DQ? or Procedural?

[TriggerT]

I was ROing a stage last night at or clubs thusday night practice league, and the following happened. The stage set up was to shoot some steel from Box A, then proceed about 10 yards straight forward toward T1, and Box B, where you were to engage T1 with 2 rounds week hand only from Box B.

One shooter while advancing to Box B, and changing the gun over from his strong hand to his weak hand fired a shot. I would normally call this a AD, and therefore a match DQ. However, he was only about one pace away from the box, and more importantly the shot scored a C hit on the target. He stated that while the shot went off before he wanted it to, and before he was in the shooting box, it was down range, and on target.

So what is the ruling? I would call it unsafe gun handling, since he didn't have the gun up to eye level, and admitedthat it went off before he wanted. However, I can see his point of it only being a procedural for engaging the target outside of the designated shooting box. And that since the shot went down range and scored a hit it wasn't unsafe handling.

I think this one could be argued either way. Is it just up to the RO, or MD to call it unsafe handling if they feel it is? Couldn't that make just about anything the RO wants "Unsafe gun Handling?"

[Flexmoney]

I don't think the fact that the shooter got "lucky" and hit the target is of any importance.

He clearly was NOT engaging the target. (by actions and admission)

He easily could have been "unlucky".

The point isn't where the bullet went (well...it really is). The point is that the gun went off when it wasn't supposed to. The shooter failed to control the gun.

Thankfully the shooter was experienced enough to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, but it is still UGH US 10.3.2.2

[SRT Driver]

Finger on trigger while moving would be my call. 10.3.12, I think

[Flexmoney]

Is it just up to the RO, or MD to call it unsafe handling if they feel it is? Couldn't that make just about anything the RO wants "Unsafe gun Handling?"

I don't think that the RO has a too much lee-way here. The rule is pretty brief and clear.

The RO needs to know the safety rules pretty well...and they need to pay attention to what is going on at all times (we are playing with loaded guns). Like Uncle Darth likes to say...we aren't just timer-holders.

(I just re-read that...TriggerT, I'm not implying anything toward you. Sorry if it sounds that way.)

[BDH]

So what is the ruling? I would call it unsafe gun handling, since he didn't have the gun up to eye level, and admitedthat it went off before he wanted. However, I can see his point of it only being a procedural for engaging the target outside of the designated shooting box. And that since the shot went down range and scored a hit it wasn't unsafe handling.

I think this one could be argued either way. Is it just up to the RO, or MD to call it unsafe handling if they feel it is? Couldn't that make just about anything the RO wants "Unsafe gun Handling?"

First, I don't believe there is anything in the rules about having to have the gun to eye level when shooting....

Second, let's assume that the shooter did NOT admit to letting the shot go early.... Instead, they said, "what are you talking about? I was clearly engaging that target. Heck, the hole in the target proves that!! Did I get a little over anxious and take my shot before I landed in the Box? Yes I did, but all that is is a Procedural for not following the course description."

These questions are tough without actually witnessing the event, but based on what I see here, I would call the Procedural and avoid it going to arbitration and being over-turned.

The thing that makes this tough is that he 'did' say 'the shot went off before he wanted it to'. However, notice he did not admit to anything other than I took the shot earlier than I actually wanted to (and which one of us has never let a shot go a split second before we were 100% ready?)....... This is a tough one as it sure sounds like UGH, but I still think it would get over-turned in an ARB.

TriggerT, I guess my advice to you would be...... you were the one that actually saw this, and you have to call 'em like you see 'em. If you believed it was UGH, then you should have DQ'd him period. If he chose to ARB it (I realize this was a practice night, so unlikely), then just see what happened.....

[Shooter Grrl]

Old rules, no DQ

New rules, I LOVE MY UNCA VINNY, it's a DQ

Okay - now for the rules to back up the no DQ.

First, it could not be considered unsafe gunhandling (don't have my rulebook handy, TriggerT you should look it up so you convince yourself

Second, it could not have been considered an Accidental Discharge (don't have my rulebook handy, TriggerT you should look it up so you convince yourself

So without rules to back up your DQ, tain't gonna fly.

[Flexmoney]

"what are you talking about? I was clearly engaging that target. Heck, the hole in the target proves that!! ."

IMO...The hole in the target proves nothing. It is the action of the shooter that is the offense.

Either the shooter was engaging the target, or they weren't. I agree, that call needs to be made by the RO. But, hitting the target by accident doesn't meant the shooter was engaging the target. (again, IMO)

I'd call the DQ (if the evidence/action supported that...which I think it does). If I error, it will be on the side of safety. If it goes to arb...that is A-OK with me.

[BDH]

Old rules, no DQ

New rules, I LOVE MY UNCA VINNY, it's a DQ

Aha.... I DO have my new rulebook at work, and think I see the new rule you are talking about......

10.4.5 A shot which occurs while transferring a handgun between hands.

Is that the rule you are basing the DQ on Kathy??

Since I didn't witness this, I suppose the issue would be how do you determine 'while transferring'? If the shot broke when the gun was clearly in both hands during the actual transfer, then I would agree with you. However, if the gun was in the weak hand (but he really didn't have his full grip).... the shooter pulls the trigger.... the shot hits the target he was 'aiming' at..... I still think this would be over-turned.

Again, kind of tough without actually seeing it. I'd love to see Vince, Arnie, or Troy jump in here....

[BDH]

IMO...The hole in the target proves nothing.  It is the action of the shooter that is the offense.

Either the shooter was engaging the target, or they weren't.  I agree, that call needs to be made by the RO.  But, hitting the target by accident doesn't meant the shooter was engaging the target.  (again, IMO)

I'd call the DQ (if the evidence/action supported that...which I think it does).  If I error, it will be on the side of safety.  If it goes to arb...that is A-OK with me.

We are pretty much on the same page here, and unless I saw the actual event, it's tough for me to make the call. Also, I hear you on err on the side of safety, and I certainly do not disagree. However, I still think that if this went to ARB, it would probably be over-turned.

We had a great debate over something similar last year at one of the Nats. If I remember correctly (I didn't shoot the stage, so don't really remember it, but I am sure someone will chime in and correct me)......

There was some stage that had an aluminum pie tin on it. Shooter picks up his gun, it discharges before he clears the pie tin, shot goes through the pie tin, and hits target. I think there were at least 5 or 6 RM's in the discussion, and I'm not sure we ever did agree on the call.....

[Loves2Shoot]

Not good, but not a DQ IMO.

Not an AD per the rule.

I've seen plenty of people point shoot targets without having the gun at eye level, heck I've seen people looking the other way hosing the last target in an array and getting their hits.

Unless the act is grossly unsafe, I don't think you could get away with unsafe gun handling in arbitration, especially is he got his hits on target. I sure as heck would kick in my $ if someone tried to DQ me when I hit the target because they thought I was unsafe and not in control of my gun. That is too subjective. I have to disagree with Flex on this one.

On the transfer thing, if I have the gun in my hand enough to pull the trigger and hit the target, I am not transfering it, it is transfered.

[Matthew_Mink]

One step away from the box? I wouldn't have DQ'd him. He could have easily been preparing to engage the target, and just not have the gun at eye-level.

[SRT Driver]

I still say 10.3.12.

Regardless of his honesty, he was moving with his finger in the triggerguard and NOT engaging targets. BANG!!! DQ.

If he stopped short of the box and fired or one foot in and one out of the box..he gets a procedural.

[Flexmoney]

BDH,

I think we have a thread on that Nationals stage (around here somewhere).

An "AD", is not the call. UGH is. Under US 10.3.2.2

Rule rules says "...engaging targets".

That would be my call.

- Luckily hitting the target is not engaging. (Again, I am glad the shooter had the good gun sense to have the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.)

- Being a step away from the box is not engaging.

- Having the gun up/down, or looking at/away, does not determine engaging. (One way, nor the other.)

In this case...something other than engaging a target was going on when this gun went off. The RO knows that is the case here. So does the shooter.

[TriggerT]

OK, here's the thing. First off, the shooter was very cool about the entire deal, and since it was a friendly thursday night shoot, we gave him 1 procedural, and let it go at that.

The hit on the target, while not prooving anything does give the shooter the ability to argue if he chose to do so. "I was transitioning into the box, and I was just a little fast on the trigger." No different than if he had the gun up, and started to shoot a half a step before he was in the box.

If the shot had been wild, like not even in to the back stop, then you could argue unsafe gun handling.

SRT, you can't hit him with the moving with the finger on the trigger rule, since again, he could argue he chose to engage the target at that time, and his feet were just slower than he planned on.

[Flexmoney]

SRT,

10.3.12 makes a heck of an arguement as well. And, it doesn't require the gun to go off.

The 10.3.2.2 that I referrence can only apply if there is a discharge/detonation.

With your 10.3.12, the shooter may have DQ'ed before he got to 10.3.2.2

[BDH]

Flex, DQ me on this, and I will pull out my $100 bucks and ARB it. I will also make a side bet with you for another $100. When I win, we will have a total of $200 bucks with which I will buy a bunch of beers (and if you are nice, maybe a couple of good stoogies), and then we can sit down over beers, and argue over this one.

Of course, there is never any guarentee on what the ARB committee will do, but in this case I would clearly lay out the money, because I am 95% sure that they will over-turn it.....

[Garfield]

Interesting discussion.

However, if I am not mistaking, TriggerT never mentioned what rules apply: USPSA or IPSC ?

I see you all quoting from both USPSA and IPSC rules, but wouldn't it be better to first get clarity about what rules apply ?

Having said that, the whole thing sure "smells" like a DQ but it is so hard to judge without having seen the whole thing. Any written description about what happened cannot do justice to what actually happened (am I making sense here ?).

[SRT Driver]

TriggerT,

Sure can!! The course description that you shared says that T-1 has to be engaged from box B which requires the shooter to move from box A, of course.

Anytime you move, your trigger finger must be out of the trigger guard unless you are engaging targets. We all know that In this case, you could not engage targets "as they become visible"

Granted you were there and know the situation. But if someone is moving into a box and is ready to engage the target, their movement is far different from someone who is moving and not ready.

In any case, ready or not, their finger should be out of the trigger guard untl they enter the box and are engaging targets. The fact that there was a discharge is the final deciding factor, in my mind.

[mactiger]

Along with most everybody else, I'll temper my remarks by saying "I didn't see it." Given the circumstances as described, I'd DQ the competitor and cite two offenses--UGH (actions, not results), and finger on trigger while moving.

Brian, Brian, Brian--we never make calls based on what we think an arb. committee will do. Make calls based on your best judgement, knowledge of the rules, and first and foremost, concern for safety. And, friendly Thursday match or not, safety is first.

IMO, this is a case of unsafe gun handling. If the shooter disagrees, he's free to arbitrate, no matter what level match it is. If the arb committee overturns the DQ, that's their decision, and is not a reflection on the RO's call. It might very well get overturned at arbitration, but usually if two rules of safe gun handling are broken, it won't be. What an arb committee might do should not influence your call at the moment.

This type call is based on what the RO sees at the time. If it appeared that the competitor was trying to engage the target, then it could be a procedural for not shooting from the box. If it appeared that the competitor was merely moving into the box and the gun went off, then it's a DQ, no matter what rules we are operating under, or what hand the gun was in.

Troy

[mactiger]

stoogies

Brian, what the hell is a stoogie? And how much do they cost?

Seriously, pull out the hundred, big guy--even if you lose, it's not like they award the money to the RO, you know. And, if I were the RO, and you won, when you came back to my stage for your reshoot, I'd shake your hand and carry on. I made my best call, they didn't agree, end of story. That's what the arb process is all about.

Troy

[BDH]

Brian, Brian, Brian--we never make calls based on what we think an arb. committee will do.     Make calls based on your best judgement, knowledge of the rules, and first and foremost, concern for safety.  And, friendly Thursday match or not, safety is first.

Troy,

Apparently I am not coming across clear in my posts. What I am trying to communicate about the ARB committee is this........

If I was 95% sure that this would be over-turned in ARB, then that would also mean that I was 95% unsure about the DQ call. If I was 95% unsure about the DQ call, then I would call the Procedural. Does that make more sense?

The bottom line is I would have had to actually see the event to make the call, and then I would make the call. I sure as heck would not stand there thinking about it, and trying to decide what would happen in an ARB before I made the call. As both of us know, things usually happen too fast and you have to react by making the call. Of course, that is also why we have an ARB process.... because occassionally the decision we make on the range may not be the correct decision once we have a chance to actually think through it.

[BDH]

And, if I were the RO, and you won, when you came back to my stage for your reshoot, I'd shake your hand and carry on. I made my best call, they didn't agree, end of story. That's what the arb process is all about. 

We are on the same page and apparently we were typing our messages in parellel...

[Paul B]

I also would probably DQ the shooter in question, but the scenario is tainted by the shooters own comments rather than what factually may have happened.

The finger on the trigger argument does not hold water to me because as I am coming into a box I am already lined up on the targets that must be shot from that box. If this is a "finger" DQ violation, then we would have to call it for everyone that foot faults a box while engaging targets. The fact that an undirected shot occurred is what bothers me and should require at least a cooling off period to arb the call.

I'm with Brian also as regards the arb, specially if he cuts me in on the beer and stogies.

[Shooter Grrl]

There was some stage that had an aluminum pie tin on it. Shooter picks up his gun, it discharges before he clears the pie tin, shot goes through the pie tin, and hits target. I think there were at least 5 or 6 RM's in the discussion, and I'm not sure we ever did agree on the call.....

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Damn, I'd finally just gotten over the nightmares

[Shooter Grrl]

Okay guys, let me make this perfectly clear, there is no rule in the 14th ed. USPSA Rulebook to support a DQ in this circumstance. In all cases that I have personal knowledge of, if the shot hits the target, our rules do not currently consider it unsafe! UGH can not stand in this instance. It's CLEARLY not an accidental discharge (according to the rules) and you can't even use finger on the trigger because of the the "2 step" rule.