L9X25 Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Looks to me like both of you are fixated on 100% things. Looks like you don't have any faith is RO's, do you? If you can do your job shooting, RO's can do their job RO'ing. Worry about your finger and you'll be just fine. I wonder if you ever played other game sports, let's say basketball. Did you question the referee decision when he gave you penalty? Did you ask him 15 times if he is 100% sure? Did you ask him which position he was standing when you were slapping other player over the head? If he sure that he saw what he saw? 100%? The game is darn quick. How is it possible that you, basketball referee, "have the ability to process 100% of the visual information"? Or, may be, just may be, you would accept his call? He is a basketball referee for the God's sake. They do have reputation to be right ..... 99%. Hah?! ….99%???? And it is OK with you? Wouldn't you think that way? So, why don't you all just give IPSC RO that 99% and have faith in him for he is trying to do his job the best he can. I know no RO's that would screw up a shooter on purpose. Have you finger visibly outside the trigger guard and let RO do his job. Please!!! Regards. I don't think that your analogy is a fair comparison ... in baseball you are not thrown out of the game (with the stigma attached to you) for running out of the base path. Our area has increased it's scrutiny on DQ's and unsafe behavior. While it has never been a laughing matter, it is no longer a “go home and we’ll see you at the range tomorrow” sort of thing. We document every occurrence, area wide, and more than one infraction can lead to a suspension and ultimately being tossed out of the sport in our area. Considering these ramifications, an RO had better take these calls seriously and be 100% sure that there is an infraction before he calls one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Zaretsky Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Boris,These are good people you're talking to here.... they don't need condescensions from you. Please try and be less argumentative in your responses. We are all guests in Brian's house, and should treat one another accordingly... even if we don't like someone, or they don't like us, we need to remember where we are. These are the folks you trust your life to when you're on the range... please treat them accordingly. Best, JT JT, I have no disrespect to people I replied to. I just expressed my opinion that IPSC/USPSA RO's should be trusted as any other judge, or referee in any other sports. From what I saw is that unless RO is 100% sure, right, and positive which is "impossible" he cannot make a call. That is wrong in my opinion and I will stand my grounds. For them, as people and fellow shooters, I have outmost respect and I respect their right to express their opinion as I hope they have for mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Which is why it is always recommended that shooters not just take the RO classes, but work as an RO to gain that understanding of what goes on behind your shoulder when the buzzer goes off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Suber Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Boris,These are good people you're talking to here.... they don't need condescensions from you. Please try and be less argumentative in your responses. We are all guests in Brian's house, and should treat one another accordingly... even if we don't like someone, or they don't like us, we need to remember where we are. These are the folks you trust your life to when you're on the range... please treat them accordingly. Best, JT JT, I have no disrespect to people I replied to. I just expressed my opinion that IPSC/USPSA RO's should be trusted as any other judge, or referee in any other sports. From what I saw is that unless RO is 100% sure, right, and positive which is "impossible" he cannot make a call. That is wrong in my opinion and I will stand my grounds. For them, as people and fellow shooters, I have outmost respect and I respect their right to express their opinion as I hope they have for mine. Boris, Careful about saying that RO's should be trusted like any other official. Remember, NBA officials were caught fixing the championships! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L9X25 Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I personally wish this thread would die. Since it seemingly will not, I will repeat that no RO should make a call that they are not 100% sure of. If they are not positive, they can yell finger or remain silent until they are sure. I would rather see someone get away with movement with their finger in the guard, before I saw and innocent person DQ'ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Zaretsky Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Boris,Careful about saying that RO's should be trusted like any other official. Remember, NBA officials were caught fixing the championships! Thank you, Jack. I might be naive, but I really hope that this is not happening in our sport. May be because I want to be proud of it. Put it this way: I don't want to win cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Keen Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I would rather see someone get away with movement with their finger in the guard, before I saw and innocent person DQ'ed. How true. After my DQ for sweeping at AREA 6 this year I feel even stronger about making "the right call" when I am acting as an RO. I felt the RO that called for me to stop was confident that he saw what he saw, and justified in what he said & did. I didnt argue about it one iota, because I felt (in my own mind) he must have been sure of himself (which he was). I put myself in his shoes and I would have done exactly the same thing. When an RO is fair, honest, and confident about the call he makes there is no room for debate. And that's the way it should be. It's either black or white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Suber Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) Boris,Careful about saying that RO's should be trusted like any other official. Remember, NBA officials were caught fixing the championships! Thank you, Jack. I might be naive, but I really hope that this is not happening in our sport. May be because I want to be proud of it. Put it this way: I don't want to win cheating. Gotta agree with you there..... Edited June 20, 2008 by Jack Suber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Zaretsky Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Oh! There is big time misunderstanding. I agree with you 100%, or better yet, 110%. You are talking, I guess, from RO perspective. Yes, RO must be sure 100% of his call. No hesitation, no doubt about it. If RO is not sure, he can warn the shooter, but in no way to DQ. The questin was stated from shooter's perspective: I can guarantee that being 100% sure that the RO is 100% sure that your finger is out of the trigger guard is impossible. There is no way to accomplish this. You can lay your finger straight along the frame, which will mean YOUR finger IS 100% out of the guard, but that will not ensure that the RO can see it. and the next one: I have to agree with this statement. This is the only way to ensure that ROs who are 100% correct; 100% of the time; and, who have the ability to process 100% of the visual information they are intaking at the speed of a computer or camera with a very fast shutter speed, do not ding you... Here I say that RO maight be right only 99%, but usually he is and I asked for just a little faith in RO. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Zaretsky Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I would rather see someone get away with movement with their finger in the guard, before I saw and innocent person DQ'ed. How true. After my DQ for sweeping at AREA 6 this year I feel even stronger about making "the right call" when I am acting as an RO. I felt the RO that called for me to stop was confident that he saw what he saw, and justified in what he said & did. I didnt argue about it one iota, because I felt (in my own mind) he must have been sure of himself (which he was). I put myself in his shoes and I would have done exactly the same thing. When an RO is fair, honest, and confident about the call he makes there is no room for debate. And that's the way it should be. It's either black or white. Chris, You are man of honor. I take off my hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA Friday Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I've read all 5 pages of this thread, and I still don't really see where any of the discussion is relevant. The RO saw the infraction and called the infraction. It's unfortunate. I bet the RO felt as bad as the shooter. I have felt horrible every time I've DQ'ed someone, but I still make the call. The rule is pretty self explanatory on this matter. A good RO is watching the gun, and the RO's perspective is very enlightening. Even when one thinks they could not see things at the angle they were at, they can. Experienced RO's are very good at staying out of the way and still seeing everything. Any debate about the integrity of any RO is pointless and all speculation. If you are uncomfortable with an RO, request another. If you don't, then you abide by the RO's perspective and integrity. As I see it, that's all there really is to this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Zaretsky Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Oh! There is big time misunderstanding. I agree with you 100%, or better yet, 110%. You are talking, I guess, from RO perspective. Yes, RO must be sure 100% of his call. No hesitation, no doubt about it. If RO is not sure, he can warn the shooter, but in no way to DQ. The questin was stated from shooter's perspective: I can guarantee that being 100% sure that the RO is 100% sure that your finger is out of the trigger guard is impossible. There is no way to accomplish this. You can lay your finger straight along the frame, which will mean YOUR finger IS 100% out of the guard, but that will not ensure that the RO can see it. and the next one: I have to agree with this statement. This is the only way to ensure that ROs who are 100% correct; 100% of the time; and, who have the ability to process 100% of the visual information they are intaking at the speed of a computer or camera with a very fast shutter speed, do not ding you... Here I say that RO maight be right only 99%, but usually he is and I asked for just a little faith in RO. That's all. This post was made in reply to L9X25 pot #105 that has the following: Since it seemingly will not, I will repeat that no RO should make a call that they are not 100% sure of. If they are not positive, they can yell finger or remain silent until they are sure. I would rather see someone get away with movement with their finger in the guard, before I saw and innocent person DQ'ed. If you read that first, you'd understand what I was talking about. Sorry for confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I think we beat this dead horse more than enough. closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts