Table start, Accidental Discharge DQ question

[JAFO]

He withdrew from the entire match.

[pjb45]

I had a similar situation in a Level match. Most thought I should have DQ'd the shooter but upon reviewing the rulebook I could not justify the DQ.

I later described the situation as objectively as possible to John A. His response was something like 'OOPS', based on the facts known at the time, it was not a DQ.

I will say later, the shooter admitted (not to me but others) his weak hand finger hit the trigger. The gun went off un-intentionally.

I would have DQ'd myself for unsafe gun handling but as an RO I could not justify it with what was known at the time.

[mike l m]

sharps4070ss got it right:

Which is also based on movement.

10.5.10 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during movement in

accordance with Section 8.5.

8.5.1 Except when the competitor is actually aiming or shooting at targets, all movement (see Appendix A3) must be accomplished with the fingers visibly outside the trigger guard and the safety should be engaged.

The handgun must be pointed in a safe direction.

He accepted the DQ based on intent. He did not intend to fire the gun at that time so he voluntarily accepted the DQ. If he argued it at all I do not see a way to DQ him unless you can definitively say he was still moving when the gun went off and then use either 10.4.6, or 10.5.10 which ever fits the circumstances the best.

The shooter was picking up weapon and he had finger on trigger, weapon goes off. He was in movement.

I would call it a DQ. I would respect the shooter for he stuck around and helped the rest of the match. We need more people like that who are not afraid to admit a mistake and move on.IMHO.

Thanks,

Mike

[spanky]

sharps4070ss got it right:

Which is also based on movement.

10.5.10 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during movement in

accordance with Section 8.5.

8.5.1 Except when the competitor is actually aiming or shooting at targets, all movement (see Appendix A3) must be accomplished with the fingers visibly outside the trigger guard and the safety should be engaged.

The handgun must be pointed in a safe direction.

He accepted the DQ based on intent. He did not intend to fire the gun at that time so he voluntarily accepted the DQ. If he argued it at all I do not see a way to DQ him unless you can definitively say he was still moving when the gun went off and then use either 10.4.6, or 10.5.10 which ever fits the circumstances the best.

The shooter was picking up weapon and he had finger on trigger, weapon goes off. He was in movement.

I would call it a DQ. I would respect the shooter for he stuck around and helped the rest of the match. We need more people like that who are not afraid to admit a mistake and move on.IMHO.

Thanks,

Mike

If he was picking up the gun to engage targets then where was he moving to?

[Nik Habicht]

Unfortunately for that line of reasoning movement is defined by the rulebook.....

Movement . . . . . . . . . . . .Taking more than one step in any direction, or changing body position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)

Picking up a gun doesn't qualify.....

[ac4wordplay]

Unfortunately for that line of reasoning movement is defined by the rulebook.....

Movement . . . . . . . . . . . .Taking more than one step in any direction, or changing body position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)

Picking up a gun doesn't qualify.....

Some people may reasonably believe that the use of "e.g." and "etc." indicates that the term "movement" (by USPSA definition) is applicable to other, non-specified, motions. As such, some people may believe that the motion of picking up a gun could qualify as "movement" (by USPSA definition).

[spanky]

Unfortunately for that line of reasoning movement is defined by the rulebook.....

Movement . . . . . . . . . . . .Taking more than one step in any direction, or changing body position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)

Picking up a gun doesn't qualify.....

Some people may reasonably believe that the use of "e.g." and "etc." indicates that the term "movement" (by USPSA definition) is applicable to other, non-specified, motions. As such, some people may believe that the motion of picking up a gun could qualify as "movement" (by USPSA definition).

If that's the case then are you going to DQ someone for touching off late (or early) shot when transitioning between two targets because the shooters arms and torso were "moving" between the two targets?

[Nik Habicht]

Unfortunately for that line of reasoning movement is defined by the rulebook.....

Movement . . . . . . . . . . . .Taking more than one step in any direction, or changing body position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)

Picking up a gun doesn't qualify.....

Some people may reasonably believe that the use of "e.g." and "etc." indicates that the term "movement" (by USPSA definition) is applicable to other, non-specified, motions. As such, some people may believe that the motion of picking up a gun could qualify as "movement" (by USPSA definition).

Not people who've been through an RO course in the last few years.....

Didn't your instructors cover that?

[ac4wordplay]

Unfortunately for that line of reasoning movement is defined by the rulebook.....

Movement . . . . . . . . . . . .Taking more than one step in any direction, or changing body position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)

Picking up a gun doesn't qualify.....

Some people may reasonably believe that the use of "e.g." and "etc." indicates that the term "movement" (by USPSA definition) is applicable to other, non-specified, motions. As such, some people may believe that the motion of picking up a gun could qualify as "movement" (by USPSA definition).

Not people who've been through an RO course in the last few years.....

Didn't your instructors cover that?

The USPSA definition of "movement", by using "e.g." and "etc.", IS applicable to some other (non-specified, non-listed) motions. (If not, then "e.g." and "etc." would be unnecessary and omitted, right?) What are these other motions that are "movement"? Clearly there must be at least a few. (If there was only one more, then the definition of "movement" could have included it, used an exclusive list of all three applicable motions [instead of the current list of two examples], and omitted the "e.g." and the "etc.", providing a tidy definition. It did not.)

<devil's advocate>

As picking up a gun involves/requires motions, and the definition recognizes some (non-specified) motions as "movement"...

</devil's advocate>

We all know that local matches in various parts of the U.S. don't have sufficient NROI RO volunteers to run every competitor. Frequently we see one of the more experienced/knowledgeable (relative to others on the squad) competitors pick up the timer. This may be as good as a "paper" RO, or as good as a skilled RO, or it may be woefully inadequate. The 'RO course secret handshake' comment suggests that the 'real' rule is inaccessible to those who have not gone through the course (and unfortunately contributes to the 'us vs. them' aka 'RO vs. competitor' mentality) and suggests that the rule is unclear and/or poorly written. 'Unclear and/or poorly written' aspects of the rulebook (e.g.:getting a gun on the Production list, 5.2.5, etc.) may be tolerated (to some extent), but when the issue is a (possible) DQ, both competitors and ROs deserve to have as much clarity in the rules as the English language will allow. This hasn't been achieved here.

For what it's worth, I'm a CRO-MG of several years and have a fair bit of Level III and Nationals experience. This should be irrelevant - my statements are reasonable and stand on their own.

None of this was written with any intent to sound argumentative, aggressive, or defensive - please don't read such emotions into it. I'm just participating in the discussion.

Respectfully,

ac

[JAFO]

There are several examples of movement we can list just going from the two examples given in the rulebook: standing to sitting, standing to prone, sitting to kneeling, sitting to prone, prone to kneeling, prone to sitting, prone to standing, kneeling to standing. I should also think that turning from an uprange start would also be included. All those iterations are a bit much to list individually, but they are all examples of gross body motion. I have never taken movement to mean sole motion of the arms or hands, as that occurs during every target transition. If we were to paint it that broadly, everyone would be guilty of failing to comply with 10.4.6:

"A shot which occurs during movement, except while actually shooting at targets."

Edited April 5, 2013 by JAFO

[Flexmoney]

The USPSA definition of "movement", by using "e.g." and "etc.", IS applicable to some other (non-specified, non-listed) motions. (If not, then "e.g." and "etc." would be unnecessary and omitted, right?) What are these other motions that are "movement"? Clearly there must be at least a few. (If there was only one more, then the definition of "movement" could have included it, used an exclusive list of all three applicable motions [instead of the current list of two examples], and omitted the "e.g." and the "etc.", providing a tidy definition. It did not.)

Just a question on a point of clarity...

The "e.g." here is in reference to "changing body position", no? (not for "movement")

[rgkeller]

This discussion and topic is another illustration why the rules need a top to bottom rewrite.

[Flexmoney]

The 'RO course secret handshake' comment suggests that the 'real' rule is inaccessible to those who have not gone through the course (and unfortunately contributes to the 'us vs. them' aka 'RO vs. competitor' mentality) ...

I agree here. The rule book is the authority, not the latest class.

[Poppa Bear]

An AD while moving is one of the more difficult DQ's to make. We know where the 180 is at. We might error at times and call it at 175, but we are real good at calling it at 200+ We recognize shots over the berm and shots while reloading. What is movement? A half step, a full step, a lean, a half step with a lean? As RO's we hopefully do not abuse our discretion and needlessly issue a DQ, but also hopefully we do not let a safety violation slide.

[mike l m]

only way weapon will fire is if finger is on trigger. So the movement would be picking up weapon, finger gets on trigger and blam, shot goes off. I would think of that as movement.

[mike l m]

rgkeller:This discussion and topic is another illustration why the rules need a top to bottom rewrite.

I agree but the rule 10.5.10 is what it is based on.

Mike

[ac4wordplay]

The USPSA definition of "movement", by using "e.g." and "etc.", IS applicable to some other (non-specified, non-listed) motions. (If not, then "e.g." and "etc." would be unnecessary and omitted, right?) What are these other motions that are "movement"? Clearly there must be at least a few. (If there was only one more, then the definition of "movement" could have included it, used an exclusive list of all three applicable motions [instead of the current list of two examples], and omitted the "e.g." and the "etc.", providing a tidy definition. It did not.)

Just a question on a point of clarity...

The "e.g." here is in reference to "changing body position", no? (not for "movement")

Flex,

I'm not entirely sure that I understand your question/s, but let me try to answer.

Yes and no.

This parenthetical applies directly to the dependent clause that it follows. So yes, the "e.g." contained within the parenthetical is in reference to "changing body position" (in the dependent clause).

The dependent clause (and its parenthetical) are both part of ("in reference to") the USPSA definition of "movement". So no, "not for 'movement'" would not be correct.

Did we get anywhere, or should we try again?

Respectfully,

ac

[ctay]

The definition of movement is close to my heart as my first and only dq (at last year's area 2) was based on an improper (in my mind) definition of movement.

There are two tests that determine whether or not you are in movement. First, have you taken *more* than one step in any direction? Second, have you changed body position ie sitting to standing and so forth. Although body position does have an "eg" before the examples, all of the examples given are the same as "shooting position" which is defined as " The physical presentation of a person’s body".

This tells me that you must be *in the process* of a large change in the presentation of your body (shooting position) to qualify as "in movement" .

If neither one of these two definitions apply, 10.4.6 does not apply.

Typing in bed on a phone is hard... Please forgive any typos.

[JAFO]

Another way to look at it is that "more than one step in any direction" is defining lateral movement of the body, and "changing body position" is defining vertical movement (by use of the two examples given).

[sperman]

Flex,

I'm not entirely sure that I understand your question/s, but let me try to answer.

Yes and no.

This parenthetical applies directly to the dependent clause that it follows. So yes, the "e.g." contained within the parenthetical is in reference to "changing body position" (in the dependent clause).

The dependent clause (and its parenthetical) are both part of ("in reference to") the USPSA definition of "movement". So no, "not for 'movement'" would not be correct.

Did we get anywhere, or should we try again?

Respectfully,

ac

I didn't know you had to have an english degree to understand the rulebook.

[ctay]

Another way to look at it is that "more than one step in any direction" is defining lateral movement of the body, and "changing body position" is defining vertical movement (by use of the two examples given).

Very good way to put it.

[ac4wordplay]

Flex,

I'm not entirely sure that I understand your question/s, but let me try to answer.

Yes and no.

This parenthetical applies directly to the dependent clause that it follows. So yes, the "e.g." contained within the parenthetical is in reference to "changing body position" (in the dependent clause).

The dependent clause (and its parenthetical) are both part of ("in reference to") the USPSA definition of "movement". So no, "not for 'movement'" would not be correct.

Did we get anywhere, or should we try again?

Respectfully,

ac

I didn't know you had to have an english degree to understand the rulebook.

If you were to survey two groups, English degree USPSA participants, and non-English degree USPSA participants, I would expect you'd find them both confused and disappointed by many aspects of the rulebook. If anything, the rulebook would benefit from collaboration with someone who has an excellent understanding of grammar - it's a rulebook (an important organizational document, frequently referenced, by lots of people) and the official language of USPSA is English.

When we speak of guns, we generally try to use the correct terminology - trigger, sear, firing pin, etc. For external ballistics it may be velocity, mass, BC, etc. We try to use correct terminology because it helps communicate meaning accurately and clearly. "That thing that connects to the whatchamacallit that does the..." is awkward and imprecise. "The trigger," when the speaker means to identify another part, leads to confusion. When we move from casual conversation to a formal document (USPSA rulebook) should we expect less, or should we work for more clarity and accuracy?

Respectfully,

ac

[rgkeller]

Excellent post, AC, and right on.

[KyalSharpe]

10.5.10 sounds about right.