DQ For AD during Movement

[ctay]

Situation:

Competitor enters port, fires two shots at close target, starts to move away from port with gun still pointed at or near target. Third shot fires that may have gone through port or through net wall directly adjacent to port. Maximum of one step has occurred between start of leaving port and third shot.

Call:

DQ for AD while moving. 10.4.6 "A shot which occurs during movement, except while actually shooting at targets." RO believes shot went through wall not through port, thus shooter was not actually shooting at targets.

Important Definitions:

Appendix A3 - "Movement . . . . . . . . . . . .Taking more than one step in any direction, or changing body position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)"

Why I disagree with call:

Competitor was not technically in "Movement" per the definition in Appendix A3 sited above. Since no more than one step was taken, it is immaterial under 10.4.6 if the shot went through the port or the wall. If there was no movement as defined in 10.4.6 then 10.4.6 does not apply.

Result:

RM disagreed with this interpretation of the definition of "Movement" stating the competitor shifted body position by moving shoulders while taking first step satisfying "changing body position" portion of 10.4.6. Arbitration committee ultimately agreed with RM, RO and CRO and DQ stood.

Would like some other opinions of this call. There are other factors that ultimately don't matter as the end result was a DQ under 10.4.6. For instance RO and CRO changed the ruled infraction from 10.4.3 - shot during reload to 10.4.6 when it was discovered that there was a round in the chamber after the questioned shot and therefore no way for the shot to have occurred during reload. In the end the RO and CRO believed that the shot traveled through the wall and the Arb committee believed that was enough to qualify for 10.4.6. Since I'm just sitting in a hotel in Mesa I thought I would get some other opinions. The headcam video is very clear what happened however you are not allowed to use video in arbitration.

[remoandiris]

Since we weren't there to see it happen, will be hard for us to judge. Arb committee made it's decision. Your situation description leaves a lot of wiggle room. Gun pointed at OR NEAR target, 3rd shot MAY HAVE gone thru port or mesh...that tells me the shooter may not have been aiming. I'd like to know if the shooter was still looking at the target or not. If not, no question it was an AD unless someone wants to condone popping a round off and not looking at their sights.

As for the cited rule being changed, I don't know of any time limit in the rulebook for rule citing. Yes, it may appear a bit hinkie to the shooter, but the ROs want to cite the correct rule so the RM has the info they need to make decisions.

[yoshidaex]

Stage number, port and which target?

[twodownzero]

Sounds like the wrong call to me if the facts were as alleged.

[yoshidaex]

Not sure this would help but would a request to clarify what "shooting" in 10.4.6 help?

If the shooter is "shooting" in the direction of said target, that should over rule 10.4.6, right?

Part of "shooting" is aiming in the direction of targets, pulling trigger, etc, etc correct?

[ctay]

My argument is that it is irrelevant if the shot went through the port or the wall. I argue that the shot did not happen during movement as defined in appendix A3. In the absence of an argument that some other infraction took place - shot in unsafe direction for example - I do not believe this should be a DQ.

This happened on stage 1, second to last port - the close target right next to the port.

[twodownzero]

That seems to me to be the correct call. If the book defines "movement" and that definition is not satisfied, one cannot justify a DQ based on a rule that requires "movement." It doesn't matter if he was shooting at targets, because 10.4.6 doesn't require you to be shooting at targets unless "movement" has occurred. It'd seem that the rule requires 1) movement AND 2) not shooting at targets. If no movement, then we don't even have to look at #2, DQ under 10.4.6 doesn't stand.

A quick scan of all of 10.4 doesn't find any basis for this DQ there either.

If more than one step occurred or there was evidence that it had, then I think this one would likely go against the shooter (but honestly could go either way, fair minded people could disagree) unless the RO believed that the shooter was shooting at the target(s). But if no movement has occurred and all concur on that, this one seems like a slam dunk for the shooter.

[ima45dv8]

It doesn't sound to me like all agreed there was no movement.

Result:

RM disagreed with this interpretation of the definition of "Movement" stating the competitor shifted body position by moving shoulders while taking first step satisfying "changing body position" portion of 10.4.6. Arbitration committee ultimately agreed with RM, RO and CRO and DQ stood.

Still, a bad way to end a match. At least no one was injured.

[ctay]

I think that might be an indication that the definition of movement is a bit ambiguous. There are examples given for shift in body position but the examples are not complete leaving room for interpretation. I believe that it only applies to change of body position of the nature cited ie. sitting or standing. The rm, ro, and cro disagreed noting that a shift in posture was sufficient to be considered shift in body position.

Edited November 12, 2012 by ctay

[Nik Habicht]

I'm not going to second guess this -- since I wasn't there....

In general, competitors often shoot targets on their way into a port,as well as on their way out of a port -- that's specifically allowed under shooting on the move. I've got a pretty good idea what that looks like, when I see it -- and I can differentiate that from an unintended shot while backing out past the point of target visibility/engagability.....

Don't know that happened here; don't know that it didn't.....

[outerlimits]

I'm not going to second guess this -- since I wasn't there....

In general, competitors often shoot targets on their way into a port,as well as on their way out of a port -- that's specifically allowed under shooting on the move. I've got a pretty good idea what that looks like, when I see it -- and I can differentiate that from an unintended shot while backing out past the point of target visibility/engagability.....

Don't know that happened here; don't know that it didn't.....

Nick is spot on. Seems we shoot a lot of targets " during movement" as defined. Wasn't there, so can't be sure. IAC, having sat on an arb for a similar event, we all agreed that the RO could not be sure the shooter was not engaging a target, in this case while leaving a port.

[remoandiris]

OP, you didn't answer my question...was the shooter looking at the target when the third shot happened?

[sperman]

I'm not speaking to this specific instance, but to this sort of action in general. If the shooter fired a shot when they didn't intend to, they need to man up and accept the DQ. Trying to find a loophole to keep you in the match when you did something unsafe is BS.

[Sarge]

If I understand this right the rule was changed after the fact. I made a call a few years ago when a guy touched one off clearly by accident. But I cited the wrong rule and it never even made it beyond the RM. The DQ was overturned. The shooter is the one who argued the incorrect rule was used as being grounds for not being DQ'd. I don't know where you guys are shooting but most shooters I have witnessed will try anything to get out of a DQ rather than "manning up" and going home. Especially from a Major shoot.

[MHicks]

What if the shot in question was fired through the net wall? What happens even if you are engaging targets and put a round through a wood wall or a net wall? Does it make a difference if the wall is actually solid vs a net wall? Mark

[remoandiris]

What if the shot in question was fired through the net wall? What happens even if you are engaging targets and put a round through a wood wall or a net wall? Does it make a difference if the wall is actually solid vs a net wall? Mark

Wall material makes no difference. If a shooter is actively engaging targets, bullets may penetrate walls or other hardcover. But, was the shooter engaging the target with the 3rd rd or not. The RO says no. Did the shooter pop off #3 stronghand only? Was his eyes on the target? Was he turned from the target and lowering his shoulders to start moving another direction?

Edited November 12, 2012 by remoandiris

[Poppa Bear]

I can't speak to the actual incident without seeing it happen. That said, I have many shooters that could be in a similar situation that I would not even think about DQ'ing. They are the ones that I am familiar with running who I know automatically bring their finger outside the trigger guard as they move. I would not go so far as to say they never have touched off an unintentional shot. I have seen situations where they have stumbled or slipped as they came into position or as they were preparing to leave, AND were engaging targets on their way in or out of the position. The shot went off before they were properly indexed on the target so they made it up. Like Nik I can differentiate between the surprise shots and the ones where they were actively engaging targets.

[ctay]

Sorry - just got home. Shooter was looking at the target however I assume that the RO would disagree with that. Video shows shooter was looking at target and it appears the shot went through the port.

I contend that even if the shooter was not looking at the target, or even if he wasn't engaging a target, if he didn't satisfy the definition of movement under Appendix A3 (more than one step) then 10.4.6 did not apply. Given that there was no argument that the round left the range or was fired in an unsafe direction (ie 10.4.1 or 10.4.2) there is no other basis for DQ. What the RM, RO and CRO believed is that any movement by the shooter - ie change in posture or first step - satisfied the "...or changing body position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)" portion of the definition of movement. I argue that it does not.

Additionally there is no rule that if a bullet hits the wall or travels through a mesh wall there should be a DQ. The rules for a DQ for AD are clearly spelled out and if the circumstances do not meet one of the rules there should not be a DQ.

With regard to "Man up to the DQ" - Reasonable people should be able disagree with what they saw without being considered a liar. If an RO is going to call a DQ they need to be sure of what they saw and why it should be a DQ. Additionally the Shooter has an obligation to argue what they believe happened and make their case. In this case clearly the RO was not sure of the call. He initially called shot while reloading then changed to shot while moving. I believe that after the call of "STOP" both the RO and the CRO believed it was their job to make sure the call was DQ. Not alleging malicious intent - just a desire to be right.

Edit - spelling

Edited November 12, 2012 by ctay

[ctay]

Like Nik I can differentiate between the surprise shots and the ones where they were actively engaging targets.

Totally understand what you are saying however there is a problem with this - a surprise shot alone is not grounds for a DQ unless it meets any of the other aspects outlined in 10.4.

[Flatland Shooter]

I don't know where you guys are shooting but most shooters I have witnessed will try anything to get out of a DQ rather than "manning up" and going home. Especially from a Major shoot.

Sarge, sounds like you need to find a new group to shoot with.

I really feel that that type of behavior would be seen in a very small minority of our shooting community.

In the past 10 years I've only seen two DQ's that the shooter took to arbitration. Both were "top" shooters and both lost the arb. Both has sponsors that they needed to keep happy.

In the few other DQ's I've seen called, the shooter may not have always agreed at first but accepted that the RO was doing their job and made the correct call.

Its tough enough being a volunteer RO, but if I had to worry that when I do call a DQ, the shooter will try anything to get out of it, then its time for me to quit. (ROing that is,not shooting.)

Just my humble opinion.

Bill

[pjb45]

Tough situation Chris.

FWIW: I know the RO(s) on that stage. The head guy is pretty good and reasonable as well as the others involved. The whole group of people involved in the decision(s) are more interested in making the right decision/call than DQ'ing people.

BTW: Not being there, I would say if you made a motion that I would define as movement; a step, shift in shoulders to a new direction, etc, I would consider that movement. If the intent of the action is to move then it is movement.

I believe you were correct in articulating the facts as determined by the shooter is a reasonable course of action. That is the right of every shooter. The manning up comment was out of line in my experience in a) applying to you and with any shooter on any squad I have ever been on at Area 2, 4 or Nationals.

You needed a better range lawyer :-) Talk with me Saturday at the next match.

Edited November 12, 2012 by pjb45

[Sarge]

I don't know where you guys are shooting but most shooters I have witnessed will try anything to get out of a DQ rather than "manning up" and going home. Especially from a Major shoot.

Sarge, sounds like you need to find a new group to shoot with.

Just my humble opinion.

Bill

They are not just local guys. I have seen it at state and area matches as well. Especially if it is a judgement call. The best DQ's(if there is such a thing) are the ones that are black and white such as dropping a gun or sending a round over the berm during a reload. Those I have never seen debated. But 180's and AD type DQ's I see them routinely contested to the RM. Granted, the RM typically upholds an RO's call but not always.

I'm trying to remember the call I made that got overturned. It was a section level match and the shooter was moving left to right towards a shooting position when the gun went off right as he stopped. It went into the berm but was clearly not an intended shot. we called AD. The shooter argued to the RM by saying that was not an AD but should have been called USGH then he would not have a problem with the call. He was a quite well known shooter and his first words were"No way was that an AD". At least that's how I remember it.

Don't kid yourself. NOBODY wants to be DQ'd and will get out of it if possible. If you went to an area match and got called for a 180 and when the RM shows up and the CRO tells him we are pretty sure he broke the 180 and the RM says that is not good enough you must be certain. The RM says no DQ. Do you tell him he is wrong and you actually did break the 180 so you are going home? If so that puts you firmly in the minority.

[ima45dv8]

Chris, did you file an arbitration on the call, at the match? That would have been the best opportunity you would have had to get opinions that actually are relevant and matter. Calling it out here is not. To bring the case here for argument, while those other parties are not in attendance, looks like nothing more than a bad case of sour grapes.

[ctay]

Chris, did you file an arbitration on the call, at the match? That would have ben the best opportunity you would have had to get opinions that actually are relevant and matter. Calling it out here is not. To bring the case here for argument, while those other parties are not in attendance, looks like nothing more than a bad case of sour grapes.

This was brought to arb as stated in the first post. The question which is asked here relates to the interpretation of the definition of "movement" as stated in Appendix A3. This is relevant not only to this specific situation but also to the many many other possible situations to come.

Not intended as sour grapes - only a discussion on the meaning and interpretation of this specific rule which is sure to come up again.

[Poppa Bear]

It is a judgement call that is a lot easier to make on the way out of a position than on the way in. On the way in you are placing your finger on the trigger to engage the targets. Getting there a bit early and sending a wild shot down range before you intended to engage the target is hard to call especially if you make shots 2 and 3 a split second later. On the way out your finger should be coming off the trigger. If I see you looking at the targets as #3 goes off I am not likely to call an AD. If your head is turning away from the targets and your body is twisting away as you prepare to move to the next position, I am much more likely to call you for an AD.

The RO has to make their best judgement based on what they observed. The one who will likely prevail is the one who best articulates the conditions and situation.