Table start, Accidental Discharge DQ question

[Poppa Bear]

Others could chime in with actual situations but I recall hearing about a couple where the prop got knocked and the shooter grabbed the gun as it was moving. They were DQ'ed because it was declared that the gun was not in their control.

IF, IF I was there and I felt I could reasonable articulate that the gun was not under the shooters control when it discharged it would be a DQ.

[remoandiris]

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?

Good point. USPSA isn't supposed to be about "trick" shooting.

Edited June 25, 2012 by remoandiris

[Poppa Bear]

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 a target.

It is an object down range. It could just as easily been a wall, a post, a piece of steel behind another wall. I would argue that until the gun is up off the table that the shooter does not have control of it.

[Sarge]

Others could chime in with actual situations but I recall hearing about a couple where the prop got knocked and the shooter grabbed the gun as it was moving. They were DQ'ed because it was declared that the gun was not in their control.

IF, IF I was there and I felt I could reasonable articulate that the gun was not under the shooters control when it discharged it would be a DQ.

Correct. If you go to grab your gun from a barrel and kick the barrel causing the gun to fall that is a dropped gun. DQ

10.5.3 If at any time during the course of fire, or while loading, reloading or

unloading, a competitor drops his handgun or causes it to fall, loaded

or not.

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.

[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 a target.

It is an object down range. It could just as easily been a wall, a post, a piece of steel behind another wall. I would argue that until the gun is up off the table that the shooter does not have control of it.

But it wasn't a wall, post or otherwise. It was a legit target. If it hit something else, even just the berm, a case could be made to DQ under 10.4.6.

I think the point RGKeller brought up, the gun still being on the table and not completely gripped with either hand when it went off, could be the ticket. You may be saying the same thing, just in different words.

Edited June 25, 2012 by remoandiris

[rgkeller]

deleted

Edited June 25, 2012 by rgkeller

[98sr20ve]

Opps. Just Accidentally Posted in this thread. Talk about irony.

Edited June 25, 2012 by 98sr20ve

[DoubleL]

I certainly wouldn't like it RG. At all.

However, what I think isn't what gets enforced. The rulebook is. If shooter smokes 6 targets with the pistol on it's side one handed on the table and gets hits.... Well I'm at a loss as to what rule he broke. He is clearly in control. His shots are aimed. And from my earlier post, this is exactly why at least one safety rule, gun handling, needs to be somewhat open ended. If RO CRO and MD all say it was unsafe, they are the ruling body and make that decision. If those three came to that conclusion I would imagine that any arb committee would too.

Citing any other rule for the situation outlined by the OP would be where the problem of the shooters honesty comes into play.

[rgkeller]

The shooter broke rule 10.5.

For all those insisting that the rulebook cover everything, consider that 10.5 says

"Examples of unsafe gun handling include, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO" (CAPS added) for a reason.

And the reason could not be more perfectly illustrated than by the example in the opening post.

Edited June 25, 2012 by rgkeller

[sperman]

I certainly wouldn't like it RG. At all.

However, what I think isn't what gets enforced. The rulebook is. If shooter smokes 6 targets with the pistol on it's side one handed on the table and gets hits.... Well I'm at a loss as to what rule he broke. He is clearly in control. His shots are aimed. And from my earlier post, this is exactly why at least one safety rule, gun handling, needs to be somewhat open ended. If RO CRO and MD all say it was unsafe, they are the ruling body and make that decision. If those three came to that conclusion I would imagine that any arb committee would too.

Citing any other rule for the situation outlined by the OP would be where the problem of the shooters honesty comes into play.

If the shooter fires 6 aimed shots at a target while the gun is laying on the table is different than the shooter firing 1 shot on accident.

[z40acp]

Opps. Just Accidentally Posted in this thread. Talk about irony.

DQ...no more posting for the rest of the day.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Tim,

what's not plain about "10.5 Match Disqualification -- Unsafe Gun Handling. Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:?"

I'm not reading into it at all -- 10.5 is clear in meaning in five simple words.....

Nowhere in the rules is there a requirement to limit a 10.5 DQ to only those 17 examples listed as subsections. I didn't go to law school, but I did attend RO classes in 2002, 2006, and 2010/11.....

[Carmoney]

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.

Tim,

what's not plain about "10.5 Match Disqualification -- Unsafe Gun Handling. Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:?"

I'm not reading into it at all -- 10.5 is clear in meaning in five simple words.....

Nowhere in the rules is there a requirement to limit a 10.5 DQ to only those 17 examples listed as subsections. I didn't go to law school, but I did attend RO classes in 2002, 2006, and 2010/11.....

Well Nik, I've been to both RO class and law school, and a whole bunch of major USPSA matches, and in my opinion a DQ under 10.5 under these circumstances would not (and should not) be upheld at a USPSA major event. Rule 10.5 may apply to other situations beyond those specifically listed, but the described scenario is clearly an accidental discharge and should therefore be evaluated under 10.4, which provides specific and exclusive description of when a discharge is grounds for a DQ. The fact that there is a rules section specifically dealing with ADs strongly implies that the other sections of the rules were not intended to deal with ADs.

From a practical perspective, there is nothing particularly more or less unsafe with this scenario than a gun that is drawn and partially extended toward the target, resulting in a shot that goes off downrange and strikes the ground 11 feet away from the shooter. While that is a "discharge" that is clearly "accidental," it is most definitely not an "accidental discharge" as defined by 10.4, unless some other part of 10.4 makes it one.

[Gary Stevens]

My 2 cents.

While 10.5 is not a perfect rule it does serve a purpose. That purpose, IMO, is to not paint ourselves into a box by trying to forsee every possible thing a shooter might unsafely do.

Now the weak link is the RO crew. If they do not use common sense and good judgment there can be a bad outcome. We have an RO disciplinary process for that if needed.

That being said though, I believe 11.1.2 is clear and concise on it's face. If a shooter is DQ'd for a "safety violation" (which is what 10.5 is) that the arb request will "only" be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match DQ. It goes on to specifically say that the commission of the infraction "as described" by the Range Officer is not subject to challenge or appeal.

You can fill out the form, and state your exceptional circumstances, without challenging the commission of the infraction as described by the Range Officer, and we can go from there. Since someone has to make that decision, I would say the RM is the gate keeper who decides if such an arb goes any farther.

Gary

[rgkeller]

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.

Tim,

what's not plain about "10.5 Match Disqualification -- Unsafe Gun Handling. Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:?"

I'm not reading into it at all -- 10.5 is clear in meaning in five simple words.....

Nowhere in the rules is there a requirement to limit a 10.5 DQ to only those 17 examples listed as subsections. I didn't go to law school, but I did attend RO classes in 2002, 2006, and 2010/11.....

Well Nik, I've been to both RO class and law school, and a whole bunch of major USPSA matches, and in my opinion a DQ under 10.5 under these circumstances would not (and should not) be upheld at a USPSA major event. Rule 10.5 may apply to other situations beyond those specifically listed, but the described scenario is clearly an accidental discharge and should therefore be evaluated under 10.4, which provides specific and exclusive description of when a discharge is grounds for a DQ. The fact that there is a rules section specifically dealing with ADs strongly implies that the other sections of the rules were not intended to deal with ADs.

From a practical perspective, there is nothing particularly more or less unsafe with this scenario than a gun that is drawn and partially extended toward the target, resulting in a shot that goes off downrange and strikes the ground 11 feet away from the shooter. While that is a "discharge" that is clearly "accidental," it is most definitely not an "accidental discharge" as defined by 10.4, unless some other part of 10.4 makes it one.

10.4 provides DEFINITIONS of ADs, not "descriptions"

By the Rules, because the action in the OP is not among the definitions in 10.4, then 10.4 is not applicable.

[twodownzero]

10.4 provides DEFINITIONS of ADs, not "descriptions"

By the Rules, because the action in the OP is not among the definitions in 10.4, then 10.4 is not applicable.

You've made it all the way through my chain of logic, but neglected to state the conclusion.

10.4 defines an accidental discharge. This is not an accidental discharge. Therefore, unless some other rule provides a path to disqualification, the shooter is still in the match.

Reading 10.5 to find other circumstances in which a shooter "accidentally" discharged his firearm, because in your opinion, he didn't "intend" that shot is not what the rules provide for.

In fact, I saw a shooter yank a round off yesterday while he was drawing, with the gun most of the way extended in front of him. I even called him on it after the stage was over and he admitted that he let one off early. The RO didn't even notice, probably because he's not used to being on the timer. I just told him to be more careful. Never did it cross my mind that he should have been DQed.

This sport is supposed to be fun. We shouldn't be looking for new ways to DQ a shooter.

[remoandiris]

We shouldn't be looking for new ways to DQ a shooter.

I don't think anyone is looking at a new way to DQ a shooter. I do think they are looking at ways to enforce safe gun handling practices.

[rgkeller]

10.4 provides DEFINITIONS of ADs, not "descriptions"

By the Rules, because the action in the OP is not among the definitions in 10.4, then 10.4 is not applicable.

You've made it all the way through my chain of logic, but neglected to state the conclusion.

10.4 defines an accidental discharge. This is not an accidental discharge. Therefore, unless some other rule provides a path to disqualification, the shooter is still in the match.

Reading 10.5 to find other circumstances in which a shooter "accidentally" discharged his firearm, because in your opinion, he didn't "intend" that shot is not what the rules provide for.

In fact, I saw a shooter yank a round off yesterday while he was drawing, with the gun most of the way extended in front of him. I even called him on it after the stage was over and he admitted that he let one off early. The RO didn't even notice, probably because he's not used to being on the timer. I just told him to be more careful. Never did it cross my mind that he should have been DQed.

This sport is supposed to be fun. We shouldn't be looking for new ways to DQ a shooter.

.

I have stated my logic several times.

The incident in the original post described a shooter firing his pistol while not in control of the firearm.

DQ. Unsafe gun handling. 10.5

The incident was NOT an AD under the rules of the USPSA because the description of that incident does not fall under any of the definitions in 10.4.

The drawing incident you describe is not an AD and is not unsafe gun handling.

This sport will cease to exist if we permit shooters to fire while not being in complete control of their firearms. That won't be fun.

Edited June 26, 2012 by rgkeller

[GrumpyOne]

Guys, agree to disagree. Whether or not it can be proven to be an AD, or USGH, the only person who really knows what and how it happened is the shooter. Obviously, the shooter is quite the stand up guy, and did the right thing in his eyes. I applaud him for it. We need more like him in the sport. There should be another letter in DVC..... I......for Integritas.....

If the shooter DQ'ED himself, what does it really matter what rule was cited on his score sheet? Is one DQ any better than any other?

Edited June 26, 2012 by GrumpyOne

[Carmoney]

Obviously, ADs are going to occasionally happen in this sport. They've happened to me, and if you're reading this post and you're honest about it, you'll probably have to admit they've happened to you! This is why controlling muzzle direction is so critically important.

I'd much rather see a shooter trip off a shot on a reload, fire one over the berm, pull out a magazine at a safe area, or run with his finger on the trigger--than break the 180. Those are all infractions that result in a DQ, all for good reasons, but they don't generally cause a firearm to be pointed at another person.

If we are serious about human safety, the two main things to tighten up on are (1) 180 violations, and (2) holstering hot guns. Those two areas are where the real problems can happen.

Or so it seems to me.

[Poppa Bear]

So are you saying that you would like to see all loaded starts be from the holster, or are you referring to something else?

[bikerburgess]

It seems to me like the term "Accidental" is causing the difference of opinion here. Accidental implies intent, rule 10.4 lists a series directions of and actions when discharging the gun, weather intended or not require a DQ. Should the word "Accidental discharge" be removed from the rule book and replace it with "Illegal discharge" ?

Mike

[ac4wordplay]

Obviously, ADs are going to occasionally happen in this sport. They've happened to me, and if you're reading this post and you're honest about it, you'll probably have to admit they've happened to you! This is why controlling muzzle direction is so critically important.

I'd much rather see a shooter trip off a shot on a reload, fire one over the berm, pull out a magazine at a safe area, or run with his finger on the trigger--than break the 180. Those are all infractions that result in a DQ, all for good reasons, but they don't generally cause a firearm to be pointed at another person.

If we are serious about human safety, the two main things to tighten up on are (1) 180 violations, and (2) holstering hot guns. Those two areas are where the real problems can happen.

Or so it seems to me.

Not all clubs are in the middle of nowhere - an increasing number have development sprouting up around them. They may (reasonably) take the position that a round over the berm (violation of "don't point your muzzle at...") - which then impacts on a neighbor's property - is unacceptable. Some would also see a difference between injury/property damage of a competitor/spectator (while on the club property and during the match) as less disastrous than injury/property damage to a non-participant neighbor (off the club property) due to liability, public relations, etc.

The vast majority of 180 violations I've seen have been technical violations (the 180 was violated by a few degrees, but the muzzle never swept anyone or required anyone to change their shorts). "Tightening up" on 180 violations to be "serious about human safety"? Where are these problems occurring? (Seriously, where? I want to know so that I can make sure to avoid them, or at least be forewarned.) If you want a zero tolerance 180 enforcement, then the stage designers will need to cooperate fully (as well as competitors and ROs).

Respectfully,

ac

[andrewcolglazier]

Seems to me that some folks are getting lost in the weeds. It might be useful to go back to basics.

What is the number one priority in every match? Have fun? Be fair to the shooter?

No. The number one priority of the sport should be safety. Everything else comes after that.

I've been shooting a long time. Rules are great, but inadequate in some instances. I know unsafe gun handling when I see it, though it might be difficult to articulate a definitive rule to prevent a particular example.

The individual RO has one very important job; to promote safety. The rules should back up that job to the utmost, and not leave someone with such a (sometimes) difficult job swinging in the wind.

The rule cited in this case is left somewhat vague for a reason, and that is to allow the RO on the spot to exercise a certain degree of discretion.

Almost all NDs occur (mechanical failure notwithstanding) because of shooter error. Almost always they are trying to do something too quickly, without having thought about what they are doing.

I would have great difficulty rewarding a shooter for doing something unsafe when my eyes and experience tell me they did something unsafe. And rules be damned, we have to ask ourselves what is more important; satisfying some letter of the law, or preventing someone from getting hurt or killed.

If I DQ someone for doing something unsafe and they want to make an issue of it, that's just fine, so long as they get the message that I know they did something unsafe, and I won't let them do it again.

Andy

[motosapiens]

We shouldn't be looking for new ways to DQ a shooter.

I don't think anyone is looking at a new way to DQ a shooter. I do think they are looking at ways to enforce safe gun handling practices.

if your gun is pointed at targets when it goes off, that seems pretty safe to me. Either the shooter got lucky, or he was careful enough to make sure the gun stayed on-target when handling it, which seems safe to me.