10.4.2 A shot which strikes the ground...

[spanky]

10.4 Match Disqualification – Accidental Discharge

10.4.2 A shot which strikes the ground within 10 feet of the competitor, except

when shooting at a paper target closer than 10 feet to the competitor.

My question is; Where is the measurement taken to? From the impact point to where? The shooters toes? The fault line?

I was running a shooter where this situation occurred and his toes would have been approximately 9'10" from the impact point but his foot was hanging over the fault line at least 4 inches. RM ruled measurement was to the fault line but, after reading the rule, I'm not so sure.

I should have had my rule book with me and I usually do but I was trying out a new stage bag and forgot it in my main bag so obviously this is all in hindsight.

Edited December 7, 2010 by spanky

[High Lord Gomer]

10.4.2 does not mention fault lines...it says "within 10 feet of the competitor". If the competitor is standing relatively erect, I would measure from the front of their most forward foot.

If the shooter is prone, I would measure from where their hands were when the shot was fired.

[Corey]

I would have to say it would be measured to the front most part of the shooter that is touching the ground toes, knees, etc(exception being while prone, i would measure the hands even tho they may not be on the ground). IMO, the fault line cant/shouldnt be used bc shots like this could easily happen well within a shooting area, it just so happened that this incident was at the front of a COF.

[D.Hayden]

How could it be the fault line? You run passed the fault line by 9 feet.. put a shot 2 feet into the ground and you'd be ok?

[spanky]

I agree. I thought about that on the way home because it was bugging me.

[D.Hayden]

I think for the DQ-able safety offenses.. 10.3 thru 10.5 - in general - it's what's the safest. And the measurment from the physical competitor is safer.

[Flatland Shooter]

Measurement should be taken from the shooter.

If we use the fault line, a competitor shooting from 15' behind the fault line and hits the ground just 2' past the fault line (17' from the shooter) would be DQ'd.

Not the intent of the rule.

Bill

[Dave Campbell]

The rule says within 10 ft of the shooter, and he is not shooting at at target closer than 10 ft.

If was on a fault line , not touching the ground on the other side and that put him within the 10 feet of where the shot strikes the ground its a DQ, he is within 10 feet, but he does not get the foot fault penalty

[JFlowers]

I think the reason the fault line was chosen (based on the OP description) is that it was the closet point of contact. I read the OP to mean that the shooter was standing on the fault line with 4 inches of foot hanging over, but not touching the ground (ie within the fault line). In this case since the fault line would have been the closet point of contact with the ground, it seems like a reasonable choice.

The example where the shooter is completely in the shooting area is not applicable based on that decision criteria. There the foot of the shooter is in contact with the ground and the nearest point (ie toe) would be the measurement.

While the toes were closer, how do you measure something that was in the air? I would assume by the time STOP is given, ULSC, and a measurement made, the shooter has moved and everything is speculative at that point.

[JAFO]

If the RO sees the shot and thinks the shooter may be within the 10' distance from the point of impact, shouldn't the RO ULSC and have the competitor remain standing where he/she fired the shot until the measurement is made? The rule is for safety and standing on a fault line doesn't make the toes any further away from the POI. Besides, being an inch off the ground while standing on a fault line doesn't make it that difficult to measure to the front of the toes. Now, if the shooter was in a 'Captain Morgan' pose...

[spanky]

I didn't stop him immediately and he had moved from the position but he was honest about his foot placement and i knew approximately where he was.

I was also glancing to see the impact point to determine if it was close enough to stop him and take the measurement.

Edited December 7, 2010 by spanky

[Mark R]

I think the point of the rule is to enforce the safety aspect of drawing a loaded weapon. If the shooter draws his pistol, and puts his/her finger in the trigger before the sights line up, the pistol may go bang...unintentional or accidental discharge. Or if he/she was moving while drawing and again the gun goes bang. Unsafe gun handling skills either way you look at it.

I think the 10 ft rule is the way the rule makers decided to lead a RO into the decision of an AD...unless there was a target within the 10 ft area. If there weren't any targets near the point of impact and as a RO watching the gun...you need to decide if it was in fact an AD. Was the gun high enough for the shooter to see the sights or was it lower? If lower, it would enforce the requirement for an AD.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Singlestack]

I think the point of the rule is to enforce the safety aspect of drawing a loaded weapon. If the shooter draws his pistol, and puts his/her finger in the trigger before the sights line up, the pistol may go bang...unintentional or accidental discharge. Or if he/she was moving while drawing and again the gun goes bang. Unsafe gun handling skills either way you look at it.

I think the 10 ft rule is the way the rule makers decided to lead a RO into the decision of an AD...unless there was a target within the 10 ft area. If there weren't any targets near the point of impact and as a RO watching the gun...you need to decide if it was in fact an AD. Was the gun high enough for the shooter to see the sights or was it lower? If lower, it would enforce the requirement for an AD.

Just my 2 cents worth.

There is no rule requiring me to use sights.

[sperman]

At what point do you not worry about where the bullet impacted, and DQ the shooter for 10.5?

[JThompson]

Unless it is obvious that the shot was too close I do not stop the shooter. If you have two ROs and they work well together, the Ro with the board will drop a marker (read golf) or scuff a mark in the soil.... then I let them finish the COF. I don't want to stop a guy unless I KNOW there was an infraction. If it's 6 feet or so you know it's too close, but that's not always the case. You don't wnt to stop a guy for what he "might" have done.

The last time this happened I put a scuff mark in the soil with my shoe and measured it out to ten feet three inches.

JT

Edited December 7, 2010 by JThompson

[spanky]

At what point do you not worry about where the bullet impacted, and DQ the shooter for 10.5?

The targets were only a few feet from the impact point.

[JThompson]

At what point do you not worry about where the bullet impacted, and DQ the shooter for 10.5?

The targets were only a few feet from the impact point.

No DQ with a target inside of 10ft of the shooter unless it's an AD or USG.

JT

Edited December 7, 2010 by JThompson

[GrumpyOne]

Unless it is obvious that the shot was too close I do not stop the shooter. If you have two ROs and they work well together, the Ro with the board will drop a marker (read golf) or scuff a mark in the soil.... then I let them finish the COF. I don't want to stop a guy unless I KNOW there was an infraction. If it's 6 feet or so you know it's too close, but that's not always the case. You don't wnt to stop a guy for what he "might" have done.

The last time this happened I put a scuff mark in the soil with my shoe and measured it out to ten feet three inches.

JT

I think that's the best bet. You stop a guy for what you think is a shot within 10', but you measure and it's 10'1". He gets a re-shoot, slows the match, etc. If it's obviously closer than 10', then yes, stop the shooter. I question if a shot is anymore safe at 10' than at 9'11".

Edited December 8, 2010 by GrumpyOne

[spanky]

At what point do you not worry about where the bullet impacted, and DQ the shooter for 10.5?

The targets were only a few feet from the impact point.

No DQ with a target inside of 10ft of the shooter unless it's an AD or USG.

JT

The impact point was 10' away. The targets were appx 3 feet beyond the impact point.

[GrumpyOne]

At what point do you not worry about where the bullet impacted, and DQ the shooter for 10.5?

The targets were only a few feet from the impact point.

No DQ with a target inside of 10ft of the shooter unless it's an AD or USG.

JT

The impact point was 10' away. The targets were appx 3 feet beyond the impact point.

Bad shot?

[spanky]

At what point do you not worry about where the bullet impacted, and DQ the shooter for 10.5?

The targets were only a few feet from the impact point.

No DQ with a target inside of 10ft of the shooter unless it's an AD or USG.

JT

The impact point was 10' away. The targets were appx 3 feet beyond the impact point.

Bad shot?

No, it was definitely way early.

BTW I see nothing in 10.5 which would cover this scenario since he wasn't moving, etc. It would have to be under 10.4.2 and that's where the measurement question comes into play.

[sperman]

I agree that 10.5 doesn't apply in this case, but re-read the first sentence. (The bold is mine.)

10.5 Match Disqualification – Unsafe Gun Handling

Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:

I think the writers of the rulebook understood that they couldn't list every possible variation on unsafe gun handling. I could imagine a scenario where the shooter does something spectacularly unsafe during the draw, but manages to have the round land more than 10 feet away. If they scare the sh*t out of me, I'm going to ask them to stop and talk to the range master.

[mactiger]

At what point do you not worry about where the bullet impacted, and DQ the shooter for 10.5?

The targets were only a few feet from the impact point.

No DQ with a target inside of 10ft of the shooter unless it's an AD or USG.

JT

You might want to rethink that one, grasshopper.

Troy

[spanky]

I agree that 10.5 doesn't apply in this case, but re-read the first sentence. (The bold is mine.)

10.5 Match Disqualification – Unsafe Gun Handling

Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:

I think the writers of the rulebook understood that they couldn't list every possible variation on unsafe gun handling. I could imagine a scenario where the shooter does something spectacularly unsafe during the draw, but manages to have the round land more than 10 feet away. If they scare the sh*t out of me, I'm going to ask them to stop and talk to the range master.

You're right. I was referring to the specifics but knew a subjective ruling was possible also.

[Nik Habicht]

I agree that 10.5 doesn't apply in this case, but re-read the first sentence. (The bold is mine.)

10.5 Match Disqualification – Unsafe Gun Handling

Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:

I think the writers of the rulebook understood that they couldn't list every possible variation on unsafe gun handling. I could imagine a scenario where the shooter does something spectacularly unsafe during the draw, but manages to have the round land more than 10 feet away. If they scare the sh*t out of me, I'm going to ask them to stop and talk to the range master.

You're right. I was referring to the specifics but knew a subjective ruling was possible also.

Not really. We have a specific rule that deals with this situation -- so use it.....

The downside to not using it is consistency. At what point is a miss a miss, versus being a dq?