Unfair DQs

[MilkMyDuds]

Has anyone been DQed for things they did not do, like breaking 180 when you know you did not (and captured on camera, and witnessed by squad mates, and even by another RO etc.)?

Why is USPSA giving a single RO so much power to send someone home, wasting the shooters few hundred dollars plus a couple days of time, without any appealing process?

Shouldn't the DQs be agreed by both ROs (not just one single RO) on the stage, and allow shooters to appeal with camera footage, maybe not allow shooter continue for the match, but provide a partial refund if the DQ is not justified?

The subjectivity, resulting from the lack of checks and balances, is astounding.

[aandabooks]

Post the video.

[Bkreutz]

Get the CRO and the RM involved. However, in my experience if it's a my word against theirs it goes to the RO (which IMO is the way it should be) Most CRO's and RM's I know will be fair. In fact most RO's I know won't call a DQ unless they're absolutely positive. Headquarters keeps track of DQ's and if one RO is issuing more than the normal amount, questions will be asked.

[MilkMyDuds]

RM did not allow the viewing of camera footage. Did not allow arbitration request either, saying it's safety violation.

I agree, it's pretty much my words against RO's, because no other evidence nor witness are allowed to participate in any appeal process.

The camera footage is in another shooter's camera, some kind of GoPro on a tripod. Unfortunately I left without requesting it, since RM said they won't look at it anyways.

I really hope USPSA can make this better, adding some checks and balances when dealing with DQ. All DQs I have seen are all clear cut very obvious. My squad had 1 DQ on an earlier stage, and I think most squad mates/bystanders say that one. Mine? Not so. Including the 2nd RO who is running the timer - I guess he was as surprised as I was when "stop" was called.

Imagine a squad of A/M/GM shooters already had 1 DQ earlier. Imagine I have dry fired that exact movement 100 times the previous day after watching another GM did it (no DQ). Also imagine I have also gone the extra mile to slow down to my 50% normal speed when I did that movement. Sigh.

I guess when the DQ train decides to hit you, there is no escape.

[toothandnail]

Not a DQ but, once i got 30 seconds of penalties for foot being out of the shooters box, I knew it was a BS call, and video showed otherwise.

Called the RM, told him it was a bad call, he asked which RO, told him, he didn't even want to see the video, removed the penalties. He had already had many similar complaints about that RO, Unfortunately he didn't have a replacement, but assured us that RO would never be back at his match.

Edited May 7, 2016 by toothandnail

[terrydoc]

You can't arbitrate the DQ itself thats more than likely why the RM wouldn't allow you to waste your money. What you can do is arbitrate that what you did wasn't unsafe and unfortunately with a 180/90 you can't. What the RM did was save you money.

In IPSC video can be viewed by the RM / CRO but is not used as evidence. The biggest problem with video is that it is usually captured from a different angle than what the RO called and also the other RO was more than likely in a different position also.

[pskys2]

USPSA does not allow video's to be used in arbitrating DQ's or other infractions.

The RM/CRO are supposed to accept what the RO says happened. The only argument is whether the action is an offense.

If an RO says he saw a shooter break 180, you can argue if it is a DQ'ble offense but not that you didn't do it.

One way to handle it is to do what I believe it was John Shaw or Mike Plaxico who at a world shoot was called on a 180. He stopped and did not move until the CRO/RM came and they agreed, because he hadn't moved, it was not a 180 infraction.

RO's are volunteers and it is a very stressful, difficult task. Keeping track of everything can be a very difficult task. A lot of leeway is given to their judgement and in 38 years I've only known a few who have been overzealous.

Not to be flippant, as I'm very serious, why so much power is given to the RO is a 180 break and a shot "can" lead to death or injury. There is no leeway when it comes to safety. And one of the reasons we defer to the guy with the timer.

I've DQ'd several over the years and each one made me as sick and upset as the guy who was DQ'd. Even though I only pointed out what I believed was his infraction. I'd rather feel bad for that, than to have that same shooter go to another bay and injure themselves or others.

It's just part of the game we are able to play. Learn from it and keep going.

[MilkMyDuds]

The RO called "stop" after I moved like 10 yards away from the position he said I broke 180. Sigh. I wish I could stop right there. Next time I will remember this trick. Thanks for sharing.

[waktasz]

I tell new guys I meet at matches and students I teach that they shouldn't give the RO even a hint that they were close to the 180. If you are working with a self imposed 160 line, it makes it a lot harder for an RO to make a bad call. Professional refs and umpires make game changing bad calls, volunteer ROs are subject to the same mistakes, so I try to make their jobs easier if I can.

[MilkMyDuds]

I tell new guys I meet at matches and students I teach that they shouldn't give the RO even a hint that they were close to the 180. If you are working with a self imposed 160 line, it makes it a lot harder for an RO to make a bad call. Professional refs and umpires make game changing bad calls, volunteer ROs are subject to the same mistakes, so I try to make their jobs easier if I can.

I fully appreciate this suggestion.

When I dry fired at home simulating what the GM did, I asked my wife to stand by my 180 and ensure I am not even close to that. It's more like 120. It's possible in live I did more than 120, but no where close to 160... I guess the safest way to play is do <100 degrees, even that means you need to sacrifice a few seconds on the timer.

[waktasz]

If it was that bad of a call I don't know what to say. You got screwed I guess. The only way out at that point is to bully the RO until he cracks or changes his story or the RM loses faith in him that he was 100% sure.

[Jake Di Vita]

I'm kind of surprised the RM let it stand if the RO was 10 yards away from you when he called it. Especially if your body was between the RO and the gun, it seems like it would be impossible to be sure of anything except the most gross of violations.

If this happened to me, and I was 100% sure of my innocence, I would likely not let this particular RO run me in the future.

[BARRYJ]

The time to complain about a rule is before you get dq'd and that rule effects you. I never understood the rule about not using video to contest a call, but it has been a rule since I started shooting.

[George Jones]

All of this chatter about what should/could have been done serves no purpose. The only people who were there are the shooter and the RO. A good RM interviews the staff after a DQ to assure they are applying the correct rule. Beyond that, for any DQ which does not have any residual evidence (such as a finger call or 180 break, or shot over the berm) the RO's call stands.

It's always better when two ROs agree that they both saw it, but in some cases, only one RO had the view. You can't fault the other RO for not making the call if he didn't see it

The big problem for the RM is when two ROs see it differently. Then the RM has to make a judgment call on the reliability of the stage crew. Not a comfortable situation to over rule the stage crew, but it happens.

Video and photographic evidence has been historically disallowed and for good reason. It is a two-dimensional view and does not represent what the ROs view may have been and, most importantly, cannot possibly be from a better viewing perspective. Until that rule is changed (and I hope it is not) it is what it is.

On balance, I suspect that there are more DQs not called than undeserved DQs. Not that it makes anyone feel any better when they think they are innocent.

[Pat Miles]

+1! Well said!

[JD45]

I got DQed for holstering a cleared gun once.

The next 2 stages I saw people freak the 180.

The RO said," you were close there buddy, like 179 1/2 haha"

Wtf? It's who you are I guess

[Sarge]

Sorry it happened but George is right, there only a few people who know what you did, or what they think you did. That's you and the RO.

There is a lot of good advice in this thread. I tend to stay way away from 180's in case I lose situational awareness for a split second. Also when I RO I like the advice a great RM taught me. I have not DQ'd many for 180's but I have done so on a bunch of 190 and 200! Meaning, when I call one there is absolutely no doubt. I don't have to worry on the drive home if I made the right call. If I'm doing that I should not have called it.

But anyway, sorry it happened to you. It sucks to DQ and it sucks to issue one.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Sarge

[zzt]

Interesting comments here. At one of the clubs I shoot at, the stages are set up to be to be challenging and offer numerous "opportunities" for a 180. They actually caution you about it before the stages. I asked once why they did this. I was told the ROs at the Level 3 matches in our area were super strict about everything and especially the 180 rule. There are many instances where I know I could make the shot without breaking 180, but it would be close. The ROs say "why risk it", so I don't, even if it means more time to complete the stage. I may have become overly cautious, but I don't want to give the RO any reason to call me, even if he has 170 eyes.

[pskys2]

The RO called "stop" after I moved like 10 yards away from the position he said I broke 180. Sigh. I wish I could stop right there. Next time I will remember this trick. Thanks for sharing.

++1 GeorgeJones

There is no "trick" to getting out of a DQ. As for being 10 yards away, some COF make it difficult to follow the shooter. I was taught to RO the shooter within arms reach, an RO needs to be able to get to the shooter. It's not uncommon to have a shooter gain quite a few yards before an RO can react and reach the shooter or yell stop.

Don't try to imitate a GM or M. That is going to get you into a lot of trouble in many ways. You have to shoot within your skil/ability levels.

Another thing to remember, the RO is watching the shooter, hopefully with an eagle eye focus, and they have to reference the shooter with the 180 by peripheral vision. It's not always accurate at the speed we run COF. But we must air on the side of caution with 180's, AD's and other potentially dangerous actions.

Edited May 8, 2016 by pskys2

[rowdyb]

You want subjective officiating? Shoot some IDPA......

Secondly and I think most importantly what I've adopted as my attitude is never do anything to put what I do/did in the "judge's hands" in the first place.

Edited May 8, 2016 by rowdyb

[BrianKr]

Interesting comments here. At one of the clubs I shoot at, the stages are set up to be to be challenging and offer numerous "opportunities" for a 180. They actually caution you about it before the stages. I asked once why they did this. I was told the ROs at the Level 3 matches in our area were super strict about everything and especially the 180 rule. There are many instances where I know I could make the shot without breaking 180, but it would be close. The ROs say "why risk it", so I don't, even if it means more time to complete the stage. I may have become overly cautious, but I don't want to give the RO any reason to call me, even if he has 170 eyes.

The same thing happens at the clubs I shoot at. It's generally discussed during the walk through. Everyone knows before the 1st make ready command what a 180 DQ would be on that stage and more importantly how to keep from getting DQ'ed. The RO is always there discussing it with us to make it absolutely clear. Clearly the goal is to NOT DQ anyone. But I only shoot local matches. I'll know what happens at an Area match in a few months.

[Sarge]

Interesting comments here. At one of the clubs I shoot at, the stages are set up to be to be challenging and offer numerous "opportunities" for a 180. They actually caution you about it before the stages. I asked once why they did this. I was told the ROs at the Level 3 matches in our area were super strict about everything and especially the 180 rule. There are many instances where I know I could make the shot without breaking 180, but it would be close. The ROs say "why risk it", so I don't, even if it means more time to complete the stage. I may have become overly cautious, but I don't want to give the RO any reason to call me, even if he has 170 eyes.

The same thing happens at the clubs I shoot at. It's generally discussed during the walk through. Everyone knows before the 1st make ready command what a 180 DQ would be on that stage and more importantly how to keep from getting DQ'ed. The RO is always there discussing it with us to make it absolutely clear. Clearly the goal is to NOT DQ anyone. But I only shoot local matches. I'll know what happens at an Area match in a few months.

I generally try to point out a "dead man line" to shooters when targets are visible that could get them in trouble. Problem is WE ALL forget where things like that are when the beeper beeps

[shred]

Putting ROs right on the 180 line still seems to be a thing, even though I thought the RMI cadre is trying to discourage it.

Unless there's a specfic safety reason (eg: there's no side berm there or something), what reason is there to station an RO there in harms way?

[bret]

Has anyone been DQed for things they did not do, like breaking 180 when you know you did not (and captured on camera, and witnessed by squad mates, and even by another RO etc.)?

Why is USPSA giving a single RO so much power to send someone home, wasting the shooters few hundred dollars plus a couple days of time, without any appealing process?

Shouldn't the DQs be agreed by both ROs (not just one single RO) on the stage, and allow shooters to appeal with camera footage, maybe not allow shooter continue for the match, but provide a partial refund if the DQ is not justified?

The subjectivity, resulting from the lack of checks and balances, is astounding.

Video is not going to give the same perspective as the R.O. no reason to use it.

The R.O. is responsible for enforcing safety rules, if you don't think a single R.O. should be able to inform a shooter they DQ'd, maybe you are in the wrong sport, this isn't tennis, golf or some other sport, this game can have deadly consequences, I trust the R.O.'s to make the right calls.

If an R.O. calls a shooter on a D.Q. it doesn't have to happen in the exact spit at the exact moment the shooter committed the safety violation, it takes the human brain a little time to react to a situation and process it.

I had a guy trap a gun, it was a dropped gun even though it didn't hit the ground. Guy finished the stage and when the r.o. cleared him I called for the d.q. I was surprised the r.o. on the timer didn't call it and gave him the chance to stop him,,sine he didn't I called him on it.

Another match a guy at the unload and show clear broke 180, the other r.o. didn't catch it but guys on his squad did.

Different points of view, some r.o.'s depending on where they are and what they are watching see things differently.

On a 180, I have to be 110% certain. Or any DQ, for me to call it.

Partial refund for a DQ?

Why?

DQ's happen, it's something that can happen to anyone.

The checks and balance is if 1 R.O. see's a 180 violation or other safety violation, the shooter gets informed he DQ'd, no r.o. likes informing a shooter they dq'd, but it's part of the responsibility of being an r.o. enforcement of all rules fairly.

[remoandiris]

Why is USPSA giving a single RO so much power to send someone home, wasting the shooters few hundred dollars plus a couple days of time, without any appealing process?

Shouldn't the DQs be agreed by both ROs (not just one single RO) on the stage, and allow shooters to appeal with camera footage, maybe not allow shooter continue for the match, but provide a partial refund if the DQ is not justified?

The subjectivity, resulting from the lack of checks and balances, is astounding.

At a state match a few years ago, I DQ'd a shooter for breaking the 180 on a drop turner. I know what I saw. There were 4 other ROs on the stage. Guess what? None of them were paying attention to the shooter.

RM overturned my call. I know what I saw. Another shooter on that person's squad complained to the MD. That other shooter saw the 180 break, too. MD could do nothing, of course. I ran the shooter the second time and he was no where near breaking the 180 the second time around.

My fault for not citing 11.1.2. to the RM, but I will never work for that RM again.