Council after the COF

[broadside72]

At a local match with newer shooters (I'm just now approaching one year in this game myself) I might mention something to them after the fact if they get really close to 180 only so they learn and if I do comment I will usually discuss the circumstances that caused it like backing around a corner so they can better assess the situation next time and be more conscious of those situations as they continue to shoot matches.

If done right, I don't mind someone commenting if I get close after my run, but I usually ask when/where I did it so I can make mental note of the conditions and improve myself.

At walk through we as a squad will often look for potential 180 "traps" and those that run the timer or tablet keep an eye on those areas especially. We don't want to DQ anyone but rules are rules.

[Darqusoull13]

1 hour ago, CHA-LEE said:

I like to think of it from this perspective. The mental game is a huge component in the grand scheme of things when it comes to performing in an optimal manner. As an RO I want to expose every competitor to the same stage experience. This obviously includes the normal requirements like running the stage properly, officiating effectively, and that kind of stuff. But it also includes not manufacturing a scenario that could circumvent the competitors mental game before, during or after their stage run. For example, a shooter could come really close to breaking the 180 on your stage, you give them a warning about it after their run, then they donate time on future stages because they are worried about breaking the 180. That to me is a huge disservice to the shooters potential mental game through the rest of the match.

 

The practical shooting sports are adult games with adult rules and consequences. There is no need for warnings, helmets, training wheels, air bags, or seat belts to attempt to keep people from doing the wrong thing. The rules define what the limits of the game are and what should be done if those limits are broken. You break the rules, you get rewarded accordingly. You don't break the rules, keep on keeping on. Does it really matter if a shooter gun is pointed right on the 180 or at the 160? Neither are breaking the 180. If the shooter breaks the 180, then they get DQed accordingly. If the RO doesn't have the backbone or aptitude to make a 180.1 degree or beyond DQ call, then they shouldn't be ROing. 

 

The reality is that for most of the common DQ offenses that newer shooters perform need to be learned the "Hard Way" before they really get it. You can warn someone proactively endlessly before they do it and they won't truly those warnings until they pay the price directly for screwing it up. For most, lessons can only really be learned the hard way. 

I 100% agree with you and Rowdy at level 2 and above matches. There's a rule book and it is not necessary for a RO to say anything other than the range commands. 

However, at local matches at times we have first time shooters that come unknowingly very close to breaking a rule without realizing it. Let's say they have no idea how to reload right to left as a correct handed shooter and are clearly walking cautiously but come to about 175 degrees in a direction they obviously didn't mean to point the gun. I think that's a situation where it's appropriate to have "the talk" and explain to the newbie how to be safe. Nobody wants to get s#!t on their first match, so obviously it's a polite conversation. The after stage talk is not as useful as the pre-stage seasoned shooter to new shooter talk about how to perform a retreat or how to reload should be happening. Objectively we have found that having an experienced shooter talk a new shooter through the stage and how to safely move BEFORE the stage is far more effective than an after stage heart to heart. 

[CHA-LEE]

I have no problems with a fellow shooter on the squad taking a new shooter under their wing during the match to walk them through stages or giving them pre/post stage run advice or warnings. I actually encourage that "New Shooter Buddy Up" situation as the MD at my match. But that is not the same as the RO being that person to provide advice. The way I see it, once the shooter steps up to the line and "Make Ready" is given by the RO, its time for people to put on their big boy pants and solve the stage on their own within the bounds of the rules. Realistically, if a new shooter has zero concept of the safety rules, then they shouldn't be there anyway right?

[Hi-Power Jack]

1 hour ago, CHA-LEE said:

 if a new shooter has zero concept of safety rules, they shouldn't be there ?

 

That means new shooters should have to demonstrate a working knowledge of

the rules before they shoot.

 

My original club (30 years ago) required an all-day class on the rules of USPSA

(actually IPSC back then).    Great idea - but I don't see that in action at the new

clubs I'm currently shooting at.     

[broadside72]

4 minutes ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

 

That means new shooters should have to demonstrate a working knowledge of

the rules before they shoot.

 

My original club (30 years ago) required an all-day class on the rules of USPSA

(actually IPSC back then).    Great idea - but I don't see that in action at the new

clubs I'm currently shooting at.     

 

My local club has a new shooter course required for all first time shooters at the club, unless you can provide proof of satisfactory safety (several sanctioned matches, etc). I think it is a good idea. But even then, some people are DQ'd from that squad.

[pskys2]

15 hours ago, Lee Cabana said:

At level 1 matches I do this.  The first nationals I worked, I had a similar situation happen - I discretely let a sponsored shooter know after the COF that he had come right to the 180 - he didn't appreciate it.  I no longer do this at nationals - 

Yep, have to be careful of personalities and attitudes.  Last thing I need is to create a situation.

[Poppa Bear]

I can see it for the newer shooters who are still working on stage awareness and muzzle control.  Myself I do a number of things without conscious thought because I have a lot of matches under my belt along with 30 plus years of shooting.   I will trail the gun behind me as I turn to run up range.  I will pull the gun towards my body as I move around a wall.  I will hold the gun down and to my right as my left hand comes up to open a door or port cover.  During a stage walk through, if the shots are approaching the 180 area I tend to find some form of a mark or terrain feature that I can quickly identify just to ensure I am safe.  These are just some of the things I do on a subconscious level when I am shooting a stage.

 

It transfers to my daily life also:  

 

I will place my finger beside the trigger on a cordless drill when I finish driving a screw or drilling a hole.

 

I avoid sweeping myself as I move the cordless drill around.

 

My CCW and some of my common tools are in the same location on my belt so I holster things without having to look, it is just by feel/repetition.

 

 

[IVC]

The problem with 180 is that it depends on two personal calls: (1) where exactly 180 is, and (2) whether the muzzle crossed it. 

 

These are not clear-cut observations. In sports, where referees make calls, they get enough of very close calls wrong when analyzed on video review, yet they are all very close and there is no way to know it without the review. Take for example offside calls in NHL. Last few years they've used video review if a goal is scored and, sure enough, some close calls were made the wrong way. This is with a dedicated linesman watching a painted line on the ice like a hawk. 

 

What makes you think that you can do better with something as difficult as the 180 when you don't even have a line on the ground and you yourself are good 20-30 degrees off of the 180? You are judging a very small angle and you have to take into account that you are not aligned with the fault line. Even a professional linesman who is always lined up with the gun and looking exactly down 180 couldn't get every call right. As an RO, you are not even close. This creates a "gray area" of "close to 180" where competitors simply shouldn't go.

 

The "I did it or I didn't do it" attitude suddenly changes to "you are pushing the limit and can get called by another RO." That's a fair warning and is covered in 8.6.1 which says: "...any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time." Whether you like it or not, it's explicitly allowed and it's a good thing. Notice that is says "at any time," so after completing COF it's still fair game. 

 

This also goes for the finger in the trigger guard - if I can't see it well, I might tell a competitor discretely that I couldn't see the finger and ask them to make it slightly more obvious next time. If someone got upset about it or gave me grief, there is 8.4.1 which in part says: "When loading, reloading or unloading during a course of fire, the competitor’s fingers must be visibly outside the trigger guard..." If I couldn't see it, it wasn't "visibly outside the trigger guard." No need to be a @#$! about it, but also no need to give the RO grief about something that is both well within his right to do and is a fair warning that can help you avoid getting DQ-ed. 

 

Rules might be black-and-white, but the life is not. If you want to wade into gray areas and use the "I didn't do anything wrong, I was in the clear," you might find that gray areas are called "gray" precisely because different people might see black and white differently. Be a Richard about it and chances are gray areas will become black for you. 

 

[IVC]

 

6 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

Does it really matter if a shooter gun is pointed right on the 180 or at the 160? Neither are breaking the 180. If the shooter breaks the 180, then they get DQed accordingly. If the RO doesn't have the backbone or aptitude to make a 180.1 degree or beyond DQ call, then they shouldn't be ROing. 

 

The question is not whether you have the backbone to make the call, but whether humans have the visual ability to make the call. If someone is pushing the 180, how well can you tell me the change in the angle of the gun during recoil? Or, how well is the 180 line itself defined? Take two people and have them pinpoint the 180 from a specific location and you'll get a few degree variation. Now add motion and running around with the competitor and the 180 becomes much more subjective. 

 

Yes, every shooter should be DQ-ed every time they break 180. Determining the violation in a narrow band of angles close to the limit is the problem, so we have a gray area. Warning a competitor about pushing the limit is simply telling him that his perception of 180 might not be the same as the RO's and that he is risking a DQ. This is explicitly allowed by the rules. 

 

So we indeed don't need "training wheels and helmets," but we also don't have to be snowflakes about simple warnings. If the competitor doesn't like it, he can just move on. For comparison, I don't participate in any sport or activity where I am not warned from time to time. It's part of life. 

[IVC]

A quick follow up on the 180 line itself.

 

A top competitor hosing a stage and staying clear of 180 is still staying clear of what he considers 180. What if this is a few degrees off from what the RO considers the 180? 

[gmantwo]

12 hours ago, IVC said:

The problem with 180 is that it depends on two personal calls: (1) where exactly 180 is, and (2) whether the muzzle crossed it. 

 

These are not clear-cut observations. In sports, where referees make calls, they get enough of very close calls wrong when analyzed on video review, yet they are all very close and there is no way to know it without the review. Take for example offside calls in NHL. Last few years they've used video review if a goal is scored and, sure enough, some close calls were made the wrong way. This is with a dedicated linesman watching a painted line on the ice like a hawk. 

 

What makes you think that you can do better with something as difficult as the 180 when you don't even have a line on the ground and you yourself are good 20-30 degrees off of the 180? You are judging a very small angle and you have to take into account that you are not aligned with the fault line. Even a professional linesman who is always lined up with the gun and looking exactly down 180 couldn't get every call right. As an RO, you are not even close. This creates a "gray area" of "close to 180" where competitors simply shouldn't go.

 

The "I did it or I didn't do it" attitude suddenly changes to "you are pushing the limit and can get called by another RO." That's a fair warning and is covered in 8.6.1 which says: "...any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time." Whether you like it or not, it's explicitly allowed and it's a good thing. Notice that is says "at any time," so after completing COF it's still fair game. 

 

This also goes for the finger in the trigger guard - if I can't see it well, I might tell a competitor discretely that I couldn't see the finger and ask them to make it slightly more obvious next time. If someone got upset about it or gave me grief, there is 8.4.1 which in part says: "When loading, reloading or unloading during a course of fire, the competitor’s fingers must be visibly outside the trigger guard..." If I couldn't see it, it wasn't "visibly outside the trigger guard." No need to be a @#$! about it, but also no need to give the RO grief about something that is both well within his right to do and is a fair warning that can help you avoid getting DQ-ed. 

 

Rules might be black-and-white, but the life is not. If you want to wade into gray areas and use the "I didn't do anything wrong, I was in the clear," you might find that gray areas are called "gray" precisely because different people might see black and white differently. Be a Richard about it and chances are gray areas will become black for you. 

 

Yep

[CHA-LEE]

IVC> Your point is valid that all 180 calls are based on what the RO(s) interpretation of the muzzle angle is at any given moment. That "RO Interpretation Factor" will never go away for the exact reasons you already defined. Its up to the competitors to determine how much they want to push the boundaries of pointing the muzzle close to or right on the 180 knowing that ultimately the Go/No Go call is being made by what the RO believes they saw. I have seen RO's issue 180 violations when the gun was in fact never pointed beyond the 180. I have also seen RO's Not issue 180 violations when the gun was pointed slightly beyond the 180. The way the USPSA rules are written a 180 call is 100% up to the RO to make and it can't be contested. This is a double edged sword as it leaves some opportunity for the incorrect call to be made and a shooter may be DQed when they didn't break the 180. But in the grand scheme of things there are a lot more people getting away with 181 - 185 degree 180 breaks where the RO can't make a solid call that the gun was pointed beyond the 180 or not. It is these scenarios where my comment of not having the backbone or aptitude to make the call comes into play.

 

Each competitor has the CHOICE in how much they want to push the boundaries when it comes to safety. As an RO, its not my place to warn a competitor for "getting close" to violating a safety rule. They either violated the rule, or they didn't. If competitors want to continually push the boundaries of the safety rules they will eventually learn that lesson the hard way. In the mean time, I am going to give each competitor the latitude to solve the stage puzzle however they want without interjecting what I feel as "Getting close to violating safety rules". Interjecting my feelings on the situation does nothing more than potentially circumvent their mental game on future stages and usually goes completely ignored. 

 

I totally get the need to babysit and spoon feed this stuff to new shooters. But once a shooter has a few matches of experience, then they should be treated like everyone else.      

[waktasz]

13 hours ago, IVC said:

The problem with 180 is that it depends on two personal calls: (1) where exactly 180 is, and (2) whether the muzzle crossed it. 

 

These are not clear-cut observations. In sports, where referees make calls, they get enough of very close calls wrong when analyzed on video review, yet they are all very close and there is no way to know it without the review. Take for example offside calls in NHL. Last few years they've used video review if a goal is scored and, sure enough, some close calls were made the wrong way. This is with a dedicated linesman watching a painted line on the ice like a hawk. 

 

What makes you think that you can do better with something as difficult as the 180 when you don't even have a line on the ground and you yourself are good 20-30 degrees off of the 180? You are judging a very small angle and you have to take into account that you are not aligned with the fault line. Even a professional linesman who is always lined up with the gun and looking exactly down 180 couldn't get every call right. As an RO, you are not even close. This creates a "gray area" of "close to 180" where competitors simply shouldn't go.

 

The "I did it or I didn't do it" attitude suddenly changes to "you are pushing the limit and can get called by another RO." That's a fair warning and is covered in 8.6.1 which says: "...any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time." Whether you like it or not, it's explicitly allowed and it's a good thing. Notice that is says "at any time," so after completing COF it's still fair game. 

 

This also goes for the finger in the trigger guard - if I can't see it well, I might tell a competitor discretely that I couldn't see the finger and ask them to make it slightly more obvious next time. If someone got upset about it or gave me grief, there is 8.4.1 which in part says: "When loading, reloading or unloading during a course of fire, the competitor’s fingers must be visibly outside the trigger guard..." If I couldn't see it, it wasn't "visibly outside the trigger guard." No need to be a @#$! about it, but also no need to give the RO grief about something that is both well within his right to do and is a fair warning that can help you avoid getting DQ-ed. 

 

Rules might be black-and-white, but the life is not. If you want to wade into gray areas and use the "I didn't do anything wrong, I was in the clear," you might find that gray areas are called "gray" precisely because different people might see black and white differently. Be a Richard about it and chances are gray areas will become black for you. 

 

 

 

In my intro to competition classes I teach for newbies, I discuss the 180 rule, and then encourage them to use a self imposed "150" rule, both as an added safety factor and to avoid a possible blown call by an RO. There's no need to use every inch of the 180 on the majority of stages. 

[gmantwo]

There's no need to use every inch of the 180 on the majority of stages. 

You’ve obviously never shot at CASA in Arkansas!

[IVC]

I wouldn't give a break to a person breaking the 180, but I would give them a break on my ability to determine the violation.If I cannot say with certainty that it happened, the break goes to the shooter, together with a warning. That's just me, though. 

[waktasz]

21 minutes ago, gmantwo said:

There's no need to use every inch of the 180 on the majority of stages. 

You’ve obviously never shot at CASA in Arkansas!

•  

 

A few stages at one club is the definition of not the majority of stages. 

[davsco]

19 hours ago, Darqusoull13 said:

The after stage talk is not as useful as the pre-stage seasoned shooter to new shooter talk about how to perform a retreat or how to reload should be happening. Objectively we have found that having an experienced shooter talk a new shooter through the stage and how to safely move BEFORE the stage is far more effective than an after stage heart to heart. 

yes, it never hurts to proactively point out some potential issues on a stage and frankly i think it's an excellent idea and i try to do that.

[rowdyb]

1 hour ago, gmantwo said:

You’ve obviously never shot at CASA in Arkansas!

•  

I have! hahahaha. I'm very used to shooting matches with targets at 175 degrees.

[BJB]

2 hours ago, gmantwo said:

There's no need to use every inch of the 180 on the majority of stages. 

You’ve obviously never shot at CASA in Arkansas!

•  

 Shot at CASA Sunday, good match as usual. There were stages which push you up close to the 180.  Not a 180 trap though by any means.  And, it's up to the shooter to be aware of his positioning and huge transitions, especially when shooting on the move.

[nasty618]

On 1/7/2019 at 10:05 PM, IVC said:

Quote

 

In sports, where referees make calls, they get enough of very close calls wrong when analyzed on video review, yet they are all very close and there is no way to know it without the review.

 
The question is not whether you have the backbone to make the call, but whether humans have the visual ability to make the call.

 
180 becomes much more subjective. 

 

 

I think these are very valid points.  I am sure this has been brought up more than once over the years.   Youtube search would show too many badly called 180 violations...  And while "photos, audio and/or video recordings are not accepted as evidence", i think with all the advances in technology over the last 6-7 years and common use of GoPros there is a case to be made at least at higher level matches to allow for video evidence review.  If not the final and decisive evidence, then at least for CRO/RM consideration or during arbitration?    

 

So why wouldn't the membership request (and leadership consider) amending that rule?  I've wondered about this for a while,  any insider info or opinions from the veterans of the sport?

[shred]

Borderline 180's are probably the most difficult calls to make on video.  Differences in camera positions, wide-angle lenses and the like may it extremely tough. 

That said, I'm still in favor of video review...

 

At locals I'll sometimes council newer shooters when they do something right-- "nice job staying off the 180 on that wrong-way reload" or "you kept your trigger finger out during that whole jam-fest".   It's easier now that video is everywhere but many shooters have no clear idea what their gun handling looks like when they're tearing through a stage.

 

[CHA-LEE]

Being an RO/CRO/MD/RM at matches in the past, I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to Video use in making calls. The "Pro's" for video evidence are clear just as long as the footage contains enough valid information to determine the right call. The "Con's" should also be clear in given the fact that many times the only footage of the incident may not provide the correct angle or vantage point to assist in enforcing or reversing a call.

 

As a competitor, I have seen video footage at matches where issues happened which would have completely reversed the call made by the match staff. I have also seen footage which would have justified a call that wasn't made. I would venture to say that if video footage was used regularly to confirm or deny specific circumstances, competitors would get the raw end of that deal way more than being vindicated. Basically put, competitors are getting away with way more than what they are getting wrongly accused of.

 

As match staff, I see using video footage to make calls as a huge potential to waste time. Reviewing video footage would quickly become a black hole in wasted time and resources that could easily derail the whole match schedule and put the whole match at risk of not getting done on time. This also assumes that the match staff have the equipment or technical expertise to deploy video cameras and recall video footage on each bay all day long. I can see how competitors would try to take advantage of the video footage tool to demand video evidence of every single issue or penalty they experience. I can see the following scenario happening.... Shooter has one foot touching outside shooting area and RO assesses a foot fault penalty. Shooter demands video evidence of it happening. A boat load of time is then wasted reviewing the footage to prove that it actually happened. The same could be said for shooting penalties like Extra Shots and stuff like that. Lastly, someone still needs to be the final authority on the call given all of the evidence provided. I wouldn't want to be put into a position where I am forced to use a random persons cell phone video footage of a situation which doesn't have the proper angles or evidence to increase the understand or evidence of the situation. Given that matches are primarily run by volunteers with bare bones crews to get it all done, there is no way that today's "Match Product" could facilitate reliable video footage and review.

 

Using video footage to support or deny RO calls is a very slippery slope. Do we really need that level of evidence to officiate the practical shooting sports effectively? I would venture to say that we don't. I would also like to point out that very few matches or clubs would even have the capability to deploy effective video coverage or review for their matches. At least not with the current level of entry fee and staff required to make it happen. Is the practical shooting customer base willing to double, triple, or quadruple the match fee just so they can have reliable video footage to use for officiating just in case it is needed? I for one wouldn't pay a premium for that.

 

Sometimes the RO Gods rule in your favor, sometimes they don't. That is part of the game we play today. I am fine with that reality.

[Hi-Power Jack]

4 hours ago, shred said:

Borderline 180's are probably the most difficult calls to make 

 

There shouldn't be ANY "borderline 180" calls.

 

The concept is safety and preventing shooters from  turning around to face the spectators with

a loaded gun in their hand.

 

If the target is at 179 degrees, and someone shoots it at 181 degrees, it

is ridiculous to call that as a "borderline 180".

 

181 degrees doesn't make anyone unsafe - 

 

The call should be a lot more flagrant that "borderline" before a "180" is called.

in My humble opinion.      

[Sarge]

2 minutes ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

There shouldn't be ANY "borderline 180" calls.

 

The concept is safety and preventing shooters from  turning around to face the spectators with

a loaded gun in their hand.

 

If the target is at 179 degrees, and someone shoots it at 181 degrees, it

is ridiculous to call that as a "borderline 180".

 

181 degrees doesn't make anyone unsafe - 

 

The call should be a lot more flagrant that "borderline" before a "180" is called.

in My humble opinion.      

Love ya’ Jack but 180 is 180.

[Hi-Power Jack]

11 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Love ya’ Jack but 180 is 180.

 

Love you too, Sarge, but not without a sextant it isn't.