Deconstructing 10.4.2

[omnia1911]

10.4.2 A shot which strikes the ground within 3 meters (9.84 feet) of the competitor, except when shooting at a paper target closer than 3 meters (9.84 feet) to the competitor. A bullet which strikes the ground within 3 meters (9.84 feet) of the competitor due to a “squib” load is exempt from this rule.

If I'm engaging a target that is closer than 9.84 feet from me, the rule says that I can fire a round into the ground that strikes less than 9.84 feet away from me. Why is that any more or less safe than firing into the ground less than 9.84 feet away while engaing a target that is 20 feet away?

Now, one could assume that the rule is referring to a round that has passed through the target that is less than 9.84 feet away before striking the ground, but that is not what the rule says, so I wouldn't assume that.

For instance, a competitor is standing near a paper target that is less than 9.84 feet from him. At the signal he draws and fires a round into the ground 3.35 feet from him while attempting to engage the paper target. He then fires two rounds into the paper target and proceeds to the rest of the COF. Are you going to stop him and issue a DQ under 10.4.2? Remember, shooting at a paper target doesn't necessarily means hitting it in this game. That is why we have miss penalties, and that a FTE penalty can be avoided by simply shooting at a target and not having actually hit it.

[Flexmoney]

I'd DQ the shooter.

The line in the sand is that one is an intentional shot..the other isn't (IMO).

[TriggerT]

I THINK they are referring to an AD that might occur when drawing the gun.

Kind of like intentional grounding, there was no target even close to where the shot impacted.

[Ron Ankeny]

DQ for an AD during the draw. Flex nailed it. ANy of you read the new rulebook yet? Seems like I saw something about shots passing through a target must impact the berm. No more hoser stuff on the ground???

[Nik Habicht]

Ron,

I haven't found that comment with a cursory examination of the new rules --- but it immediately made me think of "No shooting six foot targets from prone if that will cause the rounds to fly over the berm."

[Neil Beverley]

Nik/Ron

I think the rule you have in mind is as below:

10.4.1 A shot, which travels over a backstop, a berm or in any other direction, specified in the written stage briefing by the match organizers as being unsafe.  Note that a competitor who legitimately fires a shot at a target, which then travels in an unsafe direction, will not be disqualified, but the provisions of Section 2.3 may apply.

My emphasis added.

[Ron Ankeny]

I don't recall where I read bullets passing through the targets need to hit the berm. I sure can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe I was dreaming.

[omnia1911]

DQ for an AD during the draw. Flex nailed it. ANy of you read the new rulebook yet? Seems like I saw something about shots passing through a target must impact the berm. No more hoser stuff on the ground???

If we decide to have the draw end when the finger enters the trigger guard, the draw would have ended prior to the discharge of the round into the ground. You could no longer DQ for and AD during the draw.

I'm pointing these scenarios out to show that some things are best left to the discretion of the RO and the arbitration process, if needed.

[shred]

It used to be that a shot over the berm wasn't a DQ if you were engaging a close enough target. This was an unintended consequence of the way the rules were written and I believe has been fixed.

See: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3744

[38supPat]

I've made the point before that it would be so much simpler if they state a rule that no targets are to be placed where they could be shot so that the bullet strikes within 3m. Then any bullet strike at all within 3m is a DQ. I tend to see it as, if it is unsafe to accidentally fire within 3m, why is it safe to MAKE someone shoot within 3m?

[omnia1911]

I'd DQ the shooter.

The line in the sand is that one is an intentional shot..the other isn't (IMO).

How does an RO determine the shooter's intentions?

I'll clarify the scenario:

For instance, a competitor is standing near a paper target that is mounted on the ground 6 feet from him, sitting at a 45 degree angle so that the shooter is firing downward into the ground, and the bullets are captured in a small sand berm behind the target (we have all seen these types of target presentations at matches). At the signal he draws and fires a round into the ground (not the sand berm) 5 1/2 feet from him while attempting to engage the paper target. He then fires two rounds into the paper target and proceeds to the rest of the COF. Are you going to stop him and issue a DQ under 10.4.2? Remember, shooting at a paper target doesn't necessarily means hitting it in this game. That is why we have miss penalties, and that a FTE penalty can be avoided by simply shooting at a target and not having actually hit it.

Would you look at things differently if the bullet impacted the ground at 4 1/2 feet from the shooter? How about 3 1/2 feet?

I think it is clear that a subjective call has to be made at some point. Its inescapable. Add it to the list of subjective calls that are already a part of the RO job; FTE penalties being one of the more challenging of those.

Edited September 3, 2004 by omnia1911

[Dead Buff]

In the above scenario I wouldn't - some guy are prone to yanking triggers and doing that, but the real situation will be the deciding factor for me if it was an AD or an engagement....

[Ron Ankeny]

In the example you give, if I was convinced the shooter torched the round off in haste through improper gunhandling, I would issue a DQ and he/she could take it to arbitration.

[Nik Habicht]

I'd DQ the shooter.

The line in the sand is that one is an intentional shot..the other isn't (IMO).

How does an RO determine the shooter's intentions?

I'll clarify the scenario:

For instance, a competitor is standing near a paper target that is mounted on the ground 6 feet from him, sitting at a 45 degree angle so that the shooter is firing downward into the ground, and the bullets are captured in a small sand berm behind the target (we have all seen these types of target presentations at matches). At the signal he draws and fires a round into the ground (not the sand berm) 5 1/2 feet from him while attempting to engage the paper target. He then fires two rounds into the paper target and proceeds to the rest of the COF. Are you going to stop him and issue a DQ under 10.4.2? Remember, shooting at a paper target doesn't necessarily means hitting it in this game. That is why we have miss penalties, and that a FTE penalty can be avoided by simply shooting at a target and not having actually hit it.

Would you look at things differently if the bullet impacted the ground at 4 1/2 feet from the shooter? How about 3 1/2 feet?

I think it is clear that a subjective call has to be made at some point. Its inescapable. Add it to the list of subjective calls that are already a part of the RO job; FTE penalties being one of the more challenging of those.

Omnia,

every time I've seen a competitor torch off a round they didn't mean to they've had a reaction that's akin to "Oh my gawd, what did I just do." That is usually coupled with the fact that the gun is still moving to the shooting position, and it's this totality of the evidence that has most of us DQ ing the shooter.

The unsafe shooter looks far different from the guy who just yanks the trigger and misses the target, but is perfectly competent otherwise.....

[Flexmoney]

I think it is clear that a subjective call has to be made at some point. Its inescapable. Add it to the list of subjective calls that are already a part of the RO job; FTE penalties being one of the more challenging of those.

OK...so what's the issue you have here then???

Make the call. If the shooter disagrees, they have a process to handle that.

The 3m rule serves as a guideline (when the target is inside that radius). Use it were applicable.

If the shooter is engaging the tartget...fine. If not, make the call.

[SteveZ]

In the example you give, if I was convinced the shooter torched the round off in haste through improper gunhandling, I would issue a DQ and he/she could take it to arbitration.

...but if you issue the DQ, you have to also state the rule number. So which rule number would you issue DQ'ing the shooter? If you state 10.4.2, the shooter could come back and say that the target was less than 3 meters. I don't really see anything in 10.5 (Unsafe gun handling) that would apply unless the shooter was moving with their finger in the trigger guard.

[Flexmoney]

If they touch one off into the ground when they didn't mean too...they don't get a free pass just because there happened to be a target in the area.

Either they are "shooting at" the target or they aren't. RO makes the call.

It is something that will have to be watched for when stage design puts the RO in this situation. (That why they pay RO's the big buck$ )

[Nik Habicht]

My primary job as an R.O. is to run the shooters through the stage in a safe manner. I'm not going to spend a lot of time wondering if an arb is going to be filed, or if it's going to be overturned. If I perceive a safety issue, I'm going to stop the shooter, have him unload and show clear, and call the RM. The RM and I will have a conversation --- and that will determine the initial call.

At a bare minimum, the shooter gets some down time to reflect. I think most, if not all, of the people who shoot the sport would use that time to think about what happened. (Let's face it --- if a shooter ADs into the ground at his feet, he knows he did it.) Even if he chooses to arbitrate, and even if he wins the arb, I think he'll be less likely to do it again on a re-shoot........ but what do I know?

IOW, part of what I'm trying to say is that as the RO, I can't worry about the big picture. My job is to worry about the little picture. See something unsafe? Stop the shooter. Let everyone else --- Shooter, CRO, RM, Arb Committee do their part...

[Vince Pinto]

If you state 10.4.2, the shooter could come back and say that the target was less than 3 meters.

The RO makes his call based on whether or not he believes the competitor was actually "shooting at" the target or whether it was an accidental discharge. This is similar to Rule 10.4.6 which deals with movement.

[Nik Habicht]

Damn Vince, what it takes me three posts and many paragraphs to sort of dance around, you say in two sentences....

The force must be strong within you....

[Jim Norman]

Nik,

I like the way you said it better. Your reply invokes the use of common sense rather than an external item, (rulebook)

In other words. is an action unsafe because it is inherently unsafe, or is it unsafe because of a certain rule?

If a round is determined to be unsafe fired at 1 meter into the ground is it any less unsafe fired @ 1.001 meters?

If I see what I feel to be an unsafe action, I will stop the shooter. If he wins in arbitration, fine, if the CRO or RM overrides me, equally fine. Scores can be re-written, but once there is a hole in a body, it is too likely to be a "Body".

Jim

[scooterj]

Well put, Jim.

[omnia1911]

If you state 10.4.2, the shooter could come back and say that the target was less than 3 meters.

The RO makes his call based on whether or not he believes the competitor was actually "shooting at" the target or whether it was an accidental discharge. This is similar to Rule 10.4.6 which deals with movement.

10.4.2 doesn't define "shooting at". When does "shooting at" start and end?

Obviously 10.4.2 says that I can fire into the ground within 3 meters and not get a DQ, and fire into the ground within 3 meters and get a DQ. The bullet impacted the ground in exactly the same spot both times, but the only difference is how close the target was to where the bullet hit. Why is one safe and the other not?

[Nik Habicht]

Omnia,

the difference between accidentally torching one off that hits the ground close by and purposely engaging a close target and putting one in the same place should be obvious. To put it another way ---- I could shoot at a low target six inches in front of my feet, and I could probably do it safely 9 times out of ten, but I'm pretty sure it would be smarter to take a step or two back first.

Where the shot impacts isn't really the issue here --- the competitors actions are. Did he intend to make that shot? Or was it an ooops? If the latter, then probably the only reason no one got hurt is that we didn't break more safety rules.....

Redundancy can be a good thing.

[Nik Habicht]

I've made the point before that it would be so much simpler if they state a rule that no targets are to be placed where they could be shot so that the bullet strikes within 3m. Then any bullet strike at all within 3m is a DQ. I tend to see it as, if it is unsafe to accidentally fire within 3m, why is it safe to MAKE someone shoot within 3m?

Pat might be onto something here ---- almost. I've shot many stages that have had low targets closer than three meters, and have designed a couple myself. The one I design, and the ones I like best, have a barrier that prevents you from getting too close, whether it's a reclining wall, or a bar. The Area 8 match a couple of years ago had a stage where you started seated at a bar stool. When the buzzer sounded you had to lean over the bar and engage four low targets --- but unless you were eight feet tall, there was a physical barrier to keep you from sweeping the muzzle towards your feet.....

It might all be in paying attention to the details.....