USPSA range commands and an AD

[Gary Stevens]

Do you have a ruling from DNROI relating to this specific situation? 

[davsco]

from the recent post above (not for this incident [as it sounds like the competitor left and didn't contest the dq, so no ruling was called for] but another one that is very similar)

 

http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/uspsa/unloading122117.pdf

 

In other words, the competitor's deliberate actions dictate the call here. Intentionally firing a shot at a target, whether it's "aimed" or fired from the hip at a close target, is not a DQ per 10.4.3 because the unloading process was interrupted by the competitor to fire that shot. That is something we can all observe. If the process is not interrupted, and it's clear that the competitor is attempting to unload per the range command, then 10.4.3 applies and it's a disqualification for an AD under 10.4.3.

[GrumpyOne]

Would you all believe George Jones if he said no DQ? Because, that is his opinion as well. 

 

While it may seem like it was an unsafe act, you cannot DQ for it. How was it unsafe gun handling? He did nothing different then than he did 10 seconds earlier while he was in the middle of the stage...if it was unsafe at the end of the COF, it was unsafe in the middle as well, but you wouldn't call a DQ there.

[IHAVEGAS]

32 minutes ago, davsco said:

from the recent post above (not for this incident [as it sounds like the competitor left and didn't contest the dq, so no ruling was called for] but another one that is very similar)

 

http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/uspsa/unloading122117.pdf

 

In other words, the competitor's deliberate actions dictate the call here. Intentionally firing a shot at a target, whether it's "aimed" or fired from the hip at a close target, is not a DQ per 10.4.3 because the unloading process was interrupted by the competitor to fire that shot. That is something we can all observe. If the process is not interrupted, and it's clear that the competitor is attempting to unload per the range command, then 10.4.3 applies and it's a disqualification for an AD under 10.4.3.

 

So, does that mean that it is official that Gary was wrong?

 

[Gary Stevens]

Until it is an official ruling the jury is still out.

[Joe4d]

If lighting off a negligent round isnt unsafe, I dont know what is. Really kinda ridiculous the way this section of the rules are applied.. 
10.5 clearly says its not an all inclusive list, yet for some reason unless the specific act isnt spelled out, it some how isnt unsafe. 
I worked as a CRO under Gary Stevens he was also my RO instructor, so I know how he would rule and I would rule accordingly,,, Doesnt mean I like it and agree that interpretation.
IMO thats just obvious USGH... Sorta like porn,,,  I cant exactly define it, but I know it when I see it.

 

[Mikeski]

OK so in the OP it was said the shooter racked the slide and did NOT disengage the magazine. So why is that different that the shooter thinking he had a jam and racking then firming a shot. IMO the shooter did not start the unloading process. 

[David.Hylton]

This is clearly a DQ according to 10.4.3. A shot which occurs while loading, reloading or unloading a handgun. This includes any shot fired during the procedures outlined in Rule 8.3.1 (MR) and Rule 8.3.7 (ULASC)

 

What am I missing?

[motosapiens]

6 hours ago, GrumpyOne said:

Would you all believe George Jones if he said no DQ? Because, that is his opinion as well. 

 

I would respect his opinion, and I wouldn't complain if he was the RM and overruled me, but I would still believe that he was wrong and troy was right. As troy mentions in the article linked above, it's one of many moments that require an RO to make a decision. To me it seems both obviously unsafe, and clearly dq-able within the rules. Therefore, no-brainer.

[motosapiens]

7 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

Do you have a ruling from DNROI relating to this specific situation? 

I have the article I linked. I don't know if that constitutes a 'ruling', but for folks like myself that lack your experience, it seems like sound reasoning. I also have my own background in applied mathematics and reasoning. I think you make some excellent points as well. It's a gray area.... but every time I've seen it *in person*, it has been way towards either the black or white side of gray, and not a difficult or controversial call.

[Kraj]

2 hours ago, David.Hylton said:

This is clearly a DQ according to 10.4.3. A shot which occurs while loading, reloading or unloading a handgun. This includes any shot fired during the procedures outlined in Rule 8.3.1 (MR) and Rule 8.3.7 (ULASC)

 

What am I missing?

8.3.7 is if your finished unload and show clear. 

 

If you aren't finished you are free to keep shooting, that's where the differing though are

[IHAVEGAS]

6 hours ago, Kraj said:

8.3.7 is if your finished unload and show clear. 

 

If you aren't finished you are free to keep shooting, that's where the differing though are

 

Not with me, I see it this way. 

 

9 hours ago, Joe4d said:

If lighting off a negligent round isnt unsafe, I dont know what is. Really kinda ridiculous the way this section of the rules are applied.. 
10.5 clearly says its not an all inclusive list, yet for some reason unless the specific act isnt spelled out, it some how isnt unsafe. 
 

 

But really just want to do what is supposed to be done. It would be nice to remove "not an all inclusive list" from the rule book if we are supposed to use the dq list as an all inclusive list, or else, perhaps better, to make rulings official as things like this surface. 

 

Troy's reasoning for ruling a dq and others reasoning for ruling against it both look at the rules as if they were an inclusive list.  

Edited May 3, 2018 by IHAVEGAS

[ChuckS]

On 5/1/2018 at 9:07 PM, Youngeyes said:

"The RO had not continued the timer"

How does one not continue the timer?

[Youngeyes]

35 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

How does one not continue the timer?

I meant to say that the shot was not recorded. The RO was asked and stated that he did not have a time for the event. My understanding is that if the RM had ruled no AD and....

1.the shooter had properly responded to the IFULSC and ICHDH, after the shot

2.the total time including that last shot was recorded

 then the stage was finished and the time and score recorded. 

If the shot was not ruled an AD and that shot was not recorded in the stage time, then it would be a reshoot. I'm probably wrong, so perhaps Gary can again clarify. 

[ChuckS]

Yeah, that's my take. If it's not AD, the time should count. Bad timer technique. Keep it in position to record until RIC. But glance at it at IYAF, in case it picks up unloading noise.

[pjb45]

.......racked the slide back with out dropping the mag, ......

 

Without dropping the mag is key.  He did not engage the mag release so technically he was NOT in the process of dropping his mag thus NOT unloading.

 

No DQ.

 

Do you want to claim he was LOADING because he was loading another round into his gun.  He fired his gun.  This is an allowable action.  If I rack my slide to continue shooting, are you going to call DQ?

[motosapiens]

56 minutes ago, pjb45 said:

.......racked the slide back with out dropping the mag, ......

 

Without dropping the mag is key.  He did not engage the mag release so technically he was NOT in the process of dropping his mag thus NOT unloading.

 

No DQ.

 

Do you want to claim he was LOADING because he was loading another round into his gun.  He fired his gun.  This is an allowable action.  If I rack my slide to continue shooting, are you going to call DQ?

 

I'm only going to call a dq if you clearly begin the ULSC process and then negligently fire a shot. It is not difficult to tell whether you intended to fire the shot or it was an ND.

 

If you interrupt the ULSC process and decide to fire an intentional shot, no problem. It is easy to tell which is which.

 

I honestly don't see what all the hoopla is about. This isn't really any different from the judgement call RO's must make about a shooter's intention regarding shots (or finger in the trigger guard) while moving. It's ok if you are aiming or shooting at targets. It's not ok if you are not. Sometimes people have an AD while moving. Is it that hard to tell whether a shot is intentional or not under those circumstances? Is it that hard to tell whether someone is actually aiming or shooting at targets?

Edited May 3, 2018 by motosapiens

[MikeBurgess]

I think this is a perfect example of why the RO/RM dynamic is so valuable in our sport. with that 2 party dynamic it is much easier for the RO on the spot to make the decision they think is correct, in this case likely err on the side of safety and issue the DQ.

Now the RO can go on and keep the stage running while the RM and the Shooter decide how to proceed. 

The RM may over turn the DQ , he may not,  then the shooter could ask for arbitration if they want, the shooter may decide that regardless of what the RM rules he is done for the day regardless. 

All the options are just fine and should not cause any consternation on any ones part. I have been over ruled as a RO before, no problem with it. I have over ruled ROs as a RM still no problem. Still haven't been involved in an arb. but I carry a $100 bill to every major match just in case. 

 

 

 

 

[Youngeyes]

40 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

I think this is a perfect example of why the RO/RM dynamic is so valuable in our sport.

 

+1

[Gary Stevens]

4 hours ago, Youngeyes said:

I meant to say that the shot was not recorded. The RO was asked and stated that he did not have a time for the event. My understanding is that if the RM had ruled no AD and....

1.the shooter had properly responded to the IFULSC and ICHDH, after the shot

2.the total time including that last shot was recorded

 then the stage was finished and the time and score recorded. 

If the shot was not ruled an AD and that shot was not recorded in the stage time, then it would be a reshoot. I'm probably wrong, so perhaps Gary can again clarify. 

 

What he said..

[Mcfoto]

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

I think this is a perfect example of why the RO/RM dynamic is so valuable in our sport. with that 2 party dynamic it is much easier for the RO on the spot to make the decision they think is correct, in this case likely err on the side of safety and issue the DQ.

Now the RO can go on and keep the stage running while the RM and the Shooter decide how to proceed. 

The RM may over turn the DQ , he may not,  then the shooter could ask for arbitration if they want, the shooter may decide that regardless of what the RM rules he is done for the day regardless. 

All the options are just fine and should not cause any consternation on any ones part. I have been over ruled as a RO before, no problem with it. I have over ruled ROs as a RM still no problem. Still haven't been involved in an arb. but I carry a $100 bill to every major match just in case. 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m going with this since Mike is most likely to be the one to confirm or over-rule any of my decisions for the foreseeable future.

[Gary Stevens]

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

I think this is a perfect example of why the RO/RM dynamic is so valuable in our sport. with that 2 party dynamic it is much easier for the RO on the spot to make the decision they think is correct, in this case likely err on the side of safety and issue the DQ.

Now the RO can go on and keep the stage running while the RM and the Shooter decide how to proceed. 

The RM may over turn the DQ , he may not,  then the shooter could ask for arbitration if they want, the shooter may decide that regardless of what the RM rules he is done for the day regardless. 

All the options are just fine and should not cause any consternation on any ones part. I have been over ruled as a RO before, no problem with it. I have over ruled ROs as a RM still no problem. Still haven't been involved in an arb. but I carry a $100 bill to every major match just in case. 

 

 

 

 

 

Also an arb involves two sides. It is up to the official to present and prove the charge. While you may not normally arb a safety issue, you may arb to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification.

 

It's not as easy as just handing it off to the RM and saying "handel it".

 

Apparently DNROI has an opinion, and also has authority by virtue of his position, but until an official ruling is made, different people will make different calls based on the same action. Not a good situation.

[IHAVEGAS]

I guess in the end the real learning is that if you game the unload & show clear process instead of waiting for the range commands it can save you from a dq. 

 

[MikeBurgess]

1 hour ago, Gary Stevens said:

 

Also an arb involves two sides. It is up to the official to present and prove the charge. While you may not normally arb a safety issue, you may arb to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification.

 

It's not as easy as just handing it off to the RM and saying "handel it".

 

Apparently DNROI has an opinion, and also has authority by virtue of his position, but until an official ruling is made, different people will make different calls based on the same action. Not a good situation.

I may have over simplified it but the gist is as the RO make your call and don't worry too much about being wrong as there several steps a shooter that disagrees may take to remedy it if they feel wronged.  

[rooster]

I believe there is no recourse on a safety call.