GrumpyOne Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Even the movement DQ is questionable. It says aiming or shooting.....he was shooting....While I think he did the right and honorable thing, I don't think that he had to be DQ'ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Another reason to never admit to ANYTHING! Just play dumb, keep shooting, whatever. Once the RO stops you he has to make his case. Don't help him. It mattered to him. I got my 1st DQ a month ago in over 10 years shooting switching to the left hand and go my finger in the trigger and AD. I stop my self as the RO was new. If you AD, you know it and step up to the plate. If your shooting at targets then you know that too. Its to easy to pass some stuff off when shooting with you buddies every weekend. Brent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppa Bear Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 10.4.6 would not be negated just by hitting a target. The operative wording is "Shooting at" It does not require the shooter to actually hit the target. I applaud the shooter for having the integrity to accept the DQ if it was entirely an AD. It is a tough call to make. I have done it myself by hitting the trigger as I transitioned between targets. It was not an AD because I intended to shoot, just not that early. The only thing I could point to that would validate the DQ is that it was his MIDDLE finger that hit the trigger rather than his trigger finger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 10.4.6 would not be negated just by hitting a target. The operative wording is "Shooting at" It does not require the shooter to actually hit the target. I applaud the shooter for having the integrity to accept the DQ if it was entirely an AD. It is a tough call to make. I have done it myself by hitting the trigger as I transitioned between targets. It was not an AD because I intended to shoot, just not that early. The only thing I could point to that would validate the DQ is that it was his MIDDLE finger that hit the trigger rather than his trigger finger. But, did the RO see his middle finger hit the trigger? Nothing says you have to pull the trigger with your index finger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharps4070ss Posted June 25, 2012 Author Share Posted June 25, 2012 But, did the RO see his middle finger hit the trigger? Nothing says you have to pull the trigger with your index finger. No, the RO, (me ) didn't see which finger, the shooter said it was his middle. If the shooter argued about which finger (or had claimed "I meant to do that" 10.4.6), I would have sent it up the chain of command for decision. The shooter knew it was an AD and didn't want to pretend otherwise. Even if we couldn't find a rule to DQ him, he wasn't going to continue. We finally settled on 10.5 Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 So you can say a shooter is DQ'd for 10.5 and just add that you thought the way he moved from one port to another was unsafe? Seems when we get away from the written rules we open everything up to interpretation. An RO could DQ a shooter for pointing the gun at the ground when he goes hammer down at the end of a stage because he thinks it's not a safe thing to do because if the gun goes off it will throw rocks, etc. I see new shooters do things every match that are probably unsafe in my "opinion". Such as when unloading they cup their hand over the ejection port. I think that is terribly unsafe and I tell them why I think that. But maybe I should start DQing them so nothing bad happens. I just don't see using catch alls when it comes to the rules. THIS!!!!! Exactly what I DO NOT LIKE about using 10.5 I wish there was a specific "gun goes off when shooter is not aiming" type of rule than using a catch-all in this case. Lee I don't like it a whole lot either -- but it beats the other option, of letting an unsafe shooter continue, because we didn't identify every possible safety concern ahead of time. For the record, I've never disqualified a competitor under 10.5 generally; but that doesn't mean that at some point I might not need to. I've got a little experience in the game -- if I need to make the call it won't be something BS that stands no chance of surviving arbitration.... I also don't know what call I would have made here -- I didn't see it.... A gun going off without the competitor being in control of it though, that's a concern.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 At Nationals a couple years ago a guy fired his gun from the table start, putting a hole through one of the cards at the end of the table. He was not DQ'ed because the gun was pointing towards targets. Was the shooter on the super squad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 His shot hit a target down range, but he clearly hadn't aimed at it. IMO, if he had argued, he would have won. Shot hit the target. Nothing I could find in the rules say the shooter's eyes have to line up with the sights to "aim". Nothing I could find in the rules says point shooting isn't allowed. At Area 6, a world-class shooter had a similar experience. CRO overruled the RO because the shot hit the target. Sometimes you just get lucky. If it is the instance I recall, the stage was an unloaded start, the pistol fired when the shooter racked the slide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharps4070ss Posted June 25, 2012 Author Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) I don't like it a whole lot either -- but it beats the other option, of letting an unsafe shooter continue, because we didn't identify every possible safety concern ahead of time. For the record, I've never disqualified a competitor under 10.5 generally; but that doesn't mean that at some point I might not need to. I've got a little experience in the game -- if I need to make the call it won't be something BS that stands no chance of surviving arbitration.... I also don't know what call I would have made here -- I didn't see it.... A gun going off without the competitor being in control of it though, that's a concern.... As the RO, I'm 100% in agreement with you. If I think that there is a chance that 10.4.6 might not survive arbitration, 10.5 is the best option to get a shooter (that had an unsafe moment) off of the range. As a shooter, I don't like the "Failure to Do Right" power that 10.5 gives. Lee Edited June 25, 2012 by sharps4070ss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 It was not an AD because I intended to shoot, just not that early. That seems to be the same situation here, too. The shooter intended to shoot the target, just not that early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I think the shooter should get a pat on the back for owning up to the AD. I would like to think that most people would. I know this is a competition but I don't like the attitude that you should clam up and make the RO prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. If you did it own up to it. As competitors should be just as conserved with safety as the RO's we all need to work together to stay safe. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98sr20ve Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 It was me. No one really knows me on this forum but most the local shooters know me. I see the points that people and the RO make but in my opinion I could not continue shooting. I take safety and DQ'ing people seriously. Perhaps, by the rules I could have kept shooting but I know what I did was unsafe and at minimum I deserve to not shoot the rest of the match. It just wouldn't be right to take a loophole of "I hit the target" when what really happened was very unsafe. To feel good about myself as a RO I have to take this stance. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 As a shooter, I don't like the "Failure to Do Right" power that 10.5 gives. Lee As a shooter, RO, CRO, stage designer, former MD and current SC, I share those concerns. So far, no one's proposed abetter solution -- and I'm not sure there is one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztecdriver Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 It was me. No one really knows me on this forum but most the local shooters know me. I see the points that people and the RO make but in my opinion I could not continue shooting. I take safety and DQ'ing people seriously. Perhaps, by the rules I could have kept shooting but I know what I did was unsafe and at minimum I deserve to not shoot the rest of the match. It just wouldn't be right to take a loophole of "I hit the target" when what really happened was very unsafe. To feel good about myself as a RO I have to take this stance. Carry on. Bravo. I completely understand. I once DQ'd myself for handling ammo in a safety area. Someone else was handling my gun, and I lost my mind for split second and pulled a mag out to show him the similarities to the M&P mag. Put the mag back, got my gun back in the holster, pulled my score sheet out and wrote the DQ in myself. No where near the shock I'm sure you felt when that gun fired. Thank you for being a stand up guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 It was not an AD because I intended to shoot, just not that early. That seems to be the same situation here, too. The shooter intended to shoot the target, just not that early. If you don't know the difference between a shooter firing a shot a little early while transitioning between targets, and a shooter firing a round while picking the gun up off the table, you shouldn't be holding the timer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) It was not an AD because I intended to shoot, just not that early. That seems to be the same situation here, too. The shooter intended to shoot the target, just not that early. If you don't know the difference between a shooter firing a shot a little early while transitioning between targets, and a shooter firing a round while picking the gun up off the table, you shouldn't be holding the timer. What you THINK happened and what the RULES support are 2 different things. If you don't know the difference between what YOU THINK happened and what the RULES SUPPORT, you shouldn't be holding the timer. Especially if the target has a hit on it. All the shooter has to say to the RM/arb committee is "I meant to shoot it that way and the target has the hole to prove it." DQ overturned. Edited June 25, 2012 by remoandiris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I think the shooter should get a pat on the back for owning up to the AD. I would like to think that most people would. I know this is a competition but I don't like the attitude that you should clam up and make the RO prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. +1. There are shooters who will argue they intended to do what they did. The RO is responsible for proving the violation under the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 If I'm reading the rulebook correctly, this could never go to appeal. Once the CRO and RM both agree that the competitor should be DQ'd. that's the end of it. I don't see where any "excpetional circumstances" are involved. 11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by another rule. Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification. However, the commission of the infraction as described by the Range Official is not subject to challenge or appeal. Challenges to the construction or layout of the course, safety, or shooting conditions may not be submitted after the competitor attempts the course of fire. Should a course of fire be changed after the competitor completes the stage, he is entitled to the process under appeals providing that no DQ has occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharps4070ss Posted June 25, 2012 Author Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Well, after sleeping on this last night, I have come to a decision that I will be able to carry into the future. I think that the shooter should have been DQ'ed for an unsafe action under 10.5 (yesterday I didn't think he could be DQ'ed under the rules) I feel that this will stand up to appeal to the CRO & RM as it lacks the "I meant to do it" aspects that 10.4.6 allows. The fact that the shooter argued FOR a DQ just shows what kind of person he is, and I would be more than happy to shoot with him anytime. Lee Edited June 25, 2012 by sharps4070ss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcolglazier Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 What kind of handgun are we talking about here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98sr20ve Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I think the shooter should get a pat on the back for owning up to the AD. I would like to think that most people would. I know this is a competition but I don't like the attitude that you should clam up and make the RO prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. +1. There are shooters who will argue they intended to do what they did. The RO is responsible for proving the violation under the rules. IF (and I am not saying I would) a shooter were to argue that they had picked the gun up and was shooting at the target it would be next to impossible to to DQ them. Especially if they had the presence of mind to pull the trigger twice. Lee yelled stop pretty fast. It's not right but I could see someone doing it. Targets where close. You could easily have shot them with the gun sideways as you picked the gun off the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 All the shooter has to say to the RM/arb committee is "I meant to shoot it that way and the target has the hole to prove it." DQ overturned. If I'm on the arb committee, I'd consider that statement -- but it wouldn't be the only thing the shooter would say to the committee. I'd have plenty of questions for the shooter, and the answers to those questions would also influence any decision, as would the articulation of the RO/CROs position.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I think the shooter should get a pat on the back for owning up to the AD. I would like to think that most people would. I know this is a competition but I don't like the attitude that you should clam up and make the RO prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. +1. There are shooters who will argue they intended to do what they did. The RO is responsible for proving the violation under the rules. IF (and I am not saying I would) a shooter were to argue that they had picked the gun up and was shooting at the target it would be next to impossible to to DQ them. Especially if they had the presence of mind to pull the trigger twice. Lee yelled stop pretty fast. It's not right but I could see someone doing it. Targets where close. You could easily have shot them with the gun sideways as you picked the gun off the table. First it sounds like you handled the situation admirably. I agree if the shooter made the argument the CRO or RM would probably overturn the DQ, but they would need to overturn a DQ because I don't know any RO's who wouldn't yell stop pretty quickly after a apparent AD. If the shooter were truly planing to shoot it that way, I may suggest that they inform the RO in advance (I know they aren't required to) to keep from being stopped unnecessarily. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppa Bear Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 It was me. No one really knows me on this forum but most the local shooters know me. I see the points that people and the RO make but in my opinion I could not continue shooting. I take safety and DQ'ing people seriously. Perhaps, by the rules I could have kept shooting but I know what I did was unsafe and at minimum I deserve to not shoot the rest of the match. It just wouldn't be right to take a loophole of "I hit the target" when what really happened was very unsafe. To feel good about myself as a RO I have to take this stance. Carry on. .This says a lot about you as a person. :cheers: I have pulled myself from a match. I know others who have pulled themselves from matches. Some were deserved because by the rules they did DQ. Some were not, it was just the shooters choice to end it, like when I had a case-head separation. Surprises/mistakes like that take your head out of the game and you need your head in the game when you are running around with a loaded gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppa Bear Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) I was thinking about this from a designers perspective and think that this is why I like loaded starts to be from the holster. If it is a table start I prefer unloaded starts. If we have been at this for a while we have all seen tables/barrels get kicked/bumped/knocked over by competitors/props/(umbrella from the next bay over) It is bad enough looking down the business end of an unloaded gun, let alone one we now know is loaded. Edited June 25, 2012 by Poppa Bear 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