Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Hypothetical Question


LPatterson

Recommended Posts

Scenario: During IYAF,U&SC a round detonates but as it happens the RO can no longer see the shooters fingertip outside of the trigger guard because the shooter is a flipper (flips gun up to catch ejecting case). The RO claims a DQ under 10.5.9 but the shooter claims it was ok under 10.4.3.1 and his finger just happened to enter the trigger guard as part of the shock of the detonation. When this goes to arbitration, only 2 people observed what happened so how does the Committee rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but as it happens the RO can no longer see the shooters fingertip outside of the trigger guard...

I think he'd have to see it INSIDE of the trigger guard.

Simply not being able to see it outside makes room for the arguement that he really couldn't see anything of value, either way.

The RO can only call what he sees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RO needs to be watching the whole procedure, not just looking for a finger on the trigger, which in any case would not cause a detonation--it would cause a discharge, because the gun would have to be in battery for the trigger to work properly. If you call it a detonation, then that's what it is--no DQ.

Troy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was a true detonation then there would be evidence like a broken gun, injury to the shooter or RO, ruptured case, etc. No DQ. If I do not see any evidence of a detonation I might be inclined to think it was an AD and support a DQ. I have been around double charges, case-head separations, and detonations. Non sound, look, or react like a normal shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scenario: During IYAF,U&SC a round detonates but as it happens the RO can no longer see the shooters fingertip outside of the trigger guard because the shooter is a flipper (flips gun up to catch ejecting case). The RO claims a DQ under 10.5.9 but the shooter claims it was ok under 10.4.3.1 and his finger just happened to enter the trigger guard as part of the shock of the detonation. When this goes to arbitration, only 2 people observed what happened so how does the Committee rule?

If the bullet passed thru the barrel, it is not a detonation, thus a DQ. If it didn't, it is, and it's not. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scenario: During IYAF,U&SC a round detonates but as it happens the RO can no longer see the shooters fingertip outside of the trigger guard because the shooter is a flipper (flips gun up to catch ejecting case). The RO claims a DQ under 10.5.9 but the shooter claims it was ok under 10.4.3.1 and his finger just happened to enter the trigger guard as part of the shock of the detonation. When this goes to arbitration, only 2 people observed what happened so how does the Committee rule?

If the bullet passed thru the barrel, it is not a detonation, thus a DQ. If it didn't, it is, and it's not. :P

Ah, but the RO wasn't calling a DQ for shot fired while unloading. How does the shooter get around the "Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading, reloading, or unloading." (10.5.9) call made by the RO?

If the shooter claims that it was okay 10.4.3.1, the wording for 10.4.3.1 itself says "a detonation, which occurs while unloading a handgun, is not considered a shot or discharge subject to a match disqualification", he is readily admitting that he was unloading. Would it have been better for the shooter to not even mention 10.4.3.1, and just say that he had a detonation and it caused his finger to slip into the trigger guard? Or would that be equally as bad because he is now saying that his finger was in the trigger guard?

Edited by Skydiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got ahead of myself with the earlier post. We are only at 8.3.6 IYAF, U&SC. Unless the RO can definitively say the finger was inside the trigger guard during the act of unloading, as compared to taking a late shot because he was not finished yet, the RO cannot issue a DQ. The COF is still active until ICHD,H. Now if the RO presents evidence even visual that there was no target available, we have greater proof of an unsafe act DQ. This is all contingent upon there being no evidence of an actual detonation.

If there was an actual detonation my concern would be if he still HAD all of his fingers, not if one appeared to be in the trigger guard.

Edited by Poppa Bear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got ahead of myself with the earlier post. We are only at 8.3.6 IYAF, U&SC. Unless the RO can definitively say the finger was inside the trigger guard during the act of unloading, as compared to taking a late shot because he was not finished yet, the RO cannot issue a DQ. The COF is still active until ICHD,H. Now if the RO presents evidence even visual that there was no target available, we have greater proof of an unsafe act DQ. This is all contingent upon there being no evidence of an actual detonation.

If there was an actual detonation my concern would be if he still HAD all of his fingers, not if one appeared to be in the trigger guard.

Poppa Bear's got priorities right: shooter health and safety first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that an RO's job was to watch the gun at all time during loading, unloading and movement to see the shooter's finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard. 10.5.9 "Failure to keep the finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard during loading, reloading , or unloading." 10.5.10 "Failure to keep the finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard during movement." Neither of these rules say anything about whether the finger was on the trigger just OUTSIDE the trigger guard. So in the OP, the RO may have have been ready to yell STOP but the detonation preceeded it. So did the penalty not occur?

The other part of the post was 'when it goes to arbitration with only 2 witnesses whoses statement is given the most credence'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other part of the post was 'when it goes to arbitration with only 2 witnesses whoses statement is given the most credence'.

For that question, see 11.1.2. Embedded in it is:

11.1.2 ... Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification. However, the commission of the infraction as described by the Range Official is not subject to challenge or appeal. ...

Edited by Skydiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that an RO's job was to watch the gun at all time during loading, unloading and movement to see the shooter's finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard. 10.5.9 "Failure to keep the finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard during loading, reloading , or unloading." 10.5.10 "Failure to keep the finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard during movement." Neither of these rules say anything about whether the finger was on the trigger just OUTSIDE the trigger guard. So in the OP, the RO may have have been ready to yell STOP but the detonation preceeded it. So did the penalty not occur?

The other part of the post was 'when it goes to arbitration with only 2 witnesses whoses statement is given the most credence'.

That's how the rules read. Per NROI's seminar's however, the RO needs to see the finger in the trigger guard before issuing the DQ.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always remember that qualifiers like "...I think I saw..." and "...I'm pretty sure..." (and so on) are not part of a DQ call when you are the RO. You must be 100% sure.

And.... I was also thinking reading LPatterson's previous post, that it was enough to say I didn't see it outside, so it must have been inside? If so, no way. You must see the finger inside the trigger guard, not "not outside of the trigger guard" --- if that was what you were implying.... if not.... i'll just move along... :unsure:

Edited by aztecdriver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RO can still issue a DQ he just quoted the wrong rule in this case,

The showboating flipping stuff was unsafe gun handling in and of itself which directly led to a Negligent, (not accidental) discharge.

DQ under 10.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RO can still issue a DQ he just quoted the wrong rule in this case,

The showboating flipping stuff was unsafe gun handling in and of itself which directly led to a Negligent, (not accidental) discharge.

DQ under 10.5

That's not what he said - he said it was a detonation not a discharge. Last time I checked, during the COF, the shooter can handle the gun in anyway they see fit as long as the don't violate a set number of safety rules - the least of which turning the gun sideways and racking the slide rapidly. I've seen plenty of shooters deal with malfunctions in much the same way they do to eject the round "showboat" flipping. If we were to DQ people who do that little maneuver, I'll be writing DQ slips for at least half of the super squad members at nationals.

You may not like the little flip the gun and catch the round thing, but it's not against the rules, and the DQ will not stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RO can still issue a DQ he just quoted the wrong rule in this case,

The showboating flipping stuff was unsafe gun handling in and of itself which directly led to a Negligent, (not accidental) discharge.

DQ under 10.5

Wrong and Wrong.

Troy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then maybe thats what we need to start doing, flipping a round into the air and catching it is dangerous.

10.5 is not an inclusive list. It clearly states the listed examples are not all inclusive. The RO in this case got it wrong with the finger call he couldnt see.

Detonation, discharge, same same, the shooter performed an unnecessary act that directly led to a round going off, either out the barrel or in the chamber, both of which were unsafe. If blowing up or negligent discharging a round isnt unsafe gun handling I dont know what is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cof ends at holster, right? So any round down range before that is still in the course of fire. Right? So, unless he was moving with finger in guard, which he was not, or unsafe handling, where does the dq come in? If finished is a question, what if the shooter answers by shooting another target? If the ro did not 100% see a dq, then no dq. Am I wrong?

Really interesting post......seems to be gray area to some. Would like to see more comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RO can still issue a DQ he just quoted the wrong rule in this case,

The showboating flipping stuff was unsafe gun handling in and of itself which directly led to a Negligent, (not accidental) discharge.

DQ under 10.5

Talk about selective interpretation! The flipping did not cause anything.

A round going off is not a DQ, it's what causes the round to go off that causes the problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that an RO's job was to watch the gun at all time during loading, unloading and movement to see the shooter's finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard.

That's gospel. I was ROing an outstanding shooter at the Michigan SEctional when he experienced some misfires with his 1911. As soon as the gun went "Click the first time I immediately repositioned myself to watch what might unfold. And what did unfold was a shot into the berm in front of us due to a gun malfunction. As it turns out some guts broke and the hammer was following and on the third rack of the slide.....ohmy.gif.

Had I not seen his arrow straight finger on the frame when it happened the assumption would have been to issue a DQ. That is exactly why you can't assume anything. It would have been an injustice to the shooter, embarrassing for me and time consuming for the match staff had I made the wrong call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...