Arbitration

[John Heiter]

An issue came up recently that confused me a little and I'm hoping someone can help me better understand the rules. A stage description required competitors to begin a stage outside of a shooting area marked off by fault line. On start signal, they were to step over the fault line into the shooting area and engage targets ATBV.

One competitor forgot to step across the line and engaged three paper and two steel targets from behind the line before stepping across the fault line to complete the stage. The RO initially gave him 8 procedurals but, when the competitor argued that he should only get one, instead gave the competitor five procedurals (one for each target engaged).

I was under the impression that it should be 1 procedural for faulting the line unless he gained significant advantage and then it would be 1 procedural per shot so I'm not sure where 5 came from. Since he engaged the targets from further out than all the other competitors, I thought he should be given 1 procedural. The competitor agreed and asked for a ruling from the RM who upheld the RO's decision. The competitor then arbitrated the ruling.

The competitor argued in his written arbitration form that he did not gain advantage and therefore he should receive 1 procedural. The arbitration committee ruled that the competitor 1. engaged the targets from outside the fault line and 2. had a better angle on one target than he would have had from inside the shooting area so they changed the ruling from 5 procedurals to 2 procedurals Now, here's the important part...they kept the arbitration fee.

I look at it as the committee changed the RO's ruling based on the protest so in my mind it was upheld. Am I wrong? Does a competitor who may or may not have any RO training have to specify the correct answer to win an arbitration or can they just know that the wrong answer was used against them?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

John

[lynn jones]

patches,

the arbitration comittee has to drink too! but, i think they should have given the money back. the procedural penalty is in the "opinon" the RO not the competitor. the brain fade should have yeilded only one procedure in my view.

lynn jones

[Loves2Shoot]

1 per target that an advantage was gained on.

[Flexmoney]

Patches...I have never been through an Arb, but I would agree with you on this.

The shooter is arb'ing that the call was wrong. Indeed, in this case, that proved to be correct.

[DBChaffin]

1 per target that an advantage was gained on

That is not supported in the rules at all. 10.1.4.1 says clearly that if a competitor fires shots while faulting, he is given 1 procedural. However, if the Range Officer determines that the competitor received a significant advantage he shall receive one per shot fired, not per target, not to exceed the maximum number of scoring hits in the array as per 10.1.4.2

I was in the squad and witnessed the incident. I don't agree with the Arb committee b/c although it is true if you stepped in straight or to the left, you couldnt see the popper engaged that they gave the 2nd procedural for. However, the shooting area was wide, and a step forward and to the left would have left the popper fully visible. He didn't gain any advantage by shooting it from behind the area in my opinion.

Regardless, the major question in my mind is the money. He opposed the 5 procedurals given by the RO which was not supported by the rule. He wrote in his Arb request that he felt he should have gotten 1. The Arb committee decides the RO was wrong, that instead of 5 he should get 2. Since that is not what he asked for, they are keeping the money ?!?!?! I disagree with that decision. He put the money up because he felt the decisions were unjust. Indeed, the Arb committee agreed with him. In my mind, the money should have been refunding. I doubt he will be back next year. . . Very unfortunate.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Let me make sure I understand the issue correctly.

If I'm not mistaken, the issue is that the competitor appealed against the 5 procedurals given by the RO, and the Arbitration Committe upheld the appeal by agreeing that 5 procedurals were indeed excessive. Is that correct?

In other words, the appeal was against 5 procedurals, not against all procedurals.

If so, yes, the appeal fee should have been returned to the competitor because the appeal was upheld.

[lynn jones]

vince,

the procedurals were 5, the arb comm reduced them to 2. seems for a $100 fee. i always cut to the chase and give the money directly to the RO.

lynn

[BarryRM 18]

Lynn,

like your answer, but if the RO is IROA, be aware we aren't unbribable, but we are not that cheap

Barry

[DBChaffin]

Lynn has got it right. Apparently because the competitor wrote on his form that he felt 5 was incorrect and that he should have gotten 1, they felt like they were compromising and not upholding his appeal by giving him 2, therefore they kept the money. If he would have written, "I shouldn't have gotten five penalties but instead some number less than 5" maybe he would have gotten his money back? I felt this was ridiculous. For anyone that ever decides to arbitrate something, be REALLY careful of your wording. It may cost you $100.

[Loves2Shoot]

Oopps, I meant 1 per shot per target. BTW I would never pay $100 to win a match, let alone change a bad stage to "not quite so bad"

[ErikW]

An arbitration is sometimes more than just an appeal to overturn a decision. You might also have to explicitly state your desired result (remove procedurals, reinstatement in match, reshoot, etc.).

[lynn jones]

here's the rule on fees:

USPSA 14th Edition Rule Book • 69

11.4.2 Protest Fees • If the Committee’s decision is to uphold the

protest, the fee paid will be returned. If the committee’s decision

is to deny the protest, the fee paid will be held forfeit. Forfeited

protest fees along with the submission and decision for National

events will be forwarded to the National Range Officers Institute

(NROI). Forfeited protest fees along with the submission and

decision for International events (Level III and higher) will be

forwarded to the International Range Officers Association

(IROA).

no where does it say the Arb committee can keep the money if they particially uphold the protest.

call the MD and get your money back.

lynn jones

[Vince Pinto]

Just a small note - under the recently revised IPSC Rule 11.4.2 which came into effect on 1 January 2003, if the protest is denied, the fee is given to the match organisers for all level matches. The Arbitration minutes are either sent to the NROI or IROA, depending on the level of the match.

[John Heiter]

Vince, are you serious?

That's the worst rule I've ever seen! Hmmmm, ok an RO makes a call you disagree with so you have to ask for a ruling from their buddy the Range Master. Should the Range Master decide to support his friend, you have the option of having the Range Master pick an arbitration committee. Chances are he's not going to pick people he doesn't know or like so the competitor is struggling to get a truly fair deal already. How can we make it even worse? Oh yeah, I know, we'll provide a financial incentive for the committee to rule against the competitor. FANTASTIC! Don't give the money to NROI, don't give it to junior shooters, don't give it to USPSA, keep it yourself and go buy beer for the RO's.

I've got to say, I'm really really disappointed with IPSC leadership for allowing this to go through. I once heard someone say that the benefit of the doubt should go to the shooter. I guess that's sort of a dying concept.

John

[lynn jones]

patches,

the match organizers would not use the money to buy beer, it would more likely be jack daniels or scotch.

seriously, the money would offset match expenses. at least the money stays in house.

lynn jones

[John Heiter]

Lynn,

Sorry but I've helped run big matches before. Match fees, t-shirt sales, sponsors, and donations offset the cost of the match. Arbitration fees will just be extra money the club wasn't expecting to get so they'll have fun with it. If they wanted to charge larger match fees to pay the people who RO and run the match, I would agree to that, but I don't agree to funds from arbitrations going to the local slush fund. The local club/arbitration committee should have no financial reason for approving or denying an appeal. I don't mind lawyers working for contingency fees but I don't want my judge or jury doing it, ya follow?

John

[lynn jones]

patches,

the whole idea behind the Arbitration fees is to hold down the amount of Arbitrations that would occur over any questionable call by the RO. you'd have to be very certain you're justified before giving up $100. just think about this for a moment. you would have a full time committee to handle all the arbitrations such as foot faults, etc. as far as where the fee goes, as i said previously, it's better to keep the fee in house, than to send it away.

lynn jones

[John Heiter]

I understand the fee for arbitrations and I understand the need to keep it in place to cut down on the frivolous arbitrations. I don't understand the people on the committee, the Range Master, or the RO getting a benefit to deny all arbitrations. I'm sure that most shooters out there are honest enough that this won't be a problem in most cases but why even allow speculation? Why not just use the money for a worthy cause? Keeping the money in house is just wrong.

John

[Vince Pinto]

Patches,

1) The most widely misused expression in IPSC shooting is "the benefit of doubt goes to the shooter". This relates only to the scoring of targets and nothing else (see IPSC Rule 9.7.6.4 and USPSA Rule 9.1.4.2). There's no "benefit of doubt" when it comes to matters of safety - you've either broken a safety rule or you haven't - black or white.

2) At major IPSC matches, the Arbitration Committee is selected by the Match Director, not the Range Master, and the members of the committee are announced in advance of the match.

3) In any case, if you really believe that Match Officials will conspire and collude to deny a competitor due process and/or an Arbitration Committee will deny an appeal just to retain the fee, then I suggest you start shooting at a club where blatant cheating does not occur.

4) Finally, if such blatant cheaters exist, what makes you think they'll send the fees to the NROI? If they're willing to cheat a competitor, they wouldn't hesitate to cheat the NROI.

[Flexmoney]

I am 10,000% in Patches corner on this one.

This is like giving Barney Fife half the money for any traffic tickets he might write. (not that Barney is crooked...he might use the money to buy a second bullet though.)

[Vince Pinto]

Flex,

Just curious - under USPSA rules, how does a competitor who loses an appeal know that his money is sent to the NROI?

[crazyaboutguns]

With regard to what entity or person(s) receive fees, the name of the entity or person(s) is not relevant to whether

the arbitrators have an inherrent coflict of interest, the fact of the matter is, they do have a conflict.

Sound financial practices and avoidance of any appearance of vested interest in disbursal of fees

mandates arbitrators have absolutely no involvement with financial consequences of their decisions.

Telling a shooter to go somewhere else to shoot if he/she raises a legitimate point concerning

disbursal of fees is not an answer to the question of fee disbursal, it is a rationalization

in favor of the status quo, without any supportive reasoning.

[John Heiter]

Vince,

I'm not sure how you're supposed to do it under USPSA rules but my plan was to contact the NROI office and check to see if they got it.

Under US rules, the arbitration committee should be comprised of shooters who are not parties to the dispute and who do not have a direct conflict of interest. Since potential conflicts can't be determined until the arb occurs, the committee is typically formed after the arb is submitted.

Your idea that I should just start shooting at a more honest club is cute but we all know it's not a realistic suggestion. I simply want to know why corporations see a need to police themselves with internal audit departments, courts and governments attempt to remove temptations through complex systems of checks and balances, yet USPSA is actively seeking to remove them.

I LIKE the thought that if a competitor loses an arbitration because he doesn't understand the rules that the money from that goes to the organization responsible for educating people on the rules. I don't like the idea that if the people running the match decide to support the people they chose to RO the stages rather than the competitor that they get paid.

Back to the original subject, you agreed with me earlier that the arbitration was upheld since the competitor was given 5 procedurals but the committee changed that to two so the competitor should have gotten his money back. Since he didn't, who should we go to to see about getting it back? Is there any administrative remedy?

Thanks,

John

[bgary]

complex systems of checks and balances, yet USPSA is actively seeking to remove them

Just a note: USPSA (the organization) is *not* seeking to remove any checks and balances. The current USPSA rulebook specifies that any forfeited arb fees go to NROI, or to IROA if an international event.

The proposed IPSC rules [currently under review] say that "Decisions for Regional events will be forwarded to the National Range Officers Institute (NROI). Decisions for International events (Level III and higher) will be forwarded to the International Range Officers Association (IROA)". I'm presuming that USPSA will consider all USPSA matches to be "regional events", and that forfeited Arb fees will continue to go to NROI, as they do now, if that rule book is adopted in the US.

Bruce

[Vince Pinto]

John,

To answer your last question first, no, there's no "standard" remedy once the match is over, but if you're unhappy with the situation you originally mentioned, the only option available to you is to seek assistance from the USPSA NROI (i.e. John Amidon). In fact, he might even use your case for an article in "Front Sight".

IPSC rules changed from requiring forfeited fees be sent to NROI or IROA purely out of realism because, according to IPSC records, we've not received a single arbitration fee from any region in respect of a sanctioned match for at least 10 years, but I'll bet my cojones that there've been arbitrations over that period which did not prove in favour of the competitor.

By all means check whether the USPSA NROI received the fee in respect of your case, but I suggest you also ask them about how many other forfeited fees they receive each year on average. If it's more than, say, 3 fees a year on average, I owe you a bottle of wine.

Despite your concerns to the contrary I do not, for a minute, believe that the possibilty of retaining an arbitration fee would influence the outcome of a committee's decision. Let's face it: if an arbitration committee can be "bought" for US$25 per head, then we might as well take up archery, because this means someone can also bribe an RO to DQ a competitor to influence the outcome of a match.

Remember, whatever the RO says is inviolate and the best a competitor can do is argue his actions were not unsafe and, unlike many other sports, there are lots of "blind spots" in IPSC shooting.

Bruce,

Dude, I love ya like a brother but you're still reading the old, superceded IPSC rulebook. Que pasa?

Hence you're quite correct about the where the decisions (i.e. the minutes) are sent, but note that the subject wording already exists in the current (14th Edition September 2002) IPSC rulebook (i.e. it's not something new on the table now with the current rules committees, as you suggest).

Moreover, if you read current IPSC Rule 11.4.2, you'll note that forfeited fees are now retained by match organisers (not the arbitration committee).

By the way, as the last two Area 1 matches were sanctioned by IPSC, were any forfeited arbitration fees sent to IROA?