it adds additional problems (reshoots, etc)..

For example:  10 stages and 5 squads (adjust as necessary) -  The staffs for Stage 1 and 2 shoot on the same squad and start on Stage 1.  The staffs for Stage 3 and 4 shoot together and start on Stage 3.  Etc, etc.

I have used this approach for years and found this to be effective.

The only complaint you might get is that working staff may not be able to shoot with their friends.  Might make for better focus, however.

Just my .02

 

That's a logical and excellent idea.

[pjb45]

On 11/14/2018 at 1:30 PM, jhgtyre said:

I just checked this forum looking for discussions about RO's that decide to "interpret" the start position as something other than what is specifically laid out in the WSB.  A perfect example occurred at a recent match where the WSB said, "Standing in Shooting Area heels touching X's, hands relaxed at sides."  The RO made everyone stand with feet pointed squarely downrange, shoulders square to the backstop and nose pointing directly at the backstop.  This is NOT what the WSB stated and I was a bit annoyed that the crew felt the need to exert their own will in this situation.  In the end I didn't care enough to argue and I let it slide, which is my own failing, but I was curious about the right of the RO to force shooters into their "interpretation" of the start position so I came here.

Does the rule book define 'facing down range'?  If so, then if the WSB says facing downrange, heels......., then the CRO/RO was probably correct in making everyone do the same start procedure. 

 

If the WSB does not say facing downrange but the CRO/RO made everyone do the same, then I would suggest it was valid.  The emphasis is on making it consistent for every shooter IMO.  The rule book is your friend.

 

I know I have experienced stages where palms is explicitly articulated in the WSB.  Where it says hands touching, there is more flexibility as to allow just the fingers touching the Xs.

[pjb45]

George,

I am not sure the entire staff of the Desert Classic could do what you suggest.  Your suggestion seems reasonable but sometimes reality interferes.

[MemphisMechanic]

18 hours ago, pjb45 said:

Does the rule book define 'facing down range'?  If so, then if the WSB says facing downrange, heels......., then the CRO/RO was probably correct in making everyone do the same start procedure. 

 

If the WSB does not say facing downrange but the CRO/RO made everyone do the same, then I would suggest it was valid.  The emphasis is on making it consistent for every shooter IMO.  The rule book is your friend.

 

I know I have experienced stages where palms is explicitly articulated in the WSB.  Where it says hands touching, there is more flexibility as to allow just the fingers touching the Xs.

 

Honestly, I think the majority of us don’t have a problem with start position zealots as long as everyone else started in the exact same position.

 

The objective is fairness. If the same guy is requiring every single shooter to hold their tongue just right and focus their eyes on a specific spot? I really don’t mind too much.

 

It’s stupid, it’s annoying, and he should simply require you to adhere to the most liberal/literal version of the WSB... but as long as it’s consistently incorrect, at least it’s fair.

 

Being consistent and fair to every single shooter is the true objetive of the rulebook, the WSB, and the CRO/RO team.

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by MemphisMechanic

[jhgtyre]

18 hours ago, pjb45 said:

Does the rule book define 'facing down range'?  If so, then if the WSB says facing downrange, heels......., then the CRO/RO was probably correct in making everyone do the same start procedure.

 

No, it just said 

18 hours ago, pjb45 said:

"Standing in Shooting Area heels touching X's, hands relaxed at sides." 

 

So when the RO's shot the stage and this guy wasn't present to make them all start his way what happened?  I don't know but I'm guessing they followed the WSB.  I'd like the same opportunity.

[DKorn]

38 minutes ago, jhgtyre said:

 

No, it just said 

 

So when the RO's shot the stage and this guy wasn't present to make them all start his way what happened?  I don't know but I'm guessing they followed the WSB.  I'd like the same opportunity.

 

The problem is the whole “default start position” thing. A lot of people are unclear on when it applies, how much of it applies, etc. 

[BritinUSA]

Correct, there was a whole thread about that default start position. It seems to cause more confusion than it solves. I think it would be better if the WSB had to always specify the start position/location rather than try to rely on defaults, especially now that there are generally two start positions one each for Handgun and PCC.

[nasty618]

21 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

Being consistent and fair to every single shooter is the true objetive of the rulebook, the WSB, and the CRO/RO team

 

May i add "while correctly applying the rules" to that objective statement?  The reason i ask this is the following: recently witnessed an RO who was "consistently" making bad calls by scoring hard cover hits that touched the perforation line as "mikes" because the shot "didnt break the line".  A shooter respectfully challenged that call and after pointing out that it does not need to break the line, asked to pull out the overlay... RO initially refused to do that  - didnt have one .   The shooter had to go get his own overlay.  After looking carefully at the shot, RO reluctantly adjusted the call and gave the shooter an A hit instead of a  miss. 

 

However, his final reasoning was "I've scored everyone consistently this way"... perhaps implying that shooter gained an unfair advantage by challenging a bad call? I dont know.

[CHA-LEE]

24 minutes ago, nasty618 said:

 

May i add "while correctly applying the rules" to that objective statement?  The reason i ask this is the following: recently witnessed an RO who was "consistently" making bad calls by scoring hard cover hits that touched the perforation line as "mikes" because the shot "didnt break the line".  A shooter respectfully challenged that call and after pointing out that it does not need to break the line, asked to pull out the overlay... RO initially refused to do that  - didnt have one .   The shooter had to go get his own overlay.  After looking carefully at the shot, RO reluctantly adjusted the call and gave the shooter an A hit instead of a  miss. 

 

However, his final reasoning was "I've scored everyone consistently this way"... perhaps implying that shooter gained an unfair advantage by challenging a bad call? I dont know.

 

This falls under "Do the job right or don't do the job" situation. Some people who like to RO will never make the effort to understand the rules properly for whatever reason. Its up to the MD or RM to weed these people out before or during the match by simply having them prove their officiating skills or observe their craft. There is nothing wrong with telling someone who wants to RO but doesn't have the proper skill set "Thanks, but No Thanks".

[MemphisMechanic]

1 hour ago, nasty618 said:

 

May i add "while correctly applying the rules" to that objective statement?

 

You may. 

 

I might also add that he’s a double failure because he seems to have an “out to get the shooter” attitude.

 

I assess penalties only when I’m sure it’s warranted, and only where the rulebook says they were earned. “That Guy” seems to have the attitude of a cop with his radar gun out, who needs to make his quota for the day. They’re on the hunt for the tiniest errors to pounce upon.

 

Quote

 "I've scored everyone consistently this way"...

 

“Well then you’ve been dicking everyone over. Knock it off.”

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by MemphisMechanic