Going back on a DQ

[Schutzenmeister]

If safety is a consideration then no stage like the one mentioned in the OP should be allowed. Plain and simple. Any club that allows unsafe stages should be shown the door. Designers should ensure that the stages they design are safe beyond doubt. Yea it can be a pain to add additional focus to safety but only one person needs to be injured to mess things up for everyone.

WTG

The OP said NOTHING about stage design, nor, on rereading it, do I find anything in Post #1 to indicate stage design was a factor at all. A subsequent post mentioned several stages which could be tricky for a new RO to handle gracefully, but nothing that I would particularly read as unsafe.

While I fully agree stages should be designed with safety in mind at all times, there is nothing in this thread which would indicate a stage design problem per se. All ROs go through a learning curve where they figure out how to apply the rules and their training in the real world of competitive shooting. I think Donovan shows great fortitude in posing the question the way he did.

[DonovanM]

If safety is a consideration then no stage like the one mentioned in the OP should be allowed. Plain and simple. Any club that allows unsafe stages should be shown the door. Designers should ensure that the stages they design are safe beyond doubt. Yea it can be a pain to add additional focus to safety but only one person needs to be injured to mess things up for everyone.

WTG

The OP said NOTHING about stage design, nor, on rereading it, do I find anything in Post #1 to indicate stage design was a factor at all. A subsequent post mentioned several stages which could be tricky for a new RO to handle gracefully, but nothing that I would particularly read as unsafe.

While I fully agree stages should be designed with safety in mind at all times, there is nothing in this thread which would indicate a stage design problem per se. All ROs go through a learning curve where they figure out how to apply the rules and their training in the real world of competitive shooting. I think Donovan shows great fortitude in posing the question the way he did.

Yeah there was nothing about the stage in question that would be cause for concern. Anthony was just being kind in pointing out the challenges for a new RO at the particular match

[Gary Johnson]

In hindsight, the magazine was still in the gun. The shot didn't occur as it was coming out or as another one was being inserted.

I also just remembered that I did the same exact thing at a match a month ago. Started reaching for another mag and fired a makeup shot single handed. I can see myself bringing the gun back on target in the video though, maybe that's what I missed this weekend.

I can't remember in detail enough of the event to MMQB myself too badly. I think this was a great learning experience and I'm glad the shooter was cool, he was even in my RO class with me. Live and learn!

That makes the case much clearer. If he wasn't manipulating a magazine then 10.4.3 doesn't apply.

[spanky]

Explain to me why any stage design that could endanger the RO or anyone else for that matter is allowed.

There are rules in place which are designed to prevent/minimize unsafe stage designs ... These can mostly be found in Chapter 2. However, sometimes they are not always followed as closely as they could/should be by all clubs/matches/designers. (I'm not pointing my finger at any particular match or club ... Just making a general observation.)

If safety is a consideration then no stage like the one mentioned in the OP should be allowed. Plain and simple. Any club that allows unsafe stages should be shown the door. Designers should ensure that the stages they design are safe beyond doubt. Yea it can be a pain to add additional focus to safety but only one person needs to be injured to mess things up for everyone.

Respectfully, we run around with loaded guns. Nothing is going to ever be 100% "safe" in the way that you seem to be stating it should be. Yes, safety is of the utmost importance and should be concentrated on at all times but for you to insinuate that turn/draw, retreat, stages are invariably unsafe and that clubs should be booted from USPSA using them is asinine.

[spanky]

eh, I think you got Okey Doked. But, I wasn't there. I'd want to see where the targets were. Were there a target in the direction the gun was pointed, maybe. As you described it, I think it was a DQ under 10.4.3.

Maybe I'm picturing something the shooter didn't actually do.

I'd call it on what I saw, and not on what a shooter's self-serving claim as to what he was doing. He fired a shot during a reload: bent arm, (dropped head a bit?) (no longer sighting?) turned gun away from targets (did he?) and dropped weak hand to mags... thats a reload (and we all know it) and instead of pressing the mag release pops off a round.

A shooter may do some silly things while shooting a stage , but when you do something that looks exactly like a DQ-able event ya ought to get the DQ.

That ought to generate some

10.4.3 A shot which occurs while loading, reloading or unloading a handgun.

This includes any shot fired during the procedures outlined in Rule

8.3.1 and Rule 8.3.7.

Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The insertion of ammunition into a firearm.

Reloading . . . . . . .The replenishment or the insertion of additional ammunition into a firearm.

Unloading . . . . . . . . . . . .The removal of ammunition from a firearm.

Sounds like he began to replenish his gun, a reload, and fired a shot...

Have you really never seen nor personally fired a shot strong or weak hand only with your arm bent? So because you haven't seen or done this the shooter MUST be doing something unsafe and should be issued a DQ under what you define to be reloading? Even if the shooter had dropped the magazine, grabbed another and then fired a shot SHO at a target then I would not call for a DQ unless I knew for a fact the shooter was not engaging a target. If you go by the strict definition of "unloading" then I suppose firing a shot could be DQable (doubly) since you are "inserting and removing ammunition" when you with every pull of the trigger.

[aztecdriver]

eh, I think you got Okey Doked. But, I wasn't there. I'd want to see where the targets were. Were there a target in the direction the gun was pointed, maybe. As you described it, I think it was a DQ under 10.4.3.

Maybe I'm picturing something the shooter didn't actually do.

I'd call it on what I saw, and not on what a shooter's self-serving claim as to what he was doing. He fired a shot during a reload: bent arm, (dropped head a bit?) (no longer sighting?) turned gun away from targets (did he?) and dropped weak hand to mags... thats a reload (and we all know it) and instead of pressing the mag release pops off a round.

A shooter may do some silly things while shooting a stage , but when you do something that looks exactly like a DQ-able event ya ought to get the DQ.

That ought to generate some

10.4.3 A shot which occurs while loading, reloading or unloading a handgun.

This includes any shot fired during the procedures outlined in Rule

8.3.1 and Rule 8.3.7.

Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The insertion of ammunition into a firearm.

Reloading . . . . . . .The replenishment or the insertion of additional ammunition into a firearm.

Unloading . . . . . . . . . . . .The removal of ammunition from a firearm.

Sounds like he began to replenish his gun, a reload, and fired a shot...

The situation DonovanM describes is that of a competitor who begins a reload, pauses the reload to engage a target, then finishes the reload.

This is the same as a competitor who drops the mag after 'If you are finished...', sees a miss, and makes it up with the round in the chamber.

Respectfully, I don't agree that is what Donovan was describing.

He wrote, "..a shooter engaged a target and started a reload, but fired a shot single handed, with his strong arm bent further than normal and his weak hand on or heading towards his magazine. It looked like an AD from where I was standing..."

Based on what he described the shooter didn't make an obvious cessation of the reload process to intentionall fire a shot. (Why anyone would do this makes no sense anyhows, but that's a different bunny trail) The shooter bend his arm, took his weak hand off the gun towards (or on his replentishment mags) and a shot happened... sounds like a 10.4.3 to me.

Sorry, I disagree that the motion to your spare mags constitutes the beginning of replenishment. Maybe PREPARING for replenishment, but the act of replenishing comes with the insertion of the magazine - hence why it's called re-- Loading. There is nothing that stops me from taking a last target SHO on my way past and grabbing a magazine from my belt prior to accomplishing those shots. What you are describing would have me DQ'd for that - and it's a perfectly legitimate way for me to get a quick reload off. It's basically the same premise you are making regarding this situation, and it sounds like you are trying to shoe horn 10.4.3 into what his INTENTION may have been, not what actually occurred. Replenishment is exactly that - not getting ready to replenish. I probably would have stopped him as well, but once I realized the act of putting fresh ammo in the gun hadn't actually started - a reshoot is the only option (assuming, as the OP pointed out, the shot stayed in the range, it was more than 10 ft., etc)

I've had this happen to me on a rather speedy course, was planning on doing a reload right after a fast target engagement in which I trigger froze on the last shot. I had started to bring the gun in and dropped my weak hand off and started for my mag when I unfroze and got the shot off. It hit the target, was a D rather than and A, and gave me a little bit of a surprise, but I continued with the course and was fine. Sounds like it was a very similar situation.

[Steven Cline]

eh, I think you got Okey Doked. But, I wasn't there. I'd want to see where the targets were. Were there a target in the direction the gun was pointed, maybe. As you described it, I think it was a DQ under 10.4.3.

Maybe I'm picturing something the shooter didn't actually do.

I'd call it on what I saw, and not on what a shooter's self-serving claim as to what he was doing. He fired a shot during a reload: bent arm, (dropped head a bit?) (no longer sighting?) turned gun away from targets (did he?) and dropped weak hand to mags... thats a reload (and we all know it) and instead of pressing the mag release pops off a round.

A shooter may do some silly things while shooting a stage , but when you do something that looks exactly like a DQ-able event ya ought to get the DQ.

That ought to generate some

10.4.3 A shot which occurs while loading, reloading or unloading a handgun.

This includes any shot fired during the procedures outlined in Rule

8.3.1 and Rule 8.3.7.

Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The insertion of ammunition into a firearm.

Reloading . . . . . . .The replenishment or the insertion of additional ammunition into a firearm.

Unloading . . . . . . . . . . . .The removal of ammunition from a firearm.

Sounds like he began to replenish his gun, a reload, and fired a shot...

Have you really never seen nor personally fired a shot strong or weak hand only with your arm bent?

In general, No, in context absolutely not as the OP described it. This being a very critical point don't you think?

So because you haven't seen or done this the shooter MUST be doing something unsafe and should be issued a DQ under what you define to be reloading?

Trying to paint me in a box with words or even ideas I never presented? No, Spanky, I based my opinion on what the OP declared and the what the rules define. I did a fairly decent of explaining why in a later post, go read it, then get back to me.

Even if the shooter had dropped the magazine, grabbed another and then fired a shot SHO at a target then I would not call for a DQ unless I knew for a fact the shooter was not engaging a target.

Indeed, and if he had as the OP you would have written something like, "The shooter dropped the mag from his gun, reached for a new mag, paused, pointed his gun at a target and fired a single shot." But the OP didn't write such words, did he?

If you go by the strict definition of "unloading" then I suppose firing a shot could be DQable (doubly) since you are "inserting and removing ammunition" when you with every pull of the trigger.

That's just silly and illustrates a gross misrepresentation based on selective observation of only part of the definitions.

"Loading - The insertion of ammunition into a firearm." Doesn't apply to the Feeding process of the cyclical action of the semi-automatic pistol. The ammunition is already in the firearm, and moved from the magazine, affixed in the firearm, to the chamber. This is vastly different than the ammunition being moved from the belt into the firearm. That's loading.

"Unloading - The removal of ammunition from a firearm." Doesn't apply to the Extraction/Ejection process of cyclical action of the semi-automatic pistol because the firearm in it's normal cyclical action does not remove ammuntion from the gun, it removes the empty case devoid of gunpowder, a bullet or viable primer. It is not a cartridge nor is it ammunition.

[Steven Cline]

eh, I think you got Okey Doked. But, I wasn't there. I'd want to see where the targets were. Were there a target in the direction the gun was pointed, maybe. As you described it, I think it was a DQ under 10.4.3.

Maybe I'm picturing something the shooter didn't actually do.

I'd call it on what I saw, and not on what a shooter's self-serving claim as to what he was doing. He fired a shot during a reload: bent arm, (dropped head a bit?) (no longer sighting?) turned gun away from targets (did he?) and dropped weak hand to mags... thats a reload (and we all know it) and instead of pressing the mag release pops off a round.

A shooter may do some silly things while shooting a stage , but when you do something that looks exactly like a DQ-able event ya ought to get the DQ.

That ought to generate some

10.4.3 A shot which occurs while loading, reloading or unloading a handgun.

This includes any shot fired during the procedures outlined in Rule

8.3.1 and Rule 8.3.7.

Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The insertion of ammunition into a firearm.

Reloading . . . . . . .The replenishment or the insertion of additional ammunition into a firearm.

Unloading . . . . . . . . . . . .The removal of ammunition from a firearm.

Sounds like he began to replenish his gun, a reload, and fired a shot...

The situation DonovanM describes is that of a competitor who begins a reload, pauses the reload to engage a target, then finishes the reload.

This is the same as a competitor who drops the mag after 'If you are finished...', sees a miss, and makes it up with the round in the chamber.

Respectfully, I don't agree that is what Donovan was describing.

He wrote, "..a shooter engaged a target and started a reload, but fired a shot single handed, with his strong arm bent further than normal and his weak hand on or heading towards his magazine. It looked like an AD from where I was standing..."

Based on what he described the shooter didn't make an obvious cessation of the reload process to intentionall fire a shot. (Why anyone would do this makes no sense anyhows, but that's a different bunny trail) The shooter bend his arm, took his weak hand off the gun towards (or on his replentishment mags) and a shot happened... sounds like a 10.4.3 to me.

Sorry, I disagree that the motion to your spare mags constitutes the beginning of replenishment. Maybe PREPARING for replenishment, but the act of replenishing comes with the insertion of the magazine - hence why it's called re-- Loading. There is nothing that stops me from taking a last target SHO on my way past and grabbing a magazine from my belt prior to accomplishing those shots. What you are describing would have me DQ'd for that - and it's a perfectly legitimate way for me to get a quick reload off. It's basically the same premise you are making regarding this situation, and it sounds like you are trying to shoe horn 10.4.3 into what his INTENTION may have been, not what actually occurred. Replenishment is exactly that - not getting ready to replenish. I probably would have stopped him as well, but once I realized the act of putting fresh ammo in the gun hadn't actually started - a reshoot is the only option (assuming, as the OP pointed out, the shot stayed in the range, it was more than 10 ft., etc)

I've had this happen to me on a rather speedy course, was planning on doing a reload right after a fast target engagement in which I trigger froze on the last shot. I had started to bring the gun in and dropped my weak hand off and started for my mag when I unfroze and got the shot off. It hit the target, was a D rather than and A, and gave me a little bit of a surprise, but I continued with the course and was fine. Sounds like it was a very similar situation.

Clearly we disagree with the defintion of "replentishing." I believe replentishing is the whole of the sub-acts required to reload the firerarm: from moving the gun off target, moving digit to mag release, moving hand to magazine, removing magazine to gun and inserting it and even manipulating the slide. There is a reason why two words are used in the definition seperated by an "OR" replentishing is NOT insertion of additional ammunition into the firearm. If they were, you wouldn't have two different words seperated with an OR.

I agree that there is not something preventing you from interrupting the replentishing of ammunition to intentionally fire a shot. You started to replenish, you stopped replentishing to shoot, then resumed replentishing.

People seem determined to declare I am saying something I am not. Were anyone to do this thing that was NOT the thing the OP described I would not be opining as I have. I am opining to what the OP declared he saw, and he did not describe intentional interruption of the replentishing of the gun. He described an event worthy of DQ under 10.4.3.

What you described does fall under the DQ for "Accidental Discharge" in 10.4.1 - 10.4.6 gives us the means to determine what is an accidental discharge, but I am not avocating "gotcha" ROing for someone who is CLEARLY shooting at a target in a creative way. That what you would be doing if you reached for your mag while deliberately shooting at a target. Deliberate being nearly opposite of accidental.

Your act and what the OP described are not the same thing. As I observed to Spanky, the OP did not describe a deliberate shooting, he described an accidental discharge. I'm not shoe-horning his act into the defintion, the act as described fits the definition rather well- bends arm, reaches for mag, shot happens. As I said originally, if there is not target there then it's clear he accidentally discharged while replentishing his gun.

Your personal testimony in your last paragraph does closely mirror what the OP described... I think you should have been DQ'd for it. You created situation which forces the RO to see the actions as a DQ offense if you don't show the RO you are making a deliberate shot.

Which brings us to an interesting quandry. A shooter reloads by keeping the firearm pointed directly at the target. While in the act of insterting the mag into the gun the shooter fires a shot before the mag fully seats. It hits the A zone. By 10.4.3 he must be DQ'd as he in no uncertain terms met the definition of an accidental discharge. How do you devine the shooters intention here? How do you look away from the clear violation of the rule and claim the unknowable intention trumps the clear observation?

Edited August 31, 2011 by Steven Cline

[Schutzenmeister]

Which brings us to an interesting quandry. A shooter reloads by keeping the firearm pointed directly at the target. While in the act of insterting the mag into the gun the shooter fires a shot before the mag fully seats. It hits the A zone. By 10.4.3 he must be DQ'd as he in no uncertain terms met the definition of an accidental discharge. How do you devine the shooters intention here? How do you look away from the clear violation of the rule and claim the unknowable intention trumps the clear observation?

Steve ... I've actually had this EXACT situation in a Level IV match. (European Championships, 2004)

As CRO I stopped the shooter and issued a 10.4.3 DQ. The RM was, of course, summonsed and we went over the facts.

As I'm sure you would agree, there is no CLEAR definition in the book as to just when the reload is complete ... So we used the concept of when the magazine is fully seated, the reload is complete. (Sounded reasonable to me.) How do you know the mag is fully seated? Simple, really. When the gun goes bang it cycles and feeds a new round into the chamber. It generally won't do that if the mag isn't seated yet.

The shooter's gun striped a new round and fed it into the chamber. In addition, he had the prettiest center A hit on the round fired. The RM ruled no DQ as the reload was complete, and I learned a good and convienent method of determining when a reload is complete.

Now, I strongly suspect that if the shooter had an empty chamber when he went to U&SC, the RM would have upheld my call of 10.4.3. (In fact I know he would as we discussed it later that evening over a beer.)

[aztecdriver]

Clearly we disagree with the defintion of "replentishing." I believe replentishing is the whole of the sub-acts required to reload the firerarm: from moving the gun off target, moving digit to mag release, moving hand to magazine, removing magazine to gun and inserting it and even manipulating the slide. There is a reason why two words are used in the definition seperated by an "OR" replentishing is NOT insertion of additional ammunition into the firearm. If they were, you wouldn't have two different words seperated with an OR.

This is clear - and we will agree to disagree here. I knew as I was typing my response that the "or" argument you are presenting would be your next arguement, I chose not to elaborate on it. The fact remains that we are replenishing the gun not my hand or any of the manipulations I am doing prior to actually putting ammunition in the gun. So yes, part of reloading is removing old but also includes inserting new and any slide manipulations required to finish said insertion (slide locked, etc). Any action, IMHO, that does not have to directly with putting ammunition in the handgun, ie., manipulating the handgun directly, it's not part of the process.

I agree that there is not something preventing you from interrupting the replentishing of ammunition to intentionally fire a shot. You started to replenish, you stopped replentishing to shoot, then resumed replentishing.

How can you discern that I am intentionally firing a shot and thereby interrupting the process? If I am capable of engaging from position 3 SHO, and I realize pulling the gun backin I forgot a target and as I'm reaching for a magazine I without pause release two rounds at a target - it may look like an AD from your standpoint, but my intention was to do exactly what I did - how can you tell the difference? Again, I state, you are looking to discern intention - and that's not something we can do.

People seem determined to declare I am saying something I am not. Were anyone to do this thing that was NOT the thing the OP described I would not be opining as I have. I am opining to what the OP declared he saw, and he did not describe intentional interruption of the replentishing of the gun. He described an event worthy of DQ under 10.4.3.

Not following here - I'm not trying to put words in your mouth... just trying to understand your position, and at times, I'll use examples that are different than the OPs to understand your complete position... sorry if it's appearing otherwise. I understand you believe it to be a DQ under 10.4.3 - I'm just stating that it's my opinion based on the OPs post and follow-up that despite of what they intended or purported to have intended, the evidence does not support your assertion because they weren't actively reloading - we've already established you disagree on what what replenishment means... and we'll continue to disagree until others either support or deny each others argument.

What you described does fall under the DQ for "Accidental Discharge" in 10.4.1 - 10.4.6 gives us the means to determine what is an accidental discharge, but I am not avocating "gotcha" ROing for someone who is CLEARLY shooting at a target in a creative way. That what you would be doing if you reached for your mag while deliberately shooting at a target. Deliberate being nearly opposite of accidental.

I understand that you don't advocate for "gotcha" RO'ing and never said that you were. But what you are advocating is trying to determine what is deliberate and what is accidental, and I don't believe 10.4 allows for that discernment with the exception of 10.4.6 (which first requires the shooter to be moving) and 10.4.1 if first the shot has been determined to have traveled over the backstop. All other instances require another action to occur with the shot (load, reload, remedial action, transfer of the handgun) or something physical to happen (shot strikes the ground within 10 ft).

Your act and what the OP described are not the same thing. As I observed to Spanky, the OP did not describe a deliberate shooting, he described an accidental discharge. I'm not shoe-horning his act into the defintion, the act as described fits the definition rather well- bends arm, reaches for mag, shot happens. As I said originally, if there is not target there then it's clear he accidentally discharged while replentishing his gun.

Your personal testimony in your last paragraph does closely mirror what the OP described... I think you should have been DQ'd for it. You created situation which forces the RO to see the actions as a DQ offense if you don't show the RO you are making a deliberate shot.

I'll disagree with that completely. It's not on me to make sure every action I perform looks deliberate. As an RO, I pretty much know when something happens that's not intended, but that doesn't let me circumvent the rules for 10.4 - I clearly was engaging the target - I hit it. The shot went off when I had not intended, but that doesn't mean I wasn't engaging the target. The same would apply to someone that drew and on push out broke a shot that hit the target. Usually, that early discharge is evident to both the RO and shooter, but is it DQ'able? What's different from a late shot? Because I pulled my weak hand away to start for a mag? We're clear that you believe reaching for a mag is reloading, but it's not always, only based on what you perceive the shooter to be doing.

Which brings us to an interesting quandry. A shooter reloads by keeping the firearm pointed directly at the target. While in the act of insterting the mag into the gun the shooter fires a shot before the mag fully seats. It hits the A zone. By 10.4.3 he must be DQ'd as he in no uncertain terms met the definition of an accidental discharge. How do you devine the shooters intention here? How do you look away from the clear violation of the rule and claim the unknowable intention trumps the clear observation?

I don't find this to be a quandry at all. It clearly is 10.4.3, because again, 10.4.3 doesn't take into intentions at all. He was inserting the mag, by the definition it's an AD. I'm not sure what your last sentence is implying here at all, because as I've stated, it's still a violation of the rule regardless of what he intended here or not. I'm saying the same thing applies whether he hit the A zone or missed the target completely. The biggest problem that we are having coming together here is whether reaching for a mag constitutes reloading.

[Skydiver]

In this weekend's match, on the stage that I mentioned was an unloaded start and required traversing left and right, one of the plans I had considered was picking up the gun, loading, and shooting the first 5 shots strong hand only (because there was a big honking popper 23 ft away and 2 nice open targets beside it) while my weak hand grabbed the second mag to be ready to reload. Would my reaching for the second mag constituted reloading?

[Nik Habicht]

Based on what he described the shooter didn't make an obvious cessation of the reload process to intentionall fire a shot. (Why anyone would do this makes no sense anyhows, but that's a different bunny trail) The shooter bend his arm, took his weak hand off the gun towards (or on his replentishment mags) and a shot happened... sounds like a 10.4.3 to me.

I wasn't there to see it -- but I can read the above to agree with your position or as "the shooter decided to fire a round one-handed (permitted under freestyle), without a mag in the gun (also permitted under freestyle), and while simultaneously retrieving another magazine with the other hand.....

Could be nothing more than a different way to shoot the stage....

[Skydiver]

Also for those who saw Top Shot this past Tuesday, there's Cliff's "premature" shot at about the 20 minute mark:

http://www.history.com/shows/top-shot/videos/playlists/season-3-full-episodes#top-shot-3-the-bulldog-gatling

If that were a USPSA match, I would have stopped Cliff. But then I would also have offered a reshoot for RO interference after finding the bullet hole near the center of the target... positive evidence that the shot was not over the berm, nor less than 10 ft from the shooter.

[Dwain C. Baer]

Cool video...thanks for posting

[justaute]

A momentary deviation from the subject matter.

I'm just so proud of seeing the word "nor" used -- and correctly applied -- here on BE. As a colleague-labelled "grammar nazi," this brings tears to my eyes. Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

Edited September 1, 2011 by justaute

[Schutzenmeister]

A momentary deviation from the subject matter.

I'm just so proud of seeing the word "nor" used -- and correctly applied -- here on BE. As a colleague-labelled "grammar nazi," this brings tears to my eyes. Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

Perhaps ... But should not not have been neither?

[Flexmoney]

I was running the timer a lot this weekend, and during one of the stages, a shooter engaged a target and started a reload, but fired a shot single handed, with his strong arm bent further than normal and his weak hand on or heading towards his magazine. It looked like an AD from where I was standing so I told him to stop, ULSC, etc. He then explained to me that he was firing a makeup shot and was aiming at the target. I was looking at the gun, not his eyes, so I couldn't tell if that was true, but the shot didn't go over the berm or too low or anything. So I took his word for it and gave him a reshoot for RO interference.

In the future, I will never want to end someone's day because I thought they did something they didn't, but I also don't want to be talked out of a DQ when it was deserved. Has this ever happened to anyone else? Was it the right call? Should I not take shooters on their word in cases like this? I'm a new RO, so any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks!

- You made a call. (proper)

- The shooter appealed the call, to the RO (proper)

- As RO, you considered the appeal and made a call based on that. (proper)

All according to the book.

Good work.

[38supPat]

A little common sense goes a long way in situations like this. If you look at IPSC rule 10.4.3 it says a shot while preparing to or While actually reloading is a DQ, now if competitor drop his msg, sees a miss and presents the gun to target and fires a shot, there's no way I'm going to DQ him/her, nothing unsafe has happened. An aimed shot is safe regardless of where the msg is. If the shooter pulled his gun back and ejected the mag and with his arms still back he triggers the shot (clearly not aiming) then he's finished for the day. But the rule book definition would have a shooter DQ'd even for an aimed shot under these circumstances, just because he is in the process of reloading....if you read it in the strictest sense.

In a similar way we had a DQ a couple of months ago where a shooter had an AD where the shot landed about 8" from his big toe, he tried to use the rule 10.4.2 that since the targets were within 3m it should not be a DQ...the problem is the targets were mounted at a height of at least 4' on the target sticks so any shot passing through would have landed much farther than 3m and were into a side berm. By the strictest sense of the rule 10.4.2, because the targets were at 3m he probably should not be DQ'd. But when aimed shots would have the gun mounted almost horizontally to the ground and the gun when off when the barrel was poined vertically almost straight down, it's an AD and he goes home. There is no doubt in my mind that a shot landing within a few inches of your toe is an unsafe act.

[Jesse Tischauser]

It happened to me. Here is a a great instance on video of what the OP described.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEoURJTZGeg

[Singlestack]

I hate to armchair quarterback that RO but that looks like a bad call. You were not loading or unloading. You were shooting freestyle. I have a clip of myself doing the same thing. I'll see if I can find it. My hand was already on my mag when I shot.

[rupie]

I hate to armchair quarterback that RO but that looks like a bad call. You were not loading or unloading. You were shooting freestyle. I have a clip of myself doing the same thing. I'll see if I can find it. My hand was already on my mag when I shot.

The RO dosent have video replay like we do but she didnt see it at the time, even though by her looking around she might be thinking something was weird. The back up RO I would bet money is who brought it up and pushed the DQ. I have done something simular on purpose a few times, shooting production knowing i am going to shoot it dry one handed and reaching for a mag as i am doing so. Using the video tape i wouldnt have DQ'ed you but at real speed I can see why they made the call.

Edited September 5, 2011 by rupie

[rupie]

Jesse did you have 3 holes in that target? If there was there is no way you should have been DQ'ed, If there was only 2 it supports the real time issue of them making a call!

[Skydiver]

Do we even know what the call was? Was it 10.4.3, 10.4.1, or 10.5.2?

If it was 10.4.1 then a third hold would be excellent evidence.

If it was 10.4.3 or 10.5.2, a third hole on the target isn't to help any.

If it was 10.5.2 it'll be hard case to make since it's the RO's call whether your last shot was past the 180.

Alternately, the RO may have called the muzzle going past the 180 as part of the recoil. [i unfortunately had to DQ somebody who was shooting right on the 180. I was standing back knowing that he'll be retreating for the last array. Shots and body position was perfectly done and no problem there. The issue arose when he ejected the mag and did the classic "Glock flip" to help fling the mag out. I got to see the muzzle crown and part of the bore. ]

If it was 10.4.3 (which is the general issue discussed in this thread), then filing for arb would be worth the time and effort to stay in match.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Skydiver

[Jesse Tischauser]

Nope the 3rd shot went half way up the berm because my grip was compromised. I wasn't even sure if the shot stayed home because the muzzle flipped so much after the shot. I never slowed down because the RO didn't stop me. After the USC the scorekeeper said it went out. I really couldn't argue because I didn't know either because the muzzle flip surprised me as well. The onlookers saw the dirt splashes which if they would have been asked might have saved me $650 or so in costs associated with a match like this.

I am not saying the RO's in my case were wrong. It was very close. Too close to call actually. I just wish the call would have went my way.

I only posted this so others could see just how close it can look.

[pivoproseem]

Jesse, I got DQ'd on Stage 7 before the buzzer even went off because the RO asked me in the howling 30 mph wind to move one step forward instead of saying "load and make ready" like he should have.....I drew my gun to load, he put the hammer down.

Everyone called BS, but there was nothing I could do. $100 arbitration is a bad joke that needs to be changed. Left me with a feeling I was cheated out of time, effort, and money.....

Sorry you got DQ'd,too...

Jesse did you have 3 holes in that target? If there was there is no way you should have been DQ'ed, If there was only 2 it supports the real time issue of them making a call!