Scoring And Pasting Ahead Of The Shooter...

[BSeevers]

The problem is NOBODY calls it wrong on purpose but I have seen an C changed to an A about 50% of the time and if you don't see your targets or your "delegate" doen't get how to score targets then you never get to challenge an incorrect score. Please don't chime in with, "Its only one A" People that say that don't get the game. Case in point Chris Tilly would have liked a couple more A's at this years Limited Nationals. I know he doesn't want anything he doesn't deserve but like me we just want the correct score.

You could say anything within 1/2 of a scoring perf let the shooter see it but some could not judge even that.

PS I shoot a lot of big matches and yes quite a few people are all hard and intense and unfriendly until they hit a no-shoot, miss or what not . People who know me know me know I am very friendly and like to joke around. People who really know me know thats an understatement

[Nik Habicht]

Forget the Mikes and the No-shoots for a minute.

Say were are at the first day of the Nationals. I'm a Grand Master shooter, looking to make the Top 16, you are a C-class shooter looking to have a good time shooting. We just meet.

If you happen to be handy and serve as the scoring delegate for my run, would you correct the RO that just called two Charlies on my target when I had two Delta hits? Would you even catch that?

Yes. And I'd do that for anyone. I regularly piss people off by getting involved when ROs make a mistake, and I expect the same treatment when I goof while ROing......

Scoring was one of the first things I paid attention to ---- but I also had the benefit of getting schooled on a regular basis by people like Dave Olhasso, Dave Marques and Jim Norman at the beginning......

I also think that when you (specifically) go to a big match, there's a better than even chance that you know someone on your squad who is capable of being your delegate, either based on having shot with them before, or from knowing them off the forum.

When our squad shot the hill stage at Barry the last couple of years, we knew or found out quickly that there's be multiple ROs calling the targets from a geographic portion of the stage. We quickly agreed that there's be a designated paster following each RO, and checking the 3-4 targets that they were calling to make sure that they nailed the score. The ROs turned out to be very good at working with the pasters.....

The problem is NOBODY calls it wrong on purpose but I have seen an C changed to an A about 50% of the time and if you don't see your targets or your "delegate" doen't get how to score targets then you never get to challenge an incorrect score. Please don't chime in with, "Its only one A" People that say that don't get the game. Case in point Chris Tilly would have liked a couple more A's at this years Limited Nationals. I know he doesn't want anything he doesn't deserve but like me we just want the correct score.

You could say anything within 1/2 of a scoring perf let the shooter see it but some could not judge even that.

PS I shoot a lot of big matches and yes quite a few people are all hard and intense and unfriendly until they hit a no-shoot, miss or what not . People who know me know me know I am very friendly and like to joke around. People who really know me know thats an understatement

I never want to win or finish higher than my competition because they got scored less than what they earned......

[Precision40]

As someone who has RO'd a few big matches, after spending all day out in the sun scoring countless shooters, performance starts to suffer as much as it does for the shooters. Little holes start to become horribly blurry. If you've spent all day scoring targets, you know what I mean.

I think it's only appropriate for the RO's to ask for a "delegate" so that scoring can be completed faster. If everyone stood around waiting for each and every shooter to look at every hit on every target, a 2 day match would turn into a 4 day match.

[Waltermitty]

There's no way to mandate it, but I re-score every target I paste no matter who it is for. If the R.O. miss-calls I politely say "RO, could you look at this one again?"

The only problem is I tend not to say anything if an error is in the shooters favor.

[99gski]

Just to add some clarification for stage 16, the RO's on the stage did tell us as a squad that they would score as we shot but if there was anything close to being questionable they would stop scoring until the shooter had the opportunity to check their targets. It was never an issue and they were absolultey professional about it.

I think it really helps to move the stage along and as a shooter I don't mind it if the RO's start scoring early. I don't care for the "delegate" idea as much as I like what the RO's did here. There's just too many issues with the whole delegate concept for my tastes.

[Ron Ankeny]

It is the shooter's responsibility to go follow the RO while scoring, or appoint a delegate to do so, but the shooter needs to have ever opportunity to make that happen.

I agree. I too have seen instances where scoring and taping are taking place without the shooter even knowing it is happening. What really makes me scratch my head is when the fellow (or gal) with the clipboard is going along scoring while the guy/gal with the timer runs the shooter alone. I thought the RO (clipboard person) was supposed to be watching for foot faults, shots going though props, and that kind of thing?

It never ceases to amaze me how inconsistent scoring can be, and I am often times shocked by the mistakes made by people who should know better. Here's an example. A friend of mine was shooting a course of fire and right in the middle of it he incured a couple of procedual penalties. The score keeper RO (pretty big name in the sport) was scoring behind the competitior without his knowledge. Two targets were taped prematurely. A blessing in disguise? My buddy gets a reshoot? Guess again, the prematurely targets were scored 2 Alpha, 2 Alpha and the score stood. Of course my friend complained, but the scorekeeper told him he just wanted a reshoot because of the 2 procedurals.

Before any of you shout "arbitration", I offered my buddy a hundred dollar bill so he could take it to arbitration, but he declined for personal reasons (besides we both knew the score was accurate).

[RPMartin]

Scoring and pasting ahead of the shooter is going to be a necessary evil, unles we limit COF to 5 targets, or limit the number squads to 15 per match with only 8 person squads.

There just isn't enough time to run long fun COF and stay within the time constrants of a 2-3 day match.

I know several MDs who would love to have a time machine that would allow us to have all the fun we want and keep moving the match along........

RPM

[tightloop]

RPMartin

You hit it on the head...they backed into this problem by allowing the hicap guns to dictate that the COF have lots of targets....in hindsight, perhaps that call was a bit premature...if you have a lot of targets, it is going to take a while...especially if the shooter wants to see the scoring, as is his right..

[XRe]

Just to add some clarification for stage 16, the RO's on the stage did tell us as a squad that they would score as we shot but if there was anything close to being questionable they would stop scoring until the shooter had the opportunity to check their targets.

AustinMike and I ran stage 4 at last year's DoubleTap in exactly this fashion, and it worked out well. We did suggest delegates, and Mike did stop scoring if there were any question of a hit along the way. We managed to quickly and efficiently clear our stage for each squad - it didn't hurt that we didn't have any strange targets to reset, too...

I *did* get tired of shooters telling me "If you have to look at it that close you should just give it to him....". Shut up and let me do my job If the target's shot up and I can't see where the perf is, and I stop to accurately score the target, I'm just doing my job... heh heh... Of course, they let me look all I wanted to when there was a miss.... imagine that... Actually, I made a couple of goofy calls along the way, was polite-ish-ly corrected, and moved on - no big deal...

[johnhurd]

My suggestion would be to just set up 6 stages of El Prez then there will be no waits for scoring long drawn out field courses, I can hear the wailing now. Makes me wonder how many of the whiners about not seeing and admiring their hits, show up for setup and stay for tear down?????

If the R.O. miss-calls I politely say "RO, could you look at this one again?"

Never again will I do this, I did once and the shooter accused me of pasting, thus the miss. If the RO scores the target and moves on it gets pasters........PERIOD!

[tightloop]

[Waltermitty]

If the R.O. miss-calls I politely say "RO, could you look at this one again?"

Never again will I do this, I did once and the shooter accused me of pasting, thus the miss. If the RO scores the target and moves on it gets pasters........PERIOD!

That's a sad story, but if I see an RO call "Alpha - Charlie" on one of your targets that is 2 Alpha, or "Charlie - Mike" on your target that is an Alpha - Mike, or any other similar combination, I'm still gonna ask him/her to look at it again.

As I said in my post, I tend not to speak up if the error is in the shooters favor, like a close "C" that gets scored "A". Or even an edge "barely" D from another shooter that saves a struggling shooter a Mike. I even participated in supporting a "perfect double" a time or two. But if an RO makes a clear mistake, particularly in hotly contested level II or above matches, it does not help to paste a clearly mis-scored target too soon. If you are not prepared to advise the RO of the error yourself, at least wait a minute or two to let what has been scored sink in a moment so the shooter (or other) can protest and get the issue resolved easily and immediately. The alternative events are time consuming and unfortunate.

As an active RO/CRO I appreciate that kind of help and support. If I miss-call a target (it can happen) I take two steps and then three squad members challenge the call, I turn back and you've already pasted whatever was there you didn't help me at all.

If a particular shooter is an Asshat about it to me, that's his/her problem, not mine.

[johnhurd]

In a perfect world ....yes, sadly we ain't theere yet

[ima45dv8]

As I said in my post, I tend not to speak up if the error is in the shooters favor, like a close "C" that gets scored "A". Or even an edge "barely" D from another shooter that saves a struggling shooter a Mike. I even participated in supporting a "perfect double" a time or two.

As an active RO/CRO <snip>

I don't see how we can balance the opposing philosophies indicated here. If we accept the responsibility to act as a CRO on a stage, where part of our charter is to fairly officiate the match for all competitors, it seems in direct opposition to not challenge a bad call, just because a shooter got a little help from it. A bad call is just that - bad. And while it may feel good to think we've helped this one little ol' shooter, it hurts all of the other shooters competing against him in that match.

A little help for one has the impact of a lot of hurt for many.

Edited September 20, 2006 by ima45dv8

[Flexmoney]

I think it really helps to move the stage along and as a shooter I don't mind it if the RO's start scoring early. I don't care for the "delegate" idea as much as I like what the RO's did here. There's just too many issues with the whole delegate concept for my tastes.

Julie,

While that is awful noble, I'm not sure how prudent it is.

Just at past Nationals, I have had RO's make mistakes on my scoring at least a half-dozen times (both to my detriment and to my benefit).

[BDH]

I don't see how we can balance the opposing philosophies indicated here. If we accept the responsibility to act as a CRO on a stage, where part of our charter is to fairly officiate the match for all competitors, it seems in direct opposition to not challenge a bad call, just because a shooter got a little help from it. A bad call is just that - bad. And while it may feel good to think we've helped this one little ol' shooter, it hurts all of the other shooters competing against him in that match.

Great post!

[RPMartin]

Thanks Tightloop.

[Waltermitty]

I don't see how we can balance the opposing philosophies indicated here. If we accept the responsibility to act as a CRO on a stage, where part of our charter is to fairly officiate the match for all competitors, it seems in direct opposition to not challenge a bad call, just because a shooter got a little help from it. A bad call is just that - bad. And while it may feel good to think we've helped this one little ol' shooter, it hurts all of the other shooters competing against him in that match.

Great post!

There is no opposing philosophy as I see it.

It almost sounds like you think I give different treatment to competitors when I'm performing as an RO, that is not correct. Sometimes I'm a shooter and other times I'm an RO. When I'm shooting with a squad (like at Nationals) I don't try to CRO stages I shoot. The context of this general discussion is about actions as a shooter pasting targets. My comments regarding my bias in favor of the shooter (any shooter) is in this role.

When I am acting as an RO/CRO I call the shots as accurately as I possibly can and stand by my comment that I appreciate a challenge if I make a mistake. If I am unsure of a hit I will pull out my overlay to check even without being asked. It is common for me to get a comment or two from observers that "if it's that close you oughta give it to the shooter". I don't score targets that way and a few people think I'm a hard ass for it; but when I'm running a stage everybody gets the same treatment no matter what.

When I'm a paster (not an RO) I tend to ask the RO to look at a target again when it helps the shooter, I tend not to when it would hurt the shooter. (not "never") I would hope the reasons for the bias would be obvious. It's because at that moment I'm a Shooter, not an Official.

On a positive note, I have trained/retrained more than my fair share of RO's on how to use an overlay properly, provided an overlay because they didn't have one, and helped many see that a round nosed bullet doesn't make the same kind of hole as a SWC. 99% of these opportunities present themselves while challenging "C" calls on "A" hits; not the other way around.

If that represents an opposing philosophy, then so be it. I personally have no problem giving everyone I RO the exact same treatment (as is personally possible), then turning right around as a shooter and asking for another look at a buddies close "C" hit; while biting my tongue when a tumbler gets called as "2 Alpha".

The day I step up and talk a fellow shooters "2 Alpha" tumbler down to an "Alpha - Mike" is the day I will have lost all perspective on this social activity we call the USPSA; whether I've got "CRO" on my membership card or not. I can just hear it "You better call the RM over cause you just called that target 2 Alpha and it's obviously an Alpha Mike".

Not me.

[stevepitt]

Waltermittty,

You can RO for me any day!

That's exactly the way I RO, and I'm with you 100% on your reasoning, right down to the point out errors in favor of the shooter, but not those that would hurt the shooter.

I too get told "if you have to look at it that close, give it to them".

I earned all those points (the minus ones too), and I don't want anything "given" to me.

Steve Pitt

[ima45dv8]

This discussion started over the idea of scoring behind shooters. If, as a squad member, I am then pasting those targets before the shooter inspects each one and I see an "Alpha-Charlie" called that should have been "2 Alpha", everyone pretty much agrees the right thing to do is speak up and alert the ROs on that stage. To do otherwise would penalize that shooter.

Where we seem to diverge is what should I do if the reverse happens. Speaking strictly for myself, that willingness to diplomatically challenge an incorrect call has to go both ways. To do otherwise would penalize every other shooter in that division/class. Other people will have to decide for themselves.

When I'm that shooter I only what I earned, including the Mikes and No-shoots and Charlies and Deltas.

YMMV

[johnhurd]

Yup

[Fireant]

I've let this sit for a few days now before chiming in. Since area 6 was brought up by someone else I'll jump in there also. The way I understand scoring the RO calls it off and the clipboard RO repeats the score. This is a checks and balances thing going on. When they start scoring behind the shooter, there is no checks and balances going on. Even the delagate does not really know what was written down. This is bad for everyone. Mistakes on a hot southern afternoon happen very often. If you as MD decide to put every moving prop you have on one house stage that's hard to clear anyway, shame on you and you get the comments that you deserved. Don't use poor target selection/circus props as the reason to suddenly want to clear one shooter a min. on the stage. If you want to use all of your moving props in one stage either expect delays or put them on a shorter course of fire. Not the 150 yard long field course. On the house stage at area 6 the RO's and pasters had me and my shooting buddies all confused. They told me I had a mike on one target in the house, so I rushed in to see it. The paster said no it was scored two hits. So I chase the RO down again(all the way through the house). He tells me the score keeper has it and is finished. There is then a NS and a mike on the sheet. They then tell me that my bullet on the second target engaged hit the NS deflected off the 2x4 and then made a round hole in the scoring target. What the heck????? The NS was no where near the target. I've since tried to get my bullets(172pf by the way) to deflect off of a 2x4 and for some reason can not get them to. Go figure. So, No I don't think scoring behind the shooter is a good idea. Just my $.02 worth as oppinions vary.

[tightloop]

It can go smoothly or like Fireant described...I can see it FUBAR easier than I can see it going smoothly all day long...again, common sense and course architecture have a great deal to do with how long it takes to reset the stage...the real question is why there is a stage so long or complex that a shooter would possibly need an advocate to watch for scoring problems before the real shooter can view that aspect of the match for themselves...?

I mean there is a lot going on at once and since it is the shooters responsibility to be certain the score is recorded correctly b4 he signs the sheet...he is still pumped from shooting, trying to locate his gear and get out of the way...viewing the targets B4 they are taped seems the appropriate way to be sure it is done so there are few or no questions.

Edited September 20, 2006 by tightloop

[ima45dv8]

It can go smoothly or like Fireant described...I can see it FUBAR easier than I can see it going smoothly all day long...

I agree.....if not properly planned for. If not worked out in advance it can go bad quite easily. That doesn't mean it has to or will. To make sure stages run well we've actually done many practice runs just to get Reset down to the most efficient lick possible.

...the real question is why there is a stage so long or complex that a shooter would possibly need an advocate to watch for scoring problems before the real shooter can view that aspect of the match for themselves...?

Short answer: because that's what most shooters want these days. It might not have been so when you were actively competing but that's how it is now.

[BSeevers]

Interesting how people say "Its necessary to run the match to get the shooters thru" This scoring without the shooter seeing targets is a very NEW thing. We have run plenty of 300 rd matches and 300 shooters doing it the old or in my mind the correct way. Most majors I have shot this year were finished at 4-5 PM.

I think a fair solution is to not paste until shooter sees the targets or at least anything within 1/2 inch of a higher scoring line.

Edited September 21, 2006 by BSeevers