Calling "finger" during reload/malfxn clear

[wide45]

There is no rule against almost having an AD.

[COMATZD]

As a recently new shooter (to the sport) I appreciated the finger warning until I could get those instinctual reflexes mastered. I had previously indexed my finger under the frame pressing on the front of the trigger guard. I could see how some may think my finger was in the guard. After a couple warnings (immediate ones) where I am suddenly conscious of finger location, I learned to index higher on the frame completely away from the guard.

Now while I thought it was good then, I could see how a more focused and motivated shooter who is 'in the zone' would not appreciate being interrupted during the COF. I would hope that an RO would have a little experience in judging a newer shooter from a seasoned one and be able to issue a warning appropriately. And by warning I mean it could be as simple as "I couldn't see your finger clearly, if it was Viagra stiff, it would help".

I was recently told that it would help make things more clear if I held my gun higher while opening doors. Turns out that if I was turned a little more it may have looked like I swept myself. In this case the RO was in a good position to see that I was clear, but I'll certainly practice differently now.

Danno

[kgunz11]

The CoF should be presented equitably to ALL shooters. New or not. If you're going to warn the new guy you should give the seasoned guy the same courtesy. If you're not going to warn, then don't warn, if you are, then warn fairly.

Some seasoned guys come to the line looking just as nervous as a new guy, and at what point is a new shooter no longer a "new shooter"? Do you only warn them for their first match? How do you know it is? When do YOU decide they are experienced enough?

IMO, the warning is there for when you cannot clearly see the finger when you are at a viewpoint when you should be able to see it. It's a way of telling a guy "hey! get that finger so I can see it".

There's a local guy, older gentleman with arthritis that has a curl in his finger when he reloads. He gets it out of the trigger guard, and he's been shooting a while, but according to G-Man Bart, the guy should be DQ'd. From some views, you cannot see the tip of his finger even though his knuckle is way away from the grip.

Bottom line, unless you are sure it is inside the trigger guard, by witnessing it is there, you should not DQ the shooter. If you are unsure of the placement, you can warn the shooter by the "finger" command.

More experienced RO's might have Xray vision, be courteous to your fellow shooters while also being fair and safe.

[aztecdriver]

The CoF should be presented equitably to ALL shooters. New or not. If you're going to warn the new guy you should give the seasoned guy the same courtesy. If you're not going to warn, then don't warn, if you are, then warn fairly.

Some seasoned guys come to the line looking just as nervous as a new guy, and at what point is a new shooter no longer a "new shooter"? Do you only warn them for their first match? How do you know it is? When do YOU decide they are experienced enough?

Not sure I agree that warning on individual practices running the COF constitute presentation of the COF. A warning is not part of the stage briefing - its an action taken by an RO to maintain a safe course of fire - in the judgment of the RO. I issue warnings on a basis of whether I feel, in my judgment, a situation may become unsafe. An admitted new guy, first night, starts to move right to left and I see the mag drop, I'm going to be concerned about him becoming unsafe in an area where a GM is not going to make me concerned. A GM can still break 180 - don't get me wrong - but most times, I don't feel being in the 75 degree to median as being approaching unsafe for him - a new guy - you bet.

While I know we all run into the trap of the differences between "local" matches and "majors", I think it's key to understand that we have no requirement for a new shooters class, in most of our local matches. Places where shooters can experience these issues first hand and learn. That's what we are talking about when we say NEW shooters. Most of these guys (and gals) show up, get a 20 minute safety briefing and then try to adapt their learned habits to the game, with 12 or so much more experienced, normally, people watching them do something their ego might not yet understand. Theres a ton of shooters coaching them during this time - most of them embedded ROS, we're awesome about that, but presenting a course of fire to these guys in the same way we would at nationals, or even a sectional would be a disservice to them - and our sport.

Let's put this in perspective a second - let's say I see a brand new guy (first or second match) going to run past a target realize it all of a sudden and start to move towards indexing on it, not realizing where he is in the course. I warn him about his muzzle, he takes the second, backs up a little more and gets his shots off, continues and we have a quick discussion about what he did and the risk - all smiles, gets some experience, didn't break the rules, just got a little ahead of himself. The next guy to the line is the GM Master blaster and hes smoking through it and gets up to the same index line the newbie just did - I warn the guy... ok - well, I get off a marbled "muz".. because he's already shot and gone 30 ft down range. He knows where he was. He doesn't want me issuing warnings.

What constitutes new shooter, to me, 1-3 matches. If they're still getting warnings after that - we're going to have a long sit down about safety. Or they'll DQ. And typically, when running embedded ROs at a local match - I'm gonna find out who I'm shooting with and their experience. So, yeah, I'll ask them if I don't know them - and honestly, most offer.

I know we have the responsibility to present a consistent, professional match to the same rules and standards whether it be a lvl 1 or fun match - through nationals. I agree with it, but we also need to foster those that are coming up through, showing interest, without leaving them hang when they get their feet wet. Let's be clear - I'm NOT talking about allowing safety violations "slip" or "giving a pass", those get a walk for ice cream.

[kp110477]

As a relatively new USPSA shooter, this is REALLY helpful. I shoot a Glock, so I always index on the slide take-down levers when moving or loading/making ready. However, sitting here away from the range and away from my blaster (I'm at work) I can't recall the position of my index finger during reload or clearing a jam. Maybe it's so instinctual from hunting and shooting clays for years it naturally happens. I will be watching myself very carefully my next match. Also, as a new shooter, I welcome the DQ if deserved. I agree with the posters that say that a DQ would teach the lesson faster than any warning. However, I also appreciate the warning and guidance by much more experienced shooters if I appear to approach the line on safety. I'd much rather go home early from a match than not go home at all.

[twodownzero]

It appears the backpedaling is getting pretty deep here.

As I stated (first) in this thread, if I don't see a DQable offense with my own eyes, but I think there is a safety issue, I will issue a warning. DQing someone for an "almost" violation just breeds animosity for our sport and our rules. Our rules exist to create incentive for safe behavior, not an incentive for discouraging unconventional methods of pistol manipulation.

If I see a violation, I have no problem issuing a DQ just like I've had no problem assessing procedurals or whatever. But suggesting that you'd DQ someone for an "almost" violation of a safety rule makes me not want you to be ROing me, and makes any judgment call you make as an RO questionable.

The RO is there to enhance safety and enforce the rules, not create new ones or exploit the authority of being a range officer.

[Flexmoney]

I think we've covered the bass here, and it doesn't look like this thread is going in a productive direction.

I believe there are other threads on this subject, as well.

Closed.