Ro Certification Required For Class Advancement?

[GlockSpeed31]

A few of us RO's were discussing this at the last Area 6 on break. We were throwing the ideas around that for in order for you to advance to the next higher classification, a shooter would have to be a certified RO. Some of us said it would be a good idea in order to advance to "C" class or to "B" class. There are a lot of shooters out there that do not truely know the rules of what they can do and can not do (according to the USPSA rule book).

I feel that it would strengthen the sport and bring more informal matches in line with the way matches are suppossed to be shot. We all have been to a match or two that was a little relaxed as far as the rules go!

Before everyone jumps up & down saying that NROI doesn't have the manpower to do this training, they could have more instructors certified within a timely manner, say one or two per state, then they could start instructing at state level, then regional, then local?

Well, what do you think?!

[Sharyn]

There are a lot of shooters out there that do not truely know the rules of what they can do and can not do (according to the USPSA rule book).

Unfortunately, I can think of a few certified ROs with the same problem. I'm not sure how many times I've talked the RO out of 3+ penalties on one no-shoot target.

Currently, I have no desire to become certified. I don't think my progress in shooting should be determined by my ability to become a RO. I can read the rule book, I promise... I don't need to memorize it and I'm sure that becoming certified does not guarantee memorization either.

I think the printed version of the rule book is a fantastic resource... I can refer to it anytime I need to. Pobody's nerfect, right?

JMHO

[kimel]

That would pretty much kill the sport.

RO Cert can be VERY expensive if you have to travel for it. NROI is not going to try and make 100+ RMIs, just won't happen. I doubt there are that many active RMs to make RMIs out of in the first place.

NROI works very, very hard to make sure that the overall message delivered in the seminars is the same. Sure, there are some differences between instructors but by and large it is the same overall message. How would you keep the message consistent across 100 RMIs?

Besides, I want the certified RO corps made up of folks that wanted to do it and work to maintain proficiency. Not a bunch of folks that didn't want to do it in the first place.

[Flyin40]

The thought is good but leave it as is. Its not a very smart choice for USPSA to tell people they have to spend money in order to move up. I think there are "weekend" warriors that come out and never shoot except to show up at a monthly match. You tell these guys that they have to RO and spend a weekend learning how to RO they will be shooting unclassified.

Heres another problem, where are the courses going to take place??? At local level??? If its regional now your telling the membership not only do you have to spend money to move up but now you have to spend money on the hotel and etc for the weekend because you had to drive 3 hrs to take the course.

The course needs to take 1 day.

Last yr I couldn't take the RO course because I couldn't do both days. This yr there are two close RO courses, 3.5 hrs away, both in different states, Mich and Indiana. Again $70 for the course, with gas I'm guessing $70, little on the low side. Hotel $50 is you find a cheap place, food etc another $30.

So you looking at $220, which I think its going to be more than that. As it stands right now I will not be certified this yr either.

It would be a great idea if the RO course didn't cost anything and up the membership to $50. Have an RO class on the weekend of a State/Sectional. You'll have everyone go to it then if its free.

Flyin40

Edited May 29, 2006 by Flyin40

[mactiger]

RO certification should be left up to the individual member. While I believe that taking the class will help most people learn their way around the rulebook, I don't believe in forcing people to take it.

As for making it free with membership, I don't think that would be cost-effective, either, unless membership fees went up a lot. More people wanting "free" classes will mean more travel, housing, and meal expenses for the instructors. As it is set up now, we generally break even for the year. FYI, NROI charges $30 per student, with a $600 minimum, for a level one seminar. Some host organizations will charge more, naturally, because they are liable for housing and meals for the instructor. Travel expenses are borne by USPSA/NROI.

As Kimel stated, we try to keep the message on point, and that's hard enough to do with 8 or 9 dedicated instructors (believe it or don't we don't always agree) --I can imagine the headache with even double that number.

Just my 2 cents.

Troy

[Chris Keen]

I think it would "water down" the cadre to the point that every Joe holds an RO cert. because it's mandatory ..... but dosent really know the rules.

I know LOTS of people I would not want running me as a shooter. That dosent mean I dislike them. Just dont trust their current level of safety. And my opinion is some folks cant be taught the level of safety commensurate to USPSA competition.

Sounds a little dangerous to me.

[uscbigdawg]

As Sharyn pointed out there are more than a few RO's that don't know the rules either.

Forcing membership to attend training as an RO is not bad in concept, but in the end should be left to them.

Rich

[Chris Keen]

Sort of reminds me of the military draft.

We get more "intelligent" soldiers when they volunteer to serve.

[TDean]

Some shooters simply don't have the ability to be an RO.

If anything, I'd like to see the RO approval process become tougher.

[sfinney]

Most shooters really like to shoot.

Some shooters seem to genuinely enjoy being an R.O.

Not all shooters like (or are 100% comfortable with) doing both. There are plenty of other ways for those that don't want to be a certified R.O. to contribute to the sport.

[Hey QuicksDraw!]

While some shooter may feel safe shooting it may not be in their comfort zone to run another shooter and be responsible for keeping the range safe.

[dajarrel]

Education on the rules of one's game is always a good thing. Requiring everyone to be a RO, IMHO, is not.

If a concerted effort was going to be made to teach everyone the rules of our game, it would best be served by the local clubs doing it. Yeah, I know, who will train the trainer? Our club has two current RO's and one who is not current. This is in a club with less than 20 members.

The effort would have to be made, perhaps on NROI's part, to ensure that all were teaching the same thing. This could be a problem. Like Troy said, someone has to foot the bill.

However it is/would be done, I think it should be taught at the club level.

JMHO

dj

[Kimberkid]

Im suprised no one has mentioned how this would affect your skill classes. Shooter X, currently classed B, decides he doesnt want to be an RO for a variety of very good reasons, so he progresses and is now shooting 90% classifiers and match scores, and he is still in B class?

Let the sandbagging begin.

How many pros would give up their RO credentials and continue to win overall, and D class?

[Chris Keen]

The possible complications appear to be endless

[GlockSpeed31]

Thanks for all who have replied so far. Like I said, it was something that popped up in conversation and I wanted to know how others felt about it. A lot of good points have been brought up, but one thing I wanted to point out is: No one said you would have to start RO'ing & running squads of shooters, just be certified. It would bring a clearer picture to some (not all) of how the sport is set up and give a better understanding of what it takes to be an RO.

Someone said "While some shooter may feel safe shooting it may not be in their comfort zone to run another shooter and be responsible for keeping the range safe."

I feel that if they don't feel comfortable about keeping the range safe, I don't want them on the same range as myself and all other shooters. It is up to every shooter to feel that they are able to keep the range safe, if they do not feel that way, they need to put down the gun until they feel like keeping it safe.

I am not trying to piss people off by this topic, just seeing how other people feel about it.

Thanks again for all of the input and everyone have a safe holiday and please take a moment to remember all of the fallen military members and their families, both past & present.

GlockSpeed31

[AzShooter]

Imagine how many C shooters there would be if you made CRO qualification mandatory. Now you talk about a unballanced class. There would be Master to C in there and who do you think is going to win?

People should know the rules or pay the penalty. If they break a rule nail them and don't let it slide because they said they didn't know it or understand it.

It's the shooter's responsibility to know the rules, play by them and take any advantage that is within the rules.

[LPatterson]

There are a couple of people at my local club who I went through class with that I can't browbeat enough for them to RO even a couple of people. One said they would feel too bad if they had to DQ someone.

Knowing the rules (having read them) is different than interpreting how they are applied; i.e. can I shoot at steel through a snow fence & what happens if I do.

[Sharyn]

Someone said "While some shooter may feel safe shooting it may not be in their comfort zone to run another shooter and be responsible for keeping the range safe."

I feel that if they don't feel comfortable about keeping the range safe, I don't want them on the same range as myself and all other shooters. It is up to every shooter to feel that they are able to keep the range safe, if they do not feel that way, they need to put down the gun until they feel like keeping it safe.

I wonder if this statement is being misinterpreted?... using myself as an example, I don't feel comfortable running the timer and being responsible for that shooter and the safety of the range during a COF. I see a marked difference in running the timer and "keeping the range safe" as a fellow shooter. This is the primary reason I'm not interested in being certified (or acting as a RO). I feel too new to the sport to take on such a responsibility. I hope you still don't recommend that I put down my gun...?

[XRe]

I don't want them on the same range as myself and all other shooters.

A lot of people feel the same way Sharyn does - they'll run a clipboard, paste targets, etc. They'll point out potential safety problems, like shooters missing eye protection, etc. They'll certainly scream "STOP!" if a toddler comes wandering over a berm... But they don't feel comfortable being responsible for someone's score. Deal with it - not everyone wants to be an RO, and no one wants it to be crammed down their throat.

I agree that a Level I class would help just about everyone understand more about the game (and note, no one can force you to actually run the box once you've got the cert - so that shouldn't stop you from taking the class, if you want, Sharyn).

For all the other reasons mentioned (costs, sandbagging, etc) this is not a very wise idea at all, IMO....

[SteveZ]

I don't feel "mandatory" RO certification for class advancement is a good idea......nor do I feel mandatory RO certification for any reason is a good idea. Some people like playing RO, others don't. Personally, I went through the RO course just to become more familar with all the rules (and in my opinion, it also helps one to "game" stages because you know whats legal and whats not).....after I did the RO course, I decided to do the CRO course and learned even more! While I'd recommend the course(s), I don't believe you should require shooters to take them.

Another interesting data point one of my shooting buddies (I'll call him GrandMaster T) raised last week; look at the RO certs of the top 20 shooters in each of the classes on the USPSA webpage. As I recall...only 8 of all of the top 20 GM's are RO's. GrandMaster T is on that list...and he's not an RO. I don't think there's a direct coorelation between "making GM" and playing RO but I can tell you that if you play "designated RO" for your squad for an entire match...your match performance WILL suffer. You have too much stuff on your mind to develop a game plan and execute it properly. Even better yet....play RO for an Area championship and see what that does to your overall match score.

[bobert1]

...Another interesting data point one of my shooting buddies (I'll call him GrandMaster T) raised last week; look at the RO certs of the top 20 shooters in each of the classes on the USPSA webpage. As I recall...only 8 of all of the top 20 GM's are RO's. GrandMaster T is on that list...and he's not an RO. I don't think there's a direct coorelation between "making GM" and playing RO but I can tell you that if you play "designated RO" for your squad for an entire match...your match performance WILL suffer. You have too much stuff on your mind to develop a game plan and execute it properly. Even better yet....play RO for an Area championship and see what that does to your overall match score.

I VERY good point. When I started USPSA 2 years ago we were a large group of new USPSA competitors. Uncle Bill had just started a local league and working very hard to design, set up COFs and recruit new shooters to OUR sport. And then to have a dozen or more new competitors follow him to the local matches thru out SW Ohio was a hell of allot for one man to do. He was being asked to RO 'HIS' squad at most of the matches. Being the serious shooter that he is, working so hard to get to the next level left with so little time to work on his game. He encouraged all of us to become RO's, to learn OUR sport and maybe even give him a breather. Four of us did this so far and we seldom give Uncle Bill a chance to RO anymore. Uncle Bill has continued to work hard in bringing on new shooters and brought 20 out of the 54 shooters to last weekends match. So please VOLUNTEER to become an RO and contribute to OUR sport.

Edited May 29, 2006 by bobert1

[bayoupirate]

My first thoughts were similar to KimberKid's.

I can shoot B class scores and stay in C class if I DON'T receive RO training?

That's rewarding those who are NOT R.O.s

I have to agree with the majority here.

Some of the Best R.O.'s are B and C level shooters, and on the other hand some of the Best Shooters make the worst R.O.'s

Being THE AUTHORITY on a stage is not for everyone.

Many THanks to all of you who are RO's and give your extra time, sweat and mental efforts to making our sport safe and fair.

Okay mine's only about a cent and a half.

[jasmap]

It's not a horrible idea but it isn't financially possible for shooters or USPSA. Also, being an RO doesn't mean the rules are memorized. Most of us are Alpha males and we don't like being told what to do either.

[Wakal]

I think that certified RO's should be competent shooters, well grounded in safe gun handling, with a working knowledge of the rules.

However, this is not the rule for all RO's now.

Alex

[1911user]

Someone said "While some shooter may feel safe shooting it may not be in their comfort zone to run another shooter and be responsible for keeping the range safe."

I feel that if they don't feel comfortable about keeping the range safe, I don't want them on the same range as myself and all other shooters. It is up to every shooter to feel that they are able to keep the range safe, if they do not feel that way, they need to put down the gun until they feel like keeping it safe.

Is there more background to this story than an innocent discussion? It seems you are quite emotional and adament about the subject. The poll results show very few agree with your idea of mandatory RO certification.

Edited May 30, 2006 by 1911user