Saw some silly stuff at the pro am today

[Vlad]

Vlad, cool down on my amigo Stlhead, he is as sarcastic as me and has big long sticks to poke the bear.

Oh come on, you should have seen my first attempt at that post, I was linking alternate ways for him to entertain himself on the internet, but then I decide to just be mildly sarcastic so I don't get banned

[CJW]

Trust me you don't get consistency when you do tell them to do it a certain way, heck you can even write it and it won't be a sure thing.

Well, yeah... But it's good to have goals, right?

Edited August 29, 2014 by CJW

[kurtm]

Vlad for the big smile tonight!!!!

[Religious Shooter]

I know that some people can do it safely, maybe even most, but how about that 15 year old? How about random new shooter? I know we want to think we are all big boys, and maybe in something like 3GN that stuff can fly, but 3gun is no longer an exclusive club of well experienced shooters.

It is the price you pay for growth. If you want a mature sport, it needs mature rules sets.

30+ years of outlaw matches with roughly the same procedural rules. 30+ years and it isn't mature enough?

Within those 30+ years everybody who shot 3 gun was new to 3 gun. Everyone had a first 3 gun match.

It's not like everybody started 30+ years ago and there haven't been any new shooters joining. New shooters have been coming onto the scene since 3 gun's inception.

[CJW]

It's not like everybody started 30+ years ago and there haven't been any new shooters joining. New shooters have been coming onto the scene since 3 gun's inception.

Maybe I'm wrong, but anecdotally, at least, there seem to be more shooters now who go straight to 3-Gun with no prior competitive background, and not even much shooting experience, and some of these folks jump straight into the deep end by going to a major match with only a few local matches under their belts.

As an RO I think I can tell the difference between an inexperienced 3-gunner and an inexperienced competitor. The latter get really confused, really fast when things start going sideways on a 3-gun stage. They are the kind of folks who might forget they have a loaded gun in their hands when their ears get knocked off...

Edited August 29, 2014 by CJW

[mpeltier]

We should at least have a common safety rule set. After that...I say let the MD's do whatever they want.

1st sentence, I agree wholeheartedly. 2nd sentence, for some MDs, most definitely, but or those MDs and RMs who make ruling based things that are inconsistent, like feelings, and if the person is a sponsor or not, or a pro shooter or not...me no like at all!

I paid to shoot with my own money I paid my own way there and I bought all my own ammo and paid for my own hotel...

Before you go too far down this road...I do the same. Then again so do most of the guys even the top tier shooters.

Which is why in my mind I feel like we should be treated close to the same...

I wasn't there so its hard to second guess your perception of what transpired there by a few sentences on the internet. Having said that, don't be so sensitive to how others get treated. Those that are sponsored shooters have been playing the game a while and have made lots of friends at these venues and absolutely will be treated differently than someone the officials don't know. They also may be responsible for much of the prizes or dinner you will enjoy while your there. Most of the folks there are volunteers and registration times and places may change on the fly to accommodate the travel schedule of both competitors and staff. Be flexible when you get to an event and it will all work out and ultimately be a great experience, as it seems you have had inspite of you feeling like your not one of the good ol boys.

Edited August 29, 2014 by mpeltier

[Stlhead]

OK, first I want to say that my feeling was not hurt during any part of this thread. I may only have one feeling, but I bury it deep so as to keep it from getting hurt by all you big smelly mean ogeres.

Vlad, I have found that dodging work by posting on enos is far better than dodging work by surfing porn. Once on a slow day I found the end of the internet, I was there waiting for the next page to be posted, it was like a f*#king double rainbow, I cried. But now we got some arguing to do about reshoots.

Kurt, Trapr, CJW, and anyone else please try and explain to me exactly why someone should get a reshoot for a piece of their gear malfunctioning, even if it is safety gear.

These are the arguments that I understand to have been posed so far (in my own biased words)

1. Some shooters may not be able to put their muffs back on without posing a danger to themselves or others.

2. We do this for fun, and we should protect the shooter at all costs.

3. If someone wants a mulligan they just need to figure a way to dislodge a piece of protective gear.

If there are any more, lets get them added to the list. Here are my reasons why we should not give reshoots for dropped muffs. (excluding the extraordinary circumstances previously noted)

1. The shooter should be responsible for all of his or her gear.

2. Giving reshoots for things that are under the control of the shooter opens up the possibility of someone doing unsafe things in order to get a reshoot.

3. If you can't safely return your protective gear to a functional condition while on the clock you where probably going to shoot yourself or the RO anyway so best you get stopped and DQed sooner.

If anyone has any to add to either list lets get them out then we can have a whoop ass ear plug and glasses rodeo!

[Vlad]

Your forgot the getting sued part, the insurance liability part, the new/young shooter, the RO interference part, the unsportsmanlike DQ thing, etc.

Also, here you go: http://www.endoftheinternet.com/

[Stlhead]

I appreciate the link, but need clarification on the parts I forgot.

Who is suing who and why?

Who's insurance and who is it protecting from what liability?

I figured the new shooter and or youngling would fit under the reason for number 1, but will add a separate item if the group prefers.

Is the RO interference for the reshoot or an against?

And is the unsportsmanlike DQ for knocking off the glasses or shooting without them?

[Vlad]

Who is suing who and why?

Everyone all the time, for no apparent reason. "So Mr Stlhead, your rule book says eyes and ear pro are required at your match but you staff failed to intervene when my client, Prof Klumsy lost his. You sir have failed to enforce your own rules, and now my client is deaf and dumb and you owe him a kidney and a box of chocolates."

Who's insurance and who is it protecting from what liability?

The range owners. For example the two clubs I'm involved with seem to be insured by Loyd's of London, because no one else would. See above

I figured the new shooter and or youngling would fit under the reason for number 1, but will add a separate item if the group prefers.

They also may lack the mental abilities or presence of mind

Is the RO interference for the reshoot or an against?

For. If I stop I ask you about your dropped eat protection while you have plugs I don't see, I've interfered with you, you deserve a reshoot.

And is the unsportsmanlike DQ for knocking off the glasses or shooting without them?

Yep. for purposely doing so.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Vlad

[Stlhead]

Who is suing who and why?

Everyone all the time, for no apparent reason. "So Mr Stlhead, your rule book says eyes and ear pro are required at your match but you staff failed to intervene when my client, Prof Klumsy lost his. You sir have failed to enforce your own rules, and now my client is deaf and dumb and you owe him a kidney and a box of chocolates."

I am not saying that we should allow a shooter to shoot without protection I am saying that they should not get a reshoot. They should stop and correct the problem before continuing or be stopped.

Who's insurance and who is it protecting from what liability?

The range owners. For example the two clubs I'm involved with seem to be insured by Loyd's of London, because no one else would. See above

I do not care who insures the range, that has no bearing on the discussion. What is pertinent to the discussion is if we stop the shooter and give them a reshoot, or if we DQ the shooter for shooting with out protection. I am advocating a DQ for shooting without protection, and not giving a reshoot, clearly erring on the side of caution like all safety infractions. We don't stop a shooter and give them a reshoot for almost breaking the 180, or for pointing the muzzle over the berm without sending a projectile over, if the shooter does not shoot without the protective gear in place there has been no safety violation, nothing to cause a DQ, and certainly no grounds for a reshoot.

I figured the new shooter and or youngling would fit under the reason for number 1, but will add a separate item if the group prefers.

They also may lack the mental abilities or presence of mind

All shooters are to receive exactly the same treatment, be they long time pros or first time shooters. If you step up to shoot it is expected that you are able to do it in a safe manner, if you honestly believe that a shooter is not able to complete the corse of fire in a safe manner then it would be negligent for you to even let them begin. If you allow a shooter to start then you have already invested in them the belief that they have the ability to not shoot themselves or others. Until they prove otherwise all shooters must be assumed to be safe otherwise the entire premise of safety in our sport is an illusion. Have faith in your fellow man, putting on displaced earmuffs is not that hard, fortunately there are dump boxes all over the stages we shoot, no reason a shooter can't use one while he or she retrieves the lost gear before continuing on with the stage. Sounds like a topic for the shooters meeting.

Is the RO interference for the reshoot or an against?

For. If I stop I ask you about your dropped eat protection while you have plugs I don't see, I've interfered with you, you deserve a reshoot.

I agree, same as a squib. If it does turn out that the shooter had hearing protection, no harm no foul, reshoot. But if there was no hearing protection then no reshoot same as a squib. Unsafe.

And is the unsportsmanlike DQ for knocking off the glasses or shooting without them?

Yep. for purposely doing so.

​The problem is that intent is impossible to prove. If I accidentally knock off my glasses I get a reshoot, how can you be certain that it was an accident? In the absence of a way to determine intent I still maintain that a no reshoot policy is the best way to protect the shooter and the competitive spirit. If you shoot without protection, you get a DQ, if you commit an unsafe act while trying to put your protection on you get a DQ, if you are able to return your protection to good function in a safe manner you start shooting again and finish the stage, if you can't you stop and take the score or the DQ. If there is no competitive reward for loosing your protective gear then it won't ever be an issue. I would even go so far as to propose that some unsafe actions could possibly be undertaken by competitors in an effort to dislodge protective gear if the rules allowed for a reshoot.

Responses in light purple, cause that shit is dope.

[Sterling White]

nam nam nam.....that is the sound of popcorn being eatin.

[Paul-the new guy]

It's nom nom nom....

[Vlad]

Well we are just circling around arguments that have been made and answered on both sides now.

Damn it. He did find the end of the internet. FML.

[Jadeslade]

This is pretty funny. But I think you get a reshoot if safety gear comes off and you can't put it back on. Because there is no good reason not to. If you can't tell if somebody did it on purpose, they didn't. That pink stuff is dope if you are Kanye West, but it usually signifies lambda society inclinations. DVC

[kellyn]

Just 1 lawyer's opinion, eye and ear pro ACCIDENTLY coming off during a stage should stop the stage and require a reshoot. Eye and ear pro coming off intentionally should stop the stage and then the litigation will begin.

I realize this calls for some judgment on the part of ROs and match staff to determine if shooters accidentally lost their protective gear or did it intentionally but they make judgment calls all the time.

I also realize there are some lowlife competitors who will try to take advantage of this by discarding protective gear during the course of a stage going poorly. I believe that if the RO can articulate that it was an intentional act, the shooter should be DQd. If not, then it's a reshoot. If you are a shooter that intentionally loses safety gear to gain a competitive advantage, you're the scum of the earth and I know there are some out there. It's too bad that some of these people will get away with it but safety is more important.

I usually wear double ear pro and have kept going if I lost my ear muffs but if I lost my eye pro I would stop. I can think of two occasions where I've lost my earmuffs but since I had plugs, I kept going. One time I lost my eye pro and kept going and even won a stage at a major match. And you know what that was stupid! I should have stopped.

Edited August 30, 2014 by kellyn

[Religious Shooter]

I think you would be shifting the liability to the RO/Match. Big boy rules says the shooter is responsible. If you require a reshoot in the rules, the burden goes to the RO/Match to stop the shooter.

Both of the recent examples had the RO not stopping the shooter for whatever reason. The RO just did not notice and/or the shooter was moving so fast that their ability to notice was lessened.

If the shooter had sustained an injury... big boy rules says the shooter was at fault. If it is written in the rules that the RO has to stop and give the shooter a reshoot... the fault is with the RO (and the MD for "hiring" him) for not noticing the displacement of the PPE's and not stopping the shooter.

[Vlad]

You can want it to work that way, but it doesn't. The organizer, range, and rule making body are always going to be held responsible. We are dealing with guns which puts us a disadvantage to start with you. Plus big boy rules as an excuse is never going to fly if the person hurt is a junior.

[Religious Shooter]

There's nothing in Big Boy rules that says the RO can't stop the shooter if their PPE's are dislodged.

Sure the "organizer, range, and rule making body are always going to be held responsible." But if I was in that jury and I was told that the either 1) the shooter was ultimately responsible in stopping themselves (big boy rules) or 2) the RO is required to stop the shooter. I would be more inclined to not blame the RO/org if 1 was in place. If 2 was in place the RO/ORG was clearly responsible. The RO was REQUIRED to stop the shooter.

[kurtm]

Ah my very hard headed big fishy amigo, no-one is giving a re-shoot for any kind of gear failure. We are issuing a re-shoot because the R.O. stopped them due to safety concerns....just like a a squib. This instance is one of those difficult calls because the shooter did continue on, and in retrospect I find I actually concur with the R.M. the shooter decided to continue......but not the R.O. once the shooter hit the prop or ground and the R.O. noticed the safety gear was knocked off his head and 12' away it should have been stopped, just the same as if it were a squib, or he got back up and the R.O. noticed the end of the barrel plugged with mud.....yeah I know! but R.O.s aren't just there to prop up a timer and watch someone shoot.....these are some of their jobs!

Too many matches today run on the very ragged edge of having enough time to run everybody through the stages, due to all sorts of reasons I have been harping about for years. They have to bank on everything running perfectly. After the first day when stuff starts falling apart, many a R.M. has come to the staff and ORDERED no re-shoots or we won't get done. In so doing we now make the R.O. a timer prop, instead of the front line of safety. And then you get 9 pages of this crap!

Pat, I am sorry I sounded harsh to your "big boy pants" it came up once long ago in a very negative way at a match and the outcome was very bad. I was reacting to the words....not my amigo Pat! Have a safe and insane Labor day buddy!

Edited August 30, 2014 by kurtm

[alma]

It's times like this when it really wish Enos had a "like" feature.

+1 to kurtm

[wgj3]

Im still confused...

My gear fails to stay in place after I placed it. My fault. My job to remedy safely on clock or be stopped. Just like the aforementioned squib; no bullet in barrel when stopped (or ear/eye protection still in place), shooter gets a do-over. If bullet in barrel or truly no ear/eye pro in place, scored as shot. Simple.

If a target is shootable with multiple guns, it should fall to at least one of them. Perhaps it will fall to mutiple rapid pistol shots or maybe even a round of ammo with more energy than a .22 mag. I dont know about the rest of you, but I always have some higher-energy rounds for each of my firearms when I head to a match.

For rifle, I mostly shoot 55gr stuff, but I always have some 75-77gr stuff as well.

For pistol, I generally shoot 120-130 PF ammo but I always have some 150+PF stuff with heavy bullets for stubborn targets.

For shotgun, I always have a box of heavy game loads with 1.25oz of #6 at high velocity.

The match/targets should be as consistent as possible within reason, but weather, light conditions, etc. are ever-changing. Its my responsibility to be prepared for the match and to make certain that ALL of MY gear works, stays in place, stays on my belt, stays in my holster, and generally stays SAFE for me and everyone else around me.

[kurtm]

I'm really confused as well! You and I are walking down the street, you are typing a reply on Brian Enos and don't notice that you are about to step into an open manhole. Do I stop you, or do I say to myself he is a big boy and should know better, and let you fall and sustain serious injuries which preclude you from shooting again? I can see that you are real big on self determination, so I'll send you flowers in the hospital.

[alma]

What you would do all depends. Do we have enough time to reset the street if you stop him first?

[Benelli Chick]

I'm really confused as well! You and I are walking down the street, you are typing a reply on Brian Enos and don't notice that you are about to step into an open manhole. Do I stop you, or do I say to myself he is a big boy and should know better, and let you fall and sustain serious injuries which preclude you from shooting again? I can see that you are real big on self determination, so I'll send you flowers in the hospital.

The real question is...if you warn him BEFORE he falls in the manhole, will you be arrested for coaching???