DQ’d. AD into a wall during transition

[MemphisMechanic]

9 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Agreed, I was trying to figure out what wgj3 meant by "engaging" hard cover.

 

Usually it mean a makeup shot.

[wgj3]

18 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Agreed, I was trying to figure out what wgj3 meant by "engaging" hard cover.

Still just pointing out that as we examine the OP further, I'm finding it even harder to quote a rule that calls for the DQ...

 

I'm not saying that what he did was something to practice or encourage, but I still don't see a rule to use to issue the DQ.

 

More importantly, this seems to be one of situations where "some" think it should be a DQ and are looking for a way to support that call versus letting the man shoot his stage when we couldn't determine what he did that would absolutely result in being DQ'd from match...

[MemphisMechanic]

24 minutes ago, wgj3 said:

More importantly, this seems to be one of situations where "some" think it should be a DQ and are looking for a way to support that call

 

Do me a favor: Persuadingly argue that what happened was safe gunhandling.  Set the rulebook aside, and tell me this is ideal behavior you’d want your friends and family to want to learn to emulate.

 

Right. It isn’t. He made a mistake that is obvious and simple to correct, and that’s not a big deal. But it shouldn’t be acceptable in a USPSA match where 100% safe gunhandling is the expected standard.

 

Quote

... we couldn't determine what he did that would absolutely result in being DQ'd from match...

 

This is actually quite easy. DQ for unsafe gunhandling. The list of things which qualify for that is purposefully vague and open-ended. Go check the phrasing carefully.

 

You never know what crazy new unsafe action you’ll see at a match, and to be frank, we’re expected to apply some common sense when acting as ROs. So they gave us room to use our own best judgement.

 

If I put a round into a wall nowhere near a target someday, I’d expect nothing less of the RO who is running me when I commit such an unsafe action.The OP owned up to his mistake, and agrees with that assesment.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by MemphisMechanic

[wgj3]

I get those points 100%! Promise.

 

But we have a rule that says walls are hardcover, which is ok to engage.

Round didn't strike ground w/in 10ft of shooter.

Shooter wasn't moving when it happened.

 

I do think that the above quoted unsafe gun handling DQ has the best chance of sticking if it were issued as such...

Edited July 27, 2018 by wgj3

[wgj3]

What if wall was only a foot wide with a target on either side and he put one through it...?

2 targets separated by a no shoot and shooter hits NS, you know he didnt mean to put the round in the NS, DQ since he must've AD'd into it?

Edited July 27, 2018 by wgj3

[wtturn]

 
This is actually quite easy. DQ for unsafe gunhandling. The list of things which qualify for that is purposefully vague and open-ended. Go check the phrasing carefully.
 
You never know what crazy new unsafe action you’ll see at a match, and to be frank, we’re expected to apply some common sense when acting as ROs. So they gave us room to use our own best judgement.
 
If I put a round into a wall nowhere near a target someday, I’d expect nothing less of the RO who is running me when I commit such an unsafe action.The OP owned up to his mistake, and agrees with that assesment.
 
 

Yeah, but that's not how it works.

There is nothing per se unsafe about firing a shot (downrange, that neither goes over the berm or strikes within 10 feet of the competitor) that fails to hit a target. Otherwise every mike is unsafe gunhandling. There is nothing per se unsafe about lighting one off early, no matter what the round impacts, within the confines of the above listed criteria and others in 10.4.

Further, this scenario doesn't require any particularly difficult extrapolations beyond the written word of the rulebook as you seem to imply. I can imagine an unsafe act which would not be directly addressed by the rules, but the present scenario is directly addressed. 10.4 and 10.5 by extension deal are exactly precise and on point. No imagination required.

The rules leave room for the competitor to make mistakes and accidents that are not inherently unsafe. This circumstance falls within that built-in cushion.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[Sdlrodeo]

32 minutes ago, wgj3 said:

What if wall was only a foot wide with a target on either side and he put one through it...?

2 targets separated by a no shoot and shooter hits NS, you know he didnt mean to put the round in the NS, DQ since he must've AD'd into it?

 

This is sort of the gist of my whole argument. I think we all agree shooting a wall is is not automatically a DQ. We’ve all shot walls. More than likely we’ve shot walls within a few inches of a target/port. That doesn’t qualify as a DQ. 

 

That was my initial question.

How far ‘into’ the wall (away from the edge/port) does it need to be? 

 

I did take the NROI RO class.

I was told that transitioning to another shooting position was considered movement even though I didn’t move my feet. 

 

My my situation was slightly different because I broke the sight picture and was pulling the gun back toward my torso (similar to low ready).

 

My question(s) is(are):

What if I wasn’t? What if I was transitioning around a barrel?

What about the ‘end’ of a wall (wall is perpendicular to 180 with targets on either side) that is only as wide as the 2x2 the mesh is staples to?

Is that movement?

 

 

[Janskis]

On 7/27/2018 at 3:07 PM, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Another case where IPSC and USPSA rules differ? 

Ah, once again I forgot that this was most probably a USPSA rules question 

 

Sorry!

[Janskis]

On 7/28/2018 at 2:54 AM, Sdlrodeo said:

 

This is sort of the gist of my whole argument. I think we all agree shooting a wall is is not automatically a DQ. We’ve all shot walls. More than likely we’ve shot walls within a few inches of a target/port. That doesn’t qualify as a DQ. 

 

That was my initial question.

How far ‘into’ the wall (away from the edge/port) does it need to be? 

 

I did take the NROI RO class.

I was told that transitioning to another shooting position was considered movement even though I didn’t move my feet. 

 

My my situation was slightly different because I broke the sight picture and was pulling the gun back toward my torso (similar to low ready).

 

My question(s) is(are):

What if I wasn’t? What if I was transitioning around a barrel?

What about the ‘end’ of a wall (wall is perpendicular to 180 with targets on either side) that is only as wide as the 2x2 the mesh is staples to?

Is that movement?

 

 

Bear in mind that all my comments are based on IPSC rules, which I dare to assume MOSTLY the same regarding safety.

 

Movement in IPSC is defined as

8.5.1.1 Taking more than one step in any direction.

8.5.1.2 Changing shooting position (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing etc.)" so mere transitioning to an another target is not movement.

 

Also, taking a followup step with your "back foot" does not count as a new step; you can first take a step with one foot and then bring the remaining one next to the first one or to the best balance point and you still are NOT moving.

 

Breaking the sight picture and shooting in itself does not constitute for an AD, you can in fact shoot instinctively. If it were, every single open shooter should be DQ'd when shooting while not seeing the dot. It (usually) is stupid yes, but not DQable. I have shot several close-by targets positioned awkwardly low immediately after a port with a CAR-style hold and position, works a lot better than trying to look for the dot in an awkward position!

 

AD is defined in the rules, the shot has to land X distance from the shooter (unless hitting a target) or over the berm.

 

For the barrel and end-of-wall question, see the rules explanation above.

[Sdlrodeo]

On 7/27/2018 at 12:16 PM, teros135 said:

 

If you "can't see" the wall, perhaps your vision needs checking.  If your mind is "playing tricks" on you, perhaps this might interfere with ability to shoot safely.  If you just made a mistake, just take the penalty, learn from it, and move on.

 

 

Here is a stage from last weekend.  These mesh walls are pretty darned transparent. In the below images I cannot ‘easily’ tell which picture has the target visible in the port and which does not? I have to look pretty hard but I CAN easily see the targets and shoot safely. 

 

 

 

[teros135]

15 hours ago, Sdlrodeo said:

 

Here is a stage from last weekend.  These mesh walls are pretty darned transparent. In the below images I cannot ‘easily’ tell which picture has the target visible in the port and which does not? I have to look pretty hard but I CAN easily see the targets and shoot safely. 

 

 

 

 

You can't?  Really? So did lots of folks at the match have multiple M-M-FTSAs on that stage, with the "invisible" walls?

[Sdlrodeo]

6 hours ago, teros135 said:

 

You can't?  Really? So did lots of folks at the match have multiple M-M-FTSAs on that stage, with the "invisible" walls?

 

No, not a lot of people that I know of. There could be an argument that people may have shot through the non-port section of the wall and no one would be the wiser but that’s sort of another topic. My point with showing these pictures was that it is possible to have your ‘mind play tricks’ AND still be safe to shoot. 

 

I didn’t have a problem because during the walk through (with plenty of time) I was able to discern where the port was and assign a shooting position in my stage plan. However, in this particular stage with the wall material used, I think it would not indicate unsafe shooting if a shooter shot through the wall because he/she thought it was a port. I’m not a pro, but I’d consider myself a seasoned shooter and I have darned good vision. I didn’t have much problem with this stage but I could see how someone might shoot through a port that’s not a port in that wall. Especially if one were ‘on the clock’ as BoyGlock indicated happened during his run. If that happened, i wouldn’t consider it unsafe at all.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Sdlrodeo

[BoyGlock]

Yup. The screen walls were pretty transparent. My argument then was that my shot was aimed and even hit an A then i re-engaged the target with 2 more in the port it was visible. The hits were 3 As. Right after I triggered the first shot I realized I was not in the port. Im shooting open w/ reddot so my eyes must have tricked me as my focus was on the target. The ro did not stop me but after the run he tried to dq me. Fortunately the RM knew better. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by BoyGlock
I was about 1-2 full steps away from the port when I shot thru the barricade

[andrewtac]

At an area match, i called a DQ on a guy who shot what I think I remember as 13’ from where we were standing.  When I said if finished unload show clear, I did my normal pause and he tried to beat the hammer down call.  Gun went bang.  Had I said if clear hammer down would have been a DQ.  Similar, there is no specific rule saying he can’t do that.  Everyone knew the shooter thought he unloaded and was dropping the hammer (he left the mag in when he cycled).  The Senior RM I believe wrote most of or had a large part in writing the rules.  Was it unsafe, nope round impacted the ground and stopped.  Just like the OP’s shot, went into a wall then berm, nothing unsafe.  Maybe the rules have changed since then, but sounds like they haven’t.  In both situations I personally probably would have stopped, but that is not in the rules.

 

there is a thread here somewhere on here, many of the same points came up.

Edited August 6, 2018 by andrewtac

[muncie21]

I have seen (and done so myself) quite a few people hit the wall of a port, while transition to shoot a target in the port.  So no, I do not agree that shooting a wall during a transition in itself is reason for a DQ.  There would need to be some other factors in the equation.

[Cypress]

On 8/5/2018 at 6:53 PM, andrewtac said:

At an area match, i called a DQ on a guy who shot what I think I remember as 13’ from where we were standing.  When I said if finished unload show clear, I did my normal pause and he tried to beat the hammer down call.  Gun went bang.  Had I said if clear hammer down would have been a DQ.  Similar, there is no specific rule saying he can’t do that.  Everyone knew the shooter thought he unloaded and was dropping the hammer (he left the mag in when he cycled).  The Senior RM I believe wrote most of or had a large part in writing the rules.  Was it unsafe, nope round impacted the ground and stopped.  Just like the OP’s shot, went into a wall then berm, nothing unsafe.  Maybe the rules have changed since then, but sounds like they haven’t.  In both situations I personally probably would have stopped, but that is not in the rules.

 

there is a thread here somewhere on here, many of the same points came up.

 

Was the shooter DQ'd or not? 

[andrewtac]

57 minutes ago, Cypress said:

 

Was the shooter DQ'd or not? 

Nope, overturned by the guy who I think wrote most of the rules or was part of writing them.