Bumps to Open - Magazine from Table

[Sarge]

10 hours ago, 1time said:

How many times should DNROI rule on it. It was questioned years ago. They ruled on it and then they added to the rule book. Now with it written in black and white you still don't get it. I am not offering an opinion. I am telling you what was already ruled on. You are being stubborn and sticking to your guns despite several people pointing out that you are wrong. Maybe you guys are remembering a rule set from 2011. It sounds like all but 1 of your RM/RMI need retraining. This isn't the first time you ignored rule changes/clarification. You did the same thing after the ruling that sticks don't exist and you ruled a mike because "sticks are hard cover". This was done to a new shooter that didn't know to appeal your incorrect decision.  You are the Area 5 director charged with being a RM at the Area 5 match. You owe the shooters better than this. I know you do a hard job for no pay but no one is forcing you to do it. If you lack the desire to stay current, pass the torch.

Now you are just being a jackass. And an ill informed jackass at that. And, for the record I strongly disagree with Gary on the call made. I asked DNROI about it the next day in an email. I got no response.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Sarge

[1time]

1 hour ago, Sarge said:

Now you are just being a jackass. And an ill informed jackass at that. And, for the record I strongly disagree with Gary on the call made. I asked DNROI about it the next day in an email. I got no response.

I apologize for being a jackass and more so for being ill informed. I would appreciate it if you would correct my misinformation. Here or a PM works.

[Gary Stevens]

43 minutes ago, 1time said:

I apologize for being a jackass and more so for being ill informed. I would appreciate it if you would correct my misinformation. Here or a PM works.

 

First point I haven't been Area 5 Director for over a decade or more.

 

I have never called target sticks hard cover.

 

When and what match did I do as you claimed?

 

Finally, (I hope) I make calls based on my best understanding of the rules. My attempt to get clarification on this should be evidence of that. If we disagree on a call we simply disagree and I am always open to be corrected,  I cast no aspersions on the person who disagrees with me.

 

I recently took a position that you can't use 10.6 to force a shooter to help reset the stage. After consultations with DNROI he said that a strict reading of the rule would probably allow a DQ. He went on to say that it may not survive an arbitration and would be a "dick move" if it was done. I was wrong legally, but IMO not morally.

[bret]

52 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

 

I recently took a position that you can't use 10.6 to force a shooter to help reset the stage. After consultations with DNROI he said that a strict reading of the rule would probably allow a DQ. He went on to say that it may not survive an arbitration and would be a "dick move" if it was done. I was wrong legally, but IMO not morally.

Why cant you DQ someone for failure to follow the reasonable command of Match Officials if they refuse to reset?

 

In arbitration they should lose unless they can show a rule that says they don't have to listen to match officials or a rule saying they don't have to reset.

 

If the shooter doesn't help reset, what happens if the r.o. doesn't call them up to shoot?

 

Just skip over them and not run them, that should teach them to help reset.

[1time]

20 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

 

First point I haven't been Area 5 Director for over a decade or more.

 

I have never called target sticks hard cover.

 

When and what match did I do as you claimed?

 

Finally, (I hope) I make calls based on my best understanding of the rules. My attempt to get clarification on this should be evidence of that. If we disagree on a call we simply disagree and I am always open to be corrected,  I cast no aspersions on the person who disagrees with me.

 

I recently took a position that you can't use 10.6 to force a shooter to help reset the stage. After consultations with DNROI he said that a strict reading of the rule would probably allow a DQ. He went on to say that it may not survive an arbitration and would be a "dick move" if it was done. I was wrong legally, but IMO not morally.

My apologizes. I found a website with the current date that had you listed as the Area 5 director. On second look, I should have known it was old by looking at the style on the page.

 

The hard cover was Area 6 and I believe it was 2007. You can say "that's been 12 years ago" but I'm trying to impress on you the lasting impression a call you make or back up makes on a shooter. It was his first Major match and the first words when I asked him if he knew you.

 

Sending an email to DNROI weeks after the match does not get that shooter his match fee's, travel expense, time off work and whatever else they needed to get back to the call. Typed response does not always translate but I gathered a "you can't tell me what to do" attitude from your responses here. I still don't understand exactly what your reason for the call was. You typed a response that appears to cover both of these shooters. The single stack shooter I don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion one way or the other, but I suspect that your call was correct or if anything, not drastic enough. The Production shooter incident is specifically covered in the rules which is why I asked you what you were looking at to make the call and you said it had been hashed out and you weren't doing it again. That leaves me no choice than to assume that you based your call on what you remember as "for a specific reason" which is no where in 5.4.2.1. In my opinion, if you are not sure that a shooter did something wrong or can argue the rule book from either side, they should get the benefit of the doubt until you are sure otherwise. It takes a pretty big leap to believe that 2 actions listed as examples are all inclusive.

 

With your example of not resetting, you didn't dq the guy and then ask 3 weeks later. You gave him the benefit of the doubt, which I believe is the right thing to do(even though I think people that won't reset should be pepper sprayed, lol).

 

[MikeBurgess]

35 minutes ago, 1time said:

My apologizes. I found a website with the current date that had you listed as the Area 5 director. On second look, I should have known it was old by looking at the style on the page.

 

The hard cover was Area 6 and I believe it was 2007. You can say "that's been 12 years ago" but I'm trying to impress on you the lasting impression a call you make or back up makes on a shooter. It was his first Major match and the first words when I asked him if he knew you.

 

Sending an email to DNROI weeks after the match does not get that shooter his match fee's, travel expense, time off work and whatever else they needed to get back to the call. Typed response does not always translate but I gathered a "you can't tell me what to do" attitude from your responses here. I still don't understand exactly what your reason for the call was. You typed a response that appears to cover both of these shooters. The single stack shooter I don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion one way or the other, but I suspect that your call was correct or if anything, not drastic enough. The Production shooter incident is specifically covered in the rules which is why I asked you what you were looking at to make the call and you said it had been hashed out and you weren't doing it again. That leaves me no choice than to assume that you based your call on what you remember as "for a specific reason" which is no where in 5.4.2.1. In my opinion, if you are not sure that a shooter did something wrong or can argue the rule book from either side, they should get the benefit of the doubt until you are sure otherwise. It takes a pretty big leap to believe that 2 actions listed as examples are all inclusive.

 

With your example of not resetting, you didn't dq the guy and then ask 3 weeks later. You gave him the benefit of the doubt, which I believe is the right thing to do(even though I think people that won't reset should be pepper sprayed, lol).

 

You seem pretty upset that someone has asked for clarification from the top and is not just taking your interpretation as gospel. you may want to apply to be DNROI so your opinion (if you can convince a majority of the BOD) will be the one that matters.

 

 You seem to have a lot of hate for Garry coming through in you'r posts, not sure if its intentional or not, but either way he is the one that is coming out of the exchange looking better.

 

[Gary Stevens]

I did RM Area 6 once I believe. I have no memory of a hard cover stick call, but I will say that at one time target sticks were considered as hard cover, so who knows. That particular issue was cleaned up with a clear rule but I can't remember exactly when.

 

A Range Master has to believe in his or her positions that they take. I answer to the DNROI ultimately. While I will always listen to opposing points of view, study the situation and revaluate a call, at some point I Ihave to take a stand. I can't ask for a show of hands from the squad for an answer, so I default to the DNROI for guidance. There is no malice involved.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Gary Stevens

[1time]

2 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

You seem pretty upset that someone has asked for clarification from the top and is not just taking your interpretation as gospel. you may want to apply to be DNROI so your opinion (if you can convince a majority of the BOD) will be the one that matters.

 

 You seem to have a lot of hate for Garry coming through in you'r posts, not sure if its intentional or not, but either way he is the one that is coming out of the exchange looking better.

 

No interest in DNROI and for sure no hate for Gary or anyone else. I'm never sure I am making my point in type and tend to over explain what I'm saying. Probably leads to me seeming more upset than I am. I think this conversation would have gone much better in person.

[1time]

47 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

I did RM Area 6 once I believe. I have no memory of a hard cover stick call, but I will say that at one time target sticks were considered as hard cover, so who knows. That particular issue was cleaned up with a clear rule but I can't remember exactly when.

 

A Range Master has to believe in his or her positions that they take. I answer to the DNROI ultimately. While I will always listen to opposing points of view, study the situation and revaluate a call, at some point I Ihave to take a stand. I can't ask for a show of hands from the squad for an answer, so I default to the DNROI for guidance. There is no malice involved.

Fair enough. I apologize if I came across as being angry with you or hating you. As I said to another poster, I think my side of this conversation would have come across better in person.

[Gary Stevens]

27 minutes ago, 1time said:

Fair enough. I apologize if I came across as being angry with you or hating you. As I said to another poster, I think my side of this conversation would have come across better in person.

 

Fair enough all around

Edited September 26, 2019 by Gary Stevens

[Gooldylocks]

SS shooter: either no penalty or shoot for no score. I see no support for a bump to open. Personally I would say no penalty.

Production: terrible call not supported by the rulebook.

[IL-SIG]

I find it curious that after several weeks we are still waiting on direction from DNROI. Very disappointing!! They need to do their job and support those who are officiating matches at every level. 

 

How many matches since Area 5 have taken place that this rule was interpreted one way or the other with no clear direction from DNROI? That is a shame. Because while good friends (as many of those on this exchange are) can certainly disagree in a professional way, this would all be cleared up if DNROI would live up to their obligation to the members of USPSA and provide clear guidance on this issue. 

 

While Gary and I disagree on this specific issue (I was at the match and Gary and I spoke about it in real-time), I certainly respect his many years of experience and knowledge of our sport. In addition, as a CRO, I have learned a lot from Gary (thank you!). Further, he has volunteered countless hours to support thousands of shooters whose only contribution is paying their match fee and shooting a match, but never volunteering to be an RO, a CRO, a RM, or an MD.

 

I don’t know what it will take to get DNROI to respond, but for the betterment of our sport, let’s hope it doesn’t take much longer. 

 

Just my opinion. Other smart people may disagree with my views. 

[a matt]

On September 11, 2019 at 11:26 PM, stick said:

Production shooter got hosed on the rules.  But seriously, how much arguing could he realistically do before he got DQ'd for unsportsmanlike conduct?

I seen some heightened discussions so I would think a good bit, If he knows how to argue without going all Anitfa.  Cursing, getting in someone's face or goIng nuckin futs on an RO or anyone at a match, might get someone more then they originally had in mind.  I would think after the MD was called and the argument continued he would be told to drop it or get the F off the range.  Drive safe. 

[louu]

I was recently asked by a friend as to why I don't shoot uspsa anymore... 

[motosapiens]

On 9/26/2019 at 10:39 PM, IL-SIG said:

I find it curious that after several weeks we are still waiting on direction from DNROI. Very disappointing!! They need to do their job and support those who are officiating matches at every level. 

 

Perhaps he was doing his job and supporting those who were officiating at last week's national championships.

[Sarge]

5 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

Perhaps he was doing his job and supporting those who were officiating at last week's national championships.

DNROI received two emails from me the day after the match ended. One was regarding an arbitration form which was answered almost immediately. The one regarding these bumps has yet to be answered.

[DKorn]

1 hour ago, Sarge said:

DNROI received two emails from me the day after the match ended. One was regarding an arbitration form which was answered almost immediately. The one regarding these bumps has yet to be answered.

 

It’s possible that he wanted to confer with the various RMs/RMIs before committing to an answer. I’ve had it happen before where I get a quick initial response from him and then a more detailed (and sometimes different) answer after he’s had time to discuss it with others. 

[Gary Stevens]

Well I just received an answer to my e mail.

 

I was right on the putting a mag in the holster call.

 

i was wrong on the magazine in the pocket call. I will adjust my thinking on that situation in the future.

 

i did point out that there is considerable confusion among the RM and RMI group about this situation. Hopefully that will be cleaned up shortly.

 

My apologizes to the shooter involved, but that is of little consequence now.

 

Gary

Edited October 14, 2019 by Gary Stevens

[ChuckS]

22 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

Well I just received an answer to my e mail.

 

I was right on the putting a mag in the holster call.

 

i was wrong on the magazine in the pocket call. I will adjust my thinking on that situation in the future.

 

i did point out that there is considerable confusion among the RM and RMI group about this situation. Hopefully that will be cleaned up shortly.

 

My apologizes to the shooter involved, but that is of little consequence now.

 

Gary

Gary,

The conversation has sort of wandered around. Could you please clarify as to what exactly was the "holster call" and "pocket call"?

 

Thanks!

Chuck

 

[Gary Stevens]

Sure.

 

Shooter 1. On an unloaded gun start with all mags stored under table, after the start signal retrieved a mag and stored it in his empty holster. That was illegal according to DNROI.

 

Shooter 2. Same scenario, but stored one or more mags in a front pocket. DNROI says this is legal, regardless of Division equipment rules, as long as they are not used. Somewhat of a catch 22 as you need more than one mag to finish, but can't use those you put in your front pocket.

[ChuckS]

16 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

Sure.

 

Shooter 1. On an unloaded gun start with all mags stored under table, after the start signal retrieved a mag and stored it in his empty holster. That was illegal according to DNROI.

 

Shooter 2. Same scenario, but stored one or more mags in a front pocket. DNROI says this is legal, regardless of Division equipment rules, as long as they are not used. Somewhat of a catch 22 as you need more than one mag to finish, but can't use those you put in your front pocket.

Thanks!

[Southpaw]

6 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

Shooter 1. On an unloaded gun start with all mags stored under table, after the start signal retrieved a mag and stored it in his empty holster. That was illegal according to DNROI.

 

So what's the penalty for doing this?  And if the answer is a bump to Open, then what happens if an Open shooter does this?

[DKorn]

7 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

Well I just received an answer to my e mail.

 

I was right on the putting a mag in the holster call.

 

i was wrong on the magazine in the pocket call. I will adjust my thinking on that situation in the future.

 

i did point out that there is considerable confusion among the RM and RMI group about this situation. Hopefully that will be cleaned up shortly.

 

My apologizes to the shooter involved, but that is of little consequence now.

 

Gary

 

Thanks for the update on what DNROI thinks of these 2 calls. 

[NickBlasta]

11 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

 

So what's the penalty for doing this?  And if the answer is a bump to Open, then what happens if an Open shooter does this?

 

Gear violation during the COF, the relevant rule covers both, which is that if you're not shooting open you go to open, and if you're shooting open you now shoot for no score.

[Gary Stevens]

1 minute ago, NickBlasta said:

 

Gear violation during the COF, the relevant rule covers both, which is that if you're not shooting open you go to open, and if you're shooting open you now shoot for no score.

 

Thats what I would say, but I'm only batting 50 percent so who knows.