Mike Dame Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 What is everyones opinion on using a video to DQ someone? I ask this because I was DQ'd today, arbitrated and won. The RO said that I was ok and Had me unload, but before he started to score the targets the score keeper with a video camera pulled him off to the side to show him the video. The RO talked with the CRO then the CRO went to the RM who madw the DQ call. I put down my $100 and won but, do you guys think it should have even came down to that? The Video was not allowed as evidence and since the CRO and RO were not able to say for certain that the infraction occured, I was allowed back into the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 Man - I never thought the day would come a shooter got Rodney Kinged. So to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpty1 Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 As an RO I would want to use every tool or option available to ensure my call was correct before I DQ'd someone. This assuming there was a protest of some sort from the shooter. If the shooter agreed he broke the 180 (for example), end of story. However, if the shooter protested and the incident was recorded on video, why not review it. No different than a video challenge in the NFL. Use whatever means or technology is available to ensure the call is the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 Wasn't there something in FS about video not being usable in a arb.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 I think that unless you're very experienced at interpreting video or photographic evidence, you should leave it out of the equation. It's usually so angle dependent that it's tough to conclusively determine what happened by looking at the video. At all of the major matches I attended this year, range officers were deployed in strategic locations if the possibility for a 180 break existed. It was their job to keep spectators and squad members out of the "danger zone" and to provide a second pair of eyes looking for the muzzle. IMHO this seems like the way to go..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeeter Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 if you can't use a video to get out of a DQ they shoulded be able to use one too DQ. once saw a DQ where the 180 was involved and they had good film to show that the shooter didn't. but at the abrtartion they said video couldn't be used. they can't have it both ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Hi guys, Video evidence has been "unofficially" frowned upon for years because it can never replicate the angle or position of the officiating Range Officer or the competitor. Moreover you cannot compare it to video used in other sports, where there are invaribly multiple cameras placed at strategic positions. In the proposed new rulebook, video evidence is specifically prohibited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.J. Norris Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Maybe we need to start giving RO's Hosercams . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeeter Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 while i think they need to be fair, i also think the should look at the video. it may not help or be in the right spot but maybe it is. 2000 nationals a guy in my squad got hit for a foot fault becaused hit stepped out then back in the ro saw the out but not the in. the guys wife saw it on tape but no one would allow it so the guy lost a $100 bucks for something they should have caught. the goal shpould be to get it right as much as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Video can still be dependant upon viewer bias. I just watched a baseball game with my in-laws and everytime they replayed this one questionable call we all yelled "see that, he was clearly..." and it was always a different ending dependant upon what the viewer wanted to see. Another take on this topic is, is the video holding the clock? Is the video holding a clipboard? No? Then the video is not a match official. End of problem. -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Skeeter, I might agree with you that a video could prove useful, but there are situations in which it could clash against rule 11.1.2. Access – Protests may be submitted for arbitration in accordance with the following sections for any matter except the actual scoring of targets. However, protests arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to determine whether or not an infraction as described by the range official was in fact unsafe. The commission of the infraction may not be protested.In such circumstances (i.e. safety infractions issues), the video is simply not admissible, because you cannot question what the RO perceived, you can only question if it was an unsafe action or not.Now, on the example you reported, the above rule is not applicable, because we are talking about procedurals and not safety infractions. Thus I would argue the following: first of all, according to 11.5.4. Witnesses - The Committee will then hear match officials as well as any other witnesses involved in the dispute. The Committee will examine all evidence submitted.the competitor's wife should have been audited, and she should have brought the tape as "evidence".Then, according to the same rule, the Committee should have examined the tape, otherwise it would not have complied with the correct procedure. At this point and only now, after reviewing the tape, the Committe should have ruled it admissible or not. The Committee shall have this right because the video shall prove that it is related to the appealing competitor, that it was filmed during the action under arbitration, and, most important, it should have proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it could bring evidence in favor of the applicant or against him (a biased or un-focused video is unuseful, and irrelevant for the appeal). I think in such cases, provided freedom of arbitration for the committee is safeguarded, to exclude videos from any appeal would be unfair, because it would mean to exclude some kind of evidence from the debate that is already granted by rule 11.5.4. I would suggest to keep videos admissible, and if the Committee decides to reject such evidence from the judgement, it has the right to do so, but will have to provide a written motivation for this in its written verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 I think it is a very slippery slope we are walking on here. This is a game and the officials are "part of the field". I have recently started filming a lot of matches for training/entertainment purposes, but I don't think it should be allowed to dispute calls made by the RO. And if you allow witnesses in on the arbitrations they are probably going to have seen whatever video is available, so they are going to be swayed anyway. Leave the video alone. I think it has ruined the NFL officials credibility and would do the same to our RO's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Hi guys, I think y'all need to re-read the original post. The video didn't help the competitor - it gave him a DQ, which was subsequently overturned on appeal to arbitration. Anyway, while the current rulebook is silent on the issue of video evidence, the proposed rulebook specifically prohibits video (and audio) evidence, so it's a moot point. And we don't pay our ROs the big bucks, and lavish them with first class accomodations, limos, dancing girls and other benefits for nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Vince, I was pointing out what the only use of a video (IMO) could have been according to the actual rulebook in the situation described by Skeeter, not in Mike's case. (BTW, your valuable opinion on correctness of the procedure I described would be really appreciated). Moreover, as I said before, I agree that you cannot claim a safety infraction as not happened (if the RO called it), but this applies to safety only, not to procedurals calls or other scoring issues: in these cases the RO perception is not incontrovertible. And, yes, even if the new rulebook is going to deny video acceptance, I still think it is not fair to consider beforehand unacceptable all possible evidence coming from video (and audio): they should be at least reviewed and accepted or not on a case-by-case basis during arbitration (according to the reasons I already cited). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 I have previously been in favour of allowing video evidence, after all it could have been another tool to aid an Arbitration Committee. Then someone pointed out that we could see a scenario developing (for some competitors) where they start asking a friend to video every stage and then they decide if there's anything useful to them on the video to support an appeal or arbitration. The person behind the lens becomes the competitors private and pet RO and only to be used at their discretion. I thought long and hard before (reluctantly) voting to ban video evidence. I'd rather suffer the occasional error from an RO than see videos used as a weapon against every RO call. I agree with others here that we need to maintain faith in our Range Officers (and due to a shortage of robots some of these have been replaced by humans). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 i don't believe video should be allowed. simply because every shooter would have to be filmed and there would have to be an "official ro camera". forget it. lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 i don't believe video should be allowed. simply because every shooter would have to be filmed and there would have to be an "official ro camera". forget it.lynn I agree with Lynn (thanks anyway G34) even though it would sell a lot of HoserCams. Putting the camera on the RO is great for entertainment, but from personal experience that camera doesn't see everything. The camera position is fixed and doesn't follow my eyes so while I may look down and see the foot fault the camera hasn't moved and the video evidence stops at the shooters knee level. When we get to 3D Holographic video then we put the sensors on everybody (and de-activation fields around the porta-potties!) and make it admissable as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Skywalker, Yes, your argument is 100% correct under the current rulebook - keep this up, and you'll earn your double light saber !!! BTW, as with every other topic in IPSC, there are at least two choices (often more), and a decision had to be made. As I've stated in other posts, the greatest minds in IPSC and me voted to prohibit video evidence for the future. Some people will support the decision and some people won't. - that's the nature of the beast. However, if nothing else, there will be no guesswork and matches will be run consistently, because the rules, whether we love 'em or hate 'em, will be printed clearly and unambiguously in black and white. And that, friends, is the real art of writing rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Some people will support the decision and some people won't. - that's the nature of the beast. Well, alas, as I said in another thread: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeeter Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 why should the RO's veiw be the final word? a good friend was DQ'd from an area match even after someone over heard the ro say he was going to dq this shooter because of past problems. not saying that it happens all the time but if you give the RO sole say a guy with a chip can cause problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Skeeter, Because someone has to have the final word ---- and the powers that be have decided that for some things that person's the R.O. If there's a problem with an R.O., notify the Range Master, and if necessary the Area Director and Sedro Woolley. It may not help in the short term --- but if there's truly a bad R.O. out there, there's a way to remove him from working matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 not saying that it happens all the time but if you give the RO sole say a guy with a chip can cause problems. If I had a serious past problem with a particular RO I would ask the Match Director if I could have a different RO when it was my turn to shoot. If I was an RO that had that had serious past problems with a particular shooter I would turn the shooter over to a different RO just to avoid the perception of a problem with any calls made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Skywalker,keep this up, and you'll earn your double light saber !!! I'll (of course) be very glad to earn it, provided it won't have me ending up like the Star Wars Kid! Oh, no, wait! You said video won't be allowed anymore as evidence! I'm safe now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 And people complain the IPSC is expensive now...imagine every shooter having to budget for video cameras, batteries, tape, and a TV big enough to view the evidence properly...or maybe the clubs should have to budget for it and have a camera in every range box with a TV for reviewing and a sound booth for the RM to review evidence. Unless its there for everyone, it can't be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Dame Posted August 7, 2003 Author Share Posted August 7, 2003 This was a pretty shjty experience, but i did learn from it. And after I got back into the match the jacka$$ with the camera started to ask for permission from the shooter before he turned it on. Vince, I'm glad to know that this is being resloved for the next rule book. I was about to send in a request to have it added when I read your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now