George Jones

In an effort to bring some clarity to the discussion. The shoot target was visible and (as reported) provided sufficient visibility to be a legal target (see bottom of App B3). Therefore, it was not an appearing target. Neither was it a moving target. In a case such as this one, no penalty can be applied to not stepping on the foot pad. Unless this was a Level I match and the WSB specifically required the foot pad be activated prior to engaging the target - no penalty.

Although some of the suggested "penalties" mentioned earlier might be entertaining (Hi, Vlad ), the real course of action is specified in our USPSA Bylaws. Section 4.13 to be exact.

Assuming that you refer to handgun, yes and no (mostly no). A Comstock course of fire is unlimited time, so it can't be Comstock. Fixed time penalizes late shots, it does not just *end* the COF. Further, per 9.4.5, Fixed Time penalizes Extra Shots, Extra Hits, and Stacking (FT is for all practical purposes Virginia Count with a time limit). In short, you can't just place an arbitrary limit on a Comstock course. Now if this were a long gun match, you have certain options.

To add a little detail....... As best as I remember it, the opinion which Alan describes above was the opinion of IPSC - not USPSA. USPSA always held that the gun was the complete responsibility of the shooter and that if the RO missed the fact that a round was still in the chamber and there was a resultant AD, the shooter was the one at fault and was the one who would suffer the penalty. IPSC's position at the time was that the (old) "Gun Clear" command was a declaration of fact on the part of the RO and that this declaration absolved the shooter of responsibility. Back in 2002/3, at the time that IPSC and USPSA were attempting to more closely align their respective rulebooks, a number of concessions/compromises were agreed to. One of them was that IPSC accepted USPSA's position relative to this issue. In order to avoid any reasoning of RO responsibility (which a declaration of "Gun Clear" suggested), IPSC and USPSA agreed to change the command to "IF clear". HTH

I think it's unwise to risk a detonation. Doing it in the RO's face is really bad. You're right. I guess I got lost in the multiple quotes. Thanks.

You appear to misunderstand that rule. It does NOT alibi you if you "light one off" during U&SC. A detonation is completely different. Detonation is defined in Appendix A3 (page 55). It concerns a round which goes off due to the primer being struck by the ejector (can you say .40 1911?) or if a primer is struck by an object on the ground when the round is dropped. The key words being "other than by action of the firing pin" and "the bullet does not pass through the barrel".

Let's assume a target wasn't pasted. The RO sees 2 Bs and 2 Cs. All hits are visibly identical - same caliber, same grease ring, etc. Without that last sentence in the rule, a reshoot would be required becuase the RO cannot identify which hits belong to that shooter. The last sentence recognizes that all those hits are worth the same and allows two of those hits to be counted, avoiding a reshoot.

Not as long as they're indexing on the targets while prepping.

OK, I'll try.... Yes, it is the shooter's responsibility. It is the RO's responsibility to make calls he/she is certain about, especially those calls which have no residual evidence. Rule 8.5 and subs deals with several issues of movement. Rule 10.5.10 is the rule which requires the finger to be outside the trigger guard during movement. The reference to 8.5 (not 8.5.1) rounds out the issue of "movement" (you do not see that same reference in any of the other "finger" rules). Now we can wordsmith this thing 'till we turn blue, but as much as the ideal is a clearly visible finger along the frame, calling a DQ because you do not see it there is (IMO) contrary to the intent and spirit of the rules. If you don't see it outside, you will probaly look harder, then make the call if necesary. Warnings are for those cases where you are uncertain. As we discuss in the RO seminar, warnings are usually not welcome by experienced shooters and should be used with great restraint. New shooters should be briefed on warnings in advance - those are the shooters who need to hear them early and often. Having said all of that, I happen to think that the finger DQ is not called nearly as often as it deserves to be. I think there is some reluctance (hesitation) part of ROs to call it is because it can happen so quickly (did I see what I think I saw?) and that they won't have that residual evidence to assure themselves that they made the proper call. No one wants to call a DQ unless they're sure.

I hate to disagree with Nik, but I have to comment on that statement. Perception of finger position is NOT an acceptable justification for STOP and a DQ. There is a big difference between "seeing a finger in the trigger guard" and "not seeing the finger out". I suggest that "not seeing it out" is never cause for a DQ. (There's an old anecdote about a shooter being DQ for his index finger in the trigger guard - turns out he didn't have one! The RO called what he didn't see.) Having said that, I do agree that many shooters should make a better effort to have the finger more visibly out. I teach new shooters to keep their finger extended against the frame. Not only is it easier for the RO to "see it out", it also helps stabilize the gun for any handling (reloads, malfunction clearances, etc). As to the general subject of the validity of finger calls, they are not much different than 180 calls. Both are very subjective and leave no residual evidence. As an RO it is always uncomfortable not being able to produce hard evidence of a DQ call, but it's still our responsibility to make the calls as best we can.... and as we see it!

This scenario brings up two separate issues...... One - the rulebook which says (Rule 10.5.5) that pointing the muzzle at your body during the course of fire is a DQ. Since the bag was zipped and unzipped after the "Make Ready" command, the rule seems to apply. The rule says nothing about loaded or unloaded. Although a gun is essentially considered inert (whether loaded or not) when in a holster, the bag presents a somewhat different situation. The gun is "exposed" (you have access to the trigger) during the act of zipping and later unzipping the bag (crossing in front of the muzzle). Two - the "common sense" issue. Many of our start procedures are simply different ways to distract the shooter. This one is no different, but I would suggest that there are many other ways to distract a competitor without opening this kind of potentially problematic rules issue. I would stay away from this one.

You are correct. Since, according to your description, this target did not meet the specifics of Rules 9.9.1 and 9.9.2, it is a disappearing target. And to clarify - "completely covered" is not technically correct according to the new rulebook. In order to be a legal "non-disappearing" target, a paper target must present a minimum of the highest scoring zone still visible. The details are in Appendix B2 and B3 (at the bottom). Leaving just a sliver of the A-zone is no longer enough. (Alan was close (but no cigar) - for a Metric target it is the full upper A-zone or 25% of the lower A-zone)

That situation may not be a deal breaker. It really depends on the relationship (structure) of the range/facility and your club. If your club is independent of the range, the range's restriction is outside of your control. That should not prevent you from affiliating as long as you do not restrict participation of those who show up (are allowed to use the range premises). If, on the other hand, your club is not independent, then it could be said that the restriction is something in which you are involved and would be a problem.

USPSA's distances are minimum distances. Nothing in the rules prevents a club from using a greater distance if that is their preference. No over-ride necessary.

I would hope not. Rule 3.2.5 requires written stage briefings to comply with the rulebook. The reason that rule was introduced was to prevent WSBs from "making up" penalties.

Let's not forget that not all holsters are created equal. The ruling concerning 10.5.1 and stripping the belt/holster off outside a safety area is due (in part) to the fact that some holsters are less "retentive" than others. What you might do without mishap with a Production/retention holster, you wouldn't dream of trying with a race holster. Some of the rules have to apply to all variations of equipment.

The shooter can also aso for a reshoot after firing their last shot, but before responding to gun clear, hammer down holster. They would, technically, be "stopping themselves before completing the stage". I would be careful considering to use that particular technique. Although the rule does not state a specific time limit, a case could be made that failing to stop yourself as soon as you realized the problem, and waiting until you finished shooting, was an attempt to gain an advantage (just in case you had a bad run). The rule is there to protect the shooter's hearing when both he/she and the RO fail to notice the problem as they should. As a safety rule, gaming is not an option IMO. The first evidence a shooter has that he forgot his hearing protection? ..... a very loud BEEP!

I guess I have to say "Thanks" for the compliments. Yes, I do enjoy teaching the RO seminars and it's great to see the enthusiasm for the sport in all parts of the country.

Just to provide a little background as to why the wording of this rule was changed...... Some clubs conduct matches in very cold climates where shooters compete in cold weather coats/gear. They have to wear their belt over their outer coats. The words "securely fixed at the waist" were added to allow them to compete legally. While I persnally prefer to use an inner/outer belt, I certainly can see where some conditions would prompt me to consider something "less". As long as the belt is securely fixed, it meets the requirement of the rule. I would hope common sense and good judgment would preclude someone wearing their belt in such a loose manner as to become ankle gear.

For those of you interested in shirts from the Area 8 match..... One of the reasons shirts were not available for purchase is that Joe has just received his supply in time for the match staff shirts. Contact Joe Procopio at Techwear. I think he can help you. The shirts you saw there are, I believe, a "new and improved" material. After wearing it for three days in those conditions, I can say I will not look forward to working or shooting a summer match wearing anything else. Cool in the heat yet not cold when wet, dries FAST! I wish I had had one when the staff shot on Thursday in 98d temp. George Jones

In order to minimize potential problems with shooters making early travel/vacation plans, please be advised that we are looking at changing the dates of the match. We were concentrating so much on finding suitable dates where the range and primary staff would all be available on a weekend which did not conflict with other major USPSA events, I just plain missed the Steel Challenge. Not only we would lose some top shooters, including those who reside in A8, but it might also affect our sponsor support. We are aggressively searching for another potential date. It's too early to make an official announcement, but I will do so on the Area 8 website as soon as possible.

It's well past 1:00am and I just got home from work. It's late, I'm tired, so I will try to choose my words very carefully. My apologies for not responding sooner but I generally do not read this forum unless a member draws my attention to a thread of interest. I have never before posted here so I had to register. I will make some short comments -- 1. The current status of the 2006 Area 8 match did not occur in a vacuum. Since last September, I have sent several group e-mails to all Area 8 Match Directors and Section Coordinators. I asked for replies from any club/venue interested in hosting the match. By the end of December, no venue had stepped forward. Please understand that some venues had some very legitimate reasons for declining. Some simply did not respond. Keep in mind that I cannot force a match on anyone. A club/range has to want the match. Volunteers only need apply. 2. As concerns informing every Area 8 member of the status of the match, I saw no need to do that until yesterday. I do not have the ability to do so and leave that to the Match Directors. I did respond to every individual inquiry I received. 3. In early January, I explored two last minute potential options. Neither one was acceptable for a variety of reasons. No, I will not discuss the specifics of the discussions. 4. I have two primary concerns in evaluating a potential match. Match quality is first. I define that as good stages, good officiating, and good value for the shooter. The other concern is financial success. Unlike other organizations, our Area matches cannot operate at a loss. We are obligated to break even (which really means that we make a profit and disburse the remaining funds in a documented manner). Area 8 has no reserve funds to make up a deficit. So, if I suspect that conditions surrounding the match might reduce attendance and lead to an uncertain financial result, I have to make a very early judgement call. As of last week, that is exactly what I did. 5. I approach all these things with the expectation that the road to success involves compromise. But compromise takes the involvement of both parties. It's very hard to compromise when faced with non-negotiable conditions. 'Nuff said. 6. Once I ran out of acceptable options, I placed the announcement on the Area 8 website. Having done that yesterday, I fully expected two things to happen. The first thing - a number of shooters would be disappointed and/or irate. The second thing - someone would step up and we might just be able to put something reasonable together. Both my suspicions were correct. In short, I have not given up. I will try until there are no options remaining, but that does not mean that we should settle for less than the best we can do. That's my story. If I've misspoken or misspelled anything, well, it's late! George