Coaching

[Vagus]

I can't find any mention of it in the rule book except for page 13. But I seem to recall that there was a penalty for shooters that follow coaching advice from the crowd or something along those lines

[AlamoShooter]

seams like a "Coaching " penalty was given at Nats. this year to the guy coaching not the shooter

[wide45]

I can't find any mention of it in the rule book except for page 13. But I seem to recall that there was a penalty for shooters that follow coaching advice from the crowd or something along those lines

Start by looking in the index.

Find 8.6 Assistance or Interference page 56

Rule 8.6.2 is the one you want

Edited August 22, 2007 by wide45

[Vagus]

I can't find any mention of it in the rule book except for page 13. But I seem to recall that there was a penalty for shooters that follow coaching advice from the crowd or something along those lines

Start by looking in the index.

Find 8.6 Assistance or Interference page 56

Rule 8.6.2 is the one you want

Ah, thank you

What i needed to start with was a thesaurus. Assistance -duh

[mda]

" seams like a "Coaching " penalty was given at Nats. this year to the guy coaching not the shooter"

Yep, Coaching penalty given to the person that was yelling advice, as well as, shooter. The shooter acted on the advice given so was also given a penalty. If he had not acted on the advice he would .

[No.343]

I remember thinking during the RO class earlier this year about this. What if I'm the shooter and received the LAMR command with a plan for my course of fire and the loudmouth in the crowd "suggests" something that I already planned on doing? How do I prevent being penalized?

[benny hill]

Just turn around & tell them to shut the f**k up & smile at the R.O. & say, I'm ready when you are.

[mjbine]

Just turn around & tell them to shut the f**k up & smile at the R.O. & say, I'm ready when you are.

+1

[Flexmoney]

I know that there was a warning given at the Area 8 match and another given at the Area 5 match...for shooters in the gallery talking about targets that the shooter failed to engage...while the shooter was still on the clock.

[WillM]

I understand the rule and obviously at a big match you would want to have it enforced, but coming from a sporting clays background where the gallery often yells encouragement or help to the shooter in the box it's been hard to bite my tongue. At a local match I watched my kid struggling with his magazine when his slide was out of battery and finally I told him to rack the slide and the RO afterwards told me I couldn't do that. WTF? For a 12 year old kid? At a local match? Then I was at an out of town match on vacation and some really, really old guy struggled for about 20 seconds with his slide but he didn't even have a magazine in the gun. I couldn't stand it anymore and yelled "put a magazine in it" and the RO said "I could dq you for that". WTF? The guy was like 90. Neither one of these instances were going to affect anyone's score. I know, rules are rules but come on. In sporting clays it's really funny when someone doesn't see the second bird of a pair and all of sudden someone yells left, left [or right, right as the case may be] and the shooter instantly swings his gun and invariably kills the bird 2 feet from the ground. If we'd all just look at the target and shoot like that we'd do a lot better, I'm sure.

[Joe4d]

I think the "Givin someone a break " topic has been covered, One of my junior Sergeants got upset with me for insisting he score a Physical test as a failure even though the soldier failed by the slimmest of margins. Suddenly I was a royal D@###^head, I said you know end of month I am gonna get one allocation to promote 1 of 9 soldiers of the same rank, failing pt test makes you ineligiable for promotion, now what does giving your soldier a break do to the other 8 that passed ? The point is the only place to draw the line on being fair to everyone is to follow the rules for everyone. the minute you help or give someone a break you have been unfair to everyone else.

[richardschennberg]

... At a local match I watched my kid struggling with his magazine when his slide was out of battery and finally I told him to rack the slide and the RO afterwards told me I couldn't do that. WTF? For a 12 year old kid? At a local match? Then I was at an out of town match on vacation and some really, really old guy struggled for about 20 seconds with his slide but he didn't even have a magazine in the gun. I couldn't stand it anymore and yelled "put a magazine in it" and the RO said "I could dq you for that". WTF? The guy was like 90. Neither one of these instances were going to affect anyone's score. I know, rules are rules but come on...

1. If your son is under 21, you are REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO SUPERVISE YOUR SON. If the RO interferes with that, he is BREAKING FEDERAL LAW. It makes no difference if he thought he was enforcing an USPSA rule. Laws always take precedence.

2. The ROs primary job is to safely assist the shooter. While coaching to improve someone's score is disallowed, coaching in the interest of safety is required. This requires come discression. Because of the risk of an AD or breaking the 180, many ROs consider some coaching during jams allowed. This should primarily be reminding the shooter to keep the gun pointed downrange and the finger out of the trigger guard. However, after a few seconds the shooter's score is toast anyway, and helping a junior or very elderly shooter get his gun running lessens the chance of him doing something unsafe.

3. Unauthorized coaching (not in the interest of safety) is only punishable by one procedural penalty. That's one procedural to the coacher on that stage, if entered in the match, and one to the shooter, if he responds to the coaching. In this case I can't see any possiblity of a penalty to the shooter because the slide had to be racked, coaching or not. IMO the primary intent of the "no coaching" rule is to preclude someone coaching to make up a shot for a miss, a skipped target, or steel still standing. Coaching relative to a fault line violation (except when too close to steel) or shooting with two hands (when the stage description requires strong or weak hand shooting) should also incur a procedural. The other RO here threatened a DQ when in fact the maximum penalty is one procedural.

In conclusion, I think parents especially should be allowed to coach in the interest of safety.

Edited August 30, 2007 by richardschennberg

[Jaxshooter]

Nothing pi@@es me off more than parents who coach thier kids when shooting a local match and say it's just a local match. We have several kids shooting all the same class all the same division, is it fair for one to get coached when competing against the other kids? NO it is against the rules. The time for coaching is during practice. Just like the example in the post above the kid that gets coached should not finish higher than the one that shot on his own. If you want to coach your kids at a local match great, have the MD write Practice Only or something on the score sheets so they don't post a score with the other shooters.

Added

It is the ROs job to make sure the shooter follows the rules and is safe when handling a gun. If they don't know what to do they are not ready to shoot in a match.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Jaxshooter

[wide45]

3. Unauthorized coaching (not in the interest of safety) is only punishable by one procedural penalty. That's one procedural to the coacher on that stage, if entered in the match, and one to the shooter, if he responds to the coaching. In this case I can't see any possiblity of a penalty to the shooter because the slide had to be racked, coaching or not. IMO the primary intent of the "no coaching" rule is to preclude someone coaching to make up a shot for a miss, a skipped target, or steel still standing. Coaching relative to a fault line violation (except when too close to steel) or shooting with two hands (when the stage description requires strong or weak hand shooting) should also incur a procedural. The other RO here threatened a DQ when in fact the maximum penalty is one procedural.

8.6.2 Any person providing assistance or interference to a competitor during a course of fire (and the competitor

receiving such assistance) may, at the discretion of a Range Officer, incur a procedural penalty for that stage

and/or be subject to Section 10.6.

DQ is a possibility

Not that I think it appropriate for the events under discussion.

[pjb45]

The key words in the rule are " at the discretion of a Range Officer." So I would suggest using good judgement in invoking the procedural. Not all RO think alike and I am comfortable with that.

The RO issued the penalty to the person who said (not yelled) "just shoot it" and he acknowledged what was done and accepted the consequences.

Quite frankly, in our local matches, coaching may in fact be beneficial to the shooter, club and sport. I have seen people interested leave the sport after a couple of matches just because they did not understand what was going on. A little help would go a long way in our local matches.

[mactiger]

The time to coach a new shooter or young shooter is not during the course of fire, but rather before or after he's shot a stage. The federal law thing just doesn't hold water: you are supervising your child with a firearm if you are present, and advising them most of the time. You do not need to coach them through a stage because of federal law. The RO can do that if it's required. And, giving safety warnings (given by the RO) is not coaching.

The penalty is one procedural for coach and competitor, IF the competitor complies with the coaching, at the RO's discretion. A DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct is also a possibility, if the behavior continues.

Coaching, except for new competitors shooting a match as a "coach-through" (if that still exists--I know it used to), is unacceptable at any level.

Troy

[Jake Di Vita]

Bingo.

Sorry but if your action changes the result of the shooter's overall score in anyway you should be held accountable for it. The worst part is (and this has happened to me) when someone tried to coach me on something I was going to do anyway...it had just looked like I forgot the target. I got a penalty for following what the guy in the back said when I actually didn't even hear him anyway.

Bottom line. Unless there is a grave safety concern...keep your mouth shut...parent or not.

[sloopy70]

Bingo.

Sorry but if your action changes the result of the shooter's overall score in anyway you should be held accountable for it. The worst part is (and this has happened to me) when someone tried to coach me on something I was going to do anyway...it had just looked like I forgot the target. I got a penalty for following what the guy in the back said when I actually didn't even hear him anyway.

Bottom line. Unless there is a grave safety concern...keep your mouth shut...parent or not.

I believe it all depends on the situation... at our club we usually have between 10 and 20 shooters, everyones friendly, and everyone wants to see everyone else do good... if we have a kid come shoot, which we usually have no more than 1 at a time, and he is havin problems we'll give him a little help... what does it hurt... its local level... a little bit of "constructive coaching" isn't gonna hurt any body elses scores, AND we know better than to do this at a bigger match... obviously at an area match or something like that there would be zero tolerance, but at the local level it doesn't hurt a thing... especially if its someone who hasn't been shooting long or just has a huge brain fart... now if its someone yelling something out that the shooter was gonnado any way, PURELY to the benefit of helping him run the course smoother thats not right, but givin someone a little help that needs it at the local level shouldn't be such a big deal...

[herky]

Sorry, but as Bruce Gary says "it is either USPSA or it isn't". The rules are the rules, the size or location of the match does not matter. The place to learn how to handle the gun is not at a match. Shooters overlooking a target, etc. is all part of the learning process. Harsh sometimes, but in my view, necessary.

[Hardball]

I think that the hardliners here won't appreciate what I have to say about this, but...

Having been a Staff Sergeant in the Army, I can agree with not helping a promotable soldier by passing him on his PT test. Those were two responsible adults who chose their own paths. The soldier failing the PT test could have chosen to put more effort into preparing his body for the PT test, drinking less, etc.

I can agree that a classified shooter (adult) should never help another classified (adult) shooter when it can affect the outcome of the match.

Here is where I disagree.

Not too long ago, I had my 16 year old son (he is now 18) shooting a match, unclassified, and shooting his third match. We had practiced till he was tired of practicing and was "ready" to shoot a match. During the match he encountered a situation that he nor I had any idea was about to happen. During the practices, he had done well, encountered few problems other than a couple of jams, etc. During the match, he encountered a case rupture. It startled him to a point that he stopped and didn't know what to do. He looked at the RO for help and even asked, "What do I do? What just happened?" The RO just stood there looking at him as if to say, "So what are you going to do now?". IMO, the RO should have stopped him, and checked him for safety purposes, he did not. So, I spoke up and stopped him. The RO looked at me like I had 2 heads, and then told me to shut up. Having said that, I became a bit upset, and demanded that my son stop, unload, and show clear. Pressing the issue, I was dq'd from the match. That's fine. DQ me. No, I was not being "unsportsmanlike", I didn't get an option for a penalty, it was straight to the DQ for "coaching" my son.

My point is this, there is a little thing called discretion. If at any time a competitor is actually helping by pointing out a target another competitor shot or forgot to shoot, then the actions should be taken to stop it. When it comes to a "new" shooter, or a new situation for a shooter that involves safety, then discretion should be used. As for the comment about parents helping kids, well, either you aren't a parent, or you have absolutely no clue what this sport should really be about. It should be about carrying on our sport with newer generations of competitors. With that, comes the patience to actually teach someone (not necessarily a youth) how to compete in our sport safely. If that entails that we take the time to say things like "watch your trigger finger", or "drop the magazine, then rack it" to keep them from shooting themselves in the arm when they have a jam, then that's what it takes.

It gets tiring dealing with the egotistical side of our sport. (not accusing you because of the comment, but it is getting more and more prevalent) There are those of us who could pass as "real shooters" with little to no training. Then there are those who, for whatever reasons, have never often handled firearms of any type before our sport. Those are the people that need the help.

In closing, I will say that I can agree that there should be no coaching from one "classified" shooter to another, however a bit of understanding should be shown when in a "local" match with a beginner being "coached" through a stage in order to keep things safe for all parties. I highly doubt me coaching my son during his encounter would have gained him any advantage other than fixing any damage to his body that may have occured. If you hate it when parents "coach" their kids, then don't squad with them. Remember that all of us started somewhere. Not one of us started as a GM. Some of us won't make it to GM because of our own limitations be them mental or physical.

[ima45dv8]

Nice post, Chris.

It demonstrates that RO's are often called upon to interject good judgement, and how hard that can be. Sometimes it just gets lost in the heat of the moment, as seems to have occurred with your son's experience.

[Chuck Anderson]

1. If your son is under 21, you are REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO SUPERVISE YOUR SON. If the RO interferes with that, he is BREAKING FEDERAL LAW. It makes no difference if he thought he was enforcing an USPSA rule. Laws always take precedence.

Wow, that's just wrong on so many different points I don't know where to begin.

[buddy_fuentes]

"1. If your son is under 21, you are REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO SUPERVISE YOUR SON. If the RO interferes with that, he is BREAKING FEDERAL LAW. It makes no difference if he thought he was enforcing an USPSA rule. Laws always take precedence."

No Sir, you are not required by Federal Law to supervise an off-spring under 21 years of age, but you are responsible for their transgressions until 18 years old or until emancipated. However, even if it were true that would be a Hugh Stretch to say that the RO would be breaking the law by requiring the parent to stop giving instructions during a game.

Have you ever been to a ball game where the parents have been ejected for their conduct? I have.

Our sport is a game and it has rules as does every part of life. If we play the game, then we must abide by the rules or everyone will do whatever they desire. Sometime they (rules) do seem trivial, but they must apply to everyone to be fair. If you give instructions to your kid while shooting a stage, I want a Grand Master to give me instructions. I feel we should both get the instructions before the clock starts on our run.

Just my thoughts. Buddy

[JThompson]

I think that the hardliners here won't appreciate what I have to say about this, but...

Having been a Staff Sergeant in the Army, I can agree with not helping a promotable soldier by passing him on his PT test. Those were two responsible adults who chose their own paths. The soldier failing the PT test could have chosen to put more effort into preparing his body for the PT test, drinking less, etc.

I can agree that a classified shooter (adult) should never help another classified (adult) shooter when it can affect the outcome of the match.

Here is where I disagree.

Not too long ago, I had my 16 year old son (he is now 18) shooting a match, unclassified, and shooting his third match. We had practiced till he was tired of practicing and was "ready" to shoot a match. During the match he encountered a situation that he nor I had any idea was about to happen. During the practices, he had done well, encountered few problems other than a couple of jams, etc. During the match, he encountered a case rupture. It startled him to a point that he stopped and didn't know what to do. He looked at the RO for help and even asked, "What do I do? What just happened?" The RO just stood there looking at him as if to say, "So what are you going to do now?". IMO, the RO should have stopped him, and checked him for safety purposes, he did not. So, I spoke up and stopped him. The RO looked at me like I had 2 heads, and then told me to shut up. Having said that, I became a bit upset, and demanded that my son stop, unload, and show clear. Pressing the issue, I was dq'd from the match. That's fine. DQ me. No, I was not being "unsportsmanlike", I didn't get an option for a penalty, it was straight to the DQ for "coaching" my son.

My point is this, there is a little thing called discretion. If at any time a competitor is actually helping by pointing out a target another competitor shot or forgot to shoot, then the actions should be taken to stop it. When it comes to a "new" shooter, or a new situation for a shooter that involves safety, then discretion should be used. As for the comment about parents helping kids, well, either you aren't a parent, or you have absolutely no clue what this sport should really be about. It should be about carrying on our sport with newer generations of competitors. With that, comes the patience to actually teach someone (not necessarily a youth) how to compete in our sport safely. If that entails that we take the time to say things like "watch your trigger finger", or "drop the magazine, then rack it" to keep them from shooting themselves in the arm when they have a jam, then that's what it takes.

It gets tiring dealing with the egotistical side of our sport. (not accusing you because of the comment, but it is getting more and more prevalent) There are those of us who could pass as "real shooters" with little to no training. Then there are those who, for whatever reasons, have never often handled firearms of any type before our sport. Those are the people that need the help.

In closing, I will say that I can agree that there should be no coaching from one "classified" shooter to another, however a bit of understanding should be shown when in a "local" match with a beginner being "coached" through a stage in order to keep things safe for all parties. I highly doubt me coaching my son during his encounter would have gained him any advantage other than fixing any damage to his body that may have occured. If you hate it when parents "coach" their kids, then don't squad with them. Remember that all of us started somewhere. Not one of us started as a GM. Some of us won't make it to GM because of our own limitations be them mental or physical.

In my opinion the RO should have given the stop command straight away. Then, if your son didn't know what to do he should have helped him clear it and make the range safe. If I was you I would have done the same thing... I would not compromise safety for an RO not using common sense. You were right to speak up... the RO was wrong. The rules are in place for safety first... coaching doesn't even come into it when safety is at stake.

I just had a friend who had a ftf at a local match he kept trying to jack another round in and could get the thing to go into battery. It's a practice, so another guy had a look and then they cleared the thing and went to the safe area to check the action. The gun went to battery fine without chambering a round. As they were walking away from the safe area I asked if they checked for a squib. Nobody heard it including the RO or any other shooters... sure enough, there was a bullet in the chamber. I watched as they tried load after load to get it in battery...thank God they didn't. If anyone was thinking squib they didn't say so. I'm all for speaking up for safety... if that gets me a DQ, so be it.

Edited September 15, 2007 by JThompson