Can RO see all?

[Jack Suber]

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."?

I agree, that could be the way to do it...use video as an arb tool. Having a competitor pay an arb fee would ensure that video would not be used "frivolously". Even if it was an argument of an FTE or something....the competitor pays the fee an arbitrates it. If it is not "irrefutable" evidence (to steal the term from the NFL), the competitor risks losing his arb fee. fee. Hopefully, others not having video would not be an issue (especially in DQ cases). If it were, I would think there is some course design issue.

Can video be used in an arbitration? My squad pitched in and arbitrated an issue at the 1997 Nationals and won. We had video to support our claims, but I can not remember if it was allowed?

On another note - what if the RO, on his own initiative, decides he wants to see the video; and, after reviewing it, reverses his call. Could that be allowed/accepted?

[Nik Habicht]

I've looked at a lot of images over the years, as well as a fair amount of video ---- I'm only o.k. with using video or photographic "evidence" if there are trained examiners/interpreters, i.e. people who've spent quite a bit of time behind a camera professionally.....

Since we're not likely to get that through the rules committee.....

[Flexmoney]

"I see foot faults."

[JThompson]

Bad Flex bad!

Edited May 20, 2008 by JThompson

[HoMiE]

"I see foot faults."

Easy to argue that you did not fire and when presented with video, the sound is not synce'd up with footage..pun intended.

Edited May 20, 2008 by HoMiE

[Boris Zaretsky]

Why is there Instant Replay in football?

Because they can afford it for one. When they pay 150 mills for a quarterback they can afford to put videos all over the place. They put running cameras on the sides and from all angles. They broadcast it and make huge money. You cannot possibly compare our sport budget with theirs. It is not even funny.

Let me ask you Why not one Olympic event allows photo/video prove except photo-finish?

The thinks are quickly happen in our sport. So it is in box, basketball, hockey and many others. Yet no one including professional basketball is using video for prove of actions. Yes RO's do make mistakes. I did myself a number of times. This is the nature of the beast. You reduce your mistakes with experience and you train yourself to be higly attentive to every event, every shooter.

Video camera is great think for it's impartiality. But is it? If I see a shooter running with finger in the trigger guard and send him home, the camera may prove it was not the case. But is it? Would you agree that from one point of view the finger may be visible inside the trigger guard and from the other it is not? So, who is right in this case? Who is wrong? The USPSA HQ and BOD were thinking about it before issuing the rule. I bet there were many reasons to disallow video as a prove of event beside the point I've made above.

I bet they were thinking about fairness to all shooters and in this case they would have to install cameras all over the place. Then they would have to fine certified cameramen to run them. Then there would be a question of safety. Now imagine if the video would be allowed for arb. And you think it is only for DQ cases. How would you know when DQ is going to happen? And if not, then you would have to tape every shooter on every stage obstructing competition itself. There would be cameramen trying to get closer to the shooter. It would put additional stress on RO. No one is his mind would want that to happen when people are playing with guns. It then would be a nightmare of safety. And then, if you allow for arb on DQ issue only, how long do you think it would take to use for foot fault, then extra shots in Virginia Count and so on.

No, no! Don't even think about it. It's better to miss a right call or make a bad one once in a while than open the gates to this flood of problems. Brrrr.

Regards.

[JThompson]

I think you are exaggerating the possible issues. Hey, if you don't trust video then how can you trust the ROs eyes? Baseball is a perfect example of the mistakes people make. I see many bad calls in a single game. Sometimes it changes the course of a game. I don't propose we spend thousands of dollars on video and put people down range... I simply say if someone has video there is no reason not to look at it. It's not binding and we want to give the shooter every chance to prove his/her case.

They allow a witnesses from the squad to speak at arb do they not? Then why not have one more witness? If there is video then at least take a look at it... it's just another tool.

Edited May 21, 2008 by JThompson

[Jack Suber]

But is it? If I see a shooter running with finger in the trigger guard and send him home, the camera may prove it was not the case. But is it? Would you agree that from one point of view the finger may be visible inside the trigger guard and from the other it is not?

I don't think so. The finger is either in the trigger guard or it is not - and the right side of a right handed shooter is not the position to be able to see that definitively. In the case I was involved in, it clearly was not. The RO thought he saw it. But from my left side (the video side), you could not even see my entire finger - it was obscured by the trigger guard. If my finger is in the trigger guard, you would be able to see my finger tip in the trigger guard. Yet, my finger tip could be seen in front of the trigger guard. Even the RO confirmed that. I could have been sent home for that - an error.

I seem to recall a certain big name shooter a few years ago that got called one time for running with his finger in the trigger. The RO was rather embarrassed when he discovered that the shooter was missing half of his trigger finger! From the right side of the gun, the RO thought he was seeing a trigger finger in the trigger guard, which was not the case. Further, if a person was running at full speed, I think it would be extremely difficult to see a finger in the trigger and be so convinced as to want to send a shooter home. I may issue a warning but I would have a tough time issuing a DQ ( unless the gun went bang).

It's better to miss a right call or make a bad one once in a while than open the gates to this flood of problems. Brrrr.

Unless you are the shooter that is being sent home..........

[piper]

As far as the shooters are concerned , the RO see's all.

The 3 matches ,I've done this year, when you get to the 100th shooter being fair, consistant, enforcing the rules and being Honorable and having Integrity, does matter as an RO. The slow shooters get the same treatment as the fast shooters. As far as the RO goes , all shooters are the same, some are quicker,.... a perfect double is scored as a hit and a miss.

Being safe is my primary concern , presenting the same description/ course of fire to every shooter is 2nd and scoring is 3rd . But you HAVE TO GO BY THE RULES. no matter who the shooter is or what he/she wants the score to be. You make your call as you see it and if the RM sees it different OK.

When there are 4 targets through a port and the shooter fires 6 shots and has 6 A's on 3 targets they have earned 2 mikes and procedural, yep, I know they fired 6 shots at 4 targets they could have possibly engaged all 4 targets but they DID Not and have earned the penalties.

Even watching only the gun you see things as an RO that are amazing. The shooter is blazing away at 3 targets and moves away after 4 shots , is moving on the 5th and is totally looking somewhere else as the last shot is fired, the 6th, its in a safe direction so its OK. There is a mike on one of the targets , the shooter wants an overlay and then wants the RM because they are sure that its a DOUBLE , He can not understand that he is the 10th or 20th shooter to do the same thing . I will put an overlay on it and call the RM if requested , but I try and be consistant, every potential mike gets an overlay even if I'm sure he did not fire enough rounds.

It can be a tough job, you do the best you can, more experience helps, learn the rules, what you do can affect the outcome of the match.

Be fair and honest with everyone. Even the A**holes.

[Boris Zaretsky]

I don't think so. The finger is either in the trigger guard or it is not - and the right side of a right handed shooter is not the position to be able to see that definitively.

You are right, it is hard to see it. RO'ing is not easy especially if you are trying to do things right. So, just do your best. Amidon said one time: "If you think the finger is in the trigger guard, yell "finger!". If you KNOW the finger is in the trigger guard, yell "STOP!"" It make things pretty clear to me.

Yet, my finger tip could be seen in front of the trigger guard.

If you would set your finger "visibly outside the trigger guard" as it says in 8.5.1., you would not have this problem. I've got a warning once "FINGER!" for half crunching it as it would sims to be in the trigger guard even though it was not. After that I've decided to stick it straight out that it would never have cause a doubt. Is it so difficult to do? See any video of top GM's. They have no problems with that. The finger is ALWAYS straight out and no problemos.

I seem to recall a certain big name shooter a few years ago that got called one time for running with his finger in the trigger. The RO was rather embarrassed when he discovered that the shooter was missing half of his trigger finger! From the right side of the gun, the RO thought he was seeing a trigger finger in the trigger guard, which was not the case.

I know that case. The shooter is a very good friend of mine and I was there when it happened. The RO was a woman and she was yelling FINGER from under the tent about 15 yards away. She was not the timer RO at that time. My friend continued to run and after the stage he showed her that finger. She apologized for that.

But first, you cannot blame her for her actions since she saw pretty well from her position the finger WAS "bent" into the trigger guard. She did not know the shooter. And second, this situation is an absolute exception and cannot be used as the prove for your point. The shooter should have told to RO's about his issue before the stage as he actually does it now unless he knows RO form prior engagements. The shooter would not ever being DQ'd in this situation , would not need arbitration and, hence, camera prove.

Further, if a person was running at full speed, I think it would be extremely difficult to see a finger in the trigger and be so convinced as to want to send a shooter home. I may issue a warning but I would have a tough time issuing a DQ ( unless the gun went bang).

What you are saying cannot be more wrong than that. Match Disqualification for finger in the trigger guard is set to prevent a gun to go bang in uncontrolled and unexpected manner. When gun goes bang it is already late.

Back a few years ago I remember a stage (I think it was Alabama State match) where the wall was made of black plastic attached to vertical poles. The stage was made to shoot left of this wall, then right, then go back to the door in the middle and so on. When the shooter finished with array on the right, he ran fast to the door holding gun in his right hand. At that time the wind picked up and made a big bubble of that plastic wall. The shooter hit the post (he could not see it now) with his gun and that made turn the gun almost 90 degrees, almost breaking 180 and many other "almosts". If his finger would be in the trigger guard the gun would go bang putting a number of people at great danger. (he actually, I think, broke 180, but RO did not stop him). But the point here is not about 180. The point is that DQ for finger in the trigger is absolutely right rule and must be enforced by RO's to prevent potentially dangerous situation that can put entire sport in disrepute. When the gun goes bang it is already late!

I have number of other stories on the subject but don't want to delineate from main course. Simply keep the finger straight out of the trigger guard and you would not need the help of the camera.

As far as RO's are concerned, yap they do make mistakes but I haven't seen any making mistakes on purpose. You, the shooter, make your moves in such a way that RO would not have doubts about your safety and you will be all right. You spend the time to practice shooting, spend the time to practice shooting safe, to run with finger visibly outside the trigger guard. You will be OK then.

Regards.

[Boris Zaretsky]

Thanks, Piper. A lot of people with you an that.

[Johann the Horrible]

If you are RO`ing and see that a competitor has not inserted his magazine fully at LAMR, do you warn him? No, you cannot be 100% sure that you will not miss the same thing in another shooter. We have to treat all shooters 100% the same. Now to video. The reason it is not allowed is that we cannot be 100 present sure that all shooters will be videoed the same. Obviously the super squad will be videoed from all angles and the D class bunch probably not at all.

IMHO the RO is there to make sure everything is done safely and secondly in accordance to the rules. Few good RO`s see how many people they can DQ. We only DQ if we are obliged to by the rules. Video sometimes foreshortens angles and can distort what the human eye would see true. You need to be an expert to "read" video correctly. That is why they have experts giving evidence in all court cases where video is entered into evidence. Also video can be tampered with - but that does not apply here- shooters would never do that. We battle to build more and better ranges with better range equipment, why would we take funds away from that to get video equipment that sometimes would just confuse the issue.

IMHO The rule with RO`s is - if you see it, it happened, if you did not see it happen it did not happen.

[Jack Suber]

You are right, it is hard to see it. RO'ing is not easy especially if you are trying to do things right. So, just do your best. Amidon said one time: "If you think the finger is in the trigger guard, yell "finger!". If you KNOW the finger is in the trigger guard, yell "STOP!"" It make things pretty clear to me.

Yep. That is exactly what I have been saying.

If you would set your finger "visibly outside the trigger guard" as it says in 8.5.1., you would not have this problem.

I think I have covered this. If my finger tip is seen in front of the trigger guard, I think it is "visibly outside of the trigger guard". The RO screwed up and he admitted so. He "did not see all."

I know that case. The shooter is a very good friend of mine and I was there when it happened. The RO was a woman and she was yelling FINGER from under the tent about 15 yards away. She was not the timer RO at that time. My friend continued to run and after the stage he showed her that finger. She apologized for that.

Might be the same shooter, but not the same occurance. The RO I am referring to is male and it happened here in S.C.

What you are saying cannot be more wrong than that. Match Disqualification for finger in the trigger guard is set to prevent a gun to go bang in uncontrolled and unexpected manner.

Nope. You are missing my point. I am saying that following a shooter, a fast one, and staying at their 4:00 or 3:30 position (like most ROs do), it is extremely difficult to see the trigger finger. Especially of the shooter is faster, taller, etc. My point is that I will be as close to positive as I can before I make that call. I am more likely to make the call if I am on the left side of a right-handed shooter (I can see the finger in the trigger guard). That is the only way to be 100% sure.

Simply keep the finger straight out of the trigger guard and you would not need the help of the camera.

The rule does not say "Straight". It says "outside."

[Boris Zaretsky]

IMHO The rule with RO`s is - if you see it, it happened, if you did not see it happen it did not happen.

I second that.

[Boris Zaretsky]

The rule does not say "Straight". It says "outside."

No, it says "visibly outside the trigger guard". The word VISIBLY is the key for your problem. If it would be VISIBLY outside the trigger guard, RO would not call it. If you slightly bend the finger, RO may see it as being inside the trigger guard. You cannot blame RO for your missing the word "VISIBLY" from the rule.

Beside being CRO for many years, I am also NRA instructor. NRA class teaches you three points of safety:

- keep gun unloaded

- point gun in safe direction (don't point at the things you don't want to destroy)

- keep finger outside the trigger guard

Look at any video showing our troops and that famous picture of a policeman with the rifle taking Gonzales kid in Florida (under orders from Jannet Reno). You will always see the trigger finger straight out of the trigger guard.

Why do you have problem with that? Why you cannot keep your finger visibly outside the trigger guard thus avoiding any questions, concerns and DQ calls from RO?

Do it the way it is written in the rule book and you don't need cameras.

[Jack Suber]

The rule does not say "Straight". It says "outside."

No, it says "visibly outside the trigger guard". The word VISIBLY is the key for your problem. If it would be VISIBLY outside the trigger guard, RO would not call it. If you slightly bend the finger, RO may see it as being inside the trigger guard. You cannot blame RO for your missing the word "VISIBLY" from the rule.

Nope. I didn't miss the word at all. The RO missed the call and missed the "visible" part. My finger was visibly out of the trigger guard. How else could it have been seen in front of the trigger guard? Finger bent or straight is irrelevant - the RO was wrong. He had his doubts which was evident in the fact that he did not DQ me on the spot. The RO made "the call" from my 4:00 position. He is also about 4 inches shorter than me. No way he saw what he "thinks" he saw. My point - RO's DO NOT SEE ALL and they do make mistakes...just like this RO admitted.

Why do you have problem with that? Why you cannot keep your finger visibly outside the trigger guard thus avoiding any questions, concerns and DQ calls from RO?

You are not paying attention to my posts. I do not have a problem with the rule nor did I state that I keep my finger in the trigger guard when I move. The issue I am bringing up here is not the video. The issue here is "Do RO's see all." My point of bringing up this particular situation is not to bring up the video but to prove that RO's do not see all. If you will look back - when I was posting about this situation - I never stated that I was moving/running. I was reloading. The ONLY way the RO could have seen my finger in the trigger at the time of the reload is if he was on the ground underneath me. Why? Because like 95% of other shooters, I cant my gun and bring it in a little when I reload. The RO "thought" he saw something that was proven he did not. Just like in the case of this topic, you may think you saw (or read) one thing when something completely different happened (or was written).

I do have a problem with a statement that an RO "sees all." That itself, implies that an RO can never make a mistake. As I have pointed out, WE can and do make mistakes. I have and I have admitted it. If I make a bad call, I am going to do my best to be honest and correct it. It does not bother me to admit that I made a bad call nor to admit that I am capable of making a bad call. That hurts no one.

My point is that I have proven that someone who is 100% sure of a call has been proven 100% wrong with video evidence - therefore proving that "RO's do not see all." I am not disputing the rule at all.

Do it the way it is written in the rule book and you don't need cameras.

I have and I do.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Jack Suber

[ima45dv8]

To the question, "Can RO see all?", my answer is, "I see all that I can."

I work hard at it, but I know I've missed things and made mistakes. As in all things related to customer service, it's not how well we perform when everything is going well, but how we react when there's a problem that matters.

[cautery]

RE: Using video

Qualification: I've only been an RO for 3 years, but I have worked 2 Nationals and several Area matches.

I had this conversation this past weekend. I realize all the possible problems with using video, but I DO see a possible limited use for it. I DO NOT think video should EVER be used by an RO or CRO to make a ruling.... mostly because it is my job to provide consistency from shooter to shooter. Not all shooters are covered by video, and none are covered exactly the same. In fact, I don't think ROs should even view a video of a shooter on his stage while the match is in progress.

However, I DO think you could use video under the following conditions:

1) Video MAY only be used as partial evidence in an arbitration. Read: It is not to be used SOLELY to make a ruling, and you have to pay the $100.00.

2) Any video that may potentially be used in the arb MUST be declared at the time the arb is initiated, and the video must be reviewed by the Match Director and Range Master(s) of the match prior to being viewed by the arb committee, and must be viewed on a screen size minimum of 15" and out of the direct sunlight, preferably inside. The RM may make a recommendation as to whether the video is probative, but the final call is made by the MD/TD. IF, the MD/TD declares the video may be used in the arb, the video may be used as 1 piece of evidence in the arb with instructions to the committee that their vote must not be made solely on the contents of the video alone.

I do my best to make my calls 100% accurate, but ROs are human too.

[Jack Suber]

Back to A Question I Posted Before - "IF" you make a call as an RO (specifically a DQ) and you are presented with evidence that would irrefutably prove your call wrong, would you reverse your call. "IF" on your own initiative you did look at video or photo that clearly demonstrated you DQ'd someone and you were wrong. What would you do?

Would you, as an RO, want to know if your call was right or wrong?

[Flexmoney]

I think some good points have been made here. To recap:

- The RO can do more than just look at the gun.

- RO's do make mistakes. Calls need to be made with certainty, not speculation...not "it had to be that way". Only call what you are 100% sure of seeing.

- Use of video...probably deserves it's very own thread.

[cautery]

Back to A Question I Posted Before - "IF" you make a call as an RO (specifically a DQ) and you are presented with evidence that would irrefutably prove your call wrong, would you reverse your call. "IF" on your own initiative you did look at video or photo that clearly demonstrated you DQ'd someone and you were wrong. What would you do?

Would you, as an RO, want to know if your call was right or wrong?

Sorry if my response wasn't directly "on point". I did not read the entire thread.

a. Would I reverse my call? Depends, see below.

b. Visual Evidence on my own initiative? I am not allowed to take the "initiative" to view visual (video/photo) evidence. See below.

c. Would I want to know if my call was right or wrong? If I make a call that is over-ruled by the CRO or RM, I expect them to explain to me why my call was "wrong". I consider it part of an ROs ongoing effort to improve his skills. Video/photo? Until the rules are changed in this respect, which I doubt will happen, I would probably be willing to review visual docs AFTER the match, but I would not allow it to affect my decision DURING the match. See below.

This is how I'd handle this situation.

1) I don't DQ competitors. Competitors DQ themselves via a DQ'able violation of the published rules and rulings that I OBSERVE during the course of fire.

2) Violations subject to DQ are not written into the rules lightly or frivolously. There is a good reason for each case. If I observe a violation subject to DQ, I am bound by the rules to make the call. I don't make these calls lightly... in fact, it's the suckiest part of my job as an RO.

3) I make the call and annotate the specifics, date, time, and the rule on the score card. And, I am required to notify the RM as soon as possible.

4) The rules (11.1.5) only address visual evidence in reference to an arbitration, and then only to state that it cannot be accepted as evidence. An arbitration is a review of the RO, CRO, RM call. If visual documentation is not acceptable at the arbitration, it is by inference, not relevent at the RO level.

Knowing this in advance, I could not allow visual documentation to impact my decision, which is why my personal procedure is to NOT view video, photos, etc. of my stage while the match is on-going.

Now, if there was evidence that was NOT prohibited by the rules, certainly I would consider it. I am, of course, capable of making a mistake. I like to think that I evaluate all allowable and available information before making my call. (e.g. other ROs assigned to stage, CRO assigned to stage, physical evidence on the stage like bullet holes et al, and my own observations) Bottom line though... If I am running the shooter, and I observe a prohobited action subject to DQ, the rules do not grant me any leeway in recording the event.

I've only had 2 shooters DQ while I was running them. BOTH were clear cases. AD during reloading (shotgun between legs), and an AD over the berm, while moving, and not engaging a target. I've given a couple of 180 warnings, but if I saw a clear 180 break, I'd call it.

(Yeah, I know the 180 warning isn't in the books, and folks that shoot by IPSC rules hate them, but until a rule STOPS me from doing it, or I am instructed by my CRO or RM in a specific match, I will continue to do so.... I believe it has saved shooters from DQ'ing by reminding them to stay in control and not ride the bleeding edge beyond their capabilities.)

EDIT: I was wrong! Safety warnings (8.6.1) are allowed in USPSA.

Bottom line... the VAST majority of ROs do their dead-level best to provide consistent, safe, and impartial service to all shooters that they run... I do. I am a shooter too.

Edited May 21, 2008 by cautery

[Boris Zaretsky]

"IF" you make a call as an RO (specifically a DQ) and you are presented with evidence that would irrefutably prove your call wrong, would you reverse your call.

Not at all. I would never make a call if I am not sure of the event. The camera you are talking about is not installed in my eyes and, therefore, it does not see the things the way I see it.

Let assume vidieo evidence is acceptable by USPSA rules. Would it prove that RO is wrong? Not at all. It would only prove that the vent is seen diferently from the other point of view.

"IF" on your own initiative you did look at video or photo that clearly demonstrated you DQ'd someone and you were wrong. What would you do?

Nothing. I would run next competitor. The shooter can take the issue to arbitration. That is his right. Camera does not prove that my call is wrong for the reason already explained above.

Would you, as an RO, want to know if your call was right or wrong?

No, I don't want to see the camera and I don't want to question my call I made before. Same reason. I call what I see not what camera from the other place.

Generally speaking I would strongly oppose for ANY RO to watch the video at the range that would prove or disprove his call. Should RO find himself in perception that he was wrong, he would loose his confidence. RO with poor confidence is dangerous RO. He may not make a call when it is due jeopardizing the safety of all. If you think that RO made wrong call don't even try to bring him the camera. Just go to arbitration.

The RO in your case that found himself being wrong is a damaged goods. He would not be good RO for a while.

Regards.

[Jack Suber]

Not at all. I would never make a call if I am not sure of the event. The camera you are talking about is not installed in my eyes and, therefore, it does not see the things the way I see it.

Precisely why it should be considered.

Let assume vidieo evidence is acceptable by USPSA rules. Would it prove that RO is wrong? Not at all. It would only prove that the vent is seen diferently from the other point of view.

Sorry, that is not the case as I explained in my situation and the situation I referenced at the nationals. Your eyes and mind can never accurately interpret things that happen at high-speed. Precisely why military aircraft have data recorders...the mind is incapable of accurately processing information that happens at hi-speed. There is PLENTY of data to support this.

Generally speaking I would strongly oppose for ANY RO to watch the video at the range that would prove or disprove his call. Should RO find himself in perception that he was wrong, he would loose his confidence. RO with poor confidence is dangerous RO. He may not make a call when it is due jeopardizing the safety of all. If you think that RO made wrong call don't even try to bring him the camera. Just go to arbitration.

The RO in your case that found himself being wrong is a damaged goods. He would not be good RO for a while.

Regards.

Damaged goods? That is an absolutely absurd conclusion. Someone recognizing their mistake is not a bad or dangerous RO.

So, based on this reply, you are stating you are never wrong.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Jack Suber

[Boris Zaretsky]

Looks like you did not get the point and you don't want to get it. So why don't we refer to the rules and obey them and do our best to be consistent RO's with confidence in our judgment. If you don’t like the rule, call your SC and AD, send the letters to Amidon and set the fire for what ever you want to do. Read replies in this thread and you'll find little minority that would agree with you. But it is your business to do what you want to do. I already said many times what I think about using camera at the range. I already explained why I support USPSA rule and I have no desire to go any further. You can open another thread and may be able to persuade some people into your way. I promise I will not be there. I simply don't see any more reason to discuss it. If some one else wants to express opinion – welcome. But you and I had enough talk between both of us. I wish you all the best in shooting and in your life.

Regards.

[JThompson]

I think he got the point okay... He just doesn't agree with it, neither do I. You seem to think we must be deluded, or stupid because we don't agree with you. From what I have seen the people seem to be split about even on the issue... I would bet there are a lot more that didn't feel like getting in the middle of a shit storm and therefore abstained.

Just an FYI... as to Jack calling his SC. He is the SC.

I respect your right to make your feelings known, but there is no need to be imperious toward those who don't share your views.