10.4.2 Match DQ, AD

[mreed911]

2 hours ago, Sdlrodeo said:

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

 

That's what the berm is for.

 

2 hours ago, Sdlrodeo said:

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. 

 

Not necessarily.  Lots of people intend for a gun to go off an actually score a Mike.  If it's an AD, an RO can call that, stop the shooter and deal with the situation.  It's going to vary based on the shooter's actions at the time and what the RO saw that caused the stoppage/DQ.  There are procedures to argue that further, too.

 

2 hours ago, Sdlrodeo said:

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?

 

Draw the line at the rules.  10.4 covers this pretty well.  A good reading and/or an RO class can help cement your understanding.  The rules also cover course construction, target placement and engagement.

 

[Sdlrodeo]

3 hours ago, mreed911 said:

 

That's what the berm is for.

 

Then I’d invite you to read my thread from a while back. I put a link to it earlier in this post. 

 

3 hours ago, mreed911 said:

 

 

Not necessarily.  Lots of people intend for a gun to go off an actually score a Mike.  If it's an AD, an RO can call that, stop the shooter and deal with the situation.  It's going to vary based on the shooter's actions at the time and what the RO saw that caused the stoppage/DQ.  There are procedures to argue that further, too.

 

 

Draw the line at the rules.  10.4 covers this pretty well.  A good reading and/or an RO class can help cement your understanding.  The rules also cover course construction, target placement and engagement.

 

 

I know you don’t know me from Adam but Yep, I took an RO class last summer and just re-read 10.4 just in case, I still think the OP’s scenario is not clarified.

 

We have a few folks (I’m assuming they have taken an RO class but maybe not) commenting it would be a DQ’able AD to hit the dirt in front of a shooters foot even if the target is three feet away and we have others who say the rules do not say it is because of the second part of 10.4.2 

 

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."

 

so so my question is still, where to draw the line?

 

lets push the target out to 5 feet in our mock scenario. What if the bullet hits the ground at 2.5 feet?

 

 

[egd5]

If I understand you right Sdlrodeo, you're asking, if the target is less than 10 ft. from shooter how close(or far from)  to the target does the the ad have to be before it is a dq?

For example, if the target is 4 ft. in front of the shooter but the shooter hits the ground 6 ft to the left of the target while swinging to the target, but still within 10 ft of him is that an ad subject to dq?

[Sdlrodeo]

43 minutes ago, egd5 said:

If I understand you right Sdlrodeo, you're asking, if the target is less than 10 ft. from shooter how close(or far from)  to the target does the the ad have to be before it is a dq?

For example, if the target is 4 ft. in front of the shooter but the shooter hits the ground 6 ft to the left of the target while swinging to the target, but still within 10 ft of him is that an ad subject to dq?

 

That’s close, but I’m assuming from the OP, that the shooter was drawing to the target that is closer than 10 feet.

[broadside72]

If I understand you right Sdlrodeo, you're asking, if the target is less than 10 ft. from shooter how close(or far from)  to the target does the the ad have to be before it is a dq?
For example, if the target is 4 ft. in front of the shooter but the shooter hits the ground 6 ft to the left of the target while swinging to the target, but still within 10 ft of him is that an ad subject to dq?

I think you need to consider the definition of "engaging" when reviewing this issue that specifies "shooting at"

[DKorn]

On 6/21/2019 at 3:02 PM, d_striker said:

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?

 

If the shot goes off while transitioning to the target, it’s not an AD. It’s a miss (that they may or may not end up making up). 

 

Same thing if a shot it goes off while making a wide transition between two far away targets. 

[StealthyBlagga]

An AD is one of those "you know it when you see it" deals. When it happens, chances are both the RO and the shooter know what happened. However, IPSC/USPSA's definition of an AD has become so narrowly defined as to be divorced from the common meaning of the term, and thus an unscrupulous shooter can march a coach and horses through the loopholes in this rule. In the end, it often comes down the the integrity of the individual shooter... something I'm afraid there is less and less of in the sport these days.

 

Part of the problem is a "DQ = bad" mindset one encounters in some senior match officials. I have seen someone fire an obviously unintentional shot while sprinting down range, arms pumping with the gun in one hand and it was clear no targets were being engaged, yet the RM wanted to reinstate them because 50 yards downrange there was a target that they COULD have seen from the position where the shot was fired. This is not the first time I have seen an RM torture the text of a rule to get out of having to DQ a shooter.

 

In IMA 3-Gun rules we have an additional DQable offense: "Firing a shot while not legitimately engaging a target.". When it happens, few have the audacity to argue the point because everyone on the range knows what happened. This is one of the cases where outlaw 3-gunners do it better than the largest practical shooting governing body in the World. Sad.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by StealthyBlagga

[StealthyBlagga]

And to answer the OPs question, as the rules are currently written, the competitor could fire a shot that passed between his toes and still not get DQd. This is just one of many inartfully written USPSA rules.

[motosapiens]

14 hours ago, Sdlrodeo said:

We have a few folks (I’m assuming they have taken an RO class but maybe not) commenting it would be a DQ’able AD to hit the dirt in front of a shooters foot even if the target is three feet away and we have others who say the rules do not say it is because of the second part of 10.4.2 

 

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."

 

so so my question is still, where to draw the line?

 

lets push the target out to 5 feet in our mock scenario. What if the bullet hits the ground at 2.5 feet?

 

 

 

I think it is a mistake to assume that you can draw a hard and fast line on this topic. It's going to be a bit of a judgement call based on where the AD went, and how far the target was away, and whether the shooter was drawing, or transitioning from another target. As an experienced CRO, I agree with sarge. If you AD on the draw, you may not be able to convince me that you were already 'shooting at a cardboard target closer than 10 feet'. Maybe that was going to be the first thing you did after drawing, but if you don't finish drawing before the gun goes off, I'm going to call a DQ. Maybe the RM or an arb committee would overrule me, and I don't have a problem with that, but I believe my interpretation of the rule is entirely valid. I don't think the rule gives you carte-blanche to AD just because the first target you were planning to shoot was closer than 10'.

 

I think the rule is clearly intended to prevent a rules-nazi from dq-ing a shooter who misses while shooting at a close target, not to allow an unsafe draw by a shooter who has not started shooting at the target yet.

[ima45dv8]

58 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

I think the rule is clearly intended to prevent a rules-nazi from dq-ing a shooter who misses while shooting at a close target, not to allow an unsafe draw by a shooter who has not started shooting at the target yet.

Well said.

[DKorn]

8 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

I think it is a mistake to assume that you can draw a hard and fast line on this topic. It's going to be a bit of a judgement call based on where the AD went, and how far the target was away, and whether the shooter was drawing, or transitioning from another target. As an experienced CRO, I agree with sarge. If you AD on the draw, you may not be able to convince me that you were already 'shooting at a cardboard target closer than 10 feet'. Maybe that was going to be the first thing you did after drawing, but if you don't finish drawing before the gun goes off, I'm going to call a DQ. Maybe the RM or an arb committee would overrule me, and I don't have a problem with that, but I believe my interpretation of the rule is entirely valid. I don't think the rule gives you carte-blanche to AD just because the first target you were planning to shoot was closer than 10'.

 

I think the rule is clearly intended to prevent a rules-nazi from dq-ing a shooter who misses while shooting at a close target, not to allow an unsafe draw by a shooter who has not started shooting at the target yet.

 

I think there’s clear cut situations where i’d call a DQ and situations that are a little less clear where I may not call it because of a target within 10 feet. 

 

For instance, if you start where there’s only 2 targets available - one close on the left, within 10 feet, and one far away on the right, and you position yourself angled towards the target to the right, and draw bringing the gun up towards that target, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that the shot that goes off and hits 8 feet from you, clearly in the direction of the target on the right, is not a DQ. 

[Matt1]

 
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?
 
 

Don’t make up rules. Apply them as written.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sarge]

On 6/23/2019 at 2:24 PM, Sdlrodeo said:

 

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?

 

 

One reason we can’t lean on,” the shooter didn’t intend for the gun to go off”, to always imply an AD is because simply hitting a Delta or missing altogether means the gun didn’t go off when you intended it to.