Bad Officials/ Limited Nationals

[Howard762]

Now that Nationals are safely over I would like to comment on an incident that really left a bad taste in my mouth. There was a poorly designed stage, with an equally poorly written walk-through that contained a Copper tunnel. (Stage 16 of Limited Nationals) At the Shooter's meeting I asked the question " how many procedurals for going around the tunnel rather than through?" and was given the answer that how ever many sticks there were, that's how many. Not a great answer but I accepted it. So, after the meeting, a friend asked the RM why it was included in the match since there were no shots fired from within the tunnel. His point was that it was only there to penalize tall, fat or otherwise non-nimble people. RM Tom Chambers responded with the mantra "That's the way it's always been." John said he understood that but asked what the point of a tunnel with no shooting from same was. Tom responded with "Because I said so" (repeatedly). John was unhappy with that answer and continued to pry and Tom asked him "Are you a Master?" Now John is not, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. I believe that Cooper tunnels have always been part of the sport, and I don't really care if they are used or not. I've designed courses with them myself. But, if there are no shots fired from them, then you leave the shooter with choices to make. A shooter always has the option of taking procedurals for not following course description to avoid something he does not want to do, particularly if there are no shots fired. The really bad part of this whole conversation is the part where the Rangemaster asked the shooter what his class was. Would it matter if the shooter was a Master or GM? Would he get more respect from Mr. Chambers? A better answer, than "because I said so"? This is irrelevant to the discourse and serves only to belittle the shooter. Unacceptable behavior from a match official. Especially a RM at a National match.

Forward to day 3 of shooting. Our squad gets to stage 16. John is going through the tunnel while preparing and knocks down a stick again. Noting that he has successfully passed through the tunnel about 1 out of 8 tries, I tell him an alternate way to shoot it. It seems that the walk-through is poorly written and says basically "Engage all targets from within fault lines. Shooter must pass through tunnel before he is finished." "before he is finished" is hand-written in pen. I had noticed this the day before and checked the rulebook that night. According to the rules a shooter is finished the course of fire when he has completed the holster portion of the range commands. I told John to go around the tunnel, get back in the free-fire zone and engage the remaining targets, the go around the tunnel for a second time, and crawl back through as slowly as he wants. The timer stops at the last shot, and the time it takes to renegotiate the tunnel is irrelevant. He has then completed all the course requirements and will receive no penalties. The CRO, Jim Kauzalrich (not sure of spelling) heard this and ran over to tell us we couldn't do this, it had already been discussed and couldn't happen. I told him it certainly could, the way the walk-through was written, and that I was prepared to arbitrate it. He then said, that if we went around the tunnel, when we got done going through it he would "click the clip on the back of the timer" so that he would have a total time. I told him that was cheating and irrelavant since last shot was the stop signal, not some arbitrary noise the RO made. He then wanted to argue about how he would know what the time was if he didn't. I told him that the rules are explicit, the last shot fired is the stop signal. He argued it. A top 10 shooter overheard the arguement and told him that was ridiculous and Jim still argued it. Finally he switched arguements to giving 6 procedurals for going around. I told him he couldn't do that either since we did go through before finished. Frustrated he said he would DQ me for Unsportsmanlike Conduct for "Contravening the intent of the course of fire." It was time to shoot and I didn't want to argue anymore so I just shot it his way. John did too. Luckily neither of us knocked down sticks.

After the stage was complete, I shook the hands of the non-argumentative ROs and thanked them, and was walking away. Jim Kaulzarich ran over to me and told me it wasn't personal. I told hiom I had a match to shoot and no-longer wanted to dicuss it with him. I left it unsaid that it was painfully obvious to me he was too emotionally invested in this mess of a stage to see it clearly. He kept following me, and pestering me, apparently upset that I had avoided shaking his hand for just this reason. I finally told him that it was personal the minute he threatened to DQ me for gaming his silly little stage, and that his conduct was irreprehensible. I also told him that threatening to "click the back of the timer" was irresponsible, and was cheating. I told him that if an RO ever acted like that at my club he would never be allowed back either as an RO or a shooter. I had to keep walking or he would have continued to argue infinitum.

There are several witnesses to all of the above who were as shocked as I was at the officials' behavior I'm sure.

I have designed hundreds of courses. Once in while a shooter finds a flaw and games the stage. All you can do at that point is say "you got me". This stage, being at a National match, should have been reviewed and bullet-proofed. At the shooter meeting, we brought up the flaws, and even how to fix them, and the best they could do was write "before the shooter was finished". Even, the going back through after you've engaged all targets was brought up, and the staff was too short-sighted, and proud to fix the problems.

Although, it is irrelevant who I am, as no shooter should ever be treated this way, I have shot this sport for about 12 years, have been an RO for several, a CRO for 4 or so, and have been MD at a well respected club for more than 3 years. I have worked at matches to the Area level, and was MD at a section championship. I know the rules fairly well, and I know this kind of "US versus Them" mentality on the part of match staff will not help our sport grow.

Howard C. Thompson

FY21412

[Loves2Shoot]

Howard,

I have to totally disagree. I think the RO's on 16 were very curtious and if someone doesn't want to follow the OBVIOUS intent of the course they should be DQ'd for unsportman-like behavior after being warned. I think we should have a procedural for excessive whining. The "reason" the tunnel was there didn't matter anymore than all of the other props in the match. If you can't navigate part of the course, then you can always take the penalty, and from the sounds of it you COULD navigate the course just fine. A lot of people didn't like getting out of the bed either. Robbie is a big guy and I was there when he shot the stage, I didn't see him complain of try to gain an unfair advantage. He shot the stage per the instructions and he shot it well enough to win the match.

[Matthew_Mink]

I'm speechless.

[kbear38S]

...follow the OBVIOUS intent of the course...

OBVIOUS intent is an IDPA thing? There's no such thing in IPSC. It's either in the rule book or the written procedure.

He shot the stage per the instructions

You see my point??

[kbear38S]

The CRO, Jim Kauzalrich (not sure of spelling) heard this and ran over to tell us we couldn't do this, it had already been discussed and couldn't happen. I told him it certainly could, the way the walk-through was written, and that I was prepared to arbitrate it. He then said, that if we went around the tunnel, when we got done going through it he would "click the clip on the back of the timer" so that he would have a total time.

That's out and out cheating. That guy should be thrown out of the NROI and the USPSA. We have no room for that kind of crap. Are we really that short of range staff that we have to put up with people like that?

[Detlef]

although the written stage description might have been sub-optimal (what is *finished*?) the stage ROs made it very clear in their oral briefing (which takes precedent!) what the stage procedure was (traverse the tunnel before the last shot) and what procedurals would be assesses if a shooter went around (6, as many as sticks). Our squad had a good discussion on this stage, too, but when the discussion was over, there was no doubt left. The stage designer's *intent* did not have to be invoked at all (it should not, remember freestyle?), since the oral briefing was very clear.

--Detlef

[BamBam]

I like to design stages at my local club, and if the shooters can find a way to game it out within the confines of my stage description and the current rule book, more power to them. I like to see the ways people come up with to "solve" the stage. I then work that into future plans in a cat & mouse type strategy battle.

Point 1 - In this case, the rules seem to allow you to shoot the targets and crawl through the cooper tunnel at the end without accruing time. Sure, it seems like a cheap way to game the stage but that's a matter of personal choice and if it doesn't break the rules then who can honestly restrict it? To invent new rules or applications thereof and threaten to DQ someone who found a way to beat the system within the rules is another matter of personal choice... but that choice has far reaching consequences for the unsavory RO/Shooter US vs. THEM divide. In an official match like this can't the highest guy of all come to a finite conclusion based on the rules we play by, and if so wouldn't the shooter in this case prevail?

Point 2 - I know the guy who was asking the RO about ways to run the stage and was given the "are you a Master?" response. He's only a newbie on the journey to maybe make Master one day, but that response was uncalled for and had no relevance to the subject at hand. The rules should apply, and be enforced, to all shooters the same way regardless of rank. There is nothing wrong with asking a match official how an idea to run a stage might be received, and a fair and honest response based on the rules should be expected. A "zinger" about the skill level of an obvious newbie does nothing to help recruit new interest in the sport. Was the RO's own rank and performance somehow driving this kind of animosity? And if so I think that should be left off the firing line while serving in an official capacity and as an "ambassador" of the sport. I am just chiming in with the other side of the story for a newbie friend who does not yet know we have these places to discuss our shooting experiences and ideas.

Does anyone else who was there have anything to add? I understand the shooters side of the story, but don't understand where the RO was coming from and how the rules say this should really be settled.

[Loves2Shoot]

Kbear,

It was covered CLEARLY in the shooters meeting. The question about going around the tunnel was asked, and they said you have to go through the tunnel, if you went around it you would get a penalty for each stick you could have knocked down. That is why I said obvious, because they made it quite clear that if you didn't go through it you would be severely penalized, and per the instructions Robbie went through the tunnel. Also, if you could go around and do all of the things (ie. putting sticks in buckets and the like) after you were done shootng, what would be the point in even having props?

Isn't the course finished when you fire your last shot? If it isn't in the rulebook it should be.

As for the CRO's actions, I believe he should have simply stated it was covered in the shooters meeting and penalties would be assesed acordingly. Let him run around it finish the stage and then run through it when he was done, then give him all the appropriate penalties, and let the arbitration committee handle it. I think he went out of his way to make sure Howard didn't lose his $100.

[kbear38S]

I think he went out of his way to make sure Howard didn't lose his $100.

No, by threatening to click the timer, he threatened to cheat.

The only applicable penalty was to assess the proper number of procedurals and let the shooter arbitrate it if he wanted. It is not a DQ able offence and it certainly does not justify altering the shooters time.

[lynn jones]

howard,

i sorry you had a bad experince with the cro on that stage. gaming is not unsportsmanlike, it's what ipsc is all about, find the best way to shoot a stage.

two points:

1. the last shot fired, means you are finished. not when you say your finished.

2. i'm not taking up for the cro, but these guys get tired as we all do and his judgement may have been do to fatigue.

just my 2 cents worth.

lynn jones

[Detlef]

L2S and Lynn, not at all:

Rule 8.3.7: GCHDH....The completion of the holster portion of the command signifies the end of the course of fire.

Not your last shot, but sticking the gun in the holster after GCHDH is when the course is over! So...the gamer's idea of coming back through the tunnel after their last shot was a good one and entirely w/i the rules. If the stage briefing and course description had simply been "must travel through the Cooper tunnel" (as it was in the book), then no penalties could have been assessed. However, during the briefing the course description given was different from the book (IMHO, also w/i the rules, see 3.2.3), and it was made very clear that not traveling through the tunnel before the last shot was 6 procedurals... We'd probably have to consult rule gurus like Vince to find out whether assessing 6 procedurals for the same violation (not traveling through the tunnel) is maybe not permitted by the rules, but it was clearly stated.

--Detlef

[Ron Ankeny]

I won't form an opinion about the way the problem was handled because I wasn't there and I imagine there is another side to the story. As I understand it, the expectations of how to shoot the course were clearly articulated verbally, but there was a huge loop-hole in the written stage description. I had a similar thing happen at a match this summer where a competitor violated the oral description, but stayed within the written description. He was penalized very heavily for not following the oral description.

I would really like to know which takes precedence the written description or the oral description? Seems to me like the written description would be the one to follow because it is just that...written.

[BamBam]

Any chance that the verbal instructions were changed as the day went on to address additional questions that had come up? Because if the extra restrictive information was deemed to be necessary at the start of the match it would likely have been written onto the course description notes. Meaning, if the additional rules adding the penalties for going around the tunnel were discovered to be necessary and were added as the day went on then that too is a problem.

Anyone here shoot that stage first in their Limited National experience?

[Detlef]

was my second stage. There you have it... Ron, rule 3.2.3 doesn't seem to imply that a change has to be in writing, but I could be wrong...

[John Heiter]

I think there is a big difference between "gaming" a stage by coming up with a way to shoot a stage safely and within the written rules that no one else has thought of, and just being willing to shoot a stage in a way that everyone else has thought of but discarded because it was proscribed in a shooters meeting, etc.

To me it sounds like there was some unprofessional behavior from both sides in this exchange but that's not all that uncommon at a USPSA match where none of us are professionals. We're all just shooters and volunteer staff. We're all subject to frustration and impatience. RO's get frustrated that they spend a great deal of time designing and setting up new and clever stages and competitors complain and "continue to pry" about why they designed them the way that they did. Competitors get frustrated because the RO's are supposed to know all the rules but I've never met a single one that knew all the rules all the time.

Bottom line, it sounds like everyone involved was in the wrong and therefore you're all welcome to go on being upset with each other forever. All I can do is to try to learn from this case and do my best to avoid situations like this in the future. I do thank you for being willing to bring this to everyone's attention because it will probably help us all in the future in a case like this. For those interested, 3.2.3 seems to cover this situation. The range master can modify a course description as needed for clarity and consistency. If everyone who has shot the course prior to you did it one way and you do it another way the range master has the option of altering the course of fire to close the loop hole and requiring you to reshoot the stage.

John

[lynn jones]

Detlef

Rule 8.3.7: GCHDH....The completion of the holster portion of the command signifies the end of the course of fire.

here is the description via the uspsa website:

Cat Scan

Jim Kauzlarich - CRO

Stage Designer: Jim Kosicki

Scoring Method: Comstock

Targets: 15 IPSC

Points/Rounds: 150 points / 30 rounds

Start/Stop: Audible/Last Shot

Penalties:

As per latest edition USPSA Rule Book.

Starting Position:

Facing down range with both palms flat on respective X's on Wall

Stage Procedure:

At audible start engage all targets as they become visible from behind the fault

and charge lines. Shooter must travel through the Cooper Tunnel.

from reading this again, i would have to say howard is correct and should have been allowed to run the stage he described. very creative howard. however, the cro's job is to be consistant. his intent was to have you run the stage the way everyone else ran it.

this all could have been a moot point if the cro was to correctly write out the course description and walk through. he gets an "f".

the range master should've found this error and corrected it before the match started.

sorry howard.

lynn

[Flexmoney]

Ron asked:

I would really like to know which takes precedence the written description or the oral description? Seems to me like the written description would be the one to follow because it is just that...written.

The written stage description is a script...to be read word for word. No ad-libs. (3.2.2)

Whatever is brought up in the shooters meeting...means little. If there is a problem that comes to surface at the shooters meeting, it would need to be addressed with a change to the written stage description...under the rules of 3.2.3

[Flexmoney]

however, the cro's job is to be consistant. his intent was to have you run the stage the way everyone else ran it.

Lynn, I am going to have to disagree with that portion of your post.

The shooter is presented a problem to solve. For the RO to even hint at prescribing a way that it should be solved could be considered coaching..which is a no-no under 8.6

The RO does need to be consistent in their scoring and application of penalties from shooter to shooter. But, they aren't there to ensure that the shooters all shoot to the stage designers "intent".

[ErikW]

That was my second stage (Detlef's squad). The CRO read the script verbatim, and it was clear you would be dinged with 6 procedurals for not going through the tunnel before your last shot. It may not have said that in the "procedure" portion of the description but it certainly did in the "penalties" section. Good enough for The Arbitrator not to try it. If they had said "move through tunnel" in the procedure but did not specify a penalty, I'd bet my $100 that it's one procedural penalty for not doing so before the last shot.

The ROs on this stage, and all stages, both matches, were great. If one of them threatened to click the timer after your last shot, I would have taken it up with the RM then and I would take it up with the head of NROI now. It's entirely possible that wasn't a threat, but that he thought, however incorrectly, it was the way to end the course of fire in this situation.

The actual end of the course of fire, for procedural purposes, is a big can of worms for another thread.

[Vince Pinto]

Gentleman,

I'm extremely unhappy with this thread because there are very serious accusations being made about certain individuals, but none of them are here to defend themselves, and this makes the accusations totally one-sided.

In view of the fact that this same story has been posted to the USPSA Member's Guestbook and the IPSC Digest, this is tantamount to a character assassination in mutliple forums.

Our rules provide for an appeal process, and if a competitor is aggrieved for any reason during a match, he should pony up US$100 and file an appeal to Arbitration. Moreover, if anyone feels that a range official has acted improperly, they can file a written complaint with the NROI at anytime, without a fee.

In respect of of USPSA officials, the correct contact is Mr. John Amidon who can be reached at vpuspsa@aol.com.

[paraman1]

I would have too say that you are wrong Vince . This is a completely viable forum for exactly this kind of argument or discussion . Mr. Howard spoke with the R.O. and the R.M. who both felt it was there job to either belittle him and his friend or try to force them with the old "My way or the highway" tactics . Since they didnt seem to want to discuss it politely and professionally man to man they have opened themselves up to a critique that may not be wholly flattering . Having shot with several R.O.'s that have crappy attitudes and zero professionalism I can tell you it detracts from our sport greatly . This being the Nationals everyone should have been on there best behaviour as many of the shooters traveled great distances and paid large fees to be entertained (that is why we shoot isnt it). Everyone should have been treated with a smile even if you are disagreeing with what they are saying . Be polite , score the course the way you see it and let them arbitrate , but for Gods sake be nice . Talk about character assassination Vince how about cheap shots like "Are you a Master" this sport is supposed to be a level playing field where people of differing abilities and equipment can compete with people of similar abilities and equipment not just catering to those of the M or GM shooting elite .

[BamBam]

Also Vince, I think you will hear as the story progresses that due to the close finish looming for this particular match, and the concerns of a top contendor who listened to the whole episode transpire, it was asked that this particular event NOT be pushed to arbitration because it might change the final results if a stage got thrown out. Rather than arbitrate and possibly skew the entire match sometimes its best that we discuss our concerns regarding the integrity of the sport after the fact when the match is complete.

Hind-sight may be 20/20, but now that the match is over lets collectively come up with at least the correct match decision based on the written stage description and our current rule book. The attitude part can best be addressed by those involved.

[Garrett]

The RO does need to be consistent in their scoring and application of penalties from shooter to shooter.  But, they aren't there to ensure that the shooters all shoot to the stage designers "intent".

Exactly! How do the ROs know what the "stage designer's intent" is? Who is to say the designer didn't write the procedure that way on purpose to see if anyone would pick up on it? I have designed stages before with a supposedly "obvious" way to do it, but with a gamer's way to shoot it. Sometimes people pick up on it, and sometimes they don't. The gamer's method isn't always faster/better. Sometimes it is.

And if someone finds a legal way to do it, more power to him. If the designer doesn't like it, they should try and learn from it.

[kimel]

I have to agree with Vince on one point and that is that this appears, regardless of the actual intent, to be a blatant attempt to discredit someone who may or may not be present and able to defend themselves.

Until we have heard both sides of this story is it unfair for any of us to sit in judgement of either the match officials or the poster.

I sincerely hope that USPSA and/or IPSC (since Nats are a IPSC sanctioned event I believe) investigate this incident and take whatever action they deem necessary.

One thing we all can take away from this is the lesson that an ambiguous course description can lead to problems.

All of us that design courses need to remember this and other similar incidents as we are writing our course descriptions.

[Loves2Shoot]

The RO does need to be consistent in their scoring and application of penalties from shooter to shooter.  But, they aren't there to ensure that the shooters all shoot to the stage designers "intent".

Exactly! How do the ROs know what the "stage designer's intent" is? Who is to say the designer didn't write the procedure that way on purpose to see if anyone would pick up on it? I have designed stages before with a supposedly "obvious" way to do it, but with a gamer's way to shoot it. Sometimes people pick up on it, and sometimes they don't. The gamer's method isn't always faster/better. Sometimes it is.

And if someone finds a legal way to do it, more power to him. If the designer doesn't like it, they should try and learn from it.

The stage designer stated that you had to go through the tunnel so your argument holds no water in this case.