Can RO see all?

[JKSNIPER]

But wait! I witnessed an RM overwriting CRO by giving the shooter double on obviously one hole on the target. This hole was checked and re-checked with overlays many times (by the shooter’s request). The reason RM stated: if you had to check the hole so many times, you had a doubt. "The benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter"

Well, RM's are human too. RM made the shooter immediately in front of him a very happy man and hurt all other shooters competing against this one. And those other shooters didn't even know about it. Did I give some food for thoughtd?

What I want to say is "the Benefit of the Doubt" is a very dangerous thing, or very wrong to say the least. Make no doubt about it.

Boris,

Gotta disagree with you on this one buddy all else I am 100% with you.

In this case you say it was an obvious one hole then why did it take more than one person to determine it?

There must have been some doubt among those present?

If such doubt exists then (IMHO) you MUST find in favor of the shooter but you also must apply the same standard to every competitor so there is no unfair advantage.

I attended a sniper competition where one team of guys had one ragged smoking hole ripping through the target on a bonus round. About the size of 3-4 rounds if you crunched them all close together.

5 shots at the same small target.

The R.O. scored it as a 3 shot group and the team lost credit for 2 shots.

The targets were such that if the shooter had missed that spot it would have been an obvious miss.

I was asked my opinion and gave it: "Theres 5 rounds in there."

Shooter was a distinguished rifleman with many years of competitive shooting behind him and an individual of high integrity.

If he had missed he would have said so.

They lost out on being in the top 3 teams because of that call.

Cost them some nice prizes also.

If the guy you're scoring is all over the target and you honestly can't see a double then score it as a miss.

If the guy is burning holes through the center of the target and you can't see if its a single or a double then its a double.

Just my .02

JK

[Joe4d]

If a guy's good enough to punch two bullets through one hole, he's good enough to spread the holes out a little.

[Merlin Orr]

If a guy's good enough to punch two bullets through one hole, he's good enough to spread the holes out a little.

Now now Joe...That sounds like something an Elite Operator would say.....

I see top shooters with sets of holes a quarter inch apart on a bunch of targets. When someone punches pairs Really close with some regularity I think they should absolutely get the benefit of a doubt....

[wide45]

There is no benefit of doubt in scoring. Score what you see. If you don't see two holes, you don't score two holes.

[Boris Zaretsky]

In this case you say it was an obvious one hole then why did it take more than one person to determine it? There must have been some doubt among those present?

No, JK. There was no doubt at all. There was only one hole. The shooter created the "doubt" situation. And RM was a weak person. The shooter asked RO to put overlay and disagreed with him about how to do it. He then asked RO to pull the target and call for Range Master. RM did not see the second hole either. Then the shooter said: "You do what you want to do, but this IS a double." RM sat on his 4-weeler for a while and then just gave the shooter a double. One of our shooters on the squad said: If this RM can give a double for this shot then I don't even need to make two shots on targets. Just pull them down and call for RM.

And now you know the rrrrest of the story.

I attended a sniper competition where one team of guys had one ragged smoking hole ripping through the target on a bonus round. About the size of 3-4 rounds if you crunched them all close together.

5 shots at the same small target.

This is totally different situation. You were shooting 5 rounds on one target without patching the holes in between. The hole diameter from number of shots was bigger than diameter of one single round. In this case it is possible that one bullet passed through already-made hole. I don't know the rules for snipers. But in our old rules was a provision for not-pasted targets. For example: a competitor shoots .45ACP. The target is not pasted. The next competitor shoots 9mm. He hits not-pasted target once and misses his second shot. RO can see one 9mm hole and one .45. Here the shooter would get "benefit of the doubt" because his second round might have passed through .45 hole.

Fortunately this rule is removed and the new one 9.1.4 requires the competitor to reshoot the stage.

I don't think RO was right in your case. But eliminate all doubts snipers should use a fully pasted targets for each shot. That would make RO decision much easier and remove all doubts.

P.S. As my very good friend said once: If you have an absolutely perfect double , you have a miss .

P.P.S. I strongly believe in honor and integrity. But it has nothing to do with RO judgment. As Wide45 said: "Score what you see." And I totally agree with this statement.

[dajarrel]

.....P.P.S. I strongly believe in honor and integrity. But it has nothing to do with RO judgment. As Wide45 said: "Score what you see." And I totally agree with this statement.

I'm sorry sir, but I must disagree with you. Being Honorable and having Integrity has everything to do with RO judgement.

dj

[moverfive]

There is big distinction between firing a round and making a legitimate attempt to hit the target. And in many cases, the RO can easily call when a shooter definitely did and definitely did not try to hit a target.

A simply example - how many stages have you seen where a shooter must be in a specific corner of the box/area before they can even see a target. Well, if they never went to that corner, or close enough to it, but yet fired the minimum number of rounds the stage will be scored, FTE would still be be applicable. And as experienced RO's know - after you have run 100+ shooters through a stage, they know every movement that must and can be made to successfully engage each and every target. So the RO doesn't always have to see exactly what the shooter was shooting at to know what they were or were not engaging.

[Boris Zaretsky]

I'm sorry sir, but I must disagree with you. Being Honorable and having Integrity has everything to do with RO judgement.

dj, please check the reply from jksniper. He was talking about integrity of the shooter, NOT of RO. The shooter may be the most honorable and of highest integrity man or the worst liar on earth - the scoring by RO should not have anything to do with the shooter's character. It simply must be impartial. Wouldn't you agree with that?

[JThompson]

Here's one that happened to me recently. We had a hoser stage most of the shots were fired within three feet of the targets. I run the shooter and he takes his time and throws every round within an inch or touching one another. I call 3 2 alphas and get to a target and the clip RO goes... I saw it go through the same hole. I looked at it and thre is noway in hell I could have said it was a double. Given where the guys gun was when he fired the round there was noway he missed and the other RO said he saw it. He earned 2 Alpha on that target and that's how I scored it. This is the exception to the rules, but I think there ARE times when an RO knows the shot was there and there is noway the shooter missed the target. I know this line will probably draw criticism, but that's how I see it.

[Boris Zaretsky]

Here's one that happened to me recently. We had a hoser stage most of the shots were fired within three feet of the targets. I run the shooter and he takes his time and throws every round within an inch or touching one another. I call 3 2 alphas and get to a target and the clip RO goes... I saw it go through the same hole. I looked at it and thre is noway in hell I could have said it was a double. Given where the guys gun was when he fired the round there was noway he missed and the other RO said he saw it. He earned 2 Alpha on that target and that's how I scored it. This is the exception to the rules, but I think there ARE times when an RO knows the shot was there and there is noway the shooter missed the target. I know this line will probably draw criticism, but that's how I see it.

Interesting situation. It happened to Great Todd Jerrett in Area 6 match in Anderson, S.C. (I guess over ten years ago). I was a clip-board RO. Todd double tabs a fully open target at about 4-5 feet. And.... there was only one hole. I could not believe it would be possible. For Todd?! You kidding me! Yet RO gave him a miss and Todd agreed with no objections. (Talking about a man of integrity). The words brought up by Wide45 come to me again:

As an RO, you see what you see, and you call what you see. If you are sure of what you saw, make the call.

.

Sometimes it's hard, isn't it.

[racerba]

...the clip RO goes... I saw it go through the same hole...

There are times when you do see this, even as an RO. One good example is on the classifier 'Can You Count?'. Then and only then, can you call a double. Other than that, you have to call what is evident on the target.

In reference to the original question, YES - the RO can see more than just the gun. A good RO knows when to quickly glimps away from the gun to see foot faults and such. As an RO, you need to know the possible changing condition of the range and actions of the competitor at all times. Some RO are determinded to look only at the gun, therefore, will miss everything else that may impact a competitor's run, and possibly impacting everybody else.

[Flexmoney]

I had to give a buddy (GM open shooter) a mike on the Can You Count classifier. He didn't pull off the target, he didn't let an early shot loose. Nice tight fist sized group with the gun returning to the spot every time. I just couldn't find one of the holes.

Mike.

[JThompson]

It seems as we all have had one of these... I think there is an alternate answer to mike, but I don't have something definitive. I understand the thought as to why we score the way we do, but also think there has to be room for common sense. Going back to the premise of this thread... If everything is to be proven with empirical data... how could you call a foot fault or 180? If you hold every call to that standard there wouldn't be many that would stand the test. If you accept the premise then there has to be room for common sense even if you can't find positive proof of a double.

We have to do it the way we do because it would be too subjective if we didn't. What we have decided is we would rather make the odd error rather than deal with a bunch of whining over a hit that may or may not have been there. I agree. I also refuse to think in terms of absolutes.

Edited May 20, 2008 by JThompson

[racerba]

I had to give a buddy (GM open shooter) a mike on the Can You Count classifier. He didn't pull off the target, not let an early shot loose. Nice tight fist sized group with the gun returning to the spot every time. I just couldn't find one of the holes.

I have no problem with giving a mike if you didn't see it. What I was saying is that, using that classifier as an example, it is possible for an RO see both the gun and the hits. I was not implying that you should assume that the shooter did not miss.

[dajarrel]

I'm sorry sir, but I must disagree with you. Being Honorable and having Integrity has everything to do with RO judgement.

dj, please check the reply from jksniper. He was talking about integrity of the shooter, NOT of RO. The shooter may be the most honorable and of highest integrity man or the worst liar on earth - the scoring by RO should not have anything to do with the shooter's character. It simply must be impartial. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Yessir, completely. I misunderstood your reply which is my fault. I read the entire thread before replying and still missed the starting point of the honor issue in jksniper's post.

I probably ought to read more and post less.

might be a good time to start.

fwiw

dj

[Jack Suber]

Why is there Instant Replay in football? Because refs make mistakes. ROs are no different. In our sport, things can happen much faster than in a football game. RO's can and do make mistakes (I know that I have). Things in our sport happen WAY too fast for anyone one person to "see it all." I am sorry, but I just can not beleive that any, one RO can see everything that is going on. Over the years, I have collected a couple of videos of calls in which ROs were 100% sure of their calls, yet the video clearly show they are wrong. One in particular at the Nationals in Fredericksburg in 1997 - a shooter was called on a foot-fault. Video - Nope, shooter was within the faultline. But the RO was 100% sure and became testy when questioned about it.

At a recent match major match, after I finished shooting, an RO told me that he "should" DQ me because I reloaded with my finger in the trigger. I told him if he thought I did, then he should DQ me. He stated that he would "let me go this time, but I needed to be careful." So, after I signed the scoresheet, I asked him if he was sure he saw the finger in the trigger. He said "100% !" Hmmm. I had a pretty fast reload (people can even be heard in the video saying that my reload was fast). So, I showed him the video taken from the other side of the gun (pausing on the reload). Sorry. No finger there. The RO looked at it several times and then said, "Wow, I could have sworn I saw your finger in the trigger guard."

Yes, I know video is not allowed to be considered. But it can be eye-opening.... No one is perfect.

[JThompson]

Why is there Instant Replay in football? Because refs make mistakes. ROs are no different. In our sport, things can happen much faster than in a football game. RO's can and do make mistakes (I know that I have). Things in our sport happen WAY too fast for anyone one person to "see it all." I am sorry, but I just can not beleive that any, one RO can see everything that is going on. Over the years, I have collected a couple of videos of calls in which ROs were 100% sure of their calls, yet the video clearly show they are wrong. One in particular at the Nationals in Fredericksburg in 1997 - a shooter was called on a foot-fault. Video - Nope, shooter was within the faultline. But the RO was 100% sure and became testy when questioned about it.

At a recent match major match, after I finished shooting, an RO told me that he "should" DQ me because I reloaded with my finger in the trigger. I told him if he thought I did, then he should DQ me. He stated that he would "let me go this time, but I needed to be careful." So, after I signed the scoresheet, I asked him if he was sure he saw the finger in the trigger. He said "100% !" Hmmm. I had a pretty fast reload (people can even be heard in the video saying that my reload was fast). So, I showed him the video taken from the other side of the gun (pausing on the reload). Sorry. No finger there. The RO looked at it several times and then said, "Wow, I could have sworn I saw your finger in the trigger guard."

Yes, I know video is not allowed to be considered. But it can be eye-opening.... No one is perfect.

I've seen stuff, or not, on video too. Which begs the question... why don't we use every available source for data, especially if you are sending someone home. In some cases people use a nat or like for their vacation. If there is data video that refutes a bad call then it should be used. IMHO it's pig headed to send someone home if the infraction didn't occur; Like your finger call. Now think about that at the nats and you get sent home because they refuse to consider the video. That's so stupid as to be moronic imo. I'm not saying every call should be checked on video, but I think if someone takes one to arb they should use every available resource to make sure th call is correct. In some cases people spend big bucks to do a major and then the $100 for arb... shouldn't we do everything we can to make the right call? It's a proven fact that "eye witness" accounts are the most fraught with errors.

Edited May 20, 2008 by JThompson

[Jack Suber]

Why is there Instant Replay in football? Because refs make mistakes. ROs are no different. In our sport, things can happen much faster than in a football game. RO's can and do make mistakes (I know that I have). Things in our sport happen WAY too fast for anyone one person to "see it all." I am sorry, but I just can not beleive that any, one RO can see everything that is going on. Over the years, I have collected a couple of videos of calls in which ROs were 100% sure of their calls, yet the video clearly show they are wrong. One in particular at the Nationals in Fredericksburg in 1997 - a shooter was called on a foot-fault. Video - Nope, shooter was within the faultline. But the RO was 100% sure and became testy when questioned about it.

At a recent match major match, after I finished shooting, an RO told me that he "should" DQ me because I reloaded with my finger in the trigger. I told him if he thought I did, then he should DQ me. He stated that he would "let me go this time, but I needed to be careful." So, after I signed the scoresheet, I asked him if he was sure he saw the finger in the trigger. He said "100% !" Hmmm. I had a pretty fast reload (people can even be heard in the video saying that my reload was fast). So, I showed him the video taken from the other side of the gun (pausing on the reload). Sorry. No finger there. The RO looked at it several times and then said, "Wow, I could have sworn I saw your finger in the trigger guard."

Yes, I know video is not allowed to be considered. But it can be eye-opening.... No one is perfect.

I've seen stuff, or not, on video too. Which begs the question... why don't we use every available source for data, especially if you are sending someone home. In some cases people use a nat or like for their vacation. If there is data video that refutes a bad call then it should be used. IMHO it's pig headed to send someone home if the infraction didn't occur; Like your finger call. Now think about that at the nats and you get sent home because they refuse to consider the video. That's so stupid as to be moronic imo. I'm not saying every call should be checked on video, but I think if someone takes one to arb they should use every available resource to make sure th call is correct. In some cases people spend big bucks to do a major and then the $100 for arb... shouldn't we do everything we can to make the right call? It's a proven fact that "eye witness" accounts are the most fraught with errors.

I know what the rules say, but if someone shows me video demonstrating that I made a mistake. I will accept it. I am not affraid of admitting that I am wrong, especially if someone invests a lot of money to travel to and compete in a match. I know what the rules say, but if I am wrong, I want to make it right.

Sorry, that is just the way I am...

[JThompson]

Why is there Instant Replay in football? Because refs make mistakes. ROs are no different. In our sport, things can happen much faster than in a football game. RO's can and do make mistakes (I know that I have). Things in our sport happen WAY too fast for anyone one person to "see it all." I am sorry, but I just can not beleive that any, one RO can see everything that is going on. Over the years, I have collected a couple of videos of calls in which ROs were 100% sure of their calls, yet the video clearly show they are wrong. One in particular at the Nationals in Fredericksburg in 1997 - a shooter was called on a foot-fault. Video - Nope, shooter was within the faultline. But the RO was 100% sure and became testy when questioned about it.

At a recent match major match, after I finished shooting, an RO told me that he "should" DQ me because I reloaded with my finger in the trigger. I told him if he thought I did, then he should DQ me. He stated that he would "let me go this time, but I needed to be careful." So, after I signed the scoresheet, I asked him if he was sure he saw the finger in the trigger. He said "100% !" Hmmm. I had a pretty fast reload (people can even be heard in the video saying that my reload was fast). So, I showed him the video taken from the other side of the gun (pausing on the reload). Sorry. No finger there. The RO looked at it several times and then said, "Wow, I could have sworn I saw your finger in the trigger guard."

Yes, I know video is not allowed to be considered. But it can be eye-opening.... No one is perfect.

I've seen stuff, or not, on video too. Which begs the question... why don't we use every available source for data, especially if you are sending someone home. In some cases people use a nat or like for their vacation. If there is data video that refutes a bad call then it should be used. IMHO it's pig headed to send someone home if the infraction didn't occur; Like your finger call. Now think about that at the nats and you get sent home because they refuse to consider the video. That's so stupid as to be moronic imo. I'm not saying every call should be checked on video, but I think if someone takes one to arb they should use every available resource to make sure th call is correct. In some cases people spend big bucks to do a major and then the $100 for arb... shouldn't we do everything we can to make the right call? It's a proven fact that "eye witness" accounts are the most fraught with errors.

I know what the rules say, but if someone shows me video demonstrating that I made a mistake. I will accept it. I am not affraid of admitting that I am wrong, especially if someone invests a lot of money to travel to and compete in a match. I know what the rules say, but if I am wrong, I want to make it right.

Sorry, that is just the way I am...

I'm with ya Jack.

[HoMiE]

Scenario #1 came up in a recent CRO class as a specific example. Bottom line, the officiating RO saw what happened. The shooter does not get the benefit of the doubt if there isn't any. Same applies to #2.

And yes, the RO can do more than one thing at a time; safety may be his primary responsibility, but is not the only then he can or is doing.

Watching the gun does not mean you have tunnel vision.

Good post and very good points. But you've just said the words I despice.

the benefit of the doubt

Oh boy, oh boy!. Yet another stone in my shoe. I've heard this "benefit of the doubt" thing soooooo many times. RO, for one, must not make a call if he has a doubt. He can summon RM, if appropriate, to help him out. But if he makes a call he should be pretty darn sure ther are no doubts.

But wait! I witnessed an RM overwriting CRO by giving the shooter double on obviously one hole on the target. This hole was checked and re-checked with overlays many times (by the shooter’s request). The reason RM stated: if you had to check the hole so many times, you had a doubt. "The benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter"

Well, RM's are human too. RM made the shooter immediately in front of him a very happy man and hurt all other shooters competing against this one. And those other shooters didn't even know about it. Did I give some food for thoughtd?

What I want to say is "the Benefit of the Doubt" is a very dangerous thing, or very wrong to say the least. Make no doubt about it.

I read the rule book and no where in it does it say "benefit of doubt goes to shooter". Yes, people make mistakes, that is why you need to be sure, fair and consistent when making calls. I like what TGO says in his rant - Be responsible. In other words, suck it up and take the mike.

Be Responsible

[Jack Suber]

Scenario #1 came up in a recent CRO class as a specific example. Bottom line, the officiating RO saw what happened. The shooter does not get the benefit of the doubt if there isn't any. Same applies to #2.

And yes, the RO can do more than one thing at a time; safety may be his primary responsibility, but is not the only then he can or is doing.

Watching the gun does not mean you have tunnel vision.

Good post and very good points. But you've just said the words I despice.

the benefit of the doubt

Oh boy, oh boy!. Yet another stone in my shoe. I've heard this "benefit of the doubt" thing soooooo many times. RO, for one, must not make a call if he has a doubt. He can summon RM, if appropriate, to help him out. But if he makes a call he should be pretty darn sure ther are no doubts.

But wait! I witnessed an RM overwriting CRO by giving the shooter double on obviously one hole on the target. This hole was checked and re-checked with overlays many times (by the shooter’s request). The reason RM stated: if you had to check the hole so many times, you had a doubt. "The benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter"

Well, RM's are human too. RM made the shooter immediately in front of him a very happy man and hurt all other shooters competing against this one. And those other shooters didn't even know about it. Did I give some food for thoughtd?

What I want to say is "the Benefit of the Doubt" is a very dangerous thing, or very wrong to say the least. Make no doubt about it.

I read the rule book and no where in it does it say "benefit of doubt goes to shooter". Yes, people make mistakes, that is why you need to be sure, fair and consistent when making calls. I like what TGO says in his rant - Be responsible. In other words, suck it up and take the mike.

Be Responsible

I agree with that, too. I have told many an RO to put his overlay away...."the hit just ain't there"... I know because I am the one who shot it!!! I have also shot with many people whom I have seen miss and try to claim a double. I have absolutely no respect for them what-so-ever.... What's worse, are the guys who do it at a club match!

"Be responsible..... " what a great quote for our sport.......

[John Heiter]

I can see both sides of it. I absolutely want the right call to be made and if video shows that a wrong was was made then I would be tempted to use it. Unfortunately, as the NFL so clearly demonstrates, even video is dependent on having the right angle and view to be of assistance. It must "prove conclusively". I would want to see some pretty comprehensive rules regarding the use of video if we're thinking about allowing it. Just because something doesn't appear on video from one angle doesn't mean it didn't happen or that the RO didn't see it from his/her angle. In some cases it might provide conclusive proof, in some cases it would provide no more than a different view point. In all cases where it was used it would slow down the match and would it be fair? If I can afford a video camera and have someone film all my runs do I get the benefit of video evidence for all my runs while someone else never does? I guess I just think it opens up too big a can of worms so I think I agree with the folks who said inadmissible.

To the original post, I think the RO can only see one thing at a time, but they can divide their attention quite well. It's like an Indy car driver going around a track. It demands total concentration so they keep their eyes on the road ahead of them 99% of the time, but there's a certain percentage of the time devoted to glancing at their mirrors, checking their blind spots, checking the speedometer/telemetry data, etc. The RO needs to give the gun as much attention as he can, but he also needs to be aware of his surroundings so he doesn't get in the path of the shooter, doesn't trip over obstacles, etc. The more experienced you get as an RO, the more efficient you will become at slicing your attention and quickly focusing on what you need to see to make the call. Just because the gun is your primary focus doesn't mean you have tunnel vision.

[JThompson]

I can see both sides of it. I absolutely want the right call to be made and if video shows that a wrong was was made then I would be tempted to use it. Unfortunately, as the NFL so clearly demonstrates, even video is dependent on having the right angle and view to be of assistance. It must "prove conclusively". I would want to see some pretty comprehensive rules regarding the use of video if we're thinking about allowing it. Just because something doesn't appear on video from one angle doesn't mean it didn't happen or that the RO didn't see it from his/her angle. In some cases it might provide conclusive proof, in some cases it would provide no more than a different view point. In all cases where it was used it would slow down the match and would it be fair? If I can afford a video camera and have someone film all my runs do I get the benefit of video evidence for all my runs while someone else never does? I guess I just think it opens up too big a can of worms so I think I agree with the folks who said inadmissible.

To the original post, I think the RO can only see one thing at a time, but they can divide their attention quite well. It's like an Indy car driver going around a track. It demands total concentration so they keep their eyes on the road ahead of them 99% of the time, but there's a certain percentage of the time devoted to glancing at their mirrors, checking their blind spots, checking the speedometer/telemetry data, etc. The RO needs to give the gun as much attention as he can, but he also needs to be aware of his surroundings so he doesn't get in the path of the shooter, doesn't trip over obstacles, etc. The more experienced you get as an RO, the more efficient you will become at slicing your attention and quickly focusing on what you need to see to make the call. Just because the gun is your primary focus doesn't mean you have tunnel vision.

You make some good points John. As to slowing down the match... I think this should only be used if a DQ is issued and goes to arb. The arb itself takes the time and if anything might make the proceeding go faster. IF the shooter wins the arb then he gets a shoot through to catch up with the squad.

As you said it would have to be conclusive and if not the RO's call would stand.

The number of DQ's is pretty low and the number that are arbed even more. I don't think this would put a strain on match officials anymore than what they have already... it just puts another tool in the bag to help them get it right.

As to being unfair because some people have video and some don't... them's the breaks. Is it more fair to send a guy home when he shouldn't have been DQed?

[John Heiter]

I can see both sides of it. I absolutely want the right call to be made and if video shows that a wrong was was made then I would be tempted to use it. Unfortunately, as the NFL so clearly demonstrates, even video is dependent on having the right angle and view to be of assistance. It must "prove conclusively". I would want to see some pretty comprehensive rules regarding the use of video if we're thinking about allowing it. Just because something doesn't appear on video from one angle doesn't mean it didn't happen or that the RO didn't see it from his/her angle. In some cases it might provide conclusive proof, in some cases it would provide no more than a different view point. In all cases where it was used it would slow down the match and would it be fair? If I can afford a video camera and have someone film all my runs do I get the benefit of video evidence for all my runs while someone else never does? I guess I just think it opens up too big a can of worms so I think I agree with the folks who said inadmissible.

To the original post, I think the RO can only see one thing at a time, but they can divide their attention quite well. It's like an Indy car driver going around a track. It demands total concentration so they keep their eyes on the road ahead of them 99% of the time, but there's a certain percentage of the time devoted to glancing at their mirrors, checking their blind spots, checking the speedometer/telemetry data, etc. The RO needs to give the gun as much attention as he can, but he also needs to be aware of his surroundings so he doesn't get in the path of the shooter, doesn't trip over obstacles, etc. The more experienced you get as an RO, the more efficient you will become at slicing your attention and quickly focusing on what you need to see to make the call. Just because the gun is your primary focus doesn't mean you have tunnel vision.

You make some good points John. As to slowing down the match... I think this should only be used if a DQ is issued and goes to arb. The arb itself takes the time and if anything might make the proceeding go faster. IF the shooter wins the arb then he gets a shoot through to catch up with the squad.

As you said it would have to be conclusive and if not the RO's call would stand.

The number of DQ's is pretty low and the number that are arbed even more. I don't think this would put a strain on match officials anymore than what they have already... it just puts another tool in the bag to help them get it right.

As to being unfair because some people have video and some don't... them's the breaks. Is it more fair to send a guy home when he shouldn't have been DQed?

I do like the idea of using it as an arb tool. Maybe not for mike vs. doubles and FTE's, but major send home kind of calls... I'd like to know we have those right if possible. Still playing devil's advocate... would RO's be as likely to make the call on safety issues if they can think in their head "What if I'm wrong and the video shows it, are they going to hate me, etc."?

[JThompson]

I do like the idea of using it as an arb tool. Maybe not for mike vs. doubles and FTE's, but major send home kind of calls... I'd like to know we have those right if possible. Still playing devil's advocate... would RO's be as likely to make the call on safety issues if they can think in their head "What if I'm wrong and the video shows it, are they going to hate me, etc."?

I agree that video should be used only for a DQ arb event.

I would hope that the ROs would call them as they see them regardless of whether we use video or not... when it comes down to it no Ro that I know wants to DQ anyone. If I was wrong and was overturned upon review, I would be happy that I didn't send a guy/lady home for a missed call. Would it change the way I call what I see? I don't think so, but it would be something we have to consider.