RO Class scheduled June 27-28, 2009

[kgunz11]

An example, Troy said the "range is clear" command ends the CoF period and the RO has no authority to re-open it. To be official, that would have to come down the correct ladder.

ETA: That was pertaining to the question concerning the thread here on dropping a gun.

I also learned the 1 instance in when a -5 penalty could be assessed, and learned that penalties can be given or not given due to the physical stature of the shooter, which I thought was real interesting.

Edited June 29, 2009 by kgunz11

[boz1911]

An example, Troy said the "range is clear" command ends the CoF period and the RO has no authority to re-open it. To be official, that would have to come down the correct ladder.

Which ladder are you referring to??

From NROI?

Or from the RM?

[kgunz11]

For it to be an official ruling, not the interpretation of NROI Instructor. With all due respect to Troy, how many times have you read here that his opinion or even John Amidon's is not conclusive until it is posted on the NROI website or published in Front Sight. That would be the correct ladder, it comes down from NROI in publication, not interpretation. Let me reiterate, I agree with Troy's interpretation 100%. That is just one example though.

[sperman]

An example, Troy said the "range is clear" command ends the CoF period and the RO has no authority to re-open it. To be official, that would have to come down the correct ladder.

ETA: That was pertaining to the question concerning the thread here on dropping a gun.

I also learned the 1 instance in when a -5 penalty could be assessed, and learned that penalties can be given or not given due to the physical stature of the shooter, which I thought was real interesting.

I think taking quotes out of the context of the class and posting them in this forum is a bad idea. Just my $0.02

ETA: Especially if you haven't received permission from the instructor.

Edited June 29, 2009 by sperman

[DUKE]

I realy enjoyed the class and learned alot about the rules and being an RO.Thanks Bobby,Susan,Troy and a big thanks to Mark for the class room W.C Bradley loaned us and Alan for the use of his range! If I missed anybody thanks to you also! lol

[wgnoyes]

An example, Troy said the "range is clear" command ends the CoF period and the RO has no authority to re-open it. To be official, that would have to come down the correct ladder.

ETA: That was pertaining to the question concerning the thread here on dropping a gun.

I also learned the 1 instance in when a -5 penalty could be assessed, and learned that penalties can be given or not given due to the physical stature of the shooter, which I thought was real interesting.

Well, Troy's right, and there's no particular context to be considered. Range is Clear signifies the end of the course of fire. (8.3.8) This particular shooter's officially done with the stage; time to score targets and get ready for the next shooter. If the competitor's gun falls out of the holster now, the RO retrieves it for him and maybe tells the guy to make sure his holster is functioning correctly, but he's still in the match.

You'll notice penalties are never specified in the rulebook as -5 or -10. Rather, the typical verbiage is "penalized the equivilence of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit". -5 comes into play I believe in a Fiixed Time stage (9.4.6.2) where overtime shots are "penalized the maximum possible scoring value of each shot so fired". We don't seem to see a whole lot of fixed time anymore.

For disability, sure; that's 10.2.10.2. We have one regular competitor who is well-known to be physically incapable of shooting a gun weak-hand only. (He just simply can't hang on to it.) We all know it, and the last time we had him through a stronghand/weakhand stage, we waived the penalty entirely as being pointless for him and he shot the weakhand part with his stronghand.

By the way, did Troy make any mention of the USPSA Competition Rules Combined Edition (Rev. 4/17/2009), available only as a download? I only ask because I believe a few of the rule numbers are a bit different, but it is considered to be an official rulebook.

Edited June 29, 2009 by wgnoyes

[mactiger]

I think it's a bad idea, too. But, since it was brought up here...

I appreciate the kind words from the folks in the class; I enjoyed meeting you and teaching the seminar. It was a nice trip for me, and I hope I was able to instill some knowledge of the rules to everyone who attended. I stated right up front that my mission (and that of the NROI instructor group) was not to second guess other range officer's calls, or to vindicate anyone who may feel that they were slighted at a particular match. The Level One Seminar is also not a place for editorializing on particular events, whether you are happy or displeased with that event. If some of you didn't get that, my apologies for not being clear.

First, I NEVER said that procedural penalties could be assessed based on the physical stature of the competitor. What I did say, in answer to another question about what happened at match "xyz", was that procedural penalties given for faulting a line should be determined based on the setup of that particular stage. While I did mention that in our particular practice stage that some people could shoot over the barricade and some couldn't, the foot fault we saw did not present significant advantage based on where the barricade was in relation to the box. It had nothing to do with the height of the competitor, nor should it on any course. I emphasized that we were dealing with a procedural penalty right then and right there, not sometime in the past. (FWIW, the RO at the time got it right, without coaching or assistance from me.) I also mentioned that procedural penalties of that sort should be discussed amongst the match officials prior to the start of the match, with special consideration given to whether a foot fault gives significant advantage or not. Lastly, I stated several times that I wasn't there to second guess calls made at other matches, essentially because I wasn't there. Yet, I continued to get questions about what happened at the "XYZ" match in 200X. I understand that some people don't agree with an RO's call from time to time, but once it's over, it's basically over. Get over it and get on with it.

Second, it's absolutely true that John Amidon, the Director of NROI, has the final say on rules interpretation (subject to BOD approval). The rulebook clearly states which command starts the course of fire, and which one ends it. There is no language allowing a Range Officer to "reopen" a course. 8.3.8 is quite clear: "this command signifies the end of the course of fire". No ifs, ands, or buts. I'd say that it's already official.

I didn't make that rule up--it's right there in black and white. If you can find somewhere in the rule book where it says the RO can "reopen" a course, point it out and I'll retract my statement and apologize for being wrong. Also, feel free to write John and ask for an "official" ruling.

I've been teaching seminars for a long time, and working matches for longer. I've always tried to stick to what the book says and not add any personal interpretations. Read the rule, see and understand what it says, and then apply it--that's always been, and always will be, my philosophy. I understand some people don't agree with, or understand, what the rulebook says. That doesn't mean that rule is wrong, or can be twisted to fit a personal interpretation--whether you like the rule or not.

Lastly, do RO's make bad calls from time to time? Unequivocally, YES. But, range officials are human, and we make mistakes. It's not the end of the world, it's a simple mistake. We play a game with guns. There are rules governing that game, and human beings trying to enforce those rules. Occasionally, mistakes will be made. Don't take it personally, try to learn something from it, and move on.

Troy

An example, Troy said the "range is clear" command ends the CoF period and the RO has no authority to re-open it. To be official, that would have to come down the correct ladder.

ETA: That was pertaining to the question concerning the thread here on dropping a gun.

I also learned the 1 instance in when a -5 penalty could be assessed, and learned that penalties can be given or not given due to the physical stature of the shooter, which I thought was real interesting.

I think taking quotes out of the context of the class and posting them in this forum is a bad idea. Just my $0.02

ETA: Especially if you haven't received permission from the instructor.

[mactiger]

For disability, sure; that's 10.2.10.2. We have one regular competitor who is well-known to be physically incapable of shooting a gun weak-hand only. (He just simply can't hang on to it.) We all know it, and the last time we had him through a stronghand/weakhand stage, we waived the penalty entirely as being pointless for him and he shot the weakhand part with his stronghand.

By the way, did Troy make any mention of the USPSA Competition Rules Combined Edition (Rev. 4/17/2009), available only as a download? I only ask because I believe a few of the rule numbers are a bit different, but it is considered to be an official rulebook.

I did discuss the disability penalty, but I think the question was about assessing procedurals based on size, not handicap. Also, I did mention the combined rules, but stressed that we use the pistol handbook for RO seminars, in order to eliminate confusion over the rule numbers. This is especially important when doing the online exam, because it won't accept a rule number from the combined book, even if it's correct relative to the combined rules. It too, is based on the handgun rules.

Troy

[ima45dv8]

...try to learn something from it, and move on.

Wise words, and it seems like a good place to close this 'announcement' before any more back-and-forth on specific rules drifts it further.

Thanks again, Troy, for taking the time and making the effort to come teach this class.