Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

DQ'd today


3djedi

Recommended Posts

No I don't think it's laziness about safety but I see his point.

laziness is kind of a strong way to word it, but it's one of the things I practice in the yard. I do reloads moving each direction and pay careful attention to muzzle direction.

Cha-lee has a good point about awareness too. It can be a real problem when a stage ends in a position that is facing to the side and people aren't thinking enough to face directly downrange (or otherwise pay attention to the muzzle) on ULSC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The DQ is a tough one. I pushed a little to hard at a major match this year and got myself dq'd due to a training failure on my part. I need to make it clearer during movement with long guns. I hope you can get some training in and try and correct the issue and get back to a great sport. If a break is what you need then when you come back you can refocus slow down and stay safe till your ready to run full speed. Good luck and I hope things go smoother next match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be at least one stage at a Level II or higher match that will test your gun control on the 180. They shouldn't be setup to ONLY allow you to engage a target past 180, but there will be some that are close. There was a stage at Area 6 where one of our Juniors (GM) got DQ'd. He didn't think he had passed the 180, but as his coach pointed out, "Why do you think there were 4 RO's on that stage, all watching the exact point where you broke the 180".

Know where your gun is, know when you will have a tendency to break the 180 (right to left movement with a reload), and keep the gun up while moving so you can see it. Practicing these things so you don't make this mistake again is way more important than shooting accurately. If you get kicked out of the match, it doesn't matter how well you shoot cuz you are going to have a big DQ by your name.

Never give the RO any reason to think you were close to the 180.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lazy has different meaning to different people. Inattentive may be a better word. Someone who breaks the 180 is DEFINITELY inattentive to their muzzle direction.

good point, but inattentiveness in live-fire *may* be a result of insufficient training in dry-fire. maybe due to laziness, maybe due to lack of awareness of the need for such training.

I have found that getting dq'd is a really good way to become aware of the need for incorporating various safety-tests and exercises into dry-fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another shooter finished the course, made it through ULSC, and holstered his weapon in a race holster. He moved his hand to flip the lock lever and sure enough, the gun rolled forward and to the ground. Range clear command hadn't been given... The lesson here is to always hold the gun in place while locking it down.

Been there done that one :goof: Not enough practice with a new holster and very shortly afterwards went back to bucket style

Edited by terrydoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happened to me this weekend at the Indiana Sectional.

Stage 10. Seated in chair, gun on the table. Sit down, adjust my ears, exhaling. Staring at the grip safety on the gun. Just staring it down. Focused. Only thing in my vision. Leaning forward in the chair, ready to pounce. Standby. This is it, my muscles tense just a little bit in preparation to leap forward. Beep!

Off I go, hand flying to the gun, legs launching out of the chair, moving to the left of the table. And my eyes moving to the first target, right there. Gun in my hand.. Wait.. not in my hand. gun turning sideways.. 45 degrees to the right. Brain firing signals to my legs, stop!, momentum carrying me forward. Gun still rotating to the right. It' in my hand now, i get it pointed somewhat downrange, I'm staring at it.

STOP!

I freeze.

Looking at the gun, well it's pointed uprange now. But I know what's coming.

Unload show clear. Almost drop the gun getting it back in my holster. That would have sucked, but would have been icing on the cake.

RO was more than gracious. The whole staff running the stage was extremely professional. I think they were expecting me to fight it more. I'm sure they were expecting it. Not necessary, I'll own it. I screwed up.

Luckily it was the next to last stage. I did take about 5 minutes to put my stuff away, collect my thoughts, but I stayed to paste.

Looking back, the 0.2 seconds I "gained" to get a look at that first target, cost me the match. Next time watch my hand all the way to the gun. Use both hands. Plenty of time to find the target after I have a grip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't funny how bad scenes play themselves over and over in slow motion? It took me a day or so to get over my only DQ and then reconstruct the scene so that I understood it at depth. In doing so I isolated the components of the failure which included a new holster that hadn't been dialed into brain cells. When the excitement hits, muscle and involuntary memory kick in to replicate time honoured movements. The trouble is that they don't apply if you change equipment and slow down until the new patterns are imbedded. In the end it was my new holster and totally operator error. In our games everything including screwup happen in 100's of a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next match ask for a show of hands of people who have DQd. In a normal group, less than half. Saying everyone does it eventually trivializes it, not enhances safety at all!

I'll bet that if you did a survey of GMs, most have been DQ'd at least once.

I don't think it's true that it "trivializes" it. It shows that it CAN happen to anyone. The "it can't happen to me" attitude is FAR more of a danger than the "it happens to everyone" attitude is. As long as nobody got shot, it's a learning experience.

As I said before, it CAN happen to anyone, and Rob Leatham being DQ's at Singlestack a couple of years ago is proof. He caught the muzzle of his gun on a prop and it stripped it from his hand. I watched Shane Coely come VERY close to a DQ at Area 5 this year. He slipped and fell, but thankfully he maintained control of his gun and the muzzle. If experienced GMs with world titles can DQ, that means it's not from unsafe or poor gun handling skills. Sometimes, crap just happens.

I've been DQ'd twice. Once for an AD while changing from strong to weak hand, and once because I slipped and fell, and the gun came loose from my holster, (hadn't even drawn yet.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't the guy mentioned earlier, but I also DQ'd without firing a shot at a match. It was a Memorial Match for a Navy Seal and the start position was standing, but bent over with your hands in a cooler of ice water holding a mask and fins.

I did NOT put my race holster on half-lock and right at the beep, my leg twitched and the gun tumbled to the ground. Rules are rules, and no bitchin.

I stayed for the match, and actually worked the stats shack and compiled everyone else's scores for that match.

And I was in his squad when it happened. Since Trent is a stand-up guy, it turned out to be an operationally beneficial DQ for the Match Director since the stats people got some much needed help that day. It was also a good learning experience for me as a new shooter since it reminded me to be extra careful when it came to non-traditional stage starts.

I almost followed Trent in joining the stats team for that match also. I came very close to a 180 DQ and it slowed me down for the rest of the day because I was extra cautious on the rest of the stages for the match. The RO was nice enough to take me aside and let me know how close I came and after apologizing profusely, I just made my goal for the rest of the day to work extra hard on just completing the match safely. So it certainly did impact my performance for that day (and I'd slow my pace down again in a similar situation today), but it didn't deter me from continuing to shoot.

Since then I've seen all sorts of people DQ for various reasons including some who are very skilled and safety conscious shooters. I haven't seen anything catastrophic, but that's one of the nice things about the USPSA rules. Your day can come to a pretty quick end even with a "minor" safety violation in USPSA and that drives people being extra careful.

Who knows if I'll DQ at some point, but if I do, I'll make the appropriate apologies to the RO, MD, and others, do the walk of shame to my car to secure my stuff, and volunteer however I can to help the match move forward whether it's doing stats work like Trent did or just patching for my squad. Then I'll be back for the next match hopefully a bit wiser than when I last shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being DQd, and any form of safety violation, isn't trivial. But until we have some stats to back it up, to simply throw out the "there are two types of shooters - those who have DQd and those who will" sounds like wisdom, but isn't. It doesn't help anyone.

To recognize that DQs can happen to anyone is useful, and it reminds all of us that we should be constantly vigilant. It's okay to notice that even GMs get DQd, but don't forget that they're pushing the limits pretty hard, taking chances, balancing risk vs. payoff. It's kind of like pointing to news articles about some goofball hurting someone with a gun and saying we should ban all guns (oops - that's already happening!).

At the Indiana Sectional last weekend there were about 10 DQs among 338 shooters (2.96%), and I'm told that 180s outnumber other issues by about 2:1. That's data, and it supports the idea that we need to keep an eye on the 180, and also keep track of the other causes.

(Also, there were 338 shooters, 17 stages, about 5750 individual runs, and at least 126,000 rounds fired. That's a pretty fine safety statistic...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next match ask for a show of hands of people who have DQd. In a normal group, less than half. Saying everyone does it eventually trivializes it, not enhances safety at all!

I'll bet that if you did a survey of GMs, most have been DQ'd at least once.

I don't think it's true that it "trivializes" it. It shows that it CAN happen to anyone. The "it can't happen to me" attitude is FAR more of a danger than the "it happens to everyone" attitude is. As long as nobody got shot, it's a learning experience.

As I said before, it CAN happen to anyone, and Rob Leatham being DQ's at Singlestack a couple of years ago is proof. He caught the muzzle of his gun on a prop and it stripped it from his hand. I watched Shane Coely come VERY close to a DQ at Area 5 this year. He slipped and fell, but thankfully he maintained control of his gun and the muzzle. If experienced GMs with world titles can DQ, that means it's not from unsafe or poor gun handling skills. Sometimes, crap just happens.

Agreed. It CAN happen to anyone. My point was to not trivialize it by labeling it as some right of passage or saying that "everyone does it"...so it must be okay...that is a dangerous thought process.

But that is the beauty of the layered safety approach which USPSA has, some want to reduce and some outlaws matches don't have, one mistake is a DQ, not an extra hole, or death. When I have issued DQs to GMs, there has been a polite "sorry" and they move on. It is the new shooter who wants to argue it that concerns me more.

I have been hired professionally on well over 100 fatal cases, several of them firearms accidents. In NONE of those cases was there a singular failure or safety violation, it was multiples. Usually errors in judgement combined with a failed safety or ignoring a warning are what results in a fatality. If you think long and hard about the USPSA safety rules, you will see that the intent is to DQ a shooter before they violate one of the 4 laws of gun safety, not during or afterwards. Casual shooters do not have this benefit, so when they start competition, their thought process needs to be altered. The layered safety approach is the best, and that is what results in the excellent track record of USPSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being DQd, and any form of safety violation, isn't trivial. But until we have some stats to back it up, to simply throw out the "there are two types of shooters - those who have DQd and those who will" sounds like wisdom, but isn't. It doesn't help anyone.

To recognize that DQs can happen to anyone is useful, and it reminds all of us that we should be constantly vigilant. It's okay to notice that even GMs get DQd, but don't forget that they're pushing the limits pretty hard, taking chances, balancing risk vs. payoff. It's kind of like pointing to news articles about some goofball hurting someone with a gun and saying we should ban all guns (oops - that's already happening!).

At the Indiana Sectional last weekend there were about 10 DQs among 338 shooters (2.96%), and I'm told that 180s outnumber other issues by about 2:1. That's data, and it supports the idea that we need to keep an eye on the 180, and also keep track of the other causes.

(Also, there were 338 shooters, 17 stages, about 5750 individual runs, and at least 126,000 rounds fired. That's a pretty fine safety statistic...)

I'm personally aware of 4 of the DQ's at Indiana. The one described in this thread, one draw before the Make Ready command, one dropped pistol while reholstering, and one 180 violation. We also warned squads on my stage to be very mindful because we had multiple people with muzzles at about 179.95°.

All in all, yes, a pretty good statistic - but one that we all can strive to improve even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also warned squads on my stage to be very mindful because we had multiple people with muzzles at about 179.95°.

Did you warn every squad or did you start after you saw the first Close 180?

When I am CRO on a stage I try to see the danger points and add some verbiage to the stage briefing with the RM's approval. If I didn't catch the spot before the first squad it's not fair / legal to warn them. Everybody should get the same stage brief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I am CRO on a stage I try to see the danger points and add some verbiage to the stage briefing with the RM's approval. If I didn't catch the spot before the first squad it's not fair / legal to warn them. Everybody should get the same stage brief.

Exactly. Yes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also warned squads on my stage to be very mindful because we had multiple people with muzzles at about 179.95°.

Did you warn every squad or did you start after you saw the first Close 180?

When I am CRO on a stage I try to see the danger points and add some verbiage to the stage briefing with the RM's approval. If I didn't catch the spot before the first squad it's not fair / legal to warn them. Everybody should get the same stage brief.

Hm. So----a common safety issue shows up, but you feel that further squads should not be apprised of this safety issue?

I agree that the stage brief should be the same for all squads. I also think that specifics regarding _safety_ can be added is there is significant data showing a continuing issue that can be addressed. After all, we aren't telling shooters how to shoot the stage, or how to better shoot the stage---we are telling them to be safe on the stage.

Adding a specific of "please watch your 180 as you move around the corner" is very different from "when you go from this point to this point, do this." If I've had three people slip on the grass at a corner and hit their gun on a wall, resulting in DQs, I'm going say to all the next squads "the grass is very slippery, watch your footing and control your muzzle" not because I'm trying to help their match scores, but because I don't want any more safety issues on my stage. I'm not worried about DQs, I'm worried about people getting shot.

I realize opinions vary, and I'd much prefer to not do such---as such, like people have said, looking the stage over beforehand, figuring issue points, and addressing them initially by making them a standard part of the stage briefing is a FAR preferred thing to do.

It just doesn't always work out that way, and saying that the stage brief is set in stone isn't correct, IMO. I'm NOT saying you can randomly change whatever you like, and I'm certainly not saying you can make any changes to the substantive facts of the stage brief without RM approval, and I'm definitely not saying you should tell shooters what to do at various parts of the stage.

I'm simply saying that if there is a continuing safety issue, addressing it as part of the stage briefing prior to having an accident is allowed.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you give "additional" information to subsequent squads, you are no longer presenting a consistent WSB. It is incumbent upon the competitors to plan and negotiate the course of fire. If you DQ the first two shooters due to "bad course design" and then subsequently warn everyone else, you skew the dataset that a RM might look at, or even an arb committee might look at. If a shooter goes with a risky plan, then that is his plan, not your job to alter stage plans based on your opinion or perception. Additionally, you did not give those first two competitors that information that might have saved them. Will they then be re-instated based on arb? If it is "that bad" your only course of action should be to notify the RM.

I tell my staff to read the WSB verbatim. IF it needs to be changed, then re-shoots might be in order. However, I also tell my staff that if a competitor asks a question, as long as the "Make Ready" command has not been issued, they must answer truthfully. In some cases, by reading the WSB. But if a competitor asks an RO if anyone DQ'd, then that RO should answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm simply saying that if there is a continuing safety issue, addressing it as part of the stage briefing prior to having an accident is allowed.

Thoughts?

thomas, your point is very reasonable at a level1 match, and that's how I address it there. An area or national match is different. All competitors are assumed to be competent and all competitors expect a fair and equitable presentation of the shooting challenges. Changing the WSB or adding additional information into it makes that NOT fair and equitable IMHO, even tho I really wanted to do it after we had dq'd 3-4 people on an uprange start that had a couple steps laterally before the first position. I got a little tired of looking down the barrel of open guns with ultralight triggers.

For sure tho, word got around, and by the 2nd day of the match we were seeing alot of top competitors turn completely around before even starting to remove the gun from the holster (and there was plenty of time to do that on the way to the shooting position). We also had some competitors asking about what we were looking for, so we simply explained the issue.

The key tho is the experience to recognize a potential issue like that and train for it at your local matches and make sure all the folks you normally shoot with on the weekends are held to the same standards as at a bigger match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you give "additional" information to subsequent squads, you are no longer presenting a consistent WSB. It is incumbent upon the competitors to plan and negotiate the course of fire. If you DQ the first two shooters due to "bad course design" and then subsequently warn everyone else, you skew the dataset that a RM might look at, or even an arb committee might look at. If a shooter goes with a risky plan, then that is his plan, not your job to alter stage plans based on your opinion or perception. Additionally, you did not give those first two competitors that information that might have saved them. Will they then be re-instated based on arb? If it is "that bad" your only course of action should be to notify the RM.

I tell my staff to read the WSB verbatim. IF it needs to be changed, then re-shoots might be in order. However, I also tell my staff that if a competitor asks a question, as long as the "Make Ready" command has not been issued, they must answer truthfully. In some cases, by reading the WSB. But if a competitor asks an RO if anyone DQ'd, then that RO should answer.

Hm. I don't recall saying anything about "bad course design". Nor did I say anything about a risky plan. Nor did I say anything about giving plan ideas. (Matter of fact, I specifically said not doing that.)

I said, making a comment about range conditions related to safety (not plan, not how to run the stage, not how to deal with the range conditions) given a data set showing safety issues, is not changing the fair and equitable presentation of the stage.

Isn't my primary job to help ensure the safety of the participants? Why yes, it is:

As a USPSA Range Officer, I shall conduct all competitions with the safety of the competitors, spectators and fellow Range Officials first and foremost in my thoughts and actions.

{snip}

Safety shall always be my primary goal, with efficiency and speed of the competition as secondary factors.

If three people have already slipped on the grass this morning and had muzzle control issues, whether moving slow or fast, and short of moving around with a blow dryer to dry everything off there is no cure for this, YOU are saying that as part of the WSB saying that "the grass is slippery, watch your footing and control your muzzle" is somehow giving a competitive advantage to someone, and this is more important than the safety issue as presented?

An area or national match is different. All competitors are assumed to be competent and all competitors expect a fair and equitable presentation of the shooting challenges. Changing the WSB or adding additional information into it makes that NOT fair and equitable IMHO, even tho I really wanted to do it after we had dq'd 3-4 people on an uprange start that had a couple steps laterally before the first position. I got a little tired of looking down the barrel of open guns with ultralight triggers.

And if you tell people to run the stage differently, that is a problem. Obviously that is offering stage plan advice, and should not be done by any RO or CRO.

I'll note that is separate from what I was saying.

Again:

"I'm NOT saying you can randomly change whatever you like, and I'm certainly not saying you can make any changes to the substantive facts of the stage brief without RM approval, and I'm definitely not saying you should tell shooters what to do at various parts of the stage.

I'm simply saying that if there is a continuing safety issue, addressing it as part of the stage briefing prior to having an accident is allowed."

Are you saying that continual safety issues cannot be addressed to later squads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. So----a common safety issue shows up, but you feel that further squads should not be apprised of this safety issue?

I agree that the stage brief should be the same for all squads. I also think that specifics regarding _safety_ can be added is there is significant data showing a continuing issue that can be addressed. After all, we aren't telling shooters how to shoot the stage, or how to better shoot the stage---we are telling them to be safe on the stage.

Adding a specific of "please watch your 180 as you move around the corner" is very different from "when you go from this point to this point, do this." If I've had three people slip on the grass at a corner and hit their gun on a wall, resulting in DQs, I'm going say to all the next squads "the grass is very slippery, watch your footing and control your muzzle" not because I'm trying to help their match scores, but because I don't want any more safety issues on my stage. I'm not worried about DQs, I'm worried about people getting shot.

I realize opinions vary, and I'd much prefer to not do such---as such, like people have said, looking the stage over beforehand, figuring issue points, and addressing them initially by making them a standard part of the stage briefing is a FAR preferred thing to do.

It just doesn't always work out that way, and saying that the stage brief is set in stone isn't correct, IMO. I'm NOT saying you can randomly change whatever you like, and I'm certainly not saying you can make any changes to the substantive facts of the stage brief without RM approval, and I'm definitely not saying you should tell shooters what to do at various parts of the stage.

I'm simply saying that if there is a continuing safety issue, addressing it as part of the stage briefing prior to having an accident is allowed.

Thoughts?

<<Hm. So----a common safety issue shows up, but you feel that further squads should not be apprised of this safety issue?>>

If the CRO is doing their job, this should not happen. Take the time to look hard at a stage when you get there. If you add to the stage brief after the first squad is done you have given an advantage to the rest of the shooters in the match. I have seen stages tossed for less. If the stage is not safe, call the RM and let them decide. They at least need to know what is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...