USPSA Rules: You make the call

[riverman67]

Don't get so hung up on rules. I had the fortune to give procedurals to the head of NROI and he said I was wrong and I called the RM he agreed with the shooter. The president of USPSA disagreed with the shooter and RM. Long discussion at RM golf cart with rule book out. I had shooters to run so I didn't hear or care about the discussion.
I still had reasons for my call but they disagreed. Later they come back and said it was something different than what was originally discussed.
So if 3 of the biggest shots in the sport can't agree and have to use the rule book and still have 3 different opinions they can't expect us weekend RO's to know every little detail in the rulebook and make a call in a matter of seconds with confidence.
(I still think I was right by the way)

Exactly
Too many of our rules make no damn sense.
If three people that are pretty familiar with the rules sit down with the rule book and come up with different answers something is wrong

 

[Coach]

The rulebook should be the end of it. There should be very interpretation needed.

 

[Redbeard77]

The rulebook should be the end of it. There should be very interpretation needed.

I agree completely. We should be able to look at the book and say yes or no you can do something.

 

[Coach]

The problem is so many people in positions of power (match directors, range masters, RMI) want things to go their way and the make rulings that cannot be supported by the rule book.

At the SNS 400 we had an AD by an Open shooter on our stage. It hit the port the shooter was going up to but was in the general direction of the target. The RMI (Gary Johnson) clearly taught a batch of new RO's that this was not a DQ. (Happygunner loves to talk about GJ) The RO stopped shooter. The RO watching and the 180 and I agreed that it was not a DQ and we both saw this happen.

Troy told the RO that he would have stopped the shooter and Dq'ed him. (I feel like the RO descibed the situation a little differently than it happened) The first step is that the RMI corp needs to be on the same page. The second step is that ruling needs to be much less frequent and the rules be where things start and stop. I think fewer rules would be better. Things such as squarely uprange and down range are a waste of time and are present to limit gaming. Gaming is a part of the game. Don't be so liberal and let people have some fun.

 

[rhino]

The problem is so many people in positions of power (match directors, range masters, RMI) want things to go their way and the make rulings that cannot be supported by the rule book.

At the SNS 400 we had an AD by an Open shooter on our stage. It hit the port the shooter was going up to but was in the general direction of the target. The RMI (Gary Johnson) clearly taught a batch of new RO's that this was not a DQ. (Happygunner loves to talk about GJ) The RO stopped shooter. The RO watching and the 180 and I agreed that it was not a DQ and we both saw this happen.

Troy told the RO that he would have stopped the shooter and Dq'ed him. (I feel like the RO descibed the situation a little differently than it happened) The first step is that the RMI corp needs to be on the same page. The second step is that ruling needs to be much less frequent and the rules be where things start and stop. I think fewer rules would be better. Things such as squarely uprange and down range are a waste of time and are present to limit gaming. Gaming is a part of the game. Don't be so liberal and let people have some fun.

Did Troy cite a rule that would justify a DQ in this case?

We definitely need fewer rules. Safety rules plus front and back of one 8.5x11 sheet of paper to cover everything else should suffice.

 

[rvb]

The rulebook should be the end of it. There should be very [little?] interpretation needed.

We definitely need fewer rules. Safety rules plus front and back of one 8.5x11 sheet of paper to cover everything else should suffice.

These two ideas are largely mutually exclusive.

I think the current book is pretty close to that ideal balance of not covering every single imaginable situation (which would required something the size of volume 1 of one of those old encyclopedia Britannica books they used to sell door to door) and being too simple which would leave LOTS of situations up the discretion of the match officials.

There will always be interpretation issues, strange situations, new equipment and techniques... you'll never get away from that no matter how simple, or how detailed we make the book. That's why we have an appeal processes that ends with a "jury of your peers" for most issues.

One of the biggest problems in regards to uspsa rules is stability. A simple change, like adding a definition for "Facing Downrange," can cause years of interpretation issues, un-necessary reshoots, require addition of more rules, etc... It seems like the last few years, we've had a stability problem, especially in areas where it didn't seem real problems existed (like Facing Downrange or the wall height issue or production hammers) without regards to the ripple effect.

Personally, I hate this stuff. I hate working matches because of it. And it's worse now than years past, because now heaven forbid you forget about exception x.y.a.b.c.n.q or didn't read the whole 87 page thread on Enos and your 'mistake' ends up on Enos and Doodie and Ingo and youtube and facebook and people are now bashing you and the match as a whole... What It comes down to is we have to do the best we can, be confident in our call while being open to things we hadn't considered, and otherwise let the shooter work w/in the appeals process, while realizing the interpretations of these obscure situations may not always end in the same result...

-rvb

 

[Tanfodude]

The problem is so many people in positions of power (match directors, range masters, RMI) want things to go their way and the make rulings that cannot be supported by the rule book.

At the SNS 400 we had an AD by an Open shooter on our stage. It hit the port the shooter was going up to but was in the general direction of the target. The RMI (Gary Johnson) clearly taught a batch of new RO's that this was not a DQ. (Happygunner loves to talk about GJ) The RO stopped shooter. The RO watching and the 180 and I agreed that it was not a DQ and we both saw this happen.

Troy told the RO that he would have stopped the shooter and Dq'ed him. (I feel like the RO descibed the situation a little differently than it happened) The first step is that the RMI corp needs to be on the same page. The second step is that ruling needs to be much less frequent and the rules be where things start and stop. I think fewer rules would be better. Things such as squarely uprange and down range are a waste of time and are present to limit gaming. Gaming is a part of the game. Don't be so liberal and let people have some fun.

Was the AD during reload or on the move but not aiming?

 

[rhino]

Well, if current practices continue, you are correct.

However, if there are only a few rules and someone does something that is not addressed by it, then RO should stick with the fact that there is no "call" to make. Not address by the rules? Then it's okay.

These two ideas are largely mutually exclusive.

I think the current book is pretty close to that ideal balance of not covering every single imaginable situation (which would required something the size of volume 1 of one of those old encyclopedia Britannica books they used to sell door to door) and being too simple which would leave LOTS of situations up the discretion of the match officials.

There will always be interpretation issues, strange situations, new equipment and techniques... you'll never get away from that no matter how simple, or how detailed we make the book. That's why we have an appeal processes that ends with a "jury of your peers" for most issues.

One of the biggest problems in regards to uspsa rules is stability. A simple change, like adding a definition for "Facing Downrange," can cause years of interpretation issues, un-necessary reshoots, require addition of more rules, etc... It seems like the last few years, we've had a stability problem, especially in areas where it didn't seem real problems existed (like Facing Downrange or the wall height issue or production hammers) without regards to the ripple effect.

Personally, I hate this stuff. I hate working matches because of it. And it's worse now than years past, because now heaven forbid you forget about exception x.y.a.b.c.n.q or didn't read the whole 87 page thread on Enos and your 'mistake' ends up on Enos and Doodie and Ingo and youtube and facebook and people are now bashing you and the match as a whole... What It comes down to is we have to do the best we can, be confident in our call while being open to things we hadn't considered, and otherwise let the shooter work w/in the appeals process, while realizing the interpretations of these obscure situations may not always end in the same result...

-rvb

 

[Coach]

Was the AD during reload or on the move but not aiming?

On the move. Could count for aiming. The gun was eye level. It was before he was ready. You know what your boy said at the RO class.

 

[jakemartens]

Don't get so hung up on rules. I had the fortune to give procedurals to the head of NROI and he said I was wrong and I called the RM he agreed with the shooter. The president of USPSA disagreed with the shooter and RM. Long discussion at RM golf cart with rule book out. I had shooters to run so I didn't hear or care about the discussion.
I still had reasons for my call but they disagreed. Later they come back and said it was something different than what was originally discussed.
So if 3 of the biggest shots in the sport can't agree and have to use the rule book and still have 3 different opinions they can't expect us weekend RO's to know every little detail in the rulebook and make a call in a matter of seconds with confidence.
(I still think I was right by the way)

I actually think it should have been 6
4 for stacking
1 for each string for not following the procedure

 

[Tanfodude]

On the move. Could count for aiming. The gun was eye level. It was before he was ready. You know what your boy said at the RO class.

Honeslty, I can't recall this in that class, LOL, I tend to space out on classes when it gets boring.

Well I reread the 10.4.6 which this scenario best fits. If he was aiming but not at the spot yet where he can see the targets, then the gun went off, doesn't that make him not shooting at the targets right? 10.4.6 is specific about shooting at the target for it to be not a DQ. In other words, if the guns goes off and you're not shooting at the targets or your gun is not directed at the target, it's a DQ.

 

[Coach]

Honeslty, I can't recall this in that class, LOL, I tend to space out on classes when it gets boring.

Well I reread the 10.4.6 which this scenario best fits. If he was aiming but not at the spot yet where he can see the targets, then the gun went off, doesn't that make him not shooting at the targets right? 10.4.6 is specific about shooting at the target for it to be not a DQ. In other words, if the guns goes off and you're not shooting at the targets or your gun is not directed at the target, it's a DQ.

He could see the targets and the shot went through the port. Judging by the shot on the berm he nearly hit the target. Going to Dq for missing?

Let me refresh your memory:
Daniel shot through the center of a barricade and not at a target and your guy said it was not a DQ because it went down range and stayed within the berm. What happened in the SNS match was nothing as extreme as what was taught while running shooters in your RO class. So it was not a DQ. I don't agree with what was taught in your RO class but that is what was taught.

 

[rvb]

Well, if current practices continue, you are correct.

However, if there are only a few rules and someone does something that is not addressed by it, then RO should stick with the fact that there is no "call" to make. Not address by the rules? Then it's okay.

that's a double-edged sword. Sometimes, from the shooter's perspective that would be ok, sometimes not. There are lots of nuanced exceptions that do benefit the shooter. If the rules were reduced to say "You can't have your finger in the trigger when loading," then sorry, you DQ decocking your CZ. If the rule says hitting the ground closer than 10' is a DQ w/o a target, then sorry, "by the book" I have to DQ you for your squib that dribbled out of your barrel...

It is impossible for the book to cover everything.... our book is far from that extreme, and that's why we have these debates because so many things are not spelled out. And a vast majority of the book is course design and equipment rules and stuff like that. there's only a couple dozen of the ~100 pgs really about shooting the match.

 

[rvb]

ADs are almost impossible to make stick. It basically takes the shooter owning the fact they screwed up.

I've called a few over the years. Only a couple have stuck, when the shooters owned it.

One @ last yrs 400, the guy had started to move, was no longer looking where his gun was pointing, was reaching for a new mag, and put a round through the wall, about jumped out of his skin when it went off. RO on tablet said he was about to yell stop also. DQ didn't stick. He was "engaging the target." Surrrre, buddy.

I stopped another for AD at the same match that I didn't even call the RM for, I gave the reshoot. Open shooter lifts gun from the holster and from hip it goes off. He paused before getting the gun up and the second shot off. But I knew that yea, he was engaging the target (A-zone hit). His gun was pointed up about a 30 degree angle when it went off and just barely caught the top of the berm (new berms that year, it was the only impact that far up. luckily the target was very close to the berm). At that moment I thought for sure it had left the range; "STOP" was instinctive, but not correct in that case...

One of our ingo friends owned it a couple years ago at a club match. I asked him a couple times if he was engaging a target, and he wouldn't say he was. He was in a position that I would have believed him. (though he still likes to give me a hard time about it)

It's one of those things you "know it when you see it." You can usually tell when a guy is just presenting to or transitioning to a target and the shot breaks a tad early. He might jump a hair but you can tell he was engaging. I've done that. But like I said above, as the RO you make your call and let the appeals process work.

-rvb

 

[Tanfodude]

He could see the targets and the shot went through the port. Judging by the shot on the berm he nearly hit the target. Going to Dq for missing?

Let me refresh your memory:
Daniel shot through the center of a barricade and not at a target and your guy said it was not a DQ because it went down range and stayed within the berm. What happened in the SNS match was nothing as extreme as what was taught while running shooters in your RO class. So it was not a DQ. I don't agree with what was taught in your RO class but that is what was taught.

Gotcha. Didn't know if the target was in his line of sight. And yeah, the Daniel example should be a DQ if following the 10.4.1.

 

[Bosshoss]

Personally, I hate this stuff. I hate working matches because of it. And it's worse now than years past, because now heaven forbid you forget about exception x.y.a.b.c.n.q or didn't read the whole 87 page thread on Enos and your 'mistake' ends up on Enos and Doodie and Ingo and youtube and facebook and people are now bashing you and the match as a whole... What It comes down to is we have to do the best we can, be confident in our call while being open to things we hadn't considered, and otherwise let the shooter work w/in the appeals process, while realizing the interpretations of these obscure situations may not always end in the same result...

-rvb

Exactly this.
Our first squad of the match had lots of drama. We were giving a procedural and couldn't find it on the kindle and trying to decide which choice was the best suited. Rich and I had our heads down looking at the kindle and finally figured it out and I looked up and someone was filming us with their phone.

I love that some take to the internet to criticize a RO or a Match or other person that did something at a match while they are there just to shoot. The person that they are *****ing about is not getting paid and they are there because the person *****ing didn't offer to help.
The 400 went from 14 stages to 12 because of lack of help. Several of the stages were short staffed because lack of help.
This stuff is supposed to be fun and when shooters have meltdowns and people attack or make fun of the people donating their time to work the match those people better be ready to pick up a timer or STFU.

 

[Bosshoss]

I actually think it should have been 6
4 for stacking
1 for each string for not following the procedure

A few notes on this. This was the first time I RO'ed a Standard Exercise at a level II and there are some rules that come into play that we don't deal with everyday. The unloaded start with 2 strings was another twist.
My version of what happened(for discussion only).
Our stage was Virginia count and 2 12 round strings. Two target arrays with the outer 2 being 1 array and the inner 2 being 1 array. Inner 2 had hardcover. 3 shots per target on either array and reload and engage other array. First string after reload was strong hand only and second string weak hand only after reload.
Troy was shooting PCC and came to line and at start signal he shot outer array first reloaded and reengaged the outer array. As he was making ready for second string one of his squadmates yelled something about him screwing that up(coaching or good natured ribbing?). He turned and asked me if he had done that wrong. I told him he reengaged the same targets after the reload. He shrugged his shoulders and and on the next string shot the inner array and reloaded and reengaged the inner array.
We went down to score and when done I said 12 procedurals, Troy said 2. I called RM and he said 2 also and explained that he gets 2 for not following WSB and I countered YES but he didn't follow WSB 12 different times? RM said it wasn't a competitive advantage but after thinking about it I believe it could have been. Foley come over and said it was more than 2 and they got out rule books and had a discussion on it. Troy was scored as 2 procedurals. I went back to running shooters so I didn't hear what was discussed but later I asked and was told it should have been 4 with stacking penalties also in play.
Interesting that even the 3 big dogs at the match had to pull out the rule book and still disagreed about the correct call.
None of us are perfect and we all make mistakes as RO's and shooters(I know I made several that weekend).
I thought that with all this happening on the first squad of the first day that it was going to be a rough weekend. Turns out that Troy was the only one who couldn't/didn't follow the WSB.

Some notes about the stage we ran.
It looks like about 1/3 of the shooters shot the stage WITHOUT a miss. OUCH
Lots of those without a miss were PCC shooters with lots of them shooting it all A's.
With each shooter shooting each target 6 times we changed targets every other squad and it should have been after every squad as it was tough scoring the hard cover targets after one squad.

I made the mistake of telling PCC that they could unbag at the table or the side berm. Should have stuck with side berm only. PCC unbagging and removing lens cover some unfolding stock and getting out magazines and turning on the dot and practicing switching hands for weak hand strings. Several said this was there first unloaded start so they practiced that a few times. This slowed the stage down some. Not sure if unbagging at side berm would have helped much.
PCC guns had way more malfunctions than the handguns.
One PCC shooter disassembled his gun on the table on the clock to get a case that was stuck inside out. He had to pull the bolt out to get it out.
Had a PCC go full auto and do a three round burst.
At least 1/3 of the PCC shooters didn't seat their mags and had them fall out after 1 shot(many on both strings).

Not picking on PCC as it provided the most entertainment all weekend with many new words learned.
I think PCC looks like fun and I might try it some day but most of the slowdowns on our stage were PCC related.

 

[Coach]

Gotcha. Didn't know if the target was in his line of sight. And yeah, the Daniel example should be a DQ if following the 10.4.1.

Your buddy GJ said in the class as the instructor that it was not a DQ. Do you recall that?

 

[Coach]

Some notes about the stage we ran.
It looks like about 1/3 of the shooters shot the stage WITHOUT a miss. OUCH
Lots of those without a miss were PCC shooters with lots of them shooting it all A's.
With each shooter shooting each target 6 times we changed targets every other squad and it should have been after every squad as it was tough scoring the hard cover targets after one squad.

I made the mistake of telling PCC that they could unbag at the table or the side berm. Should have stuck with side berm only. PCC unbagging and removing lens cover some unfolding stock and getting out magazines and turning on the dot and practicing switching hands for weak hand strings. Several said this was there first unloaded start so they practiced that a few times. This slowed the stage down some. Not sure if unbagging at side berm would have helped much.
PCC guns had way more malfunctions than the handguns.
One PCC shooter disassembled his gun on the table on the clock to get a case that was stuck inside out. He had to pull the bolt out to get it out.
Had a PCC go full auto and do a three round burst.
At least 1/3 of the PCC shooters didn't seat their mags and had them fall out after 1 shot(many on both strings).

Not picking on PCC as it provided the most entertainment all weekend with many new words learned.
I think PCC looks like fun and I might try it some day but most of the slowdowns on our stage were PCC related.

Some sage on the board said PCC would/could create a nightmare like this.

I shot the stage without a miss with a pistol.

 

[mongo404]

Gotcha. Didn't know if the target was in his line of sight. And yeah, the Daniel example should be a DQ if following the 10.4.1.

Oh REALLY????? it was down range..
10.4 Match Disqualification – Accidental Discharge
A competitor who causes an accidental discharge must be stopped by a Range Officer as soon as possible. An accidental discharge is defined as follows:
10.4.1 A shot, which travels over a backstop, a berm or in any other direction, specified in the written stage briefing by the match organizers as being unsafe. Note that a competitor who legitimately fires a shot at a target, which then travels in an unsafe direction, will not be disqualified (the provisions of Section 2.3 may apply).


My example was not accidental.. just saying