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

Recommended Posts

There was a DQ at a recent level 1 match which I don’t think was handled correctly.

 

The shooter had just shot around the right side of a wall, was moving right to left, and a little forward, and reloading while moving. The RO had been on the shooter’s right rear while he was shooting, and was moving to cross behind the shooter, and be on his left side, as the next position was shooting around the left side of a wall.

 

I was on deck, standing uprange and left of the shooter and RO. When the shooter reloaded, I saw muzzle get close to the 180. I am not sure if it went past or not, but it looked close.

 

STOP! STOP! STOP! – Called out from behind me.

 

The shooter stopped, and the RO had the shooter unload and holster. The other person came forward and told the RO the shooter had broken the 180, and needed to be stopped. The RO said he did not see it, but the other person was insistent “it was bad” and “definitely a DQ”. The shooter was newer, and accepted the DQ.

 

10.5.2 clearly describes the condition for the DQ, but does not specifically state who can issue the DQ. 10.3.2 just says the RO must record the reason for the DQ.

 

IMHO, if the RO did not see the violation, and there was a question if it occurred or not, there should not have been a DQ, and the shooter should have been given a reshoot.

 

Any opinions on if this was handled correctly are appreciated.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna say the rules say that's incorrect. 

 

But after having a gun pointed at me last weekend on the second string of 18-08 while I was loading mags and not RO'ing, (also screaming "STOP!!!" from the peanut gallery) I'd say common sense prevails. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

my understanding is a D/Q can only be given by the RO's working that stage at that time or  a match official.  if anyone in the peanut gallery could D/Q anyone then that would result in anarchy.    I have seen many times a guy should have been D/Q ,but if the RO did not see it, it did not happen.  

Edited by Sandbagger123
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ClarenceOveur said:

There was a DQ at a recent level 1 match which I don’t think was handled correctly.

 

The shooter had just shot around the right side of a wall, was moving right to left, and a little forward, and reloading while moving. The RO had been on the shooter’s right rear while he was shooting, and was moving to cross behind the shooter, and be on his left side, as the next position was shooting around the left side of a wall.

 

I was on deck, standing uprange and left of the shooter and RO. When the shooter reloaded, I saw muzzle get close to the 180. I am not sure if it went past or not, but it looked close.

 

STOP! STOP! STOP! – Called out from behind me.

 

The shooter stopped, and the RO had the shooter unload and holster. The other person came forward and told the RO the shooter had broken the 180, and needed to be stopped. The RO said he did not see it, but the other person was insistent “it was bad” and “definitely a DQ”. The shooter was newer, and accepted the DQ.

 

10.5.2 clearly describes the condition for the DQ, but does not specifically state who can issue the DQ. 10.3.2 just says the RO must record the reason for the DQ.

 

IMHO, if the RO did not see the violation, and there was a question if it occurred or not, there should not have been a DQ, and the shooter should have been given a reshoot.

 

Any opinions on if this was handled correctly are appreciated.

 

I think 7.1.1 is what establishes that only the RO can issue any penalty (including a DQ): 

======

Range Officer(“RO”) –issues range commands, oversees competitor compliance with the written stage briefing and closely monitors safe competitor action.

He also declares the time, scores, and penalties achieved by each competitor and verifies that these are correctly recorded on the competitor’s score sheet (under the authority of a Chief Range Officer and Range Master)

====== 

 

So, the shooter should have been given a reshoot due to the Peanut Gallery interference and no DQ since there wasn't an RO who observed a 180 violation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I expect to hear anything from anyone but the RO running me is if there is a need for stoppage and reset of a prop or something dangerous. Like a rattle snake. Based on how you described the situation, this "guy" was making calls from the nose bleed seats.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HCH said:

I'm gonna say the rules say that's incorrect. 

 

But after having a gun pointed at me last weekend on the second string of 18-08 while I was loading mags and not RO'ing, (also screaming "STOP!!!" from the peanut gallery) I'd say common sense prevails. 

 

I completely agree with anyone calling stop if they see an unsafe condition. Also agree with the RO having the shooter unload and holster, then seeing what happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, JohnStewart said:

I think 7.1.1 is what establishes that only the RO can issue any penalty (including a DQ): 

======

Range Officer(“RO”) –issues range commands, oversees competitor compliance with the written stage briefing and closely monitors safe competitor action.

He also declares the time, scores, and penalties achieved by each competitor and verifies that these are correctly recorded on the competitor’s score sheet (under the authority of a Chief Range Officer and Range Master)

====== 

 

So, the shooter should have been given a reshoot due to the Peanut Gallery interference and no DQ since there wasn't an RO who observed a 180 violation.

 

I was looking in the interference/coaching/DQ sections, but did not find anything which directly applied.

 

7.1.1 specifically says the RO assigns penalties, which a DQ definitely is.

 

Thanks for the rule reference.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The call was not correct and the RO could have even given the interfering shooter a procedural penalty per 8.6.2. However, at L1 matches a lot of things go, including having non-certified officials and all sorts of incorrect commands and procedures. It's not right, but it's just the fact of life. Think of L1 matches as training for the RO-s as much as they are training for the competitors. 

 

Personally, I would not allow a competitor to interfere like that and would award a reshoot. There is a reason RO is responsible for the stage... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

imho, not necessarily a cut and dried situation. At our local matches where we switch off RO/scorekeeper duties, I would respect and accept an RO call from any experienced and certified RO on the squad that was in a position to see it. OTOH, if there were differences of opinion, I would say we're not 100% certain so no DQ. We have actually had similar things happen, and also the inverse, where the RO called 'stop', but other experienced RO's on the squad had a better view and disagreed. Bottom line for us is that local matches, safety is everyone's responsibility, but we understand that we're not going to have the same consistent level of scrutiny as at an area match with 3 RO's permanently assigned to the stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

imho, not necessarily a cut and dried situation. At our local matches where we switch off RO/scorekeeper duties, I would respect and accept an RO call from any experienced and certified RO on the squad that was in a position to see it. OTOH, if there were differences of opinion, I would say we're not 100% certain so no DQ. We have actually had similar things happen, and also the inverse, where the RO called 'stop', but other experienced RO's on the squad had a better view and disagreed. Bottom line for us is that local matches, safety is everyone's responsibility, but we understand that we're not going to have the same consistent level of scrutiny as at an area match with 3 RO's permanently assigned to the stage.

agree 
IMHO:  as this is a level 1 local match, there is not an assigned RO responsible for the stage.  every experienced RO on the squad is responsible and I'd go as far to say: has a duty to help out with the stage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Forest Gump noted, S#$+/=(#$(+ it happens. 
if the caller was a match officer-no problem as far as the rules. 
if not, wrong call.

peanut gallery calls should not be allowed, stoppage is grounds for a reshoot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JohnStewart said:

I think 7.1.1 is what establishes that only the RO can issue any penalty (including a DQ): 

======

Range Officer(“RO”) –issues range commands, oversees competitor compliance with the written stage briefing and closely monitors safe competitor action.

He also declares the time, scores, and penalties achieved by each competitor and verifies that these are correctly recorded on the competitor’s score sheet (under the authority of a Chief Range Officer and Range Master)

====== 

 

So, the shooter should have been given a reshoot due to the Peanut Gallery interference and no DQ since there wasn't an RO who observed a 180 violation.

 

Agree. Also the 2nd RO is the Score Keeper and is qualified to issue penalties, they should always be on the opposite of the RO running the shooter, at a wider view. RO's can't catch everything and can't be everywhere. But anyone on the Squad should not consider themselves RO's at the Start/End of any Stage that is currently running. A first warning should be first given to the Squad. Then unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lastcat said:

 

Agree. Also the 2nd RO is the Score Keeper and is qualified to issue penalties, they should always be on the opposite of the RO running the shooter, at a wider view. RO's can't catch everything and can't be everywhere. But anyone on the Squad should not consider themselves RO's at the Start/End of any Stage that is currently running. A first warning should be first given to the Squad. Then unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

Ideally, the score keeper would opposite of the RO, and have a different view of the shooter during the course of fire, but frequently the scorekeeper is scoring targets, and sees even less than the RO.

 

I understand this is done to reduce the amount of time spent on the stage by each squad, and it is allowed by 9.6.2: "The Range Official responsible for a course of fire may stipulate that the scoring process will begin while a competitor is actually completing a course of fire....", however it usually eliminates the score keeper from assisting the RO, as they will be behind the RO. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ClarenceOveur said:

Ideally, the score keeper would opposite of the RO, and have a different view of the shooter during the course of fire, but frequently the scorekeeper is scoring targets, and sees even less than the RO.

 

I understand this is done to reduce the amount of time spent on the stage by each squad, and it is allowed by 9.6.2: "The Range Official responsible for a course of fire may stipulate that the scoring process will begin while a competitor is actually completing a course of fire....", however it usually eliminates the score keeper from assisting the RO, as they will be behind the RO. 

 

 

 

Yes, opposite, as I stated. Sometimes when they can and to keep things moving, they can back score. Sometimes they can't. Start downrange for instance. And sometimes, they aren't even trained, just a volunteer. We need more RO's where I shoot. Sometimes, it's only 2 of us 🤖. Oh well, it's all fun, best Sport to be involved in, even as a Super Senior 👨‍🦽

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Scorekeeper" isn't a job title. The person with the scoring device is also a Range Officer. They have duties during the course of fire and should be watching the shooter. In addition to being another set of eyes on the shooter, they are responsible for keeping track of target engagement and looking for foot faults. The timer RO is primarily responsible for watching the firearm.

 

Split scoring, common at level 1 matches, is best handled by designating a 3rd range officer that can follow the shooter down range with the timer RO. This provides the second set of eyes on the shooter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RO: Continue with Stop / ULSC.  If he didn't see a violation and no other RO working the stage did, either, it's a reshoot and a warning to the competitor calling STOP from behind the line to let the RO's do the RO'ing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...