Overran the RO

[Nik Habicht]

If you ask me, this is just one of many reasons why we need to get rid of the 180 rule and go to something more like "muzzle safe points."

It should be DQ-able for someone to shoot with the RO downrange of them. The fact that it is not (and that the RO did not stop you) is a shortcoming in the rules if you ask me.

I also think that unless the USPSA is going to eliminate the 180 rule and go to something more practical, stages that require lateral movement and/or backward movement should be eliminated.

The 180 rule has its roots in safety, but for things like this, it's an invitation for unsafe acts and/or putting people in a bad position.

You can be dq'd in that situation ---- but all facts need to weighed in reaching that decision. It's theoretically possible for the RO to trip, stumble and fall downrange of the competitor on any stage --- should we eliminate all movement, to avoid even that small chance?

O.K. so we set Muzzle safe points at 160 degrees or 140, how exactly does that help alleviate the non-problem?

Backward movement affects the 180 how? It's really no different than moving forward.....

Lateral movement --- I'm not a huge fan, and try to leave options for the shooter to move downrange, even if slightly, when I design a stage....

[Flexmoney]

Yeah...I sure don't see an advantage to the "muzzle safe points".

[JThompson]

The rules are there to help the shooter be safe, but the onus is always on the person driving the gun. He/She is ultimately responsible for the safety of everyone on the range and beyond.

To think someone would continue on in a COF, knowing that someone is downrange, is unforgivable. There is no way the rules can ever cover every situation, nor guarantee that an RO will be Johnny on the spot with a stop command. The shooter needs to be aware, not only for shooting the COF, but also of everything happening in their COF. This starts at making sure there is nobody downrange at LAMR to safely navigating a COF, too getting the gun cleared and back in the holster... it's all ultimately the shooters responsibility. The ROs are there to "assist" the shooter in this endeavor, not to take the place of a thinking person with a firearm in their hands. Make no mistake, you screw up and shoot someone, or yourself, it's not the ROs fault. IT'S YOURS! There is no substitute for a safe, conscientious shooter behind the gun.

If I see this happening, whether I'm an RO or not, I'm going to be yelling my ass off for the shooter to stop. IMHO it's one of those times where safety must take precedence. A rule book, as good as ours is, can never take the place of a mind and a pair of eyes. Any RO who doesn't yell STOP in this situation is derelict in their duties. I understand the shock factor can freeze people.... If I froze, I would hope that someone else, preferable the other RO, would have the common sense to yell and cover my error. Barring that, if there is an unsafe condition, say an RO/Shooter downrange, anyone who is witness needs to get involved. You can't use the rule book as an excuse to possibly cause someone to get hurt, and all it will take to put us under the microscope is for one person to get hit.

I think it's great that all these senarios are talked about here. I run them through my mind in the hope that when i see one of them I will already have "programed" my response. Some of these events, an RO could go their whole career and not see... having talked about them here can be a big help to dealing with it in real time.

Merry Christmas to all!

JT

Edited December 24, 2009 by JThompson

[twodownzero]

Lateral movement --- I'm not a huge fan, and try to leave options for the shooter to move downrange, even if slightly, when I design a stage....

Yep. I find it much safer if the shooter is moving 10 degrees downrange. Avoids potential breakage of the 180 when reloading from right to left for a right handed shooter.

To think someone would continue on in a COF, knowing that someone is downrange, is unforgivable. There is no way the rules can ever cover every situation, nor guarantee that an RO will be Johnny on the spot with a stop command. The shooter needs to be aware, not only for shooting the COF, but also of everything happening in their COF. This starts at making sure there is nobody downrange at LAMR to safely navigating a COF, too getting the gun cleared and back in the holster... it's all ultimately the shooters responsibility. The ROs are there to "assist" the shooter in this endeavor, not to take the place of a thinking person with a firearm in their hands. Make no mistake, you screw up and shoot someone, or yourself, it's not the ROs fault. IT'S YOURS! There is no substitute for a safe, conscientious shooter behind the gun.

If I see this happening, whether I'm an RO or not, I'm going to be yelling my ass off for the shooter to stop. IMHO it's one of those times where safety must take precedence. A rule book, as good as ours is, can never take the place of a mind and a pair of eyes. Any RO who doesn't yell STOP in this situation is derelict in their duties. I understand the shock factor can freeze people.... If I froze, I would hope that someone else, preferable the other RO, would have the common sense to yell and cover my error. Barring that, if there is an unsafe condition, say an RO/Shooter downrange, anyone who is witness needs to get involved. You can't use the rule book as an excuse to possibly cause someone to get hurt, and all it will take to put us under the microscope is for one person to get hit.

There is just one problem with this. RO interference does not necessitate a reshoot. In the scenario presented, you can either stop shooting and hope the RO gives you a reshoot, or complete your shooting and then, even if he/she doesn't, your bases are covered.

This is a consequence of giving the RO discretion as to whether to authorize a reshoot. And at a big match, there'd be tremendous pressure for an RO to deny a reshoot unless the interference was severe...because other shooters want the match to be as fair as possible.

ROs should not be deciding if a reshoot should be granted. Any demand for a reshoot should be honored and scored, subject to a later evaluation as to the validity of whatever necessitated the reshoot, which should be assessed by several people, not one RO on the spot. I've never had an RO deny me a reshoot, but I've also never shot a national level match. This is a shortcoming in the rules that encourages unsafe acts.

Yeah...I sure don't see an advantage to the "muzzle safe points".

I know I'm not the only one who has DQed moving laterally without endangering anyone. Did I break the 180? Yes. But if muzzle safe points and/or common sense were used, I would not have been DQed. My firearm was not pointed "uprange." In fact, it was pointed into the berm the whole time. I have also seen instance in IDPA matches where a shot was safely taken that would have been a DQ in USPSA.

My position is that the 180 rule (or the 90 rule as it is now) is too simple for the complex nature of matches that involve moving backwards and lateral movement. Getting DQed on a reload for pointing an empty gun into the berm ever so slightly past the 180 when nobody is endangered makes no sense. The ideal safety standard, as I see it, would allow the shooter to point his or her gun anywhere that is safe (thus muzzle safe points).

I've also blasted rounds over the berm (intentionally) because they were so close to the ground below a wall that my rounds went through the target and over the berm. Fortunately the rule is sufficiently discretionary there in that a DQ is not a necessity.

I understand that the 180 rule has been part of USPSA for a long time, and works perfectly for most stages. I am for changing it because I have seen stage designs where it is not practical, and I have seen others DQed, and been DQed myself, for no good reason. That is why I'd like to see USPSA adopt the IDPA's rule or something similar for this particular rule.

[Jim Norman]

Two points here.

One, the 180 works. Lateral, uprange, dowrange. No need to change and it is not subjective. Muzzle safe points are subjective. That said, there are people that I have no problem shooting with and then there are those that I'd rather be elsewhere when they go hot.

The other is loosing a round over a berm because of a low port and high target. Bad stage design and this should be one of those cases where we toss a stage if needed, Alter it, block the port or targets, but don't have a stage that encourages people to make shots that can close a range, injure someone or worse.

Jim

[VegasOPM]

... One or two re-shoots a month is not a big problem in my eyes. ... In our club, the ROs are instructed to stop the shooter if they ever end up downrange of the shooter. The way our shoot house is constructed the potential for ROs ending up in the wrong place is very real.

Having the RO downrange of a loaded gun once, is once too often. It is a big deal.

I agree, I can only think of one instance that the RO was actually downrange of the shooter (by 3')- so I guess that the number I stated was WAY more than reality.

[twodownzero]

Two points here.

One, the 180 works. Lateral, uprange, dowrange. No need to change and it is not subjective. Muzzle safe points are subjective. That said, there are people that I have no problem shooting with and then there are those that I'd rather be elsewhere when they go hot.

Muzzle safe points are not subjective. It's the same as 180 + common sense. If it's not unsafe to be pointing your gun there, there's no reason to disallow it. 10* past the 180 and into the berm is not unsafe. all it'd take is pounding some stakes in the ground that represent the point at which aiming beyond that point was a DQ.

I've shot at your club twice, Jim, and you have a great facility and good stage designers. Not every club is so lucky.

[jar]

How do you deal with muzzle safe points when the shooter moves down range? A point that's a safe angle with the shooter slightly ahead of it can become unsafe if the shooter is 5 yards farther downrange. The advantage of the 180 is that it's obvious how it moves with the shooter. A simple set of cones / stakes for muzzle safe points doesn't seem to do that as well.

That said, we've used them successfully in IDPA in setting up two simple speed shoot type stages in one pit shooting in to the side berms.

[TWHaz]

Quote (Anyhow, in hindsight it would have worked better if I informed the RO of my plan, but on the other hand it's not the responsibility of the shooter to do so. ) Quote

Safety is everyones responsibility.

You should have stopped when you saw the RO or anyone or thing down range you would not wish to shoot.

No if ands or butts.

Edited December 25, 2009 by TWHaz

[JThompson]

There is just one problem with this. RO interference does not necessitate a reshoot. In the scenario presented, you can either stop shooting and hope the RO gives you a reshoot, or complete your shooting and then, even if he/she doesn't, your bases are covered.

This is a consequence of giving the RO discretion as to whether to authorize a reshoot. And at a big match, there'd be tremendous pressure for an RO to deny a reshoot unless the interference was severe...because other shooters want the match to be as fair as possible.

ROs should not be deciding if a reshoot should be granted. Any demand for a reshoot should be honored and scored, subject to a later evaluation as to the validity of whatever necessitated the reshoot, which should be assessed by several people, not one RO on the spot. I've never had an RO deny me a reshoot, but I've also never shot a national level match. This is a shortcoming in the rules that encourages unsafe acts.

Who's talking about reshoots? If I had someone downrange, I'm not worried about a reshoot, I'm worried about someone getting hurt or killed. Taking a chance of someone getting shot because I'm worried about a reshoot? I think not.... No, it's up to the shooter to remain safe and the RO assist in that endeavor. If an RO, for whatever reason, does not do their job that does not relieve me of mine. If a possible refusal of a reshoot is weighing on your mind, you should seriously reevaluate you decision making process.

JT

Edited December 25, 2009 by JThompson

[twodownzero]

Who's talking about reshoots? If I had someone downrange, I'm not worried about a reshoot, I'm worried about someone getting hurt or killed. Taking a chance of someone getting shot because I'm worried about a reshoot? I think not.... No, it's up to the shooter to remain safe and the RO assist in that endeavor. If an RO, for whatever reason, does not do their job that does not relieve me of mine. If a possible refusal of a reshoot is weighing on your mind, you should seriously reevaluate you decision making process.

The original poster posed a question as to whether he is entitled to a reshoot. The answer is no, he's not. And that is a problem for instances like this.

We can say that safety is everyone's responsibility, and that is true. But expecting a competitor to risk a match because someone else's mistake may cost him something that he cannot recover is unacceptable from a competitive perspective.

If reshoots are not guaranteed in this instance, it because a very tough, split second decision. He either continues to shoot the stage or he takes the mikes and/or lost time, lowers his firearm, and stops himself. He's kinda screwed either way you look at it, though, as per the current rules. If he keeps shooting, he endangers the RO. If he stops, he might get a reshoot or he might not. If he does get a reshoot, chances are, his score won't be negatively affected. If he doesn't get a reshoot, his decision to be safe and lower his gun costs him competitively.

It seems to me that a denial of a reshoot for interference should be changed to necessitate a reshoot, regardless of the score of the competitor. I believe the rule is 8.6.4. I have only had one instance where I have ever had to use this instance. The RO said something to me during a course of fire and I stopped (I am not sure what he said). I asked for a reshoot and, fortunately, it was granted to me because I had not yet seen my score.

I'm actually not sure what i'd say that could change the rules to make them more fair, without giving someone a loophole that some shooter, some day, might exploit for his or her own competitive advantage. But my intuition suggests that if an action so unsafe as to require the OP to shoot downrange with the RO in an unsafe position does not automatically require a reshoot, something is wrong.

Perhaps the way to change the rule would be to declare firing if any human being is downrange from your firearm a match DQ in 10.5. Then, perhaps, add a sentence to 8.6.4 that created an exception for an automatic reshoot (without discretion) if the shooter would have had to violate that new phrase in 10.5 in order to complete his course of fire.

Perhaps this is a rare enough circumstance that it doesn't warrant actual rule modification. But something seems out of whack to me if the competitor has to either 1. do something very unsafe or 2. depend on someone else's discretion as to whether they get a reshoot or not when interference so great as to create a serious safety concern results in them having to stop during a course of fire.

There are two things that I never want to see happen in any course of fire. The first is that I never want to see anyone downrange of my muzzle--EVER. The second is that I never want to hear the word "stop" for any legitimate reason. In this instance, the first was satisfied and the second should have been. This is probably the most horrifying safety issue I've ever heard of where the rules simply aren't prepared to deal with it.

It's a prisoner's dilemma. You either keep shooting until the RO says "stop" or stop yourself and risk not getting a reshoot. Both situations are possible per the rules, and my intuition suggests that we ought to deal with that, somehow. If it were me, I'd stop for sure. No match score is ever that big of a deal to me. But I know that there are some fiercely competitive people in this sport, and we shouldn't allow the rules to be written in a manner such that an unsafe act like this one is entirely permissible.

I will say that this is one of the rare instances where if I were holding the score clipboard (which I try to volunteer for often), I'd be yelling STOP. I usually keep my mouth shut as scorer other than to read back the scoring to the RO, but this is an instance where a 2nd set of eyes from the scorer could be very useful.

Matches involve concentration and we often have tunnel vision while we're out there hunting for the targets. I'm as guilty of it as the next guy.

[Chuck Anderson]

Just a couple thoughts. Short of taking away all the bullets and wrapping all of the shooters in bubble wrap. Someone will likely get hurt in USPSA. It happens every now and then. Our safety record is dramatically better than almost every other sport. In fact golf has more people chewed on by alligators than we have get shot. That said, we still need to take every opportunity to be as safe as reasonable. Not possible, just reasonable. If we were trying to be as safe as possible, we wouldn't have live ammo and we'd be shooting paintball.

Before every lights the torches and sharpens up the pitchforks. Take a look at the description of the shooting that occurred in the first post. He was shooting at 10 and the RO was standing at 2. That sounds like almost the same position the RO was in at the start of the stage, give or take a step. Frankly it wasn't dangerous. I was thinking about a similar set up last time I shot a club match. There were several shooters about 5 feet in back of the start/180 line. There was lateral movement and targets were engaged. While the shooter was moving in the direction of the shooters he had his muzzle not breaking the 180 line and engaged targets at about 10. The shooters were at 2 or even 1. No one thought twice about being on the wrong end of the muzzle.

A couple weeks before that I received some photos from a concerned parent who as at the MGM/AMU Junior Camp. One of the teaching techniques involved being downrange of the students. Basically the setup was 10 or so students on a line. Instructor about 10 feet off to the right of the furthest student and maybe 5 feet downrange. The first thought was oh no someone is downrange. But it was done safely.

So here's my thoughts on this. The 180 works. If you break it you go home. If you do something unsafe, you go home. There are no warnings, no stage DQ's (which by the way drive me nuts, but that's story for another thread). Screw up once and you're done. Seems to work very well for the most part at controlling peoples behavior.

What benefit would we get from Safety Points or arbitrary points where you can't shoot past. It would have solved nothing in this situation. It sounds like you help out a lot at your home club. I think you would really benefit from and be a great club asset, if you attended an RO seminar. A lot of rules and why they are there become crystal clear. And if you still have questions you can always fall back on your RMI to get the answers.

[JThompson]

I pretty much agree with what Chuck said except the part where "downrange and safely" were used in the same sentence. No pitchforks Chuck just my firm belief that there is no such thing.

TDZ:

I do agree that you need to get to an RO class. You are right in that if you see this situation, "holding the score clipboard" you should yell stop. What you may not know, is both the guy running the shooters and the guy holding the clipboard are ROs. Either one of them can make any call an RO makes. It's not your job to just call back scores to the RO. You watch for foot faults, 180s and anything else the guy running the shooter does. The only real differences between you and him is that he is holding the time and closer to the shooter. Therefore, most of the time, he makes the calls because he is in a better position to do so. There are times when you will have to make a call as the CRO is out of position. I'm not just talking about if one should fall down either. You responsibilities are the same as the guy running the shooter.

Do we specifically need a rule that tells us not to shoot if someone is downrange? Man I sure hope not, but may be that's something to look at.

JT

Edited December 27, 2009 by JThompson

[kimel]

One of the problems is that ROs at the Level I course are pretty much taught to stay withing arms reach of the shooter. There are reasons for this and they are sound. However, when you advance into more "advanced" stage designs this sometimes has to be modified. There is no rule that the RO has to be on top of the shooter.

For example:

At Mud Bowl II (aka 2008 USPSA Nats in Tusla) the stage I was CRO on was a retrograde stage. We figured out real early on that the safe thing to do was for the RO to get the shooter ready, hit the button and retreat to beyond the rear fault line. And we told the shooters we were going to do this. Due to stage design it was pretty much a sure bet that the shooter would end up at about the rear fault line anyway. No need to chase the shooters all over the stage; everyone stayed safe. And in the muck and mire we really couldn't have chased shooters all over. We could work ourselves around back there to watch the muzzle and for other violations. It wasn't all that far away...maybe 20 - 30 feet in total. We always moved backward so we kept the shooter in sight.

Retrograde stages can be a whole lot of fun. They are a valid shooting challenge and one that a lot of people avoid because they are "unnatural". They definitely are not a place for a green RO though.

[JThompson]

One of the problems is that ROs at the Level I course are pretty much taught to stay withing arms reach of the shooter. There are reasons for this and they are sound. However, when you advance into more "advanced" stage designs this sometimes has to be modified. There is no rule that the RO has to be on top of the shooter.

For example:

At Mud Bowl II (aka 2008 USPSA Nats in Tusla) the stage I was CRO on was a retrograde stage. We figured out real early on that the safe thing to do was for the RO to get the shooter ready, hit the button and retreat to beyond the rear fault line. And we told the shooters we were going to do this. Due to stage design it was pretty much a sure bet that the shooter would end up at about the rear fault line anyway. No need to chase the shooters all over the stage; everyone stayed safe. And in the muck and mire we really couldn't have chased shooters all over. We could work ourselves around back there to watch the muzzle and for other violations. It wasn't all that far away...maybe 20 - 30 feet in total. We always moved backward so we kept the shooter in sight.

Retrograde stages can be a whole lot of fun. They are a valid shooting challenge and one that a lot of people avoid because they are "unnatural". They definitely are not a place for a green RO though.

Good points K...

JT

[Nik Habicht]

Retrograde stages can be a whole lot of fun. They are a valid shooting challenge and one that a lot of people avoid because they are "unnatural". They definitely are not a place for a green RO though.

That's an amusing concept for me. I crossed over from IDPA --- where I experienced retrograde movement in my very first match. Much like we supervise/troubleshoot new competitor's stage-plans, we probably ought to also spend some time teaching newer ROs at club matches.....

Most of this stuff's not hard, but some of it gets easier with an explanation of the key points from someone with experience....

[Flexmoney]

Retrograde? That sounds like one of those backwards terms.

[TWHaz]

Well we will never all agree. This looks like one that needs to be sent to Front Sight magazine for clarification and maybe a rule change.

I will look for the ruling in future issues.

[Singlestack]

Well we will never all agree. This looks like one that needs to be sent to Front Sight magazine for clarification and maybe a rule change.

I will look for the ruling in future issues.

What rule do you see needing change?

[DarthMuffin]

OP here. Thanks for the reply all.

As Chuck A mentioned, I never felt the situation was unsafe. All the time we fire at targets at 2:00 with an RO at 4:00, right? If I did think there was any chance of hitting the RO, I of course would have stopped.

It did cause me a moment of pause when I passed the RO (he was obviously more worried than I was and moved pretty quickly), so technically I probably could have asked for a reshoot due to Interference. Local match, so not a real big deal either way for me.

I'm trying to make it a habit to inform the RO if I'm doing anything odd on a stage, however this time I was in "the zone" prepping for the stage and it just wasn't on my mental checklist. I'm sure you all know how that goes.

Muzzle safe points just seem like they'd cause more problems than they fix. It's one more thing for the shooter to re-learn on each stage, remember, keep track of, and distract him from all his other important safety duties. I don't see anything wrong with the 180.

I've made my decision in that if it ever happens again, I'm stopping. If I don't get a reshoot I'll be mighty PO'd, but no score is worth shooting someone.

Ideally I'd like to see a rule entitling the shooter to stop and be automatically granted a reshoot if any person is within his 180 degree field of fire at any time between "make ready" and "range is clear". This could conceivably be used by a competitor to have a [brave or foolish] accomplice step into the 180 if it looks like they're doing bad, but that would be a 10.4 DQ anyhow. DQ-ing is unreasonable -- say if I'm turned facing a target array at 10:00 and someone 30 feet to my right, behind me where I can't see them, puts one foot over the line so they can see what I'm doing.

[EkuJustice]

Some stage designs can be an RO trap where it is possible for the RO to get in a bad situation. An addition that a reshoot is given not optional if a safety issue is observed. Everyone remember the video where flex backs out of a port shooting and the ro is looking around the wall all it would have taken is an RO a little quick around the corner and he would have been in a very bad position.

Edited December 28, 2009 by EkuJustice

[Flexmoney]

Everyone remember the video where flex backs out of a port shooting and the ro is looking around the wall

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/user/Flexmoney#p/u/5/nXRhRSWiR5g

There are a couple of other issues at the start of that stage that are marginal also. (This was staff day at this match, and I think much was fixed for the rest of the weekend.)

[Jim Norman]

Funny how we will have a start position with a target nearly on the 180, People will be back 15-20 feet behind the first target (Uprange) and no one gets their knickers in a knot. BUT turn the whole scene 90 degrees. Now the shooter is shooting towards the 10 oclock (Standing at the 6) and the other person is at the 2 oclock. No targets at all along the right side of the stage, the shooter will be shooting in the quarter covered by the 12 counterclockwise to the 9, the 9 being the 180 and it will be moving back as the shooter does.

EVERYONE gets uptight.

Oh and we probably should. but the angle between where the shooter is, where he is shooting and where the RO or other person is is unchanged in the two scenarios above, just the orientation to the pit is different.

Unsafe? Not really, but unwise? You betcha. Why? Partly because others not as good, as controlled or as aware might see it and do it. And also because most all places except some very realistic training require all non-shooters to be BEHIND the firing line, not next to it downrange. If this were to happen at our club (intentional, not the opps that was in the OP) we'd have some really serious explaining to do.

Now this all said, take a look at the prints of the old rifle matches at Creedmore. Spectators lined both sides of the range all teh way to the pits!

Jim

[kitestir]

I have not shot at a major match so I am not sure if it is done the same way there or not. But at our local matches the scorer follows a bit behind the shooter and RO. In addition to scoring they are supposed to watch the "action" to help the RO. If I had been scoring and saw the RO get down range at all I would have spoken up and stopped the COF. Whether or not you were shooting away from the RO or not, HE WAS STILL DOWNRANGE and the COF should have been stopped! I do not think there should be a DQ in this situation. When I shoot I never see the RO, so if I am turned away from the RO but still in the 180 and cannot see him, it would fall on the RO (and in our case the scorer also) to stop the COF and give a reshoot.