10.4.2 Match DQ, AD

[d_striker]

Rule 10.4.2 states, "A shot which strikes the ground within 10 feet of the competitor, except when shooting at a cardboard target closer than 10 feet to the competitor."

 

Let's say a competitor is intending to shoot a target (either drawing to or transitioning to) within 10 feet and he AD's into the ground.  

 

Do you feel that the "exception" language of 10.4.2 is exempting shots with the qualifier that they actually hit the target?

 

Or do you think that as long as the shooter's intent was to engage said close target, they can AD into the ground and it's not a DQ?

Edited June 21, 2019 by d_striker

[ChuckS]

Intent is not relevant. The rule says no DQ.

[broadside72]

He's not "shooting at a target" when he NDs into the ground while not aiming at the target (during draw or transition). If it's closer it's up to the RO to make the call if he was shooting at the target or not.

Is it different than if someone is transitioning from far left to far right target standing in same spot so not moving and puts one in the back berm?

[Poppa Bear]

As long as it is not in the ground literally at their feet, ie finger on the trigger as they draw, then no AD and no DQ.  Once the draw is completed the target is fair game even if they miss it.

[rowdyb]

There are times the gun can go off when you didn't want it to and not DQ. This is one.

[Sarge]

I DQ’ed a shooter for putting a round into the ground about 18” in front of his feet when he drew to a target about 3’ away. RM upheld it but later said shooter would have won Arb because target was within 10’. I really don’t care what Arb would have decided I know an AD when I see one. No way he was even close to indexing on target.

[Maximis228]

4 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I DQ’ed a shooter for putting a round into the ground about 18” in front of his feet when he drew to a target about 3’ away. RM upheld it but later said shooter would have won Arb because target was within 10’. I really don’t care what Arb would have decided I know an AD when I see one. No way he was even close to indexing on target.

 

You purposely ignore a USPSA rule as an RO because... "I know an AD when I see one"?

 

[kk4364]

I've got a video let me find it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Sarge]

Just now, Maximis228 said:

 

You purposely ignore a USPSA rule as an RO because... "I know an AD when I see one"?

 

It was clearly finger on the trigger during draw that set it off that early. Shooter knew it as soon as it happened. He was well versed on the rules. He didn’t even bat an eye when stopped. More people will argue over it here than did 5 years ago at the match. The only opinion that mattered that day was mine because I was responsible for the safe conduct of the stage and he clearly AD’d out of the holster.

[broadside72]

8 minutes ago, Maximis228 said:

 

You purposely ignore a USPSA rule as an RO because... "I know an AD when I see one"?

 

 

what did he ignore? the rule explicitly states "shooting at a target". you dump a round into the ground half way to the target is not shooting at the target. It is safe to assume that "shooting at" is synonymous with "engaging" that is defined in the glossary

Edited June 21, 2019 by broadside72

[kk4364]

Nevermind, I have a video of myself at CK Blast last year. I started off grabbed gun and was starting to aim and bam. I was bringing gun up to target and let one go near the bottom of the berm. I took the second shot pretty quick and tried to play it off. Ro yelled stop and it seemed like I was showing clear before hand lol. He called Rm over and said it wasn't shot in the ground or over the berm, have him reshoot. Good thing it was only a few stages in.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Joe4d]

14 hours ago, rowdyb said:

There are times the gun can go off when you didn't want it to and not DQ. This is one.

Which is 100 % BS in IMO,,,  Unsafe gun handling rule specifically states list is not all inclusive,,, yet if the actual offense isnt listed some how it isnt a DQ ?
I'm sorry but these rulings and interpretations have gone full retard. If lighting off a round when you didnt mean to isnt unsafe gun handling, I dont know what is.
Guy lights off a round,, visibly jumps and and gives a "Oh crap" look,, yet I have to get out a tape measure to see if it is a DQ ? I call shenanigans,,,, straight shenanigans.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Joe4d

[elguapo]

2 hours ago, broadside72 said:

He's not "shooting at a target" when he NDs into the ground while not aiming at the target (during draw or transition). If it's closer it's up to the RO to make the call if he was shooting at the target or not.

Is it different than if someone is transitioning from far left to far right target standing in same spot so not moving and puts one in the back berm?

 

I agree with this and with Sarge.  No rule can be written to cover every variation of an ND on the way to a target, no matter how close or far that target may be.

 

The RO/SO has to have some discretion over this.  There's no other way this can work and be safe.

[Sdlrodeo]

I’m going to play devils advocate. Where do you draw the line?

if there are two targets 10 feet apart and a shooter misses in between or on the outside of said targets did he AD? He didn’t want the gun to go off before or after the target but it did. What if he missed the target by 6”? 12”? 2 feet?

 

or, let’s go with the example of a low target 3 feet away from the shooter with or without some sort of barrier/low wall/handrail in between? What if he hit the barrier that was only a foot away from the shooter but in line with the target?

 

ill admit this thread hits home a little bit. See mine below. 

 

where do you draw the line?

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Sdlrodeo

[Sarge]

4 hours ago, kk4364 said:

Nevermind, I have a video of myself at CK Blast last year. I started off grabbed gun and was starting to aim and bam. I was bringing gun up to target and let one go near the bottom of the berm. I took the second shot pretty quick and tried to play it off. Ro yelled stop and it seemed like I was showing clear before hand lol. He called Rm over and said it wasn't shot in the ground or over the berm, have him reshoot. Good thing it was only a few stages in.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

I'm sorry that happened to you. That was a rookie RO mistake. Huge difference between what you did and almost blowing your foot off.

[kk4364]

True

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[pjb45]

You guys ever see the video of Taran shooting a plate rack from the hip?

 

Bringing the gun up is not necessarily a qualifying criteria for aiming at target. I have many people during a match not use their sights on close targets. 

 

I think it is called point shooting. There are photos of the FBI training agents to shoot that way ages ago.

 

It boils down to judgement calls supported by the rule book. 

[Sarge]

20 hours ago, pjb45 said:

You guys ever see the video of Taran shooting a plate rack from the hip?

 

Bringing the gun up is not necessarily a qualifying criteria for aiming at target. I have many people during a match not use their sights on close targets. 

 

I think it is called point shooting. There are photos of the FBI training agents to shoot that way ages ago.

 

It boils down to judgement calls supported by the rule book. 

Indexing on a target can happen several ways. Sure you can shoot from the hip, sure you can leave the dot off and or point shoot close targets, sure you can shoot at a target closer than 10 feet and not get dinged, but you can’t draw your gun and blow a hole in the ground right in front of your foot and try to game it as engaging a target. At least not with me.

[Steve RA]

  That seems rather reasonable !

[mreed911]

On 6/21/2019 at 2:20 PM, broadside72 said:

Is it different than if someone is transitioning from far left to far right target standing in same spot so not moving and puts one in the back berm?

 

Missing between targets and hitting the back berm isn't an infraction.

[Sarge]

7 minutes ago, mreed911 said:

 

Missing between targets and hitting the back berm isn't an infraction.

This^^^^^^^^

[Sdlrodeo]

59 minutes ago, mreed911 said:

 

Missing between targets and hitting the back berm isn't an infraction.

 

I agree. 

What if a prop is hit between the targets and but the bullet passes through and hits the back berm?

 

I would argue that if there are 2 targets 10 feet away from each other and someone puts a round downrange right in the middle it would be an AD in the sense that the shooter did not want the gun to go off at that time. But, per the rules, it is not an infraction or DQ’able offense but it would still be an AD by most accounts. 

 

Is that unsafe gun handling because the gun went off when the shooter did not intend it to? 

 

Is that “moving” because the shooter is changing arrays even though his feet didn’t move?

 

My point is where to draw the line? If the rules state less than ten feet is ok if target is less than ten feet. If target is 3 feet and low on the ground, is 2 feet ok? 1 foot? What if the target is only 2 feet away?

 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Sdlrodeo

[race1911]

In my opinion it is poor course design to put targets 1,2, or 3 feet away from the shooter...........closing in on unsafe and what challenge is it anyways because you don't have to aim but merely point shoot     (I do understand there are rare instances such as a short wall you run up to with targets on the ground just behind the wall, OR  no-shoots making partial targets MIGHT be barely acceptable, but still not necessary and these could be put further distances away)

Edited June 23, 2019 by race1911

[elguapo]

4 minutes ago, race1911 said:

In my opinion it is bad course design to put targets 1,2, or 3 feet away from the shooter...........closing in on unsafe and what challenge is it anyways because you don't have to aim but merely point shoot   

 

LOL @ this whole thing

[Sdlrodeo]

11 minutes ago, race1911 said:

In my opinion it is poor course design to put targets 1,2, or 3 feet away from the shooter...........closing in on unsafe and what challenge is it anyways because you don't have to aim but merely point shoot     (I do understand there are rare instances such as a short wall you run up to with targets on the ground just behind the wall, OR  no-shoots making partial targets MIGHT be barely acceptable, but still not necessary and these could be put further distances away)

 

I agree 100%. I used that as an example to try to illustrate my point.