2009 Open/Production Nationals Popper Issues

[Chuck Anderson]

I'm guessing that most people posting on this thread that the RO should stop the shooter after the first hit are not at this match and have zero personal knowledge of the stage in question. I'm guessing that because everbody I saw shoot the stage or talked to took multiple shots on the steel. Not because it didn't work but because it worked exactly as it was supposed to. It concealed another target and forced the shooter to either drive it down quickly with multiple shots or to hit it and wait. This is freestyle. Every shooter on my squad ( except the guy who had a jam after the first shot) drove the popper down with 2-3 shots. There was time to get number 4 on but it probably wouldn't have helped that much. With a setup of 2-3 shots on the front target and one more on the back the RO prabably wouldn't have realized something was up till rounds 5-6. Randi's a pretty darn good shooter and those rounds likely took well under a second before the popper was going down (6-8, not all of them). The RO's at National matches are some of the best in the country, but there is no way to CONSITENTLY officiate the more than one round proposal on a stage like that.

As for the RO on the scoresheet. I'm guessing he was watching her feet for foot faults like he should have been, not the targets.

As for Jake's proposal. While that might work at Nationals or some Area matches. What about the thousands of local matches each year, where the overwhelming majority shoot this sport? I've never seen a chrono at a club match. How else do we ensure compliance? Having a separate rule for matches with chrono and without not likely.

The biggest problem I've seen with poppers at this match is caused by the wind. Unfortunately I can't think of a good solution for that one. There are some darn string winds out here. When one comes up behind the popper and holds it up it is unfair. The odds of the same wind being present during a calibration are almost zero.

[JThompson]

"We, as ROs, aren't in the gotcha business."

-Jay Worden

That was something he said that really stuck with me and I try and apply that thought to everything I do as a CRO. If something isn't fair, IMHO it's a gotcha and we aren't in that business.

JT

[JThompson]

I'm guessing that most people posting on this thread that the RO should stop the shooter after the first hit are not at this match and have zero personal knowledge of the stage in question. I'm guessing that because everbody I saw shoot the stage or talked to took multiple shots on the steel. Not because it didn't work but because it worked exactly as it was supposed to. It concealed another target and forced the shooter to either drive it down quickly with multiple shots or to hit it and wait. This is freestyle. Every shooter on my squad ( except the guy who had a jam after the first shot) drove the popper down with 2-3 shots. There was time to get number 4 on but it probably wouldn't have helped that much. With a setup of 2-3 shots on the front target and one more on the back the RO prabably wouldn't have realized something was up till rounds 5-6. Randi's a pretty darn good shooter and those rounds likely took well under a second before the popper was going down (6-8, not all of them). The RO's at National matches are some of the best in the country, but there is no way to CONSITENTLY officiate the more than one round proposal on a stage like that.

As for the RO on the scoresheet. I'm guessing he was watching her feet for foot faults like he should have been, not the targets.

As for Jake's proposal. While that might work at Nationals or some Area matches. What about the thousands of local matches each year, where the overwhelming majority shoot this sport? I've never seen a chrono at a club match. How else do we ensure compliance? Having a separate rule for matches with chrono and without not likely.

The biggest problem I've seen with poppers at this match is caused by the wind. Unfortunately I can't think of a good solution for that one. There are some darn string winds out here. When one comes up behind the popper and holds it up it is unfair. The odds of the same wind being present during a calibration are almost zero.

Chuck it was this stage that prompted the discussion, but it is by no means something we all haven't encountered as shooters and ROs. If the RO can't make a call on the hits then the point is moot since he/she can't see the hit, but if they can and IF there is a problem some of us think there should be recourse other than stretching 4.6.1.

Hell, I've had to drive them down with a 171 PF Open gun and nobody said boo. It happens all the time and esp at club level stuff where help is limited and props are sometimes used up.

This isn't meant as a slight on the people who worked that match as they did what the rules allow for. Hell, I wasn't there, so I'm just going by what was said, but it's not an isolated case... I have nothing, but the utmost respect and thank every one of these people who give their time to our sport.

JT

[Chuck Anderson]

I've been told that you can not stop a shooter for a popper that doesn't fall and that their only option is to drive it or move on and call for calibration. I submit that if they had to take more than one shot/hit in the calibration zone the COF is no longer equitable. Looking at 4.6.1 I see I can call REF for a "mechanical" prop that malfunctioned. I know it wasn't written to cover this as there are specific rules to deal with poppers, but I think I can make this call since a popper IS a mechanical equipment.

IF this happens to a shooter, under my control, I shall stop them and check calibration. It's the right and fair thing to do. The argument that a previous shooter may protest isn't valid since I am running everyone on that stage and know who shot what and where.

Thoughts...?

My first thought is we should revoke the RO certification for any RO that decides that the he doesn't need to follow the rules because he doesn't think they are fair. Second thought is, if the rule was meant to include poppers, it wouldn't specifically list them else where, and have a whole procedure for calibration. Warping the rules to fit because you want them to fit doesn't help the shooter, either at a local match or at a Nationals.

If you want to change the rules, I have zero problem with that and would love to hear a way to fix all the perceived evils of falling metal targets. But willfully choosing to ignore them makes for bad RO's.

To your next quote from Jay Worden that RO's aren't there to "get" shooters. That is absolutely right. I think Jay is one of the best RO's in the business and a great instructor. But ignoring rules at the local level, that will be enforced at the National level, or Area level or even a Sectional level is doing a huge disservice to the shooters. When they shoot locally they expect the rules to be the same as all matches. When something they do at the local level, like leaving a popper up after 3 shots and expecting a reshoot, doesn't happen at the National match they just paid $2000.00 to go to doesn't happen, that is a "gotcha" moment for those shooters.

[BayouSlide]

I'm guessing that most people posting on this thread that the RO should stop the shooter after the first hit are not at this match and have zero personal knowledge of the stage in question. I'm guessing that because everbody I saw shoot the stage or talked to took multiple shots on the steel. Not because it didn't work but because it worked exactly as it was supposed to. It concealed another target and forced the shooter to either drive it down quickly with multiple shots or to hit it and wait. This is freestyle. Every shooter on my squad ( except the guy who had a jam after the first shot) drove the popper down with 2-3 shots. There was time to get number 4 on but it probably wouldn't have helped that much. With a setup of 2-3 shots on the front target and one more on the back the RO prabably wouldn't have realized something was up till rounds 5-6. Randi's a pretty darn good shooter and those rounds likely took well under a second before the popper was going down (6-8, not all of them). The RO's at National matches are some of the best in the country, but there is no way to CONSITENTLY officiate the more than one round proposal on a stage like that.

Excellent point, Chuck, an important one that had not been brought up thus far....This particular set up calls for multiple shots to drop the popper as quickly as possible to get to the final steel, which will stop the clock. Even for competitors with mag limitations like Production, you will probably go into that position with a full or nearly full mag. I know I did when I shot that stage at our monthly match in October. The seconds cost the same whether you're shooting or waiting for the popper to fall. How many of those eight hits occurred as the steel had barely begun to fall, with the sort of split times expected from a national caliber competitor? This particular stage would be a bad example to use to make a case for an RO to call REF on the fly, even if the rules permitted it.

Personally, as an RO I follow the rule book. If the rules change, I follow the new rules. No problem either way. The rules may be clear, but I can understand the reasoning of those who offer a compelling rationale for changing them. However, we have to also realize that the more discretion we give to the RO in a case like this, the more we increase the likelihood of varying interpretation, which can also serve to un-level the playing field.

Curtis

Edited: 'cause I hate typos!

Edited September 16, 2009 by BayouSlide

[JThompson]

I've been told that you can not stop a shooter for a popper that doesn't fall and that their only option is to drive it or move on and call for calibration. I submit that if they had to take more than one shot/hit in the calibration zone the COF is no longer equitable. Looking at 4.6.1 I see I can call REF for a "mechanical" prop that malfunctioned. I know it wasn't written to cover this as there are specific rules to deal with poppers, but I think I can make this call since a popper IS a mechanical equipment.

IF this happens to a shooter, under my control, I shall stop them and check calibration. It's the right and fair thing to do. The argument that a previous shooter may protest isn't valid since I am running everyone on that stage and know who shot what and where.

Thoughts...?

My first thought is we should revoke the RO certification for any RO that decides that the he doesn't need to follow the rules because he doesn't think they are fair. Second thought is, if the rule was meant to include poppers, it wouldn't specifically list them else where, and have a whole procedure for calibration. Warping the rules to fit because you want them to fit doesn't help the shooter, either at a local match or at a Nationals.

If you want to change the rules, I have zero problem with that and would love to hear a way to fix all the perceived evils of falling metal targets. But willfully choosing to ignore them makes for bad RO's.

To your next quote from Jay Worden that RO's aren't there to "get" shooters. That is absolutely right. I think Jay is one of the best RO's in the business and a great instructor. But ignoring rules at the local level, that will be enforced at the National level, or Area level or even a Sectional level is doing a huge disservice to the shooters. When they shoot locally they expect the rules to be the same as all matches. When something they do at the local level, like leaving a popper up after 3 shots and expecting a reshoot, doesn't happen at the National match they just paid $2000.00 to go to doesn't happen, that is a "gotcha" moment for those shooters.

I don't ignore rules Chuck... if you have read any of my contributions to rules discussion it's plain to see I have taken some unpopular stances on rules and they were always my best interpretation of the book. I'm saying I think there is a case here for a REF and until I hear different I shall use it if needed.

IMO the "disservice" is having a COF or prop that does not present equality to all shooters and barring that, putting rules in place to make them as equal as we can. I feel 4.6.1 gives me room to make that under the rules. You may not agree, but that's hardly a reason to saying I should have my RO card revoked.

Edited September 16, 2009 by JThompson

[rgkeller]

I'm guessing that most people posting on this thread that the RO should stop the shooter after the first hit are not at this match and have zero personal knowledge of the stage in question. I'm guessing that because everbody I saw shoot the stage or talked to took multiple shots on the steel. Not because it didn't work but because it worked exactly as it was supposed to. It concealed another target and forced the shooter to either drive it down quickly with multiple shots or to hit it and wait. This is freestyle. Every shooter on my squad ( except the guy who had a jam after the first shot) drove the popper down with 2-3 shots. There was time to get number 4 on but it probably wouldn't have helped that much. With a setup of 2-3 shots on the front target and one more on the back the RO prabably wouldn't have realized something was up till rounds 5-6. Randi's a pretty darn good shooter and those rounds likely took well under a second before the popper was going down (6-8, not all of them). The RO's at National matches are some of the best in the country, but there is no way to CONSITENTLY officiate the more than one round proposal on a stage like that.

Bad stage design

Hopefully the ricochets over the berm were into a safe area

[Chuck Anderson]

I've been told that you can not stop a shooter for a popper that doesn't fall and that their only option is to drive it or move on and call for calibration. I submit that if they had to take more than one shot/hit in the calibration zone the COF is no longer equitable. Looking at 4.6.1 I see I can call REF for a "mechanical" prop that malfunctioned. I know it wasn't written to cover this as there are specific rules to deal with poppers, but I think I can make this call since a popper IS a mechanical equipment.

IF this happens to a shooter, under my control, I shall stop them and check calibration. It's the right and fair thing to do. The argument that a previous shooter may protest isn't valid since I am running everyone on that stage and know who shot what and where.

Thoughts...?

My first thought is we should revoke the RO certification for any RO that decides that the he doesn't need to follow the rules because he doesn't think they are fair. Second thought is, if the rule was meant to include poppers, it wouldn't specifically list them else where, and have a whole procedure for calibration. Warping the rules to fit because you want them to fit doesn't help the shooter, either at a local match or at a Nationals.

If you want to change the rules, I have zero problem with that and would love to hear a way to fix all the perceived evils of falling metal targets. But willfully choosing to ignore them makes for bad RO's.

To your next quote from Jay Worden that RO's aren't there to "get" shooters. That is absolutely right. I think Jay is one of the best RO's in the business and a great instructor. But ignoring rules at the local level, that will be enforced at the National level, or Area level or even a Sectional level is doing a huge disservice to the shooters. When they shoot locally they expect the rules to be the same as all matches. When something they do at the local level, like leaving a popper up after 3 shots and expecting a reshoot, doesn't happen at the National match they just paid $2000.00 to go to doesn't happen, that is a "gotcha" moment for those shooters.

I don't ignore rules Chuck... if you have read any of my contributions to rules discussion it's plain to see I have taken some unpopular stances on rules and they were always my best interpretation of the book. I'm saying I think there is a case here for a REF and until I hear different I shall use it if needed.

IMO the "disservice" is having a COF or prop that does not present equality to all shooters and barring that, making them as equal as we can. I feel 4.6.1 gives me room to make that under the rules. You may not agree, but that's hardly a reason to saying I should have my RO card revoked.

If you look at the rule book as a whole. Including all sections. I don't think giving a reshoot under 4.6.1 is in any way justified. There are clearly written guidelines dealing with calibration of poppers, and what to do if they don't go down when shot. 4.6.1 clearly lists poppers falling early as a REF, and doesn't list them under as mechanical props. If they counted as mechanical props, we wouldn't need the section on calibration and USPSA could save money printing the massive rule book. The could just look at the steel and say it didn't go down, Re-Shoot. There are remedies listed in the book for when a popper doesn't fall. A range official trying to shoe horn that belief into the REF section is not one of them.

What happens with traveling RO's? One squad has an RO that believes a popper that doesn't fall should be REF instead of subject to calibration as the rules state. The next squad has an RO that doesn't believe it's REF and should be subject to calibration. How does that present the same problem to the shooters?

I'm not saying you should have your card revoked. I didn't even know if you were an RO. You asked for my thoughts and that was what came to mind. I've heard several other RO's make statements along the same lines. I've always believed that part of getting that RO cert is agreeing to follow the rules, even the ones you don't agree with. If you don't like them, by all means, try to get them changed. But selective enforcement does nothing to help the sport.

[Chuck Anderson]

Bad stage design

Hopefully the ricochets over the berm were into a safe area

No argument here. Yes they looked like they were heading into a safe area. Although, I'm not gonna be the one to go check it. The stage would have dramatically changed, and probably been much safer (and slower) with forward falling steel.

[JThompson]

Bad stage design

Hopefully the ricochets over the berm were into a safe area

No argument here. Yes they looked like they were heading into a safe area. Although, I'm not gonna be the one to go check it. The stage would have dramatically changed, and probably been much safer (and slower) with forward falling steel.

Did the shooter have any other target/s to engage while waiting for it to fall?

[Chuck Anderson]

If the stage was set with forward falling poppers the likely best plan would have been to engage the outside front poppers, move to the center window and engage 4 paper targets, then back to the outside for the back steel. There was about one step of movement between each of the three positions needed to shoot from.

[XRe]

The ONLY argument that can be made in that particular case is that the shooter wasn't shooting at least minor with those particular rounds.

The easy way to test that is to also grab 8 rounds from the mag that's in the competitor's gun at the time, and send them to rechrono after the equipment has been re-adjusted and the shooter has been given their re-shoot. That makes the process fair to the rest of the field, as well (ie, if they're shooting sub-minor in the match but cheated on their first go-round at the chrono, they get nailed at this point... hopefully...)

And while I am sure there may have been cases of that, but in my many years shooting this sport......after a situation where it took four or five rounds to drive down a popper, the popper is subsequently adjusted and things work great afterwards, just like the case of this particular thread. How is that fair to the shooter that had to drive it down? It isn't.

This was exactly my point at the beginning. I think the rules work pretty well, otherwise, in this regard.

All I am saying is when it becomes obvious to the RO that something is wrong with a part of a stage (a popper in this example) and that 'wrong' has negative effects on the shooter, the shooter should be stopped and given a reshoot. In my opinion to sit there and watch a shooter play steel challenge on a popper and not do anything......is inexcusable.

Well... the rules don't really give the RO much wiggle room, at this point. If they go out on a limb and stop the shooter, there's a potential for other shooter's to raise bogus arbitration requests, etc. The general feeling is that the calibration procedure covers this case, and that the shooter should have the wherewithal to stop shooting at the popper and request a calibration after their run. That's probably true - but in cases where the penalty is far more than just a miss (like this one, or a popper that activates a target or causes some other action to occur... say unlock a door that gives you access to half of the stage, or something), it becomes basically impossible for the shooter to leave that steel standing.

I personally believe that, in this sort of case, the rules should allow the RO to stop the shooter with the caveat that the shooter must also be re-chrono'ed with ammo coming from the mag that was in the gun, or (if that mag is empty) the next available mag on their belt. For matches without chrono (local Level Is, etc), it would just be a reshoot after fixing the equipment.

The fact is, falling steel sometimes doesn't cooperate. Our rules are pretty good at handling the majority of situations, but there's a couple where the shooter basically gets screwed - and I tend to think we should keep an eye toward improving those areas where we can. I don't think the above is an unreasonable thing to do, nor is it unworkable.

I don't think the notion that steel should fall when hit, period, is quite the right thing - poppers should be treated a little bit differently than plates, to me. Poppers test power factor in that the lower the PF of your ammo, the smaller the target area on the popper you can use. I don't think any hit on the popper's surface should necessarily have to equate to a hit - any hit above the calibration line that's not an edge hit, yes definitely. But, the shooter should be given the benefit of the doubt with regards to equipment not working, and in the scenario originally discussed, the rules definitely do not do so.... (keep in mind that in the original scenario, the penalty for having the mike on the popper in question was actually 2 mikes and an FTE, not just one mike)

[TG Reaper]

I'm going to bring this thread back around to the application a little common sense.

Back in the day, after attending every RO class available at the time, we were taught that our jobs as RO's was to "safely assist the shooter through the course of fire" and the prevailing attitude at the time was that the benefit of the doubt goes to the competitor.

Well, times have changed.

Since I was standing behind Randi during this stage, and every other stage in this match, I will tell you exactly what happened.

Randi drew and engaged the first popper EIGHT (8) times at or above the calibration line before it finally, and still very slowly, fell. Her intention was to shoot it twice, and acquire her sights to engage the US popper concealed behind the standard popper. In fact, she hesitated after she punched it dead center with the first two shots, and the popper just stood. She didn't drill it down like we did with our open guns, she methodically shot a group in the center of the target, and worked her way up the popper until it finally fell. The RO had plenty of time to stop her, but he did not. Strike one against the competitor.

Randi chronographed on the first day (this incident happened on the 2nd day), and her 147 grain Atlanta Arms & Ammo 9 mm loads power factored 133.4, gracious plenty to knock down a properly calibrated popper.

Randi signed her score sheet, but NOT before asking if this would preclude a reshoot or protest of the target in question. The RO stated that it would not, so she signed her score sheet. Randi was advised that she would have to file a protest in order to obtain a reshoot. Strike two against the competitor.

The target was inspected, and a problem was found. It took approximately 30 minutes to remediate that problem before the target was recalibrated and the next shooter was allowed to shoot the stage. THIRTY MINUTES. Minor problem? You decide...

Randi filed the protest, and Rule 4.6.1 was quoted on the protest form. It states, "Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of

paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers."

Applying a small amount of common sense, it is clear that something was wrong with the popper. During the arbitration, however, the person who assisted in remediating the problem stated that the popper was not broken, and that the calibration bolt was changed since it was the wrong size. Frankly, who cares what the problem was??? It is clear that there was a problem, and the shooter's score was significantly adversely affected as a result. Ultimately, the arbitration committee ruled against Randi, and...to add insult to injury...informed her that the rule quoted did not apply and that she didn't convey what she actually WANTED by filing the protest. Strike three against the competitor.

I have seen this time and time again. Application of the rules in such a way as to penalize the competitor. Should the rule book be ignored? Absolutely not. But when the application of a small amount of common sense can be applied to a situation, the benefit should ALWAYS go to the competitor.

The fact that the competitor didn't move on after initially engaging the popper doesn't make this the competitor's fault. The fact that the RO didn't stop the competitor doesn't make this the RO's fault. Beyond that, there were plenty of opportunities to apply common sense to this situation so that the competitor could get a fair shake. That didn't happen and it's a shame.

I appreciate the RO's that spend time suffering in the heat, and dealing with hundreds of competitors who may, or may not, be all that pleasant to deal with. But let us not forget that everyone working this match is doing so out of their choice and of their own free will. There are several RO's in this match who clearly would rather be somewhere else, and where ever that place is is where they should be. Every competitor in this match is paying big money to spend up to 11 days in Las Vegas for the privilege of shooting this match. The match is for the competitors...not the RO's.

Everyone makes mistakes, and that includes RO's. But those mistakes...in this particular match...affected the outcome for several top competitors, including the competitor in question on this thread. Poor decisions, like this one, and lack of attention by the RO's to ensure that scores were correctly recorded, adversly affected several shooters' overall placement in the match. While no one is going home with a million bucks in their pocket for winning this match, every competitor is out there trying to perform to the best of their ability. The majority of the RO's are out there doing the same, and their efforts are greatly appreciated. But there are some RO's that aren't, and they need to stay at the hotel.

Before you flame me for my opinion about picking on the poor RO's, know that I've paid my dues over the past 25 years of being involved in USPSA, including starting a club (South River PSA in Georgia), running it as the club president for 6 years, running major matches, sponsoring major matches with large sums of cash, and owning a shooting organization (Western 3 Gun).

We need to remember that matches are FOR the competitor, not the RO's. Application of periodic doses of common sense makes the entire match experience more pleasant for everyone and ensures a more equitable outcome.

Good Shootin',

TGR

a.k.a. Billy Abbate

[L9X25]

^^^^^^^ +10,000 to what he said.

[JThompson]

Amen Billy...

JT

[Jadeslade]

See, I knew there would be articulateness on this thread. From a shooter. What shooters see matters. TG Reaper-nice.

[Bill Nesbitt]

Thank you Billy.

[BayouSlide]

Not trying to be an advocate for the ROs here, or for the shooter, just trying to be an impartial observer based on the rules. Unfortunately, once the competitor made the choice to shoot down the popper then, even if there was something wrong with it, under the current rules (C.1.6) this is how it had to play out. Don't shoot the messenger, but if I had been the CRO, or on the arb committee, I would have no choice but to rule exactly the same way they did. That's how the current rule book reads. It's absolutely clear. If they had decided to go off on the page on this ruling, there would be other competitors who would have a legitimate bone to pick with them—and probably would have been quick to do so.

Whether, ultimately, the whole incident was fair or not, or whether that rule should be changed, is another question and worthy of debate.

The second hardest thing about being an RO is knowing the all the rules, the hardest thing is applying them consistently and properly in the midst of all the gray areas that present themselves in a match.

We're shooters too. And I approach every match with the understanding that, for every competitor, U to GM, whether local or Level III, this is an important match that deserves my best efforts in being impartial and knowledgeable in applying the rules so they have as level a playing field as possible.

Curtis

[rgkeller]

Arb committee had plenty of time

And the bolt on the popper WAS replaced

And it did take thirty minutes to fix the problem and BEFORE the next shooter

And 4.6.1 does say "REF includes ... the malfunction of mechanically .... operated equipment"

[outerlimits]

again, i wasn't there, but application of the rules as they are at that point in time is the only option...period.

[BayouSlide]

And 4.6.1 does say "REF includes ... the malfunction of mechanically .... operated equipment"

That is correct, but the overriding rule here is C.1.6, IMO, which is what I would have to apply in this issue. You might on the surface be able to make a case for 4.6.1 here, but let's look at the entire clause:

"Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all

competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of

paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the

failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of

mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of

props such as openings, ports, and barriers."

In context, I would not be inclined to consider a popper "mechanically or electrically operated equipment." Steel targets were covered under the wording I bolded-italicized. I read "mechanically or electrically operated equipment" as the mechanisms that activate or move targets like movers or swingers. Granted, there is a small amount of wiggle room here, but in this case C.1.6 so directly covers the incident that it holds sway, IMO. When the shooter drove down the target, she crossed the Rubicon, unfortunately. It was a decision for the shooter and it was made.

Curtis

Edited: 'cause I hate typos!

Edited September 16, 2009 by BayouSlide

[Fireant]

Not trying to be an advocate for the ROs here, or for the shooter, just trying to be an impartial observer based on the rules. Unfortunately, once the competitor made the choice to shoot down the popper then, even if there was something wrong with it, under the current rules (C.1.6) this is how it had to play out. Don't shoot the messenger, but if I had been the CRO, or on the arb committee, I would have no choice but to rule exactly the same way they did. That's how the current rule book reads. It's absolutely clear. If they had decided to go off on the page on this ruling, there would be other competitors who would have a legitimate bone to pick with them—and probably would have been quick to do so.

Whether, ultimately, the whole incident was fair or not, or whether that rule should be changed, is another question and worthy of debate.

The second hardest thing about being an RO is knowing the all the rules, the hardest thing is applying them consistently and properly in the midst of all the gray areas that present themselves in a match.

We're shooters too. And I approach every match with the understanding that, for every competitor, U to GM, whether local or Level III, this is an important match that deserves my best efforts in being impartial and knowledgeable in applying the rules so they have as level a playing field as possible.

Curtis

Amen and +1,000,000 There is not a common sense clause in the rule book and honestly we have all seen some people RO'ing that we think lacks common sense. Randi is experienced enough to know that as soon as you call 2 good hits in the callibration zone you have three choices to make right then and there. Don't make your choice and then want a do over because you don't like the out come. We all learn from every match we shoot. I have learned the death by popper rule by experience. It has gone both ways for me in the past and the only person I can fault for it is me. Could the rule use some tweaking? I'm not so sure. I think the calibration PF dropping to 115 to 125 takes care of most issues. I also don't by the we have to make it identical for everyone arguement either. We don't shoot in a vacuum, so that will never be possible. You can not account for wind, amount of rain, atmospheric changes, etc. We have to keep things as fair as we can and play by the written rules we have. Don't bend a rule to fit one issue, because you will create problems somewhere down the line.

[rgkeller]

the facts indicate that someone other than the shooter messed up

the target was REPAIRED AND PARTS REPLACED before the next shooter

if that is not REF, I don't know what is

[Fireant]

It was functional enough to fall, once it was driven down it's all over.

[L9X25]

It was functional enough to fall, once it was driven down it's all over.

In that case, I really don't see why they needed to fix it for the next shooter. If nothing is broken, nothing needs to be fixed, tape up the targets and run the next shooter.