DQ? or Procedural?

[Flexmoney]

Umm...there is no mention of "hitting" targets in the rules.

The rules state engaging.

Paul, my read was that the shooter ran up to toward the box, and was in the process of switching the gun over to the weak hand at the time of the discharge.

[Shooter Grrl]

Uh huh - engagement implies hits. They are the same thing. Trust me on this! My pie pan DQ got overturned - went through a prop, splattered the shooter and the RO with metal shavings and UGH STILL got overturned all because the bullet hit the target.

[Loves2Shoot]

The rules state engaging.

What is engaging?

Isn't it getting ready to shooting at targets?

How can a target get a hole in it if it isn't engaged first?

He may not have "intentionally" engaged the target, but I don't see that in the rulebook. I know I've NEVER intentionally engaged a no-shoot, but I've hit a few and I've still gotten my -10 as a result of an un-intentional engagement. No DQ there.

[TriggerT]

We are talking USPSA rules, for what it is worth.

SRT hate to say it it, but if we make the assumption that the shooter is going to argue the call, and NOT admit that he didn't mean for the gun to go off when it did (the shooter in this case, as mentioned before admited wrong doing, but for arguement sake) there is NO WAY you can tell him that he didn't want to engage the target when he did. If I want to to stop before I get to box B, and from the hip shoot 6 shots into the target, I can do so and accept the penalties.

Know what? I just ansered my own questions to start this entire thread. Unless I can PROOVE that the shooter wasn't in control of the gun, he just chose to engage the target before he entered the shooting box. 1 proceedural for each shot fired, have a nice day. If I can PROOVE that he wasn't in control of the gun, then match DQ.

It isn't what you think or know, it is what you can SHOW to be true.

[mactiger]

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?

Yes, Brian, that does make more sense, from the perspective of whether the RO is sure about the call or not. It just sounded funny put the other way.

I just wanted to emphasize that you make the call based on what you see, not on what you think will happen down the road.

Kath, it doesn't matter what the arb committee did in your case. Arbitrations only hold sway for that match--they don't set precedent. Nor is there a rule about whether you hit a target or not. Not having seen it, it's hard to make a call, but IF the competitor did not appear to be trying to shoot at the target, (and it's a judgement call on the part of the RO), it's a DQ for Unsafe Gun Handling and Finger in the trigger while moving (again, judgement on the part of the RO, based on what he sees.)

Given the circumstances as outlined here,

One shooter while advancing to Box B, and changing the gun over from his strong hand to his weak hand fired a shot.

(italics are mine) I'd stop and DQ the shooter for both. It doesn't matter if the round hit a target or not. He may not agree, but that's what the arb process is for.

Troy

[BDH]

My pie pan DQ got overturned - went through a prop, splattered the shooter and the RO with metal shavings and UGH STILL got overturned all because the bullet hit the target.

Kathy, I thought that was you! Sorry to bring back bad memories. Is that why you aren't working this years Nats (at least I thought you said you weren't working)? I need to find that thread because I remember talking to Jay about this, but don't remember all the details.....

Troy, glad this makes more sense now. Actually, if you re-read my first post to TriggerT, my advice to him at the end of that post was that he saw this occur, so he needs to make the call, and if he thought it warranted a DQ, then he sure as hell should give it. If it goes to ARB, so be it....

TriggerT, glad we helped you answer your own question (especially, since you came around to MY position).

Flex, I know it drives you nuts when we get into these 'subjective' discussions (and I love to drive you nuts)! I think I'll start another thread, just to make you even more crazy....

[mactiger]

Brian: OTAY!

TriggerT and Brian: It's actually not what you can prove, it's what you saw happen, the facts of which you do not doubt. If you aren't sure, it's always safest to err on the side of safety: stop the shooter. Then, take some time to figure out what happened, and what you'll call. Stopping him doesn't mean DQ'ing him. It means that something happened that was out of the ordinary and you need to make a decision about it. If you stop him and decide that it was not an unsafe act, then he gets a reshoot. If you stop him and decide he was moving with his finger on the trigger, finger on the trigger while changing hands, fired a shot while changing hands, or wasn't in control, or whatever you decide was the unsafe thing, then DQ him. There's nothing wrong with pulling out the rule book if you need to. Many times you'll feel like it makes you look like you don't know what you're doing, but we don't expect range officials to memorize the rules.

The RO's word for what happened is taken at face value. You don't have to prove anything in arbitration, or to DQ a competitor. (Hopefully, you are sure of the call before you DQ the shooter.) The competitor who brings the arb has to provide the proof.

Troy

[BDH]

If you aren't sure, it's always safest to err on the side of safety:  stop the shooter.  Then, take some time to figure out what happened, and what you'll call.

Great point!

There's nothing wrong with pulling out the rule book if you need to.

Does that include at my RM oral review (assuming I get there some day)?

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Assuming the RO's observations were:

One shooter while advancing to Box B, and changing the gun over from his strong hand to his weak hand fired a shot.

then it's definitely a match DQ under the following rule:

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

[SRT Driver]

Believe me, I never want to DQ anyone but safety can NEVER be brushed off. Again, I was not there and did not see the shot but:

10.3.12 Failure to keep finger outside trigger guard during movement in accordance with section 8.5

8.5.1 All movement must be accomplished with finger outside the trigger guard except if targets are visible to the shooter and the shooter maintains a sight picture on the targets with the intent of engaging them.

8.5.1.1 Taking more than one step in any direction.

8.5.1.2 Changing positions ( i.e. standing to kneeling)

So, shooting from the hip while moving to the box does not constitute engaging targets. Which means, finger on trigger while moving, BANG! DQ. Does not matter which hand. The shooter should be commended for keeping things pointed down range though.

[TriggerT]

Thanks Vince, that the rule I was looking for. The shot did occur during the transition, so nuff said.

SRT, interesting, I haven't ever noticed any other area where they talk about having to keep a sight picture.

I have been going from memory, since I don't keep a rule book at work.

Best point I think was made by mactiger, if in doubt stop them. Worse case is they get a reshoot.

See you all on the latest DQ question posted today.

[Shooter Grrl]

All the rules quoted that would have supported your DQ ARE NOT IN THE 14TH ED USPSA RULEBOOK.

They're in the new one, because we as RO's could not justify a DQ in these situations. Have I mentioned, I love my Unca Vinny

[mactiger]

Uh, Kath, what part of 10.3.12 doesn't cover "while advancing to box B"? Or, for another rule, US 10.3.2.2 should do it, as well.

I'm sorry, but this is a clear-cut DQ for Unsafe gun handling under the current, 14th edition USPSA Rule Book. It's also covered under the new rules, as well--as Vince has pointed out.

Troy

[AikiDale]

Do you ever get the feeling Brian is studying for an RM oral and we are his lab rats?

[Flexmoney]

Lab rats???

Who moved my cheese?

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Once again I agree with (my separated at birth brother) Troy that it's also a match DQ under Rule 10.3.12 of the USPSA 2001 Edition rulebook for a discharge during movement.

And it's so nice to be loved by Shooter Grrl. Lemme see now, that's Shooter Grrl, my dog Gomer and, er, um, oh well, two is a decent start.

[Paul B]

I'll say it once again. I guess all shots fired while foot faulting a box are now a DQ because you can't be engaging a target outside the box?????

[mactiger]

No, and that's not the case in this example. There is a difference in firing a shot intentionally while faulting a line or box and firing one accidentally while moving into or toward the box/line/wall, whatever. One is a procedural, the other is a DQ, and it's clear in this example that it wasn't a case of merely faulting the box.

Troy

[TriggerT]

Troy,

Since the shooter was in the process, or had just finished the process, of shifting the gun from his strong hand to his weak hand, I would agree with you in this case.

However, couldn't a shooter almost always argue that he was just trying to get the shot off a fast as possible? "And look, here is the hit to proove I was in control, and engaging the target." You are talking about knowing what the shooters intent was at the time the shot was fired, and unless the shot goes in an unsafe dirrection, or the gun goes off during a reload or something simular, you trying to tell the shooter what his intent was when the gun went off could be kind of tough. At least in my humble, wanting to learn, RO, only shooting USPSA for 4 years opinion.

[BDH]

You are talking about knowing what the shooters intent was at the time the shot was fired, and unless the shot goes in an unsafe dirrection, or the gun goes off during a reload or something simular, you trying to tell the shooter what his intent was when the gun went off could be kind of tough.

TriggerT, this is exactly the point that I was trying to make, and was why I made the point about the shot hitting the target (in this thread, and in the Mini-Mart thread). I think this is a tough call without actually seeing it. Based on what I saw at that particular instant, I think I could have called it either way. As I said in my first post (and as Troy and others have also said).... you have got to make the best call you can, based on what you saw at the time. If the shooter disagrees, he can ARB it. If the ARB comm over-turns it, no big deal, just move on....

[mactiger]

Troy,

Since the shooter was in the process, or had just finished the process, of shifting the gun from his strong hand to his weak hand, I would agree with you in this case.

However, couldn't a shooter almost always argue that he was just trying to get the shot off a fast as possible? "And look, here is the hit to proove I was in control, and engaging the target." You are talking about knowing what the shooters intent was at the time the shot was fired, and unless the shot goes in an unsafe dirrection, or the gun goes off during a reload or something simular, you trying to tell the shooter what his intent was when the gun went off could be kind of tough. At least in my humble, wanting to learn, RO, only shooting USPSA for 4 years opinion.

Actually, TriggerT, what I'm talking about is not trying to divine the shooters intent, but making a call based on observations of the shooters actions. The RO's primay focus should be on the gun, so if the RO sees the competitor crank a round off early, while or just after changing hands, and before he gets into the next shooting position, the first thing to do is stop him. Then, things can be sorted out. The competitor can always argue that he was trying to shoot as early as possible, but with a little experience, it's pretty easy to tell whether a shot is intentional or accidental. (Contrary to popular belief, just because a competitor could see a target doesn't mean he was engaging it. ) In this instance, I'd probably say something like: "I'm sorry, but I have to disqualify you for unsafe gun handling. You were moving with your finger on the trigger, and your gun went off while you were moving." These statements would be based on what I saw, not what I thought the competitor was trying to do. The hit on the target would be irrelevant to my call, but possibly not to an arbitration committee. The fact that the competitor basically shot from the hip, weak handed, on the move, might be a sign, though.

This is the part where the RO must use his best judgement based on what he saw, not on what the competitor claims he was trying to do. As Brian says, if you are not sure, then don't apply the DQ. If you are sure, then make the call. At any rate, merely stopping the competitor is usually enough to provide a "wake up call", and it gives both of you time to assess the situation without any pressure.

Lastly, it's easy for us to sit back and sort of "armchair quarterback" situations like this, but really, without actually seeing the incident, all of these answers are just opinions. The RO in charge at the time is the guy who has to make the hard call. You make the best call you can, based on your knowledge of the rules, experience, and what you saw, and then you move on. You should never be worried about asking questions or discussing the answers, though--that's one of the best learning tools we have.

Hope this helps.

Troy