RO in the way - Interference?

[ima45dv8]

I hope this doesn't drift this too much (if it does, I'll split it again!), but at the after-match pizza-fest last night there was some discussion about a local match last month that had a shooter SHATTER the 180. Some folks were dogging the RO saying that when he saw the shooter blow by the target, he should have snugged-up on him real tight and be ready to stop his turn, using physical force if necessary.

I could not disagree more.

I've RO'd a few shooters and have seen others do it a time or two, and I've noticed that the RO in those situations generally slows up a bit and leaves a cushion, anticipating that the competitor will likely break and run up-range (quickly) to get back to that missed target. Standing in their hip pocket at that moment is a bad place to be.

All this of course assumes you're dealing with an experienced competitor, and the guy last month was/is. There was no reasonable way to predict he would turn and engage that target from that far down range.

[kgunz11]

Roger, I hope to finally get to shoot with you at some point, and buy your lunch after the match too! We plan on being at the beach house the 2nd weekend of June. We are now planning our beach trips around the match weekend.

Safety is my number 1 priority in my shooting, not only for myself but for all those around me. Would I have sent a round into the RO? Certainly not, but the muzzle blast would have been ugly that close to his face.

I have utmost respect and admiration for the RO running me on that stage. He's a really great guy, and a good RO. I was a little shaken at the end of the stage because of things that COULD have happened. I asked if it was a reshoot and he said no. I wasn't going to argue it, even though there might have been some interference. It was a good match, and we had a good time. My father-n-law actually got to watch his daughter shoot, and she SMOKED! I was proud of her, and he congratulated me on her abilities as a shooter, and that made me feel good, even tho I had little to do with it. We do plan to go back. It was a learning experience in many ways. One of them being the first time I have shot in a 360* bay with berms on all sides which allowed for a rotating 180. My ONLY complaint was not having a WSB available on each stage. They did a group walk thru before the match, but for me it has become habit to read over the WSB several times to know the ins and outs of each stage. I understand the difficulties of building stages on the fly the day of the match and how it would be impossible to have a WSB when done that way. It was a fun match though. I should upload more videos from that match and might do that tonight while watching "Wednesday Night on the Range".

Edited to reflect 2nd weekend, not "3"nd weekend.

Edited May 6, 2009 by kgunz11

[Fireant]

Hey, did someone say LUNCH?????? I'll make sure I clear that weekend so I can make it. Please upload the videos. At least I can watch the match since I didn't shoot it.

[Dan Hefta]

I really think it is interesting how we all can watch a video over and over and still have mixed opinions on the proper result. Here we are days after the incident with video evidence and there is still debate on how we all would react. That is why I love posting on this forum, one thing that I have taken from the last couple of years reading this forum is opinions are like A-holes, we all have one. I mean this with all due respect.

Edited May 6, 2009 by danscrapbags

[mda]

He is an example of "How to Lose and RO" due to stage design. This was on staff day at a major match, and was it was fixed after that.

And, here is an example of the shooter going back to make-up a mistake. It is freestyle folks.

I just noticed...same RO in both videos. lol. Notice that Mark is experienced enough to give the shooter some room to work. In both cases, the shooter kept moving and shot a make-up shot...a bit out of the ordinary, perhaps.

Thanks for the Complement Kyle. That's the second time you have used those videos in a post.

Yep!! RESHOOT!! RO was out of position like others have said.

In the first video we fixed this stage by cutting a door in the wall so the RO could swing the door open,duck through, and not lose control or be in front of the shooter. Had to RO that stage for the next two days.

MDA

[kgunz11]

Uploading now Roger. I had them all on video except the classifier.

[kgunz11]

I really think it is interesting how we all can watch a video over and over and still have mixed opinions on the proper result. Here we are days after the incident with video evidence and there is still debate on how we all would react. That is why I love posting on this forum, one thing that I have taken from the last couple of years reading this forum is opinions are like A-holes, we all have one. I mean this with all due respect.

Sir, with all due respect, there's no room for opinions in the rules of this sport, that's why we have a rule book, and why so much work goes into clearly defining the rules. If the RO interfered with the shooters ability to shoot a given course of fire, then the shooter should be awarded a reshoot per rule:

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another

external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of

fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course

of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing

either the time or the score from the initial attempt.

[XD Niner]

One thing that no one has mentioned is that the COF at the local match was a clone of the one used a week later at the Area 6 match. There were a few minor differences but the potential RO trap was present in both.

Even an RO only view port would not have cured the possible problem. The RO would likely have to extend his arm with the timer through the port to be sure to catch the final shot. If that did occur it is unlikely he would have been able to scramble back up range fast enough to be totally out of the way but he would at least have had a better chance.

All that said a "STOP" for safety's sake followed by a reshoot seems like the best course to me.

[Fireant]

Uploading now Roger. I had them all on video except the classifier.

Thanks, I really like it when they bust out the swinging plate.

[kgunz11]

You mean "that DAMN swinging plate"? Or I think that's what Susan called it. Everything else she said about is too graphic to be put on the forum.

[Fireant]

You mean "that DAMN swinging plate"? Or I think that's what Susan called it. Everything else she said about is too graphic to be put on the forum.

That's funny. Yep, Flex does not have enough time in a week to edit out all the foul words I used the first time I shot that thing. Everyone in the peanut gallery was shouting to leave it and go. By that time it was the principal that mattered. That plate was going down or I was going to run out of ammo. Those were the days I went to the line with 7 or 8 20 round mags. I try not to have flashbacks to that day when I see the swinging plate these days.

[kgunz11]

It has such a short and quick stroke on it timing is critical... especially at 20 yards!

[Dan Hefta]

I really think it is interesting how we all can watch a video over and over and still have mixed opinions on the proper result. Here we are days after the incident with video evidence and there is still debate on how we all would react. That is why I love posting on this forum, one thing that I have taken from the last couple of years reading this forum is opinions are like A-holes, we all have one. I mean this with all due respect.

Sir, with all due respect, there's no room for opinions in the rules of this sport, that's why we have a rule book, and why so much work goes into clearly defining the rules. If the RO interfered with the shooters ability to shoot a given course of fire, then the shooter should be awarded a reshoot per rule:

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another

external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of

fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course

of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing

either the time or the score from the initial attempt.

I am not trying to argue just to argue, I want to learn from this forum, the above ruling leaves it up to the RO it says "the Range Officer may offer a reshoot". Not shall, not will, but may. In my opinion that is a pretty big loophole and this is why it's debatable. I am a shooter and not a lawyer, there are far too many gray areas in our sport.

[JThompson]

I really think it is interesting how we all can watch a video over and over and still have mixed opinions on the proper result. Here we are days after the incident with video evidence and there is still debate on how we all would react. That is why I love posting on this forum, one thing that I have taken from the last couple of years reading this forum is opinions are like A-holes, we all have one. I mean this with all due respect.

Sir, with all due respect, there's no room for opinions in the rules of this sport, that's why we have a rule book, and why so much work goes into clearly defining the rules. If the RO interfered with the shooters ability to shoot a given course of fire, then the shooter should be awarded a reshoot per rule:

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another

external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of

fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course

of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing

either the time or the score from the initial attempt.

I am not trying to argue just to argue, I want to learn from this forum, the above ruling leaves it up to the RO it says "the Range Officer may offer a reshoot". Not shall, not will, but may. In my opinion that is a pretty big loophole and this is why it's debatable. I am a shooter and not a lawyer, there are far too many gray areas in our sport.

You are right, it does say "may" It's my opinion that they left it "may" to keep someone from trying to run over an RO to get a reshoot. I can't say that for sure. Maybe one of the people who actually wrote the rule could chime in on that, but it made sense to me. That would be covered under unsportsmanlike, but still....

If I can use a rule to help a shooter instead of hurt him, that's the way I will go unless I feel there was something shady going on.

[ihatepickles]

If I can use a rule to help a shooter instead of hurt him, that's the way I will go unless I feel there was something shady going on.

Yes, I agree. I've only met 2 RO's that didn't feel that way.

[Nik Habicht]

You are right, it does say "may" It's my opinion that they left it "may" to keep someone from trying to run over an RO to get a reshoot.

Bingo --- I've had that conversation with the rules writers, and that was the wording that allowed for balance.....

Also, if an RO needs to issue the "Stop" command for a safety issue, either a match dq or a reshoot are called for --- there really are no other options....

[kgunz11]

I really think it is interesting how we all can watch a video over and over and still have mixed opinions on the proper result. Here we are days after the incident with video evidence and there is still debate on how we all would react. That is why I love posting on this forum, one thing that I have taken from the last couple of years reading this forum is opinions are like A-holes, we all have one. I mean this with all due respect.

Sir, with all due respect, there's no room for opinions in the rules of this sport, that's why we have a rule book, and why so much work goes into clearly defining the rules. If the RO interfered with the shooters ability to shoot a given course of fire, then the shooter should be awarded a reshoot per rule:

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another

external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of

fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course

of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing

either the time or the score from the initial attempt.

I am not trying to argue just to argue, I want to learn from this forum, the above ruling leaves it up to the RO it says "the Range Officer may offer a reshoot". Not shall, not will, but may. In my opinion that is a pretty big loophole and this is why it's debatable. I am a shooter and not a lawyer, there are far too many gray areas in our sport.

Dan, now that you put it that way, I see what you are saying to support your point of view. I still think the shooter should have gotten a reshoot. I too am here to learn, even though I act like I know it all already! If you were a lawyer, then you'd know in law school one of the important things they teach you is how to speak with conviction, I have a little too much of that sometimes, especially in written text.

[AlamoShooter]

one better way to look at re-shoots. A re shoot is something of a "Requirement" not so much something to be Granted.

ether the shooter had access to the targets or not.

[ima45dv8]

one better way to look at re-shoots. A re shoot is something of a "Requirement" not so much something to be Granted.

Not a requirement in all cases, Jamie, though maybe it should be (and I think it used to be). The rule cited, 8.6.4 gives the RO the option of offering one, but it's his call.

[Dan Hefta]

I really think it is interesting how we all can watch a video over and over and still have mixed opinions on the proper result. Here we are days after the incident with video evidence and there is still debate on how we all would react. That is why I love posting on this forum, one thing that I have taken from the last couple of years reading this forum is opinions are like A-holes, we all have one. I mean this with all due respect.

Sir, with all due respect, there's no room for opinions in the rules of this sport, that's why we have a rule book, and why so much work goes into clearly defining the rules. If the RO interfered with the shooters ability to shoot a given course of fire, then the shooter should be awarded a reshoot per rule:

8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another

external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of

fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course

of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing

either the time or the score from the initial attempt.

I am not trying to argue just to argue, I want to learn from this forum, the above ruling leaves it up to the RO it says "the Range Officer may offer a reshoot". Not shall, not will, but may. In my opinion that is a pretty big loophole and this is why it's debatable. I am a shooter and not a lawyer, there are far too many gray areas in our sport.

Dan, now that you put it that way, I see what you are saying to support your point of view. I still think the shooter should have gotten a reshoot. I too am here to learn, even though I act like I know it all already! If you were a lawyer, then you'd know in law school one of the important things they teach you is how to speak with conviction, I have a little too much of that sometimes, especially in written text.

Cool

[JKSNIPER]

IMHO It should have been a re-shoot even though you did not "run over" the R.O.

THe lang in the rule does say "May offer". It should say "Must" or "shall offer a re-shoot".

Otherwise its the R.O.s discretion.

I feel in this case you clearly knew what might happen and stopped yourself prior to forcing the R.O. to stop you. He should have taken that into consideration when making his decision. Also perhaps you could have made the point that the if C.O.F. does not prohibit reversing direction to engage targets you can't be given an FTE penalty when you clearly intended to reverse direction to engage the target but stopped when it became clear that to do so would cause a possibly safety concern.

I think you should have received a re-shoot.

To your credit....You were a gentleman about it and a good sport.

JK

[Nik Habicht]

IMHO It should have been a re-shoot even though you did not "run over" the R.O.

THe lang in the rule does say "May offer". It should say "Must" or "shall offer a re-shoot".

Otherwise its the R.O.s discretion.

O.K. let's look at that:

1. You could have a game of tag the RO to get a reshoot --- and yes, we could theoretically deal with that under 10.6.1

2. The current system allows the shooter to turn down the offer, prior to hearing time/scoring if they wish/felt they weren't impacted. Change it to "Must" and it becomes just like any other re-shoot -- mandatory.

3. You could write "Must Offer," but it's still RO discretion as to what --- absent physical contact -- constitutes RO interference.....

Keep in mind too that the RO's decision to not offer a re-shoot may be appealed up the chain.....

[JKSNIPER]

Good point Nik.

JK

[Richard Jones]

Had I been the RO, I would have thanked you for not continueing to shoot, then told you to let me know when you're ready for your reshoot.

+2 and can I get a big Amen.............

R

[Morphire]

You are right, it does say "may" It's my opinion that they left it "may" to keep someone from trying to run over an RO to get a reshoot.

Bingo --- I've had that conversation with the rules writers, and that was the wording that allowed for balance.....

Also, if an RO needs to issue the "Stop" command for a safety issue, either a match dq or a reshoot are called for --- there really are no other options....

Am I missing something or does a squib not fit that last statement. If I suspect a squib and call stop, and then with a subsequent check of that gun it shows that it was in fact a squib, then there is no reshoot and there is no match dq. Just a stage scored from that point on. Do I have a misunderstanding of that safety "Stop" circumstance? Not trying to be obtuse but I know I'm a lot less experienced and that last statement caught me off guard.

Thanks for the clarification.