Stage DQ vs. Match DQ?

[OPENB]

I thought about posting in the thread about a shooter's first stage DQ, but thought better and decided to start a specific thread. I come from a mostly USPSA pistol background, but have been shooting 3/multigun for about 5 years. I never heard of a stage DQ before in these disciplines. If you were unsafe to be DQ'd on a stage, your were done for the day. I don't recall reading any rule sets that allow only a stage DQ. I realize that 3/multigun matches are 99% outlaw, and rules sets are as numerous as the day is long, but why a stage DQ instead of sending them home? Ft. Benning was one and your done (don't ask how I know). Ky. multigun at Owensboro was too, IIRC. I recall Horner got a stage DQ at Rockcastle this year. Are these stage DQ's unique to specific matches, or are they a growning trend? Opinions?

[Graham Smith]

This may be a matter of wording. The other thread talks about a stage DQ but I don't think that implies that it is any different than a match DQ.

[abn-rgr]

A lot of outlaw 3 gun matches are trending towards stage DQ's.

[Shooter115]

I think the Stage DQ's have come into play to cover safety rule violations that don't really pose a safety risk, if that makes any sense. On my stage DQ on the other thread, I got bit cause the rules at this range state the gun must be completely empty to ground. I had a round stick in the mag tube on my shotgun, so it wasn't empty. On this stage in particular all three guns are staged and grounded on the same table pointing downrange. The shooter never advanced past a grounded gun. Therefore there's nothing really dangerous about the infraction, hence the stage DQ.

Had this been a stage where I had advanced beyond the shotgun with a round still in the tube I believe it would have been a match DQ.

[MarkCO]

Therefore there's nothing really dangerous about the infraction, hence the stage DQ.

If there is "nothing really dangerous" then why would you even be DQ'd from a stage, why not just a procedureal. I am not picking on you, but we need to be careful about the phrases we use. MDs need to be careful about the message they are sending.

A match this year forced competitors to sign a release, one which had not been available prior to showing up, that required the competitor to acknowledge that shooting is an "inherrantly dangerous" activity. Bullcrap, that MD needs an education! Shooting a gun at a match is no more dangerous than driving to work, and that is not considered inherrantly dangerous. Some of the stages the MD designed were inherrantly dangerous, but that had nothing to do with the shooters.

You break a safety rule, you should be DQ'd from the match, end of story.

The drift awy from match DQs to stage DQs is as varied as the MDs who write their own rulebooks. The phenominal safety record of action shooting, in large part produced by USPSA, is being banked upon with complacency in some cases. Sooner or later, someone is coming for a withdrawal and that check will bounce.

[twodownzero]

If there's no safety violation, there's no justification for ANY DQ.

If there's a DQ, it needs to be for the whole match.

[ClutchUSMC]

I tend to agree with Mark. If it isn't a safety issue it should be a procedural, if not you should be done for the entire match.

[El Guapo]

The only people who get stage dq's are the top pros, match sponsors, and friends of the md. Joe Schmoe gets a match dq and goes home. It is total bullshit. I've seen this happen a couple times this year and have heard a number of stories about it.

[abn-rgr]

The only people who get stage dq's are the top pros, match sponsors, and friends of the md. Joe Schmoe gets a match dq and goes home. It is total bullshit. I've seen this happen a couple times this year and have heard a number of stories about it.

I would like to know examples please so I dont attend thse matches.

[DyNo!]

The only people who get stage dq's are the top pros, match sponsors, and friends of the md. Joe Schmoe gets a match dq and goes home. It is total bullshit. I've seen this happen a couple times this year and have heard a number of stories about it.

I would like to know examples please so I dont attend thse matches.

Yup!

If anything, I'd say the pros get more scrutiny. On top of that, "I didn't know better" ain't an excuse.

What did you see?

Edited October 11, 2012 by DyNo!

[landshark45]

If there's no safety violation, there's no justification for ANY DQ.

If there's a DQ, it needs to be for the whole match.

I completely agree with this. If everything was safe why have DQ's???

In the other thread I don't see anything unsafe about what happened. Yes what happened was against the "rules" but nothing unsafe occurred. Now if he or anyone had proceeded down range thats a different story.

I do agree that he should have had a procedural because he broke the rule... No rounds in dumped guns.

[HRider]

Following the "nothing really dangerous" theme,if you were shooting a USPSA match and stepped into the start box and bumped your EMPTY pistol out of your superfastdraw holster and it fell to the ground (because you wouldn't try to catch it), you would be allowed to retrieve it, safely clear it and reholster it, all under the ROs instruction/supervision, of course. Two seconds later, the same RO asks if you understand the course of fire, you tell him yes, he instructs you to make ready, again, you bump the same EMPTY pistol out of same superfastdraw holster (the one he just cleared for you). He says "stop", under his instruction you retrieve the gun and show it clear, pack your stuff and go to DQ. You just DQed because the rulebook said you can't drop a gun after the make ready command. There was nothing any more dangerous about the second drop than the first. Some match directors have decided that instead of sending a person in a situation like this home, they just give them a stiff proceedural (stage DQ). I do agree that these must be fairly applied and we must not compromise safety. What I have seen at the matches that I participated in that used the "stage DQ" rules was good, experienced judgement being applied by the Match Director and/or Rangemaster in a fair manner.

Hurley

[Alaskapopo]

I can think of a few situations where a stage DQ makes more sense at least to me than a match DQ. 1. Putting a firearm down with the safety off but on a stage where no one goes in front of the muzzle. 2. Carrying an empty pistol on a stage that does not require it and having that empty pistol fall out of the holster. Saw this happen once in a USPSA three gun and the shooter was DQ'd but in my opinion that rule was too strict for the circumstances. If he had not been on the timer it would have been a simple call to the RO to get the dropped gun. I think violating the 180, negligent discharges, and dropping loaded guns should be a DQ but I think there is room for stage DQ's for the events I mentioned. Just my opinion.

Pat

[-=VILLAMOR=-]

Ammo in any gun, regardless of whether it's in the tube, magazine, or jammed somewhere besides the chamber is essentially a loaded gun. Whether the rule states that guns must be completely unloaded or safety on, failure to follow the rule had tradionally gotten the shooter a match DQ. Yes, a firearm will not go off by itself, and there are times when the firearm is pointed in a safe direction or in a safe dump box. But the big point is the shooter's failure to make their gun safe as required. To give a simple 5 or 10 second procedural penalty for that violation is giving them the same little penalty for shooting while having a foot over a fault line. The consequences must be more severe than that. But a match DQ is sometimes considered too severe, so now there is a growing trend to issue a stage DQ for the "not so dangerous" safety violations.

The 2 ranges that host our 3-gun matches in Minnesota both require that guns must be completely unloaded before being abandoned. That was a rule that the old DPMS Tri-Gun Challenge had, and it had carried over to the two ranges. It's a rule we have to abide by when running a match, and we expect everyone to know that rule if they come to our match. We try to design our stages so all abandoned guns will not point toward anyone, whether they be in dump bowes or barrels or on a table that the shooter will not walk past of. By doing this allows us more safety and to be able to give a stage DQ rather than a match DQ for some situations. For the obvious safety violation such as breaking the 180, negligent discharges, and dropping a loaded firearm will always be a match DQ. But for a situation where an abandoned gun is still loaded but not putting anyone's safety at immediate risk (just like how it was in the other thread), we'd prefer to give a stage DQ rather than a match DQ.

Rules are there for some reason. And with any rules comes consequences if they are broken. We may not agree with them all the time, but if we want to go over and play in someone else's playground, we have to abide by their rules. Otherwise, stay in your own yard.

[Graham Smith]

But a match DQ is sometimes considered too severe, so now there is a growing trend to issue a stage DQ for the "not so dangerous" safety violations.

This seems to be to be a REALLY bad idea. If some rule infractions are not serious enough to warrant a DQ, then make them a procedural. Make them a super secret double probation procedural for all I care. But a DQ should be a DQ. Period. No messing around.

If you start watering down the meaning and the penalty of a DQ then things are not going to end well. And in multi-gun matches there are so many more ways for things to go wrong...

[-=VILLAMOR=-]

Make them a super secret double probation procedural for all I care. But a DQ should be a DQ. Period. No messing around.

Okay, then the procedural penalty for such an infraction is zero points for that stage, same as a stage DQ. We'll just not name it what it is.

[Jim Norman]

I don't like the idea of a Stage DQ. If it is serious enough offense or it is a SAFETY violation then the rule has always been Match DQ. Now, if we want to address a few of the situations described above with less than a Match DQ, I might be willing to accept a lessor penalty. How about a Stage Zero. Same as a Stage DQ, and it probably moves the shooter out of the top position should he have been one to start with, but it allows him to finish the match. Perhaps a Double Zero? You screw up and you zero this stage and the of stages remaining in the total of the match you lose your best run?

We really need to make up our collective minds here as to what we want to be and how we want to proceed. If the infraction is a safety offense, Drop a loaded gun, 180 break, AD, Unsafe Gun Handling, engaging steel with a slug from too close you get a match DQ. If you drop an empty gun, your safety is off on a bunkered gun, there is a round in the gun (all provided no one can pass in front of said gun) you get a Double Zero.

[-=VILLAMOR=-]

If you start watering down the meaning and the penalty of a DQ then things are not going to end well. And in multi-gun matches there are so many more ways for things to go wrong...

We are not watering down the penalty of a DQ. Safety infractions should stand as a DQ. No one will or should argue with that.

But for the infraction talked about here, you can look at it as enhancing the value of a procedural penalty for those kind of infractions.

[MarkCO]

While we are at it, if a person gets a match DQ, under NO circumstances should that person be allowed to shoot any stages. The point of a DQ is to punish a person for a recognized safety violation. They committed an infraction that has been determined to be unsafe. Their job is to accept it and leran from it. The MD/RMs job is to enforece the rules, not let them shoot and not invite additional liability by letting them shoot because they "feel bad" for them. An RO who DQs should be moved to a position where they do not handle guns while they are working the match.

The term "Stage DQ" should go away, and fast. There are other ways to deal with issues at hand, the people who write rules need to think about the scrutiny of "the common man" which I suggest is nowhere near what a common 3 Gunner is.

[Jim Norman]

An RO who DQs should be moved to a position where they do not handle guns while they are working the match.

The term "Stage DQ" should go away, and fast.

Two interesting points. The second mirrors my view that we should call this a Stage Zeros or Double Zero if the higher penalty I propose were to be accepted. Your first point is, well I don't have a word for it, I am not really sure how I feel. The RO that DQs is no longer shooting, and as a general rule ROs don't hand;e guns, even at a multi-gun, maybe they do on occasion clear a competitors gun, so you would not allow that? The RO is done shooting, he will not be running around with scissors any more, so I personally think that he is still OK to serve. Look at ti this way, One could arguable have a tournament where in each stage was a match and stood alone, a DQ at one 'Match' would not stop the shooter from shooting a separate match. I would hate to see that, but it in some ways how the Stage DQ actually works out.

We need to address rules infractions differently than Safety infractions. A 180, an AD, USGH, are all UNSAFE acts that deserve a Match DQ, no more shooting. Other rules are not first line safety rules might be better served by a lessor penalty, we don't DQ you for a foot fault do we? The dropped EMPTY gun, should it be a Stage Zero, a Procedural, or a match DQ? Right now it is a Match DQ. I don't really have a problem with this, but it is the gist of this discussion. If the gun has ANY rounds in it, even if they are in the mag with an empty chamber and bolt closed, I still say Match DQ, but a truly Empty gun, I might be able to be convinced, right now I still say Match DQ, you need to be in control.

[MarkCO]

Jim, I have had my guns unloaded by ROs at least 20 times this year, most safely. Happens frequently in 3G/MG. Non-issue in Pistol matches.

Yes, you unsafely handle your own gun = you don't touch a gun for the rest of the match. It is pure liability.

[JFlowers]

If we were to go with Stage Zero Penalties, I think the list of them needs to be specific. This list of X things result in a Stage Zero Penalty, everything else is a Match DQ. It lets us specifically define what is a Zero. Those things that are felt to be unacceptable but not worth a Go Home. This stops issues where one RO gives a DQ and another a SZ for the same infraction.

[bikerburgess]

I have seen this trend toward the stage DQ. as well and it worries me. I just read the rules for a new match that was going to have breaking 180 as either a major or minor violation, minor would be a time penalty and major, like sweeping someone, would be a stage DQ. I understand the time and financial investment we all make traveling to matches, and what a bummer it is if we mess up and do something that will get our self's DQed but the idea of someone pointing their gun at me and then being allowed to continue shooting stages scares me.

Mike

[MarkCO]

I have seen this trend toward the stage DQ. as well and it worries me. I just read the rules for a new match that was going to have breaking 180 as either a major or minor violation, minor would be a time penalty and major, like sweeping someone, would be a stage DQ. I understand the time and financial investment we all make traveling to matches, and what a bummer it is if we mess up and do something that will get our self's DQed but the idea of someone pointing their gun at me and then being allowed to continue shooting stages scares me.

Mike

Agree Mike. If it happens in USPSA, then the competitor AND RO broke the rules. The trend is in Outlaw matches, whether they be pistol or 3Gun. There are some unsanctioned matches I will not attend for this reason. And, just to be clear, there are some outlaw matches that have a great set of rules and enforce DQs in an admirable way. There are others...not so much.

[CJW]

Here is a perfectly good case for a Stage Zero penalty. At FNH3G this year, there were some extra safety rules adopted because the range owner requested them. One of them was no handling of two guns simultaneously, and another was no reholstering on the clock. No problem; that's the price of using a great facility.

Stage 3 started with an empty slung rifle; somebody on our squad got a DQ'ed because his sling broke and dumped his gun. Mind you, that's a rifle that is verified clear by the RO prior to the beep, and it was explicitly given during the stage brief that the 180 rule did not apply until the shooter started to load the rifle. Therefore, by my understanding, there was no safety issue involved in dumping the rifle on the ground. On the other hand, because the shooter had already drawn and charged his pistol, there was (because of the two range rules listed above) no safe way for him to retrieve his rifle---it would have required either holstering on the clock or handling two guns at once.

This should have been a Stage Zero (for a category we could perhaps call Non-Safety Related Equipment Failure), but was instead a Match DQ.