DQ For AD during Movement

[cop206]

Not being there to observe the incident make it difficult to get a full understanding of what actually occurred. From what I've heard, I would have to agree with the RO and call it a DQ. If the shot went off unintentional and there was movement, it would definetely be a DQ. The shot going through the wall isn't pertinent as shooting through a wall doesn't qualify as a DQ. The movement made, which in my humble opinion, could be as little as shifting the legs to transition from a target on the right to a target on the left would require ones finger to be off the trigger to keep an AD from occurring.

[Craig N]

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.

Point shooting?

[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.

Point shooting?

You're not even in the same context as this thread. And if you don't know it, shame on you. An example of point shooting is drawing on Smoke and Hope and getting 3 of the 4 plates before the gun is up at eye level.

[ctay]

Not being there to observe the incident make it difficult to get a full understanding of what actually occurred. From what I've heard, I would have to agree with the RO and call it a DQ. If the shot went off unintentional and there was movement, it would definetely be a DQ. The shot going through the wall isn't pertinent as shooting through a wall doesn't qualify as a DQ. The movement made, which in my humble opinion, could be as little as shifting the legs to transition from a target on the right to a target on the left would require ones finger to be off the trigger to keep an AD from occurring.

If it helps try to disconnect with this specific incident. The question at hand really relates to the definition of "movement" which appears to be widely interpreted.

For 10.4.6 to apply a shot must have:

a) occurred during movement - As defined in appendix A3: Taking more than one step in any direction, or changing body position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)

b )occurred while not actually shooting at targets

Even if you don't believe the shooter was actually shooting at targets (part b.) he must also have been in "movement" to receive a DQ under 10.4.6. I contend that you can not use your own definition of "movement" - ie shifting legs, wiggling arms, blinking, etc etc - you must use the rule book definition of movement.

Edited November 12, 2012 by ctay

[bikerburgess]

To me big question can only be answered by the shooter, did they intend to take the extra shot? No RO, CRO, or RM can see into their head and know the answer to that question they can only go off what they saw and make the ruling they think is correct.

[ctay]

I'm not sure where to find "shooter intent" in 10.4. Can you point to it?

[kevin c]

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.

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.

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.

Going back to the original point. I agree that it hinges on the definition of "movement", and I do think that the definition used by the RO and accepted by the Arb committee varies from the examples provided by the rule.

So... perhaps there IS a need to define the term more clearly.

[cop206]

The full definition of movement may be a good question to send into Front Sight just to see what NROI has to say about it. It does appear the RO determined movement occurred when the AD happened which resulted in the DQ and the Arbitration Committee agreed. Good Luck, curious about NROI's full definition of Movement.....

[Nik Habicht]

Not being there to observe the incident make it difficult to get a full understanding of what actually occurred. From what I've heard, I would have to agree with the RO and call it a DQ. If the shot went off unintentional and there was movement, it would definetely be a DQ. The shot going through the wall isn't pertinent as shooting through a wall doesn't qualify as a DQ. The movement made, which in my humble opinion, could be as little as shifting the legs to transition from a target on the right to a target on the left would require ones finger to be off the trigger to keep an AD from occurring.

If it helps try to disconnect with this specific incident. The question at hand really relates to the definition of "movement" which appears to be widely interpreted.

For 10.4.6 to apply a shot must have:

a) occurred during movement - As defined in appendix A3: Taking more than one step in any direction, or changing body position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)

b )occurred while not actually shooting at targets

Even if you don't believe the shooter was actually shooting at targets (part b.) he must also have been in "movement" to receive a DQ under 10.4.6. I contend that you can not use your own definition of "movement" - ie shifting legs, wiggling arms, blinking, etc etc - you must use the rule book definition of movement.

Yep. A shooter can move thirty yards down range, gun up finger on the trigger, firing one shot every five or six steps and that's perfectly legal. It might not be efficient, but competitors who are new to shooting on the move will sometimes do so very slowly.....

I'd need to be certain that there was no target to engage, or that the shooter was aggressively moving in a direction away from the targets (not talking about shooting while retreating here), not looking at sights or targets, when the gun went off....

[Nik Habicht]

To me big question can only be answered by the shooter, did they intend to take the extra shot? No RO, CRO, or RM can see into their head and know the answer to that question they can only go off what they saw and make the ruling they think is correct.

I think an RO can tell by observation when a shot is unintended, in at least some situations.....

[pjb45]

(e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.) Essentially, e.g. means for example as opposed to i.e. - that is.

Hence only examples are given not the full list of what may constitute movement, which is a judgement call of the RO. Once again, for those who want everything in black and white with no judgement are going to be disappointed.

You don't have to go to Front Sight--send an email to John and I hope he only gives examples of what may be considered movement. Without John actually observing the situation, he might be hesitant to offer a definitive answer.

I will offer a different perspective on the match officials; Tuesday Night Steel runs about 130 shooter every week, there are matches every weekend, the officials have been doing the Desert Classic for 25 years, it is home to probably more GM shooters than anyplace else in America-these guys have seen and heard more than most, they might even have more range lawyers than any other club. I have found them to be reasonable and just in almost all situations I have seen or heard about. Sure, an individual RO has made a mistake but to go through to ARB and the result stands speaks volume.

Just as a side note, I have personally witness the MD overrule an RO on two occasions at Rio Salado.

[cop206]

The idea of going through Front Sight was so everyone would get the benefit of any answer given!

[Flexmoney]

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

I believe "position" is defined in the rulebook...and that is not the definition.

Yeah...here it is, from the glossary:

Shooting position . . . .The physical presentation of a person’s body (e.g.

standing, sitting, kneeling, prone).

Shifting of the shoulders is not a change of position.

[pjb45]

There are a few more items that were left out of the discussion;

I believe the second RO was scoring targets and not looking at the shooter.

Also the target in question was taped before anyone could see (at the direction of the RO), this prevented the shooter from claiming the third shot was a make up shot.

All in all, it sounds like a tough situation was made worse by not having adequate information/or experience to either defend or support the DQ, so the committee went with what was presented.

[phearkno1]

As said before, I wasn't there, going off what was posted. If you only made one step and the 3rd shot cracked off before you started to make your 2nd step then it was the wrong call. You should not be DQ'd.

No where in the rule book does it say we must be looking at the targets to engage them. Probably won't be very successful if you aren't looking at your target. But you don't have to.

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.

The sections above that I made red and bold are what I think are the biggest problem with the "local match" mentality. It doesn't matter what YOU would define it as, It doesn't matter what YOU would consider movement, and YOU sure as hell can't determine the intent of the action. The rule book clearly defines MOVEMENT for YOU. What part of more than one step or a change in position (standing to kneeling, sitting to standing) is hard to understand. RO's have a hard job, can't say I wouldn't stop a guy who isn't looking at the targets and is in the first step when he cracks off a round. I don't know if I have ever counted steps while looking at where they were shooting. But if I stopped you and then realized you were within a step, I would say sorry and issue a reshoot.

Sorry if I'm ranting but I find most people in our sport don't know the rules well enough. Not that everyone should be a total expert. Here's the reason for my rant. Last weekends local match guy was shooting the stage gun jams. Guy works on gun, can't pull the slide back, ends up pulling the trigger with the gun pointed at the dirt in front of his feet. To the point the RO jumps 5 feet backward. Guy continues to finish the stage and never receives so much as a warning. I asked the RO why he didn't DQ him. "Because it wasn't unsafe and this is just a local match". RULES ARE RULES. Bend them or inject your definition and you're only hurting yourself or the person you bent them for.

[sperman]

I'm not sure what match you are referring to, but the MD needs to be told about that RO.

[ima45dv8]

As with most of these type of discussions, I would have to see it to call it.

But remember that movement is not all that clearly defined. it says, "e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc." That is NOT an all-inclusive list. I'll base my call on my limited understanding of the rules coupled with my experience. The call may or may not be popular with the competitor, but it will be one with which I am completely comfortable. Any disagreements are why we have RM's and Arbitration panels.

The above is not, "local match mentality". It's, "any match mentality".