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

DQ Double Jeopardy


mont1120
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hopefully this question does not spark a giant debate, with the national lockdown we are left to ponder many of the worlds major mysteries. I am  wondering as to why some DQ's turn out to be far more punitive then others.

 

Picture this situation (it actually happened),  at a major Area match last year. First stage, shooter sets up, gets the audible start signal, and for whatever reason, blows an AD into the ground. At another match a few years back, first stage, shooter breaks the 180, done. 

 

Absolute DQ, there is no argument, as usual the DQ'd shooter get the apologies from the whole crew and group of shooters. We all know the result, the match is over. But looking at the match in its entirety, there are one or two more days of shooting left that also are included in the penalty. This is where I find the application of the DQ might need to be possibly revised. From the NROI rules viewpoint,  it is critical safety rules are enforced no matter the stage. But from the shooters side of the equation, does the infraction warrant  an unequal loss in participation? The sport certainly does not bar shooter from participation in the next weekend in another match.

 

A person spends about $250 to $350  just to sign up for the match. Next there are travel costs, and for a major match this usually runs into a lot of money. Add meals, motel, and lost time at work, there is a considerable investment that has now disappeared. We are now talking of a well over a $1,000 plus penalty. When shooting a single day match, the loss still hurts, but not nearly as much as a larger match. Do shooters. RO's, CRO's and RM's think some revision is in order to not completely incur such a drastic loss in value and participation?

 

I wonder if a major match DQ could:

1. DQ the entire match for the shooter.

2. Shooter is done for that day, no matter if it is the first stage or not.

3. Allow the Shooter to opt resume shooting the next day (or two) for no score.

 

This at least allows participants to enjoy a small measure of the match even though the end result is a score of zero.  I have been to back to back weekend matches where a DQ for the first match does not affect the participation in the next days match, and does not bar the shooter from scoring at the 2nd match. I 100% back the ruling of a DQ and the suspension from the match,  I just wonder if there are times the penalty might be a bit harsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The entire point of such extreme penalties is to make all of us much better at handling a weapon than 99% of casual shooters who visit your local gun range... and who somewhat terrify me with their gunhandling.

 

It works. We don’t need to be nice to avoid hurting tender feels. This isn’t a place to find coddling acceptance.

 

You’re handling a weapon capable of killing a good friend of yours if your finger bumps a 1.5 pound Open gun trigger at the wrong time - and does so just once in your entire life.

 

I want you to be terrified of breaking the 180.001 when you turn around and sprint uprange toward me while running as fast as you can.

 

Measures are the perfect amount of harsh.
 

Edited by MemphisMechanic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gotten that DQ at a major match you refer to in your example. What for me was that instant frustration, turned on the drive home as resolve not make the mistake again. Reevaluating ones tecniques and reinforcing good safety discipline through practice moves you past a DQ. Explaining how to avoid the same mistakes you made to others is beneficial to us all.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons our sport has such an incredibly good safety record is based in our strict application of disqualification for safety violations.  It doesn't matter if it's your first stage or your last.  It doesn't matter if you've invested $10 in the match or $1,000.  It doesn't matter if you're a D shooter or a GM.

 

Commit a safety infraction (per the rules) and you forfeit everything.  It's draconian for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with all of the above, DQ you're done. 

 

I once drove 4 hours to a club match and DQ'd on the first stage. Really, with in the rules I could of argued it wasn't a AD because it was near the target and into the berm. But I knew I f-ed it up and stopped myself and called it a day. I spent the day pasting and watching my wife and friends shoot the match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seen this twice, both sponsored shooters at major 3-gun matches. Both were traveling from far away, plane rides, hotel, entry fees, ammo, very large investments to get there. Plus satisfying their sponsors.

 

First stage of 3 day match, first movement shooting rifle, pistol holstered, shotgun staged. After shooting rifle at first group of targets took off to second position at a dead run and loaded pistol popped out of holster. Immediate DQ, no argument. One shooter had to stay because he was traveling with another, he taped & helped out. Other made arrangements and flew home. Both shooters said the same thing, that they had been shooting USPSA & loosened their holster up with no real running involved and forgot to tighten it.

 

Sucks, but that is the rules. Must stay safe.

 

gerritm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a competition perspective the penalty is the same first stage or last stage, scores for any shot stage are zeroed out as if never shot, and no further stages may be attempted.

 

So your real question is not, is the DQ equitable, but is a USPSA match a range day social activity or a competition?  

I vote competition

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aggravated me no end when a shooter rightfully got a DQ for doing a 270 after backing out of a hallway but was seen shooting later.

MD:  "Oh, he is a Master shooter and traveled 800 miles to get here so I'm letting him keep shooting for no score."

I am sure a no score wound would not have hurt as bad as a scored hit on bystander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jim Watson said:

Aggravated me no end when a shooter rightfully got a DQ for doing a 270 after backing out of a hallway but was seen shooting later.

MD:  "Oh, he is a Master shooter and traveled 800 miles to get here so I'm letting him keep shooting for no score."

I am sure a no score wound would not have hurt as bad as a scored hit on bystander.

 

I would have dropped a dime to NROI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nolan said:

If you think it hurts to DQ on the first stage, wait until you DQ 2 targets from the end of the match, after having some of the best performances of your life!!!!

 

 

Nolan

 

Yea ....Know the feeling.....3 targets (6 easy shots) from the end of a major match and a division win.  OUCH !!!  Maybe I should've asked for a re-shoot...lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I DQ’ed a shooter at an Area match who swept my mid section with his gun as he ran full tilt from one side of the stage to the other, parallel to the rear berm. I was physically sick, nauseous, reliving that moment over and over and over for the entire match and even to this day, I cannot erase that image of the fully loaded gun pointed straight at my gut and the sick feeling that comes with the realization that he would of killed me if that gun had gone off.

 

So yeah, chalk me in for the whole match DQ answer.

 

I am sure that shooter will never do that again.  And anyone that avoids being swept in the gut is better off for it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

I would have dropped a dime to NROI

I would have taken it to the RM. Then if HE blew it off I would indeed email DNROI if it were a sanctioned match.

  The idea behind a safety DQ is that the shooter has proven themselves unsafe at that event. It makes no sense to let an unsafe shooter continue to shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2020 at 10:57 AM, MikeBurgess said:

So your real question is not, is the DQ equitable, but is a USPSA match a range day social activity or a competition?  

I vote competition

 

 

On topic, I think the question was whether or not a single day suspension was an adequate deterrent for safety violations. Since the vast majority of DQ's are single day suspensions it seems like the club has decided that single day suspensions are adequate. The question was not about watering down the deterrent so much as making it the same as normal in the long match circumstance. 

 

Off topic, most of the people I shoot with are social shooters. When I work a local level 2 or 3 match I see a majority of travelers and maybe 20% of the folks I normally shoot with show up. I think if you take the social aspect away the club dies very quickly, if you remove the competition aspect everything keeps going (except level 2 and above matches) and the 20% still find a way to measure and compare their performance. Could be wrong, could be just a local thing, but almost every worker bee I know is there for the social side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

On topic, I think the question was whether or not a single day suspension was an adequate deterrent for safety violations. Since the vast majority of DQ's are single day suspensions it seems like the club has decided that single day suspensions are adequate. The question was not about watering down the deterrent so much as making it the same as normal in the long match circumstance. 

 

Off topic, most of the people I shoot with are social shooters. When I work a local level 2 or 3 match I see a majority of travelers and maybe 20% of the folks I normally shoot with show up. I think if you take the social aspect away the club dies very quickly, if you remove the competition aspect everything keeps going (except level 2 and above matches) and the 20% still find a way to measure and compare their performance. Could be wrong, could be just a local thing, but almost every worker bee I know is there for the social side. 

On topic,   What makes a 10 sage match shot in 2 days different than a 10 stage match shot in 1? if I'm shooting the 1 day schedule of a 2 day match and I DQ before lunch should I get to shoot the afternoon stages? If a shooter that DQs on day one gets to shoot day two that would be fair right? To me the whole point of the DQ is to make safety front and center in the shooters mind at all times.

 

 

 

Off topic 95+% of the shooters probably fall into the more social than competitive category (myself included), but if  matches were not run as a competition I believe most shooters would find some other activity that IS a competition to fill their time.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2020 at 6:16 AM, mont1120 said:

Hopefully this question does not spark a giant debate, with the national lockdown we are left to ponder many of the worlds major mysteries. I am  wondering as to why some DQ's turn out to be far more punitive then others.

 

Picture this situation (it actually happened),  at a major Area match last year. First stage, shooter sets up, gets the audible start signal, and for whatever reason, blows an AD into the ground. At another match a few years back, first stage, shooter breaks the 180, done. 

 

Absolute DQ, there is no argument, as usual the DQ'd shooter get the apologies from the whole crew and group of shooters. We all know the result, the match is over. But looking at the match in its entirety, there are one or two more days of shooting left that also are included in the penalty. This is where I find the application of the DQ might need to be possibly revised. From the NROI rules viewpoint,  it is critical safety rules are enforced no matter the stage. But from the shooters side of the equation, does the infraction warrant  an unequal loss in participation? The sport certainly does not bar shooter from participation in the next weekend in another match.

 

A person spends about $250 to $350  just to sign up for the match. Next there are travel costs, and for a major match this usually runs into a lot of money. Add meals, motel, and lost time at work, there is a considerable investment that has now disappeared. We are now talking of a well over a $1,000 plus penalty. When shooting a single day match, the loss still hurts, but not nearly as much as a larger match. Do shooters. RO's, CRO's and RM's think some revision is in order to not completely incur such a drastic loss in value and participation?

 

I wonder if a major match DQ could:

1. DQ the entire match for the shooter.

2. Shooter is done for that day, no matter if it is the first stage or not.

3. Allow the Shooter to opt resume shooting the next day (or two) for no score.

 

This at least allows participants to enjoy a small measure of the match even though the end result is a score of zero.  I have been to back to back weekend matches where a DQ for the first match does not affect the participation in the next days match, and does not bar the shooter from scoring at the 2nd match. I 100% back the ruling of a DQ and the suspension from the match,  I just wonder if there are times the penalty might be a bit harsh.

A competitor or staff member who commits a safety infraction or any other 
prohibited activity during a USPSA match will be disqualified from that 
match. 

 

It doesn't say DQ'd from that days events...it says match. If it is a one day match, you're done....2 day match, you're done, 3 day match, you're done. 

 

If, the match ends that day, and another match starts the next, then they would be allowed to shoot the 2nd day match...but if the 2nd day is just a continuation of the 1st day, they're done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Agreed. I just do not know that a one day dq is not sufficient.

I would say "sufficient" is not the goal. in the case of safety I do not want the "punishment" to fit the "crime" I want it to out weigh it heavily so the idea of allowing a infraction to happen is so repugnant that avoiding it is more important than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

I would say "sufficient" is not the goal. in the case of safety I do not want the "punishment" to fit the "crime" I want it to out weigh it heavily so the idea of allowing a infraction to happen is so repugnant that avoiding it is more important than anything else.

Plus 10 on this!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...