Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Why does a D.Q. result in all results being erased?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

29 minutes ago, kurtm said:

Yes!!!  Your score is your score but doesn't count towards match placement due to the D.Q.

 

Does the score of the person who was kicked out of the match count to set the stage high overall time?  If the match is using hit factor (is anybody?) or stage points it could change the results for everyone. If hero or zero boy wins three stages, then DQ’s it affects the scores of everyone else. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an RO that has ran hundreds if not thousands of shooters, when you point a loaded gun at me or anyone else I NO LONGER WANT YOU IN THE MATCH.  If you send one over the berm toward a neighborhood 1 mile away, I NO LONGER WANT YOU IN THE MATCH.  
I don't care about your preference to be able to see your scores that you didn't risk someones life to earn.  
We play a game that is inherently dangerous.  If I were king I think a a DQ should carry over to a subsequent match ( but that would be very hard to do)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as an R.O. why didn't you stop them from doing something unsafe? Isn't it an R.O.'s job to maintain and enforce safety on the stage? Letting someone launch a round over the berm doesn't seem to be keeping anyone safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kurtm said:

I don't recall ever saying you would walk the prize table after a D.Q. maybe that is what you all assumed, but I have purposefully not made any sort of connection to that.

So you agree with that post way back there, that your score for the match would read DQ. But you and everyone else could see your stage scores of the stages before the DQ?? I think most people thought you meant you could still win if you DQ'd and were enough ahead!

Just clarifying!

 

Edited by Benelli Chick
left something out
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, kurtm said:

And as an R.O. why didn't you stop them from doing something unsafe? Isn't it an R.O.'s job to maintain and enforce safety on the stage? Letting someone launch a round over the berm doesn't seem to be keeping anyone safe.

I think the rules are like laws. Just because there is a law that you can't commit murder only stops the good people. They don't stop bad guys. Laws aren't proactive, they just allow penalties.

You and I both know that many DQ events happen so quickly, the RO can't stop it. Now with some "safety rules" like wrong gun in a safety area...I agree it's not really a safety issue. But, like the rules of gun safety, if you are trying to follow all 4, when you break 1, it's bad, but no one dies!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benelli Chick said:

I think the rules are like laws. Just because there is a law that you can't commit murder only stops the good people. They don't stop bad guys. Laws aren't proactive, they just allow penalties.

You and I both know that many DQ events happen so quickly, the RO can't stop it. Now with some "safety rules" like wrong gun in a safety area...I agree it's not really a safety issue. But, like the rules of gun safety, if you are trying to follow all 4, when you break 1, it's bad, but no one dies!

 

And there are plenty of folks who squeak by because the RO had a bad angle or was looking away at the instant the violation happened.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not trolling, using this to prove the point that no matter how much safety we "codify" no matter how much we like to say this rule keeps us safe, or this person keeps us safe, we can't react to a safety infraction UNTILL AFTER it happens! Up untill this happens the shooter was deemed to be "safe" only on the merit of not violating the rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was vague on what keeping your points would mean on purpose to see where the debate would go. No I don't feel that if you D.Q. you get to win the match, I just feel that you shouldn't become invisible!

I agree Denise, that people still break the law and it is retroactive......but a conviction doesn't erase the person's history from the world. I.E. there are several record holders in sports that committed felonies, and yet if you look up in the record book they are still listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kurtm said:

I was vague on what keeping your points would mean on purpose to see where the debate would go. No I don't feel that if you D.Q. you get to win the match, I just feel that you shouldn't become invisible!

 

I want to know why this matters so much to you.

Edited by elguapo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philosophical question. Makes us examine the root of our rules and see if they still make sense or not.

A great example of a philosophical debate that did end up in a change was allowing red dot sights into limited. Mike Pinto and I asked the question of should they be allowed. Everyone responded with a resounding NO.....because anything with glass is an optic! After seeing that this was a case of "well that's the way it always has been, we decided to do it at our club matches anyway, and see. Two short years latter U.S.P.S.A. contacted us to ask how it was going. Since we kept the data on how much our limited division grew, and how many new shooters it attracted, they made the change as well....and then the rest of the 3-gun world followed suit. Wanna know about a philosophical debate about target size.....Trapr and I proposed the 4 M O.A. idea, and low and behold it caught on, just because of a debate. Before everything was a 10" plate no matter how far away....because that was what always had been done.

I am not wedded to this particular debate per see, but I was asked by several new shooters at our local club after two of them D.Q.ed at their very first match 3/4 of the way through. Their crime?? Moving their spare EMPTY HOLSTERED pistol off of the top of their score cards in the bag when asked for them from the R.O. . Handling a pistol outside of the safety area! Funny part the R.O. stood there and watched them dig in the bag for the score sheets and never said a word untill...your D.Q.ed. They both just wanted to know how they did on what they shot. Both L.E. and both won't be back. So here in lies the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like we should give you the rulebooks for every shooting sport on earth and have you re-write them.

 

BTW, making every target a fixed angular size is not the way practical sports should go.  Practically speaking, practical targets have constant linear dimensions regardless of how far away they are.

 

Maybe you got more shooters the wrong way.

Edited by elguapo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, kurtm said:

 I was asked by several new shooters at our local club after two of them D.Q.ed at their very first match 3/4 of the way through. Their crime?? Moving their spare EMPTY HOLSTERED pistol off of the top of their score cards in the bag when asked for them from the R.O. . Handling a pistol outside of the safety area! Funny part the R.O. stood there and watched them dig in the bag for the score sheets and never said a word untill...your D.Q.ed.

 

Maybe that version of 3 gun has something to learn from USPSA

 

I'm in agreement with all others that consider that the penalty for unsafe handling of a firearm (however that is defined by the rules) needs to be so severe that it is unforgettable.  If erasing your presence from match records is what it takes to make it unforgettable, then so be it.

 

Any relaxation in that regard is unacceptable to me.

Edited by elguapo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a U.S.P.S.A. local pistol match.

If I rewrote the rules, you would like them!

If I got more shooters the wrong way I would not like the way you would get new shooters.

I never said relax the safety rules, enforce them just like we do now. How does erasing them teach anything?? Stopping them, telling them why, and not letting them continue is the teaching moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hubris: (in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

 

Are you comparing yourself to the God's? If so, I've got some questions about your design of the Puffer Fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kurtm said:

Hubris: (in Greek tragedy) excessive pride toward or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis.

 

Are you comparing yourself to the God's? If so, I've got some questions about your design of the Puffer Fish.

 

This is the definition that applies to you:

Quote

Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, from ancient Greek ὕβρις) describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous over confidence,[1] often in combination with (or synonymous with) arrogance.[2]

 

You may go now.....

Edited by elguapo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with you last statement, we now know where the hubris resides.......but I digress.....when the Puffer Fish inflates and become all spikey, was it designed emulating yourself?

BTW your welcome to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kurtm said:

I was vague on what keeping your points would mean on purpose to see where the debate would go. No I don't feel that if you D.Q. you get to win the match, I just feel that you shouldn't become invisible!

I agree Denise, that people still break the law and it is retroactive......but a conviction doesn't erase the person's history from the world. I.E. there are several record holders in sports that committed felonies, and yet if you look up in the record book they are still listed.

 

There are also several records that have been eliminated from the record books based on conduct. 

 

 As far as stopping a DQ before the safety violation many of the rules are designed that way. To stop the shooter before someone gets hurt. Running with the finger on the trigger, breaking the 180, stuff like that are meant to stop the shooter before someone  hurt. Break one rule, go home, pay price. Usually takes breaking two before someone gets hurt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kurtm said:

 I was asked by several new shooters at our local club after two of them D.Q.ed at their very first match 3/4 of the way through. Their crime?? Moving their spare EMPTY HOLSTERED pistol off of the top of their score cards in the bag when asked for them from the R.O. . Handling a pistol outside of the safety area! Funny part the R.O. stood there and watched them dig in the bag for the score sheets and never said a word untill...your D.Q.ed. They both just wanted to know how they did on what they shot. Both L.E. and both won't be back. So here in lies the question.

 

3 hours ago, kurtm said:

It was a U.S.P.S.A. local pistol match.

If I rewrote the rules, you would like them!

If I got more shooters the wrong way I would not like the way you would get new shooters.

I never said relax the safety rules, enforce them just like we do now. How does erasing them teach anything?? Stopping them, telling them why, and not letting them continue is the teaching moment.

 

See USPSA rule 5.2.1. 

 

"Their crime"? I wouldn't go as far as to call it a crime. Just a DQ for unsafe gun handling. USPSA rules are not that vague, pretty cut & dried and easy to interpret for most of us. My first match I had no one to hold my hand, offer encouragement, solicit advice, or give me tips on how to stay in the match ( not get DQ'ed ). , I went old school and read the rule book. Didn't find it all that difficult to comprehend either. As a result, my guns were bagged as per the rules. As this rule pertains to safety, I have to abide by it as so does everyone else, seasoned veteran or newcomer.  At my first match I knew it wasn't the responsibility of someone else (RO) to ensure my safety, it was mine. 

 

To get new shooters the wrong way, not sure how to word this.......but to in any way even make it seem as if a safety rule is too much, remember it's a game played with real firearms & live ammunition. The cost of a DQ and not seeing your results is minuscule compared to the potential consequences of what could happen when a rule is broken. Especially a rule designed with the sole purpose of ensuring the safety of all participants involved. 

 

If a new shooter is DQ'ed due to a safety infraction and swears never to come back, oh well. Life's full of these little tragedies. I've been DQ'ed once. 100%'my fault. AD into the berm when I slipped. Match DQ. No results. No second chance. No excuses. My fault. I apologize to everyone. I accepted it, learned from it, and moved on. DQ's are supposed to hurt and they do. That's how we learn. 

 

Easy solution, be safe. Don't get DQ'ed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kurtm said:

Philosophical question. Makes us examine the root of our rules and see if they still make sense or not.

A great example of a philosophical debate that did end up in a change was allowing red dot sights into limited. Mike Pinto and I asked the question of should they be allowed. Everyone responded with a resounding NO.....because anything with glass is an optic! After seeing that this was a case of "well that's the way it always has been, we decided to do it at our club matches anyway, and see. Two short years latter U.S.P.S.A. contacted us to ask how it was going. Since we kept the data on how much our limited division grew, and how many new shooters it attracted, they made the change as well....and then the rest of the 3-gun world followed suit. Wanna know about a philosophical debate about target size.....Trapr and I proposed the 4 M O.A. idea, and low and behold it caught on, just because of a debate. Before everything was a 10" plate no matter how far away....because that was what always had been done.

I am not wedded to this particular debate per see, but I was asked by several new shooters at our local club after two of them D.Q.ed at their very first match 3/4 of the way through. Their crime?? Moving their spare EMPTY HOLSTERED pistol off of the top of their score cards in the bag when asked for them from the R.O. . Handling a pistol outside of the safety area! Funny part the R.O. stood there and watched them dig in the bag for the score sheets and never said a word untill...your D.Q.ed. They both just wanted to know how they did on what they shot. Both L.E. and both won't be back. So here in lies the question.

That's chicken poop! Not a safety rule at all...more like a "gotcha."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...