ivanhu

Actually, I just cannot understand it. It basically says, if an AD occurs which is not DQable, then it's an "exception" if it was caused by the breakage of the gun. OK, I could live with that, but exception to what? 10.4.1-7 won't be used anyhow. Don't even mention the fact, that strictly speaking, as it is today, it says that the DQ cannot be called if the shooter has not committed the "10.4.8 - not applicable" safety infraction of this section either. (IMHO that "any safety infraction in this Section" includes the 10.4.7 as well). But this is just lawyering, and I wouldn't do that if it was the only problem. Either the 10.4.9 is useless, and should be deleted, or should be reworded so that it would be a real exception to some rules. I really cannot say in English what I don't understand; maybe this rule means something for a native English speaker, but nothing for me. I have no strong feelings either pro or con, I just want to understand what to do if a broken gun discharges. Be it rare or not, it has happened last weekend, and being the RM, I was asked to rule. One day I might have been asked again.

Troy, but that is the problem. If the competitor has a discharge which doesn't covered by the 10.4 section, then it isn't a DQ anyhow. The exception doesn't make any sense in this case. Just read what you wrote, I'll change the wording a bit to make it more clear: If the shooter has a discharge which is not DQable under the 10.4 section, then he is not DQed provided the gun is indeed broken... More closely to your words: if he has a discharge, ... but doesn't break any of the rules concerning ADs, then he is not DQed ... . Apparently true, isn't it? Why the exception to, then? As for pointing the gun over the berm, the same goes for pointing the gun within 3 meters. In both cases, if there's a discharge, the shooter is DQed. Now the question is, what if the discharge has happened due to the broken gun? If you think that shooting over the berm is more dangerous (which in many cases is apparently true), then I'd suggest another rule into the unsafe gun handling section - pointing the muzzle over the berm or backstop is DQable offense. In this case, regardless whether it has happened due to the broken gun, it's still DQ under the unsafe gun handling section. But it also means a more strict ruling than what we have today (although IMHO it also means more safety, so it could be argued for). If someone still thinks it's too strict, then one further term "and the gun discharges" might be added.

Hi guys, now that I have two answers, let me ask another question. Suppose I DQ someone on the main match. He won't shoot any other stage of the main match. So far, so good. After the main match is over, the side match, sponsored by one of the match sponsors, starts. a, this side match was announced in the match announcement. Are the DQed shooters entitled to start, or not? b, this side match was not announced, it was decided only when the main match was almost over. Are the DQed shooters entitled to start, or not? More generally, 10.3.1 says "... and will be prohibited from attempting any remaining courses of fire in that match ..." - so the questions are: is the side match "in that match", or not? Is the shoot-off "in that match", or not?

Thank you both, that's exactly the way I thought it should be. So basically, if the shooter claims he shoot at the targets, while the RO says he didn't, then the word of the RO stands. Kinda like breaking the angles, finger in, and all those. Thanks for making me certain.

Oh, I understand it now. If it is the intent of this rule, then I'll act accordingly. Thanks for clarifying, and I am awaiting your final word in this. THX!

Yup, the RO didn't see the finger in the trigger - the gun (and the hit) was covered by the shooter's body. The other RO (scorekeeper) saw only where the bullet hit the ground. We also came into this conclusion. However, this particular shooter is well known to "file" his guns like hell sometimes... But he already shot some eight stages without any problem. The shooter didn't lower the gun, he just cycled the slide. That's still "clearing the malfunction", all right, but the gun pointed (almost) at the targets - it was turned only by what is necessary to cycle the slide. I'm still not happy. A shot has happened when the shooter was trying to engage targets within 3 meters. He is not obliged to remove his finger if he doesn't lower the gun. He made two safety infractions - AD for hitting the ground, and AD for shooting while "clearing malfunctions". But it's the same event. If hitting the ground has happened due to the breakage - then 10.4.9 rules. If shooting while clearing malfunctions has happened due to the breakage - then 10.4.9 rules. If both has happened due to the breakage - then 10.4.9 doesn't rule? I'm still confused. Actually, in this particular case, the shooter said that he had the gun problem, but he left the COF (just a few meters away, but he left) without offering his gun for inspection, therefore the DQ was upheld. But I still feel obliged to find out how to interpret this rule, as one day I might need this knowledge...

The rule says "except when shooting at a paper target closer than 3 meters". Fine. The shooter stands in a position, and shoots. The bullet hits the ground only two meters away. There is a visible target from that position which is only 2.5 meters away. So the question is - was he "shooting at a paper target", or not? How many centimeters could he miss the target under? And on the sides? Suppose that the direction of the targets and the direction of the actual shot meets in approx 25 degrees. What if it was 45? What if it was just 5? At all - you be the RO, what is your call?

Gentlemen, I have a question. Actually, more questions, but one at a time. How should I interpret this rule? It starts "Exception: "... then, right in the first sentence, it also says "... and the competitor has not committed any safety infraction in this Section..." Now I'm a bit confused. The rules seem to give exception to the DQable offences in this section, but only if the shooter hasn't committed any safety infraction in this section - that is, if this section (including 10.4.9) shouldn't be called anyhow. So how should I interpret this rule? Here's why I ask it. Shooter was approx 1 to 1.5 meters away from two low targets. His gun failed to shoot. He cycled the slide, and the gun went off. The bullet hit the ground in approx 2, perhaps 3 feet from the shooter. He was DQed - 10.4.2 accidental discharge (hit the ground within 3 meters), 10.4.4 accidental discharge (shot occuring during clearing malfunction). He didn't lower the handgun, but moved it a bit away from the target as he cycled the slide. The shooter claimed gun malfunction. The gun was checked - the hammer was able go down accidentally (twice out of ten attempts) when the slide was cycled fast. It was a 1911 clone. First question - was it an "actual breakage of the part of the gun?" After the gun was cleared and the spring fastened, the hammer no longer escorted down the slide. Second question - if it indeed was a breakage, the DQ still stands, because the shooter actually committed safety infractions in this Section (10.4). This is the way I should understand this 10.4.9 rule? Please help me to sort it out. TIA!

Listen, first of all, I know what are the possible readings on the chrono, and I made the math. Two decimal places is not meaningless - we have three readings, we sum them up, then divide them by 3. That might result an infinite line of decimals, and it might mean life or death how many of these decimals I use when I further multiply this average by the weight. Since the readings are the same for all, therefore, we must deal with those readings. I don't care whether the chrono rounds up to the nearest thousand, as long as it does it consistently. I don't care whether the shooter's ammo is really 125, or just 124.8 or 125.9, were I use very expensive tools to measure its speed. All I care is that I want a consistent way, which is the same for all, to calculate the PF. Whether it says 5 above for all, or 4 below, I don't really care. Some might suffer if they were that close to the limit. So what? Next time they won't push the envelope. Once more. I don't want space science to ensure that the PF we calculate is absolutely accurate up to 10 decimal places. All I want is a consistent method, which treats all of the competitors equally. Hope you understand now. Just as you cannot say "oh, but with my chrono it made the PF", you also cannot say that "using those high precisity expensive laboratory radar tools, the ammo would make the PF". I cannot explain it more clearly.

Well, IMHO if you're going to make it faster, and don't want to wait a second to visually confirm, then you have two ways. One, trust yourself that you hit it properly. That is, ability to call your shots. Other, use hotter loads. Noone forces you to use exactly 125 pf either, you might as well choose 132... You want and easily controllable gun (hence the light load), and allevience on the power factor aware reactive targets (hence the lighter setup). Sorry, it just cannot go on both ways.

I couldn't care less. First, it's the same for all. Second, the chrono is far less accurate than that even on the same day, depending on the time; therefore, while it makes sense to me trying to eliminate the diversity the circumstances mean, it doesn't make much sense to correct one problem on the unproper way. Third, all the shooter should've had to do is to load his rounds a bit hotter. If he's going to be this close, he deserves the penalty. Next time he'll know better. For your problem the only solution could be to add 1 fps to each reading above 999, because the bullet might be faster than the showed reading. That's a kind of compensation I don't really like, taking counter-actions because of considerations. Sorry, I still cannot buy your reasoning to use rounding in order to eliminate one supposedly unfair feature of the chrono. Increase the reading by one, and be happy with that - that's the only solution to your problem IMHO. Correcting the makings by artificial ways, that's kinda like socializm. On the surface it sounds well, but when you're in it - nope, you don't really wanna know...

I disagree. The steel is one of the elements that recognize power. As such, it should be easier for the major pf-ed shooters than for the minor pf-ed ones. Alleviating how hardly they set means lessening the difference between the minor and the major. Remember, we do not have chronos on most of the matches (L1/L2 club matches), while in most matches we have a calibration gun and ammo available. The rules give +/- 5% allowance for the calibration ammo; that is, 131.25 is the biggest allowed factor. IMHO it's quite fair.

Why unsupportable? The question is, how much diversity we're going to eliminate mathematically. Suppose I have two shooters. Bullet weight is the same: 124.9 grains. The velocities: 1002 fps, 999.1 fps, and 1001 fps for the first shooter; 1002 fps, 999.5 fps, and 1001 fps for the second shooter. That is, the average velocity (rounded up to one digit): 1000.7 fps, and 1000.8 fps. From that, the calculated pfs: first shooter: 124.9874 - rounded to two significant digits: 124.99; second shooter: 124.9999 - rounded to two significant digits: 125.00. Therefore, the first shoots for no score (pf 124,99), and the other is scored minor (125,00). What's wrong with that? After all, the velocity is the average of three speeds. That for me means that one of the shooters loaded his bullets slightly hotter (or was just luckier on the chrono stage). But these are the chrono readings. We might debate how wide the gap should be; that is, how many significant digits we might allow. The less we allow, the bigger differences it eliminates. But why should we eliminate it on the first place? What you're trying to do is to eliminate the affects of the different temperature, whatever. Would it be 1 significant digit, the second velocity of the first shooter might be 998.3 fps to shoot for no score, and any higher would do. Would it be 0 significant decimal place (that is, round number), the second velocity might be 987.3 to shoot for no score, and any higher would do. That is, using 2 significant digits, we eliminate approx 0.1 fps differences; using 1 significant digit, we eliminate approx 1 fps differences; using 0 significant decimal place, we eliminate approx 10 fps difference. I have no problem with the first; even the third won't eliminate the affects of the temperature, humidity, etc. changes (multi-day matches we have), while the first resembles most the current system. Further, I don't understand that "zero somebody shooting what the calculator says is 125.01" part, please clarify.

Jim usually have no proposals but sharp criticism , but let me give you mine. IMHO, it must be determined how we use the scale readings, and how we use the chrono readins. These are the areas what should be addressed first and foremost, as this is where the chrono guy would have the most freedom. My proposal: readings must be rounded up to the first decimal number (if there were more), and should be used so. Whether we'll round/truncate the number we get after some maths with those readings, makes not much difference. If we allow one decimal digit both for the velocity and the weight, then the final result may have five decimal digits at most. I'd say round it up to two decimal digits, and use it that way. 164.99 is minor, period. What's wrong with that?

First of all, we must identify the problem. Someone said that the problem is, the same ammo will be different in Italy than in Germany. Well, IMHO it's a non-issue. All we have to ensure is that it must be consistent throughout one particular match only. If we agree, then all the rule book has to deal with is to ensure that. Therefore, the "Rool Buke" should say (among the description of thechrono procedure) something like this: x.y.z. The measured bullet weights and speeds might be rounded. The MD must declare before the match starts that how many significant digits will be used after the decimal point. This decision must be posted. x.y.z.1. In case of the bullet weight, no more than 2 (two) significant digits are allowed after the decimal point. x.y.z.2. In case of the bullet velocity, maximum one significant digit is allowed after the decimal point if the speed is less than 1000 fps, and zero if it is greater. x.y.z.3. When rounding is used, then the first digit after the last significant one determines the final number: if it is between 0 to 4, then the last significant digit be unchanged; if it is between 5 to 9, the last significant digit be increased by one. It doesn't really matter whether the chosen method will screw someone or not. The only that matters is whether it is the same for all or not. Just my 0.2

There's no need to prove. All I have to say, the shooter take five shots, there are four metals down and two holes on the paper - and that's six hits. Five shots cannot make six hits - therefore, there's one extra hit, and it's not obvious which one was the extra. And right because the RO watches the shooter and the gun, he can count the shots. This option is excluded - the targets were visible only from that position. Are you going to say that the ROs shouldn't ever apply extra shot penalties on the Virginia scoring stages? If not, then what's the difference? But then, as far as I see, that's a range equipment failure. See 4.3.1.5. Hmm, I feel this statement a bit extraordinary. The RO has the full power the DQ someone, saying that the finger was in during movement, without the constraint of PROVE, but he has no right to order a reshoot without PROVING that it was only five shots and not six?

Hmmm, someone already asked that, and I'd like to ask it again. If the RO is trusted to count the shots on a Virginia scoring stage, then why he isn't trusted to count the shots on a Comstock scoring stage? Also, may the RO use the 9.1.4 rule here? This is the part that might apply: or if there are extra scoring or questionable penalty hits thereon - and since the RO counted five shots, but there are six hits, therefore one of the hits is "extra" - and it is not obvious to the Range Officer which hits were made by the competitor being scored.

No DQ. The LAMR command authorizes the shooter to handle his gun, and the DQ stands for unauthorized gun handling only. Last time I've checked I didn't see a "premature draw and/or shoot" DQ. And yes, after the LAMR command the RO is better to watch the shooter - that's why he's there.

This is not an answer for Garfield; this is a message to all who keeps eyes on this thread. Actually, the shooter didn't "walk" - he run like hell, as he was going to do the practice run once more. I don't think that in the given situation, anybody would have been able to stop him in time; in fact, I cried "stop" within my reaction time (less than a second), but that time he already was at the opening. My mistake was that I didn't DQ the guy immediately. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. That's why I share the story - just that the gun is out of sight, the RO must know where it is, must keep in mind it's location, and must act accordingly. Of course I knew that the gun is in the briefcase - but didn't realized that the shooter is before the loaded gun, because I didn't see the gun. This won't happen again with me. Just that the gun is placed on a fixed object, sefety engaged, and noone can handle it, doesn't mean that it's safe once it's loaded. The lesson I've learnt: When the shooter put down the gun, and closed the briefcase, my main attention was shifted from the gun to the shooter. In other words, I no longer concentrated on the gun. After all, it was in a closed briefcase, noone could touch it - so it's relatively safe until the shooter grabs it back. But it's just an illusion, and a bad mistake. The loaded gun is always a potential danger, and must be treated with respect. We must do everything possible to increase the number of things that must happen at the same time for an accident to happen. The more such things we have, the safety is higher. Therefore, the RO must always concentrate on the gun, and he shouldn't allow his attention to be shifted to anywhere else. Apparently, he also must control the shooter, and the attention must be on the shooter too, but it must be 50-50%, and the fact that the gun is out of sight (or holstered) doesn't mean that the RO could change this rate - it must be 50-50% always. For me, it's not a question whether it's unsafe to run before the loaded gun or not. IMHO, the answer is yes, it is unsafe. That was the reason I DQed the guy. Later, the RM also found out that the shooter was more than one meter away, so then he saw two reasons to upheld the DQ. When I DQed the guy, I based my decision on the fact that he ran before the loaded gun, and AFAIK, that was the main argument of the RM, too. Well, we might argue whether it's really unsafe or not. It's not among the examples of the unsafe gun handling, that's true - yet, those are examples. Unless it ever will be specifically allowed by the rules, I will DQ anybody who tries to run before his loaded gun, and will let the RM and the Arbitration Committee debate over the case. If you are going to argue that it's safe and I shouldn't DQ the shooter if he does so, please also answer this simple question: were you the MD or the RM, would you mention in the match booklet that placing the loaded gun (a round is chambered) with safety engaged on a fix object and run before the muzzle is specifically allowed?

Nay, Jim, just put it on your side, and you'll be safe and never be DQed because of that. Well, IMHO we shouldn't allow the gun to point at one's body ever in the first place. It won't, as long as he wears the holster on his side. Apparently - but why should we allow to wear them in front of the hipbone?

Jim, I scored many matches (well over a hundred) of different levels - matches with four to sixteen stages, with 30 to 150 shooters. In most cases, right after the start I entered the stage profiles, then registered the shooters, and finally entered the scores. Each and every time the scores were entered within five minutes after the last shot. In most cases, I had to wait for the last few score sheets, so it was me waiting for the ROs, and not vice versa. Therefore, it's quite possible to prepare the results in time. (Oh, and I did that all alone in most cases, and I was the guy collecting the score sheets, too.) The Palm Scoring System is fine, but the pricing is not that friendly, and I wasn't sure that the Palm OS was the way to go either. I understand that the development process was very costly, and that money is wanted to be back - yet, I hardly could find even one club here in Hungary that can afford the price of the Palms + the program licenses just to score six stages.

Spending two days on that stage, let me object. To start with, the "table" was securely fixed to the ground, and the briefcase was securely fixed to the table. However, the lid of the briefcase was able to open up to 90 degrees only. When the shooters, in a hurry, threw up the lid, it stopped and comed back with quite a speed, and it might hit the hand and/or the gun of the shooter. If you as the stage designer/builder have a choice, never do that, and choose a briefcase that opens fully. As a matter of fact, there was another DQ because the lid came back quite heavily and as the consequence, the gun was fallen. Second, some kept the lid open with their weak hand - that's a potential sweeping trap which IMHO is better to be prevented, and even a fully opening briefcase won't prevent that. Third, since the distance from the table to the barricade was rather small, the RO was unable to follow the shooter close enough sometimes - and he cannot tell in advance whether he'll be able to remain close or not. (That table blocks the RO's way quite effectively). Fortunately, there was enough room between the table and the chair, but I had to watch my step many times - which of course removed some attention from the gun, and that's exactly what we shouldn't ever allow. Well, perhaps it's not the fundamental problem with the concept, but I'll build these kind of stages very differently in the future, that's sure.

Apparently. That was because, as soon as the gun was placed in the briefcase and the briefcase was closed, my attention was shifted from the gun towards the shooter. That's exactly the lesson I've learnt - always, I mean always, even if the gun is hidden somewhere, the biggest part of my attention should be on the gun.

This weekend I was officiating, and on my stage, I had to DQ someone. To start with, I actually made a mistake that I'm going to share - perhaps it'll help you to avoid the similar mistake one day. Stage construction: a chair and a table, and approx. 1.5 meters forward a barricade with an opening in its middle. Starting position: sitting on the chair, gun is in the briefcase, briefcase closed, hands are on the knees. (Since not declared otherwise, the gun is in ready condition). The targets were visible from the two sides of the barricade, and through the opening. The shooter appeared, and I gave him the LAMR command. He loaded the gun, put it in the briefcase, closed the briefcase, and sat down. After a few seconds he stood up, and started a test run, practicising how he's going to shoot the stage, so he run to the right corner of the barricade, then towards the opening, when I cried stop. (It was some five or six steps, and happened very quickly.) He came back, and sat down again. At this point, I memorized that I have to give him a warning, for leaving the start position without permission. So I continued with the command chain, and let him shoot the stage. After scoring, but before signing the score sheet, I told him that he left the starting position - and at that time, I realized that he actually ran before the loaded gun. Therefore, I declared a DQ. The shooter was going to argue, but I told him that he should argue with the RM, and I must notify the RM anyhow. To finish the story, the DQ was upheld - the shooter not just run before the loaded gun, but also was farther than 1 meters away from the loaded gun during the COF. The shooter protested that he just stepped to the right to check the targets, and didn't run before the gun, but the assistant RO saw him to run before the gun, too - and whatever the CRO and the RO of the stage states concordantly is true for the RM. Were I realize earlier that the shooter run before the loaded gun, I would have spared some hot debate, and bad feelings. Why didn't I realized it earlier? That I cannot tell absolutely sure, but I guess it was because the gun was out of sight, in the closed briefcase. And this is the conclusion that I was going to share with you all. I've learnt from the case, and now the story is yours.

Pretty much sums it up, but I've seen a lot of problems due to negligent corrections, so lemme add a few more: - always check whether the name of the shooter appears on the score sheet. Best practice is to call the shooter by name right before the LAMR command. That'll help the RO to avoid recording the score on someone else's score sheet, too. - if you're going to wind your way into the heart of the SO, you might as well check whether the competitor's number is recorded... (this one is optional) - if you made a mistake and have to correct a target row, always, I mean always repeat the correct call in the "notes" column like "1A,1C", and put your sign near, too. - if you made a mistake in the sum row, you'd help us SO guys a lot if you'd repeat the correct number right below the corrected one. In many cases it's hard to decide what digit that squiggle was... (this one is rather optional - the SO can sum up, too, if needed) - if you have to correct the time, always repeat it clearly somewhere on the score sheet, in a clear, white place, and (unless it's really close to the original time box) draw an arrow pointing there from the time box, too.