"range is clear" when?

[HoMiE]

The reason for the rule change has been discussed previously.

Gary,

For those of us who do not know the reason why the rule was changed and the search feature is not productive, could you just quickly explain why the rule did change?

TIA

I'm not Gary, but I think the reasoning was to give control to the RO instead of leaving it up to the shooter and situation in this link below.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=920913

Edited March 25, 2009 by HoMiE

[Flexmoney]

I am all for making rules as clear as possible, but some things always make me wonder. Hundreds if not thousands of shooters are ran each weekend and almost always everything runs very well. Then you have one shooter or one RO who can't get with the program, and the first thing that happens is a call for a rule change.

I figured one of you RM types would get uptight about the mention of a rules change. Do you think we got it all perfect? Do you really believe the rule book is going to stay the same? We had a pretty good rule book last time out, and we still managed..what?...how many changes for this version? I counted once...I'd have to look it up. Well over a hundred.

Look, this is a discussion forum. We are going to discuss this stuff. We live in a dynamic world. Things change. We grow. We all learn as we go.

I almost didn't mention a change, because of the inevitable backlash. That's not where any of us want to be, I don't think?

I know some of you put a lot into the rules. And, I realize what it takes to get just one rule written "right". Maybe ease off the "no more rules changes" a bit, sometimes it comes off like a new stage designer that is worked up because the shooters found a way through the stage that the designer didn't think of.

We don't want to stifle the discussion. A lot of times we clear things up, learn things, and make things better. Even some of the raw complaints and pure debates ought to be seen with plenty of tolerance, because through them..the cream should rise to the top.

We aren't all out here to attack somebody's work. We are in the same boat, and playing the same game. We should all be able to learn from good discussion and find a way to take it to some place positive.

[Chris Keen]

How eloquent. Well said, Flex. Thank you for looking at it that way, and bringing that side of it up.

[Gary Stevens]

Trust me I am not uptight. Far from it. I work very hard to change rules that need changing. I think my efforts on the PD rules exemplifies this.

However it does bother me when two rather simple procedures cannot be accomplished by people who pride themselves on the handling of deadly weapons and the ability to supervise such handling. Our shooters and RO's, by and large, are the best in the world by so far a margin as to be enormous. That either one is not perfect is accepted. No one expects perfection. However, if I fail, it will be because of my actions, and no one else's.

A shooter is required to holster their gun. All in all it is not that hard or complicated a task.

An RO is required, once the gun is holstered, to declare range is clear. All in all it also is not that hard or complicated a task.

That one or both participants in this procedure failed, does not make the rule bad. On the contrary it makes the gun handling of the shooter bad and the RO's ability to wait until the gun is holstered bad.

For those who asked the rule was changed in an effort to simplify the point when the course of fire ended. Previously the rule said when the shooter holstered and removed his hand, and the gun remained in the holster the course of fire ended. This brought into question how long the gun had to remain in the holster (gun retention device) before it fell out. Did it remain 1/10 of a second? Was that good enough? Did an RO in Alabama require it to remain for 1 second, while an RO in North Dakota required it to remain for 3 seconds?

The thought process was that if the course of fire began on a range command it would be better if it ended on a range command. Of course this required two acts previously discussed of holstering and when holstered, calling the range clear.

And it seemed so simple.

[Flexmoney]

Gary, I don't mean to go after you. I think you know I respect you and all the work you've done. What I'm trying to point out is that...sometimes, with some folks...their posture on the rules is defensive (and a bit dismissive).

Just like stage designers can feel some ownership for the stages they put together (that get torn apart by the competitors), some of the rules gurus take on some ownership for the rules. And, that is natural, I think. It's our human nature.

What we need to remember is that the rules are going to get beat on here. It's the very nature of a rules discussion forum. Through those discussions and debates, we can...first...figure out what good practices are....then, we can do three things pretty well:

- get word to a large number of shooters

- get word to a large number of RO's

- work on the words themselves

We can always make good....better. We can always ask how can we improve.

And, we can always explore the space...and decide no change is needed. But, lets explore.

[Gary Stevens]

I agree 100 percent Flex. The part that bothers me is when we take two human failures, skip over those failures, and go after the rules as if they caused the situaiton.

[trowlfaz]

I want to thank everyone for their input! There has been a lot of information to wander through.

I will always lean towards the side of safety when RO'ing- for myself, the shooter, and everyone involved. I understand why the rule change is there and will take into consideration the information I gleaned from both the members of my club and here on the forums.

Thanks again!

[Ed K]

I agree with a statement made above. I will wait until your hand is clear of the gun before I issue the Range is Clear command. I don't believe that it needs to be spelled out in the rule book. I am responsible for the safety of not only the competitors, but the spectators, and 2nd RO/scorekeeper. It is MY bay.

I have never run a shooter that has left their hand on a gun by intent, waiting for the final command. If that ever does happen, I'll ask them to please remove their hand before I declare the range clear. If they want to be an asshat about it, I'll also remind them about unsportsmanlike conduct, and I think we should have a chat with the RM after I score the targets.

On a side note, the rule book was written and is updated for a reason. They are the rules. It is not a suggestion book. I also believe that if you read between the lines in the book, you'll find alot ways to handle situations and questions that may arise by using "common sense".

That is my 2 cents.

Now back to your regular scheduled program.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Ed K

[larry cazes]

I agree 100 percent Flex. The part that bothers me is when we take two human failures, skip over those failures, and go after the rules as if they caused the situaiton.

Well said.....

[SA Friday]

Ya, I don't think this scenario plays out very often and shouldn't drive a rule change. BUT... It's great info for training purposes. Something the NROI probably should cover in the RO course.

[shoot]

I sure don't want to beat a dead horse here but I do appreciate this thread as a new RO.

It makes perfect sense to make sure the firearm is secure before ending the COF. 8.3.8 “Range Is Clear” – This declaration signifies the end of the Course of fire.

Perhaps the issue is one of the definition of holster or what a RO should see prior to 8.3.8 but an RO is at fault for being premature. It's not the rules that need to be changed.

I like the declaration as is. Not vague and a dropped weapon prior vs after should require the RO to only make that determination as to the rules that pertain to during or after the COF. It's not vague now. It's clear and not vague.

It might be a hornets nest if they tried to patch it up. Holster = hands off ? That won't work because one must constantly protect from getting bumped etc while pasting, picking up brass, setting poppers etc.

Maybe a command like what the heck are you doing?

I for sure will try to take this thread to heart but a change in the rule might be problematic. There has to be an end and it was the RO's declaration that ended the COF. No grey area is kinda nice for once. It is the responsibility of the RO to make sure it's clear and as safe as a cold range can be.

[lcs]

The reason for the rule change has been discussed previously.

Gary,

For those of us who do not know the reason why the rule was changed and the search feature is not productive, could you just quickly explain why the rule did change?

TIA

I'm not Gary, but I think the reasoning was to give control to the RO instead of leaving it up to the shooter and situation in this link below.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=920913

Thanks for the info, but I had followed every post in that thread from the time the thread started. I asked for the history of why the rule book had changed.

[lcs]

Trust me I am not uptight. Far from it. I work very hard to change rules that need changing. I think my efforts on the PD rules exemplifies this.

However it does bother me when two rather simple procedures cannot be accomplished by people who pride themselves on the handling of deadly weapons and the ability to supervise such handling. Our shooters and RO's, by and large, are the best in the world by so far a margin as to be enormous. That either one is not perfect is accepted. No one expects perfection. However, if I fail, it will be because of my actions, and no one else's.

A shooter is required to holster their gun. All in all it is not that hard or complicated a task.

An RO is required, once the gun is holstered, to declare range is clear. All in all it also is not that hard or complicated a task.

That one or both participants in this procedure failed, does not make the rule bad. On the contrary it makes the gun handling of the shooter bad and the RO's ability to wait until the gun is holstered bad.

For those who asked the rule was changed in an effort to simplify the point when the course of fire ended. Previously the rule said when the shooter holstered and removed his hand, and the gun remained in the holster the course of fire ended. This brought into question how long the gun had to remain in the holster (gun retention device) before it fell out. Did it remain 1/10 of a second? Was that good enough? Did an RO in Alabama require it to remain for 1 second, while an RO in North Dakota required it to remain for 3 seconds?

The thought process was that if the course of fire began on a range command it would be better if it ended on a range command. Of course this required two acts previously discussed of holstering and when holstered, calling the range clear.

And it seemed so simple.

Thanks Gary for the history and it does seem so simple.

[JThompson]

When I damn well say it is!!

Edited March 25, 2009 by JThompson

[LPatterson]

I agree with a statement made above. I will wait until your hand is clear of the gun before I issue the Range is Clear command. I don't believe that it needs to be spelled out in the rule book. I am responsible for the safety of not only the competitors, but the spectators, and 2nd RO/scorekeeper. It is MY bay.

I have never run a shooter that has left their hand on a gun by intent, waiting for the final command. If that ever does happen, I'll ask them to please remove their hand before I declare the range clear. If they want to be an asshat about it, I'll also remind them about unsportsmanlike conduct, and I think we should have a chat with the RM after I score the targets.

On a side note, the rule book was written and is updated for a reason. They are the rules. It is not a suggestion book. I also believe that if you read between the lines in the book, you'll find alot ways to handle situations and questions that may arise by using "common sense".

That is my 2 cents.

Now back to your regular scheduled program.

There are several statements that I disagree with.

First the rule book does not require that the shooter remove their hand from the gun only that it be holstered, period, stop. That is why I as well as several others questioned the rule changed.

Second there is nothing in the rule book that you can state as a reason to require them to remove their hand from the gun. If you started talking to me about unsportsmans like conduct I would probably call you a range nazi and tell you where to stick it. There is nothing in the rule book that states common sense is a requirement for either a shooter or an RO. No one should be reading between the lines of the rulebook to decide how to rule in a given situation. Within the rulebook structure if it is not stated that something can not be done i.e. WSB and rulebook, then the shooter is free to solve the problem as they see fit.

If you don't think rules are sometimes subjective then read the threads about the production rules disagreements about what can and can not be done inside the gun.

[LPatterson]

When I damn well say it is!!

Come on JT isn't that a bit of autocratic based on what you have in your signature block.

[JThompson]

I agree with a statement made above. I will wait until your hand is clear of the gun before I issue the Range is Clear command. I don't believe that it needs to be spelled out in the rule book. I am responsible for the safety of not only the competitors, but the spectators, and 2nd RO/scorekeeper. It is MY bay.

I have never run a shooter that has left their hand on a gun by intent, waiting for the final command. If that ever does happen, I'll ask them to please remove their hand before I declare the range clear. If they want to be an asshat about it, I'll also remind them about unsportsmanlike conduct, and I think we should have a chat with the RM after I score the targets.

On a side note, the rule book was written and is updated for a reason. They are the rules. It is not a suggestion book. I also believe that if you read between the lines in the book, you'll find alot ways to handle situations and questions that may arise by using "common sense".

That is my 2 cents.

Now back to your regular scheduled program.

There are several statements that I disagree with.

First the rule book does not require that the shooter remove their hand from the gun only that it be holstered, period, stop. That is why I as well as several others questioned the rule changed.

Second there is nothing in the rule book that you can state as a reason to require them to remove their hand from the gun. If you started talking to me about unsportsmans like conduct I would probably call you a range nazi and tell you where to stick it. There is nothing in the rule book that states common sense is a requirement for either a shooter or an RO. No one should be reading between the lines of the rulebook to decide how to rule in a given situation. Within the rulebook structure if it is not stated that something can not be done i.e. WSB and rulebook, then the shooter is free to solve the problem as they see fit.

If you don't think rules are sometimes subjective then read the threads about the production rules disagreements about what can and can not be done inside the gun.

Is it not a "reasonable" request to ask you to remove your hand from the gun? I'm not arguing here LP just making a point.

The other remark was just an attempt at humor...

Edited March 26, 2009 by JThompson

[Gary Stevens]

One small thing might be that if the shooter has removed their hand from the gun, it might indicate that they are completed with the holstering process. While they still have their hand on the gun, the RO has no way of knowing if they are still in the holstering process or not. A small point, but a difference none the less.

I simple "ask" the shooter to remove their hand if they are finished, so that I might be sure they have completed the holstering process.

Never been a problem.

[lcs]

One small thing might be that if the shooter has removed their hand from the gun, it might indicate that they are completed with the holstering process. While they still have their hand on the gun, the RO has no way of knowing if they are still in the holstering process or not. A small point, but a difference none the less.

I simple "ask" the shooter to remove their hand if they are finished, so that I might be sure they have completed the holstering process.

Never been a problem.

Gary you do have a way with words. Couldn't agree more.

[LPatterson]

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask the shooter "if they are through holstering their gun, could they please remove their hand". What I was referring to was there is nothing that requires them to remove their hand. The Nationals in Missoula, I had a shooter that did not want to take his hand off the gun because he said the retaining lock wasn't working and I told him I could not do anything further until he took his hand off the gun based on the rules. What he wanted to do was just bag the gun. Based on the current rules how would this same situation be handled? Shooter doesn't want to let go of the gun and possibly drop it before I could call Range is Clear which would be a DQ or having the shooter handling a gun (trying to bag) after I have declared RIC?

Please don't say I should use common sense because I spent 23 years in the military and I know that my common sense doesn't always match the rules.

[lcs]

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask the shooter "if they are through holstering their gun, could they please remove their hand". What I was referring to was there is nothing that requires them to remove their hand. The Nationals in Missoula, I had a shooter that did not want to take his hand off the gun because he said the retaining lock wasn't working and I told him I could not do anything further until he took his hand off the gun based on the rules. What he wanted to do was just bag the gun. Based on the current rules how would this same situation be handled? Shooter doesn't want to let go of the gun and possibly drop it before I could call Range is Clear which would be a DQ or having the shooter handling a gun (trying to bag) after I have declared RIC?

Please don't say I should use common sense because I spent 23 years in the military and I know that my common sense doesn't always match the rules.

I have had the same thing happen. Right or Wrong, I allow the shooter to bag and then RIC.

[JThompson]

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask the shooter "if they are through holstering their gun, could they please remove their hand". What I was referring to was there is nothing that requires them to remove their hand. The Nationals in Missoula, I had a shooter that did not want to take his hand off the gun because he said the retaining lock wasn't working and I told him I could not do anything further until he took his hand off the gun based on the rules. What he wanted to do was just bag the gun. Based on the current rules how would this same situation be handled? Shooter doesn't want to let go of the gun and possibly drop it before I could call Range is Clear which would be a DQ or having the shooter handling a gun (trying to bag) after I have declared RIC?

Please don't say I should use common sense because I spent 23 years in the military and I know that my common sense doesn't always match the rules.

Will the new rules you could call for the shooters bag or call range clear having given him instruction to hold it there until he reached the safe area to make repairs. As an RO, I would probably tell someone on the squad to bring a bag up bag and call RC after he bagged, but either way would be legal under the current rule set.

JT

Edited March 26, 2009 by JThompson

[Gary Stevens]

I think if you tell the shooter to remain still, move his hand one half inch away from his gun, and then call the range clear would probably work. I would then call the RM and inform him/her of the shooters unsafe holster (gun retention device).

I guess an alternative would be to hand them a roll of duct tape.

[Ed K]

LP, thank you for your service to our country. I only spent 10 years in.

I have never been called a "range nazi". I take offense to that statement. But i will take your critique in stride. I guess what I was trying to explain was that I have never been subjected to intentional disrespect by a competitor, while RO'ing.

I do understand that our adreniline is still up there after completing a COF. The reason that I ask you to remove your hand is to make entirely sure, to the best of my ability, that you are leaving the COF with a securely holstered gun. Just remove it long enough so I can take a look. No, there's nothing in the book that say's you have to. It is not illegal for a competitor to walk around with his/her hand resting on the butt of a handgun.

If I see that something is wrong with your equipment, I'll let you know. I am in a position to see potential problems with your holster, better than you are. That way we can get your gun bagged before it falls in the dirt on your way back to sign your scoresheet, or it falls out after the LAMR on the next stage.

[Nik Habicht]

One small thing might be that if the shooter has removed their hand from the gun, it might indicate that they are completed with the holstering process. While they still have their hand on the gun, the RO has no way of knowing if they are still in the holstering process or not. A small point, but a difference none the less.

I simple "ask" the shooter to remove their hand if they are finished, so that I might be sure they have completed the holstering process.

Never been a problem.

So, what if the shooter simply says "Yep, I'm done" and leaves his hand on the gun?