Table start, Accidental Discharge DQ question

[fiddler]

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.

You did right.

[andrewcolglazier]

It was me.

Hi sir. What handgun were you shooting, if I may ask?

Thanks.

Andy

[Skydiver]

Are questions about what handgun was being used an oblique approach to the question of was the safety on (assuming a single action gun) when the gun was put down on the table prior to the buzzer?

[rgkeller]

DQ

10.5

[andrewcolglazier]

Are questions about what handgun was being used an oblique approach to the question of was the safety on (assuming a single action gun) when the gun was put down on the table prior to the buzzer?

Yes. Some more info on the circumstances surrounding the event would perhaps be helpful. I have seen some NDs when shooters have picked up handguns from barrels, tables, etc. They are almost always caused by a shooter attempting to go too fast and using unsafe techniques to pick up the handgun, or because the handgun was placed on the table/barrel in an unsafe condition.

Andy

[98sr20ve]

It was me.

Hi sir. What handgun were you shooting, if I may ask?

Thanks.

Andy

Glock

[Skydiver]

A friend of mine was DQ'd at the recent Nationals when he loaded his single action gun, put the safety on, and set it down on the table. He then decided to shift the gun a little bit to get a better start position. In the process of shifting the gun on the table during "Make Ready", the safety got flicked off. I was under the impression the rule used for the DQ was 10.5.11. I wasn't there and I didn't push for details.

[Poppa Bear]

It was me.

Hi sir. What handgun were you shooting, if I may ask?

Thanks.

Andy

Glock

Near as you can tell what happened? It sounds like you went for a firing grip where your middle finger went into the trigger guard rather than around the grip. To much focus on the first target? Gun shifted as you went for the grip?

[mike l m]

98sr20ve, on 24 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

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.

You did the right thing. Shows that you are the type of shooter this sport needs. Yeah you could have said Yes That Is What I Planned To Do, my hat is off to you buddy. You would be welcome at any match I put on or shoot.

Thanks,

Mike

[remoandiris]

An interesting thing I've noticed in this and other threads dealing with DQs, is all the varying opinions on whether or not it was a DQ, and if it was, what rule supports it. Guess that is the benefit of everyone's judgement, experience, training and background.

I realize 10.5 gives a great deal of latitude even though specific rules under 10.5 are cited throughout the book. I agree with those that do not like using the words in 10.5 "but not limited to" as a catch all. IMO, it leaves too much open to personal opinion.

[andrewcolglazier]

It was me.

Hi sir. What handgun were you shooting, if I may ask?

Thanks.

Andy

Glock

Ah. Thanks.

Andy

[remoandiris]

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 does NOT stand alone. RO makes decision. Appeal goes to the CRO. Appeal then goes to RM. IF DQd person still disagrees, they put up their money and appeal to an arb committee.

This is a perfect example for arb. RO says it was unsafe gun handling. Shooter asks RO to validate by rule. RO points to "but not limited to" in 10.5. Shooter points to hole in target and asks how could there be any safety infraction since the round hit the target. RO may have seen shooter's body juke with surprise when the round went off. RO may know in their gut it was an AD. But shooter will keep pointing at the hole and say it was planned. Unless they're like the shooter in this case and own up to it.

I have been on 2 crews who called DQ on shooters. IMO, the DQ on both was cut and dried. Arb committees didn't see it the same way. That is how it goes. Most important part is no one was injured, no feelings were hurt, and everyone learned something from it.

[Nik Habicht]

A friend of mine was DQ'd at the recent Nationals when he loaded his single action gun, put the safety on, and set it down on the table. He then decided to shift the gun a little bit to get a better start position. In the process of shifting the gun on the table during "Make Ready", the safety got flicked off. I was under the impression the rule used for the DQ was 10.5.11. I wasn't there and I didn't push for details.

10.5.3.4 would seem to be the appropriate rule for what you describe.....

[98sr20ve]

It was me.

Hi sir. What handgun were you shooting, if I may ask?

Thanks.

Andy

Glock

Near as you can tell what happened? It sounds like you went for a firing grip where your middle finger went into the trigger guard rather than around the grip. To much focus on the first target? Gun shifted as you went for the grip?

That is what I think happened. My friend on the palm scoring device thought my trigger finger was curved as I picked up the gun. So I may be wrong. Things get blurry when stuff like this happens fast. I know my middle finger had the feeling of the trigger burned in my brain for 10 mins. Like a Phantom Feeling. So that is why I think I gripped the gun to high, got the middle finger in the trigger guard and started to grip the gun. I was not looking at the gun at that exact moment (foolish), I did not have a grip on the gun, Slide did not cycle to eject the spent round. I don't know how a gamer could have spun it into "I meant to do that" but I have seen stupider arguments so I don't doubt someone might try.

Edited June 25, 2012 by 98sr20ve

[twodownzero]

But the key part is "but are not limited to:"

Theoretically that could be a catch all for anything.

That's the intent. While the rules writers had experience to draw on, there's always the possibility of a new -- heretofore unseen -- unsafe action cropping up....

As I've stated before, intent is irrelevant. Every DQ should be supported by a specific rule citation, and any arb board I sit on that involves a DQ not supported by the rules will and should be overturned.

No DQ depends on the mental state of the shooter, and so arguing that he did not intend to shoot the target is BS as well.

[Poppa Bear]

That is why I am not big on loaded table starts. A lapse in concentration and you are gripping a gun which does not have its trigger covered. I have done it a time or two while holstered. Hand grips the gun high and I have to shift it back a hair to get the middle finger to wrap around the grip.

[Nik Habicht]

But the key part is "but are not limited to:"

Theoretically that could be a catch all for anything.

That's the intent. While the rules writers had experience to draw on, there's always the possibility of a new -- heretofore unseen -- unsafe action cropping up....

As I've stated before, intent is irrelevant. Every DQ should be supported by a specific rule citation, and any arb board I sit on that involves a DQ not supported by the rules will and should be overturned.

No DQ depends on the mental state of the shooter, and so arguing that he did not intend to shoot the target is BS as well.

That'll require persuading at least one other member of the arb board to see things your way.....

....not to mention being selected by the MD in the first place.....

Like it or not 10.5 is a rule. Since you're adamant about a rule citation, and upholding the letter of the rulebook, how could you possibly vote to overturn a safety violation cited under 10.5?

10.5 Match Disqualification – Unsafe Gun Handling

Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:

Ro writes Match DQ, Section 10.5, Unsafe Gunhandling on the scoresheet -- because the shooter came up with a new unsafe action, which the RO can articulate. You're going to overturn that because you don't like rule 10.5?

[DoubleL]

Cheers to you sir for honestly critiquing yourself and doing the right thing. All shooters should have the same attitude. Too bad that can't be written in to the rulebook.

That's the only "rule" that all here seem to agree on, and it's not even a rule. To me, that points to something pretty obvious.

If a shooter were to argue this, it's not the rules that are broken. It's the shooter. There are more than a few situations that a shooter could argue a way out of. It's whether or not they SHOULD that is the problem. If you genuinely intended to put a hole in that target in the manner you did, then hell no you shouldn't be DQ'd. if it was an AD then yup you get a DQ.

Have fun trying to write rules based around a shooters honesty. To me that is why at least one safety rule needs to be slightly all inclusive. Even if it sucks trying to arb it.

[twodownzero]

Like it or not 10.5 is a rule. Since you're adamant about a rule citation, and upholding the letter of the rulebook, how could you possibly vote to overturn a safety violation cited under 10.5?

10.5 Match Disqualification – Unsafe Gun Handling

Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:

Ro writes Match DQ, Section 10.5, Unsafe Gunhandling on the scoresheet -- because the shooter came up with a new unsafe action, which the RO can articulate. You're going to overturn that because you don't like rule 10.5?

I'd vote to overturn any DQ that is not specifically required by the rules. I don't believe in subjective safety DQs. Unless the RO can produce a rule requiring the DQ and assert that s/he observed specific prohibited conduct, the default goes to the shooter. Anyone who votes otherwise ought not even be a Range Officer at all. Requiring that every single DQ is specifically required by the rules goes to one of the most basic purposes of being a Range Officer, specifically, to assist the competitor safely through the course of fire and to be fair and impartial in one's rulings.

I don't have any opinions about any of the rules. That's the beauty in refusing to read into the rules and interpreting them by their plain meaning. It doesn't matter what I think personally about the rules. If the competitor hasn't committed a prohibited action, I lack the authority to issue a match disqualification and so I won't do it.

Nothing screams "rogue RO" like reading into the rules and DQing a shooter without a specific rule citation of a rule that requires the shooter's disqualification. Our rules have enough DQable offenses. I have no inclination or interest in expanding the list to fit my personal preferences.

[old506]

The problem with "safety" is that it is in the "eye of the beholder". Safe for one person is different from the next, that's why IMO 10.5 should only be used sparingly, if at all.

Rules, however, are different. "Safety" and "Rules" get thrown around together but are quite different. For instance, you get DQ'ed for dropping an unloaded gun according to the "Rules", not because it is "unsafe". You can go around dropping unloaded guns all day and it never be a "safety" issue, but a "rules" violation it is.

I don't think I would call a DQ under 10.5 in this circumstance. Now since the shooter, and I commend him for it, DQ's himself, that's up to him. I just don't think I would do it.

Edited June 25, 2012 by old506

[DoubleL]

That's the point I was trying to get to TdZ. After reading the rules, this particular AD, if argued by the shooter, is not DQ'able. He says he meant it and got a hit on target to prove it. By the rules nothing unsafe occurred. It's a shitty loophole that requires honesty on the shooters behalf to make the DQ stick. The rules are written to keep all bullets flying in one direction, the safe direction, wherever that may be. That's exactly what happened, whether the shooter intended it or not. If the shooter had been an Ahole this thread would be entirely different. Instead of educational for a new guy like me, it would have been shooter vs. rogue RO.

[Poppa Bear]

This could be potentially applicable for this situation:

10.5.14 Retrieving a dropped handgun. Dropped handguns must always be

retrieved by a Range Officer who will, after checking and/or clearing

the handgun, place it directly into the competitor’s gun case, gun bag

or holster. Dropping an unloaded handgun or causing it to fall outside

of a course of fire is not an infraction, however, a competitor who

retrieves a dropped handgun will receive a match disqualification.

Dropped Gun . .(during the course of fire) A condition in which a competitor loses control of their handgun. Loss of control

does not require the handgun to land on the ground or

other range surface or prop. It occurs anytime the

handgun is no longer in control of either hand, even if

it is trapped against part of the body or caught in midair.

If it could be shown that the shooter failed to maintain control of the gun because the shot went off while trying to get a proper firing grip it still works. The operative word in this entire discussion is CONTROL. If the shooter had control it is hard to DQ if they fight it. If they did not have control then a DQ is much easier to issue.

There is no easy answer here. It all comes down to several pieces of information that need to be articulated. There are plenty of ways to issue a DQ here, it is just articulating which rule fits and why. It would not be one big item, but several small items that all add up to reason to DQ.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Poppa Bear

[remoandiris]

This could be potentially applicable for this situation:

10.5.14 Retrieving a dropped handgun. Dropped handguns must always be

retrieved by a Range Officer who will, after checking and/or clearing

the handgun, place it directly into the competitors gun case, gun bag

or holster. Dropping an unloaded handgun or causing it to fall outside

of a course of fire is not an infraction, however, a competitor who

retrieves a dropped handgun will receive a match disqualification.

Dropped Gun . .(during the course of fire) A condition in which a competitor loses control of their handgun. Loss of control

does not require the handgun to land on the ground or

other range surface or prop. It occurs anytime the

handgun is no longer in control of either hand, even if

it is trapped against part of the body or caught in midair.

If it could be shown that the shooter failed to maintain control of the gun because the shot went off while trying to get a proper firing grip it still works. The operative word in this entire discussion is CONTROL. If the shooter had control it is hard to DQ if they fight it. If they did not have control then a DQ is much easier to issue.

There is no easy answer here. It all comes down to several pieces of information that need to be articulated. There are plenty of ways to issue a DQ here, it is just articulating which rule fits and why. It would not be one big item, but several small items that all add up to reason to DQ.

I disagree. The basis of 10.5.14 is a dropped handgun, NOT control of the handgun. The handgun was not dropped.

From the rule "It occurs anytime the handgun is no longer in control of either hand" there is no question the shooter did have control of the gun. It appears he failed to control his trigger finger.

Edited June 25, 2012 by remoandiris

[remoandiris]

Ro writes Match DQ, Section 10.5, Unsafe Gunhandling on the scoresheet -- because the shooter came up with a new unsafe action, which the RO can articulate.

I would LOVE to hear the RO articulate how the shooter unsafely shot the target.

Edited June 25, 2012 by remoandiris

[rgkeller]

That's the point I was trying to get to TdZ. After reading the rules, this particular AD, if argued by the shooter, is not DQ'able. He says he meant it and got a hit on target to prove it. By the rules nothing unsafe occurred. It's a shitty loophole that requires honesty on the shooters behalf to make the DQ stick. The rules are written to keep all bullets flying in one direction, the safe direction, wherever that may be. That's exactly what happened, whether the shooter intended it or not. If the shooter had been an Ahole this thread would be entirely different. Instead of educational for a new guy like me, it would have been shooter vs. rogue RO.

So you are, and we all should be OK, with a shooter who fires his Glock while the pistol is on its side on a table without a complete grip on the pistol with either hand?

I am not.

DQ. 10.5