Bad Officials/ Limited Nationals

[Nik Habicht]

I've met Howard once --- at this year's Mid-Atlantic Sectional --- and encountered him several times throughout the day. I'm not sure he intended this to be a "character assassination"; rather I suspect he was interested in discussing the incident in question and gathering other's ideas and opinions. If an R.O. even hinted that he might click the timer to change my time on a stage, I know I'd be irate. Last but not least, different folks hang out on the three forums/lists cited, so if I really wanted an all-encompassing take on the issue, I'd probably cross post as well....

[Garrett]

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

When did the stage designer state "that you had to go through the tunnel"? Not in the course description. At the shooter's meeting? That is usually run by the MD. I wasn't there, but I haven't been to a major match where they bring up each designer to address the shooters. Besides, from a rules/legality standpoint, the shooter's meeting is meaningless. If it is not forbidden by the rulebook or the course description, it is legal. Apparently, the question was brought up at the meeting. The match officials were made aware of the supposed problem. They could have altered the stage description prior to the start of the match. They decided not to do this.

It would have been interesting to see what an Arb committee would come up with on this one.

[Ron Ankeny]

I agree with Vince. Can't believe I said that.

[Loves2Shoot]

I wasn't there

Did you bother to look at the stage? There are fault lines around the entire shooting area. If only common sense were common every RO wouldn't have to be an expert in language and law. I guess they should have put an electric fence around the shooting area topped with barbed wire to force you through the tunnel. They did read in the stage briefing that you had to pass through the tunnel or incur penalties in my squad.

[Shooter Grrl]

As both an RO and a shooter at these matches, I have to say I'm extremely disappointed with both parties involved in this incident.

The written course description was clear, the question was answered clearly in the shooters meeting. It should never have gotten past that point. However, should a shooter decide to do something like this, it is NOT up to the RO's to prevent it. The shooter should have been allowed to do what he wanted, the RO's then apply what they feel are the appropriate penalties. PERIOD - end of it from the RO side. Anything further than that is between the RM and/or arb committee and the shooter.

And i agree with Vince that this seems to be clearly slanderous. If the shooter had an issue, the time to deal with it is at the match, with the appropriate officers, NOT on the internet way after the fact.

[Flexmoney]

SG,

I agree with your middle paragraph.

On the last paragraph...it is only slander if it's not true, and I doubt that the poster made up the part about clicking the timer.

L2S,

You can step outside of fault lines...you just can't shoot outside of them, right?

[the38super]

I have known Howard for many years and I can assure you he is a no BS straight shooter. He knows the rules very well. He has been running one of the finest, most highly attended matches in the Mid Atlantic for a number of years. Howard knows how to treat shooters and staff alike. For what he said to be slanderous it had to be untrue and knowing Howard I am sure what he said is true. As far as character assassination, if that is what calling a spade a spade is, then I guess he is assassinating their character. I wasn’t there so I won’t comment on the incident. This forum is a great place to air out problems so they will be less likely to happen in the future. I bet you that anyone reading this thread that officiates is less likely to say some of the things the officials in question did. We should not all run around like ostriches and stick our heads in the sand.

Tony Chiavacci

TY30606

[BamBam]

I think their "plan" was to run around the tunnel, shoot all the targets and then walk through the tunnel at the end before unloading, show clear, and holster.. thus saving the time of waddling through the tunnel. Seems perfectly fine by the stage description.

At least for the basic rules there can only be one right answer. I am sure we can all agree that you can always step outside fault lines without penalty as long as you return before shooting.

What exactly did the written course sheet say under "penalties"?

[GvU]

There is only one type of briefing:

3.2.1 At IPSC Level III or higher competitions, a written stage briefing approved by the Range Master, should be posted at each course of fire prior to commencement of the competition. This briefing shall take precedence over any course of fire information published or otherwise communicated to competitors in advance of the competition.

3.2.2 The range official in charge of a course of fire shall read out the written stage briefing verbatim to each squad. Written stage briefings shall provide the following minimum information to competitors:

Stage number:

Scoring Method:

Targets (type & number):

Minimum number of rounds:

Start position:

Time starts: audible or visual signal

Time stops on the last shot

Penalties: Per the current edition IPSC rule book

Procedure:

Verabim: I understand that as; No additions, no leftout's, read in full!

For loopholes please look at:

3.2.3 The Range Master shall be allowed to modify a written stage briefing at anytime for reasons of clarity,

consistency or safety. Competitors who have attempted the course, prior to any change, in a manner that

the Range Master determines to be inconsistent with the modification shall be required to re-shoot the

modified course. In the event that this is not possible, the Range Master may allow the course to continue

with only the competitor whose actions brought about the change required to re-shoot. If in the opinion of

the Range Master, the competitive balance or equality has been lost, the course of fire shall be deleted

from the competition and all scores for that course of fire removed from the match scores.

Meaning; if any competitor shoots a stage and this does not satisfy the RO, the RO preferably lets the competitor finish the stage, then tells the competitor that he does not agree and will "reward" procedurals to the perceived offence(s). In case the competitor does not agree (don't sign the scoresheet) and indicates there is nothing to that point in the briefing (naturally), then the ©RO has only one option: PRESENT THE PROBLEM TO THE RM! The RO does not have any power to change the briefing at all. The only possibility the RO has is clearify the briefing, but not to the extend that it is changed.

In case the loophole is found prior to the start of the competitor, them still the action is: ask the RM. In case the competitor start he, in my opinion, agrees to the "loophole" and therefore cannot give procedurals. The RO should however make a mark on the scoresheet concerning the deviation (find previous attempts 2.3.3.2). See also at the end / chapter 2.3 of the rulesbook.

Please note the severity of the action to be taken by the RM, if the competitive balance has been lost.

This game is quite simple, if you find loopholes you are allowed to use them until the RM takes a decision to block that action. It is the responsibility of the designer, builder and RM (and to an extend the RO) to present the competitors a stage. If changes are needed then also quite simple, they didn't do their job well. But then it should also be done stricktly according to the rulebook.

Before finished: as the shooters seems to be finished the RO issues the command according to:

8.3.6 "If You Are Finished, Unload And Show Clear" - When the Range Officer issues this command and the competitor has finished the course of fire, the competitor shall lower his handgun, unload it and present it to the Range Officer for inspection. The unloading procedure must be carried out and the handgun presented to the Range Officer, with the muzzle pointed down range at all times. Revolvers shall be presented with the cylinder swung out and empty. Self-loading pistols shall be presented with the magazine removed, the chamber empty, and the slide held or locked back.

Please also observe that there is nothing in the rules to prevent competitors doing (non shooting) actions after the last shot, even when they are meant to be executed before the last shot fired (where time stops).

Always relevant to changes:

2.3 Modifications to Course Construction

2.3.1 Match officials may modify the physical construction or stage procedure for a course of fire for reasons of safety provided that such changes are approved by the Match Director or Range Master. Any such

physical changes or additions to published course of fire should always be completed before the match

begins.

2.3.2 All competitors must be notified of any such changes as soon as possible. As a minimum, they must be

notified verbally by the official in charge of the course of fire as part of the stage briefing and on the

written stage instruction sheet.

2.3.3 If the Range Master approves any such action after the competition begins they must either:

2.3.3.1 Allow the course of fire to continue with the modification affecting only those competitors who

have not already completed the stage. If a competitor’s actions caused the change, that competitor shall be required to re-shoot the altered course of fire.

2.3.3.2 If possible, require all competitors to complete the course of fire as revised with all previous attempts removed from the match scores.

2.3.3.3 A competitor who refuses to re-shoot a course of fire, under this or any other section, when so

ordered by a Range Official, shall receive a zero score for that stage, irrespective of any previous attempt.

So what was the problem again?

What was written down on the briefing:

Go through the coopertunnel before finished! = unload and show clear (if you stretch it enough, but that was for the RM to decide, nobody else). According to the rules the worst thing that can happen is reshoot (but be very, very sure of what the briefing reads).

RO's:

Their task is help the competitors through the stages. Treat everybody like you would want to be treated. Treat everybody the same. Observer safety issues. Always keep in mind IPSC/USPSA shooting is a mind game, so competitors tend to use their gray matter.

John

[Vince Pinto]

John,

Meaning; if any competitor shoots a stage and this does not satisfy the RO, the RO preferably lets the competitor finish the stage, then tells the competitor that he does not agree and will "reward" procedurals to the perceived offence(s).

Absolutely not - this rule has nothing whatsoever to do with the application of penalties.

If the RM decides that a Written Stage Briefing needs to modified for any reason, the RM may do so, but he must also decide whether the modifcation is significant enough for him to order those competitors who have already shot the COF before the modifcation to reshoot the COF again after the modification.

If the "mass reshoot" is not possible, then the RM must either order the competitor who's actions forced the modification to reshoot the COF or, in a "worst case scenario", the RM can delete the COF from the match.

[Johnsears49]

I am the "John" referenced in my friend Howard Thompson's posting, and I feel obligated to share my experience with the shooting community. I am a new shooter (only a year) and I fear there will be a number of experienced shooters that would ask, “Who the hell is this guy to have opinions on matters such as this?”. Well, I’d like to think you were all the same as me at one time in your shooting careers.

That said, after the shooters meeting (not during) I approached Mr. Chambers to ask about the stage procedure for #16. Being new, I purposely avoided the spotlight mostly out of embarrassment and opted for this quieter interaction. I asked about the significance of the Cooper Tunnel since it seemed to have no obvious purpose and no shots were being taken from within. It did however do one thing and that was to give a distinct advantage to those of smaller physical stature. My main question, the one that to this moment has not been answered... isn't the core idea of stage design to make every course of fire equally and fairly challenging for all shooters?

What I received in response was to say the least a surprise. Basically, how dare you challenge my design! The quote by Mr. Chambers “are you a Master?" is indeed accurate, insulting, and quite irrelevant! Is he a Master shooter? How does Mr. Chamber score when HE shoots the Limited Nationals (was it a sub 40% in 2002?). Is that the source of his animosity? And if so, please don't take it out on me. In my supposed challenge to Mr. Chambers I intentionally sat on the stage so as not to take an overly aggressive posture. The main theme of this conversation was the purpose of the Cooper Tunnel on his stage and his position remains indefensible. The course of fire should never be interpreted with a "because I said so” attitude. Its obvious the low ports, short tables, & Cooper tunnels give an advantage to some and, even worse, when it’s not convenient for them we simply change it! Please see Front Sight volume 20 #3 pg36 where the course of fire was altered for a competitor simply because he was too short! I would ask for you to show me where someone digs under the cooper tunnel to make things easier for tall/large people. Where are the props that favor the large guys.

More forward to stage 16 Tuesday morning. I was being helped by a more experienced friend (Howard) to make my best effort to shoot the stage when the RO overheard and intervened stating “go ahead and you’ll incur the multiple penalties”. At this time a former U.S. National champion was also making his plans for this stage (I’m told it's improper to name drop without permission). This former champion also told the RO that he could shoot the targets first and then complete the tunnel within the course description. He used as an example the scenario of thinking you missed a target and returning to an earlier portion of the stage but then to find you had indeed made the shot and then declared you were finished with no additional time accessed. I can’t help but wonder if this same RO would have DQ’d a member of the super squad for "unsportsman like conduct" (as threatened to Howard) for gaming this stage the same way??

I need to conclude by stating that I traveled 3000 miles and experienced some of the nicest folks anywhere in America. My deepest thanks to Everett (who found my lost ammo), to Perry (who listened with kindness and patience), to Jay Worden (who could've easily DQ’d this clumsy old man but gave this shooter the benefit of the doubt), and to each and every volunteer who gave their time and effort. I think perhaps the benefit of the doubt is the final chapter.

John Sears

TY-46024

[Howard762]

I assure you that this was not intended to be character assasination, although if different things I've received in private posts over the last day are true it is in order. I will not repeat them because I do not have permission and if the authors wanted them public they would have posted publicly.

I will state, because of multiple sources, that there are also questions relating to Mr. Chambers popper calibrating procedures, and their fairness.

I did take this up with Range Master Perry Wilson, who was very professional and courteous throughout, at the match and do not know the results of that conversation.

I have posted this to multiple lists because I see this kind of behavior as a larger problem that needs to worked out, before it becomes any more detrimental to our sport. It is also being discussed at length on the ipsc digest. I hope that at the end some positives come out of this discourse. If nothing else it may serve as a bad example of course description, and a demonstration of how match officials should not treat shooters.

I also want to thank the many people who support my integrity, and my position on this matter, publicly and privately.

Howard

[ErikW]

BamBam, give us a break... at least three of us have already described the penalties. We didn't commit it to memory or write it down, but it said six procedurals for not going through the tunnel before the last shot.

I asked about the significance of the Cooper Tunnel since it seemed to have no obvious purpose and no shots were being taken from within.

Not obvious to you perhaps. To me, it is obviously an obstacle to be negotiated, described in the rulebook, purposely designed to burn up time and potentially cause penalties, lowering your hit factor. A Cooper tunnel doesn't have to require shots from within, nor were you prevented from doing so in this case.

John, you asked the RM to clarify it and he did. At that point, leave the man alone and go shoot it their way, or your way and take your lumps (or arbitrate it). Any further argument requires arbitration. If your primary concern was your physical incapacity or inability to negotiate the course of fire, you should have requested a penalty in lieu of the stated course requirement (10.1.4.5). I saw one such request written by a competitor who expected trouble under the table at stage 2.

It's obvious your main beef is with low ports, tables, tunnels, etc. Where are the stages that favor large guys? All of them do to some extent. And all those partial targets favored accurate shooters, too. I guess they should have made them full and close to make it equally and fairly challenging for all shooters. If you want to whine about course designs unfriendly to your physique, get thee to the What I Hate forum.

BTW and FYI, far and away the fastest person I saw go through the Cooper tunnel was forum member Bear1142, not a little guy. I'd guess he's six-something, two-something, and everybody remarked at how he was under and through in a flash. Maybe size doesn't have so much to do with it.

Finally, USPSA welcomes and appreciates stage design contributions from members. One of the ways you can prevent physically challenging or unfair courses is to design your own and submit them to Dave Thomas.

[BDH]

I haven't been hanging around here much over the past couple of months, but decided to see what was being said about the Nationals.

I heard lots of comments during the matches about great stages, great staff, and how fast and accurate the stats were being posted. I also heard some discussion about the dust, and of course, about some questionable calls (including the shot through the pan, and the Cooper Tunnel).

I am not going to take sides on any of this, but just want to comment that the forum must have changed over the past few months, as I don't recall any thread that ever looked like this in the past. Makes me wish I would have just stayed away..........

[Johnsears49]

Eric, if the stage sheet had it written under the penalty section (or anywhere) that you get 6 procedurals for not going through the tunnel before the last shot I would say you are right and that all those penalties would apply.

But you are the only one saying exactly that.

Others have said it was discussed (not necessarily written on the sheet) and others have said there were penalties for not going through the tunnel before finishing (without the critical part about "before the last shot"). Hence all the confusion.

[Detlef]

Erik's not the only one. This is precisely how I understood it, too. 6 procedurals unless tunnel is traversed before last shot. Period.

As a shooter, you pick your battles (with the ROs, I mean). Going around wasn't going to be much faster to begin with. One can shoot it the gamer way w/o asking ahead of time, but then you risk procedurals (after all, you might not get a reshoot, even after arbitrating). Or one can ask ahead of time. That's what we did in squad 33, the answer being what I wrote. Reward being miniscule, and risk being great, everyone shot it the "intended" way, though that is not and should not be a requirement in IPSC.

This was not a battle worth fighting, not a loophole worth exploring for a risk... I understand your motivation, but with experience you will learn to distinguish high reward-low risk situations from the reverse.

Now...lack of being courteous has no excuse, but I cannot comment because I was not there when this was done to you. I remember everyone at COSSA being much more relaxed and professional about the match this year than last. The officiating that I experienced was 1st rate.

--Detlef

[BDH]

The officiating that I experienced was 1st rate.

Thank you. We try.....

[TDean]

Even though this is a heated debate, one of the most heated on Brain's forums to date, we are far from the "other" forums. This is good stuff, just treat everyone as if you're talking to them face-to-face.

For what it's worth, I understood that we were supposed to go THROUGH the tunnel, but I never heard anything about LAST SHOT. Was it written? Just verbal? Hmmm....

[Sterling White]

Great debate....too bad the stage description didn't specify that the shooter must pass through the cooper tunnel before engaging remaining targets.

Gotta say that my performance was challenged at this match, sometimes things go right and sometimes they do not for what ever reason. Overall I felt as if this match was one of the best that I've been too however there were two things that caught my attention and this stage was one while a bump between shooter & ro was another on a different stage (will not go into that because it was dumb on the shooters part).

Howard presents the case, situation, and question almost verbatum per our squad. Only exception in our case was that a shooter on our squad that had knee problems - too many seasons falling timber on the steep mountains in Western Oregon - could not crouch over far enough to complete the tunnel. So one solution to the his condition by the RO staff was to go around the tunnel and engage the remaining targets within the designated shooting area then be assessed a 20% reduction in points. Not that it would have made a lot of difference in the overall finish of competitors but I believe that anyone could have been allowed to run around and return through the tunnel completing the course description. The time would have stopped with the last shot fired.

These are just my observations as a competitor and are not to be disrespectful to the RO staff...they did a great job and it was a good match.

Sterling

[TDean]

I heard something about a shooter contacting an RO. The RO claimed intentional and the shooter arbitrated it, and won.

Did you see it? Was it flagerant?

[hoser]

TDean wrote:

I heard something about a shooter contacting an RO. The RO claimed intentional and the shooter arbitrated it, and won. Did you see it? Was it flagerant?

This incident happened on my stage. I was working the clipboard, another RO was running the shooter. The shooter failed to put the dummy on the table, had two misses and two no-shoots. Finished shooting and then yelled back and started moving backwards FAST, looking for the RO. Finally managed to make very slight contact with the RO about 20 rounds uprange while the RO was falling backwards attempting to get out of the way. The shooter then shot at the first array where he had two hits and hit another no-shoot and then demanded a reshoot for RO contact.

I denied the reshoot as the contact was slight and the RM backed up the call. The shooter filed an arb and won. In retrospect, I blew the call. I should have DQ'ed the shooter for unsportsmenlike conduct, but I was giving the benefit of doubt to the shooter. This shooter also tried to back into another RO during the open match, but the staff was wise to him by then.

Arnie

[Bear1142]

Erik,

Thank you for the kind words,

"BTW and FYI, far and away the fastest person I saw go through the Cooper tunnel was forum member Bear1142, not a little guy. "

I'm just glad I didn't fall on my face.

Erik

[Detlef]

Arnie, quite incredible. Someone should have a serious chat with repeat offenders like this... Maybe there's even a record of offences in NROI and/or IROA?

--Detlef

[diehli]

If "serious chat" means "shot in the leg," I'm all for it. Usher than cheesehead to the door... don't spare the boot.

[ErikW]

That's the type of guy who drove former USPSA shooters to cowboy action shooting.