Cutting shooters slack

[IVC]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

Procedurals don't matter cause newbs ain't winning anyway. Safety matters and if someone, new or not, does a DQable offense they should be done.

I went quickly through chapter 10 and have pulled out examples of rules that I would consider to be something we should warn first time shooters rather than send them home. Here is a quick list with *my* reasoning for why I consider these rules to be different from direct "gun safety" violations:

 

10.3.6 - forbidden action could be anything, not always safety related. 

10.3.7 - procedural violation about props, not a direct safety violation. 

10.5.1 - handling gun under RO supervision but at the wrong time, it can be quickly rectified. 

10.5.3.2 - safely abandoning the gun, but trying to leave to grab a bag or otherwise not aware; just stop him from leaving. 

10.5.6 - backward holster cant, a quick warning can fix it. 

10.5.12 - safe table ammo; if handling ammo and NOT handling the gun, likely doesn't recognize the safe table. 

10.5.14 - retrieving a dropped gun; procedural violation, can be stopped as he tries to pick up. 

10.5.20 - attempting to clear a squib, easy to stop the shooter. 

 

Sure all of these rules create a potentially unsafe environment and that's why they are DQ-able offenses, but they are also something that a new shooter wouldn't know and that can be easily prevented from becoming unsafe if caught immediately by the RO.

 

There is absolutely zero tolerance with these rules for anyone who is not a first time shooter - this is just for someone who is there for the first time and already overwhelmed with the experience. That's at least how I see it and I would change my handling of these situation only if the RM/MD told me to.

[RJH]

7 minutes ago, IVC said:

I went quickly through chapter 10 and have pulled out examples of rules that I would consider to be something we should warn first time shooters rather than send them home. Here is a quick list with *my* reasoning for why I consider these rules to be different from direct "gun safety" violations:

 

10.3.6 - forbidden action could be anything, not always safety related. 

10.3.7 - procedural violation about props, not a direct safety violation. 

10.5.1 - handling gun under RO supervision but at the wrong time, it can be quickly rectified. 

10.5.3.2 - safely abandoning the gun, but trying to leave to grab a bag or otherwise not aware; just stop him from leaving. 

10.5.6 - backward holster cant, a quick warning can fix it. 

10.5.12 - safe table ammo; if handling ammo and NOT handling the gun, likely doesn't recognize the safe table. 

10.5.14 - retrieving a dropped gun; procedural violation, can be stopped as he tries to pick up. 

10.5.20 - attempting to clear a squib, easy to stop the shooter. 

 

Sure all of these rules create a potentially unsafe environment and that's why they are DQ-able offenses, but they are also something that a new shooter wouldn't know and that can be easily prevented from becoming unsafe if caught immediately by the RO.

 

There is absolutely zero tolerance with these rules for anyone who is not a first time shooter - this is just for someone who is there for the first time and already overwhelmed with the experience. That's at least how I see it and I would change my handling of these situation only if the RM/MD told me to.

 

 

I am going to go with no.  I am perfectly OK with stopping a new (and sometimes an experienced) shooter BEFORE they commit some of the infractions you listed, but they are there for a reason and all can lead to bad crap real quick.  Here is a wild idea; tell new shooters to take out their phone, google the uspsa rules, and read section 10.  Anything they have questions on ask.  Then also point out stuff like, "don't stand on this table just like it says not to in the WSB, cause you will get DQed."    If a new shooter won't put in the time and effort to read the rules that can get him sent home early and ask questions, i  damn sure ain't doing it for him

[Sarge]

2 hours ago, RJH said:

 

 

I am going to go with no.  I am perfectly OK with stopping a new (and sometimes an experienced) shooter BEFORE they commit some of the infractions you listed, but they are there for a reason and all can lead to bad crap real quick.  Here is a wild idea; tell new shooters to take out their phone, google the uspsa rules, and read section 10.  Anything they have questions on ask.  Then also point out stuff like, "don't stand on this table just like it says not to in the WSB, cause you will get DQed."    If a new shooter won't put in the time and effort to read the rules that can get him sent home early and ask questions, i  damn sure ain't doing it for him

Agree 110%. Besides, double standards won’t fly with seasoned shooters. What if a veteran shooter handles ammo at a safety area? You DQ him but not the new guy doing it right beside him?

[IVC]

Some of us already addressed, e.g., a first time shooter at the line, range is clear, goes to pull out the gun before "make ready" and we stop him - it's not a "gun safety violation" because all the gun safety rules are obeyed. It IS a USPSA protocol violation (and cannot be tolerated as a routine occurrence, clearly), but here's where the common sense takes over. If the RM wants to DQ him, it's on him. I won't at local L1 match. 

[IVC]

3 hours ago, RJH said:

Here is a wild idea; tell new shooters to take out their phone, google the uspsa rules, and read section 10. 

For how much of a stickler for the rules you want to be, the "160 looks awfully close to 180 if you don't tape" looks awfully close to hypocritical...

[RJH]

7 minutes ago, IVC said:

Some of us already addressed, e.g., a first time shooter at the line, range is clear, goes to pull out the gun before "make ready" and we stop him - it's not a "gun safety violation" because all the gun safety rules are obeyed. It IS a USPSA protocol violation (and cannot be tolerated as a routine occurrence, clearly), but here's where the common sense takes over. If the RM wants to DQ him, it's on him. I won't at local L1 match. 

 

That would be coaching (which is allowed at level ones) like, "don't pull your gun yet Tard, or you're gonna get DQed."  However if the gun is out, blizzard time

[RJH]

6 minutes ago, IVC said:

For how much of a stickler for the rules you want to be, the "160 looks awfully close to 180 if you don't tape" looks awfully close to hypocritical...

 

 

Yeah but new shooters don't understand taping etiquette, I just help them learn

 

 

[IVC]

Just now, RJH said:

 

 

Yeah but new shooters don't understand taping etiquette, I just help them learn

 

 

DQ-ing a new shooter is not quite learning. At least not in a sense a non-dog would understand a zap-collar... 

[RJH]

5 minutes ago, IVC said:

DQ-ing a new shooter is not quite learning. At least not in a sense a non-dog would understand a zap-collar... 

Are you saying we should zap collar new shooters, non tapers, or both?   Cause if it is both, you got my vote for president

[SGT_Schultz]

On 8/19/2020 at 11:25 AM, RJH said:

DQ,DQ,DQ,DQ. 

 

If you are new, read the rules before you show up, especially the safety portion, i did, it's not that hard.  You are playing with guns, act like it. If you get DQed and are butt hurt over it and don't come back, the rest of us are probably safer, so....bye.

 

 

This of course assumes that the RO is 100 percent sure of the DQ

 

+1

[SGT_Schultz]

Kind of a corollary to this topic.  How many DQs for unsafe gun handling in one season are enough to let someone know they aren't welcome back ever?

 

Is three in three months not enough?  Because there's a local guy who is up there.  I think he's DQ'd the last two in a row for unsafe gun handling.

[motosapiens]

6 hours ago, 18111811 said:

This is how you scare people away from the sport.  There has to be some sort of leeway with a new shorter on procedural, not safety violations, to help them learn and not make them say this isn't for them.  If you scare away newcomers the sport dies over time.

 

 

this is true, but imho the way to address it is to train and educate new shooters better right off the bat. If you expect people to show up having memorized the rules, and then dq them before the match starts on some technicality, that means you (as a club) failed to provide an environment where shooters can learn and grow and succeed.

Like others have said, I can be persuaded at a local match to overlook a technical violation (that is not unsafe) under certain circumstances, where the shooter has not yet been brought into the fold.

[Sarge]

7 hours ago, 18111811 said:

This is how you scare people away from the sport.  There has to be some sort of leeway with a new shorter on procedural, not safety violations, to help them learn and not make them say this isn't for them.  If you scare away newcomers the sport dies over time.

 

I remember when I was stationed at Bragg and started shooting skeet on the MWR site up in Spring Lake and going to NC matches.  Aside from one female around my age, I was close to 20 years younger than the next closest competitor.  Skeet is a dying sport, and these old timers knew it, so they went out of their way to make me feel welcomed and gave me advice, old Mec Presses, shell bags, etc, and encouragement so that I kept coming back.  Not only did I enjhoy myself, but I felt like part of the family and their unsolicited gear donations helped me save a bunch of money.  If I had a s#!tty experience at my first or first few matches, I would've stopped attending the local matches who then would've lost 50% of the under 25 crowd.

Did you do anything unsafe or against skeet rules, if there is such a thing? Did you point a loaded gun outside the skeet field? Etc? 

[IVC]

12 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Did you do anything unsafe or against skeet rules, if there is such a thing? Did you point a loaded gun outside the skeet field? Etc? 

He probably didn't, but he might have had incorrect attire - don't they have to wear special jackets? And isn't wrong color jacket a DQ-able offense? 

[IVC]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

Are you saying we should zap collar new shooters, non tapers, or both?   Cause if it is both, you got my vote for president

If you vote for me for president, I'll zap them all myself. But that's not what we're talking about here...

[WaJim]

..............

 

Ill poke in my 2 cents.

 

With the new post Covid world we've come upon a flood of new shooters.

 

My opinion these guys will ONLY learn the rules when they're made to walk.

 

USUALLY between the RO's in the squad there's chatter on how the new guys are doing with gun handling.

 

Had a Veteran shooter last week come close to 180 DQ.....we had a chat.

 

Usually the new guy that damn near breaks the 180, runs with finger on the trigger or has has come close to DQ a time or two before and fails miserably when he goes left to right on a stage while reloading.

 

I have no problem DQ.

 

Would take a DQ humbly if I made that mistake.

 

Its not grade school.....rules be rules.

 

 

[Jim Watson]

On 8/19/2020 at 11:56 AM, IHAVEGAS said:

Is there any why not besides that the person might decide that the sport is not for them? Is there anyone who thinks they would have quit the sport if they had earned a righteous dq at their first match? 

 

Pretty common, I can add to the ones already cited.  One DQ, one "good talking to", one "I can shoot the gun, I just can't handle all these RULES!" that I can think of offhand.  Not counting the nitwit who twirled his gun into the holster like a cowboy trick shooter.  

 

USPSA and usually IDPA have the 180 limit.  SASS is more cautious, they have a 170 limit so there is a lot less doubt.  No 179 or 181 debate, if you are even close to 180, you are past their tolerance.   

 

[SGT_Schultz]

14 hours ago, 18111811 said:

This is how you scare people away from the sport.  There has to be some sort of leeway with a new shorter on procedural, not safety violations, to help them learn and not make them say this isn't for them. 

 

I can't recall any sort of procedural violations that require a DQ.  Only safety violations.

 

As far as procedural penalties, I still hand them out but I explain to them why and how to avoid them in the future.

 

People don't internalize the correction for their mistakes when the mistakes are "free".

 

If some noob gets butthurt over that, then this isn't the sport for him or her anyway.

[SGT_Schultz]

On 8/19/2020 at 12:10 PM, IVC said:

Do you nail him for pulling the gun out of holster at the incorrect time, but while under RO supervision?

Absolutely.  Saw it happen to a new shooter that I brought into the sport.

 

He understood his mistake, took the punishment, and came back next week ready to rumble.  THAT'S how it's done.

 

The guy who gets a freebie on a safety violation today is more likely to be the one who shoots you by mistake later on down the road.

 

I like a line from Top Gun, where some pilot is getting an ass chewing from the school CO....."the rules at Top Gun are inflexible, and so am I".

[IHAVEGAS]

7 hours ago, Jim Watson said:

USPSA and usually IDPA have the 180 limit.  SASS is more cautious, they have a 170 limit so there is a lot less doubt.  No 179 or 181 debate, if you are even close to 180, you are past their tolerance.   

 

 

In USPSA or IDPA I don't understand a 181 debate.

We seem to agree here that if the r.o./s.o. is not 100% sure then there should be no dq.

Calls are made in real time typically with both the shooter and in r.o. in motion.

In real time I don't know anyone who is capable of judging the relationship between the gun angle and the 180 line (often at an angle to the way the stage is constructed) within 5 degrees (or maybe 10 is a better number) and being 100% sure of the call. In a higher level match where you can position a static set of eyes at a dicey position a tighter call could be made with confidence. 

 

 

A couple years back a good friend told me that I missed a 180 call on the last guy shooting a stage, he thought I just let the guy off. It was one of the 'forgot target run back to the port to shoot it' deals. We had time waiting for the next squad so I positioned myself where the shooter was and positioned, my friend where I had been, pointed out the angle of the 180 line relative to how we were standing, and then said "ok, in real time what can you see to justify being 100% sure that guy broke the 180"?

My friend said, "Oh".

  

Edited August 22, 2020 by IHAVEGAS

[Joe4d]

granted I dont have the ro experience of many on here. And I havent done it for about 8 years or so. But I did make it to CRO of an Area match stage,, and RO'd several majors. So not complete rookie.
The only DQ's I can recall EVER scoring were a couple sponsored GM's and an experienced old timer who was actually the club safety officer and acted like a complete child over it for a year afterwards. Despite the entire SQUAD witnessing and agreeing with the call.  Was a blatant 180 violation.
 

[MHicks]

5 hours ago, Jim Watson said:

 

Pretty common, I can add to the ones already cited.  One DQ, one "good talking to", one "I can shoot the gun, I just can't handle all these RULES!" that I can think of offhand.  Not counting the nitwit who twirled his gun into the holster like a cowboy trick shooter.  

 

USPSA and usually IDPA have the 180 limit.  SASS is more cautious, they have a 170 limit so there is a lot less doubt.  No 179 or 181 debate, if you are even close to 180, you are past their tolerance.   

 

SASS is more cautious with the 170, but there is no penalty for sweeping yourself with an unloaded or loaded gun.

[18111811]

14 hours ago, Sarge said:

Did you do anything unsafe or against skeet rules, if there is such a thing? Did you point a loaded gun outside the skeet field? Etc? 

Nope. and i mentioned in my post cutting slack for procedural and not safety issues. 

[18111811]

13 hours ago, IVC said:

He probably didn't, but he might have had incorrect attire - don't they have to wear special jackets? And isn't wrong color jacket a DQ-able offense? 

Didnt have a rolex, 25000 Krieghoff, 500k camper, nor 10k golf cart.

Edited August 22, 2020 by 18111811

[SGT_Schultz]

29 minutes ago, 18111811 said:

Didnt have a rolex, 25000 Krieghoff, 500k camper, nor 10k golf cart.

 

LOL sounds like sporting clays as well