Deconstructing 10.4.2

[Nik Habicht]

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

Jim,

I see your point --- however my course of action would have remained the same even without this thread. Vince provided me with the verbalization of an argument (supporting my action) that I was unable to articulate coherently.....

[omnia1911]

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 04:19 PM

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.

So, the determination as to whether it was safe or not is whether it was accidental or not. If I intentionally torch one off into the ground less than 3 meters away I would be good to go.

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 04:19 PM

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?

I see. Then why have a 3 meter distance delineating whether the shooter gets a DQ or not? That invisible line tells me nothing about the shooter's intentions, or whether he was being safe or not.

I'm all for baning paper targets that can be engaged closer than 3 meters (what Pat said), just like we have a minimum safety distance for steel targets. Can you say, "Hey, where is the 3 meter charge line for this paper target?".

[Jim Norman]

So we now need bays that are a minimum of say 7-8 meters wide? You'd really like a three meter rule on paper? Think about what you are asking for. You may not be a very happy camper should you get it. We regularly have targets that are closer than 10 feet. Maybe they are out in the open and you engage them on the fly, maybe they are thru a port. If you had the 10 foot/3 meter rule, you'd need 3 wall sections to block the view of a target, a "Room" on a stage would be immense. Just how large are the bays at your club? How many walls do you have? Leave well enough alone.

Tongue in cheek mode on (Notice provided for the humor impaired)

Don't shoot me, don't shoot my car and don't shoot yourself in that order, SHooter ready? Standby, Beep!

(Mode off)

Seriously, I think that if the shooter touches one off when he's not ready, you can alomost always tell. They get that "deer in the headlights" look, pause and then keep going. A low target that causes a round to hit @ 1 meter out is not a problem, drawing on a target at 3 meters and having round one hit the ground within a "Close Proximity" to your feet is a definate problem. Stop the shooter and issue a DQ, he gets it overrulled, fine, as Nik said, at least he had time to cool off and maybe be a little less on the edge.

Jim

[Nik Habicht]

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 04:19 PM

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. 

So, the determination as to whether it was safe or not is whether it was accidental or not. If I intentionally torch one off into the ground less than 3 meters away I would be good to go.

If you intentionally torch one off into the ground within three meters ---- and you're not engaging a close low target, you get to go home or fork over $ for an arb.

[Nik Habicht]

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 04:19 PM

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?

I see. Then why have a 3 meter distance delineating whether the shooter gets a DQ or not? That invisible line tells me nothing about the shooter's intentions, or whether he was being safe or not.

I suppose we have the three meter distance much like we have the 180. Torch one off into the ground within three meters while not engaging targets and you're getting awfully close to putting extra holes in your body. Break the 180, and you're closer to putting extra holes in someone else's body....

The idea here is that we try to avoid these situations --- hopefully through solid stage design, but if something slips through there, then through vigorous enforcement of the safety rules.

Redundancy again.....

[Nik Habicht]

I'm all for baning paper targets that can be engaged closer than 3 meters (what Pat said), just like we have a minimum safety distance for steel targets. Can you say, "Hey, where is the 3 meter charge line for this paper target?".

Hmmm, If I put a paper target so that it's six feet at the shoulders, and place it so that the only way you'll be able to engage from your normal shooting position is with the muzzle two inches from the paper, where will the round end up? In the ground or in the berm downrange?

Banning all paper within three meters is not necessary, nor with free-style even desirable. Some clubs have small bays that would be severely impacted by such a rule. I like to design stages that don't utilize ports --- stages where you can often approach targets to contact distance, if you want to run all over the place.

[SteveZ]

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.

Ok...playing devils advocate (and keeping the discussion going). Let the stage scenerio be a target at 9 feet...start position is gun loaded and holstered. Shooter draws and starts coming up into the first target and pops one off 3 feet in front of them....and does the "whoops stall" and then starts shooting.

10.4.2. Excludes shots striking the ground less than 3 meters because of the distance of the target in this scenerio.

10.4.6 deals with shots fired during movement where the shooter wasn't engaging a target (and I agree that they clearly aren't engaging the target here).

But 8.5.1 defines "movement" as:

(1) Taking more than 1 step in any direction

(2) Changing shooting stance (standing to kneeling, sitting to standing, etc).

In this example, they weren't "moving" (8.5) So it would seem that the best you could do would be to DQ the shooter under (10.4.2) and then be prepared for it to be overturned in this situation by the RM (shooter wasn't moving based in the accepted definition of "movement"...and all the DQ scenerios for shot fired while not engaging targets require either movement or reloading or gun clearing....nothing as far as I can see of just standing there shooting). It seems like the best case here is for the shooter to get a "time out" but I fail to see any rule that "sticks" in this scenerio that would result in the shooter getting the DQ that they really deserve.

When I took my RO class, we were told that in DQ scenerios we should be prepared to quote the rule that the shooter is being DQ'ed under. In this example, I don't see anything in the rule book that you could use that wouldn't be overturned based on "definitions".

If someone could cite a rule number that would stick in this situation...I'd love to hear it!

[Vince Pinto]

Let the stage scenerio be a target at 9 feet...start position is gun loaded and holstered.  Shooter draws and starts coming up into the first target and pops one off 3 feet in front of them....and does the "whoops stall" and then starts shooting. 

10.4.2. Excludes shots striking the ground less than 3 meters because of the distance of the target in this scenerio.

No, it doesn't, and my answer remains the same: 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.

[Nik Habicht]

Let the stage scenerio be a target at 9 feet...start position is gun loaded and holstered.  Shooter draws and starts coming up into the first target and pops one off 3 feet in front of them....and does the "whoops stall" and then starts shooting. 

10.4.2. Excludes shots striking the ground less than 3 meters because of the distance of the target in this scenerio.

No, it doesn't, and my answer remains the same: 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.

Vince,

In other words, the mere presence of a target does not serve to indicate whether a shooter is engaging a target or having a brainfart.

Steven,

to get back to your scenario: 10.4.2 applies. The location of the impact and the "whoops stall" are sufficient indicators that the shooter wasn't engaging a target. 8.5.1 could also apply if your definition of "comes up on" indicates movement toward the target....

Now to keep the discussion going: Is there anyone reading this who wouldn't stop the shooter in that situation? If you wouldn't consider stopping the shooter, why not?

[SteveZ]

Steven,

to get back to your scenario:  10.4.2 applies.  The location of the impact and the "whoops stall" are sufficient indicators that the shooter wasn't engaging a target.  8.5.1 could also apply if your definition of "comes up on" indicates movement toward the target....

Now to keep the discussion going:  Is there anyone reading this who wouldn't stop the shooter in that situation?  If you wouldn't consider stopping the shooter, why not?

Ok...well maybe I'm reading a different rule book than you guys...or you've got much more experience at this than I do (which I don't doubt)...but reviewing 10.4.2:

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.

I don't see anything in 10.4.2 that addresses intent/engagement...it simply talks about bullets that stike the ground less than 3 meters and then an exception for targets less than 3 meters and squib loads.

I could easily see some shooter come up with an excuse as to why they popped a round 3 feet away (gee...I thought my sights were aligned...I guess they weren't and thats what 'surprised' me).

Regarding your question Nik..I'd stop them immediately. I'd probably try and tag them with either 10.4.2 or 10.4.6/8.5.1 but my gut feeling is that it could easily get overturned in arb by a shooter claiming some "excuse". I'd venture to guess that some really creative excuses have been presented at arb. hearings.

[omnia1911]

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 04:19 PM

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. 

So, the determination as to whether it was safe or not is whether it was accidental or not. If I intentionally torch one off into the ground less than 3 meters away I would be good to go.

If you intentionally torch one off into the ground within three meters ---- and you're not engaging a close low target, you get to go home or fork over $ for an arb.

I was kidding a little. That was what the little smiley face was for.

Obviously, if I'm intentionally firing into the ground I'm not firing at the target.

[omnia1911]

Steven,

to get back to your scenario:  10.4.2 applies.  The location of the impact and the "whoops stall" are sufficient indicators that the shooter wasn't engaging a target.  8.5.1 could also apply if your definition of "comes up on" indicates movement toward the target....

Now to keep the discussion going:  Is there anyone reading this who wouldn't stop the shooter in that situation?  If you wouldn't consider stopping the shooter, why not?

Ok...well maybe I'm reading a different rule book than you guys...or you've got much more experience at this than I do (which I don't doubt)...but reviewing 10.4.2:

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.

I don't see anything in 10.4.2 that addresses intent/engagement...it simply talks about bullets that stike the ground less than 3 meters and then an exception for targets less than 3 meters and squib loads.

I could easily see some shooter come up with an excuse as to why they popped a round 3 feet away (gee...I thought my sights were aligned...I guess they weren't and thats what 'surprised' me).

Regarding your question Nik..I'd stop them immediately. I'd probably try and tag them with either 10.4.2 or 10.4.6/8.5.1 but my gut feeling is that it could easily get overturned in arb by a shooter claiming some "excuse". I'd venture to guess that some really creative excuses have been presented at arb. hearings.

Steve,

The key words in the rule are "shooting at" . The rule is forcing the RO to make a judgement call about what the shooter's intentions are/will be/were (think...Vulcan mind meld) whenever there is a target within 3 meters of him. "Shooting at" is vague, and by its nature interjects the question of intent into the rule to address it. I'm not particularly comfortable with taking that approach to safety.

Either firing a round into the ground within 3 meters is safe, or it isn't, regardless of whether there is a target nearby. 10.4.2 says that it is both safe and unsafe. The primary purpose of the disqualification rules are to stop shooters from being unsafe, not to penalize them for having the wrong intentions, or for missing the target so badly.

Now, if the 4th Law Of Gun Safety was one of the cornerstones of the IPSC Rules, and any violation resulted in a match DQ, we could make an end run around the Ro's need to discerne the shooters intentions. Problem is that point shooting is allowed in IPSC.

[Nik Habicht]

Omnia,

I got the smiley --- but wasn't entirely sure you got my entire point. It's the German in me --- I can't give a simple explanation, when I could write a whole manual.....

Omnia and Steven,

keep in mind that the shooter may not protest what the RO says happened. He may only argue that his actions were not unsafe. I think that any ARB committee is likely to be composed of experienced shooters --- and they're not going to be likely to buy some "excuse." It would have to be a doozy.

Omnia,

if we ignore the three meter part for a moment --- would you concede that there's a difference between a shot the competior intends to fire (engaging a target) and a round they just torch off? Because my take is that if the shooter torches one off, and has the "ooops stall" he's getting stopped and DQ'd. The only question to be answered is under what rule: 10.4.2 for a round striking within three meters, 10.3.1.1 for sending one over the berm, 10.3.2.1 for torching one off during a reload or remedial action, or one of a host of other rules....

I don't think that 10.4.2 is conflicted about it being both safe and unsafe to have shots impacting at three meters, I think it's all about giving us another rule to cite for another possible way to be unsafe in torching off a round. And I think it was mostly written to keep people from getting on the trigger too soon on the draw --- but I wasn't there when the rule came into existence....

So riddle me this Batman: What would your call be if you were sitting on the ARB committee in this situation and the shooter tried to argue that torching one off accidentally wasn't unsafe because it's not different from engaging the target right next to where he AD'd into the ground?

[omnia1911]

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 09:52 PM

So riddle me this Batman:  What would your call be if you were sitting on the ARB committee in this situation and the shooter tried to argue that torching one off accidentally wasn't unsafe because it's not different from engaging the target right next to where he AD'd into the ground?

First, I would say that you have biased the arguement by describing the shot as "torching one off".

The RO has declared the shot an AD, and that can't be argued differently. The question is whether it was safe or unsafe. Since I have knowledge that on another stage in this match a competitor fired a round into the ground while actually "shooting at" a target within 3 meters without penalty (safely is the presumtion here), and that after inspecting and taking measurements in the bays where both incidents occurred, and finding that both bullets behaved identically, I would conclude, that in this case, the complaintant's actions were equally safe. Intent, whether good or bad, is not an excuse when it comes to safety. Then, I would get on the phone and tell the Rules Committee that they need to change 10.4.2.

[omnia1911]

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 09:52 PM

Omnia,

if we ignore the three meter part for a moment --- would you concede that there's a difference between a shot the competior intends to fire (engaging a target) and a round they just torch off?

Depends on what happens, or could happen to the round. Therein lies the safety concern, and the shooter's intentions don't change what the bullet could do once it leaves the gun.

[Nik Habicht]

I see a clear difference: In one case I have a sight picture and KNOW where the muzzle of the gun is pointed --- and that it's not pointed at my or anyone else's body parts. In the other instance, no sight picture = no clue where the round will impact = potential for injury. The fact that in this case nothing happened (or that we had an identical result to an aimed shot on another stage, save for the absence of a hole in a target) is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that we could have had a disaster.

[omnia1911]

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 09:52 PM

So riddle me this Batman:  What would your call be if you were sitting on the ARB committee in this situation and the shooter tried to argue that torching one off accidentally wasn't unsafe because it's not different from engaging the target right next to where he AD'd into the ground?

First, I would say that you have biased the arguement by describing the shot as "torching one off".

The RO has declared the shot an AD, and that can't be argued differently. The question is whether it was safe or unsafe. Since I have knowledge that on another stage in this match a competitor fired a round into the ground while actually "shooting at" a target within 3 meters without penalty (safely is the presumtion here), and that after inspecting and taking measurements in the bays where both incidents occurred, and finding that both bullets behaved identically, I would conclude, that in this case, the complaintant's actions were equally safe. Intent, whether good or bad, is not an excuse when it comes to safety. Then, I would get on the phone and tell the Rules Committee that they need to change 10.4.2.

Of course, this ruling of mine occurred under the old rule (11.2). The new rule (11.1.2) for arbitration is more strict IMO. The arbitration committee is no longer determining if the infraction was in fact unsafe, but whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration. I think the litmus test for reinstatement has become much more difficult to pass by removing the rather focused safe or unsafe question and substituting a much broader question of whether exceptional circumstances is warranted. The latter being much easier to say no to.

[omnia1911]

I see a clear difference:  In one case I have a sight picture and KNOW where the muzzle of the gun is pointed --- and that it's not pointed at my or anyone else's body parts.  In the other instance, no sight picture = no clue where the round will impact = potential for injury.  The fact that in this case nothing happened (or that we had an identical result to an aimed shot on another stage, save for the absence of a hole in a target) is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that we could have had a disaster.

If the target is missing the hole, I would question if it was an aimed shot.

I remind you we are allowed to point shoot without penalty; no sight picture when firing rounds at targets. The chances of missing a target by large margins is greatly increased with point shooting, thus, increasing the safety concerns as bullets could go where we didn't intent them to.

[Vince Pinto]

Vince, In other words, the mere presence of a target does not serve to indicate whether a shooter is engaging a target or having a brainfart.

Correct. The RO makes his call based on what he sees, specifically the competitor's actions - it's got nothing to do with "intent". If the competitor actually causes a round to strike the ground within 3 metres, the RO decides whether or not the competitor was "shooting at" a target, and that determines whether or not a match DQ is invoked.

The primary purpose of the disqualification rules are to stop shooters from being unsafe, not to penalize them for having the wrong intentions, or for missing the target so badly.

Incorrect. A match DQ is a penalty imposed after the event. By the time a match DQ is invoked, an unsafe action has already occurred, hence a match DQ is nothing more than a punitive measure. If you want to prevent unsafe actions, then you need to focus more on course design.

[SteveZ]

Steve,

The key words in the rule are "shooting at" . The rule is forcing the RO to make a judgement call about what the shooter's intentions are/will be/were (think...Vulcan mind meld) whenever there is a target within 3 meters of him. "Shooting at" is vague, and by its nature interjects the question of intent into the rule to address it. I'm not particularly comfortable with taking that approach to safety.

ahhh..now I see where you're coming from. I interpreted "shooting at" as a "binding phrase" for the exclusion (target less than 3 meters) and not a means for the RO to interpret the shooters actions. So, yeah...based on that, I could see how you could assess 10.4.2 on a shooter if they pop one off short and you determine that they weren't "shooting at" the target.

I agree "shooting at" in this context is pretty vague.

[omnia1911]

Incorrect. A match DQ is a penalty imposed after the event. By the time a match DQ is invoked, an unsafe action has already occurred, hence a match DQ is nothing more than a punitive measure. If you want to prevent unsafe actions, then you need to focus more on course design.

I didn't say match DQ. I was referring to Sections 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 (new rule book), as a whole.

A shooter knows the rules and the potential penalties that will be imposed on him prior to shooting a stage. Therefore, those rules act as an incentive to make sure that he shoots in a safe manner, if he wishes to improve his score. It is in that vein that I was stating the disqualification rules are there, as the Sword of Damaclese, motivating the shooter to be safe.

It is like fire. If you use it correctly and safely you can cook a mighty fine steak. If you stick your hand in the flame while cooking the steak, you're going to get burned. Knowing that keep you from being unsafe.

In fact, I would venture that the match officials prefer that all the shooters took the preventative, rather than the punitive, approach to safety. Even the best course design will not insure safe action on the part of the shooter.

Bottom line for me is that I believe that firing rounds into the ground close to the shooter is unsafe, no matter how it was done (a squib being the obvious exclusion). 10.4.2 doesn't take that approach.

I'm less concerned by those targets set at 3 meters than those that are allowed to be set at 1 and 2 meters. Some might say that good course design could solve that problem. Why make another rule? Then, why didn't we take that approach to steel targets?

[Jim Norman]

Nik Habicht,Sep 4 2004, 09:52 PM

So riddle me this Batman:  What would your call be if you were sitting on the ARB committee in this situation and the shooter tried to argue that torching one off accidentally wasn't unsafe because it's not different from engaging the target right next to where he AD'd into the ground?

First, I would say that you have biased the arguement by describing the shot as "torching one off".

The RO has declared the shot an AD, and that can't be argued differently. The question is whether it was safe or unsafe. Since I have knowledge that on another stage in this match a competitor fired a round into the ground while actually "shooting at" a target within 3 meters without penalty (safely is the presumtion here), and that after inspecting and taking measurements in the bays where both incidents occurred, and finding that both bullets behaved identically, I would conclude, that in this case, the complaintant's actions were equally safe. Intent, whether good or bad, is not an excuse when it comes to safety. Then, I would get on the phone and tell the Rules Committee that they need to change 10.4.2.

Sorry to disagree here.

If the competitor just "touches one off" it is soley the fact that the round hit past 3 meters but not over the berm or in another usafe direction that causes you to think that the shooter shouldn't be DQ'd.

I contend that if the actions of the shooter with regard to engaging a particular target are not sufficeintly clear to the RO, the shooter should be stopped and DQ'd. The simple fact that the gun went off when the shooter didn't intend it to is to me grounds for a DQ. THat having been said, it is not the same as a shooter swinging to a target and firing late or early. The shooter in this second instance is obviously just missing and maybe sees brwon and sights and has a bit of a time lag in telling his finger squeeze or conversely, don't squeeze.

I think that this type of situation is exactly why we need experianced RO's and a General "Unsafe Gunhandling" rule.

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

Bottom line for me is that I believe that firing rounds into the ground close to the shooter is unsafe

That is clearly the bias/opinion that you showed up to this discussin with...and the reason that it has went on so long.

The rule is clear...you just don't agree with it.

(BTW Nik, I said the same thing Vinnie did...where's my "props" lol )

As Nik and Vince presented...the shooters actions give evidence of their intentions. Either they meant to fire the gun (which means they and the gun were under control) OR they didn't mean to fire it (lack of control).

It has been deemed (the same way we have a 180 rule) that inside of 3m is unsafe. That is the line that is drawn in the sand. The fact that we have...in a practical manner...targets that are inside of 3m requires that we have an exception to this rule. The exception being that the shooter is safely engaging the targets inside of 3m on purpose...under control.

We are all big kids...we know what's up...lets get on with the game.

[Jim Norman]

Here! here! Flex

[Nik Habicht]

(BTW Nik, I said the same thing Vinnie did...where's my "props" lol )

Man, when? If it was 147,000 pages ago, I think the statute of limitations has run out.....

Or maybe it was hearing it for the second time that made it crystalize for me.....