shred Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 IMO, putting RO's on the 180 line is a poor practice in general-- sticking somebody just barely beyond a 'safe' direction seems to be playing a little too much with fire for an otherwise avoidable circumstance. Two scenarios-- one, the RO is not there, shooter breaks the 180. Shooter is DQed more than likely, but nobody got a loaded pistol pointed at them. In the other scenario... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharyn Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 As an innocent bystander observing these competitors being DQ'd on Stage 11... and some of them my friends/acquaintances... I really think there was a problem with the stage. Why set up the shooter for DQ? Was it really necessary? What shooting challenge did it provide? Would it have made that big of a difference if they just had the shooter start downrange? Why post a RO in an area that was obviously an area capable of causing problems. Remove the problem with the stage, not the shooters. ESPECIALLY if you want to claim safety infractions. On the flip side, if you see a RO specifically stationed in an area to DQ people... save the 0.05seconds on your draw and stay in the match. 11 DQs on Stage 11... There's something wrong with the stage and the officiating. I think the shooters were set up for failure and that's sad. BTW, although I didn't shoot, I WAS in attendance and a witness to this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 My question is this. If you are so concerned about a portion of a stage and the possibility of safety violations that you position an RO to specifically look for those violations, then why are you running the stage that way in the first place? Wouldn't it be much better to solve the safety problem with stage design rather than rule enforcement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 My question is this. If you are so concerned about a portion of a stage and the possibility of safety violations that you position an RO to specifically look for those violations, then why are you running the stage that way in the first place? Wouldn't it be much better to solve the safety problem with stage design rather than rule enforcement? Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Maybe this should be split into a different thread but I had previously never thought of 10.5.6 to apply in a situation like this but darned if it doesn't make sense to me now. Once the head or shoulders are no longer facing uprange, which happens damn fast, it looks like 10.5.6 does take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Saftey voliations can not be abritrated or challanged. Hmmmm.... I've seen that said a number of times here recently. I am going to start a thread in the rules section on that, specifically. http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92667 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I wonder if anyone has a video of someone getting DQ'ed on this stage. Someone on my squad got DQ'ed on this stage. After it happened he was trying to figure out how it happened and could not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I wonder if anyone has a video of someone getting DQ'ed on this stage. Someone on my squad got DQ'ed on this stage. After it happened he was trying to figure out how it happened and could not. One of the women shooters got DQed on 11 on the live feed. Not sure if there was vid of it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 My question is this. If you are so concerned about a portion of a stage and the possibility of safety violations that you position an RO to specifically look for those violations, then why are you running the stage that way in the first place? Wouldn't it be much better to solve the safety problem with stage design rather than rule enforcement? I don't think so. We are all big boys and girls, right? Do we need to limit stage design (get rid of turn and draw)? I hope not. I hate shooter traps...hate them...and I think we need to minimize them as often as possible. But, I don't think we need to throw out something as legit as the turn and draw. And, one of the RO's should be in position to make the call. As shooters, our actions must stand up to scrutiny. As RO's our calls must be just. (*My comments are "in general"...I am not commenting on the specifics of any shooter or RO in the recent match.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I think you are assuming that all the DQ's were legitimate. I suspect that some of them were not. If just one person got DQ'ed who should not have been then the matter needs to be pursued so it does not occur again. Someone has mentioned here that the RO's were looking for any sign of the trigger guard, if that is an accurate statement then there is no rule in the rule book that specifies that the trigger guard can be used for this purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 My question is this. If you are so concerned about a portion of a stage and the possibility of safety violations that you position an RO to specifically look for those violations, then why are you running the stage that way in the first place? Wouldn't it be much better to solve the safety problem with stage design rather than rule enforcement? I don't think so. We are all big boys and girls, right? Do we need to limit stage design (get rid of turn and draw)? I hope not. I hate shooter traps...hate them...and I think we need to minimize them as often as possible. But, I don't think we need to throw out something as legit as the turn and draw. And, one of the RO's should be in position to make the call. As shooters, our actions must stand up to scrutiny. As RO's our calls must be just. (*My comments are "in general"...I am not commenting on the specifics of any shooter or RO in the recent match.) Flex, I understand what you are saying and I think we are in agreement in the general sense of positioning while performing duties as an RO. I was trying to point out that on this particular stage (11 at Nats, both Open and Limited), one RO was positioned to do nothing but watch the draw. I feel if you are needing to position someone to watch any one particular action on a stage it sets up one of two bad situations. #1 If the action is considered "dangerous" enough to require constant vigilant monitoring, then it begs the question as to should it be done at all. or #2 You are playing a game of RO "gotcha". I definitely don't think the turn and draw needs to disappear which should learly explain what I feel was going on, on stage 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Someone has mentioned here that the RO's were looking for any sign of the trigger guard, if that is an accurate statement then there is no rule in the rule book that specifies that the trigger guard can be used for this purpose. The specifics on that rule, might make for a good discussion in the rules forum. (but not the specifics of that call) If just one person got DQ'ed who should not have been then the matter needs to be pursued so it does not occur again. Brian's Forum is not the venue for that. I think you are assuming that all the DQ's were legitimate. I suspect that some of them were not. If that is the case, then we are done here. Again, this isn't the venue. Not to speculate. Not to second guess. Not to complain. Sorry folks. I hoped we'd be able to run this discussion. I was mistaken. Too many emotions involved, it seems. I probably should have shut this one down from the start. CLOSED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts