Broken Gun = Not an AD?

[Nghthwk1911]

Actually Bob, the shooter did tell both Kelly and I that he knew the gun was having issues and "doubling" on him before the match, but brought it and shot it as it was his primary pistol.

[racerba]

Actually Bob, the shooter did tell both Kelly and I that he knew the gun was having issues and "doubling" on him before the match, but brought it and shot it as it was his primary pistol.

Well, that brings up another issue then...knowingly bringing a broken gun to use during a CoF, which may cause an unsafe situation for self, ROs and others...unsportsmanlike conduct...???

[Nghthwk1911]

I don't think I would go that far, maybe not good judgment. The Gun apparently worked fine the first three stages he shot.

[kcobean]

...

Discussion about "ready to fire" and whether that state can occur in any fractional time slice between inserting a mag and a slam-fire discharge has no bearing on the events in the OP.

I disagree. The situation as I see it is that the shooter did something that the "reasonable man" would consider to be unsafe and DQ-worthy (fired an unintended shot while in the process of loading his gun as the term is commonly understood). He got reinstated only because of a loophole/ambiguity introduced by the recent change in the definition of "loading". The fact that a loophole/ambiguity exists does not make the conduct right. IMHO this is what happens when the rules are written so strictly as to tie the hands of the RO with respect to unsafe actions. The question is whether DNROI can/will do anything to plug this loophole/ambiguity, such as by clarifying the meaning of "ready to fire". I look forward to his considered opinion in due course.

In this case, the shooter didn't "do" anything to cause an AD. A failure of a mechanical system inside his gun caused it. To that point, section 10.4 starts with the phrase "A competitor who CAUSES an accidental discharge..." What did he do to cause an AD? Nothing. He loaded the gun with his finger off the trigger. In that action he was 100% compliant with the rules. You could hold him accountable for the shot if it hit within 10 feet or cleared the berm, but neither of those occurred and nothing the shooter did was the direct cause of the AD.

I do agree with you that clarification from DNROI would be helpful.

[racerba]

I don't think I would go that far, maybe not good judgment. The Gun apparently worked fine the first three stages he shot.

yeah, it is a fine line...i'll agree...

[Jadeslade]

This is getting old. If this happens to me, I will say Stop, AD, safety violation under 10.4.3. If you are the RM you can overrule me and we will all be happy. Doubt we will see this called in this manner again. I think common definitions of words are fine. That is the legal standard, anyway, even if it isn't standard in USPSA usage.

the rulebook *clearly* defines an AD as something else.

and you clearly have a woody for negativity. Leave me alone. If I'm RO and I call AD, and your the MD want to overrule me, be happy. MarkCo gets it. You just want to argue.

[motosapiens]

This is getting old. If this happens to me, I will say Stop, AD, safety violation under 10.4.3. If you are the RM you can overrule me and we will all be happy. Doubt we will see this called in this manner again. I think common definitions of words are fine. That is the legal standard, anyway, even if it isn't standard in USPSA usage.

the rulebook *clearly* defines an AD as something else.

and you clearly have a woody for negativity. Leave me alone. If I'm RO and I call AD, and your the MD want to overrule me, be happy. MarkCo gets it. You just want to argue.

I clearly have a woody for people that make up their own rules, and yes, I want to argue with them. Getting the rules right is important.