IPSC Rules: Can a competitor request a different RO
- Thread starter Redmaple
- Start date
I am glad to know you. Do you have any comments on correct practice, here.
8.3 Range Communication
8.3.1 "Load And Make Ready" (or "Make Ready" for starts with an unloaded firearm) – This command signifies the start of "the Course of Fire". Under the direct supervision of the Range Officer the competitor must face down range, or in a safe direction as specified by the Range Officer, fit eye and ear protection, and prepare the firearm in accordance with the written stage briefing. The competitor must then assume the required start position. At this point, the Range Officer will proceed.
Practice: The RO clearly has a role to ensure eye and ear protection is worn prior to other commands. In addition, I note an RO is obliged to stop a competitor who has lost or is not wearing eye protection during a course or fire and offer a reshoot as applicable. A competitor who deliberately loses his/her protection during a course of fire may be DQ’d. At our club some officials think it is the responsibility of the shooter to ensure their own eye and ear protection is in place with no role for the RO. ROs have been directed by the would be/supposed RM to remain silent on use of eye and ear protection. The practice is inconsistent, depending on who is present.
8.3 Range Communication
8.3.1 "Load And Make Ready" (or "Make Ready" for starts with an unloaded firearm) – This command signifies the start of "the Course of Fire". Under the direct supervision of the Range Officer the competitor must face down range, or in a safe direction as specified by the Range Officer, fit eye and ear protection, and prepare the firearm in accordance with the written stage briefing. The competitor must then assume the required start position. At this point, the Range Officer will proceed.
Practice: The RO clearly has a role to ensure eye and ear protection is worn prior to other commands. In addition, I note an RO is obliged to stop a competitor who has lost or is not wearing eye protection during a course or fire and offer a reshoot as applicable. A competitor who deliberately loses his/her protection during a course of fire may be DQ’d. At our club some officials think it is the responsibility of the shooter to ensure their own eye and ear protection is in place with no role for the RO. ROs have been directed by the would be/supposed RM to remain silent on use of eye and ear protection. The practice is inconsistent, depending on who is present.
"At our club some officials think it is the responsibility of the shooter to ensure their own eye and ear protection is in place with no role for the RO."
YOU'RE problem is with your club!!!!! EVERY "club" I've ever known REQUIRES not just shooters but anyone ON THE RANGE to have both eye and ear protection. You still haven't stated "where you are" but if your your "Club" is separate from the "Range" shooting restricted - the range must be "approved" - to be approved it must have insurance - to get insurance - the membership app must state eye/ear protection and it must be enforced!!!!
Change clubs ... you'll not only preserve your hearing and eyesight but probably enjoy life more...
YOU'RE problem is with your club!!!!! EVERY "club" I've ever known REQUIRES not just shooters but anyone ON THE RANGE to have both eye and ear protection. You still haven't stated "where you are" but if your your "Club" is separate from the "Range" shooting restricted - the range must be "approved" - to be approved it must have insurance - to get insurance - the membership app must state eye/ear protection and it must be enforced!!!!
Change clubs ... you'll not only preserve your hearing and eyesight but probably enjoy life more...
Last time I checked ... a competitor's equipment failure is NOT cause for a re-shoot. Since "eyes and ears" is a SAFETY ITEM the competitor MUST be STOPPED (safely) until the required safety equipment is in place AND the clock is left running!!!! NO re-shoot! Don't confuse competitor equipment failure with RANGE equipment failure!
If the RO notices that a competitor's eye or ear protection is not in place or has fallen off during a course of fire, the RO must order "stop" and allow a reshoot. A competitor who loses his eye or ear protection during a course of fire may also request a reshoot. A competitor who deliberately loses his eye or ear protection may be disqualified. Correct?
1riot1ranger
CGN Regular
- Location
- Calgary, AB
5.4.3 If a Range Officer notices that a competitor has lost or displaced their eye or ear protection during a course of
fire, or has commenced a course of fire without them, the Range Officer must immediately stop the
competitor who will be required to reshoot the course of fire after the protective devices have been restored.
5.4.4 A competitor who inadvertently loses eye or ear protection during a course of fire, or commences a course of
fire without them, is entitled to stop, point their firearm in a safe direction and indicate the problem to the
Range Officer, in which case the provisions of the previous rule will apply.
This as well.
8.3.1 "Load And Make Ready" (or "Make Ready" for starts with an unloaded firearm) – This command signifies the start of "the Course of Fire". Under the direct supervision of the Range Officer the competitor must face down range, or in a safe direction as specified by the Range Officer, fit eye and ear protection, and prepare the firearm in accordance with the written stage briefing. The competitor must then assume the required start position. At this point, the Range Officer will proceed
8.3.1 "Load And Make Ready" (or "Make Ready" for starts with an unloaded firearm) – This command signifies the start of "the Course of Fire". Under the direct supervision of the Range Officer the competitor must face down range, or in a safe direction as specified by the Range Officer, fit eye and ear protection, and prepare the firearm in accordance with the written stage briefing. The competitor must then assume the required start position. At this point, the Range Officer will proceed
- Location
- Halifax - NS
Thanks 1riot1ranger...
Ted, that changed a few rule books back, probably after you left. Initially, we were all waiting for shooters to go dragging their heads down the sides of walls (trying to knock their ear muffs off) after they had a miss to get a reshoot - but it never (thankfully) became an issue.
Nice words about officials too & I do remember you! Had a great time at the 1997 Nationals in Spruce Grove.
redmaple; looking forward to your email and finding out what club is doing all this...
If the scorekeeper is a qualified RO, which is pretty normal, they are fully allowed to call out DQ's or other infractions. Also, at smaller matches, experienced shooters, even if not trained RO's are often given the title of RO if there are none of the others available, perfect? No, but better than no match.
If the scorekeeper is just a pencil jockey they can still be asked if they saw a competitor break rule and that input can be used by the RO and CRO if necessary. Better RO training would alleviate some of the issues you seem to be experiencing, most likely getting them up to the current rulebook.
I as both a competitor who has traveled extensively for matches around the world and a trained RO do find it laughable that people get so upset when people bring up criticizing of officials, some of the worst RO'ing I've ever seen has been at big matches, where it's obvious there are beefs being dealt with between rival groups or nations or what not, or simply incredibly useless officials. It happens, we all know it happens, and it's the same in all sports, we aren't exempt from it, and maybe we are better than some, but worse than others, I don't know, but it's not so bad that it has stopped me from playing, well, 'cept that one year.
If the scorekeeper is just a pencil jockey they can still be asked if they saw a competitor break rule and that input can be used by the RO and CRO if necessary. Better RO training would alleviate some of the issues you seem to be experiencing, most likely getting them up to the current rulebook.
I as both a competitor who has traveled extensively for matches around the world and a trained RO do find it laughable that people get so upset when people bring up criticizing of officials, some of the worst RO'ing I've ever seen has been at big matches, where it's obvious there are beefs being dealt with between rival groups or nations or what not, or simply incredibly useless officials. It happens, we all know it happens, and it's the same in all sports, we aren't exempt from it, and maybe we are better than some, but worse than others, I don't know, but it's not so bad that it has stopped me from playing, well, 'cept that one year.
To the OP, listen those involved in IPSC as officials at matches give up a lot of free time so others, including themselves, can enjoy our shooting sports. You might expect perfection but like every other life experience perfection is elusive and on balance most of us learn that as we age. Most often before we leave our teens.
My experience with IPSC is quite different from yours. All I see is a bunch of folks who give of their time so I can enjoy the sport. I am as competitive as the next guy and want to do well but I don't expect every stage to be administered perfectly so I don't notice things when they aren't. In short I wouldn't know if they weren't perfect, nor would I care to be frank. I see guys spending hours of their time setting up stages, sitting out in the hot sun all morning so they can shoot later in the afternoon and I should complain about a missed call, like really????
All that said where are all the wonky examples. So far all I have read from you is pretty petty stuff. If my toe goes over a fault line I expect to get a call so to my foot. If I don't oh well. If I have a finger in the trigger guard when not shooting I expect a DQ. If it is close and the RO at the end of the stage mentions I was close and to be careful I appreciate and act on his advice. So what are your issues. If an RO offers some advice to a new shooter to help him through the stage I appreciate the RO's efforts, tells me he cares. If that same new shooter beats me on that stage good for him. A warning before the walk through about a possible muzzle violation prevents needless safety issues and is appreciated by most. This isn't searching for a cure for Ebola or giving ones life for others it is simply a game.
From your initial post I was expecting shooting at pop cans and beer bottles and shooters hanging upside down while shooting left handed blind folded instead I get a toe over a fault line.
I don't expect to shoot every stage perfectly so I am never disappointed or down when I don't. You see I learned along time ago that life is not perfect. Once you learn that the whole experience becomes fun. Learn this. Life is pretty short.
Take Care
Bob
My experience with IPSC is quite different from yours. All I see is a bunch of folks who give of their time so I can enjoy the sport. I am as competitive as the next guy and want to do well but I don't expect every stage to be administered perfectly so I don't notice things when they aren't. In short I wouldn't know if they weren't perfect, nor would I care to be frank. I see guys spending hours of their time setting up stages, sitting out in the hot sun all morning so they can shoot later in the afternoon and I should complain about a missed call, like really????
All that said where are all the wonky examples. So far all I have read from you is pretty petty stuff. If my toe goes over a fault line I expect to get a call so to my foot. If I don't oh well. If I have a finger in the trigger guard when not shooting I expect a DQ. If it is close and the RO at the end of the stage mentions I was close and to be careful I appreciate and act on his advice. So what are your issues. If an RO offers some advice to a new shooter to help him through the stage I appreciate the RO's efforts, tells me he cares. If that same new shooter beats me on that stage good for him. A warning before the walk through about a possible muzzle violation prevents needless safety issues and is appreciated by most. This isn't searching for a cure for Ebola or giving ones life for others it is simply a game.
From your initial post I was expecting shooting at pop cans and beer bottles and shooters hanging upside down while shooting left handed blind folded instead I get a toe over a fault line.
I don't expect to shoot every stage perfectly so I am never disappointed or down when I don't. You see I learned along time ago that life is not perfect. Once you learn that the whole experience becomes fun. Learn this. Life is pretty short.
Take Care
Bob
There is no such thing as a slight safety infraction, but I do agree with you about the warnings. It's exactly why when I RO, I do not issue warnings...if you commit a safety infraction, its a DQ. If you're close to breaking 90, but its only 85 degrees, fine by me. The only exception to this is when a new shooter solicits feedback from me. The other thing here....I only DQ competitors when I am certain an infraction has occurred.
Your not too far off here....Ontario recently amended their match policy to state that all match "officials" had to be certified ROs. I would agree that a non-RO scorekeeper should maybe not be calling DQs, but it could definitely be warranted. For clarity, a IPSC RO who is acting as scorekeeper can definitely issue procedurals and DQs
I've also heard stories of competitors in BC being DQ'd by the crowd....based on their reaction to a safety violation. That I definitely agree is pretty wonky.
I would agree with you again, but not about the same thing....every match I've attended as soon as ANY part of the foot touches the ground, its a procedural. The wonky part is about 'significant' advantage which isn't defined and left to the RO (or CRO/RM) on appeal. I've seen this penalty applied incorrectly as well.
I've never seen this.....anywhere.
At the end of the day....its important to remember that ROing isn't perfect. Have you tried discussing this with your club rep? Or with the RO when one of these 'wonky' practices comes up?
I think anyone here who argues that ROs are perfect all the time and that its impossible for there to be inconsistent practices given the greatness of the rule book needs to get out a bit more. ROing should really be referred to as a practice, similar to lawyers and doctors...because the only thing that makes you better at it is practice.
How many years have you been a troll?
