ivanhu Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Gentlemen, I have a question. Actually, more questions, but one at a time. How should I interpret this rule? It starts "Exception: "... then, right in the first sentence, it also says "... and the competitor has not committed any safety infraction in this Section..." Now I'm a bit confused. The rules seem to give exception to the DQable offences in this section, but only if the shooter hasn't committed any safety infraction in this section - that is, if this section (including 10.4.9) shouldn't be called anyhow. So how should I interpret this rule? Here's why I ask it. Shooter was approx 1 to 1.5 meters away from two low targets. His gun failed to shoot. He cycled the slide, and the gun went off. The bullet hit the ground in approx 2, perhaps 3 feet from the shooter. He was DQed - 10.4.2 accidental discharge (hit the ground within 3 meters), 10.4.4 accidental discharge (shot occuring during clearing malfunction). He didn't lower the handgun, but moved it a bit away from the target as he cycled the slide. The shooter claimed gun malfunction. The gun was checked - the hammer was able go down accidentally (twice out of ten attempts) when the slide was cycled fast. It was a 1911 clone. First question - was it an "actual breakage of the part of the gun?" After the gun was cleared and the spring fastened, the hammer no longer escorted down the slide. Second question - if it indeed was a breakage, the DQ still stands, because the shooter actually committed safety infractions in this Section (10.4). This is the way I should understand this 10.4.9 rule? Please help me to sort it out. TIA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Ivan, please help me understand the situation you described. 1) I suppose the RO did not see the finger in the trigger guard when the shot went off. I would consider the deviation of the spring causing the gun to malfunction as "actual breakage" Having said that we continue to look whether all other safety requirements were met. The shot hit the ground within 3 meters and IMHO the shooter cannot claim he was shooting at the target as he was clearing a malfunction. That means that the exception for targets within 3 meters is not valid. It looks like you came to the right conclusion, this is indeed the way this rule needs to be executed. The only thing which makes it a little more complicated is the presence of targets within 3 meters. You need to judge whether the competitor was actually shooting at those targets or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Hi Ivan, I believe the intent of the rule is to say that the events described in Rule 10.4.1 to 10.4.7 are classified as Accidental Discharges which incur a Match DQ. However if those events occur due to a provable gun breakage, then Rule 10.4.9 kicks in and the competitor will not get a match DQ, because the incident did not occur due to his unsafe action. Having said that, it seems to me that the word "and" might be in the wrong place. Consider: Actual 10.4.9 Exception: When it can be established that the cause of the discharge is due to the actual breakage of a part of the firearm and the competitor has not committed any safety infraction in this Section, a match disqualification will not be invoked, however, the competitor's scores for that course of fire will be zero. Revised 10.4.9 Exception: When it can be established that the cause of the discharge is due to the actual breakage of a part of the firearm, the competitor has not committed any safety infraction in this Section, and a match disqualification will not be invoked, however, the competitor's scores for that course of fire will be zero. I'll need to run the above past the Rules Committee for discsussion and a possible correction under Rule 11.8., and I'll report back here, either way, as soon as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted June 13, 2004 Author Share Posted June 13, 2004 1) I suppose the RO did not see the finger in the trigger guard when the shot went off. Yup, the RO didn't see the finger in the trigger - the gun (and the hit) was covered by the shooter's body. The other RO (scorekeeper) saw only where the bullet hit the ground. I would consider the deviation of the spring causing the gun to malfunction as "actual breakage" We also came into this conclusion. However, this particular shooter is well known to "file" his guns like hell sometimes... But he already shot some eight stages without any problem. Having said that we continue to look whether all other safety requirements were met. The shot hit the ground within 3 meters and IMHO the shooter cannot claim he was shooting at the target as he was clearing a malfunction. That means that the exception for targets within 3 meters is not valid. The shooter didn't lower the gun, he just cycled the slide. That's still "clearing the malfunction", all right, but the gun pointed (almost) at the targets - it was turned only by what is necessary to cycle the slide. It looks like you came to the right conclusion, this is indeed the way this rule needs to be executed. I'm still not happy. A shot has happened when the shooter was trying to engage targets within 3 meters. He is not obliged to remove his finger if he doesn't lower the gun. He made two safety infractions - AD for hitting the ground, and AD for shooting while "clearing malfunctions". But it's the same event. If hitting the ground has happened due to the breakage - then 10.4.9 rules. If shooting while clearing malfunctions has happened due to the breakage - then 10.4.9 rules. If both has happened due to the breakage - then 10.4.9 doesn't rule? I'm still confused. The only thing which makes it a little more complicated is the presence of targets within 3 meters. You need to judge whether the competitor was actually shooting at those targets or not. Actually, in this particular case, the shooter said that he had the gun problem, but he left the COF (just a few meters away, but he left) without offering his gun for inspection, therefore the DQ was upheld. But I still feel obliged to find out how to interpret this rule, as one day I might need this knowledge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted June 13, 2004 Author Share Posted June 13, 2004 Revised 10.4.9 Exception: When it can be established that the cause of the discharge is due to the actual breakage of a part of the firearm, the competitor has not committed any safety infraction in this Section, and a match disqualification will not be invoked, however, the competitor's scores for that course of fire will be zero. Oh, I understand it now. If it is the intent of this rule, then I'll act accordingly. Thanks for clarifying, and I am awaiting your final word in this. THX! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 I think the original wording is the way it is intended. For example, suppose the competitor's gun is broken, causing an accidental discharge, but the round leaves the range. Is he DQ'd then? Under the original wording, yes. Under the proposed wording, no. If the round impacted the berm, backstop, ground, etc., then no problem, but if it leaves the range, the competitor still has committed a safety infraction, right? I think the intent was to say, "Ok, your gun went off, it's actually broken, so it's not your fault. The bullet hit the berm, so you are OK. Get if fixed or swap guns, and continue." OR, "Ok, your gun went off, it's actually broken, so it's not your fault. But, the bullet left the range. Sorry, but you are disqualified under x.xx" Under the proposed wording, then no matter where the round goes, it's all good. Is that what we really want to say? Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Troy, Understood, and I acknowledge that the position of the word "and" makes a whole world of difference, and this is why I'm running it past the Rules Committee, who may well beat me over the head with the "archive" rulebook, which is actually carved in a stone tablet, so that's gotta hurt However I've always considered that, say, an AD over the berm due to a gun breakage is beyond the control of the competitor, hence he should not get a match DQ. Imagine a guy performing a reload on the move, with his finger clearly outside the trigger but, when he slams the magazine home, the gun goes "bang", due to a broken sear or another part (which can be verified). Remember there's nothing illegal about merely pointing your muzzle over the berm. As an aside, this is the reason for the word "may" in the final sentence of Rule 8.6.3 - if a competitor launches a round over the berm after being physically bumped by an RO, should the competitor automatically get a match DQ? There are obviously two schools of thought here - one says "no matter what happens, the competitor is responsible" and the other says "it depends on the circumstances". Let's see how it pans out, but I would welcome your further comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Hi, Vince. I understand what you mean. If the gun is truly broken, then you are correct--it's beyond the competitor's control. And, the rule does cover a non-broken, but say, "highly adjusted" gun, so that angle is covered as well. (I'm thinking of a competitor who works on his own stuff and may have done a bit too much stoning on the sear or something. Not being a gunsmith, I'm at a bit of a loss here, and would have to rely on a competent gunsmith.) As to the archive rule book--wear a helmet! Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 If the gun is broken and fires accidetly, no DQ, OK, I agree, but if the round goes over the berm, AD, broken gun or not, A DQ should be the call. The gun was broken, that wopuld mean that it is not functioning as intended, would that not call for a competitor to be extra careful with his gun handleing? A shot over the berm is within the control of the shooter, IF he remains aware of his muzzle direction. Suppose while the shooter is dealing with his broken gun, he breaks the 180? Do you give him a pass? What if the AD were to happen then? Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Breaking the 180 is completely different from having a discharge due to a broken gun. If it happens that the competitor does break the 180 and his "broken" gun goes off, it's still a DQ for breaking the 180, regardless of the discharge. Hopefully, the RO is SCREAMING muzzle way before that happens. As the rule states now, if the competitor has a discharge due to a broken gun, but does not break any of the other rules concerning accidental discharges, then he is not disqualified, provided the gun is indeed broken and a competent gunsmith declares the discharge to be due to the broken part. IF the rule is changed, then the competitor doesn't get DQ'd, no matter where the round goes, if I'm understanding Vince's proposal. If the round doesn't leave the bay, that's one thing. If it does, well, you can't get it back, and I don't see how DQ'ing the competitor will fix that--provided it was caused by a broken part. We don't want to get into the business of restricting muzzle angles at all times, and we've already had that discussion. This rule is extremely rarely invoked--and in the few cases when I've seen a competitor have a discharge and claim the broken gun thing, the gun wasn't broken in almost all of those cases. I'm sure there are exceptions, but not many. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted June 14, 2004 Author Share Posted June 14, 2004 As the rule states now, if the competitor has a discharge due to a broken gun, but does not break any of the other rules concerning accidental discharges, then he is not disqualified, provided the gun is indeed broken and a competent gunsmith declares the discharge to be due to the broken part. Troy, but that is the problem. If the competitor has a discharge which doesn't covered by the 10.4 section, then it isn't a DQ anyhow. The exception doesn't make any sense in this case. Just read what you wrote, I'll change the wording a bit to make it more clear: If the shooter has a discharge which is not DQable under the 10.4 section, then he is not DQed provided the gun is indeed broken... More closely to your words: if he has a discharge, ... but doesn't break any of the rules concerning ADs, then he is not DQed ... . Apparently true, isn't it? Why the exception to, then? As for pointing the gun over the berm, the same goes for pointing the gun within 3 meters. In both cases, if there's a discharge, the shooter is DQed. Now the question is, what if the discharge has happened due to the broken gun? If you think that shooting over the berm is more dangerous (which in many cases is apparently true), then I'd suggest another rule into the unsafe gun handling section - pointing the muzzle over the berm or backstop is DQable offense. In this case, regardless whether it has happened due to the broken gun, it's still DQ under the unsafe gun handling section. But it also means a more strict ruling than what we have today (although IMHO it also means more safety, so it could be argued for). If someone still thinks it's too strict, then one further term "and the gun discharges" might be added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liota Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Vince, With all due respect to your superior knowledge of the rulebook, the original wording is correct. You wanted both of the conditions fulfilled before you refrain from issuing the DQ. If X happens and not Y, then no DQ. Troy, I respectfully disagree with you about the AD going over the berm in conjunction with a certifiable malfunction. If a competitor is clearing a malfunction and fires an AD over the berm/backstop or within 3 meters of his feet, he will have committed a safety infraction under 10.3.1.1 by having his finger in the trigger guard while clearing a malfunction. In addition, since the competitor turned the muzzle of the gun away from the targets, obviously not engaging them, he has committed another safety infraction under 10.3.10. The way I read rule 10.4.9 (10.3.2.4 in 14th edition) is that if you have an AD due to a certifiable gun breakage AND the AD does impact the backstop/berm or outside of 3 meters, you will have no DQ. Other than that, you must take your toys and go home for the day. Am I completely off base? Liota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 There is no way that I'm going to DQ someone for pointing his muzzle either over the berm or at the ground closer than 3 meters, unless the gun goes off. Too much left to just pure chance and judgement, and it doesn't enhance safety at all. Let's let Vince take his whacking with the stone tablets and see what happens. I like the rule like it is now. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Liota, nobody is talking about having a discharge while clearing a malfunction. The rule pertains to the gun going off, without the competitor's finger on the trigger, due to a broken part. Very rare. If that happens now, and the round leaves the bay, or strikes within 3 meters, it's still a DQ. Ivan was questioning why the rule was worded the way it was, I believe. I'll say it again, I like the way it's worded now. Even if you do have a broken gun but the discharge satisfies the other criteria for an AD, you are disqualified. But, I can see Vince's point as well. In the long run, though, I think we are better off leaving the wording the way it is. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Mac, If I am reading what you posted correctly, then we area in aggrement. If the gun goes bang in an unsafe direction due to a malfunction the competitor is DQ'd. It is the "Second" part of the rule, "while committing no other" Only problem I see is this, and as you say this is so rare... I just shot at a target and am moving tothe next array, before i get there and while running, the gun is pointed slightly high and the sear fails, the gun goes Bang, maybe even dumps the remainder of the magazine. rounds leave the berm, no real fault of the competitor, he was not yet aware of the breakage as until it went bang, it wasn't broke. I still think that he has to be DQ'd, but I do it with reluctance. I would not support a rule that says anytime a gun is pointed over the berm it is a DQ as Ivan proposed. Too subjective. In short, the rule as written works, leave it alone. Please. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted June 14, 2004 Author Share Posted June 14, 2004 Ivan was questioning why the rule was worded the way it was, I believe. Actually, I just cannot understand it. It basically says, if an AD occurs which is not DQable, then it's an "exception" if it was caused by the breakage of the gun. OK, I could live with that, but exception to what? 10.4.1-7 won't be used anyhow. Don't even mention the fact, that strictly speaking, as it is today, it says that the DQ cannot be called if the shooter has not committed the "10.4.8 - not applicable" safety infraction of this section either. (IMHO that "any safety infraction in this Section" includes the 10.4.7 as well). But this is just lawyering, and I wouldn't do that if it was the only problem. Either the 10.4.9 is useless, and should be deleted, or should be reworded so that it would be a real exception to some rules. I really cannot say in English what I don't understand; maybe this rule means something for a native English speaker, but nothing for me. I have no strong feelings either pro or con, I just want to understand what to do if a broken gun discharges. Be it rare or not, it has happened last weekend, and being the RM, I was asked to rule. One day I might have been asked again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted June 14, 2004 Author Share Posted June 14, 2004 Either the 10.4.9 is useless, and should be deleted, or should be reworded so that it would be a real exception to some rules. Well, maybe it says that it's exception to the "unsafe gun handling"? I mean, taking a shot usually is the proof that the finger was in when it shouldn't have been, and this 10.4.9 is the exception to that? It might make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Actually, I just cannot understand it. It basically says, if an AD occurs which is not DQable, then it's an "exception" if it was caused by the breakage of the gun. OK, I could live with that, but exception to what? 10.4.1-7 won't be used anyhow. Ivan, 10.4.1-8 basically says that all AD's will grant a DQ and describes a number of those instances. 10.4.1.9 gives the exception that AD's caused by a provable breakage of the gun will result in a zeroed stage instead of a DQ. When re-reading 10.4.1.9 again and again I can see part of your confusion. I think this could be solved by re-phrasing 10.4.1.9 to: revised 10.4.9 Exception: When it can be established that the cause of the discharge is due to the actual breakage of a part of the firearm and the competitor has not committed any safety infraction as mentioned in 10.4.1, 10.4.2 or 10.4.7, a match disqualification will not be invoked, however, the competitor's scores for that course of fire will be zero. 10.4.1/2/7 describe where the shot goes, the others describe when the shot goes. Only 10.4.1/2/7 should be valid for the exeption, reference to all parts of Section 10.4 points to itself and causes a "contradictio in terminis". Would this solve your problem or am I making to much sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerT Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Actually, I just cannot understand it. It basically says, if an AD occurs which is not DQable, then it's an "exception" if it was caused by the breakage of the gun. OK, I could live with that, but exception to what? 10.4.1-7 won't be used anyhow. Ivan, 10.4.1-8 basically says that all AD's will grant a DQ and describes a number of those instances. 10.4.1.9 gives the exception that AD's caused by a provable breakage of the gun will result in a zeroed stage instead of a DQ. When re-reading 10.4.1.9 again and again I can see part of your confusion. I think this could be solved by re-phrasing 10.4.1.9 to: revised 10.4.9 Exception: When it can be established that the cause of the discharge is due to the actual breakage of a part of the firearm and the competitor has not committed any safety infraction as mentioned in 10.4.1, 10.4.2 or 10.4.7, a match disqualification will not be invoked, however, the competitor's scores for that course of fire will be zero. 10.4.1/2/7 describe where the shot goes, the others describe when the shot goes. Only 10.4.1/2/7 should be valid for the exeption, reference to all parts of Section 10.4 points to itself and causes a "contradictio in terminis". Would this solve your problem or am I making to much sense? Yo Yoda! You have "hit the head of the nail head on" as an old swedish saying goes.... This version is NOT to much sense, now also I get it... Very clear and precise, thank You. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Let's let Vince take his whacking with the stone tablets and see what happens. I like the rule like it is now. Troy, book me a room next to yours at the IPSC Centre for Battered ROs I'll say it again, I like the way it's worded now. Even if you do have a broken gun but the discharge satisfies the other criteria for an AD, you are disqualified. But, I can see Vince's point as well. In the long run, though, I think we are better off leaving the wording the way it is. OK, the initial feedback is that the intent of the rule is indeed "No DQ for a broken gun unless you break another rule in the section" (namely a shot over the berm, or a shot into the ground at 3 metres or less). Having said that, I can understand why Ivan was confused, and it's clear to me that the language of the rule must improve, to remove the ambiguity which has manifested itself here. In other words, as it is written know, the rule definitely needs work. At first view, the language proposed by my colleague Yoda looks promising, but I'll need another few days to bounce it off the Rules Committee. Ivan, thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. And thanks to Troy, Yoda and Liota for your constructive input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Troy, book me a room next to yours at the IPSC Centre for Battered ROs OK, Vince. I haven't checked in yet, but I hear the main medications there are rum and India Pale Ale. My kind of place! We'll have to see how BDH is faring....Oh, Brian?!? Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Brian was last seen chasing competitors through a stage at the Summer Blast. Hopefully the TSA allowed him to fly home ---- so he can RO at the Buckeye Blast later this week.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I swapped emails with BDH this morning...he has his shooter hat on right now. He is turning into an Alpha hitting machine as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Thanks for the updates. So, the therapy must be working, eh? Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 It must be...hardly a grumble to be heard from him on RO'ing. I'll se that he takes a few doses his RO medication at the Buckeye Blast this weekend. I'll ask him about this topic too (just to negate the thread drift I am causing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now