Warning for moving with finger on the trigger - Rules Question

[kcobean]

I was the CRO on stage 2 at the VA/MD sectional and I am probably the RO in question. First let me say that I don't believe in "warnings" at a major. "Warning" implies "if I see you do it again, I will DQ you." At a major match where we are assigned to a specific stage for the duration of the match, I'm not going to see you again, so issuing a warning would be fruitless and more importantly there is no provision in the USPSA rulebook that defines or allows such a thing. Now, at a level-1 match where I'm ROing the squad I'm shooting with, I might give a warning, but it would be a "finger!" call during the run with a clarification afterward that that's your one warning. I'm positive I didn't say anything *during* your run. I'm pretty sure most RO's have done that at a local match at some point.

That said, I'm glad you felt I was being polite. Stage 2 was a VERY difficult stage to watch fingers on. The majority of the targets were on the left side of a free-fire zone that ran the depth of the bay and was no wider than my size 12 shoe toe-to-heel, literally. Moving behind a right-handed shooter who is indexed to the left side of the bay with occasional swings to the right side, all while moving forward made finger visibility quite difficult without risking putting myself in the path of your muzzle on the right side target engagements.

If I mentioned your finger after your run, it's probably because it caught my attention, but wasn't blatant enough for me to stop you and tell the Range Master that I was beyond doubt about the violation. So why mention it to you at all? Because getting the finger OBVIOUSLY outside of the trigger is something MANY people need to work on. If I can point out "close" without ruining your match by sending you home, then maybe you think about it on the next stage where the RO *can* see your finger in the trigger guard and stops you.

I'm a believer that we're all here to have a good time, and to do that safety is paramount. As the RO, I made a call that what you did didn't constitute a DQ infraction, but if I can take 5 seconds of your time at the end of the stage to heighten your personal awareness, then everybody wins.

I'm WIDE open to input from guys that have been doing this way longer than me. If I need to "check myself", I'm open to that, too. If the majority here says, "black or white, you should have DQ'd him or said nothing at all", I'll heed that advice. I'm a new-ish RO/CRO and I'm not above learning.

Kelly

Edited July 16, 2014 by kcobean

[bikerburgess]

I mostly agree with kcobean after a run i will mention something to the ahooter if I am 90%+ sure I saw something but not 100% if I am 100% I issue the dq. At a local I may give a shooter a warning during a stage if I don't see enough to be sure but I won't give them a pass or one warning if i am sure they get the dq if they keep doing it in a way I can't be 100% I will keep telling them and keep trying to be in the right location to get the right view to be 100%

Edited July 17, 2014 by bikerburgess

[Jadeslade]

I disagree with the DNROI. If you can see the target, you can aim at it. You can shoot it , too. But those hits won't count. Is that dangerous? No. Pretending you can't see it is ridiculous. Maybe stop using mesh. Or, conversely, just put up two sticks and say-"there is a wall here". You can't make something true just by saying it. The sureness and black and whiteness of some of the posters in this thread is what gives rise to mistrust of RO's. Most of the time RO's do a good job, but making some issues "safety issues" when they are not is just semantics and does not make the sport any safer. Some of you guys have been doing this a long time and are set in your ways, but stage materials, targets, guns have all changed. If an RO wants to "warn", or just do a little coaching after the stage, that is good and will lead to safer shooters and good shooters. If you don't feel comfortable coaching or warning shooters, then you probably shouldn't. I think this is the reason that video is not wanted-it is just as likely to show an RO error as much as a shooter error. Video may not be perfect, but its way better than no video. And everybody, keep your fingers off the trigger when moving.

[lawboy]

I don't know the rules to well, but I think if the target is behind a wall you can't techincally aim at it even if you can see it through the wall. So the finger must be off the trigger.

You are correct. Walls are only see through to make things safer, etc. Best way to think of it is, "If that wall were solid there is no way you could engage through it or aim at a target".

The shooter got a valid warning and is lucky another RO who may not believe in warnings wasn't running him.

Interesting viewpoint. Is this just an opinion? or is there an nroi ruling/clarification to back it up. Seems like most instructors teach that you should have the gun up and be aiming before the target becomes available, all the more so if you can see it through a mesh wall.

The only times I've seen this called it was pretty blatant. I tend to think that if you've got the gun up and your looking through the sights in the direction of targets, you are aiming. If the gun is down, you should have your finger off the trigger when moving.

Regarding warnings, I totally believe in them. If i'm not certain of something, or if it was very close, I'll definitely let the shooter know afterwards. I know a few shooters may not appreciate that, but most do.

I strongly disagree that any time the gun is up the finger should be on the trigger. Yes, when moving into position the gun should be up before you enter the shooting location. Yes, when moving short distances both hands stay on the gun and the gun stays up. But in neither situation should the finger be on the trigger until you are aiming at the target and intend to shoot at it. That happens at the tail end of the movement into position and definitely not before you come around what ever barrier you are negotiating -- wall, barrel, boxes, etc., and have the ability to shoot the target.

About giving warnings. I am increasingly DECREASING my warnings to competitors about anything. In fact, I am trying to stick to necessary words only when ROing. I just find it helps everyone and everything if we all concentrate solely on our respective jobs at hand during the course of fire, as well as before and after. If I am not ROing, I might say something to the shooter after the run. If I am ROing I keep it to the rulebook, and give plenty of smiles and positive body language.

[Skydiver]

I was CRO for stage 7 at that same match. The assisting ROs were running a shooter, and I happened to notice one shooter who looked like he had finger in the trigger guard, while reloading. After his run, I consulted with the assisting ROs and they also confirmed that it looked close, but couldn't be certain. I quietly took the shooter aside when he was done reloading his mags to congratulate him on a good run and also warn him to make sure to keep his finger out of the trigger guard during reloads because it looked like he was keeping it in. About an hour later during a lull between squads I was walking back to my car to get some more snacks, I noticed the same guy at the safety table angrily taking off all his gear. On my way back, I saw a conversation happening between the RM, the shooter, and one of the RO's at one of the later stages. I suspect somebody finally got a definitive look and called "Stop."

[Sarge]

I disagree with the DNROI. If you can see the target, you can aim at it. You can shoot it , too. But those hits won't count. Is that dangerous? No. Pretending you can't see it is ridiculous. Maybe stop using mesh. Or, conversely, just put up two sticks and say-"there is a wall here". You can't make something true just by saying it. The sureness and black and whiteness of some of the posters in this thread is what gives rise to mistrust of RO's. Most of the time RO's do a good job, but making some issues "safety issues" when they are not is just semantics and does not make the sport any safer.

I disagree with DNROI on a lot of things. Probably even more than you. But it is way out of line to say RO's who adhere to the rule book and rulings lead to mistrust among RO's. I have been involved in enough discussions, debates, classes, and matches to know that a wall is a wall is a wall. In theory you can not see through a mesh wall nor can you engage through one. So to continue with that logic a shooter can't aim with his finger in the trigger guard through one either. Mesh walls are popular because they create a safer COF before during and after the run. I know of one club that had a serious safety incident because of solid walls and they no longer use them. Period.

By the way, where is all of this mistrust of RO's happening? Must only be where you shoot? I have been around a little and I don't see it. Just because some POS got caught cheating does not mean nobody trusts RO's anymore. And it certainly has nothing to do with your accusations.

[Nghthwk1911]

So that "Shooter " was DQ'ed, and I am the one that issued that DQ. He was not very polite about this process, and had very choice words for me when it happened. Personally I have never ever ever Stopped a shooter unless I was 100% certain that what they had done was in violation of the rules. That shooter was nice enough to hold the gun up at my eye level during the reload so that I had a crystal clear line of sight of his finger on the trigger. The worst part was he did not have to ask why he was stopped, he just started with the name calling and bitching.

It is a shame to me that it happened and that he felt that he needed to be rude to myself and the rest of the RO Staff at the match, but what is now even more troubling is that he got a warring just two stages earlier for that same thing.

[Sarge]

So that "Shooter " was DQ'ed, and I am the one that issued that DQ. He was not very polite about this process, and had very choice words for me when it happened. Personally I have never ever ever Stopped a shooter unless I was 100% certain that what they had done was in violation of the rules. That shooter was nice enough to hold the gun up at my eye level during the reload so that I had a crystal clear line of sight of his finger on the trigger. The worst part was he did not have to ask why he was stopped, he just started with the name calling and bitching.

It is a shame to me that it happened and that he felt that he needed to be rude to myself and the rest of the RO Staff at the match, but what is now even more troubling is that he got a warring just two stages earlier for that same thing.

Good call!

[motosapiens]

I don't know the rules to well, but I think if the target is behind a wall you can't techincally aim at it even if you can see it through the wall. So the finger must be off the trigger.

You are correct. Walls are only see through to make things safer, etc. Best way to think of it is, "If that wall were solid there is no way you could engage through it or aim at a target".

The shooter got a valid warning and is lucky another RO who may not believe in warnings wasn't running him.

Interesting viewpoint. Is this just an opinion? or is there an nroi ruling/clarification to back it up. Seems like most instructors teach that you should have the gun up and be aiming before the target becomes available, all the more so if you can see it through a mesh wall.

The only times I've seen this called it was pretty blatant. I tend to think that if you've got the gun up and your looking through the sights in the direction of targets, you are aiming. If the gun is down, you should have your finger off the trigger when moving.

Regarding warnings, I totally believe in them. If i'm not certain of something, or if it was very close, I'll definitely let the shooter know afterwards. I know a few shooters may not appreciate that, but most do.

I strongly disagree that any time the gun is up the finger should be on the trigger.

I hope you don't think that's what I wrote. I bolded the sentence where i mention that in case you want to read the whole thing.

[motosapiens]

Why would it be helpful to a shooter to tell them they were close to a DQ? If the stage calls for me to swing my gun 175 degrees to the right, I did what was necessary and I did not commit a DQable offense.

And I wouldn't mention it in such a situation. But in a situation where the stage *didn't* call for it, and it looked like you may have been unaware of it, then I might very well say something because I'd hate for you to continue not knowing it and get dq'd. If that makes me a bad person, then I'm ok with it. I'll keep doing it until the rules are changed to forbid it, because every shooter I've mentioned it to so far has thanked me.

I wouldn't call it coaching either. Coaching would be if I told you beforehand "dude, lots of people are getting really close to the 180 here and we've sent 4 people home already, so be careful." That would not be cool, especially at a major match.

But feel free to tell the RO beforehand "don't warn me about anything, just dq me if it's justified or stick strictly to the range commands". I would respect such a request.

[facedown]

The most interesting part of this thread for me is the number of ROs referring to "finger was off the trigger" and "a little close to the trigger".

The rule is very clear -- "...all movement (see Appendix A3) must be accomplished with the fingers visibly outside the trigger guard..."

Doesn't say anything about "touching the trigger" or "away from the trigger".

Visibly outside the trigger guard.

It also don't say anything about issuing warnings. If the RO misses something and a fellow shooter or friend in the squad wants to point it out ("Like whoa, that was a little too close on the 180" or "better move that finger a little further from the trigger when you move"), so be it. But its not the place of the RO to issue warnings. Did they DQ or not?

Nothing messes with the competitor's head more than some RO giving out warnings for something that they only thought may have happened.

Bill

Actually, it does:

8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

I agree that they should be used judiciously.

[hercster]

First I would like to establish that I'm a casual competitor meaning that safety, fun and then the score are important in that order. I compete in just about everything both in the US and here in Canada. I started late and almost above all else I enjoy the fellowship of the shooting community

All that said, I don't resent any warning that may be issued but the manner in which it's done is important. I never stop learning and don't have to be scolded or ridiculed at my age which is double that of most shooters.

In one of my last matches, I was approached by an RO a while after I had finished a stage who said that while he was running the stage another RO had noted a "trigger" issue.

That part of the stage involved three windows side by side. The windows were approximately two feet apart or one normal step to the side. Apparently my finger didn't totally clear the trigger guard on one or both of the moves. It's very likely that I shuffled to the sides rather than making one clearly defined step. I think I know how the rule reads but see no advantage to calling a DQ if the trigger infraction occurred when I shuffled to take my position at one or two of the windows. These were the last shots of the stage.

What say you gentlemen?

Edited July 17, 2014 by hercster

[Jadeslade]

I disagree with the DNROI. If you can see the target, you can aim at it. You can shoot it , too. But those hits won't count. Is that dangerous? No. Pretending you can't see it is ridiculous. Maybe stop using mesh. Or, conversely, just put up two sticks and say-"there is a wall here". You can't make something true just by saying it. The sureness and black and whiteness of some of the posters in this thread is what gives rise to mistrust of RO's. Most of the time RO's do a good job, but making some issues "safety issues" when they are not is just semantics and does not make the sport any safer.

I disagree with DNROI on a lot of things. Probably even more than you. But it is way out of line to say RO's who adhere to the rule book and rulings lead to mistrust among RO's. I have been involved in enough discussions, debates, classes, and matches to know that a wall is a wall is a wall. In theory you can not see through a mesh wall nor can you engage through one. So to continue with that logic a shooter can't aim with his finger in the trigger guard through one either. Mesh walls are popular because they create a safer COF before during and after the run. I know of one club that had a serious safety incident because of solid walls and they no longer use them. Period.

By the way, where is all of this mistrust of RO's happening? Must only be where you shoot? I have been around a little and I don't see it. Just because some POS got caught cheating does not mean nobody trusts RO's anymore. And it certainly has nothing to do with your accusations.

I didn't accuse you of anything or anybody else of anything. Read posts correctly. In theory you can't see through mesh, but in reality you can. I'm glad you know of one club that had a serious incident because of solid walls; that is an anecdote. Are you suggesting USPSA go to only mesh walls? Most clubs use them because of the huge amount of physical labor that goes into setting up a match. Mistrust of RO's is endemic to the sport, that is why there are many levels of supervision and arbitration. You need to stop attacking people who disagree with you. It is unseemly.

[Sarge]

I sometimes attack those that agree with me too so it's not just those who disagree. Seriously, you felt that was an attack?

I actually don't like mesh walls but I do see their worth. I have about a 50/50 mix of solid and mesh at my club. The way they are built they weigh about the same so the labor argument only makes sense if you are still using 2X4's and 3/4" treated plywood for walls. That's actually one of the big things I did when I first stepped into the MD slot. I trashed almost all the labor intensive props and built all light weight stuff.

I don't think the CRO's, RM's and arbitration exist because RO's can't be trusted. If an RO makes a bad call that does not mean he can't be trusted.

As for my experience with solid wall safety, I am still trying to figure out how you are using the word anecdote. If you don't believe me feel free to PM me and I will give you the particulars.

[motosapiens]

In theory you can't see through mesh, but in reality you can. I'm glad you know of one club that had a serious incident because of solid walls; that is an anecdote. Are you suggesting USPSA go to only mesh walls? Most clubs use them because of the huge amount of physical labor that goes into setting up a match. Mistrust of RO's is endemic to the sport, that is why there are many levels of supervision and arbitration. You need to stop attacking people who disagree with you. It is unseemly.

We use mesh walls for 2 reasons; safety/visibility and less susceptible to wind.

I do not agree that mistrust of RO's is endemic to the sport. I think an attitude of getting the call right is why we have levels of supervision and arbitration. (but I am pretty optimistic about human nature, even sarge's nature)

With said, I personally am unlikely to make any finger calls when someone has the gun up and is aiming at a target through a wall as they move into position. If other people do call that, then it's probably something I need to think about in my training. I'm actually kinda curious what the elite level shooters do in these situations. I have observed that they are all incredibly careful about getting their fingers well out and away when moving with the gun down, but I haven't paid close attention to when that finger goes back in when coming into a position, or when transitioning between two positions that are a half step away from each other.

[nitrohuck]

Being a new shooter to the sport I happily take any advice I can get from those who know more than I, and if it is advice that might keep me from going home early I am more than eager to hear (given that I drive 3 hours each way to matches, I sorta try and avoid that whole DQ thing)

Helping new competitors to UNDERSTAND what's going on is key, no one WANTS to DQ a shooter (hopefully), and if a new guy gets a little too close to "the edge" why not give them a heads up? Staying silent on the topic could lead to A) the shooter being DQ'ed later for an offense he could potentially have corrected, and B ) even worse, said infraction could put others in real danger and/or hurt someone. Why not just be helpful in the name of progress and safety? This sorta reminds me of the topic here about flashing your headlights to warn others of speed traps...

As for the finger on the trigger, that should now be one of your main focuses during dry-fire... engrain that muscle memory into your head that if your front sight isn't on target, your finger isn't on that trigger. Dry fire is paramount in practicing these sorts of things...

Edited July 17, 2014 by nitrohuck

[teros135]

As somewhat of an "old timer" in local matches but a newcomer to Level II, I really didn't really "get" the complexity until my first large match in April. I appreciated the professionalism of the range staff and in particular the feedback they took time to give me a couple of times, after I finished the stage. Their comments were about about safety issues in situations I wasn't familiar with, for instance nearly sweeping my weekend while reaching for a door handle with both hands in close proximity (I had not encountered a door at local matches). In each case the fix was relatively easy, by adopting a new strategy and doing a lot of dry firing (nitrohuck is absolutely right about that). I didn't feel distracted or disrespected, but instead felt that the range officers were taking my participation seriously and wanted to help. No comments were made during the actual COF, which is appropriate.

On a parallel note, as a relatively new certified RO (like many folks, I've officiated locally for several years but just took the official training), I appreciate everyone's comments about the various situations that can occur during a match. It helps us all to gain a broader perspective. In my (mere) couple of larger matches I haven't had the sense that the ROs were untrustworthy or unskilled, but nobody's perfect and the extra levels of checks and balances in the appeals procedures do make sense.

Edited July 18, 2014 by teros135

[nitrohuck]

In my first Major match I was also given some advice about sweeping. I dropped a mag during make ready and when I reached for it the RO told me (after the run) that I ALMOST swept myself, and to just keep an eye out.

Then on another stage I was running from one window to another and almost passed the window, and when I reversed direction back towards the window the RO told me I again almost swept my weak hand.

Two totally different ways to DQ yourself for the same infraction, I was very happy they alerted me and was sure to be as careful as possible.

In my mind I believe I was indeed aware of the muzzle both times, even though they were "close calls" (sorta like going 175 degrees, you KNOW you're cutting it close).

Either way I very happily accepted the RO's words of wisdom and now try to not have such close calls, as it only invites trouble and disputes.

[Jadeslade]

Sarge, an anecdote is an instance. It has no significant statistical meaning. If everything were based on anecdotes, we would have chaos. I am sorry your mesh walls are heavy. I build stages a lot and I very much appreciate not having to carry plywood. It is still used and some clubs have better facilities than others. Motosapiens, getting the call right is it. If it was all black and white, and cut and dry, we wouldn't need to make the call right by going up the chain, would we? The only way plywood walls are unsafe is if they fall on me. Or somebody runs into them and knock themselves out.

[motosapiens]

If it was all black and white, and cut and dry, we wouldn't need to make the call right by going up the chain, would we?

It's pretty close to black and white, but the chain exists for those rare instances where a competitor is just plain unhappy, or when an RO really just makes a bad/marginal call. At most club events, it's not that big a deal except as far as education for everyone, but I've worked a couple nationals events, and out of 600 or so total shooters in both events, our stage only needed the RM for a judgement call in 2 or 3 instances at most. No dq's were overturned and I believe 1 scoring call was reversed. Usually when we saw the RM it was for a boring steel calibration.

All the folks I've worked with at nationals and area matches were really intent on getting the call right. In shooting those events as a consumer, I've experienced the same from the RO's. I have competed in other refereed sports (soccer, hockey, volleyball), and the quality and consistency of our RO's at big matches is better imho.

[kevin c]

At our recent sectional I had to DQ a competitor who took three steps with the gun up, both hands on and with finger on the trigger while moving to a shooting position. He was no where close to being able to shoot the targets, even though they were partiall visible through the mesh walls bracketing the port. Unfortunate, but there was really no other call to make.

Same stage my ARO called a one eighty warning. The competitor, both high ranking and highly competitive, was distracted and did not do well on the stage. Unfortunate. The competitor claimed RO interference, saying the ARO was too far down range (he knew he could not challenge the safety warning), but was overruled by the RM (who is pretty up there in NROI), who pointed out that the RO has to offer a reshoot for interference, the competitor cannot demand it.

I think judicious use of safety warnings have to be allowed. I don't buy "I know what I'm doing out there, and I'm am not breaking the 180, so don't warn me about what I am not doing", because nobody I know, from rank beginner to top GM, wants to break safety rules, but we all have and will do it. Also, I personally appreciate knowing if I am skirting too close (I have been warned, on and off the stage, more than once), and would rather get a warning than be disqualified from a match that I spent time and money, and some times a lot of both, to go to. I also remind myself: breaking the 180 with a loaded gun does not put me at risk, it is putting my friends, the range and the sport at risk.

[Fuelie777]

Before a DQ is issued for the finger on the trigger, it must be very clear that is the case. It is like being out/safe at first base, you are or you are not. Hard to call as it is impossible to see the trigger finger all the time. But if it is very clear that is the case, the a DQ is issued. Even with newbies at a level one match. Now at a level one match, if I know the person is a newbie, coaching before the stage and after is warranted, specifically about where the 180 areas could be and a reminder about the finger on the trigger. I know when I first started, (many years ago) it was appreciated. I have, unfortunately, DQ'ed shooters at level II and III matches for this (very few), but it was very clear that was the case typically during a jam clearing or reload and I was in position to see it.