Joe Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 5.4.2 Addresses the RO 'noticing' or 'realizing' the loss of protective equipment. What if they don't notice or realize? Say a competitor shooting rifle bumps his headgear and dislodges it but it doesn't fall off, or the earplug falls out of the side the RO can't see? If the competitor stopped at that moment and informed you, what would you do? If the competitor waited until they were finished then informed you, what would you do? I understand the scoring RO or the reserve RO should have noticed and stopped the competitor but at a local match... Thanks, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 if the shooter stops during the course and tell you he lost his hearing protection, simple, RESHOOT. if the course of fire is completed, i would say NO reshoot. lynn jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 At a local match, reshoot-- unless the hearing protection loss is clearly intentional or the shooter doesn't care (like they're already deaf-- we have one of those) In any safety case; loss of safety gear, squib, etc, if I'm shooting, and the RO doesn't do it, I'll stop myself and say "I think you should stop me". Even if they disagree, I'm out what, a stage? Beats leaking my precious bodily fluids all over the range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Anderson Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 I've always wondered what advantage would be gained by dumping hearing protection...this rule implies there is an advantage to be gained...What would that be? SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted November 20, 2002 Author Share Posted November 20, 2002 Quote: from Steve Anderson on 2:09 pm on Nov. 20, 2002 I've always wondered what advantage would be gained by dumping hearing protection...this rule implies there is an advantage to be gained...What would that be? SA If you know you've blown the stage half way thru it, deliberately or accidentally losing safety equipment would stop you per 5.4.2 and require a reshoot. Therefore you would be able to reshoot the stage and possible correct what caused you to blow it the first time. So to prevent that there is 5.4.3 and 10.4.4. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 If I suspect a competitor intentionally dislodged hearing protection during a course of fire in order to get an unfair re-shoot, my response is simple: "If you are finished, unload and show clear." No re-shoot, score it as is. Every Referee/ro must make judgement calls and in close cases it is never easy. Cheating is not to be tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 I guess you guys haven't seen revised Rule 5.4.2 which takes effect on 1 January 2003: "5.4.2 Host organizations may require the use of such protection while on the range premises. In this event, Range Officials shall make every effort to ensure that all officials, spectators and competitors are wearing appropriate protection. If an official notices that a competitor has lost or displaced their eye or ear protection during a course of fire or has commenced a course of fire without them the official shall immediately stop the competitor who shall be required to re-shoot the course of fire after the protective devices have been restored. A competitor who loses eye or ear protection during a course of fire, or commences a course of fire without them, shall be entitled to stop, point their firearm in a safe direction and indicate the problem to the official, in which case the provisions of the previous paragraph shall apply." I hope you agree that the new second paragraph addresses the issue while 5.4.3 and 10.4.4 dealing with cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted November 20, 2002 Author Share Posted November 20, 2002 Thanks again Mr. Pinto. I agree with the revision. You stated that the new Rulebook was at the IPSC site a while back however when I visited there I couldn't seem to locate it. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Joe, Please call me Vince, otherwise I get nervous, because the only person who calls me "Mr. Pinto" is my wife when I'm in really deep doo-doo. At the IPSC website click on "Rules" in the top left hand corner of the navigation frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Vince: beauty, thanks I haven't heard anything about the USPSA using or not using the new rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Nor have I, officially. However I was informed that a subscriber to the IPSC Digest made a post stating his AD said that the USPSA BOD has decided not to adopt the revisions recently passed at the last GA. While such a post cannot be construed as an official statement, the subscriber who posted it is usually reliable. (Edited by Vince Pinto at 2:14 am on Nov. 22, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 If that's true, it probably has to do with a perceived safety (read: liability) issue. That or irreconcilable equipment rule differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now