RO in the way - Interference?

[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....

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.

You're not wrong --- but squibs are covered in the chapter on competitor equipment (Section 5.7 specifically). Safety type stops are in Chapter 8 (range commands) and in Chapter 10 (Dqs....)

I do tend to think of them differently --- if a competitor blows up a gun, he's most likely the only person getting hurt --- and most likely will be hurt as opposed to injured. That's bad, but doesn't rise to the potential level of damage involved in breaking one or more of the safety rules enumerated in Chapter 10......

[Morphire]

You're not wrong --- but squibs are covered in the chapter on competitor equipment (Section 5.7 specifically). Safety type stops are in Chapter 8 (range commands) and in Chapter 10 (Dqs....)

I do tend to think of them differently --- if a competitor blows up a gun, he's most likely the only person getting hurt --- and most likely will be hurt as opposed to injured. That's bad, but doesn't rise to the potential level of damage involved in breaking one or more of the safety rules enumerated in Chapter 10......

Thanks for the clarification, Nik. =]

[pjb45]

Look to the rule about external influences.

If there is an external influence that has a negative effect, a reshoot can be justified.

At an A2 match, a car alarm was going off, it was interfering with hearing the buzzer, it was hard to tell the difference. The lock smith got into the car and stopped the alarm. The RO was starting to run the next shooter, MR, then Standby, the lock smith popped the trunk and the car alarm went off. Confusion ensured. The RO felt a reshoot was in order. The RO got the MD to come over and based on the interference rule, the shooter got a reshoot. A2 is famous for being very strict adherence to the rules.

If the RO, who can be deemed an external influence, was in the way and the shooter could not fire because of a safety reason, the shooter should get a reshoot.

IMO, The RO contact rule was changed because on more than one occasion, a shooter purposefully bumped into the RO because the shooter realized they made a mistake and wanted a reshoot. The shooter(s) in question had performed this move enough times it warranted changing the rule.

[SA Friday]

Just watched the vid, and skipped a lot of the chatter.

Freestyle.

Reshoot, now doubt about it.

RO trap, no doubt about it.

Snow Fence wall instead of the complete vision barrier would have been nice there.

Bet the score keeper needed new drawers.

[elynch2007]

The shooter must be able to shoot the COF freestyle, so it is not up to the RO to tell him how to shoot it.

It should have been a reshoot for sure, but reshoots are (at least should be) based on the rulebook and are given by the RO. Shooters can ask for the rules to be applied, it is the Range Officials responsibility to issue reshoots. When a reshoot is requried the shooter has no option but to reshoot the stage. I have seen the RO ask the shooter if he wants a reshoot or not. The RO should ask if the shooter feels he was interferred with, if he answers yes it is a reshoot, if he answers no then stage should be scored as shot.

[Nik Habicht]

The RO should ask if the shooter feels he was interferred with, if he answers yes it is a reshoot, if he answers no then stage should be scored as shot.

That's not how the rule reads however......

[EkuJustice]

I would say reshoot. The RO was definately in an unsafe position if he were to have fired the shot(downrange of the shooter). Being a free style course he is free to backup if he needs to. If I have a weird plan ahead of time I let the RO know of the intent if its going to put him in a bad position if he dosent know where I am going. I was at a shoot recently where I was going to basically take a huge step back and shoot a couple targets which was different from how most did it(going hard left) and not straight back. I let the RO know the plans because If I didnt he would probibally have been mowed over since he was originally straight behind me. He simply moved over a bit to be out of the way more.

[Rob Boudrie]

I had a dang-near identical situation at the last nationals in PASA. I skipped a target (oops), and started to back up to avoid the two Mikes. I had to back up through a single with door, and saw the RO with his back to the wall to the right of the door. If I had been backed up, I would have earned a DQ. When told "If you are done, gun clear hammer down, holster" I replied "I was unable to complete the course of fire because backing up in the freefire zone would have placed you down range of the muzzle.".

The CRO (George Jones) was consulted and ordered the reshoot - I didn't even have to suffer the indignity of asking for it . George is not known for making mistakes, and I believe this was the correct call.

A shooter faced with this sort of situation should immediately inform the RO he was unable to complete the course of fire due to RO position to avoid creating the impression it's being offered as a creative after the fact argument rather than an accurate indication as to why the shooter stopped at that point in the course of fire.

[mactiger]

I had a dang-near identical situation at the last nationals in PASA. I skipped a target (oops), and started to back up to avoid the two Mikes. I had to back up through a single with door, and saw the RO with his back to the wall to the right of the door. If I had been backed up, I would have earned a DQ. When told "If you are done, gun clear hammer down, holster" I replied "I was unable to complete the course of fire because backing up in the freefire zone would have placed you down range of the muzzle.".

The CRO (George Jones) was consulted and ordered the reshoot - I didn't even have to suffer the indignity of asking for it . George is not known for making mistakes, and I believe this was the correct call.

A shooter faced with this sort of situation should immediately inform the RO he was unable to complete the course of fire due to RO position to avoid creating the impression it's being offered as a creative after the fact argument rather than an accurate indication as to why the shooter stopped at that point in the course of fire.

Good safety awareness, but you would not have earned a DQ unless you broke the 180 or something. If I was the RO, I'd have been hollering stop, too, and you'd have gotten a reshoot immediately.

Troy

[JThompson]

I had a dang-near identical situation at the last nationals in PASA. I skipped a target (oops), and started to back up to avoid the two Mikes. I had to back up through a single with door, and saw the RO with his back to the wall to the right of the door. If I had been backed up, I would have earned a DQ. When told "If you are done, gun clear hammer down, holster" I replied "I was unable to complete the course of fire because backing up in the freefire zone would have placed you down range of the muzzle.".

The CRO (George Jones) was consulted and ordered the reshoot - I didn't even have to suffer the indignity of asking for it . George is not known for making mistakes, and I believe this was the correct call.

A shooter faced with this sort of situation should immediately inform the RO he was unable to complete the course of fire due to RO position to avoid creating the impression it's being offered as a creative after the fact argument rather than an accurate indication as to why the shooter stopped at that point in the course of fire.

Good safety awareness, but you would not have earned a DQ unless you broke the 180 or something. If I was the RO, I'd have been hollering stop, too, and you'd have gotten a reshoot immediately.

Troy

Works for me....

[George Jones]

When told "If you are done, gun clear hammer down, holster"

I sure hope you didn't really hear those commands on my stage.

Unless it was on Day 1 and I had not yet had a chance to clean up that mess.

[proff]

Ok, I just watched the video...

Thats just a shame Bro. Both of those guys were WAY out of position. There is no reason for the RO to have been so close and the score keeper was just wandering around with his HIA.

Dude, you should moderate yourself. HIA. That's a heck of a thing to say about a kid doing the scorekeeping that is a good CERTIFIED RO. If you look at the video he wasn't in the way. Sure he was suprised. He moved back and didn't constrain the shooter at all. I think anyone in his position would have been a bit surprised. Try to remember the guidelines NO ANTAGONOSTIC TONES/ PLEASE POST RESPECTFULLY OR DON'T POST AT ALL. Shame on you.

[ima45dv8]

This is what I love about about rules discussions. The amount of emotion that creeps in is always interesting.

Terry, HIA may have been a little strong, but it looks like the scorekeeper didn't seem to be recording anything nor was he watching the shooter. He seemed to be mostly wandering around and watching the targets. As he gets more experience maybe he'll watch the feet of shooters who are behind a barricade like that. It's a hard lesson and I'm glad he learned it without getting hurt.

As for John's commentary, it wasn't rude or antagonistic when you consider he's had ROs get downrange of his muzzle before. It's scary for anyone involved and makes lasting memories.

[proff]

This is what I love about about rules discussions. The amount of emotion that creeps in is always interesting.

Terry, HIA may have been a little strong, but it looks like the scorekeeper didn't seem to be recording anything nor was he watching the shooter. He seemed to be mostly wandering around and watching the targets. As he gets more experience maybe he'll watch the feet of shooters who are behind a barricade like that. It's a hard lesson and I'm glad he learned it without getting hurt.

As for John's commentary, it wasn't rude or antagonistic when you consider he's had ROs get downrange of his muzzle before. It's scary for anyone involved and makes lasting memories.

Hey Mark, I hope you are well and having some fun. NO emotion here, I just don't think it's right to hack on people when you weren't there (or when you are) and really have no idea of what actually happened. The scorekeeper had a palm in his hand and contrary to your opinion was not wandering around watching targets. It's hard to see feet when they are behind a barrel. If you look at the video the scorekeeper was never in any danger as he kept behind the shooter. I've had ROs get in the way also been ROing and got in the way and had to stop the COF before and don't use it as an excuse for rude and abrasive behavior. Just a difference in preceptions of right and wrong. Anyway, I'll stop now.

TP

[kgunz11]

Mr. Porter, I hope much is better since we last spoke. TP is a fine young man, and a good Range Officer. I look forward to shooting with the 2 of you again soon. Hopefully you will be at the benefit match.