r o mistake

[jester121]

Discrepancy here:

10.5.5 Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor's body during a course of fire (i.e. sweeping).

Another of the grammatical vagaries of our USPSA rule book. Though 10.5.5 says "the competitor's body" they had to throw in the "i.e. sweeping" part, which opens the door to the definition in the appendix. This creates a direct conflict between wording of the rule and the parenthetical. Sloppy....

[remoandiris]

Discrepancy here:

10.5.5 Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor's body during a course of fire (i.e. sweeping).

10.5.5.1 Exception – A match disqualification is not applicable for sweeping of the lower extremities (below the belt) while drawing or re-holstering of the handgun, provided that the competitor's fingers are clearly outside of the trigger guard. This exception is only for holstered handguns. Sweeping does not apply to a handgun holstered in compliance with Rules 5.2.1 and 5.2.7

...and from Appendix A3:

Sweeping . . . . . . . . . .Pointing the muzzle of a firearm at any part of any person's body.

Based on that I would propose that an RO getting downrange of a competitor is the ROs fault and he should offer a reshoot, BUT...if the competitor sweeps the RO with his gun, I feel that is the fault of the competitor. Even though I realize that DQ could likely be overturned if arbitrated, I would still issue it and let the RM / arb committee argue the discrepancy in the wording of 10.5.5 and the definition of sweeping in Appendix A3.

Since DQs have to be supported by rule, what "rule" would you cite?

[Skydiver]

It sounds like he is going to use 10.5.5 in combination with A3: Sweeping. The shooter swept the RO and so therefore DQ.

I don't particularly agree with that call, but that's what the text says in black and white. He'll let the CRO, RM, and potentially an Arb committee decide whether the text in A3 ("any person's body") is a typo and whether it contradicts 10.5.5. ("competitor's body").

Edited September 5, 2012 by Skydiver

[remoandiris]

It sounds like he is going to use 10.5.5 in combination with A3: Sweeping. The shooter swept the RO and so therefore DQ.

I don't particularly agree with that call, but that's what the text says in black and white. He'll let the CRO, RM, and potentially an Arb committee decide whether the text in A3 ("any person's body") is a typo and whether it contradicts 10.5.5. ("competitor's body").

That is what I think, too, but 10.5.5 does NOT support a DQ. 10.5.5 is specific in the competitor sweeping him/herself, not someone else. Yes, the definition of sweeping says any person, but it is a definition, not a rule.

[Maksim]

I absolutely agree that the competitor sweeping any body part of anyone should be a DQ... however my big problem with this example is....

If the RO jumps in front of the competitor who is focused on shooting or going through the plan, even purposefully, resulting in a DQ... is much like suicide by cop.

The RO is not supposed to be forward of the shooter, and if he gets caught behind, I as a shooter would just stop and request a re-shoot, however unlike sweeping yourself, you cannot control the actions of other people. Disqualifying a competitor for actions of another individual is hardly fair and not something I would want to see happen.

In regards to a competitor sweeping an RO.... he would be DQ'ed for breaking the 180 before sweeping the RO if the RO was behind the shooter as he is supposed to be.

Put it this way... if the RO sticks his hand and waves it in front of the shooter's gun.... the competitor swept the RO, so should the competitor be DQ'ed for sweeping even though it was all due to RO's actions, or is the shooter supposed to read the RO's mind?

If we accept that the shooter cannot read the RO's mind, how can we punish the shooter when he is doing what is the norm, and the RO is not where he was supposed to be.

[JThompson]

Discrepancy here:

10.5.5 Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor's body during a course of fire (i.e. sweeping).

10.5.5.1 Exception – A match disqualification is not applicable for sweeping of the lower extremities (below the belt) while drawing or re-holstering of the handgun, provided that the competitor's fingers are clearly outside of the trigger guard. This exception is only for holstered handguns. Sweeping does not apply to a handgun holstered in compliance with Rules 5.2.1 and 5.2.7

...and from Appendix A3:

Sweeping . . . . . . . . . .Pointing the muzzle of a firearm at any part of any person's body.

Based on that I would propose that an RO getting downrange of a competitor is the ROs fault and he should offer a reshoot, BUT...if the competitor sweeps the RO with his gun, I feel that is the fault of the competitor. Even though I realize that DQ could likely be overturned if arbitrated, I would still issue it and let the RM / arb committee argue the discrepancy in the wording of 10.5.5 and the definition of sweeping in Appendix A3.

Since DQs have to be supported by rule, what "rule" would you cite?

Sanity check here... I agree that in this case there should be no DQ, but I did not say that, what I said was to regroup and then make your decision and here's why. If an RO falls or otherwise is out of position, they may not even be aware of it and if they are they might not be able to get the words out, I hope that is not the case and if that happens someone else would yell and I think in most cases it would not be a problem ,someone would yell, but there are cases where only one RO and none of the other shooters can even see the shooter or the RO. Happens with certain stages. At that point, if a shooter knows he's getting uprange and continues on uprange of the RO or God forbid, still engages targets, that guy is getting a DQ from my ass and he can fight it out in arb. There comes a time when the preservation of human takes precedence and if this person thinks engaging targets or leaving my ass downrange is acceptable then he needs an attitude adjustment in my book.

We live by the rules here, but let's not die for/by them... If a guy/lady is willing to leave a human being downrange and continue their progress uprange then I will DQ for UGH. If a shooter thinks this game of ours is more important than a life we have definitely gone down the rabbit hole.

That being said, I have never seen a shooter that knew and didn't stop themselves.

JT

Edited September 5, 2012 by JThompson

[Nik Habicht]

Maks,

in a decade of ROing and 13 years of shooting matches, I haven't seen it happen yet, where an RO is downrange and getting swept. I'd have to see the scenario, and or interview the players to reach a determination -- and I can't imagine really encountering the set of extreme circumstances I'd need to issue the DQ. The rule I'd cite would be 10.5, possibly in addition to other rules, depending on the situation.....

[remoandiris]

Discrepancy here:

10.5.5 Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor's body during a course of fire (i.e. sweeping).

10.5.5.1 Exception – A match disqualification is not applicable for sweeping of the lower extremities (below the belt) while drawing or re-holstering of the handgun, provided that the competitor's fingers are clearly outside of the trigger guard. This exception is only for holstered handguns. Sweeping does not apply to a handgun holstered in compliance with Rules 5.2.1 and 5.2.7

...and from Appendix A3:

Sweeping . . . . . . . . . .Pointing the muzzle of a firearm at any part of any person's body.

Based on that I would propose that an RO getting downrange of a competitor is the ROs fault and he should offer a reshoot, BUT...if the competitor sweeps the RO with his gun, I feel that is the fault of the competitor. Even though I realize that DQ could likely be overturned if arbitrated, I would still issue it and let the RM / arb committee argue the discrepancy in the wording of 10.5.5 and the definition of sweeping in Appendix A3.

Since DQs have to be supported by rule, what "rule" would you cite?

Sanity check here... I agree that in this case there should be no DQ, but I did not say that, what I said was to regroup and then make your decision and here's why. If an RO falls or otherwise is out of position, they may not even be aware of it and if they are they might not be able to get the words out, I hope that is not the case and if that happens someone else would yell and I think in most cases it would not be a problem ,someone would yell, but there are cases where only one RO and none of the other shooters can even see the shooter or the RO. Happens with certain stages. At that point, if a shooter knows he's getting uprange and continues on uprange of the RO or God forbid, still engages targets, that guy is getting a DQ from my ass and he can fight it out in arb. There comes a time when the preservation of human takes precedence and if this person thinks engaging targets or leaving my ass downrange is acceptable then he needs an attitude adjustment in my book.

We live by the rules here, but let's not die for/by them... If a guy/lady is willing to leave a human being downrange and continue their progress uprange then I will DQ for UGH. If a shooter thinks this game of ours is more important than a life we have definitely gone down the rabbit hole.

That being said, I have never seen a shooter that knew and didn't stop themselves.

JT

Another sanity check. Going back 42 posts to find yours, I'm not even sure why you're including the posts you did in the reply. I'm asking a simple question...what rule would an RO cite to DQ a shooter based on the scenario given by Gomer. There are a whole lot of might, maybe, could be, mind reading, etc in this thread. And it looks to me we went down the rabbit hole back on the first page of this thread.

I was at a Level 1 match several moinths ago when the shooter was running one direction with the RO 3 or 4 steps behind moving the same direction. The shooter made an unexpected turn to engage targets and left the RO downrange. RO's fault for being out of position, but lots of "stops" were being called from the gallery.

[whitedog]

I agree...if as an RO you issue a DQ, cite the rule. What I see here is a lot of opinions, which are great, but no rule cited. UGF....maybe. but I doubt an arb committee would back it up. The bottom line is the shooter did nothing wrong which was in his control. The RO caused the sweep, not the shooter. Reshoot.....

[sperman]

Some of this is an optical illusion. I think the wall is right on the 180 line, so the target is downrange and the RO is uprange. Still, when I saw this, I coudln't believe no one yelled "Stop."

[whitedog]

Wow....looks dangerous to me based on picture. Yup, I'd be yelling stop.

[BillD]

We had a similiar issue at a stage I was working at a Level 2 match.

The stage was in a small bay, 32 rd and had a high HF. The bay was long and narrow and was pretty much a front to back run. One shooter, at the end, in a narrow hallway, decided he was going to come back halfway through the stage to try and pick up what he had called as a mike. (never mind that we all know if you are going to take 2-3 seconds to run back to make up a shot, no way is that going to help your score) He yelled something and started hauling ass. He got even with me and the scorekeeper and decided to quit. He wanted a reshoot for interference but the RM said no. I was trying to back up but really had no place to go.

My point is, we as RO's are supposed to be fairly close to the shooter, maybe a couple steps. You have to be close enough to do your job of watching the gun/shooter.

What if a shooter decides he wants to run back to the start position and take another shot? How do you handle that? Especially when you have a 20 something M shooter and a Senior class RO. How do you allow someone free rein to a COF and still do your job as RO?

[aztecdriver]

We had a similiar issue at a stage I was working at a Level 2 match.

The stage was in a small bay, 32 rd and had a high HF. The bay was long and narrow and was pretty much a front to back run. One shooter, at the end, in a narrow hallway, decided he was going to come back halfway through the stage to try and pick up what he had called as a mike. (never mind that we all know if you are going to take 2-3 seconds to run back to make up a shot, no way is that going to help your score) He yelled something and started hauling ass. He got even with me and the scorekeeper and decided to quit. He wanted a reshoot for interference but the RM said no. I was trying to back up but really had no place to go.

My point is, we as RO's are supposed to be fairly close to the shooter, maybe a couple steps. You have to be close enough to do your job of watching the gun/shooter.

What if a shooter decides he wants to run back to the start position and take another shot? How do you handle that? Especially when you have a 20 something M shooter and a Senior class RO. How do you allow someone free rein to a COF and still do your job as RO?

The shooter has free reign to do what he wants. I don't know if I would have disallowed the reshoot as the RM discussed because next time, I'm not stopping. I'm running into you if you aren't out of my way - then it would have been a reshoot. If I called a Mike and left - and I'd set a goal of having a penalty free match - it's my prerogative to make that mike up.

You need to stop considering what it does for score. IT doesn't matter if it would help or not. The shooter is free to do what they want, thats' the sport. You need to plan, and position yourself for them to do anything. A 20 something M shooter - you are not going to be ABLE to stop them physically from doing something. They would have broken 180 and been gone 30' from you before the T comes out of your mouth on stop. So, if you are worried about them retreating on you, give them some buffer that you have an out.

Unfortunately there are those that will try and game the ROs and get reshoots they don't deserve. They call it - EARNING a reshoot. Retreating when it's not needed - bumping into ROs, wandering all over the range after they fire the last shot trying to get them to say something. You must deal with it.

Let's consider a course like you're describing. You don't describe start position - but lets assume it's toes on marks on the rear fault line. I just totally dumped a 28 round COF - complete 0, because a part broke and I now have a fixed gun, but a completely tanked match. Now - it's time for fun. I already shot one stage headshot only, and one strong hand only. This stage - I'm going to run in reverse. At the start signal - I take off to furthest most point and begin shooting and backing up. Are you going to tell me now that I can't go back to the start position because I'm down range? It's not helping my match - but if I'm there to have fun --- I might do something like that...

Edited September 5, 2012 by aztecdriver

[BillD]

I wasn't worrying about anyone retreating on me, because who shoots a COF, winds up at the end of the thing and then decides they want to run 15' uprange? I ran 300 shooters through that COF, only one decided to haul ass uprange.

I'm saying, on some COF's, if you want the shots to get picked up by the timer, the RO is going to have to stay fairly close for that and to watch the gun.

We can't just make ourselves disappear when we are no longer convenient to have in position. Believe me, I'd have made myself disappear if I could have.

And I've yet to see the RO who can read minds.

An RO has to stay where the timer can pick up the shots and where he can see the gun in relation to the 180. He can't be there and then completely out of the way if the shooter decides to take off after a target he's already engaged.

How does one do this? I'd like to know. I've run a lot of COF's and done some RO'ing and I don't know the answer to this. The RO just can't stay at the start position and let the shooter wander anywhere on the COF until he declares he's finished. And anytime the RO is on the COF, he is potentially in the way.

I thought we shot these things for score....

Edited September 5, 2012 by BillD

[mike l m]

There is not rule to DQ the shooter in this regard, the R.O. was at fault. The shooter should get a reshoot after the R.O. cleans or changes his or her short.

How can you DQ a shooter when the R.O. over runs the shooter? Not going to happen at one of my matches. That is interfence, plain and simple.

Thanks,

Mike

[kevin c]

...Unfortunately there are those that will try and game the ROs and get reshoots they don't deserve. They call it - EARNING a reshoot. Retreating when it's not needed - bumping into ROs, wandering all over the range after they fire the last shot trying to get them to say something. You must deal with it....

I really can't see why that doesn't amount to unsportsmanlike conduct.

[Flexmoney]

I wasn't worrying about anyone retreating on me, because who shoots a COF, winds up at the end of the thing and then decides they want to run 15' uprange? I ran 300 shooters through that COF, only one decided to haul ass uprange.

Like this?

[Flexmoney]

The stage was in a small bay, 32 rd and had a high HF. The bay was long and narrow and was pretty much a front to back run. One shooter, at the end, in a narrow hallway, decided he was going to come back halfway through the stage to try and pick up what he had called as a mike. (never mind that we all know if you are going to take 2-3 seconds to run back to make up a shot, no way is that going to help your score) He yelled something and started hauling ass. He got even with me and the scorekeeper and decided to quit. He wanted a reshoot for interference but the RM said no. I was trying to back up but really had no place to go.

Sounds like a reshoot to me. He probably should have arb'd that one.

[theycallmeingot]

The video got cut off a bit, because I was using a new video editing program, and didn't know how to use it. This is a still from me shooting the Indiana Sectional. The right fault line is right along the 180. You can barely see the guy's foot. He may be behind the 180, but he's definitely not in a safe location. Watching the video back, you can see him moving out of the way, clearly not being comfortable with me pointing a gun in his direction.

[High Lord Gomer]

Discrepancy here:

10.5.5 Allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor's body during a course of fire (i.e. sweeping).

10.5.5.1 Exception – A match disqualification is not applicable for sweeping of the lower extremities (below the belt) while drawing or re-holstering of the handgun, provided that the competitor's fingers are clearly outside of the trigger guard. This exception is only for holstered handguns. Sweeping does not apply to a handgun holstered in compliance with Rules 5.2.1 and 5.2.7

...and from Appendix A3:

Sweeping . . . . . . . . . .Pointing the muzzle of a firearm at any part of any person's body.

Based on that I would propose that an RO getting downrange of a competitor is the ROs fault and he should offer a reshoot, BUT...if the competitor sweeps the RO with his gun, I feel that is the fault of the competitor. Even though I realize that DQ could likely be overturned if arbitrated, I would still issue it and let the RM / arb committee argue the discrepancy in the wording of 10.5.5 and the definition of sweeping in Appendix A3.

Since DQs have to be supported by rule, what "rule" would you cite?

It sounds like he is going to use 10.5.5 in combination with A3: Sweeping. The shooter swept the RO and so therefore DQ.

I don't particularly agree with that call, but that's what the text says in black and white. He'll let the CRO, RM, and potentially an Arb committee decide whether the text in A3 ("any person's body") is a typo and whether it contradicts 10.5.5. ("competitor's body").

Exactly...but I thought I was already clear on that by quoting the rules.

[remoandiris]

Exactly...but I thought I was already clear on that by quoting the rules.

10.5.5 specifies the competitor sweeping himself. You can't cherry pick bits and pieces out of rules and cobble them together with definitions and expect it to hold up. If you had said 10.5, Unsafe Gun Handling with it's pesky "but not limited to" open ended interpretation, maybe. But 10.5.5, no way.

To DQ someone and let the arb committee work it out is, IMO, the wrong way to handle it. What is the ROs primary function? Doesn't it have something to do with getting the shooter safely thru the CoF? It isn't to knick away at the rulebook and find a way to DQ someone for something we "think" they did wrong.

[remoandiris]

Some of this is an optical illusion. I think the wall is right on the 180 line, so the target is downrange and the RO is uprange. Still, when I saw this, I coudln't believe no one yelled "Stop."

I'll bet the shooter never even saw the scorekeeper. He'd likely be intent on his plan and have tunnel vision.

[sperman]

Some of this is an optical illusion. I think the wall is right on the 180 line, so the target is downrange and the RO is uprange. Still, when I saw this, I coudln't believe no one yelled "Stop."

I'll bet the shooter never even saw the scorekeeper. He'd likely be intent on his plan and have tunnel vision.

He didn't. He said he never knew the RO was there until he watched the video.

[aztecdriver]

I wasn't worrying about anyone retreating on me, because who shoots a COF, winds up at the end of the thing and then decides they want to run 15' uprange? I ran 300 shooters through that COF, only one decided to haul ass uprange.

Like this?

I have a better one, but I didn't catch it on video. My first stage at Area 8, I missed a target - one that others on my squad missed and I just skipped the position. Shot the rest of the COF and ran 15 yards to get the target. It was a horizontal run. I guarantee the RO knew I missed the target and expected me to do it. I think it might have been Jim Norman's stage. Almost did a split as I slid in the mud to hit it - but that 40 points was worth the run back.

Edited September 5, 2012 by aztecdriver

[BillD]

I wasn't worrying about anyone retreating on me, because who shoots a COF, winds up at the end of the thing and then decides they want to run 15' uprange? I ran 300 shooters through that COF, only one decided to haul ass uprange.

Like this?

Nope, I don't really see an issue with that. We ended up in a 4" wide hallway when the shooter engaged his last target and decided to move back.

There wasn't anywhere for me to go.