DQing a New Shooter...What would you do?

[TGO]

I'm not an RO, but I would support what happened there. My guess would be that the majority of new shooters have not read the rule book before their first match and if they don't have an experienced shooter guiding them through their first few matches, they might break a lot of rules. Depending on who that new shooter was, had he been DQd at his very first match, he might not have ever shot another one. I do realize that safety is extremely important, but so is building the sport.

Now is where you blast me with "So where do you draw the line?"......

So which is more important, building the sport or safety?

I have never seen ignorance of the law stand up as reason not to follow it. I set up a new shooter safety certification course at our club and run a match specifically for new shooters. In the year we have been doing it I can tell you about 1 in 5 new shooters at the PSSC is ready to try this kind of match before the class. The other 80 percent need to be taught what is safe and what is not. About 1 out of 5 should not be allowed to participate without more, much, much more experience and training and testing. We routinely ignore the warning signs of shooter danger in order to get bodies onto the range. I see shooters who have been competing for years and decades who do not know the rules, are not safe and are not going to pick them up by osmosis.

Don't be in a hurry to get your buddy into a match. Take him out and teach him, see if he's capable and safe and if he's not, make him be or don't bring him out!!!

This sport is hard and very stressful. Don't throw new shooters into the water to see if they can swim.

[RangerTrace]

I'm not an RO, but I would support what happened there. My guess would be that the majority of new shooters have not read the rule book before their first match and if they don't have an experienced shooter guiding them through their first few matches, they might break a lot of rules. Depending on who that new shooter was, had he been DQd at his very first match, he might not have ever shot another one. I do realize that safety is extremely important, but so is building the sport.

Now is where you blast me with "So where do you draw the line?"......

So which is more important, building the sport or safety?

I have never seen ignorance of the law stand up as reason not to follow it. I set up a new shooter safety certification course at our club and run a match specifically for new shooters. In the year we have been doing it I can tell you about 1 in 5 new shooters at the PSSC is ready to try this kind of match before the class. The other 80 percent need to be taught what is safe and what is not. About 1 out of 5 should not be allowed to participate without more, much, much more experience and training and testing. We routinely ignore the warning signs of shooter danger in order to get bodies onto the range. I see shooters who have been competing for years and decades who do not know the rules, are not safe and are not going to pick them up by osmosis.

Don't be in a hurry to get your buddy into a match. Take him out and teach him, see if he's capable and safe and if he's not, make him be or don't bring him out!!!

This sport is hard and very stressful. Don't throw new shooters into the water to see if they can swim.

Dang Rob, you must have been extremely bored to be on here!! I'll send Holland back out to Arizona to give you something to do!! I think he likes having to buy your lunch!

In my opinion they are equally important. Without the sport, you don't need the rules, right? I like the idea of a more intensive new shooter briefing. Obviously you can't cover everything, but something more than the usual "breaking the 180 and keeping your finger out of the trigger guard while moving" would be great.

[frag316]

The question is indeed "Where do you draw the line?"

I DQ'd two new shooters in the same day during a club match. Both of them broke the 180 during the COF. I felt badly about it, but we briefed them over and over to watch the 180 and to move only as fast as they felt safe in doing.

You either follow the rules or you don't, and I would have a hard time ROing a match at that club again, knowing I might be second-guessed.

Furthermore, at what point is a guy no longer a "new shooter?" Second match? Fifth? After their first major?

I think I'd rather have someone walk away mad for getting DQ'd than think we have rules but don't follow them--especially since most of them are safety-based.

[BillChunn]

So which is more important, building the sport or safety?

Safety.

Building the sport is accomplished by doing what Rob described.

BC

[Rimcrew]

As RO's we clearly need to enforce the rules, even when it is not pleasant for us, or the shooter.

I believe how the DQ is handled will determine how the new shooter views the sport, and his/her continued participation in it. A few minutes spent quietly and calmly explaining the reason for the DQ, and reassurance that it is not the end of the world, will turn a bad experience into a learning experience to build upon.

As for being overruled; it would not sit well with me in this situation, since it was clearly a violation of the rules. However, even RM's are human so I would look for a pattern before refusing to work another match under that person. The fact that the MD overturned the ruling is a whole 'nother conversation. I wonder if the RM and MD had a little conversation after the match, just to 'clarify' roles...

Edited April 3, 2014 by Rimcrew

[motosapiens]

So, to summarize:

1. We shouldn't be softies like Rob Leatham when it comes to DQ's for safety violations.

2. Alot of us (especially my club) should be doing more to train and brief new shooters to equip them to compete safely and proactively prevent them from dq-ing. Teach them to swim (using rob's metaphor).

I've gotten alot of good information out of this thread that I can use. I appreciate everyone's ideas and I appreciate the OP for bringing the topic up in the first place.

Edited April 3, 2014 by motosapiens

[Poppa Bear]

How you handle the DQ makes a difference on whether they come back or not. I have done it in the past by asking the shooter if they know what happened before the DQ is issued. In most cases they recognized what happened and why. Usually it is a 180 violation while moving during a reload.

[Red Ryder]

Locally I see the new shooters handled with kid gloves. They get warnings yelled out like "muzzle" at the 178 degree mark and "finger". The goal is to keep them coming back (to help set up and tear down). The truly dangerous ones are given a "private" lesson away from the crowd, while they are being walked off the range. I see it as a courtesy. It is also made very clear that the courtesy may not be extended by every R/O. I have seen many Lifers break the 180 on a reload and it slides by the R/O at a local match. Doesn't work at any major match. I think it is very important to be aware at all times. I stand behind the bigger shooters to avoid any shrapnel off steel and potentially any stray rounds. Shit happens. The big guys know what I am talking about. All of a sudden, they are front and center and everyone else is standing behind them!

Edited April 3, 2014 by Red Ryder

[frag316]

How you handle the DQ makes a difference on whether they come back or not. I have done it in the past by asking the shooter if they know what happened before the DQ is issued. In most cases they recognized what happened and why. Usually it is a 180 violation while moving during a reload.

This is a good practice . I'll try to remember to do that.

One of the things I try to ensure newbies know is that "STOP" doesn't always mean that they're going to get a DQ. I stopped a new guy just a couple of weeks ago, because we had a malfunction on a Texas star (slung a plate while spinning), and he was worried he was going home.

[ktm300]

I was very lucky to start shooting with a bunch of guys that drilled safety into me. I knew they were watching all the time and if I did something I was going to get to sit down. Now my trigger finger discipline and muzzle awareness is pretty much automatic.

We should make all new shooters as lucky as I was.

[dirty whiteboy]

My question, what does "new" shooter have to do with the infractions that had occurred. The MD set the guy up for another mulligan in the future....or worse.

Edited April 4, 2014 by dirty whiteboy

[nick m]

This thread is mostly winding down, but it was just brought to my attention. I was at the match, and while I was not the RO who issued the overturned DQ, I was the RO that did a 5 minute crash course on the safety rules. In other words, it was all my fault! Thank god no one got hurt, but you can bet I went a little pale when it was brought to my attention that an inadequate, last minute safety briefing was responsible for what happened, which could have lead to something truly tragic. no need to tell me: lesson learned.

My takeaway on why the DQ was overturned was because, while we are an official USPSA sanctioned club, we were not having an official USPSA sanctioned match. No, this does not mean on some matches we follow the rules, and on others we don't. We do a hybrid indoor rimfire rifle/centerfire pistol multigun match (anyone who hasn't tried it, you are missing out, by the way). So we were already off rulebook to allow for the use of the rifle and a custom scoring system. The MD took advantage of this and cited RO error (mine) and let the new shooter keep shooting. I appreciate that for some (probably all) of you this doesn't change anything, and in an ideal world it *is* cut and dry.

And I realize that this does beg the question: If we aren't using USPSA rules, than what the hell rules are we using? Either way, I do think everyone, the RO, Shooter, MD, and myself, all learned and are better for it.

Well maybe not the RO. He went and ratted us out on Benos forums ^.^

just kidding, Bill. I was glad to read the feedback and discussion. Hearing about people getting shot at matches is a bit of a slap in the face and a wakeup call.

---

And those of you that are beating your self-righteous "I'd leave" or "I'd never RO again for that MD" or "I'd not shoot that MD's match" or whatever drum are living on another planet. Get over yourself, help the MD and the club and the shooter(s) improve. Where I shoot in interior Alaska, in the winter (7 months of the year) there is only one USPSA club that can shoot in the *only* public indoor range. It's 360 miles to the next closest shooting club. More choices in the summer months, but martyrdom because I disagree with an MD is tantamount to taking a seven month, annual retirement.

And yeah, i realize if someone gets hurt while breaking a safety rule, we won't have that venue to shoot in either.

[PistolPete]

I understand the rules and I totally understand why he should have been DQed as well. However, I can see why the match director let the shooter continue. It's difficult to sometimes get and retain new shooters and with this DQ the shooter will most likely never return. Maybe he should have been DQed but allowed to run the remainder of the match just for the experience? I know I will get flamed here but this is a game and obviously safety is the #1 rule here so it is a tough decision.

He def. should have been DQed according to the rules but possibly allowed to conitnue shooting the match.

[Bill Filiaga]

I ratted no one...did not use any ones names or who's club/Match I was shooting at.......NICK YOU JUST DID.....

[okiestovepipe]

We seem to have just enough gas to make it all the way to the crash site.

[Sarge]

He def. should have been DQed according to the rules but possibly allowed to conitnue shooting the match.

[Bill Filiaga]

Points to consider and lessons learned from this event.

MD's do not oppose your RO's decisions when they correctly apply the Safety Rules.

Rationalizing NOT enforcing USPSA Safety Rules has really high risks;

1)Someone could/will die

2)Club range access is at risk

3)Club insurance is at risk

4)Club reputation is at risk

5)More ammo for attorney during liability/negligent lawsuits

Everyone makes mistakes. I thought posting this event would be beneficial to all USPSA RO's and Match Directors, if kept anonymous. Didn't mean to hurt anyone feelings.......

Edited April 8, 2014 by Bill Filiaga

[Sarge]

Another thing to keep in mind. USPSA is a very small world. Careful what you say and who you say it to.

[High Lord Gomer]

Another thing to keep in mind. USPSA is a very small world. Careful what you say and who you say it to.

+1 on the good advise...

I once told somebody he had a purty mouth!

Edited April 8, 2014 by High Lord Gomer

[Bill Filiaga]

As usual I stuck my foot in my mouth. I unintentionally upset some of our crew and am getting beat up about it.

Hope many of you reading the forums learn something from this thread so that is was for not...........There are some very good and constructive replies.

I am too old to and too busy to worry about politics.....I believe I may need to change my thinking a bit.

I'll think on that!

Sarge! you are wise and I do like reading your posts.

[nick m]

My feelings, for one, were not hurt. I didn't feel you were "ratting us out" Bill, but I suppose my "just kidding" could have seemed insincere! I added my input because I wouldn't mind feedback/discussion on mixing and matching rules sets. I outed myself as one of the responsible parties to establish credibility on the topic and discussion. You didn't name names, and neither did I (except myself and I guess you as the RO).

I was glad to see the discussion, and it really made me concerned, as your friend. As a range owner/operator, actions like this by clubs that will potentially be shooting and operating on your range, has to terrify you. If it wasn't for the landslide of outrage in this thread at how dangerous this was, it might never have occurred to me that, in the future, we should err on the side of caution. I'll admit that, in an act of cowardice, I was relieved the new shooter was allowed to continue shooting because it relieved me of guilt at my inadequate and rushed safety briefing. Your post and the ensuing discussion is really making me address my principles AND why I became and RO in the first place: I was tired of people letting things slide and blatantly bad calls.

I've been focusing nearly all of my effort on improving as a shooter, I think I've been letting slip my efforts to improve as an RO and club member.

And Bill, I think it was wise for you to make this post. If you had brought it up in one of our meetings, people might have taken you less seriously or felt you were overreacting. The response from this thread should be enough to open people's eyes to some of the attitudes and opinions of shooters/ROs outside of our small, interior Alaska, shooting community "bubble." It did mine.

[Sarge]

Another thing to keep in mind. USPSA is a very small world. Careful what you say and who you say it to.

+1 on the good advise...

I once told somebody he had a purty mouth!

Why yes you did!

[kamikaze1a]

How you handle the DQ makes a difference on whether they come back or not. I have done it in the past by asking the shooter if they know what happened before the DQ is issued. In most cases they recognized what happened and why. Usually it is a 180 violation while moving during a reload.

My opinion on the call and the ruling after the DQ is not important but I really like what Poppa Bear said as well as a couple of others too.

How the DQ is handled could make all the difference in the world whether a DQ'd new shooter comes back again. Saying "you are disqualified" and done for the day would probably turnoff all but the most dedicated new shooters. On the other hand, if the RO could possibly call for a stand-in RO and then take the shooter aside for a debriefing, use the DQ as an learning experience rather than a negative, I think the shooter would return. If he was new, he would probably think he has to leave...not knowing that most seasoned DQ recipients would probably stay and help. How would a new shooter know that he could stick around and watch or paste and LEARN?

My 2¢

[justaute]

I was DQ at my first USPSA match for barely breaking 180 -- "barely" is still breaking. The RO was very apologetic about the DQ, but I would have none of it because it was my fault. At that point, it had only been about 6 months since I shot a pistol for the first time. Admittedly, although I was aware of the 180-rule, I did not know many other rules at all.

I came back to the sport/game because I enjoyed it. The DQ was my fault and the RO was doing his job -- nothing more, nothing less. Shortly thereafter, I shot more and got my RO certification. Stop coddling people and let them learn. If they can't behave like adults, then that's their problem.

[RangerTrace]

I was DQ at my first USPSA match for barely breaking 180 -- "barely" is still breaking. The RO was very apologetic about the DQ, but I would have none of it because it was my fault. At that point, it had only been about 6 months since I shot a pistol for the first time. Admittedly, although I was aware of the 180-rule, I did not know many other rules at all.

I came back to the sport/game because I enjoyed it. The DQ was my fault and the RO was doing his job -- nothing more, nothing less. Shortly thereafter, I shot more and got my RO certification. Stop coddling people and let them learn. If they can't behave like adults, then that's their problem.

I seem to remember that.....now look at you! And similarly, I DQ'd 6 rounds into the first state of my first major match for sweeping myself on a retreat stage....but I'm still here. Roth was not very subtle either!!