Shooter Arguing over a 180 DQ and Winning....

[Little Bill]

At a recent Area match, I observed a shooter break the 180, get DQ'd, argue, win, and then get a re-shoot. Here are the details:

The stage was a long field course with several targets behind walls that could be observed from the 180+ as you went downrange. These targets were normally engaged as you went past the wall, with no threat of a 180 violation.

When our squad got the stage walk-through, the CRO and RO stated that there had been many questions in regards to the 180 due to a few targets able to engaged at 180 - 200 degrees. They stated that the back berm was the benchmark for the 180 line. Then they walked to a sweet spot at the end of the field course and said "If you engage this target (pointing to the target that caused the DQ) from this spot, that is breaking the 180." Simple, right?

Well, shooter XYZ runs through the field course, gets to the end, sets-up in the sweet spot, and shoots the target the RO/CRO stated was past the 180. RO stops him, says DQ. Mr. XYZ argues that he is LEFT-HANDED, and that he didn't break the 180 for HIM. An Assistant-RM (I think) was called to the course, and Mr. XYZ, the A-RM, CRO and RO had a conversation beyond earshot.

Shooter XYZ is re-instated and granted a re-shoot. Several of us in the squad were very suprised and somewhat displeased with the call.

Was this acceptable under USPSA / IPSC rules?

[TriggerT]

YEP. I was there when that happened as well. Watched the guy shoot the COF, and then win the argument.

One of the shooters in my squad the previous day was looking over the stage as he was getting ready to shoot the COF, and was specifically told he could NOT engage that target from that possition. He pointed out that he didn't think that it was breaking the 180, though very close, and was still told NO.

We went to that COF the day after we shot specifically to see if the RO's were still running the COF that way, and they were. However, as you pointed out, I gues that doesn't apply to people who are left handed.

The RO's had been telling shooters that they couldn't shoot the COF that way, even though there was NO mention of it in the official writtne walk through (I am told since I didn't actually see it) and without the knowledge of the RM (again, as I heard it).

[Scooter]

Without having seen the course, what does being left handed have anything to do with breaking the 180? I just can't picture how that would make a difference.

[Little Bill]

Good question scooter. Mr. XYZ was breaking the 180 shooting to his left. His contention was that because he is left handed, his body/arm/muzzle position did not break the 180, while if he was right-handed he would be breaking the 180.

[TriggerT]

Forget about "IF the shooter broke the 180 for a secound. My question is this:

If a shooter engages a target from a spot that the RO's SPECIFICALLY tell the shooter not to, or he will be DQed, shouldn't it be a open and shut case?

And YES, I heard with my own little ears the RO read the walk through and mention this target being engaged from that spot, as being something the shooter would be DQed for.

[Little Bill]

Well, I don't think that the RO can say "If you do X you will be DQ'd" unless it is a violation of the rules. In this case, the RO did not say you will be DQ'd if you shoot from this position at this target, but they said that if you shoot from this position at this target, you break the 180.

So, when Mr. XYZ broke the 180 and then argued, we all thought he was done.

I have some other opinions on what happened that I should keep to myself.....

[Skywalker]

I don't know if the USPSA rulebook includes a similar rule (this one from IPSC rulebook):

2.1.4 Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations other than immediately downrange, organizers and officials must protect or restrict surrounding areas to which competitors, officials or spectators have access. Each competitor must be allowed to solve the competitive problem in his own way and must not be hindered by being forced to act in any manner which might cause unsafe action. Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire.

Now, on this basis, if I was DQed in such a stage I wouldn't object to the DQ (if I had really broken the 180 I deserved it), but sure as hell I would have filed an arbitration to have that stage removed from the match, since it was illegal.

I have seen quite a few of such stages here in Italy, and every time I went to complain with the MD and RM because ultimately it was their responsibility to ensure the stages were compliant with the rulebook; I invariably pointed out that it would have costed them a minimal effort to have them corrected to be legal (usually a different target presentation angle, or a simple vision barrier).

Hope they have learned the lesson.

[Vlad]

The DQ controversy aside, I wonder about any shooter who chooses to come that close for the sake of a second or less. It is a safety issue, there should be no compromises. If there is doubt, there is no doubt. Safety shouldn't be one of those "I think I can make it" things. If you are not sure if you can make a hard shot at a far target and you risk it, thats one thing. Making a shot too close to the 180 is a far different issue.

Last club match we had a stage of a type I hate, namely one long fault line parallel to the backstap and two sets of walls also parallel to the backstop with breaks at various spots and targets mixed in such that you can get easilly confused about which you have engaged from where and it becomes a game of count the targets.

Anyway, the start position is facing uprange and most people shot it by draw/turn and engaging the first target at the far left, at maybe 150 degrees. No problem whatsoever but there is a tendancy to draw to early and I did. After the COF the RO informed me that I might have broken the 180 on the draw but he wasn't sure so he let it go. I was mortified and I second guessed myself for the rest of the match because not only did I not notice it but I didn't even think about the possibility that a tight angle draw and turn may result in a 180 problem.

I am all for free style, but I would like to see a lot less stages with 180 traps. Maybe we should expect more from our shooters, but I would prefer is stage design limited the chances for error.

Vlad

[TriggerT]

When the shooter in question ran the COF, it looked like he forgot about this particular target, and then engaged it last when he realized his mistake. As to the question of if he broke the 180, I personally think that engaging the target from the possition he was in was EXTREMELY close to breaking the 180, but in fact did not actually break the 180. In other words close, but not quite.

However, if the RO's are telling shooters that it is breaking the 180, then it becomes an issue for the RM to decide, which he did. Unfortunatily, quite a few shooters had been told they couldn't shoot it that way, before the RO's were challenged.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

The original question is: "Shooter XYZ is re-instated and granted a re-shoot. Was this acceptable under USPSA / IPSC rules?". The answer is "Yes" because:

11.1.3 Appeals – the Range Officer makes decisions initially. If the appellant disagrees with a decision, the Chief Range Officer for the stage or area in question should be asked to rule. If a disagreement still exists, the Range Master must be asked to rule.

As the matter was resolved to the competitor's satisfaction, there was obviously no need to take the matter further with:

11.1.4 Appeal to Committee – Should the appellant continue to disagree with the decision he may appeal to the Arbitration Committee by submitting a first party appeal.

Moreover, it appears that none of the "witnesses" were aggrieved enough to object to the reinstatement, because apparently nobody used the provisions of:

11.7.1 Appeals may also be submitted by other persons on a “third party appeal” basis. In such cases, all provisions of this Chapter will otherwise remain in force.

Under these circumstances, all the rest is conjecture, and nobody has a right to complain about the outcome now, because all rights expired as follows:

11.3.1 Time Limit for Arbitration Request – Written requests for arbitration must be submitted to the Range Master within one hour of the disputed incident or occurrence. Failure to present the required documentation within the time specified will render the request invalid and no further action will be taken.

-:but I hope the process is clearer now.

[JohnL]

If you break the 180 you are DQ'd - pure and simple. I don't care if you are right or left handed. The muzzle either crosses the 180 or it does not. The RO can not DQ you for failing to follow the COF procedure that is -10 not a DQ. As Skywalker notes this is a course design issue. If the MD was worried about the 180 there should have been some barrier preventing competitors from engaging the target from that position. It sounds to me as if the RO decided before hand that anyone who fired from that position was going to be DQ'd and he forgot to let the RM in on the secret.

[Little Bill]

Vince-

Thanks for providing the rules that apply, and the sequence of events. I have read the rulebook a few times, but I am still learning the finer points.

Bill

[BDH]

Of course Master Darth answered the original question, and quoted all appropriate rules...

While I did not see the actual event in question, I worked the match, and there were a couple of stages where you could get yourself into trouble on the 180 (including Stage 10, where I was working as an RO). I think the only thing I want to add is that it is always prudent to ask for opinions if you are not sure on a call. In other words, if those involved in officiating the stage got together with the RM and talked through what happened, if there was ANY doubt, then they should reverse the original call (which apparently is what they did).... (in fact, I will start a new thread on this subject).

ps. Bill, good to meet you!

[davidwiz]

Sorry about the thread drift - Just looking at the results (if we're talking about A3), I counted 10 DQs (none in Revolver or Production), which works out to about 4.3% Does anyone know the cirumstances?

[TriggerT]

Several of the stages just dared you to break the 180. I personally wittnessed 2 DQ's, one of them being a GM. He broke the 180 more than once from where I was watching, and when the RO's stopped him he accepted their call. Good call by the RO's, and VERY GOOD sportsmanship on the part of the shooter.

[BDH]

I counted 10 DQs (none in Revolver or Production), which works out to about 4.3%  Does anyone know the cirumstances?

As TriggerT said, there were a few stages where it was easy to get in trouble. I can only speak to Stage 10 where I was working. We had a total of three DQ's. Two were for breaking the 180, and one was for UGH (discharge during unloading). Both 180's happened the same way. Competitor starts running forward engaging targets to their right side.... they notice a miss.... and while still moving forward, swing back to pick up the shot.

I can say that we were very forgiving on making these calls (maybe too forgiving). We could not be directly behind the shooter because of a wall, so we had a difficult position to make the call from. That said, both of us watched closely, and only if we were absolutely certain, did we call it.....

I felt sorry for the competitors, but if we called it.... unfortunately, they did earn it.

[Vince Pinto]

BDH,

Couldn't you modify your stage to remove what certainly sounds like a DQ trap?

[TriggerT]

BDH,

Couldn't you modify your stage to remove what certainly sounds like a DQ trap?

This stage (#10)was one that I didn't feel was a DQ/180 trap at all! There were several others that were FAR worse.

Hey BDH,

Are you the RO who stopped me on that stage because I was starting to lean forward before the beep?

[Little Bill]

I agree with TriggerT. Stage 10 was NOT one of the clear 180-daring stages. Stage 1, Stage 3, and Stage 8 were the stages where most people were breaking shots 150-170 degrees.

[TriggerT]

    Stage 1, Stage 3, and Stage 8 were the stages where most people were breaking shots 150-170 degrees.

Those would be the three stages I would say pushed the 180 the most.

[BDH]

Couldn't you modify your stage to remove what certainly sounds like a DQ trap?

Vince, first, I would not have called this a DQ trap (although I realize that you did not see it). Second, both my buddy Paul (CRO) and I looked over the stage, and while we knew this was a risk, we felt it was reasonable. Although, what we could have done is stick a couple of no-shoots at the 180 point, to deter the shooters. Then again, everyone does need to be aware of the 180, so how much protection should we build in? We can't eliminate 'every' possible problem, right?

Are you the RO who stopped me on that stage because I was starting to lean forward before the beep?

Nope, that was Paul. I was the big ugly dude that usually wore the Russian hat during the walk-thru and was introduced as 'Comrade Hanna' (you know, From Russia With Love.... although, I didn't wear it every time).

Stage 10 was NOT one of the clear 180-daring stages. Stage 1, Stage 3, and Stage 8 were the stages where most people were breaking shots 150-170 degrees.

I guess I don't remember Stage 1 as being a problem, although I would agree that both Stages 3 and 8 required competitors to really pay attention...

[Flexmoney]

Maybe I missed it...

Here is the wording:

10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case

of no backstop, allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the

firearm is loaded or not.

To me the question is....

1. Can the RO pre-declare a position to be breaking the 180? (I don't see how that is legal...I think they need to wait to see the shooter actually break the 180.)

2. Can the RO say that...since you engaged the target from this postition...you HAD to have broke the 180, even if they didn't witness it? (I think that is what is being said here, but I can't see that as being legal either.)

3. Must the RO witness actual eveidence that the muzzle is "further than 90 degrees from the back stop"? (THIS seems to like the only option.)

[h4444]

Often times I hear RO's say "watch your 180 on this stage". In this case there is a specific warning.....

It is a matter of geometry.

You stand in point A,,,,fire at target B,,,,,,your muzzle will break 180 to accomplish this,,,,,,unless maybe you're Lee Harvey Oswald.

What's the difference between that and the general "watch your 180 on this stage" which I heard a couple times elsewhere?

When you know that from a given pont of fire to a given target is beyond the 180 and you're told that,,,,even though the RO isn't obligated to tell you that (against the rules or no), technicalities or no, it doesn't change the fact that based on the guidlines/references the RO has to determine the 180 you're violating it.

It almost the same as saying,,,,for the purpose of this bay,,,,this is how we are referencing the 180 and that is what we'll make our judgement on, only a specific example was given.

At our club,,,,,we have a tendency to oversimplify the statement of the 180 so folks understand exactly where they stand and what isn't going to be allowed.

Go beyond the boundry set and you're done.

In a stage that has shots near the 180 (not ideal I know, but it happens), I want to know that the RO is looking for and what refernece points will be used to make a judgement,,,especially if I'm spending significant amounts of money, taking vacation time, and traveling a long way for a match.

It is just like work,,,,I want to know what is expected of me.

H4444

[Vince Pinto]

1. Can the RO pre-declare a position to be breaking the 180?  (I don't see how that is legal...I think they need to wait to see the shooter actually break the 180.)

The short answer is "Yes". Remember that not all shooting bays are square, so it's actually a courtesy for competitors to give them a consistent and clearly delineated point of reference.

IIRC, there was a stage at WSXIII in South Africa, in a "horseshoe" shaped shooting bay, which allowed competitors to actually shoot in an arc as wide as 270 (?) degrees, and the ROs marked the "DQ zone" with flags.

And I don't recall any DQs on that particular stage .......... (I can check with RM Greg Moon and/or Deputy RM Martyn Spence if it's important).

[Flexmoney]

I think I'll need the long answer. I don't disagree with what you mentioned, but it doesn't directly address this issue. What you mentioned is covered by 10.5.2

10.5.2 says 90 degrees from the backstop if there is one. If not, then not "uprange". The flags as reference points seems fine.

But, to directly address this issue...

The litmus test (for a DQ) MUST be the muzzle of the shooters gun during the COF, right? And, the only way to call that would seem to be by witnessed evidence?