Forgot Ear Protection

[Greg Jones]

I would also agree that the uneven enforcement of the rules is the bain of IDPA. What I am unclear about in this situation is if it is uneven enforcement or uneven interpretation of the rules? Clearly the IDPA rule book is very subjective on some rules and worded inaccurately on some rules that were not intended to be subjective (giving a FTN for any target that does not have at least one (1) four zone (minus 1) hit as one example). Given this fact, the rules are not going to be interpreted the same by everyone in all possible situations.

In this situation, the SO made a decision and given a similar situation I might make a different decision. Speaking only for myself, I believe that as an SO I have an obligation to apply the rules as outlined in the rule book in the manner documented in the SO course. That includes ensuring that the shooter has proper eye and ear protection before I hit the start button. If I overlook this, is there not the possibility that through my inaction I have interfered with the shooter, thus providing justification for a re-shoot under the rule book? Any additional input is welcome as constructive dialog on how to apply the rules can benefit the sport.

[Practical Use]

This is a game. It is a safety issue. Sac Law Man hit it right on the head - for goodness sakes, lets be safe, have fun, and play.

Stop the person - no game is worth hearing damage. If you peruse the issue of noise and hearing damage, it does not take much for a lasting hearing loss.

Now that safety is "reinstated" let's go on the the have fun and play - let the person reshoot.

Ed

[Sac Law Man]

Well said Ed..

Some of you guy are making

MOUNTAINS OUT OF MOLEHILLS..

[freeidaho]

Two seperate paragraphs, and two seperate thoughts.

Ken Reed

[droopus]

I was at the match on the same squad, and even though Lndshark was shooting a 9mm, safety is always first, so why the SO allowed a shooter to risk ear damage by insisting he continue is not within the IDPA philosophy.

Yes, it was a mental malfunction but the rules were kind of relaxed. There were a couple of questionable scoring calls that really went against the shooter, but he got credit anyway. When the SO shot, he got credit for a double which was definitely NOT a double. He (the SO) shot a stage where the timer did not register his time properly, but his target was 5 down. He did a reshoot and got a better score. Why were the original 5 points down ignored? He used a malfunction to better his score. Hey, no complaints here on those...it was a local club match, what would have been the harm in allowing Lndshark to put his ears on and reshoot?

Just the fact it affected his time to ask the SO if he could reshoot should have been enough. Sure it was the shooter's responsibility, but the fact the SO offered him either to continue or risk a DQ by walking off was unfair.

Would he have done the same thing with much louder rounds, like a .45 ACP? Isn't IDPA always supposed to give benefit of the doubt to the shooter?

Just my two cents.

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

Isn't IDPA always supposed to give benefit of the doubt to the shooter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All this "Benefit of the doubt to the shooter" is getting a little dragged out.

That part of the rules has always been aimed towards "close calls". With the way the term is being used in this thread, it sounds as if a shooter meant to engage a target but didn't he would be given the "Benefit of the doubt" and scored down zero.

The best thing I have seen come out of this thread is the statement that the rules are not evenly enforced. That was my reason for taking the different approach when I initially posted. It shows how different people can view the rules that this game is run by in different ways and all are correct.

The rules are poorly written and, therefore, can not be properly enforced. The fact that you would need a decision from HQ on something as mindless as this is a perfect example.

This is why IDPA is a game of many new shooters that often times do not stick around. The confusion hurts their heads.

Regards,

[Sac Law Man]

Round Gun Shooter...

When you figure out how to evenly enforce rules, drop the U.S. Supreme Court a line,,seems they can never agree on anything either.....

[Genghis]

I'm not an RO, but for what it's worth:

1. The RO DEFINITELY should have stopped the shooter. Safety is #1. No match is worth losing your hearing. Forcing him to go in or choose to zero the stage should have not been an option, at all.

2. The remaining question is whether the shooter should get DQ'ed or get a reshoot. There is room for disagreement here. On one hand hearing protection is much more the shooter's responsibility than the RO's. On the other hand, allowing a reshoot in similar circumstances would encourage shooters to stop the minute they realize the problem. And it doesn't give an unfair advantage or prejudice the other shooters, since the stoppage should happen at the very beginning of the stage.

[dfwmiket]

I'm not an RO, but for what it's worth:

1. The RO DEFINITELY should have stopped the shooter. Safety is #1. No match is worth losing your hearing. Forcing him to go in or choose to zero the stage should have not been an option, at all.

2. The remaining question is whether the shooter should get DQ'ed or get a reshoot. There is room for disagreement here. On one hand hearing protection is much more the shooter's responsibility than the RO's. On the other hand, allowing a reshoot in similar circumstances would encourage shooters to stop the minute they realize the problem. And it doesn't give an unfair advantage or prejudice the other shooters, since the stoppage should happen at the very beginning of the stage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey....you sound like a lawyer!! Oh wait........ you ARE!!!

[lndshrk]

I have really come to accept from all the pros and cons presented here, that the S.O. really made the right call based on the IDPA Rulebook, and that a re-shoot should not have been allowed. As pointed out by Round Gun Shooter, the Rulebook reads as follows:

C 11. No shooter can re-shoot a stage or string for gun or

“mental” malfunctions except when shooting the “Classifier”

match for classification purposes. If the classifier is part of a

scored match, no re-shoots are permitted. Re-shoots are

allowed for stage equipment malfunctions or SO interference

with the shooter.

Although the word "only" is not part of the rule, It seems clear that no re-shoot should have been permitted, but I don't think a DQ was appropriate either as it is not specified either. Had I stopped shooting, the stage would have been scored as shot and that would have been the end to it. Also, I do not believe the S.O. telling me to proceed contitutes "SO interference".

Perhaps the real issue is that I was allowed to continue without ear protection, rather than stopped and now we are doing a post mortem on that issue?

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

Round Gun Shooter...

When you figure out how to evenly enforce rules, drop the U.S. Supreme Court a line,,seems they can never agree on anything either.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I live in a black and white world so it is actually pretty easy for me. Frustrating for others but easy for me.

Best regards,

[Azone41]

If for a safety reason the SO was to stop the shooter. Then the competitor should be granted a reshoot because the SO did interfere with the course of fire. And safety should ALWAYS come first.

[Flexmoney]

I can't believe this topic is nearly 40 posts long.

SO stands for SAFETY Officer, right?

[Ted Murphy]

Perhaps the real issue is that I was allowed to continue without ear protection, rather than stopped and now we are doing a post mortem on that issue?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was it that "you were allowed to shoot without ears " or did the SO not notice?

I have seen guys lose their ears and the SO not notice cause he was watching the gun. That or he just didn't notice you did not have them on to begin with.

[Scooter]

How did you get off 6 shots before you realized it? I've seen people forget and also done it myself, but usually you stop after 1 maybe 2 rounds fired. I can't imagine getting off 6 shots.

Although this would be a subjective call, if you stop yourself after 1 maybe 2 rounds fired, I would give a reshoot. Obviously you would have stopped for safety reasons. If you shoot half way or 2/3 the way through the stage and decided you should have put your ears on, too bad. If you shot terrible and somehow you hearing protection manage to mysteriously fly off, FTDR.

[lndshrk]

TO MY BEST RECOLLECTION: Scenario was to get out of truck, close door, grab gun on top of drag dummy, load, fire six while dragging and retreating, dump dummy behind truck. With adrenalin rush (why we shoot this sport), got off six good shots, realized volume and ring in ears, stopped mid-way around truck, turned to SO with statement, "I have no ears", was told to, "keep going", and I did. THAT SIMPLE!

Afterwards, in very short discussion with SO and Scorekeeper, was told "I could have pulled ears down at any time", I responded that "I did not think that was safe with gun in hand", was told "I still had a free hand", and that was that. COF was scored, I thanked the SO and match went on. My hearing was not damaged and it seemed like a minor inconvenience with a couple of extra seconds added onto my score. Did not anticipate a DQ at that time.

This entire thread came about after coming home, sharing with my wife what had happened, and her saying there had to be something in the rules to address this issue. Other than finding that specifically a re-shoot would not be allowed, still not sure what should have happened based on how the rules are written and order of events.

Hey FLEX, what would you have done?

[Practical Use]

This is not intended as a criticism of Indshrk's decision to continue when the SO said to. It is only a personal comment.

Last month I started a stage, and forgot to put my ear plugs in. About three or four shots into it I realized I had no ear protection. I stopped myself - no way I am going to continue without my ear protection.

I turned to the SO and told him. He cleared me. Yes, I was allowed to reshoot.

If the SO had told me to continue, I would not have done so. If fact, had he or she told me to continue, I would likley have told them to P--- off.

I have been shooting IPSC and IDPA for about 13 years, I am not going to damage my hearing if I can avoid it.

I think that the SO and scorekeeper in Indshrk's situation did not have a clue what their role is. SO stands for safety officer. Shall I try that again, SO = safety officer. Shooting without ear protection is not safe - it can result in lasting damage.

Ed

[txaggie]

I was SO'ing a major match here in Texas in July and I stopped a shooter on the stage next to mine because he had neglected to put on his safety glasses. They were on the bill of his hat. Yes, he was given a reshoot because I stopped him. The number one role of an SO is to ensure that the shooter competes in a safe environment. The lack of safety glasses, REGARDLESS OF WHOSE FAULT IT WAS, created an extremely unsafe environment for the shooter.

Yes he was given a reshoot, yes it could have created an advantage, but at least he didn't lose an eye before we were able to get him stopped. I would have stopped lndshrk, gotten him unloaded, told him to go get reloaded, and run him again.

IT IS A GAME!!!! Nothing is more important in this situation than the shooter's safety, and hearing is definitely included in that. Now, if the shooter did it on purpose to gain an advantage, then I would have been suckered, but then who would be the bigger fool.

[Flexmoney]

Hey FLEX, what would you have done?

Stop the shooter and order the reshoot. Anything else is nutz, IMO.