In reference to the change in re-certifying Range Masters, I feel that the new requirement of having to work level II or III matches, at CRO or RM, is unfair & unnecessary. The work & effort involved in obtaining the highest rank of Range Official is, in of it's self, a significant achievement.
Once accepted, the course takes at least 1 year, sometimes more, involving all aspects of officiating. A Range Master course is only for the most dedicated CROs and invovles a considerable amount of work & study. Most RMs, like myself, have worked quite a few major tournaments. In addition to many level II, III & IV matches, I have worked 9 US National Matches, 5 as CRO. At some point, as one gets a bit older, it becomes necessary to "step back" from major matches but continue to be involved in local clubs. To "toss aside" RMs because they haven't worked a major match, where they won't necessarily see anything new or controversial, serves no constructive purpose. I suggest instead a more comprehensive re-cert exam & possibly a Range Master conference every other year. RMs should be given the respect they have earned and deserve. Respecfully, Roger L. Brown RM L-738

The instructor staff should review/approve all new classifiers to prevent ambiguities with the preceived freestyle nature of the rules. Some examples are 03-03, 03-05 & 03-09 which imply that standing in the box or area requires shooting from the box or area. If a rule or course description doesn't say I can't then I can seems to be the attitude expressed by some shooters.

I do not like the tape between strings requirement 0f 03-11. Range commands are clear that no one can move forward of the shooting area before the "Range Is Clear" command is given. This increases the time to shoot this stage far beyond what it should be. The proposed 2008 rule 9.4.2 would eliminate the need to tape between strings.

As soon as the new rules are sent to the printer NROI principals need to rewrite the certification exam so it is available as soon as the new rules become effective. The Nationals CRO' & RO's should only be selected if they have passed a new certification test.

It would be nice if the Re-Certification exam was distributed electronically or even available online. Online version would not have to be entirely multiple choice. Box for entry of the rule number and then a text box for entry of the answer. Some or all of the exam could be scored automatically thus offloading a ton of work from the USPSA staff and improving turn-around time. The grading application could tie directly into the database so updates happened as soon as grading was finished.

I agree with Roger Brown's comments concerning the RM requirements. I think we could extend the time frame out to 2 years without really harming the integrity of the program.

I also second LeRoy Patterson's comments.

In line with Roger Brown's comment, the requirment for RM's to RO at a Level II or III match is of little use. My last major match, the '05 3 Gun in Vegas, my stage had no problems or questions at all. Thus there was no "testing" of my RM skills. The shooters were (properly) focused on doing well in the match, and as long as the course was run well and consistantly, they did not care who was running them. My presence did not 'raise my visability', as, other than the shooters who already knew me, none of them knew or cared that I was a RM. There was no meeting of RM (or RO's, other than the brief pre-match meeting).
It has also become increasingly difficult to be chosen for a major match. The local clubs have so many RO's that want the experience, they usually don't have room for an "out-of-town" RM. Plus, the MD, RM, and other top positions are filled before the match is made public.
With the advances in the quality of course design, the average stage in the major matches should run without problems.

A meeting of the RM's would be an opportunity to review rules and their application, to gain insight into how others handled a particular problem or question. It would serve to increase interaction between and among the RM's.

I realize the purpose of mandating TD's and RM's to work major matches, is to insure quality, and knowledgeable staff at major matches. But people have to take care goofy things like a job, or family matters, or perhaps it's just the location of the match that deters people from going. An alternative to working a major match could be a super test so to speak. This test could be in part rules based, arbitration exercise, and stage critique.
If one can not or does not work a major match in a specified time span than they should be able to test out. But I also think it is important that at some point in time that they can only test out X number of times, then they would have to work a major match.

I can not agree with the opinions of Seth & Ken, I believe a RM needs to work at least one Level II or Level III match per year. Competitors are increasing trying to gain advantages on courses of fire, not only on each other but on course construction. Courses should be free style to solve the challenge but not to the point that if I don't go through the Cooper Tunnel until after the last shot because it isn't in the WSB that I can't then maybe this is where the Range Master is needed. There are too many scenarios seen in a match that can not be adequately explained in a written test that would not point toward the reasonable answer. Just because a stage that you are working as an RO does not present problems does not mean that they might not have been another stage that could have benefited from your knowledge & expertise. At the 2005 Race gun Nationals which had 2 RM's, the CRO's suggested several changes to the stages after they have been reviewed by the RM's. Do we really want to throw the baby in the trash can instead of putting it in a bed or the mail box?

I do think the time frame should be expanded to allow for personal commitments but not less than every other rule change. If RM's do not stay current by working matches then how is the MD for the Nationals going to have any idea if the RM he/she selects to work the match has any idea what to look for or what the WSB needs to say to make the stage run smoothly.

I am not a Range Master so my comments are from a shooters aspect.

One of the problems for RMs in some areas may be that the only Level II and higher matches are the Area matches and maybe a Nationals if they get lucky. Area 1 is a good example of this. Lots of matches, even some bigger matches, but those putting them on are disinclined for whatever reason to bump them up to Level II/III status. If there were more matches that could be worked for credit without incurring large costs; then this really isn't as much of an issue.

But discussing possible fixes for the lack of Level II and higher matches is outside of the scope of the question. Maybe this can be the next question. :-)

For full disclosure: I was the RM for a Level II in Area 1 last year and am currently enrolled in the RM program.