DQ story

[Flexmoney]

I think the stage design that Ivan brought up is more than plenty enough for this thread to tackle. We need not drift into "other areas" on this thread.

[Jim Norman]

Minor editing for clarity, spelling and additional points (13 May @ 11:35 EDT)

If I read the original post by Ivan correctly, we have a briefcase, securely fastened to a strudy table, the gun is placed in the case and the lid is lowered.

On the start the shooter is to open the case, retreive the gun and run the stage.

So far, so good. been there done that.

Problem occurs when the shooter AFTER LAMR, leaves the start position and wanders downrange to airgun the targets, places himself in front of the gun and is more than one meter from his gun.

Ivan DQ'd the shooter on two counts, Sweeping, since he crossed his body with the muzzle and leaving the vicinity of the gun.

On the first count, you would have to see where the gun was actually pointed to know whether a sweep actually took place AND you have to decide that the briefcase in this situation was the "Holster" and if that is the case, the shooter didn't sweep because you are allowed, like it or not to have the muzzle cover parts of your body while the gun is holstered. If the briefcase is not a holster, then you can say he may have been swept, but only if you know wherte the gun is actually pointing while in a closed briefcase. Had this been the only reason, I would not uphold the DQ. The second reason was moving farther than one meter from the gun. This is a DQ offese. But I would suggest that Ivan was at least partly to blame since he lost control of his shooter.

The DQ stands because in my book everything falls to the shooters shoulders (Rare exceptions) but had Ivan been paying attention, he could have stopped the shooter at the edge of the table and then there would not have been a DQ. This goes to the question of just what is allowed after the LAMR command is given. An entire new thread about sight pictures can be spun from this as well as when the shooter is called to the line, what is he allowed to do and how long does he or should he have to do it in.

Now all that having been said. The briefcase lid has been brought into the discussion, it only opened halfway, it could bounce shut on the shooter if he opened it too fast and didn't hold it. In a word, WAH! WAH! So what. It is not an unfair prop. If you can shoot you should be able to open a breifcase and retreive your gun safely. What if it was a drawer and the shooter hit his hand reaching into it for his gun? What if the gun was on a shelf under the tabletop? If the briefcase was defective in that it would only open if handled "just-so" or if the lid could only be opened a short distance and was sprung to snap shut, that I would have a problem with, but on the face of it, sounds like a fun and safe start to the course. The RO just needs to stay alert. No difference there than anywhere else.

Now, should we start a new thread on where the muzzle points when the gun is holstered? and whether or not it should EVER cover any part of the body while holstered? By the way, I agree that the extreme inward pointing race holsters that point at your own personal "gun" are abit scary, but I am not sure where you draw the line. Seems you either say NEVER cover any body part, ever including on the draw. Or could you say that while standing straight and relaxed, a line exiting the bore of the pistol may not cross through the shooters body. Might work, but we'd have to do an empirical study on a lot of different body types, we'd need tall, short, skinny, fat, very fat, and odd shaped. (Sorry, no real way to say all that PC) You'd not really need every hoslter ever made, but you'd certainly need a lot of different people.

Once you move from that position you enter a dynamic area and it is difficult if not impossible to completely eliminate any chance of sweep. I think that the Holstered gun is ok and a sweep while drawing is a necessary evil.

Jim Norman

[lppd4]

My 2 cents I would not have DQ"ed him after being allowed to shoot the course of fire. I think a warning would have sufficed, it was not an agregious offense.

[Garfield]

I think a warning would have sufficed, it was not an agregious offense.

Prepare for some "flaming" ....

I think you will find that most everyone here will disagree with you and will tell you how important it is to ALWAYS handle by the book, NO EXCEPTIONS.

There are other threads outhere where the issue of how to handle as an RO are extensively discussed, quite recently even.

[Loves2Shoot]

I think a warning would have sufficed, it was not an agregious offense.

Prepare for some "flaming" ....

I think you will find that most everyone here will disagree with you and will tell you how important it is to ALWAYS handle by the book, NO EXCEPTIONS.

There are other threads outhere where the issue of how to handle as an RO are extensively discussed, quite recently even.

Actually, if he started to walk away from the gun, as the RO I would have issued a verbal comand, such as, "Stop!!! You don't want to get to far away from that blaster of yours or I will be forced to DQ you per the rulebook "

I think these type of DQ's are avoidable if the RO keeps on top of things.

[Jim Norman]

LovesToShoot,

Well said. The RO should not have allowed the shooter to roam. THat was the point I made in an earlier post.

Jim

[mactiger]

I agree with Jim (don't faint, man) , and L2S: seems that the RO should have stopped him before he got too far away.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20.

I'd like to see another thread on the holstered gun/sweeping thing. That's an interesting problem.

Troy

[Jim Norman]

Hey, I'm just an agreeable sort of guy! Easy to get a long with.

Jim

[Garfield]

L2S,

You are right, but as the RO already mistakingly allowed the shooter to walk away, there was no other option. In the end it's always the shooter who is responsible for his own actions, but I agree that this DQ could have been avoided by a prompt reaction from the RO. I think that was part of the lesson to be learned here, and that's why Ivan posted the story here in the first place, so that we all could learn.

I was merely objecting to the fact that Ippd4 considered the safety infraction not severe enough to issue a DQ. IMO there is not much considering to be done here. During a COF, shooter walks more than one meter away from a loaded handgun: a DQ per IPSC rule 10.5.3.2, no exceptions to that. As an RO, I dislike issueing DQ's just as much as the next guy, but we have to uphold the rules at all times, all match levels, all situations, etcetera. That's the only way we can rely upon the system to work. In some other thread it was already mentioned that if (per example) at club matches shooters get used to some bad habits because of RO's giving them some slack, how will those shooters like a bigger match where they will probably be DQ-ed in the first stage, after having paid a lot of money and travelled a long distance ? That was the point I was trying to make, but as i think everyone here agrees, the DQ could have been avoided by a prompt reaction of the RO, no argument from me here.

[ivanhu]

You are right, but as the RO already mistakingly allowed the shooter to walk away, there was no other option. In the end it's always the shooter who is responsible for his own actions, but I agree that this DQ could have been avoided by a prompt reaction from the RO. I think that was part of the lesson to be learned here, and that's why Ivan posted the story here in the first place, so that we all could learn.

This is not an answer for Garfield; this is a message to all who keeps eyes on this thread.

Actually, the shooter didn't "walk" - he run like hell, as he was going to do the practice run once more. I don't think that in the given situation, anybody would have been able to stop him in time; in fact, I cried "stop" within my reaction time (less than a second), but that time he already was at the opening.

My mistake was that I didn't DQ the guy immediately. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. That's why I share the story - just that the gun is out of sight, the RO must know where it is, must keep in mind it's location, and must act accordingly. Of course I knew that the gun is in the briefcase - but didn't realized that the shooter is before the loaded gun, because I didn't see the gun. This won't happen again with me. Just that the gun is placed on a fixed object, sefety engaged, and noone can handle it, doesn't mean that it's safe once it's loaded.

The lesson I've learnt: When the shooter put down the gun, and closed the briefcase, my main attention was shifted from the gun to the shooter. In other words, I no longer concentrated on the gun. After all, it was in a closed briefcase, noone could touch it - so it's relatively safe until the shooter grabs it back. But it's just an illusion, and a bad mistake. The loaded gun is always a potential danger, and must be treated with respect. We must do everything possible to increase the number of things that must happen at the same time for an accident to happen. The more such things we have, the safety is higher. Therefore, the RO must always concentrate on the gun, and he shouldn't allow his attention to be shifted to anywhere else. Apparently, he also must control the shooter, and the attention must be on the shooter too, but it must be 50-50%, and the fact that the gun is out of sight (or holstered) doesn't mean that the RO could change this rate - it must be 50-50% always.

For me, it's not a question whether it's unsafe to run before the loaded gun or not. IMHO, the answer is yes, it is unsafe. That was the reason I DQed the guy. Later, the RM also found out that the shooter was more than one meter away, so then he saw two reasons to upheld the DQ. When I DQed the guy, I based my decision on the fact that he ran before the loaded gun, and AFAIK, that was the main argument of the RM, too.

Well, we might argue whether it's really unsafe or not. It's not among the examples of the unsafe gun handling, that's true - yet, those are examples. Unless it ever will be specifically allowed by the rules, I will DQ anybody who tries to run before his loaded gun, and will let the RM and the Arbitration Committee debate over the case. If you are going to argue that it's safe and I shouldn't DQ the shooter if he does so, please also answer this simple question: were you the MD or the RM, would you mention in the match booklet that placing the loaded gun (a round is chambered) with safety engaged on a fix object and run before the muzzle is specifically allowed?

[Skywalker]

Actually, the shooter didn't "walk" - he run like hell, as he was going to do the practice run once more. I don't think that in the given situation, anybody would have been able to stop him in time; in fact, I cried "stop" within my reaction time (less than a second), but that time he already was at the opening.

My mistake was that I didn't DQ the guy immediately. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. That's why I share the story - just that the gun is out of sight, the RO must know where it is, must keep in mind it's location, and must act accordingly. Of course I knew that the gun is in the briefcase - but didn't realized that the shooter is before the loaded gun, because I didn't see the gun. This won't happen again with me.

Words of wisdom, and thanks for having the guts to share this story.

This point (RO's concentration on what's most important) has been debated, and we all will learn the lesson from here.

The DQ, according to 10.5.3.2 is not in question by anybody (I hope): the action happened, the result (sooner or later is of no importance here) is a DQ. Period.

Maybe the question if a loaded handgun in its ready condition isn't safe anywhere else than in competitor's holster deserves a different thread? I'd like to discuss the issue of holsters and sweeping a bit more, since I'm willing to give Vince a hard time on this ( ), but I think it's out of scope of this thread.

[Vince Pinto]

Guys,

While I wholeheartedly agree that the RO's concentration is extremely important, and that his awareness will hopefully prevent many (if not most) unsafe activities, the gun is ultimately the responsibility of the competitor.

In other words, Ivan, you did your best to stop the competitor, however the resultant match DQ arises from the competitor's actions, not your failure as an RO, so don't beat yourself up.

And I repeat that while having a loaded gun in a briefcase or in a drawer or on a shelf under a table is not prohibited by the rules, requiring that the gun be prepared with an empty chamber totally eliminates the possibility of a discharge, and it is therefore a "best practice".

[Skywalker]

... the gun is ultimately the responsibility of the competitor.

May I quote this for the "IPSC Box" thread?

[Garfield]

And I repeat that while having a loaded gun in a briefcase or in a drawer or on a shelf under a table is not prohibited by the rules, requiring that the gun be prepared with an empty chamber totally eliminates the possibility of a discharge, and it is therefore a "best practice".

Vince,

Now you've done it !

You better open up a new thread now because I am willing to reeeaaaally drift this thread now.

If you pose something like that, than why not have the handgun unloaded at all times ?

That really eliminates the possibility of a discharge !

As Vincent and Jim Norman said, I don't like the idea of limiting the shooter's possibilities more and more. We are (or at least should be) all grown ups who can handle a handgun well, including getting a loaded handgun out of a briefcase.

This is meant as constructive critisism and an invitation to open up a new thread to discuss this issue. Let's talk about this please.

[Jim Norman]

Garfeild,

Thank you for making your commnet. I am making the supreme effort not to call attention to comments like this one:

QUOTE: ...having a loaded gun in a briefcase or in a drawer or on a shelf under a table is not prohibited by the rules, requiring that the gun be prepared with an empty chamber totally eliminates the possibility of a discharge, and it is therefore a "best practice". ENDQUOTE

But I do see this as more of that lowering our standards to the Lowest Common Denominator.

Maybe we should always start empty, even if the gun is in the holster? Draw and load on the clock, Nope too danerous that. How about On command, Draw, Load and we somehow startt hte clock then, Maybe we hit the buzzer, but deduct the first shot time so we are not rushed to load.

Sorry, Can't help myself. Comments like that just go towards proof that I am right when i say that there is a slpoe that we may be being pushed onto and it is slippery and it goes downhill.

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

Garfield,

If you want the gun to be prepared with a loaded chamber for a briefcase start, knock yourself out. There's nothing in the rules stopping you.

However I prefer not to do so on my shift, OK? My reason is that a holster is a safety device which is designed to securely retain a loaded handun, however a briefcase is just a briefcase and, to me, it presents unneccessarily high risks which I'd rather not take when I have to consider all levels of competitors.

The sky is not falling ...........

[Garfield]

and, to me, it presents unneccessarily high risks which I'd rather not take when I have to consider all levels of competitors.

Hi,

So I ask you:

- Where do you draw the limit concerning avoidance of risks ?

- Wouldn't it be better to keep demanding a high competence level of all shooters instead of degrading to the lowest common denominator, which you are inclined to do if I understand you correctly ?

And no, (the) Sky is not falling (yet), but I am just willing to constructively argue over this and see where it leads us to. Maybe we end up agreeing to disagree, and then that is just fine, but I would also like to hear opinions from others ...

It could also very well be that I am just not so experienced that i can fully understand all the risks involved, in that case I am also willing to be conVinced ...

Still not inclined to move this to a new thread ?

(I want to avoid getting accused of being off-topic )

[zorba]

Hey dudes the competitor can run the cof as many times as he or she likes (time providing) BUT once the lamr command had been given the competitor should have finished all the running arround and should only be involved in preparing the gun and his mind, its now time to shoot.

I have never seen anyone after the lamr action then try to practice the cof other than in their minds eye , and i would hate to see the rules change to accomodate this type of incident.

IMO

[Flexmoney]

I like to "draw the line" at activity that isn't practiced by many/most shooters.

Of course, I like adding in various tricks to stages that will "distract the shooter from the shooting". (But, nor from safety.)

I don't know that we need to be taking sides, or drawing a line in the sand. We just need to be aware of all the possibilities.

[Jim Norman]

So I ask you:

- Where do you draw the limit concerning avoidance of risks ?

- Wouldn't it be better to keep demanding a high competence level of all shooters instead of degrading to the lowest common denominator, which you are inclined to do if I understand you correctly ?

Garfield,

How insensitive of you. Imagine actually expecting anyone to raise their level of competence in order to compete in a sport. Why I personally feel that in Action Type sports anyone should be able to compete regardless of their skill level or physical ability. In fact, I am thinking of rying to sign up for a New York NBA Team this year. Lets see, I'm an out of shape, over 50-something that can't sink a basket if it was on the ground in front of me. Yup, THey better lower their standards so I can play too.

OK, Dripping Sarcasm Mode switched off.

We play a game with GUNS! Have certain people forgotten that fact? GUNS can be, when not used with care, very dangerous. We play our game with that in mind. We have many rules in place to prevent stupid things from happening. We don't allow a cross draw holster, going prone with a holstered gun, drawing while prone, handling a firearm except under very tightly controlled situations.

We do however still load our guns and shoot them. If we continuously lower the standards and insert needless restrictions several things will happen. In certain venues we will see that our rules could actually become laws and they are harder to change back than our rules! We will eventually be standing stil and shooting from boxes at targets that are centered 4-0 off the ground, 12 x 18 inches with black circles on them, We will then move carefully tothe next o=position and repeat the process. Probably with a different start signal. Afterall, if picking up a ploaded gun too dangerous, certainly moving with one must be.

Sorry, I seem to be stuck in the Sarcasm Mode this morning. And here I was attempting to defend another poster to this forum. Sorry Garfield, I'll try harder next time.

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

Garfield,

I "draw the limit concerning avoidance of risks" within my personal comfort zone (and within the rules), based on my match experience. In respect of briefcase starts I will always, without exception, require the gun be prepared with an empty chamber.

Our rules allow us to have obstacles up to 2 metres in height which must be surmounted by competitors during the COF, but I never use them because I think they present an unacceptable safety risk. Do you use climbing walls? If not, why not? And if not, are you lowering your COFs to the lowest common denominator?

Moreover should we, in "demanding a high competence level of all shooters", require that all competitors be able to surmount a 2 metre high obstacle, so that they can become more proficient gun handlers under challenging conditions, and better athletes to boot?

The sky is not falling ......

[Skywalker]

And no, (the) Sky is not falling (yet)

I can confirm: steadily seated on a comfortable office chair...

[Garfield]

Vince,

I think we have to agree that we disagree, but that's ok with me.

The only thing that bothers me a bit is that your "voice" is heard so much louder within the ranks of IPSC, so I am concerned if a person like you make statements as above in this discussion .

OK Guys, and now for some serious talk:

You will have to do without me (again, I admit it) for another week, my weekend has just started and I am now packing for a 1-week vacation trip (without the kids !) to Turkey, I'm flying in 18 hours from now .

Just me, my wife, a load of books, a nice hotel near the coast, and the turkish weather, hospitality and food : WOOHOO !!

So you all be good and until next week !

[Vince Pinto]

Garfield,

I'm disappointed that you didn't answer my question after I answered all of yours, but I hope you and your family have a great holdiay.

[Garfield]

I'm disappointed that you didn't answer my question after I answered all of yours, but I hope you and your family have a great holdiay.

Sorry, I honestly thought it was meant retoric / sarcastic.

I don't think it is useful to start summing up a list of examples of what one considers risky and somebody else doesn't.

But because we're friends I'll answer you .

Do you use climbing walls?

If not, why not?

And if not, are you lowering your COFs to the lowest common denominator?

- I don't make stages for matches, but for my local club I sometimes do make some, but as our ceiling is only 2,5 meter *and* I don't have any possiblity to use much props, let alone complete walls, *I* don't use walls. I have not seen a single wall to be climbed here in NL though since I started IPSC shooting.

- I think it has to do with the fact that we shoot indoors and our ceilings are app. 2,4 - 3 meters high

- No, for the stages that I do create I am not lowering to the lowest common denominator, and IMO neither are the stage designers for the competition matches here in NL

Moreover should we, in "demanding a high competence level of all shooters", require that all competitors be able to surmount a 2 metre high obstacle, so that they can become more proficient gun handlers under challenging conditions, and better athletes to boot?

Vince you know the rules better than I do, but allow me to remind you of rule 1.1.6:

1.1.6 Difficulty – IPSC matches present varied degrees of difficulty. No shooting challenge or time limit may be

appealed as being prohibitive. This does not apply to non-shooting challenges, which should reasonably

allow for differences in competitor's height and physical build.

I respectfully think you can't be seriously comparing the challenge of retrieving a loaded fiream from a briefcase with that of climbing a 2m high obstacle.

Thanks for the good wishes for my holiday !