To Reshoot or Not to Reshoot

[Hoofy]

I would think that the bedrock of USPSA competition is equity.

If you admit that the stage was different and you don't give him/her a reshoot... I guess you don't believe in equity.

At what point are we being too equitable??

I wouldn't give a reshoot based on weather, winds, etc.

"But the sun was in my eyes"

[Ben Stoeger]

I believe in following the rulebook. That is the true measure of equity for all shooters.

I don't agree that following the rules = equity in this case. Obviously coming up to an array of targets that isn't pasted really screws some people. They wonder what they should do.. shoot or don't shoot. Maybe they shoot a few shots then try to figure out which holes belong to them.

However, the rules don't allow for a reshoot.

It isn't fair, I don't like it, but it is the rules.

[kgunz11]

If it effects the shooter's run...reshoot.

(we've covered this one a few times...search)

Can you cite a rule in the current rule book for offering the shooter a reshoot?

ETA: *oops* read more ask questions later

Edited January 19, 2009 by kgunz11

[Ben Stoeger]

At what point are we being too equitable??

I wouldn't give a reshoot based on weather, winds, etc.

"But the sun was in my eyes"

We can never be too equitable. However, it just isn't practical to give a reshoot for a guy when the wind really kicks up or something like that.

However, when a shooter comes up to a target that isn't pasted, and you see them have that hesitation wondering what they should do. When you see them look back at the RO, then look back at the target and start shooting, clearly something grossly unfair happened. We have all seen it. It isn't cool at all.

There is an easy fix to this situation. RESHOOT. Maybe someone on the BOD can take this up and get it fixed.

[Nik Habicht]

It isn't fair, I don't like it, but it is the rules.

I'm with Ben in that it isn't fair but it's in the rules. It's however no more unfair than being the one competitor on the squad to shoot in a downpour, or having your run interrupted by a mover that wasn't reset properly.....

It sucks, it shouldn't happen, but as long as humans are involved in the sport, sometimes something gets missed.....

[JThompson]

At what point are we being too equitable??

I wouldn't give a reshoot based on weather, winds, etc.

"But the sun was in my eyes"

We can never be too equitable. However, it just isn't practical to give a reshoot for a guy when the wind really kicks up or something like that.

However, when a shooter comes up to a target that isn't pasted, and you see them have that hesitation wondering what they should do. When you see them look back at the RO, then look back at the target and start shooting, clearly something grossly unfair happened. We have all seen it. It isn't cool at all.

There is an easy fix to this situation. RESHOOT. Maybe someone on the BOD can take this up and get it fixed.

I have to agree with Ben on this... I don't like the rule as it is, but it could raise other questions...

Say a target was restored, but a shooter blew it and throws a couple extra rounds on a target and says it wasn't pasted. It's in a position the RO can't see it, but he is smart enough to know there were two extra shots.... Does the RO have to see the unrestored target? If two extra shots are fired in the array.. does this negate a protest? Does the shooter have to stop before engaging?

[XRe]

Realize that the rule works both ways.... The way it was before the rule was changed to what it is now, if there was an unpasted target, or a target that had a paster fall off, you reshot. Period. What if you had a smokin' run, burned the stage down to the best of your ability, and then there was a hole of a different caliber on a target? And then on the (forced) reshoot, Murphy rears up and you zero the stage, or your DQ from the match.... Is that fair?

You can't decide that an extra hole in a target is fair based on how well the shooter shot the stage. So, the rules have to make some distinction, and they do. Pros and cons to each. It is what it is. What it means is, you should be following your sights, calling your shots and making the required shots on each target - and NOT scoring targets as you go - and it wouldn't hurt you to take a look at all the targets on the stage during your stage prep to make sure they get pasted (not always practical, but....)

Lets not mention how many times we'd see people burn right past that target with no hesitation, get downrange, have some sort of massive problem, and then later claim there was a distraction caused by the extra hole, and demand a reshoot...

[wide45]

We argued all this before. It was an earlier version of the rules, but the outcome is the same.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18201

Edited January 19, 2009 by wide45

[Hoofy]

We argued all this before. It was an earlier version of the rules, but the outcome is the same.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18201

Yep, read that one too. But my rule book is blue.

[wide45]

We argued all this before. It was an earlier version of the rules, but the outcome is the same.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18201

Yep, read that one too. But my rule book is blue.

4.6.1 and 9.1.4 are functionally identical from the 2004 rules to the 2008 rules for the purpose of the original question.

What difference do you find that opens a new line of reasoning?

Nothing new has been brought to the table, and the old arguments are very old.

[elynch2007]

As the RO if the shooter did not show concern before being asked why he engaged the target a second time. I would say NO reshoot, if the shooter truely feels he has a complaint then I would tell him that he has the option of requesting the RM to make a ruling. I do not think any rules should give him a reshoot, but at that point it is in the hands of the RM. Shooters only have the right to have a rule explained and applied, not to ask for reshoots.

This is a good point of why RO's should go by the the rules. At the end of the COF give the range is clear If the shooter does not bring up a concern then call out the time and start to score the targets. A shooter wanting a reshoot should ask before the time or score is known.

[Religious Shooter]

I believe in following the rulebook. That is the true measure of equity for all shooters.

I do not believe in making it up because it feels good.

And the rulebook says:

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors.

Was the course of fire equitably presented to the shooter?

[Punkin Chunker]

I didn't see that there was any question about being able to score the run, so why was 9.1.4 even brought up?

I am totally on board with the idea that a shooter should know where the shots have gone. But without knowing the layout of the stage, how the holes were positioned, etc., and going only by the brief sketch of the incident, I'm not as confident as others in pronouncing the shooter in error for reacting to a hole where it shouldn't be.

On the other hand, this incident seems to be the result of a mistake on the part of the RO. I know you can't make one mistake to pay back for a previous one, but there is judgement here -- did the shooter add time because he or she honestly believed there was a need to make up the shot?

To me, the bottom line is did the shooter modify his/her run in reaction to the non-restored hard cover? The answer, based on the description of the event, seems to be yes. The shooter responded to an improperly restored range with actions that added time to the run. 4.6.1 says the range equipment must present the challenge equitably. This equipment did not.

Reshoot.

Is there a possibility of people using this interpretation to get a reshoot they really didn't deserve? Well, maybe one or two. But to do that a person would have to; 1: have a range that wasn't restored, 2: notice the problem and store it away, 3: judge their run to be bad and, 4: go back to the range problem and pretend to respond to it. Wow. I don't think there will be a sudden flood of shooters demanding reshoots because of 4.6.1 in this situation.

[XRe]

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors.

Was the course of fire equitably presented to the shooter?

9.1.4 addresses untaped targets specifically. 4.6.1 does not apply. I'm not certain why you can't seem to grasp that exceptionally simple concept

[Graham Smith]

Not being a RO or anything near an "A" shooter, I hesitate to comment on this, but I think too many people look at this from the RO perspective rather than the shooter perspective.

If the second shooter was an "A" class shooter, one might reasonably say that they should have known where their shots went and not gone back to the target and shot it again. But somehow I don't think that was the case. Consider this from the perspective of any shooter class "C" or lower. If they were in the same situation, they would be far less sure of their shots and would be much more likely to go back and shoot the target again. What if the shooter were new, at their first match?

[JThompson]

I should have left out the part about knowing where the shots went... that was an aside to the main issue of using the rules to generate a decision. In this example the RO made the RIGHT call and the RM did not. Many of you are stuck on the equal presentation, but the rules are specific to what they feel is equal and the wrote 9.1.4 to specifically say, that an unpasted target/s, alone, is/are not grounds for a reshoot, nor does it/they present an unequal cof in and of itself. Whether you agree with that ruling or not, the rule stands until it's changed. The rule says if a score can be determine a reshoot is not granted.

I'm not in favor of this rule, but it is a rule and to be fair, we can not select which rules to follow, or creatively interpret. I can see many pitfalls to changing the rule as well.

How many times have we seen someone say, "Show me the rule?" That concept has to stand whether it's to the shooters benefit or not, othwerwise what's the point of having written rules?

The rule is 9.1.4

If you think it inequitable, get in touch with your ADs and write John about it.

Edited January 19, 2009 by JThompson

[XRe]

I'm not in favor of this rule

You never shot under the "old way", did you?? Trust me, man... this is better

[JThompson]

I'm not in favor of this rule

You never shot under the "old way", did you?? Trust me, man... this is better

No I didn't Dave, but as I said, I can see many issues with a change. This could be one of those lesser of two evils....

It's the kind of decisions I don't envy the BOD as not everyone is going to be happy no matter which way you go.

[Jake Di Vita]

Reshoot - but personally, I'd have never asked for one.

[George Jones]

I believe in following the rulebook. That is the true measure of equity for all shooters.

I do not believe in making it up because it feels good.

And the rulebook says:

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors.

Was the course of fire equitably presented to the shooter?

The rulebook is written "in context". You cannot parse out a single sentence and twist it to fit your opinion. You need to read the whole paragraph, including the paragraph title. A specific rule (91.14) always takes precedence over a generic one anyway.

The fact remains that 4.6.1 does not apply. But what do I know.

[driver8M3]

a few questions:

1. what if you (as the RO) don't really notice the shooter pausing, but the shooter claims he saw the unrestored target and says if affected his run?

2. what if the shooter pauses b/c he thinks he sees an unpasted target, but it was really just half-pasted hole?

3. is it possible that someone (including the shooter himself in the case of a local match, or a friend at a bigger match) could purposefully leave a target --perhaps the final target to be engaged-- unpasted just prior to his run in order to gain the advantage of a potential reshoot in case the run doesn't go as planned?

Edited January 19, 2009 by driver8M3

[XRe]

driver, all of those things are parts of the reason why the rule was changed to be what it is now in the first place...

In addition, what if you have a windy day, and you happen to have pasters that don't want to stick (a very common occurrence around these parts). Every time a paster blows off, you have a reshoot - no choice in the matter, its mandatory.

9.1.4 is as it is to allow for a reasonable compromise between all of those things. Having shot under both ways, this is the best you can make it....

[rvb]

2. what if the shooter pauses b/c he thinks he sees an unpasted target, but it was really just half-pasted hole?

And what if that hole flys away?

I had that happen once a couple years ago. Thought my 2A was a M/NS until the "hit" on the NS flew away just as I was about to make up the shot... Should I have asked for a reshoot?

I considered that another of life's lessons to trust what I call. Haven't made the same mistake since. I learned I must keep going.... Going like hell untill I'm done or I hear "Stop!"

-rvb

[George Jones]

Dave is correct. The rule has matured over the years for all of the hypothetical scnarios which have been mentioned.

It may not be perfect, but it provides a sound balance between all the variables (rain/wind/muzzle blast knocking off pasters - shooter knowingly trying to get an undeserved reshoot - the visible evidence available to the RO - avoiding unneccessary reshoots - etc).

[XRe]

Here's another one for ya... I want reshoots on my entire first day at the Open Nationals this year. Why? I had to shoot with bags on the targets. 4.6.1 says that I get to have the exact same course of fire as everyone else, right? What's that? Rule 2.3.5 is a specific rule that covers this specific scenario, and says that targets can be bagged or unbagged as deemed necessary by the RM, and the competitor has no right to appeal? But 4.6.1 says that the course must challenge me fairly and equitably at all times, right? Even if a specific rule countermands that? Its not fair that I had to shoot with bags on the targets, but the super squad didn't. Isn't that what you guys are saying?

Get over it. The rules say what they say. I'm disappointed in the experienced shooters, who should know better, saying that the shooter gets a re-shoot in this case. Go back to RO school.