Stopping a shooter before a safety violation occurs

[Cy Soto]

Rule 10.5.17 which covers Match Disqualification due to Unsafe Gun Handling states that A shot fired at a metal target from a distance of less than 23 feet, measured from the face of the target to the nearest part of the competitor’s body in contact with the ground (see Rule 2.1.3) is grounds for a DQ.

If a shooter (particularly a new or newer shooter) oversteps a fault line and gets too close to an unengaged steel, can the RO stop this person or "correct" his action prior to this becoming a safety issue or would this be considered "coaching"?

I ask because I recently RO'd a brand new shooter who went one step past a front fault line and tried to engage a popper (he ran out of ammo). I knew from having read the stage description that, by stepping right in front of that fault line, he was still within the allotted distance where he would just receive a procedural penalty but, had he stepped closer, he would have been closer than 23 feet from it. Had he gotten any closer, I would have most certainly stopped him in which case, I would have had to issue him a re-shoot; correct?

Is the above case one in which the RO can "coach" the shooter by asking him to step back behind the fault line? Also, would I have been correct to stop him prior to engaging the steel or should I have allowed him to engage it before issuing the "stop" command?

Finally, if I am reading Rule 10.5.17 correctly, I interpret it to mean that the shooter has to shoot at a metal target at a distance less than 23 feet to be DQ'ed. Whether he hits it or misses it is irrelevant; he just has to shoot at it; is this also correct?

[Gary Johnson]

You've got the right idea. Never let something unsafe happen if you can prevent it. If that means a re-shoot, so be it. Re-shoots are a pain but it's better than having someone get fragged.

On the matter of telling a competitor to step back from a charge/fault/safety line, your only option is to stop him, explain the issue, and go from there.

10.5.17 doesn't require a hit. If you are certain he was engaging steel from less than minimum safe distance, he's on the hook.

[Schutzenmeister]

Cy ... As best I can answer you:

An RO has the authority to "warn" a shooter prior to a safety infraction actually occuring. (8.6.1) This can be done in any level match. As you described the situation, I would have done my best to warn the shooter rather than stop him.

At a Level I match, a shooter MAY be coached, if approved by the RO (so if the RO does it, clearly it's approved!), if necessary. (8.6.2.1) This would also be a valid approach in the situation you describe.

I am generally loathe to actually stop a shooter before he commits a safety infraction unless I judge the situation to be such that there could be serious consequences if I were to allow him to continue on and commit the infraction before I called STOP and DQ'd him. I would define "serious" as an actual threat to life, limb, or safety as opposed to a mere violation of a safety rule. (No rule number, just my personal threshhold.) I would rather have him reshoot than have to call 911! If we're talking about someone doing this deliberately in order to get the RO to stop him and draw a reshoot (presumably to get another chance due to a botched run), there's another rule you could consider. (10.6.1)

Finally, I would agree with your intrepretation of 10.5.17 ... Shooting "at" a metal target is all that is required to trigger the DQ. Hitting or missing it is not relevant. Just be sure there isn't another legitimate target (i.e. paper) nearby that he is actually engaging before invoking a DQ under this rule. (Though you may be able to support a DQ under other grounds, depending on the facts and circumstances.)

[aztecdriver]

Ah - and then I call BS on the course of fire... someone always does - please also read 2.1.3, captioned below.

2.1.3 Minimum Distances – Whenever metal targets or metal hard cover are used in a course of fire, precautions must be taken so that competitors and Match Officials maintain a minimum distance of 23 feet from them while they are being shot. Where possible, this should be done with physical barriers. If Fault Lines are used to limit the approach to metal targets, they must be placed at least 26 feet from the targets so that the competitor may inadvertently fault the line and still be outside the 23 feet minimum distance (see Rule 10.5.17). Care should also be taken in respect of metal props in the line of fire.

Note the must in the bold. If you are using fault lines - they must be at 26 ft to try and stop this situation from happening in the first place. I'm sure this stage gets tossed on an arb if you DQ someone for stepping over the fault line and the line being 24 ft from the steel.

The OPs post, though is right on - sure you stop them before they have the safety infraction. I've done it with someone I considered inexperienced in the game, slipped and fell on his rear, all safely then continued to shoot from the butt position. Before he got up I just stopped him, cooled down and reset. I didn't feel I had control - and I got it back. So what - reshoot. We're all alive and smiling... Just don't go overboard -- "I thought he was going to break 180 so I just said stop."... sometimes there is no other choice.

Edited May 23, 2011 by aztecdriver

[sperman]

The stage would get tossed, but the shooter would still be done for the match.

[Cy Soto]

If you are using fault lines - they must be at 26 ft to try and stop this situation from happening in the first place.

This was certainly the case here. The popper was positioned at 10 yards from the front fault line. The shooter only took one step past it which means that he was still a good 28 or 27 feet from the steel. In this particular case I didn't say anything to him because he was still within a safe distance. He just got a procedural but no DQ.

My concern at the time was that he took that extra step that put him in front of that fault line because he was unable to make get the hit from where he was standing. I thought that he might take another step or two closer to the steel but, luckily for us, he ran out of ammo before he did this.

Thank you all for the input!

[aztecdriver]

The stage would get tossed, but the shooter would still be done for the match.

Not to go off topic, but I don't agree. I'd like to be proven right or wrong, but an arb committee could hear argument on how the COF permitted an unsafe action to occur without warning to the shooter. (ie, how am I supposed to know I'm under 23 feet if I fault this line, so I have a tape measure for eyeballs?) I'm pretty confident an arb committee would reinstate the competitor - just like the arb from 2009 nats.

[aztecdriver]

If you are using fault lines - they must be at 26 ft to try and stop this situation from happening in the first place.

This was certainly the case here. The popper was positioned at 10 yards from the front fault line. The shooter only took one step past it which means that he was still a good 28 or 27 feet from the steel. In this particular case I didn't say anything to him because he was still within a safe distance. He just got a procedural but no DQ.

My concern at the time was that he took that extra step that put him in front of that fault line because he was unable to make get the hit from where he was standing. I thought that he might take another step or two closer to the steel but, luckily for us, he ran out of ammo before he did this.

Thank you all for the input!

Great! It was a good question. I think it had more relevance than distance to steel, etc, but also other safety factors... Thanks!

[Schutzenmeister]

The stage would get tossed, but the shooter would still be done for the match.

Not to go off topic, but I don't agree. I'd like to be proven right or wrong, but an arb committee could hear argument on how the COF permitted an unsafe action to occur without warning to the shooter. (ie, how am I supposed to know I'm under 23 feet if I fault this line, so I have a tape measure for eyeballs?) I'm pretty confident an arb committee would reinstate the competitor - just like the arb from 2009 nats.

Not really ... As a direct result of that arb they reworded 11.1.2. The AC would be compelled to let the DQ stand, per the rules. (See the current wording in the "July 2010" version.)

It is generally recommended that a second line or mark be placed on the ground at the 23' mark ... i.e., "a line of death" ... to clearly indicate where that point is.

[sperman]

The stage would get tossed, but the shooter would still be done for the match.

Not to go off topic, but I don't agree. I'd like to be proven right or wrong, but an arb committee could hear argument on how the COF permitted an unsafe action to occur without warning to the shooter. (ie, how am I supposed to know I'm under 23 feet if I fault this line, so I have a tape measure for eyeballs?) I'm pretty confident an arb committee would reinstate the competitor - just like the arb from 2009 nats.

Check out 11.1.2. The wording of this rule was changed after the 2009 nationals.

[aztecdriver]

The stage would get tossed, but the shooter would still be done for the match.

Not to go off topic, but I don't agree. I'd like to be proven right or wrong, but an arb committee could hear argument on how the COF permitted an unsafe action to occur without warning to the shooter. (ie, how am I supposed to know I'm under 23 feet if I fault this line, so I have a tape measure for eyeballs?) I'm pretty confident an arb committee would reinstate the competitor - just like the arb from 2009 nats.

Check out 11.1.2. The wording of this rule was changed after the 2009 nationals.

Awesome! As I said - I'd like to be proven either way - and thanks for that. I've had more than one person look at me goofy when I pace off a shot to steel when I'm looking over stages before a match. Now I don't feel so weird!

[Flexmoney]

8.6.2.1 When approved by the Range Officer, competitors at Level I

matches may, without penalty, receive whatever coaching or

assistance

they request.

[ima45dv8]

When in doubt, and that happens to all of us, err on the side of safety.

Reshoots are preferable to ambulances.