This week's Rules Trivia

[Sarge]

10.5.2

If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle

of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from

the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop,

allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the handgun is loaded or

not (limited exceptions: 10.5.6).

On a table start, unloaded gun, under a basket. Shooter flips the basket off the table and causes the gun to spin to the point the muzzle is breaking the 180 without ever touching it physically.

As the rule says ALLOWS not causes I think the rule implies the shooter must be handling the gun to break the 180.

In the case of DROPPING a gun the rule says CAUSE it to drop. This would apply if the shooter knocked the gun off the table. But I'm not sure he would ALLOW the muzzle to break 180 by having the basket bump it.

PLEASE

No cop outs by saying poor stage design or the shooter is always responsible for the gun. While I believe that to be true I don't think the rule supports a DQ.

[coldchar]

In this first case with the basket, during the course of fire, it was the shooters action with the basket which caused the muzzle to break the 180. No one but him either caused or allowed it. DQ

[GrumpyOne]

First, 1.1.8, then 8.1. By the wording "allow", it does not leave any leeway for how or what caused the gun to break the 180, only that you, the shooter, allowed it, whether by accident, or by carelessness, to break the 180. By my reasoning, you don't have to "handle" the gun in order to "allow" the muzzle to break the 180. During the COF, you are responsible for your handgun, and what direction it points. In the case of the dropping of the gun, yes you caused it to drop, but didn't you also "allow" it to drop?

[Nik Habicht]

Kevin,

I think the rule is pretty clear. One of the founding principles is that the shooter is responsible for the gun -- always. That's not a cop-out.

Once we accept that, we look at the rule. The gun was pointed uprange during the stage, ergo the competitor allowed the muzzle to break the 180, ergo match DQ. Given that the competitor's actions contributed to the muzzle breaking the 180 -- I wouldn't overturn that on an arbitration for exceptional circumstances either. Sucks for the competitor, and the RO making the call.....

I didn't see the stage, and don't know if this could have been predicted/prevented through better design....

[ihatepickles]

One of the founding principles is that the shooter is responsible for the gun -- always. That's not a cop-out.

I agree totally. Saying that the shooter is responsible for their gun is not a cop-out. The scenario describe by the OP is a DQ, the shooter allowed their muzzle to point uprange by hitting it with a stage prop.

This rule hair-splitting is tedious and I'm even more fired up that it's a safety violation. If I'm in the gallery and I see a muzzle violation, someone better step and deal with this crap. Game things all you want but break the 180 and you go to Dairy Queen, no hanging this on the stage designer.

[Punkin Chunker]

If it's a verbology thing ('causes' vice 'allows'), then we can fancy up the verbology:

Yes, the shooter 'allowed' the gun's muzzle to break the 180.

The shooter did so by imparting a moving force on the gun without imposing sufficient precautionary restraint to prevent a foreseeable consequence of the gun's movement.

The failure to impose sufficient precautionary restraint was what 'allowed' the uncotrolled movement of the gun, which resulted in the muzzle breaking the 180.

DQ.

[SteveU]

I agree with everyone else. Seems like the word allows instead of causes puts the burden on the shooter to control the muzzle. In other words he can get DQ even without pointing to something active that "caused it".

The act of the muzzle pointing up range is evidence in itself that it was allowed by the shooter, no matter what the cause.

In cases like this I have to hand it to the rules committees/BOD. Typically you see how much thought goes into the meaning of simple words like must, should, allow, etc. They are obviously all chosen for specific reasons.

[adively]

Looking at the definition of allow:

intransitive verb 1: to make a possibility :

A synonym of allow is permit.

Looking at definition of permit:

transitive verb 3: to make possible

Let's try this:

10.5.2

If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows makes possible the muzzle

of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from

the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop,

allows makes possible the muzzle to point up range, whether the handgun is loaded or

not (limited exceptions: 10.5.6).

In your example of the competitor flipping the basket off and causing the gun to spin, I would say that he made it possible and therefore DQed.

[Sarge]

This rule hair-splitting is tedious

Easy fix. Don't bother reading the thread.

Keep in mind, Nobody, including the OP, said this happened. As a matter of fact it did not happen.

BUT.........

[Sarge]

......What did happen was one shooter flipped the basket and the gun did a perfect barrel roll on the table. In theory the gun most likely left the surface of the table while doing this. If the RO had been able to see without a doubt that it did then that would clearly be a DQ because the shooter caused this action by flipping the basket.

Regardless of what some may think I post this stuff to learn and to help others learn. If you think shooters won't argue a call when made you are living under a rock. Range lawyer is a widely used term for a reason. Anyone DQ'd for a less than obvious, clear cut violation will be going through the rulebook looking for a way out. There would not be Arbs if everybody just said "OK whatever you say".

Am I really the only guy who shoots a match and does not see at least one thing that could be ruled on either way? Most likely I am the only guy who comes on here and tries to learn from it instead of just talking about it among other shooters and have somebody say,"Hmm, good question".

Also, if you look at the first post what was said is, "No cop outs by saying the shooter is always responsible for his gun". I also said," I believe that to be true". How the jump was made to light speed implying that I think being responsible for my gun is a cop out is beyond me.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Kevin Sanders

[Chuck Anderson]

This one predated my time on the BOD but I would certainly support a DQ for the above scenario. The word "allow" is very specific. During the course of fire if the shooter allows the gun to break 180 it's a DQ. Not if they do it intentionally, but if any time during the COF the muzzle is beyond the 180, the shooter has allowed it. If it was written, the shooter "causes" that would be completely different, and subject to interpretation. Take for example an RO interference issue. Say the shooter goes back uprange, runs into the RO, muzzle breaks the 180. In this case the shooter allowed the muzzle to break the 180, but range lawyers would contend that the RO was the cause of the violation. (and that may be subject to an exceptional circumstances Arb even with the current rule)

In the case with the basket as the example the shooter is responsible for the actions of his gun. If he allowed the muzzle to point uprange, for any reason it's a DQ. It doesn't matter if he's the cause, the basket is the cause, or if he knocked the table over standing up. He didn't stop the muzzle from pointing up range and therefore "allowed" it. One of the basic premises of the rule book is that the shooter is responsible for his gun during the the COF.

[lcs]

......What did happen was one shooter flipped the basket and the gun did a perfect barrel roll on the table. In theory the gun most likely left the surface of the table while doing this. If the RO had been able to see without a doubt that it did then that would clearly be a DQ because the shooter caused this action by flipping the basket.

snipped

Wow, I missed that one. If the shooter's actions caused the gun to break the 180, DQ.

There is something to be said for bad stage design. We need to learn from that also. When I placed the basket over my gun, the thought of a screwup was definitely in my COF mind preparation.

I really believe props that add to probability of a safety infraction (translated to someone gets hurt), we need to rethink the importance of having them in a match.

[shred]

We had just this question at the T4T IPSC Nationals this weekend-- there was a spring-loaded 'cash drawer' that your loaded pistol was in, which you opened by whacking a button on top of the 'cash register' and it slid open. Now it was in no danger of doing so at this match, but the academic question came up-- 'what if the gun were turned past the 180 by the action of the drawer springing open?'. The consensus of the IPSC IROAs (note, IPSC rules, though I think they are similar) was that would not be a DQ because it was not under control of the shooter.

[coldchar]

That is one reason we have an appeal process. If the shooter feels there are circumstances which need to be taken into consideration regarding a DQ call by the RO then he appeals. In that case he might argue range equipment failure and not only should he not be DQ'd but he was entitled to a reshoot. If the RO thought about it for a second he probably would not call a DQ until he talked it over with the CRO and RM. My guess is a lot would depend on whether he was the first shooter or the 20th. Under the new rules on for the arb committee, the ruling has to be consistent with and cite the rules. In this case there are offsetting rules for supporting a ruling.

Jim G

[Nik Habicht]

......What did happen was one shooter flipped the basket and the gun did a perfect barrel roll on the table. In theory the gun most likely left the surface of the table while doing this. If the RO had been able to see without a doubt that it did then that would clearly be a DQ because the shooter caused this action by flipping the basket.

Yep, that would have probably been a DQ.....

Regardless of what some may think I post this stuff to learn and to help others learn.

And we appreciate that -- even if it doesn't always come across in the responses.... :D

If you think shooters won't argue a call when made you are living under a rock. Range lawyer is a widely used term for a reason. Anyone DQ'd for a less than obvious, clear cut violation will be going through the rulebook looking for a way out. There would not be Arbs if everybody just said "OK whatever you say".

In more than a decade of doing this I haven't ever seen or heard of an arb at a local match. I rarely hear of them at bigger matches -- Nationals mostly, but even then you're typically averaging less than 1 per year, to the best of my recollection....

Am I really the only guy who shoots a match and does not see at least one thing that could be ruled on either way? Most likely I am the only guy who comes on here and tries to learn from it instead of just talking about it among other shooters and have somebody say,"Hmm, good question".

I'm sure you're not the only one. There aren't a lot of new scenarios though, for many of us who have been doing this for a while -- so, no, I don't think this was a questionable scenario that could go either way.....

Now if a gust of wind blew the basket and gun off the table, or knocked the table over -- there I might, depending on the totality of circumstances, overturn a DQ on exceptional circumstances grounds if sitting on an arb panel. As the RO/CRO/RM my call would be the same -- DQ for allowing the muzzle to break the 180....

Also, if you look at the first post what was said is, "No cop outs by saying the shooter is always responsible for his gun". I also said," I believe that to be true". How the jump was made to light speed implying that I think being responsible for my gun is a cop out is beyond me.

I get that you wanted something a little more thoughtful that "shooter is always responsible...."

I just didn't think that you could eliminate the principle from the discussion. Semantics perhaps, or limitation of written communication....

[Poppa Bear]

I think Nik nailed the important part. The rule is allows. To allow or make the gun move is a responsibility of the shooter. If it is an outside influence that causes the movement like a gust of wind or a prop failing and its movement in some way moves the gun then we are dealing with something that is outside of the shooters control. If Mother Nature is the culprit or if the stage crew is the culprit I will not DQ the competitor, if the competitor is the culprit then we have a DQ.

[coldchar]

I was specifically responding to the post before mine on the spring loaded drawer and my discussion on the appeal process. Not the original posting. On the original posting, no question, it is a DQ.

Jim G

[SteveU]

......What did happen was one shooter flipped the basket and the gun did a perfect barrel roll on the table.

Now i still say DQ .... But if it were an aileron roll, I would agree it's a little more grey

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=139194&pid=1567005&st=0entry1567005

Edited November 7, 2011 by Steve Umansky

[molson]

Regardless of what some may think I post this stuff to learn and to help others learn. If you think shooters won't argue a call when made you are living under a rock. Range lawyer is a widely used term for a reason.

Kevin,

I myself have been roasted more than once posting questions like this. It is not uncommon to see some sort of rules violation at nearly every club match. Anything from somebody claiming that this is a club match so I can declare whatever, to, I am going to start this way because the written stage description does not have a clear cut start position. So I feel your pain, and applaud your posting. Keep it up, I personally ask that you continue to bring forth questions. I know for myself, I learn something from most all of them.

Molson

[Sarge]

......What did happen was one shooter flipped the basket and the gun did a perfect barrel roll on the table.

Now i still say DQ .... But if it were an aileron roll, I would agree it's a little more grey

http://www.brianenos...0

It was an Aileron roll! Thanks for the lesson!

[Sarge]

Regardless of what some may think I post this stuff to learn and to help others learn. If you think shooters won't argue a call when made you are living under a rock. Range lawyer is a widely used term for a reason.

Kevin,

I myself have been roasted more than once posting questions like this. It is not uncommon to see some sort of rules violation at nearly every club match. Anything from somebody claiming that this is a club match so I can declare whatever, to, I am going to start this way because the written stage description does not have a clear cut start position. So I feel your pain, and applaud your posting. Keep it up, I personally ask that you continue to bring forth questions. I know for myself, I learn something from most all of them.

Molson

Thanks Molson. I know there are shooters out there who read these rules topics and learn from them. I read every one that gets posted regardless of who posts it. And I typically learn something from every one.

[StaciLyn]

Regardless of what some may think I post this stuff to learn and to help others learn. If you think shooters won't argue a call when made you are living under a rock. Range lawyer is a widely used term for a reason.

Kevin,I myself have been roasted more than once posting questions like this. It is not uncommon to see some sort of rules violation at nearly every club match. Anything from somebody claiming that this is a club match so I can declare whatever, to, I am going to start this way because the written stage description does not have a clear cut start position. So I feel your pain, and applaud your posting. Keep it up, I personally ask that you continue to bring forth questions. I know for myself, I learn something from most all of them.Molson

Ditto....I learn something and/or find a new way of looking at situations with each of your posts. Thank you!

[Punkin Chunker]

......What did happen was one shooter flipped the basket and the gun did a perfect barrel roll on the table.

Now i still say DQ .... But if it were an aileron roll, I would agree it's a little more grey

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=139194&pid=1567005&st=0entry1567005

Aileron roll, or barrel roll -- with either one, done perfectly, the muzzle would remain oriented downrange.

Since the gun wasn't 'dropped' (to drop the gun, the shooter would have to have had positive control to begin with), what rule would the shooter be DQed under?

[SteveU]

Aileron roll, or barrel roll -- with either one, done perfectly, the muzzle would remain oriented downrange.

Since the gun wasn't 'dropped' (to drop the gun, the shooter would have to have had positive control to begin with), what rule would the shooter be DQed under?

I think he said in the first post that the muzzle broke 180.

My thought is that the gun is always in the shooter's control - as in responsibility - even if it's on the table.

[aztecdriver]

......What did happen was one shooter flipped the basket and the gun did a perfect barrel roll on the table.

Now i still say DQ .... But if it were an aileron roll, I would agree it's a little more grey

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=139194&pid=1567005&st=0entry1567005

Aileron roll, or barrel roll -- with either one, done perfectly, the muzzle would remain oriented downrange.

Since the gun wasn't 'dropped' (to drop the gun, the shooter would have to have had positive control to begin with), what rule would the shooter be DQed under?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. It doesn't matter if you have positive control of the gun or not. If you cause it to fall, it's dropped in the COF - and dropped doesn't just mean hitting the ground. It can move without being controlled. ie. skidding across a table, aileron rolling, what have you. (I'm a pilot too, personally prefer snap rolls, but my eyeballs and stomach aren't strong enough). If the gun is moving without control, whether it be from a draw or flipping an unholstered basket - I'm pretty sure it's a dropped gun -- DQ.