PCC started with safety off D/Q or not

[Sandbagger123]

had an odd situation at a match .  A PCC shooter was started with safety off. the main RO did not notice, but the other RO did and was DQ for not having the safety on.  MD/RM was called to make the decision to if DQ was good.  he upheld the DQ stating its up to the shooter to be sure the safety is on.  

 

there was quite a discussion later on if that was the correct call.   MD is saying its up to the shooter to make sure the safety is on and even if the ro started them its still a DQ.  The other side says that he never should have been started as he was not in the ready condition and should have been a reshoot. 

 

We have some really sharp RO on here. So whats your opinion

[ChuckS]

What was the rule that they cited when they DQ'ed the poor guy? Having the safety off is just an improper ready condition (8.1.2.1). The RO screwed up by starting the shooter. If it was a DQ, there would likely be something in 10.5.11 for PCC. There isn't.

 

ETA: I think that Troy mentioned this in one of his articles in the "Down Range" email that they send out every week. And/Or it may of been in the magazine formerly known as "Front Sight".

[driver8M3]

From the 8.2.18 edition of Down Range:

 

http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/uspsa/pcc-start-positions080218.pdf

 

PCC Start Position and Start Condition - I had a question about a Downrange news brief article I wrote stating that weak side starts aren’t legal. Still true, but at a recent Area match, some of the start positions were listed as “holding the PCC with the weak hand, strong hand naturally at your side”. I can see how this would be confusing, but it’s not a weak side start—the carbine was touching the belt on the strong side, but being held with the weak hand. A subtle difference, but an important one.

 

Another question dealt with safety application on PCC starts:

 

Scenario 1 -PCC shooter is given the "Make Ready" command at which point they load their PCC but do not engage the safety. Since they have not fully assumed the ready position, if the RO starts them would it then be governed by 8.3.4.1 as a "false start" and the shooter be given a reshoot?

 

Scenario 2 -PCC shooter is given the "Make Ready" command at which point they load their PCC and engage the safety.Following the "Standby" command and prior to the start signal the shooter disengages the safety. Would this be a "creeping" procedural governed by 10.2.6 since they moved into a more advantageous shooting position or posture and because an equivalent of USPSA Multi-Gun rule 10.5.10 doesn't exist?

 

What to do?

 

Neither is a procedural, nor are they considered a false start (see above), or creeping (ditto). Both scenarios would be a stop, apply safety, and restart from "Are You Ready", per PCC 8.2.3 and HG 8.3.1. The safety being applied is defined as part of the start position/condition, therefore, the competitor must comply.

[NickBlasta]

If the gun is in the competitor's hands, 8.1.2.1 applies. The RO is to instruct the competitor to assume the start position by placing his safety on. If the competitor was already started, 8.2.2 applies:

8.2.2          The competitor assumes the start position as specified in the written stage briefing.  A competitor who attempts or completes a course of fire where an incorrect start position was used must be required by a Range Official to reshoot the course of fire.

 

If the gun is placed on a table, or otherwise no longer in the competitor's hands with the safety off, it is a DQ under 10.5.3 same as a handgun.

[bret]

7 hours ago, Sandbagger123 said:

had an odd situation at a match .  A PCC shooter was started with safety off. the main RO did not notice, but the other RO did and was DQ for not having the safety on.  MD/RM was called to make the decision to if DQ was good.  he upheld the DQ stating its up to the shooter to be sure the safety is on.  

 

there was quite a discussion later on if that was the correct call.   MD is saying its up to the shooter to make sure the safety is on and even if the ro started them its still a DQ.  The other side says that he never should have been started as he was not in the ready condition and should have been a reshoot. 

 

We have some really sharp RO on here. So whats your opinion

The R.O. and The RM need to read the rule book.

 

It is not a DQ unless the gun was put down loaded with the safety off.

[HCH]

No DQ.

 

That being said, I could see a procedural if someone kicked off the safety after “are you ready” and especially after “standby”. 

[ChuckS]

1 hour ago, HCH said:

No DQ.

 

That being said, I could see a procedural if someone kicked off the safety after “are you ready” and especially after “standby”. 

What rule is that?

[HCH]

3 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

What rule is that?

 

How is it not creeping?

 

this also begs the question: why do we have a procedural for creeping? Is it on the RO or the shooter to make sure the correct start position is assumed after “standby” and before “beep”??

[usmc1974]

Hmmmm .... if you are standing still with the gun at the low ready, and the safety is on, are you really ready?

[waktasz]

13 hours ago, bret said:

The R.O. and The RM need to read the rule book.

 

It is not a DQ unless the gun was put down loaded with the safety off.

 

You left out the most important part. The shooter needs to know the rules to prevent from these situations. Yes the RO and RM was wrong in this case, but I blame the shooter more.

[NickBlasta]

2 hours ago, ChuckS said:

What rule is that?

 

10.2.6

 

Though if you as the RO noticed that the shooter turned off the safety (especially merely after "are you ready") it is a false start and you should ask the competitor to re-assume the start position. If he flipped it off right before you beeped, it would be creeping.

Edited April 1, 2019 by NickBlasta

[Corrado_kid]

15 hours ago, NickBlasta said:

If the gun is in the competitor's hands, 8.1.2.1 applies. The RO is to instruct the competitor to assume the start position by placing his safety on. If the competitor was already started, 8.2.2 applies:

8.2.2          The competitor assumes the start position as specified in the written stage briefing.  A competitor who attempts or completes a course of fire where an incorrect start position was used must be required by a Range Official to reshoot the course of fire.

 

If the gun is placed on a table, or otherwise no longer in the competitor's hands with the safety off, it is a DQ under 10.5.3 same as a handgun.

Exactly as nick commented. I had the same situation with a competitor not having his safety on and instructed him to engage his safety. His reply was it is in, which I could clearly see it was not, and I was familiar with the style pcc he was shooting. He reluctantly engaged the safety and continued the day.

He however was not used to pulling the trigger before flagging the gun, I explained that he still had to hammer down before he flagged the gun. 

[ChuckS]

2 hours ago, NickBlasta said:

 

10.2.6

 

Though if you as the RO noticed that the shooter turned off the safety (especially merely after "are you ready") it is a false start and you should ask the competitor to re-assume the start position. If he flipped it off right before you beeped, it would be creeping.

10.2.6 says nothing about moving a thumb. It's either moving towards a firearm or moving body position.

It isn't a false start since nothing was started. Is there a penalty for making un-ready?

 

I am just not seeing a defensable path to any existing rule except 10.6 if the guy won't stop doing it.

[ima45dv8]

As has been said, it's not an automatic DQ.

However...

 

3 hours ago, waktasz said:

...but I blame the shooter more.

As I read the OP, that was my reaction, too.

[NickBlasta]

2 hours ago, ChuckS said:

10.2.6 says nothing about moving a thumb. It's either moving towards a firearm or moving body position.

It isn't a false start since nothing was started. Is there a penalty for making un-ready?

 

I am just not seeing a defensable path to any existing rule except 10.6 if the guy won't stop doing it.

 

Your thumb is part of your body. You're physically moving out of the start position in the interest of it being advantageous to your score.

[bret]

12 hours ago, waktasz said:

 

You left out the most important part. The shooter needs to know the rules to prevent from these situations. Yes the RO and RM was wrong in this case, but I blame the shooter more.

The R.O. and especially the R.M. should know the rules better than anyone else, they are the match officials. 

[waktasz]

11 minutes ago, bret said:

The R.O. and especially the R.M. should know the rules better than anyone else, they are the match officials. 

 

That's true, but it's up to you as a competitor to know the rules of the sport. The "RM" at most local matches is usually the MD, and he's not guaranteed to know the rules

Edited April 1, 2019 by waktasz

[bret]

14 minutes ago, waktasz said:

 

That's true, but it's up to you as a competitor to know the rules of the sport. The "RM" at most local matches is usually the MD, and he's not guaranteed to know the rules

I agree many of professional R.O.'s working matches and some RM's working matches don't know the rules, but people blindly follow what they said.

 

Had a guy get DQd for holstering a gun without a magazine, no round in the chamber because the safety was off.

 

I tried showing the RM it wasn't a DQ, and he refused to look at the rules I told him applied.

 

So the RM screwed a shooter because he didn't know the rules and refused to look at them.

 

The RM's should be the most knowledgeable about the rules but even at Nationals that isn't always the case, Troy is usually pretty good but some of the others not so much.

[waktasz]

You're preaching to the choir my man.

[DKorn]

1 hour ago, bret said:

I agree many of professional R.O.'s working matches and some RM's working matches don't know the rules, but people blindly follow what they said.

 

Had a guy get DQd for holstering a gun without a magazine, no round in the chamber because the safety was off.

 

I tried showing the RM it wasn't a DQ, and he refused to look at the rules I told him applied.

 

So the RM screwed a shooter because he didn't know the rules and refused to look at them.

 

The RM's should be the most knowledgeable about the rules but even at Nationals that isn't always the case, Troy is usually pretty good but some of the others not so much.

 

This is why arbitration exists... not saying it’s necessarily worth the money to go for it all the time, but when the rules clearly don’t support the call that was made (I’m assuming that the DQ was made under 10.5.11 or one of its sub-rules, and 10.5.11 specifically states a loaded firearm) it might make sense to go for it. 

[driver8M3]

4 minutes ago, DKorn said:

 

This is why arbitration exists... not saying it’s necessarily worth the money to go for it all the time, but when the rules clearly don’t support the call that was made (I’m assuming that the DQ was made under 10.5.11 or one of its sub-rules, and 10.5.11 specifically states a loaded firearm) it might make sense to go for it. 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most people think arbitration is always $100. It's not:

 

11.4.1
Amount – As set by the Match Organizers, the appeal fee to enable an appellant to appeal to arbitration will be US$100.00 or the equivalent of the maximum individual match entry fee (whichever is lower). An appeal brought by the Range Master in respect of a match issue will not incur a fee.

[DKorn]

1 minute ago, driver8M3 said:

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most people think arbitration is always $100. It's not:

 

11.4.1
Amount – As set by the Match Organizers, the appeal fee to enable an appellant to appeal to arbitration will be US$100.00 or the equivalent of the maximum individual match entry fee (whichever is lower). An appeal brought by the Range Master in respect of a match issue will not incur a fee.

 

I think the reason most people just say $100 is that it’s going to be $100 at just about any major match, and that if you keep $100 around in case you need it then you’ll always have enough. 

[StealthyBlagga]

The rule on creeping is pretty clear to me as written:

10.2.6 A competitor who is creeping (e.g. moving hands towards the handgun, a reloading device or ammunition) or physically moving to a more advantageous shooting position or posture at the start signal, will incur one procedural penalty.

Moving a PCC safety to the off-position appears to meet the requirements of the highlighted section. The problem is that we have this rule on creeping, but then there is uncertainty amongst officials about when to intervene and restart vs. apply the penalty. This is not a PCC-only issue, but has always been a problem with handgunners. As written, the creeping has to be happening "at the start signal". It seems there are three likely scenarios, and this is how I would handle them per my reading of the rules:

 

1) The shooter flicks the PCC off-safe before the "ARE YOU READY" command. In this case, the shooter is no longer in compliance with the required start position so the RO should instruct them to reset and re-issue the command. No penalty would apply.

2) The shooter flicks the PCC off-safe after the "STANDBY..." command and before the START SIGNAL, but one of the ROs sees this happening and has time to intervene before the START SIGNAL is given. In this case, the shooter is no longer in compliance with the required start position so the RO should instruct them to reset and re-issue the command. The same as if the shooter is moving another part of his body (e.g. shifting his weight). No penalty would apply.

3) The shooter flicks the PCC off-safe after the "STANDBY..." command and just before the START SIGNAL, and one of the ROs sees this happening but does not have time time to intervene before the START SIGNAL is given. To me this meets the "at the start signal" test. In this case, the conditions of 10.2.6 have been satisfied and a procedural will apply. The shooter does not get stopped and restarted.

 

My logic is this: If USPSA really intended for the ROs always to stop the shooter and restart them, then why even have a creeping rule? It makes no sense that this rule exist if it was never going to be enforced. The cleanest and most consistent way to do so is as outlined above.

 

I recall that Troy seemingly wrote something to the contrary in a recent article (PCC shooter should always be stopped and restarted (?)... I already used that article to line my birdcage ). However, DNROI or not, his opinion, when not supported by a formal, published ruling, should not negate the plain language of the rules as written (except, arguably, at matches for which he is the RM). If he and the BoD want to change or eliminate the creeping rule, then I would not be opposed (indeed, I would encourage it), but it needs to be done officially and documented in the rule book - otherwise, shooters will continue to be subject to arbitrary application of 10.2.6 .

 

One last comment. I do NOT think 8.2.2 applies in this case. I would use that rule in circumstances where creeping was not occurring, but rather that the wrong position was inadvertently used (e.g. shooter started hands by sides, should have been surrender). In the context of this discussion, one could maybe make the case for restart/reshoot if the safety was never on, but flicking it off as discussed above clearly puts the creeping rule into play.

Edited April 1, 2019 by StealthyBlagga

[Sarge]

3 minutes ago, StealthyBlagga said:

The rule on creeping is pretty clear to me as written:

10.2.6 A competitor who is creeping (e.g. moving hands towards the handgun, a reloading device or ammunition) or physically moving to a more advantageous shooting position or posture at the start signal, will incur one procedural penalty.

Moving a PCC safety to the off-position appears to meet the requirements of the highlighted section. The problem is that we have this rule on creeping, but then there is uncertainty amongst officials about when to intervene and restart vs. apply the penalty. This is not a PCC-only issue, but has always been a problem with handgunners. As written, the creeping has to be happening "at the start signal". It seems there are three likely scenarios, and this is how I would handle them per my reading of the rules:

 

1) The shooter flicks the PCC off-safe before the "ARE YOU READY" command. In this case, the shooter is no longer in compliance with the required start position so the RO should instruct them to reset and re-issue the command. No penalty would apply.

2) The shooter flicks the PCC off-safe after the "STANDBY..." command and before the START SIGNAL, but one of the ROs sees this happening and has time to intervene before the START SIGNAL is given. In this case, the shooter is no longer in compliance with the required start position so the RO should instruct them to reset and re-issue the command. The same as if the shooter is moving another part of his body (e.g. shifting his weight). No penalty would apply.

3) The shooter flicks the PCC off-safe after the "STANDBY..." command and just before the START SIGNAL, and one of the ROs sees this happening but does not have time time to intervene before the START SIGNAL is given. To me this meets the "at the start signal" test. In this case, the conditions of 10.2.6 have been satisfied and a procedural will apply. The shooter does not get stopped and restarted.

 

My logic is this: If USPSA really intended for the ROs always to stop the shooter and restart them, then why even have a creeping rule? It makes no sense that this rule exist if it was never going to be enforced. The cleanest and most consistent way to do so is as outlined above.

 

I recall that Troy seemingly wrote something to the contrary in a recent article (PCC shooter should always be stopped and restarted? Sorry, I already used that article to line my birdcage ). However, DNROI or not, his opinion, when not supported by a formal, published ruling, should not negate the rules as written (except, arguably, at matches for which he is the RM). If he and the BoD want to change or eliminate the creeping rule, then I would not be opposed (indeed, I would encourage it), but it needs to be done officially and documented in the rule book - otherwise, shooters will continue to be subject to arbitrary application of 10.2.6 .

Funny I just read it he highlighted text and flipping a safety lever off doesn’t come close to those parameters in my opinion. The text clearly states shooting position and posture. 

[RJH]

On a slight tangent, i always thought safety on for an in hand start was squirrely anyway.