Dropping an unloaded firearm

[Singlestack]

Holding = handling.

Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . .(As in “handling a firearm”) The act of manipulating,

holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is

functionally accessible.

Where in the definition of "Handling" does it specify the hand?

If I'm on your arb committee, your toast.

[manipulation, from Latin manipulus handful]

2. manipulate - hold something in one's hands and move it

palm, handle - touch, lift, or hold with the hands; "Don't handle the merchandise"

As to being toast, I hope the ArbCom is an impartial group who reviews the facts, assesses the situation, and rules in accordance with the rulebook.

You couldn't find the definition for holding?

holding noun

3: something that holds

As to being toast, I hope the ArbCom is an impartial group who reviews the facts, assesses the situation, and rules in accordance with the rulebook.

I agree, and not what is being taught in the RO class.

[ima45dv8]

If he does touch the gun, then a DQ would apply under 10.5.1.

Is trapping the gun, with a forearm, NOT touching the gun?

As you referenced, the USPSA Glossary definition is (and with respect to our rulebook, I don't really care what Webster or Oxford has to say on the subject, as they never participated in this sport)...

Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . .(As in "handling a firearm") The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible.

I don't see an exception for forearms, thighs or any other enumerated parts of the shooter's body. Has that been added and was possibly mistakenly omitted in the July 2011 version of the rulebook, which is supposed to incorporate all NROI rulings? I couldn't find it in the NROI rulings list, either. But I also don't see how trapping a gun with a part other than the hand is NOT "manipulation". If that action prevents the gun from hitting the ground, that's manipulation, regardless of the body part involved.

If you simply trap it against your body without using your hand, no DQ. Just call for a RO to take care of it. We know shooters instinctively react to the gun starting to fall and it was decided that no DQ should apply in such a case as long as the gun is not being "handled".

George, can you tell me exactly who "decided" this was so? I've torn my rulebook apart,and scoured the NROI rulings and can't find anything to that effect.

OH!!! Wait!!!

Now I get it!!!

THIS is why you guys keep saying us old warhorses need to take a new RO class. You're passing this stuff out in that setting as if it were the Gospel, while it's not available through any of the established channels (NROI rulings or rulebook updates).

It's all clear to me now...

[Nik Habicht]

THIS is why you guys keep saying us old warhorses need to take a new RO class. You're passing this stuff out in that setting as if it were gospel, while it's not available through any of the established channels (NROI rulings or rulebook updates).

It's all clear to me now...

Since you're drifting in this direction ---- if all it took to be a good RO was to read the rulebook, we wouldn't need classes....

For that matter, we also wouldn't need CROs and RMs, or Instructors.....

But that's not all it takes -- though I think you both know that and agree with the statement....

Written language isn't the best tool invented for communication. Yep, it would be nice if we all could be an the exact same page, when it comes to reading the rulebook and making decisions on the range. And yes, interpretations should be written and published, and future editions of the rulebook(s) updated.....

That said, I don't think we want an interpretation on every word in the rulebook -- there are issues with a document the size of an encyclopedia.... :D

Like it or not, there is a hierarchy in NROI. The instructors and DNROI meet at least annually, to discuss the rules and classes, and I seem to remember seeing bits in the Board meeting minutes that seem to indicate that John Amidon briefs the Board. I can attest to the fact that the Level 1 class has changed drastically between 2002 (when I initially took it) and 2010, when I sat in on the first day of one of George's classes. (I'm planning on sitting in on Day 2 later this month, at a different Level 1 class)

In my opinion those changes are for the better -- focusing on the rules, the situations that brought them about and how they should be applied. I'd encourage anyone who's been certified more than five years, who has the time and opportunity, to sit in on the class again.....

I don't know of any profession where continuing education -- beyond simply reading written updates -- isn't required. I see a clear value in the classes that the NROI instructors put on, and I accept that the content of what is being taught will change. That's also why I attempt to pick the brains of recent attendees, to see what might have changed.....

[Skydiver]

If he does touch the gun, then a DQ would apply under 10.5.1.

Is trapping the gun, with a forearm, NOT touching the gun?

As you referenced, the USPSA Glossary definition is (and with respect to our rulebook, I don't really care what Webster or Oxford has to say on the subject, as they never participated in this sport)...

Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . .(As in "handling a firearm") The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible.

I don't see an exception for forearms, thighs or any other enumerated parts of the shooter's body. Has that been added and was possibly mistakenly omitted in the July 2011 version of the rulebook, which is supposed to incorporate all NROI rulings? I couldn't find it in the NROI rulings list, either. But I also don't see how trapping a gun with a part other than the hand is NOT "manipulation". If that action prevents the gun from hitting the ground, that's manipulation, regardless of the body part involved.

Also consider how the word touching is used in 10.2.1. It makes no exception about any body part touching outside the fault line. If it's touching outside, then the shooter gets the fault penalty.

If he does touch the gun, then a DQ would apply under 10.5.1.

Is trapping the gun, with a forearm, NOT touching the gun?

As you referenced, the USPSA Glossary definition is (and with respect to our rulebook, I don't really care what Webster or Oxford has to say on the subject, as they never participated in this sport)...

Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . .(As in "handling a firearm") The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible.

I don't see an exception for forearms, thighs or any other enumerated parts of the shooter's body. Has that been added and was possibly mistakenly omitted in the July 2011 version of the rulebook, which is supposed to incorporate all NROI rulings? I couldn't find it in the NROI rulings list, either. But I also don't see how trapping a gun with a part other than the hand is NOT "manipulation". If that action prevents the gun from hitting the ground, that's manipulation, regardless of the body part involved.

If you simply trap it against your body without using your hand, no DQ. Just call for a RO to take care of it. We know shooters instinctively react to the gun starting to fall and it was decided that no DQ should apply in such a case as long as the gun is not being "handled".

George, can you tell me exactly who "decided" this was so? I've torn my rulebook apart,and scoured the NROI rulings and can't find anything to that effect.

OH!!! Wait!!!

Now I get it!!!

THIS is why you guys keep saying us old warhorses need to take a new RO class. You're passing this stuff out in that setting as if it were the Gospel, while it's not available through any of the established channels (NROI rulings or rulebook updates).

It's all clear to me now...

I wish I had known about this kinder gentler interpretation of this rule. I would have trapped my brand spanking new gun with my forearm instead of letting it fall. Oh well, it's in the past.

I do hope that some of these new "teachings" are publicized beyond the RO classes.

We don't want to go down the route that IDPA has gone where interpretations and rulings are posted in a forum and taken as gospel. From what I hear, one also has to be a member of that forum to learn about such changes, and additionally, you have to be actively scanning for such posts. To make things more interesting the official IDPA rulebook makes no reference to said forum, nor rules amendments through their website. [Consider a SSR shooter shooting .38 chronos in at 110 PF. Strictly by the printed rulebook he is DQ'd, but the website announces the floor being lowered to 105 for such special cases.]

At least the the USPSA rulebook makes allowances for such kinds of ruling updates in 11.8.3.

[ima45dv8]

THIS is why you guys keep saying us old warhorses need to take a new RO class. You're passing this stuff out in that setting as if it were gospel, while it's not available through any of the established channels (NROI rulings or rulebook updates).

It's all clear to me now...

Since you're drifting in this direction ----

It's not a drift; at least not by me. It's what George posted. He stated this was now being taught in new RO classes.

...if all it took to be a good RO was to read the rulebook, we wouldn't need classes....

How many times have we heard about the "old-time RO's" who are so woefully out of date because they haven't kept abreast of the changes in the rulebook? You can rest assured I'm not one of them. I avail myself to study every update and ruling, and incorporate them into my match-day game plan so as to provide the best experience possible for the competitors I encounter.

BUT, since we're now talking about something that isn't published through established channels, I feel no obligation to adhere to the hearsay version presented in this thread.

Written language isn't the best tool invented for communication. Yep, it would be nice if we all could be an the exact same page, when it comes to reading the rulebook and making decisions on the range. And yes, interpretations should be written and published, and future editions of the rulebook(s) updated.....

Oh, please....

No one said the written form of communication is the best form for disseminating information. It's not. But it cannot be summarily bypassed and discarded when the primary vehicle for conveying our rules is through the inclusion of a rulebook in new member packets and updates to the on-line version of the rulebook and NROI Rulings. In light of the electronic tools currently available to USPSA, to imply that someone must revisit a Level I class each year to benefit from the new "insights" invented by the RMI Corp as the only acceptable method to be current, is ludicrous.

That said, I don't think we want an interpretation on every word in the rulebook -- there are issues with a document the size of an encyclopedia.... :D

No one said we want an interpretation on every word in the rulebook. To characterize the discomfort caused by a back-room interpretation of a single word in our rulebook as such (specifically, "handling") is a poor attempt to deflect the argument and doesn't come close to the level of which I know you are capable.

Like it or not, there is a hierarchy in NROI. The instructors and DNROI meet at least annually, to discuss the rules and classes, and I seem to remember seeing bits in the Board meeting minutes that seem to indicate that John Amidon briefs the Board. I can attest to the fact that the Level 1 class has changed drastically between 2002 (when I initially took it) and 2010, when I sat in on the first day of one of George's classes. (I'm planning on sitting in on Day 2 later this month, at a different Level 1 class)

Good for you, but make no assumptions on what I like or don't like. You have but to ask and you'll know without contemplative worry.

In my opinion those changes are for the better -- focusing on the rules, the situations that brought them about and how they should be applied. I'd encourage anyone who's been certified more than five years, who has the time and opportunity, to sit in on the class again.....

I'm not discounting the value of the information presented in new RO classes. I'm questioning the validity of information presented there and no where else, especially with respect to issues that may result in a DQ for a competitor. I sincerely hope you don't believe that is the appropriate, singular vehicle for presenting such significant information.

I don't know of any profession where continuing education -- beyond simply reading written updates -- isn't required.

So by that observation you're now implying that refresher RO classes should be required? Funny.... I haven't received any such notification form DNROI. I must check my mailbox more often.

I see a clear value in the classes that the NROI instructors put on, and I accept that the content of what is being taught will change. That's also why I attempt to pick the brains of recent attendees, to see what might have changed.....

A commendable exercise on your part, but what of the poor isolated individual who doesn't have access to a recent attendee? Can we not reasonably expect that a sweeping change, such as the exception for trapping a falling gun with your forearm, should at least be available on USPSA.org for that guy? To do less is an easily avoided and therefore unforgivable sin.

[ima45dv8]

We don't want to go down the route that IDPA has gone where interpretations and rulings are posted in a forum and taken as gospel. From what I hear, one also has to be a member of that forum to learn about such changes, and additionally, you have to be actively scanning for such posts. To make things more interesting the official IDPA rulebook makes no reference to said forum, nor rules amendments through their website. [Consider a SSR shooter shooting .38 chronos in at 110 PF. Strictly by the printed rulebook he is DQ'd, but the website announces the floor being lowered to 105 for such special cases.]

At least the the USPSA rulebook makes allowances for such kinds of ruling updates in 11.8.3.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the LAST USPSA vs. IDPA stab that will be tolerated. I'm leaving it only as example of what not to publish here.

For additional clarification, please see the Forum Guidelines, conveniently located at the top of every forum page for your viewing pleasure, or PM a Moderator.

[Skydiver]

IDPA vs USPA comment redacted...

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the LAST USPSA vs. IDPA stab that will be tolerated. I'm leaving it only as example of what not to publish here.

For additional clarification, please see the Forum Guidelines, conveniently located at the top of every forum page for your viewing pleasure, or PM a Moderator.

Oops! Sorry guys! I forgot about that in the guidelines. Mea culpa.

I'd like to keep this thread alive because it is a good discussion and I think that we will in the end come to a good conclusion on how best to deliver new information to current officials.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Skydiver

[Thomas H]

So I'm left with my cluelessness. I'm going to be a range official for a couple of level II and level III matches in the next two months--and while I hope no one drops a gun in any manner at all, I think I'd like to know what exactly I should call.

This one's easy: If during the course of fire, stop the shooter, then take what ever steps are necessary to safely retrieve and clear the firearm. If you are unsure of how a particular gun works, secure it and seek guidance. We don't expect you to be an expert on every gun, we do expect you to think through what is necessary to maintain everyone's safety. There should be no rush....

Yep, got that, very straightforward.

If between courses of fire and the shooter has retrieved the gun, make the call and inform the RM.

Yep, got that too.

If the shooter has not retrieved or handled the gun, see above, and feel free to consult the RM, especially if you're not sure......

And herein lies the problem. This thread has contained statements about what does and does not constitute "handling," where there seems to be an important distinction made about hand usage---though only George seems to be making that distinction, based on former threads that have been resurrected. (Sherwyn, Drazy, Gary all said differently in the past.)

This isn't a poke at George---he knows the rules far better than I do. He's just made the statement that "we" discussed this, and that it is being taught in RO classes now. I just don't know who "we" is, nor have I seen any official-type written-format statements from NROI about this...but he seems really certain about it.

I don't want to DQ someone if the rules don't state that a DQ is merited.

You're always allowed to seek guidance from higher up the chain -- I encourage it at matches, and seek it myself when necessary.....

Quite so. And in this case, I'll probably ask my RMs before the matches, to clarify. However, I much prefer that rules are clear enough that I don't have to start each pre-match meeting with a set of clarification questions, as in "So, in THIS match, how are we ruling on situation A..."

I still would like to know if there has ever been any official communication from NROI about this possible change in the meaning and scope of the word "handling" as used in USPSA. (Because to my knowledge this is different from the way "handling" has been defined and applied in the past.)

[JayWord]

First,

I am not going to get involved in the handling issue. You guys are doing fine showing how smart people can have legitimate differences of opinions. That is why arbitration exists.

As to the original question 4 pages ago.

I was taught many years ago the reason the two circumstances were handled differently was that in the distant past, any dropped gun was a DQ no matter inside of outside a course of fire. It was changed many years ago. That was when all of us shot in one division and if a winners gun ended up getting "knocked" out that was one way to "win". May have been just a story, but it seems to go along with the why there are non-scoring borders on targets story.

Someday, someone needs to write all these "myths"of IPSC down.

Jay

[George Jones]

My apologies for not being more specific in my choice of words.

When I was an Area Director, I usually said "we" in the context of being a member of the BOD. Now when I say "we" I tend to mean the RMI group.

As many of you know, the RMIs continually discuss issues related to rules and instruction of the rules. This group represents a huge amount of experience in the sport. Many years of service at all levels of our organization. We get together once a year to review "the latest problems" and consider potential solutions to ultimately assure we are teaching the same things. Sometimes those rules discussions revolve around "do we all agree on this?" and "what recommendations can we give to the DNROI and the BOD as to future updates or clarifications". We don't always agree, but the majority rules and we go about our business.

Last year, discussions included the definitions of "handling", "draw", and "dropped gun (during the COF)" and those definitions are included in the 2010 rulebook.

[Skydiver]

My apologies for not being more specific in my choice of words.

When I was an Area Director, I usually said "we" in the context of being a member of the BOD. Now when I say "we" I tend to mean the RMI group.

As many of you know, the RMIs continually discuss issues related to rules and instruction of the rules. This group represents a huge amount of experience in the sport. Many years of service at all levels of our organization. We get together once a year to review "the latest problems" and consider potential solutions to ultimately assure we are teaching the same things. Sometimes those rules discussions revolve around "do we all agree on this?" and "what recommendations can we give to the DNROI and the BOD as to future updates or clarifications". We don't always agree, but the majority rules and we go about our business.

Last year, discussions included the definitions of "handling", "draw", and "dropped gun (during the COF)" and those definitions are included in the 2010 rulebook.

Ah, that clears up part of the issue. It's great that the definition of "handling" made it into the glossary of the rulebook.

Unfortunately, it still doesn't clear up why it's okay to pin the gun against one's body and it is not considered "handling". The trigger is accessible. The shooter is holding the firearm against their body to keep it from falling. They are manipulating the gun to prevent it's fall. Is there a preconception that "handling" must involve the use of hands?

If this shooter shows up at a USPSA match, is he free to use his feet outside the course of fire to keep his gun from falling?

If he is free to use his feet, why would a regular shooter not be free to use his hand from keeping a gun from falling?

Also consider the other example earlier in this thread where the gun was knocked out because of a coat. If I used the same coat to pin the gun against my body to keep it from falling, does that also provide protection from being DQ'd for handling a gun outside of a CoF and a safety area?

[Singlestack]

Last year, discussions included the definitions of "handling", "draw", and "dropped gun (during the COF)" and those definitions are included in the 2010 rulebook.

The way "Handling" is currently defined, pinning a gun with anything to anything is a DQ. If you had meant to allow it (which I strongly disagree), you need to define "Handling" differently or get a ruling from DRONI. This is a change that simply does not correct a problem but in fact, creates one.

[Nik Habicht]

Last year, discussions included the definitions of "handling", "draw", and "dropped gun (during the COF)" and those definitions are included in the 2010 rulebook.

The way "Handling" is currently defined, pinning a gun with anything to anything is a DQ. If you had meant to allow it (which I strongly disagree), you need to define "Handling" differently or get a ruling from DRONI. This is a change that simply does not correct a problem but in fact, creates one.

I find it interesting that some folks want to argue about the "intent" of a rule or a definition in the glossary with the people who were in the room and had a hand in the writing of the rule/definiton, and are now responsible for teaching what NROI's position is on the current wording.....

When Bill Kehoe taught my first Level 1 class, he passed out his telephone number and encouraged us to call him with him questions, anytime after the class. I seem to remember George doing the same thing last year. I know I've bounced questions off of John, George, Troy and Gary, at a bare minimum -- and gotten prompt and friendly advice from all of them....

[Nik Habicht]

I don't know of any profession where continuing education -- beyond simply reading written updates -- isn't required.

So by that observation you're now implying that refresher RO classes should be required?

I'm actually in favor of that concept, but the devil's going to be in the details. The current instructor corps isn't large enough to do it. Costs and distances (access to refresher classes) for all are big factors. Getting an already volunteer RO corps to put in more time in a classroom, or in the evening over the 'net is a challenge....

I do think it's a problem worth considering though....

I see a clear value in the classes that the NROI instructors put on, and I accept that the content of what is being taught will change. That's also why I attempt to pick the brains of recent attendees, to see what might have changed.....

A commendable exercise on your part, but what of the poor isolated individual who doesn't have access to a recent attendee? Can we not reasonably expect that a sweeping change, such as the exception for trapping a falling gun with your forearm, should at least be available on USPSA.org for that guy? To do less is an easily avoided and therefore unforgivable sin.

Sure. I'd actually argue that an NROI forum, to deal with those questions would be a valuable tool -- but it would require someone at NROI to step up and take on that project....

A small undertaking that wouldn't be, to do it right.....

I printed all of the current interpretations for the recent Mid-Atlantic Sectional. I'm happy I didn't need to refer to them, because a good portion were as clear as mud, the way they were written. No matter how well written, someone will have a question. The best way to address those is by interaction....

[Singlestack]

Last year, discussions included the definitions of "handling", "draw", and "dropped gun (during the COF)" and those definitions are included in the 2010 rulebook.

The way "Handling" is currently defined, pinning a gun with anything to anything is a DQ. If you had meant to allow it (which I strongly disagree), you need to define "Handling" differently or get a ruling from DRONI. This is a change that simply does not correct a problem but in fact, creates one.

I find it interesting that some folks want to argue about the "intent" of a rule or a definition in the glossary with the people who were in the room and had a hand in the writing of the rule/definiton, and are now responsible for teaching what NROI's position is on the current wording.....

When Bill Kehoe taught my first Level 1 class, he passed out his telephone number and encouraged us to call him with him questions, anytime after the class. I seem to remember George doing the same thing last year. I know I've bounced questions off of John, George, Troy and Gary, at a bare minimum -- and gotten prompt and friendly advice from all of them....

I'm not arguing intent at all. I'm reading the English language. I would argue that all the RMI's do not share the same opinion on this issue.

[38superman]

Okay, chew on this scenario gentlemen.

At a recent club match, a stage began with an unloaded gun on a barrel (prop).

Magazines were placed on the same barrel or on other props throughout the stage.

The start position had the shooter sitting in a chair about 15 feet from where the gun was placed.

When the buzzer sounded, a shooter bolted out of the chair and raced toward his gun.

When he tried to slow down his feet went out from under him on the wet grass and he fell down.

His feet bumped the barrel as he went down.

The gun didn't fall off the barrel but it easily could have.

At that point he hadn't even touched the gun.

If an unloaded gun falls from a prop in this scenario, automatic DQ. Right???

[Nik Habicht]

Okay, chew on this scenario gentlemen.

At a recent club match, a stage began with an unloaded gun on a barrel (prop).

Magazines were placed on the same barrel or on other props throughout the stage.

The start position had the shooter sitting in a chair about 15 feet from where the gun was placed.

When the buzzer sounded, a shooter bolted out of the chair and raced toward his gun.

When he tried to slow down his feet went out from under him on the wet grass and he fell down.

His feet bumped the barrel as he went down.

The gun didn't fall off the barrel but it easily could have.

At that point he hadn't even touched the gun.

If an unloaded gun falls from a prop in this scenario, automatic DQ. Right???

Tried to reply from my phone and initially couldn't.....

To answer the question: Yes.

[mactiger]

Okay, chew on this scenario gentlemen.

At a recent club match, a stage began with an unloaded gun on a barrel (prop).

Magazines were placed on the same barrel or on other props throughout the stage.

The start position had the shooter sitting in a chair about 15 feet from where the gun was placed.

When the buzzer sounded, a shooter bolted out of the chair and raced toward his gun.

When he tried to slow down his feet went out from under him on the wet grass and he fell down.

His feet bumped the barrel as he went down.

The gun didn't fall off the barrel but it easily could have.

At that point he hadn't even touched the gun.

If an unloaded gun falls from a prop in this scenario, automatic DQ. Right???

Right.

[Poppa Bear]

Okay, chew on this scenario gentlemen.

At a recent club match, a stage began with an unloaded gun on a barrel (prop).

Magazines were placed on the same barrel or on other props throughout the stage.

The start position had the shooter sitting in a chair about 15 feet from where the gun was placed.

When the buzzer sounded, a shooter bolted out of the chair and raced toward his gun.

When he tried to slow down his feet went out from under him on the wet grass and he fell down.

His feet bumped the barrel as he went down.

The gun didn't fall off the barrel but it easily could have.

At that point he hadn't even touched the gun.

If an unloaded gun falls from a prop in this scenario, automatic DQ. Right???

Yes if it was the shooters actions that caused the gun to fall like running into the prop.

I have never seen one but I would expect that it is possible for an outside influence to cause the gun to fall in a table start. This would be something like a gust of wind blowing a prop over or into the gun. In that case I would call it a REF and after clearing and retrieving the gun restart the shooter.

[Poppa Bear]

Last year, discussions included the definitions of "handling", "draw", and "dropped gun (during the COF)" and those definitions are included in the 2010 rulebook.

The way "Handling" is currently defined, pinning a gun with anything to anything is a DQ. If you had meant to allow it (which I strongly disagree), you need to define "Handling" differently or get a ruling from DRONI. This is a change that simply does not correct a problem but in fact, creates one.

I find it interesting that some folks want to argue about the "intent" of a rule or a definition in the glossary with the people who were in the room and had a hand in the writing of the rule/definiton, and are now responsible for teaching what NROI's position is on the current wording.....

When Bill Kehoe taught my first Level 1 class, he passed out his telephone number and encouraged us to call him with him questions, anytime after the class. I seem to remember George doing the same thing last year. I know I've bounced questions off of John, George, Troy and Gary, at a bare minimum -- and gotten prompt and friendly advice from all of them....

Unfortunately this is one of those situations that really is in the eye and opinion of the RO, CRO and RM.

My opinion is if they react in such a way that they stop the gun from coming out of the holster and do nothing but keep it pinned in place until the RO can retrieve it, NO DQ as long as it was not their hand pinning it in place.

If they stop it in any way while it is on its way down, we have a gray area that needs some attention to detail. Did they handle it or manipulate it, or did they just slow its descent? Hands are an automatic DQ, arms are a possible DQ, Legs are a not likely DQ, but feet come back to a possible DQ.

Lets get realistic here though. How many dropped guns have you witnessed going down outside the COF? How many did you know about because you heard the gun hit the ground or heard the call "Gun Down"? How many have you dealt with the involved pinning the gun against their body? My answers are I have never watched a gun go down outside a COF, but I have observed an RO or been the RO that has recovered many after they have hit the ground. I have never dealt with a pinned gun. In all cases the gun was down or on its way down long before the shooter could react to its fall so they had zero chance of stopping it anyways. If they had reacted quickly enough to "Catch" the gun, it was on the ground long before I would have or could have witnessed their use of hands anyway. At this point I would have to rely on the shooters own words as well as any witnesses statements to determine if their hands were involved or not. Without any "proof" there can be no DQ.

[Singlestack]

My apologies for not being more specific in my choice of words.

When I was an Area Director, I usually said "we" in the context of being a member of the BOD. Now when I say "we" I tend to mean the RMI group.

As many of you know, the RMIs continually discuss issues related to rules and instruction of the rules. This group represents a huge amount of experience in the sport. Many years of service at all levels of our organization. We get together once a year to review "the latest problems" and consider potential solutions to ultimately assure we are teaching the same things. Sometimes those rules discussions revolve around "do we all agree on this?" and "what recommendations can we give to the DNROI and the BOD as to future updates or clarifications". We don't always agree, but the majority rules and we go about our business.

Last year, discussions included the definitions of "handling", "draw", and "dropped gun (during the COF)" and those definitions are included in the 2010 rulebook.

What was "the latest problem" that you believe you corrected with your interpretation of the definition "Handling"?

Personally, I like the definition with my interpretation...

[Singlestack]

Unfortunately this is one of those situations that really is in the eye and opinion of the RO, CRO and RM.

My opinion is if they react in such a way that they stop the gun from coming out of the holster and do nothing but keep it pinned in place until the RO can retrieve it, NO DQ as long as it was not their hand pinning it in place.

You can not back that opinion up with a rule though.

If they stop it in any way while it is on its way down, we have a gray area that needs some attention to detail. Did they handle it or manipulate it, or did they just slow its descent? Hands are an automatic DQ, arms are a possible DQ, Legs are a not likely DQ, but feet come back to a possible DQ.

I see no grey at all.

Lets get realistic here though. How many dropped guns have you witnessed going down outside the COF? How many did you know about because you heard the gun hit the ground or heard the call "Gun Down"? How many have you dealt with the involved pinning the gun against their body? My answers are I have never watched a gun go down outside a COF, but I have observed an RO or been the RO that has recovered many after they have hit the ground. I have never dealt with a pinned gun. In all cases the gun was down or on its way down long before the shooter could react to its fall so they had zero chance of stopping it anyways. If they had reacted quickly enough to "Catch" the gun, it was on the ground long before I would have or could have witnessed their use of hands anyway. At this point I would have to rely on the shooters own words as well as any witnesses statements to determine if their hands were involved or not. Without any "proof" there can be no DQ.

And there is the can of worms that this definition would create if it was indeed intended to allow for a gun to be pinned. I am not about to poll witnesses or ask the shooter about a DQ event. Thats not the way we do things.

[ima45dv8]

I don't know of any profession where continuing education -- beyond simply reading written updates -- isn't required.

So by that observation you're now implying that refresher RO classes should be required?

I'm actually in favor of that concept, but the devil's going to be in the details. The current instructor corps isn't large enough to do it. Costs and distances (access to refresher classes) for all are big factors. Getting an already volunteer RO corps to put in more time in a classroom, or in the evening over the 'net is a challenge....

I do think it's a problem worth considering though....

You think mandatory attendance to annual refresher Level I classes should be required, but don't see a way to make it happen within the current resources available.

Neither do I.

I also do not think that using the Level I classes as the only method to distribute important, and sometimes questionable interpretations made in a vacuum by the RMI Corp, is appropriate.

I recall that USPSA and NROI had a forum available (or did before the wondrous upgrade this year), and also still have an NROI-dedicated section of the USPSA website, through which they could communicate even spurious decisions of this sort. Utilizing that NROI section of our website would require no additional resources beyond effort. Is that too much to ask?

That option is highly preferable to private smoke-filled back-room decisions for which no effort is made to communicate to the great unwashed masses....a.k.a., current NROI-certified officials.

I see a clear value in the classes that the NROI instructors put on, and I accept that the content of what is being taught will change. That's also why I attempt to pick the brains of recent attendees, to see what might have changed.....

A commendable exercise on your part, but what of the poor isolated individual who doesn't have access to a recent attendee? Can we not reasonably expect that a sweeping change, such as the exception for trapping a falling gun with your forearm, should at least be available on USPSA.org for that guy? To do less is an easily avoided and therefore unforgivable sin.

Sure. I'd actually argue that an NROI forum, to deal with those questions would be a valuable tool -- but it would require someone at NROI to step up and take on that project....

A small undertaking that wouldn't be, to do it right.....

So the amount of effort needed to properly utilize an on-line tool that currently exists, and is available to all NROI members, is sufficient cause to ignore that option and effectively privatize changes to basic rules of safety?

Oh, wait... That's not correct. The purported new version of this rule (in contradiction to the wording in the July 2010 version of our rulebook) was "verbally" published, but only to new members of the NROI cadre taking the Level I class.

**In case anyone has missed the subtlety of my thoughts, let me make my position perfectly clear....

If this is the new method of communicating significant changes to our rules, especially those related to safety issues, a sweeping change is needed.

I'm more than happy to accept "changes" taught in new RO classes (assuming they are rules-compliant), but only if properly communicated to the rest of the NROI-certified officials who are not slated to attend.

[Nik Habicht]

I don't know of any profession where continuing education -- beyond simply reading written updates -- isn't required.

So by that observation you're now implying that refresher RO classes should be required?

I'm actually in favor of that concept, but the devil's going to be in the details. The current instructor corps isn't large enough to do it. Costs and distances (access to refresher classes) for all are big factors. Getting an already volunteer RO corps to put in more time in a classroom, or in the evening over the 'net is a challenge....

I do think it's a problem worth considering though....

You think mandatory attendance to annual refresher Level I classes should be required, but don't see a way to make it happen within the current resources available.

Neither do I.

I also do not think that using the Level I classes as the only method to distribute important, and sometimes questionable interpretations made in a vacuum by the RMI Corp, is appropriate.

I recall that USPSA and NROI had a forum available (or did before the wondrous upgrade this year), and also still have an NROI-dedicated section of the USPSA website, through which they could communicate even spurious decisions of this sort. Utilizing that NROI section of our website would require no additional resources beyond effort. Is that too much to ask?

That option is highly preferable to private smoke-filled back-room decisions for which no effort is made to communicate to the great unwashed masses....a.k.a., current NROI-certified officials.

I see a clear value in the classes that the NROI instructors put on, and I accept that the content of what is being taught will change. That's also why I attempt to pick the brains of recent attendees, to see what might have changed.....

A commendable exercise on your part, but what of the poor isolated individual who doesn't have access to a recent attendee? Can we not reasonably expect that a sweeping change, such as the exception for trapping a falling gun with your forearm, should at least be available on USPSA.org for that guy? To do less is an easily avoided and therefore unforgivable sin.

Sure. I'd actually argue that an NROI forum, to deal with those questions would be a valuable tool -- but it would require someone at NROI to step up and take on that project....

A small undertaking that wouldn't be, to do it right.....

So the amount of effort needed to properly utilize an on-line tool that currently exists, and is available to all NROI members, is sufficient cause to ignore that option and effectively privatize changes to basic rules of safety?

Oh, wait... That's not correct. The purported new version of this rule (in contradiction to the wording in the July 2010 version of our rulebook) was "verbally" published, but only to new members of the NROI cadre taking the Level I class.

**In case anyone has missed the subtlety of my thoughts, let me make my position perfectly clear....

If this is the new method of communicating significant changes to our rules, especially those related to safety issues, a sweeping change is needed.

I'm more than happy to accept "changes" taught in new RO classes (assuming they are rules-compliant), but only if properly communicated to the rest of the NROI-certified officials who are not slated to attend.

Annual attendance? Nope, didn't use that word -- don't go putting that in my mouth.....

If I were asked to envision something like that -- it would probably run along the lines of "once every x years", or "once within x years following a rulebook revision".....

Now onto the next point -- RE: "private smoke-filled back-room decisions"

I find that statement to be truly offensive, and believe that you owe every member of the (volunteer, just like you and me) Instructor Corps an apology for that. The reality of the process is that the instructor corps held a training conference, discussed and clarified some issues, that those issues were then brought to the Board of Directors by DNROI, apparently approved and then included in the next printing of the rulebook. That's hardly a nefarious, secretive or underhanded process. I don't believe that you're so naive as to not see the implications of that particular word choice....

Could NROI do a better job getting the word out to all certified range officers? Yep.

The current forum doesn't work. No one uses it, and perhaps more importantly, the Director of NROI doesn't use it to disseminate any information. I'm thinking that might fall into his area of responsibility, but then I'm not on the Board of Directors.....

[Nik Habicht]

If this is the new method of communicating significant changes to our rules, especially those related to safety issues, a sweeping change is needed.

I'm more than happy to accept "changes" taught in new RO classes (assuming they are rules-compliant), but only if properly communicated to the rest of the NROI-certified officials who are not slated to attend.

This part I'm totally on board with.....

Communication within NROI isn't what it should be.....