ROs watching for Failure to Engage

[twix]

When I RO I focus on the gun. I think I may be missing some failures to engage. How do you see both? Am I focusing too intently on the gun?

This is all local match stuff so with a fair share of newer shooters I am watching for 180 violations very intently so I can stop them immediately before someone gets hurt and I am watching for the Finger In The Trigger. I can't believe how prevelant this is, but that is another thread.

Any advice on watching the gun and seeing the failures to engage?

TB

I wanted to edit my thread title to FTE or Failure To Engage, not sure how to correct...

[ErikW]

Here, I'll edit the topic title for you. Are you sure you don't want it to be, "Failure to Find Failure to Engage?"

I just called one yesterday. From my position I couldn't even see half of the four targets. But I could see the (new) shooter didn't point the gun far enough to the left around the wall and I noticed he fired only six shots not eight.

People get away with FTE all the time. It's a by-product of all these @#$%! ports that conceal the targets. If they take a make-up shot for a miss or steel, you don't really know where it's going.

When in doubt, benefit the shooter. When you're absolutely certain, ding them with the procedural.

It's imperative to look at the gun and finger when they leave a position, enter a position, reload, or clear a jam. But when they are already in position and they begin engaging targets, you can go ahead and look at the targets. The gun is still in your vision, though you may not be focusing on it.

[AikiDale]

Twix,

I have found if I focus too intently on the gun I do not see anything else. Relax, step back and just see everything, do not 'focus' on the gun so much as let the gun be in the center of what you are seeing. At a local match recently I was too focused on the gun of one shooter and did not see the foot over the fault line. I did assess another shooter 5 procedurals for this later. I felt badly for dinging one shooter and not both.

[mactiger]

The RO holding the clipboard, the scorekeeper, should also be looking for foot faults, FTE's, etc. Once you get experienced, you'll find that you see the gun and notice other things happening as well. Like Eric said, you will generally see if the competitor doesn't move the gun to engage targets, but if no big movement is required, he fires enough shots, and you have doubt, the shooter gets the benefit.

[Vince Pinto]

Twix,

All the advice you've been given above is excellent.

Just one tiny thing - we now refer to the infraction as "Failiure To Shoot". We only use "Failure To Engage" if a guy stays with the same girlfriend for more than 5 years and he doesn't do the right thing

[rooster]

What about this scenerio? 3 target array, targets are close together, shooter fires 6 shots ,4 shots on one target ,2 shots on the other. Does he get 2 misses and a fte? He says he engaged but missed. Rule 9.5.9 is a little unclear. If you have a large round count stage and you have a target with no holes and your timer count shows more than the number required how do you know that he did not engage the target. You as the RO are busy watching for safety concerns, and I don't see how you can say he did not engage the target.

[IPSCDRL]

Chuck, as Eric said, when in doubt, err on the side of the shooter. If they fired enough times to have engaged and you are not sure that they did not engage a target, then no procedureal should be given. I only call FTE's when I am certain if the call. If the timer shows enough rounds fired and I am not certain like in the case of "You blew right by that window/door/port, etc and never even pointed the gun at the target" then no penalty.

[Flexmoney]

What about this scenerio? 3 target array, targets are close together, shooter fires 6 shots ,4 shots on one target ,2 shots on the other. Does he get 2 misses and a fte? He says he engaged but missed.

Probably not a FTE.

Rule 9.5.9 is a little unclear.

I think it is pretty clear...just hard to judge while RO'ing?

If you have a large round count stage and you have a target with no holes and your timer count shows more than the number required how do you know that he did not engage the target.

You either know or you don't...from watching what happens.

The timer's shot count is just an aid. If a shooter fires 30 shots on a 15 shot stage, that doesn't mean that they engaged every target. On the flip side...just firing 10 shots on a 15 shot array doesn't mean they failed to engage targets either (think one shot, instead of the usually required two on paper).

You as the RO are busy watching for safety concerns, and I don't see how you can say he did not engage the target.

This is where Vince would usually point out that being an RO is more than just holding the timer. As the RO, you want to know the stage...take special notice of targets that are likely to not be engaged.

Your not out to get the shooter. As an RO, you want everybody to get whatever score they earned. If one shooter gets off without a FTE that they earned, then that is not fair to the other shooters.

Tough love.

[tightloop]

Flex

If you do it intentionally and get caught, it is called Tough Love, if you don't get caught, it is called Gaming the stage.

[Vince Pinto]

Flex,

This is where Vince would usually point out that being an RO is more than just holding the timer.

<sniff> You make your Uncle Vinny very proud, son

[twix]

Thanks for the replies.

Is Darth serious about the new "failure to shoot"? I've been using the new "If clear, hammer down, holster." I think it's unnerving some of the older guys. I explained it a couple of times at earlier matches but I usually don't think about it now.

I've been giving the benefit to the shooter as far as failure to engage/shoot, but I think some of them are getting away with a little.

I think I will try more of a shifting focus, i.e. gun/finger during reload/movement, and more of a larger view of gun/ target during shooting. I think I will also try to remember to ask the Ass. RO/scorekeeper to watch for footfaults.

Good help, gracias.

[Vince Pinto]

Twix,

Yes Sir, I'm serious about the term "Failure To Shoot" - see current USPSA Rule 10.1.4.8 and incoming IPSC Rule 10.2.7 (renumbered recently when we restructured Section 10 to make it more logical and consistent).

[rhino]

Ah, nothing like fixing a bunch of things that aren't broken . . .

[rhino]

I've been using the new "If clear, hammer down, holster." I think it's unnerving some of the older guys. I explained it a couple of times at earlier matches but I usually don't think about it now.

Which edition of the rules does this come from? Is it one of the new things in the about-to-be-published rules?

I can't find it in the current version on the USPSA web site (14th Ed.).

[rhino]

Yes Sir, I'm serious about the term "Failure To Shoot" - see current USPSA Rule 10.1.4.8 and incoming IPSC Rule 10.2.7 (renumbered recently when we restructured Section 10 to make it more logical and consistent).

I just looked and it doesn't specifically call it "Failure to Shoot," unless you're referring to the "failure to shoot at [sic] penalties." Excuse me, but why change the name of something everyone already understands and replace it with something that is grammatically incorrect?

There's not a chance in hell I'm going call ANYTHING a "failure to shoot AT." It's borderline moronic.

[BDH]

What about this scenerio? 3 target array, targets are close together, shooter fires 6 shots ,4 shots on one target ,2 shots on the other. Does he get 2 misses and a fte? He says he engaged but missed.

Probably not a FTE.

Flex, I agree if the RO was unsure that he did not engage T3. However, if the RO was sure (in other words he saw that the competitor did not index on the target), then they get the FTE. OTOH, and as others have said, if the RO is not 100% sure, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the competitor, but if sure, they get the penalty.

The only reason I am clarifying my position on this is that I had several of these during the Nationals this year. The competitor usually argued that they fired enough shots so I could not give them the FTE. On those where I was not 100% sure, they were correct, and they did not get the FTE. However, if we were sure, they got the FTE and it did not matter if they fired 100 rounds through the port. If they did not engage the target, then the penalty is issued.

At the big matches we usually figure out where the problems are pretty quick, and make sure we have an RO paying attention to targets that are likely to be missed, just so we can be sure we make the right call.

[twix]

Such vitriole from the Rhino. You been hanging around me too long already?

I've been using "IF clear, hammer down, holster" since I first read here at the Benosverse that it would be incorporated in the new rules.

Since you are usually squadded with me you must have been late or not paying attention at the three matches I pre-briefed the squad.

The implied intent here is to put the onus back on the shooter. IF the gun is clear, pull the trigger. IF the gun discharges it is the shooters fault. Alot like real life. I like this change.

Having said all that, why the change or re-emphasis to Fail to Shoot over Fail to Engage? Darthster? Heck if my imaginary photographic memory serves correctly, it says FTE on the scoresheets.

[George Post]

I have a question, just how responsible is the scorekeeper for calling penalties? What if the scorekeeper isn't an RO, can he still call penalties? Or will it look like he is calling it just to get an advantage over the other competitor?

George

[Vince Pinto]

Twix,

Some people get their knickers in an industrial strength twist over minor grammatical errors, and other people get emotional about describing events accurately. I occasionally fit into both categories (and then some). By the way, the offending word "at" should disappear in the final version of the new rulebooks, because I'd really hate for them to be filed under the "Moronic" section of my local library next to "Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum"'s books

Anyway, the word "engage", when used in respect of guns, usually implies there's another party presenting you with a threat. I've certainly seen some nasty looking targets in my time, but none of them have been threatening - they usually just pull faces at me if and when I miss them. On the other hand, I positively hate those poppers which duck 'n' weave and go "Nyah, nyah" when dodging my bullets.

And God I hate being so sarcastic this early in the morning, but that's what happens when people rattle my chain before I've had my first double espresso and a large bran muffin.

[Vince Pinto]

George,

Any Range Official assigned to a stage (or his superiors such as a CRO or the RM) can call penalties. If the scorekeeper is not a certified RO, yet he's operating in the capacity of a Range Official, he's still entitled to call "secondary" penalties such as foot faults.

Usually though, the RO on the timer should be advised of the penalties by his scorekeeper and/or Assistant ROs, both as a courtesy and for his confirmation, before penalties are actually recorded on the scoresheet. This should help clarify matters:

7.1.1 Range Officer (“RO”) – issues range commands, oversees competitor compliance with the written stage briefing and closely monitors safe competitor action. He also declares the time, scores and penalties achieved by each competitor and verifies that these are correctly recorded on the competitor's score sheet (under the authority of a Chief Range Officer and Range Master).

[rhino]

Some people get their knickers in an industrial strength twist over minor grammatical errors, and other people get emotional about describing events accurately. I occasionally fit into both categories (and then some). By the way, the offending word "at" should disappear in the final version of the new rulebooks, because I'd really hate for them to be filed under the "Moronic" section of my local library next to "Somebody that we don't need to talk about on the SHOOTING forum"'s books

Dude, that's why I said "borderline moronic." I care enough to add an adverb so your own knickers won't twist and constrict your naughty bits.

Anyway, the word "engage", when used in respect of guns, usually implies there's another party presenting you with a threat. I've certainly seen some nasty looking targets in my time, but none of them have been threatening - they usually just pull faces at me if and when I miss them.

Ah! So this is more of the crap intended to erase the defensive skills roots of the game? All the more reason for me to say "Failure to Engage" for . . . forever! Thanks!

[Carlos]

At the recent Area 8, we were able to post 3 ROs on one of the larger field courses "Twist & Shoot". This was a very challenging stage with 2 long free fire zones perpendicular to targets that were 15 to 20 yards away. Many targets were obscured by hardcover & gaps in the FFZs and shooters had to use nearly the entire length of the FFZs to get every targets. Mikes & FTEs were very common on this stage. Because of the larger number of targets and long FFZs, we assigned 1 RO to specifically watch for FTEs (or FTS in the new lexicon). When there was any doubt, the benefit went to the shooter.

Perhaps FTEs or FTSs that cannot be verified by the timer should be abolished as too subjective?

[Vince Pinto]

Carlos,

Perhaps FTEs or FTSs that cannot be verified by the timer should be abolished as too subjective?

Unfortunately, the timer (at best) records the total number of shots taken, but it doesn't indicate at which targets those shots were fired.

Calling FTS penalties is no different to calling foot faults or DQ offenses such as breaking 90 degrees or having your finger on the trigger while not actually aiming at targets - the RO needs to be alert and have a broader vision of competitor action.

There are way too many ROs out there who have "tunnel vision" on the competitor's gun, and there are others who hold the timer as if it was a life support system. Even if you have assistant ROs, the point guy needs to be very sharp.

[twix]

Good morning VP. I'm glad I brought this thread up then since there are too many RO's with tunnel vision on the gun. I'm certainly one, I'll be working on it. Thanks for the great advice, sportsfans.

I've got a new thread to start, I'm afraid it will not go well.