WSSC Members' Meeting

[motosapiens]

22 hours ago, cferree said:

OpenshooterAclass- don't see the analogy?  Most of the SCSA matches I shoot have 60-75% SCSA only competitors.  They have no interest in USPSA and/or it's RO class.  

 

the people i know who only shoot steel and not uspsa are either little kids or really old people, and neither group has shown much interest in helping to put on matches, so i doubt theyd be very interested in a steel only ro class. all our steel volunteers are active uspsa shooters.

Edited April 29, 2022 by motosapiens

[shred]

Scaled-to-25-yards Speed Option and Outer Limits would be nice.   Speed Option can be done exactly, although the target view on OL is a few inches off with the parallax change.

 

 

[Thomas H]

16 hours ago, cferree said:

Thomas - IPDA isn't USPSA and USPSA isn't SCSA.  Just like NHRA and IHRA are both drag racing orgs, but they have different rules and different certifications for the track officials.

If USPSA, as an owner, wants to grow SCSA then they need to support it.  An SCSA RO class could be done online for the classroom component in 4-6, 30 minute to 60 minute sessions.  The running of shooters thru the courses of fire could be done by a group of NROI trained individuals (1-2 per state for smaller states, 3-5 for large states) who do in person check off's for potential RO's that have taken the online courses and passed the test.  It would take some effort to do the scheduling, but wouldn't be that difficult

 

If you think SCSA shooters are going to go to a class to learn about Comstock vs. Virginia Count scoring, popper calibration, shoot throughs, etc. you're kidding yourself.  

 

BTW, how many SCSA matches do you shoot a year?

 

Your first sentence is irrelevant.  (Hint: You brought up IDPA, not me.)  USPSA and SCSA are indeed different, BUT....the rulesets between USPSA and SCSA match in major areas for a reason, and the divisions do also.  In other words, significant sections of their respective rulebooks, including how an RO runs a stage, handles shooters, gives range commands, handles procedurals and DQs, and recognizes divisions (including equipment and such) are exactly the same.

 

Which rather was the point.

 

"An SCSA RO class could be done online for the classroom component in 4-6, 30 minute to 60 minute sessions.  The running of shooters thru the courses of fire could be done by a group of NROI trained individuals (1-2 per state for smaller states, 3-5 for large states) who do in person check off's for potential RO's that have taken the online courses and passed the test."

 

I disagree, but then again, I'm a teacher.  That's my background.  As such, I have both academic and practical experience in terms of what is often needed for students to not merely be exposed to information, but actually understand, retain, and be able to utilize information.  That sort of online learning ignores the ability to ask questions, have discussions, and pretty much everything else needed for prospective ROs to actually use the information instead of just memorizing it for a test (and then most commonly forgetting the majority of it right after).

 

As for the "check-off" -- so your suggestion is that NROI train (in a class at cost?  taking up those volunteer's extra time?) anywhere from 100 to 200 people to do "in person check off's"?  That....seems an interesting solution to a problem of not having enough volunteers in the first place.

 

"It would take some effort to do the scheduling, but wouldn't be that difficult."
 

I'm curious how you know that.  Is this something you have done before?  Or do you merely believe it wouldn't be that difficult? 

 

"BTW, how many SCSA matches do you shoot a year?"

 

As for your last question:  I realize that you are asking it in the hope that you'll be able to dismiss anything I say because I don't shoot SC much, or not as much as you, or anything else that is irrelevant to actual logical discussion.  As such, it is a question that doesn't matter, and the answer is meaningless.

 

I'll answer anyway, though, because it is amusing:  I shot 35 Steel Challenge matches last year, four of which were major matches.  I was the RM for the 2021 Steel Target Paint Area 3 Steel Challenge Championship, and I've worked a number of different major SC matches as staff in the past. (And I'm a certified RO, CRO, and RM with the SC endorsement.)    I'm also a GM in nine divisions, and a member of Club 13.  I shoot a LOT of Steel Challenge.

 

So in addition to being a certified range officer who has taken my own time (and money) to get certified at various higher levels, I'm also a avid Steel Challenge shooter who has worked as staff a numerous local and major matches, who is ALSO a teacher who has practical knowledge and experience in what it takes for people to learn how to be a certified RO running people in a match. 

 

Unsurprisingly, I have strong opinions about what teaching is required so that people will be good Range Officers for Steel Challenge competitions.

 

I note that it is interesting to see someone arguing for more online courses, and a separate RO class for Steel Challenge, after making sure that people understand they are an experienced CRO---when they haven't gotten the Steel Challenge endorsement for themselves yet.

 

 

[zzt]

I was gong to stay out of this discussion, but my perception varies a lot from some of what has been said.

 

First, I support Zach's idea for shorter, more condensed stages.

 

Second, there IS a lot of difference between SCSA rules and USPSA.  There has been an effort to merge the rules lately, but some of that has been counterproductive.  I'll take some of you at your word, but where I live there are many, many SCSA shooters who will NEVER shoot a USPSA match.  At one club I shoot at monthly, at least 80% of the participants are SCSA only.  The MD goes through the actual range commands at every match briefing and implores shooters to use them and not made-up commands.  It doesn't help.  

 

At least a half dozen shooters there would gladly take an SCSA RO class if it was SCSA only.  They say they don't want to learn a bunch of stuff and be tested on it, when they will never use any of it.  I tend to agree.  There are 68 pages in the SCSA rule book, and 122 in the USPSA rule book.  I think Troy is wrong on this.   Having SCSA ROs who know the rules and follow them would be a huge improvement.  Most clubs shoot alphabetically, so I end up ROing most of the shooters.  I'm constantly correcting incorrect actions or commands.  No, that beep was too fast.  It must be between 1 and 4 seconds, and should be consistent for that shooter.  No, you have to hammer down first on a PCC, then flag.  You get the drift.  Then you issue the USPSA mandated command If clear, hammer down, holster to a RFPO shooter.  He looks at you like you were speaking Greek.  Then you explain to him that is the actual command, and it IS silly for rimfire. His expected behavior is show clear, close the slide and case.  You do not have to pull the trigger.  Half the time the response I get is why didn't you just say that.

 

I became a USPSA RO because one of the clubs I shot at paid for the course in full.  They wanted more certified ROs at their shoots.  It worked.  There were 35+ in the class.  As a result, they have multiple ROs on every squad.  Every now and then I'm on a squad with more ROs than regular shooters.  Having an SCSA only club host and pay for an SCSA specific RO certification would be a draw.  The suggestion this could be online is not realistic.  There was a lot of informative play acting at my RO class.  The training has to be in person.

Edited April 30, 2022 by zzt

[hornetx40]

On 4/27/2022 at 12:02 PM, Thomas H said:

The people who can't be bothered to take the USPSA RO class probably won't really take the SC one, either, in my opinion.  They'd have to actually spend time, money, and mental effort learning how to do something. 

Your "opinion" is wrong. I don't shoot USPSA so why the hell would I pay to go through a class to RO a sport I don't participate in. I shoot steel Challenge. I and many others have been RO ing it for many years with zero support from USPSA. Why should a shooter that is willing to volunteer their time to RO have to Pay to get certified to officiate a sport?????. The RO doesn't get paid but USPSA is a business making a profit?????   SCSA needs their own RO's class.

[Hoops]

Anything of interest come out in the Member's meeting?

[Thomas H]

On 4/29/2022 at 3:16 PM, zzt said:

I became a USPSA RO because one of the clubs I shot at paid for the course in full.  They wanted more certified ROs at their shoots.  It worked.  There were 35+ in the class.  As a result, they have multiple ROs on every squad.  Every now and then I'm on a squad with more ROs than regular shooters.  Having an SCSA only club host and pay for an SCSA specific RO certification would be a draw.  The suggestion this could be online is not realistic.  There was a lot of informative play acting at my RO class.  The training has to be in person.

 

I wish more clubs would do this.  I understand why many can't (or won't) but I still wish more DID, if they had some way of making sure those newly-certified ROs would help out at the local matches. 

 

I also wish that the range commands for rimfire eliminated the "hammer down" part---revolver already does, why not rimfire?     (I know a number of ROs who already do, and I don't blame them for it at all.)

 

I agree there that is a difference between USPSA and SCSA rules.  I'm not necessarily against an SCSA-only class (though I think a lot of it would be just the same as a USPSA-only class, since as I said before, much of the class is about DQ offenses, procedurals, range commands, divisions, and running shooters) but....I guess I'm just not convinced that the number of people who would take a day-long (at least) SCSA-only RO class but won't unless there IS an SCSA-only class, is big enough to justify literally creating another class with presentation materials, teaching SOIs to teach it, and scheduling them in addition to the regular class.

 

I suppose technically all the materials are currently there, between the USPSA RO class and the online SCSA material, someone would just have to put them all together. 

Hmm.  Might be less work than I thought. 

 

"Having SCSA ROs who know the rules and follow them would be a huge improvement.  "

 

I COMPLETELY agree with that.  Definitely.  Among other things, ROs knowing their job would ALSO mean that they'd know to remind the tablet guy to ALSO watch for misses, such that scoring would be a lot better overall.

 

On 4/30/2022 at 8:45 PM, hornetx40 said:

Your "opinion" is wrong. I don't shoot USPSA so why the hell would I pay to go through a class to RO a sport I don't participate in. I shoot steel Challenge. I and many others have been RO ing it for many years with zero support from USPSA. Why should a shooter that is willing to volunteer their time to RO have to Pay to get certified to officiate a sport?????. The RO doesn't get paid but USPSA is a business making a profit?????   SCSA needs their own RO's class.

 

I'm not sure that your last sentence has anything to do with most of the preceding sentences, since this wasn't really about whether or not people would have to pay for the class.  (Also, people might argue with your opinion that the sports that you engage in receive zero support from USPSA, but that's a different topic. Not to mention that you don't need to be a certified RO to help out at locals.). If I recall correctly, in almost every large sport the course to be certified to officiate costs money.  That's common.

 

As for whether I was wrong---I'm glad to hear that you would actually take the class and get certified to be an RO (though I'm not sure that's true, as you also say you don't see why you should have to pay for it).  I know that for USPSA classes, lots of people SAY they'll take the class, but never sign up and take it.  (And a surprisingly number of people take the class but won't take the test and get certified, I've found out.). One person, however, is certainly different from a number significant enough to justify creating a new class.

 

If we could get a ton more people certified as SCSA ROs in some way, I think that would be great.  I'm just dubious that many people would suddenly take the plunge into it. 

 

I'm thinking it would be REALLY handy to actually FIND OUT.  This might be something for Zach to perhaps ask the Board about---having a member survey sent out that attempts to find out:

1) How many people would choose to pay and attend a one-day SCSA-only RO certification course if it were available.  (Everyone gets the USPSA/SCSA newsletter, even if they don't shoot USPSA.  So USPSA has everyone's contact info, and could easily create a simple survey.)

2) How far would they travel to go to said SCSA-only RO certification course

3) Did they know that if they go to the USPSA RO course, they can add their SCSA certification online at no cost?

 

...and so on. 

 

I'm thinking having that data would be very useful.  Just asking here is....not really representative. 

(I'd also be curious as to how many members shoot USPSA-only, shoot SCSA-only, or shoot both.  That would be interesting to find out, and wouldn't require a survey, just a database query.)

[Hoops]

SCSA RO Certification Program.

 

I guess I just don't see what the rub is.  Why would any member be opposed to a SCSA only RO program?  It would have no effect to USPSA (sport).  This is an HQ issue and deserves to be addressed by the full BOD.  SCSA members pay dues and match fees and should not have defend why they (we) want a seperate program.  The BOD should take this up....and vote yes or vote no and record it in the minutes. 

[motosapiens]

2 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

i'm thinking it would be REALLY handy to actually FIND OUT.  This might be something for Zach to perhaps ask the Board about---having a member survey sent out that attempts to find out:

1) How many people would choose to pay and attend a one-day SCSA-only RO certification course if it were available.  (Everyone gets the USPSA/SCSA newsletter, even if they don't shoot USPSA.  So USPSA has everyone's contact info, and could easily create a simple survey.)

2) How far would they travel to go to said SCSA-only RO certification course

3) Did they know that if they go to the USPSA RO course, they can add their SCSA certification online at no cost?

 

...and so on. 

 

I'm thinking having that data would be very useful.  Just asking here is....not really representative. 

(I'd also be curious as to how many members shoot USPSA-only, shoot SCSA-only, or shoot both.  That would be interesting to find out, and wouldn't require a survey, just a database query.)

 

56 minutes ago, Hoops said:

SCSA RO Certification Program.

 

I guess I just don't see what the rub is.  Why would any member be opposed to a SCSA only RO program?  It would have no effect to USPSA (sport).  This is an HQ issue and deserves to be addressed by the full BOD.  SCSA members pay dues and match fees and should not have defend why they (we) want a seperate program.  The BOD should take this up....and vote yes or vote no and record it in the minutes. 

 

i think everyone only knows about their own local situations. As i mentioned earlier, we have almost zero helpful and productive people in our area that are steel-only shooters.  OTOH, I met some fine folks at worlds that are willing to travel much further to work a steel match than a USPSA match, so I would guess my local experience is not definitive. I think it would be worth investigating this topic further.

[broadside72]

I think an SC only RO cert program would be nice, but only if they left the existing USPSA RO+SC Cert add-on as-is. 

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, broadside72 said:

I think an SC only RO cert program would be nice, but only if they left the existing USPSA RO+SC Cert add-on as-is. 

great point, and I second this thought. I know several people (including my own self) who would never have bothered to attend a separate steel-only class, but were very willing to do an online addition to their uspsa RO cert in order to get steel-certified.

[JodiH]

I am finding this discussion interesting, as one of the folks who teaches ROs/CROs/RMs and develops the teaching materials for NROI.  All the points about a SC-only RO class that have been brought up in this thread have been discussed in the last few years.  And yes, figuring out if 20 people or a few thousand people are interested in a SC-only certification is something we really want to know.   Previously, we used to allow clubs to add the SC endorsement class to a RO or CRO class.  It took about an hour to go through the differences between the USPSA and SCSA rules.  We used to charge $20 a student for the in-person endorsement add-on class.  Since we have moved it online, it still is a "here are the differences between USPSA and SCSA rules" class and the endorsement is free of charge.  And FYI, NROI really is not a major money maker for USPSA.  We are lucky to break even, especially now with the cost of travel.   If you want to learn about seminar costs, it is outlined here https://uspsa.org/pages/nroi/seminar.

 

Right now, SCSA rules do not require certified ROs at any level of competition (see Appendix A1), unlike USPSA.  At Tier 4 matches, a certified RM is mandatory (and yes, that is a certified USPSA RM) but that is the only requirement.  In USPSA, we require certified officials starting at Level II matches (the equivalent to SC Tier 2 matches).   We require at least one certified official on each stage for LII and certified CROs for LIII and Nationals.  And anymore, most almost all staff at LII and above matches are certified.  

 

We have talked about requiring certified officials for SCSA matches, like we do for USPSA, but understand that there are some very dedicated and hard working SC competitors who are also great staff and not USPSA ROs and we didn't want to alienate them.  So my question is to those of you who want a SC-only RO certification:  1.) If we implemented that class, would you be okay with also requiring certified officials at Tier 2 and above matches?, 2.) Do you think that requiring certified staff at Tier 2 and above would motivate people to get a SC-only endorsement?

[RaylanGivens]

https://nroi.org/miscellaneous/steel-challenge-range-officers/

 

I found a link to the article I mentioned in an earlier post where Troy McManus discusses requests for separate Steel Challenge (SCSA) Range Officers class...  You can read Troy's thoughts in the link above.

[bigdawgbeav]

On 5/2/2022 at 9:33 AM, Hoops said:

Anything of interest come out in the Member's meeting?

 

Unfortunately I had to leave early, but one thing interesting is that USPSA lost over $30K on the match.  There was also some heated discussions regarding the awarding of slots for future World's.  I know it was recorded so hopefully they will post it soon.

 

Because I had to leave early I never got the chance to speak and bring up some of the points that have been discussed here.  I apologize for that.  The good news is that Zack was there and he knows our thoughts from being a member here as well.

[JM_]

19 hours ago, bigdawgbeav said:

 

Unfortunately I had to leave early, but one thing interesting is that USPSA lost over $30K on the match.  There was also some heated discussions regarding the awarding of slots for future World's.  I know it was recorded so hopefully they will post it soon.

 

Because I had to leave early I never got the chance to speak and bring up some of the points that have been discussed here.  I apologize for that.  The good news is that Zack was there and he knows our thoughts from being a member here as well.

As in USPSA spent more on that match than was taken in? That's an impressive feat. Especially when entry is $100 a GUN.

[bigdawgbeav]

36 minutes ago, JM_ said:

As in USPSA spent more on that match than was taken in? That's an impressive feat. Especially when entry is $100 a GUN.

yes... so there became a question of where the $30,000+ went.  All the prize table items were donated by vendors.  717 guns x $100 = $71,700

 

I am not a match director or a finance expert, so I don't know what it truly costs to put on a match.  Especially one of this magnitude.  Without knowing the line items it's hard to figure out where to cut costs or if an increase in fees is warranted.  

 

Since I missed most of the meeting I hope they release the video soon

[harleytech]

As a USPSA CRO with SC endorsement, I just got back from running Pendulum at the WSSC this year. The biggest hassle I had was rimfire competitors not being familiar with the range commands. To the point that they wanted to argue what the correct command should be! Another problem with some is keeping their hands off their long guns while closing the bag's zipper. The range command thing got so bad; we had a pre stage briefing to go over them! The last thing is to keep your finger off the trigger while clearing a malfunction (just because it's a 22 doesn't mean it's not dangerous). The email training videos that NROI puts out would really help the average SCSA competitor understand the rules better (Jodi, you do would do well with this).

Edited May 4, 2022 by harleytech
added a sentence

[ZackJones]

We (BoD) are working on a set of minutes from the membership meeting. It will summarize the highlights of the questions asked. 

Operating in the red - there are SO many expenses that people are not considering. A brief list:

 

- Not all guns were paid entries. Sponsors are given slots, RO's are given 2 slots, USPSA Staff don't pay for slots so let's just say we had 600 paid entires.

- For each $100 entry stripe (credit card processor takes a cut.

- Food was $1000 per day minimum.

- Range rental fee

- Porta poties

- Paint

- Lumber

- Trophies / plaques

- Per diem and travel expenses for RO's

- Staff appreciation dinner and swag

- Ice / water / snacks

- Golf cart rental from range

- 25 Pizza's for the membership meeting

 

I could go on but I think you get the picture. All national matches are very expensive for us to run. You guys concentrate on the shooting and let us concentrate on putting on a good match, okay? 

 

 

[ZackJones]

On 5/2/2022 at 11:54 PM, JodiH said:

1.) If we implemented that class, would you be okay with also requiring certified officials at Tier 2 and above matches?, 2.) Do you think that requiring certified staff at Tier 2 and above would motivate people to get a SC-only endorsement?

 

I'm sure we will talk about this some tonight on the pod cast but I wanted to share my 2 cents here. 

1 - Eventually. We we will need time to get people trained/certified. I have used non-certified ROs at numerous matches where I've helped run them because it's hard to get enough RO's to work some of the matches. 

2 - Not necessarily. I think knowing a person could follow an SC only track would motivate them more so than the the requirement to have the endorsement to work a tier 2 match. 

 

I'll share a bit about my family. I'm CRO, my wife is RO, my daughter is RO as is my son Terry. Terry and I have shot USPSA handgun matches in the past but have only shot Steel Challenge matches for the past several years (I think 2014 is the last time I shot a USPSA match). The 4 of us would jump at a chance to become SCSA only certified. 

[BritinUSA]

What kind of sponsorship do the vendors provide ? Is it product for the prize tables or cash towards the match ?

[Hoops]

USPSA.org is 501(c)(3) Non-profit.  

 

Charity Navigator provides information and ratings for non-profits/charities.  Below is a link.  If you go to the financial data, which is for 2017, 2018 and 2019.  There is a bar chart for revenue and expenses.  Revenue increased each year, but in 2019, expenses increased as a percentage of revenue....but still in the black.  

 

I can't find where USPSA publishes annual Revenue and Expense detail.  Perhaps they are in the BOD minutes section.   I may take a look there when I get some time.  

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/911325053

 

 

[BritinUSA]

There is a final financial statement published most years in the BOD minutes section (as you said). They do not go into a lot of detail though.

[Hoops]

On 5/2/2022 at 10:54 PM, JodiH said:

We have talked about requiring certified officials for SCSA matches, like we do for USPSA, but understand that there are some very dedicated and hard working SC competitors who are also great staff and not USPSA ROs and we didn't want to alienate them.  So my question is to those of you who want a SC-only RO certification:  1.) If we implemented that class, would you be okay with also requiring certified officials at Tier 2 and above matches?, 2.) Do you think that requiring certified staff at Tier 2 and above would motivate people to get a SC-only endorsement?

Jodi,  I am not clear on the logic for your last paragraph.  It appears to imply (to me) the "be careful of what you ask for" or you will get additional requirements that are not currently in place.  Perhaps I am just not reading this correctly.

 

Why change the current T2 requirements just because more people may become SCSA only certified RO's?  Perhaps a SCSA only program would generate more RO's that all matches would benefit from in the long run.   

[JodiH]

23 minutes ago, Hoops said:

It appears to imply (to me) the "be careful of what you ask for" or you will get additional requirements that are not currently in place. 

 

I didn't mean for that to come off like that, but the reality is it might be something that eventually happens if a SC-only certification does happen or the number of USPSA w/SC endorsement ROs grows to a high enough level.  The main reason we require a certain number of certified staff on each stage at major matches for USPSA is to ensure the rules are applied properly and the proper range commands are used.  Wouldn't you also want that for SCSA if enough certified officials were available?  And yeah, even just having certified ROs in a local club is always beneficial.  I can't argue with that.

 

 

[Hoops]

Were there any discussions at WSS about adding stages?