USPSA CRO Seminar - Day 2

The second day of the CRO seminar sponsored by ARPC started at 8:30 am and was completed by 11:30am. The three hours were as intensive as any 3 hours in the first day, and introduced some things which were familiar from my 1997 CRO seminar experience, and some new things as well.

I'll be going into more detail about the individual subjects than I did yesterday, because the subject matter is closer to the syllabus used in my original 1997 Level II seminar and as such it seemed more familiar. That class used a "work book" printed "7/15/92 7:43", and the "Director NROI" was identified as "Andy Hollar, V.P." This work book was 57 pages long; the current work book is 67 pages long and omits such sections as "welcome to the students" and "basic rules of safety".

The course material this year was designed to reflect criteria established by the 2004 USPSA Rule Book, but (again) actually uses criteria established by the (not yet 'current') 2008 USPSA Rule Book.

Comparing my experience this year with that 10 years ago provided me some perspective, and also allowed me to identify some points which I didn't find as significant then as I do now.

...

Yesterday we had been given a half-hour to rough-design stages using the 2008 rules as basic design criteria, a sample of which were then subject to analysis and discussion by the group.

Today, we were given completed design stages which had been submitted to USPSA for approval under the 2004 rule book, and we were asked to analyze and discuss them as well.

We were told by Mr. Schmidt that "some of the rules that are commonly violated in courses of fire presented for Sanction are: 1.1.5, 1.2.1 and 10.2.8". (This is, of course right out of the syllabus.) This may be taken as a guide to future course designs.

After discussing the Course Design Critique, we found that the examples included a plethora of problems, including failure to provide the minimum basic information required to set up the stage and/or minimum basic information in the Written Stage Briefing (WSB).

Arbitrations:
"Arbitrations are due to poor course design or management."
Then Mr. Schmidt announced that we would discuss Arbitrations ... and good-naturedly mentioned that he had read my blog from the previous evening and hoped that this met with my approval. Yes, it did, thank you sir.

One thing we discovered in reading Arbitration documentation is that it is important for the competitor who requested arbitration to include the actions which he would wish the Arbitration committed to take. These might include, in the case of a Match DQ: "I request reinstatement under rule 10.5.3.1 ... I request a reshoot because ...".

Since the competitor's Request for Arbitration is the document which initiates the Arbitration process, it's essential for the RO/CRO who has imposed the penalty to clearly cite all rules which apply to the original action, and to describe all circumstances which lead to imposition of the penalty.

For example, a competitor took a fall and when he stood up he didn't have his pistol in his hand. The CRO DQ'd him.

Here's the Competitor's explanation:

I slipped on the catalog coming out of the outhouse and fell. My gun and I were on the ground. I let go when I tried to get up, I couldn't. My fingers were still on the4 gun when the RO's helped me up. I cleared the gun. I maintained control of the gun until that point. The gun was not dropped. The muzzle was down range and the safety was on.

The RO's statement included (this is a summary):

The RO controlling the competitor saw the competitor fall, then saw the gun beyond his reach on the ground, muzzle pointing downrange. The RO checked to be sure the competitor was OK, preceded to have the competitor gather himself up, and asked him to unload and show clear. The RO then disqualified the competitor for unsafe gun handling, dropped firearm.

In the class evaluation, the Competitor's request was upheld.

What was not presented was a statement (missing from the summarized RO statement) that the RO picked up the handgun, and the safety was off. This information wasn't available to the Arbitration Committee, but it made all the difference in the results of the Arbitration.

...

The last part of the day's lesson was assignment of a Stage Design project for certification.

In 1997, we were required to submit one stage design (by mail) to the instructor, who would return his evaluation. A stage for a Level I match was acceptable. Generally speaking, anything which seemed 'close' was accepted (although the acceptance may ... as was the case in my submitted stage design ... be accompanied by some pithy criticism).

In 2007 we are required to submit TWO stage designs:

1) National Classification Stage: A course of fire requiring between 6 and 18 rounds.
The maximum range is 25 yards. no more than 4 Pepper poppers may be used, and barricades and props should be ones that are readily available to clubs (or ones that may be easily built). The course of fire must meet the criteria for a short, medium or long course. Scoring method may be Comstock, Virginia Count, or Fixed Time.

2) National Championship stage: A course of fire requiring between 18 and 32 rounds. The maximum range is 40 yards. Any special equipment or props must be designed and sketched out so that ordinary range crews can build them. Scoring method must be Comstock.

For each stage include score sheets, an overhead or "birds-eye view" scale drawing, a stage information form, a written stage briefing clearly stating the stage procedure and a stage work-order that lists the supplies and equipment needed for 100 shooters.

If I was impressed by these requirements, I was very impressed by the review process.

Both stage designs must be submitted for review (to the instructor), and approved, for certification to be granted.

Mr. Schmidt noted that (to date) he has not yet accepted both stages on the first review.

This is not the standard to which we were held in my 1997 class ... far from it. It's much, much more difficult, and much more likely to provide a true learning experience.

We were given a CD which included some software which we could use to create these documents. We were also advised to use MS-EZSCORE to create the required score sheets, as the provided software failed to include the Signature Lines and Time-of-Day block. Further, other computer software resources were identified if we would rather not use any of these tools.

But for the scale drawings (usually on the 'overhead' view), we were advised to use graph paper, and either snail-mail them to the instructor or scan them for email submittal.

Since I was essentially auditing the course ... I already have my CRO certification, albeit under much less rigorous standards ... I discussed my own expectations with Mr. Schmidt. Since he was likely to spend more time evaluating stage designs from this group than he did teaching the class (including travel time from and back to California from Oregon) I was reluctant to add to his burden. Or mine. We agreed that I would complete the course by submitting my two stage designs, and send them to him for critique. He would evaluate them, and send his evaluation to me for my benefit. Whether I learn from this abbreviated process is up to me, and I'll impose no more upon his time.

I admit, I'm a little relieved at not having to go through the entire process. If I haven't make myself clear, this is NOT an easy course of instruction, and the Final Exam is at least as challenging as anything I experienced in six years of college.

...

This is a seminar which I recommend most highly to anyone who has one year experience as a Range Officer. We do need to learn the new rules, and the course certainly met my hopes and expectations to meet that goal. More important, it should provide USPSA with my other hope ... Level II Range Officers who know how to design stages who are competent to meet the new, much higher standards for Stage Design.

USPSA has taken the bold and unique step forward by establishing itself as a region which has the resources and determination to a degree of independence from the International Confederation. We have asserted ourselves, and now we must meet what we perceive as a level of competence equivalent to the International standards.

This won't happen automatically. It will require a huge volunteer effort to follow up on our claims of capability. USPSA is obviously willing to provide the individual competitor, the individual clubs with the tools to meet this test of competency. The gauntlet has been cast, and it remains for the USPSA membership to take steps (make personal sacrifices) to prove that we are as good as we claim to be.

Again, if you are a Range Officer with at least one year of experience, I suggest that you seek out CRO Seminars in your area. Sign up for them, show up, do the work, pay back the sport with your unique contribution.

If you are a member of a USPSA club, contact USPSA and do whatever is necessary to host a Level II seminar. Attendees at this seminar paid only $35 each for the instruction, and nobody went away feeling cheated. *(Rather, we all went home feeling just a little bit stunned ... but full of enthusiasm.)*

_______________________________

In all good conscience, I can't close this without one more anecdote.

Mr. Schmidt, in his closing comments, mentioned that there was "one rule which I still argue with, and I can see a Blog Article coming out of this". Who could ignore such a challenge?

Rule 5.2.4: During the course of fire, unless stipulated otherwise in the stage procedure. spare ammunition, magazines and speed loading devices shall be carried in retention devices attached to the competitor's belt and specifically designed for that purpose. A competitor may also carry additional magazines or speed loading devices in his pockets and retrieve and use them without penalty once having dropped or exhausted his primary magazines. [ED: emphasis added.]

Point: no penalty is defined.

So what is the purpose and/or of this rule?

(This is left for the edification of the student.)