USPSA RO certification

[NETim]

As for me, I obviously got the RO ticket from the class, but I learned how to RO from running squads with experienced RO's.   

 

Frankly, I don't know that anyone should sport the RO tag until they've actually run squads in an actual match after RO training.   

Edited November 9, 2021 by NETim

[Boomstick303]

6 hours ago, Bakerjd said:

My thought process is that these people seem to be asked over and over again because there is a limited ammount of people able to do it. 

 

 

It could be but, I think it has more to do with who wants to Volunteer, not the limited numbers.

 

Who I see at majors at the limited number I have been to is the same people who seem to be retired (therefore have the time), love the sport, or love to be an RO/CRO.  I think USPSA keeps a list of ROs/CROs that are more than willing to perform these duties (as in have RO/CRO many events before) and they are on the top of the list when requests to work a match comes in, and are given preferential treatment on who to staff for the match.  At least it seems this way.  

 

The people who work majors as an RO/CRO are different than most USPSA shooters, and making it easier for people to become ROs (which I do not disagree with by the way), is not going to change who volunteers there time to majors to perform those duties.  At least I do not think so, and I think many would agree.  Those people are already ROs and CROs for the most part.  It takes a great deal of sacrifice of personal time, at times, their own match performance, and sometimes personal financial impact (time away from work, paying for travel that exceeds the stipend from USPSA, etc.) to RO/CRO majors.  Not sure making it easier to be an RO/CRO would expand this pool of people a great deal.  

[RJH]

40 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

 

It could be but, I think it has more to do with who wants to Volunteer, not the limited numbers.

 

Who I see at majors at the limited number I have been to is the same people who seem to be retired (therefore have the time), love the sport, or love to be an RO/CRO.  I think USPSA keeps a list of ROs/CROs that are more than willing to perform these duties (as in have RO/CRO many events before) and they are on the top of the list when requests to work a match comes in, and are given preferential treatment on who to staff for the match.  At least it seems this way.  

 

The people who work majors as an RO/CRO are different than most USPSA shooters, and making it easier for people to become ROs (which I do not disagree with by the way), is not going to change who volunteers there time to majors to perform those duties.  At least I do not think so, and I think many would agree.  Those people are already ROs and CROs for the most part.  It takes a great deal of sacrifice of personal time, at times, their own match performance, and sometimes personal financial impact (time away from work, paying for travel that exceeds the stipend from USPSA, etc.) to RO/CRO majors.  Not sure making it easier to be an RO/CRO would expand this pool of people a great deal.  

Yep, I agree with this pretty much. Most people do not want to ro majors, most people just want to go shoot majors. Roing a major can be a pain in the butt, and not everybody wants to do it. And if you don't want to do it, you really shouldn't do it. I've ROwed a few majors over the years, and for the most part it's not too bad, but it definitely affects your performance, because you're not shooting a match generally that has standalone ro's, so you're shooting a club style match where everybody has to share ro duties, and then you get to work for a while. I have a feeling if everybody in USPSA was an RO, the same set of people that ro majors now would be the ones ROing majors in the future.

 

 

When I did my RO class several years ago, it surprised me that no one else in my section was worried about being an ro. Some of them had been ro's in the past and let their stuff lapse, but I'm not sure there's more than one actually certified ro in my section right now, and they don't live here they just shoot here some LOL. I let mine lapse a while back, and have kind of lost the desire to do much roing in the future

[terrydoc]

12 hours ago, motosapiens said:

This idea has some potential. If it were me, I would have the 'short field verification' consist of working a match under supervision of a certified CRO or RM. Could even be a local match with embedded RO's as long as the subject runs the timer 30-50% of the time.

In my state in Australia (IPSC) we have people attend the RO course 2 days (no cost) the applicant applies to join NROI and then needs to work L3 Matches under supervision until the State NROI is satisfied with their performance under match conditions. It can take 6 months to be certified  as depending on the time of the year the L3 matches are usually held from late August through to our Nationals in around Easter.

 

[motosapiens]

6 minutes ago, terrydoc said:

In my state in Australia (IPSC) we have people attend the RO course 2 days (no cost) the applicant applies to join NROI and then needs to work L3 Matches under supervision until the State NROI is satisfied with their performance under match conditions. It can take 6 months to be certified  as depending on the time of the year the L3 matches are usually held from late August through to our Nationals in around Easter.

 

Like most australian things, that seems excessively top-heavy and repressive, but there is a probably a middle ground that free americans would be able to tolerate and respect.

[terrydoc]

Most of our inter club matches here are L3, I'm pretty sure a top level shooter would be pretty pissed if his match was ruined by an RO that wasn't up to standard don't you think? Some RO's don't take more than 1 or 2 matches to be ticked off but some longer, I only say 6 months due to when the matches are run. Once our Nationals are done around Easter the next L3 isn't until late in August.

[Thomas H]

On 11/9/2021 at 6:41 AM, IHAVEGAS said:

I'll never understand why USPSA doesn't just put the r.o. course on video like the entire non shooting sports world has been doing with more complex subjects for the last 40 years or so. Many here have likely been to OSHA contractor safety training or other work related safety training, video training + someone generally knowledgable with the subject to do the short field verification just flat out works. 

 

Far as I can tell (and I'm someone who has to take a new set of online training courses for my job on a monthly basis) it is because pretty much every study has shown that video/online courses are decent at teaching very low-level things or things that only require memory and pattern-matching, and suck at anything regarding complicated thinking or decision-making.

 

Half of the RO class is based on discussions that history has shown NEED to be held regarding how the rules in the rulebook are supposed to be applied, and exactly how the definitions do and do not apply to different situations. 

 

It would surprise me greatly if that could be effectively taught through a video/online course.  Maybe other people's RO classes were different, but mine involved a lot of discussion, as opposed to "sitting and listening to someone lecture" (though there was that also). 

 

That OSHA contractor safety training---was it bone-simple and everyone hated sitting through it?  Was it something people would rather have literally fast-forwarded through until the end to just take the test and get it over with? 

 

 

[Sarge]

Getting certified is just like a learners permit in driving. Only practice/experience can get you licensed.

[Bagellord]

4 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

Far as I can tell (and I'm someone who has to take a new set of online training courses for my job on a monthly basis) it is because pretty much every study has shown that video/online courses are decent at teaching very low-level things or things that only require memory and pattern-matching, and suck at anything regarding complicated thinking or decision-making.

 

Half of the RO class is based on discussions that history has shown NEED to be held regarding how the rules in the rulebook are supposed to be applied, and exactly how the definitions do and do not apply to different situations. 

 

It would surprise me greatly if that could be effectively taught through a video/online course.  Maybe other people's RO classes were different, but mine involved a lot of discussion, as opposed to "sitting and listening to someone lecture" (though there was that also). 

 

That OSHA contractor safety training---was it bone-simple and everyone hated sitting through it?  Was it something people would rather have literally fast-forwarded through until the end to just take the test and get it over with? 

 

 

 

That, and it allows instructors to tailor their class to the class's needs. In my class, we had a lot of discussion on scoring calls (I forget why). Another class held nearby (albeit a different RMI) had a heavy discussion on stage design and rules regarding along those lines.

[IHAVEGAS]

4 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

Far as I can tell (and I'm someone who has to take a new set of online training courses for my job on a monthly basis) it is because pretty much every study has shown that video/online courses are decent at teaching very low-level things or things that only require memory and pattern-matching, and suck at anything regarding complicated thinking or decision-making. ******** I don't have any experience that would support your premises, I would be interested in reviewing the data you used to form them. For what it is worth my introduction to "teaching very low level things" was engineering classes at what was then the 3rd rated engineering school in the US. I do agree that school age children don't have the discipline to learn as well on their own as they do when supervised. 

 

 

Half of the RO class is based on discussions that history has shown NEED to be held regarding how the rules in the rulebook are supposed to be applied, and exactly how the definitions do and do not apply to different situations. ******** Again, your premise is unique to my experience and the data you used to arrive at it would be interesting. I would strongly agree that there are aspects of the rule book that are not clear to all but you can't fix text problems with talk. 

 

It would surprise me greatly if that could be effectively taught through a video/online course.  Maybe other people's RO classes were different, but mine involved a lot of discussion, as opposed to "sitting and listening to someone lecture" (though there was that also). ******** There was a lot of talking and I do still enjoy learning from experienced r.o.'s and shooters at matches and etc, can't remember much of the class chatter beyond a couple things that Troy later went 180 opposite to what we were told (not the instructors fault, he had to go by the rules as they are written). If the war stories and etc are considered necessary, in my opinion they should be on video so everyone hears the same thing & has some place to go back to for a refresher or to share with others. 

 

That OSHA contractor safety training---was it bone-simple and everyone hated sitting through it?  Was it something people would rather have literally fast-forwarded through until the end to just take the test and get it over with?   *********** You just described a typical r.o. class  

 

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by IHAVEGAS