CO optic falls off - bump to Open?

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

So if I’m shooting production with a Da/SA gun. 
takd the beep hammer down DA first pull fire a few shots all good. 
then get a couple light primer strikes and the RO notices the gun is not resetting in DA but works when I rack it into SA. 
Does that make it a SA gun and a bump to open ? 
I know everybody here loves hypotheticals

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Superkaratemonkeyfighter said:

So if I’m shooting production with a Da/SA gun. 
takd the beep hammer down DA first pull fire a few shots all good. 
then get a couple light primer strikes and the RO notices the gun is not resetting in DA but works when I rack it into SA. 
Does that make it a SA gun and a bump to open ? 
I know everybody here loves hypotheticals

does the light work?

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

Haha. Yes  intermittently   

[mreed911]

4 hours ago, Superkaratemonkeyfighter said:

So if I’m shooting production with a Da/SA gun. 
takd the beep hammer down DA first pull fire a few shots all good. 
then get a couple light primer strikes and the RO notices the gun is not resetting in DA but works when I rack it into SA. 
Does that make it a SA gun and a bump to open ? 
I know everybody here loves hypotheticals

 

 

Of course not.  It's a DA gun.  It's up to the RO to determine if anything is unsafe.  If not, bang, rack, bang, rack, bang rack until you're happy with your time on the stage. 

 

[Southpaw]

11 hours ago, mreed911 said:

 

Yes.  If during the course of fire the competitor fails to meet the division requirements, they're moved to Open (6.2.5.1).  Having a CO gun with no optic does not meet the division requirements for CO and the rules state this happens if the competitor "fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of a declared handgun Division during a course of fire."  They can/should continue the stage if safe/practical using their iron sights or point shooting if they prefer... or the competitor can opt to stop themselves, in either case it's scored as shot and the competitor is moved to Open.  No reshoot is available to the competitor (5.7.6). They then talk to the RM about replacing the gun/equipment (5.1.7, which specifically includes sights) if they want, and finish the match in Open regardless.

 

Even though they're bumping to Open no matter what, if the optic comes off and the competitor wants to attempt to re-attach it (consider someone using a QD mount on a handgun - unlikely but possible), the shooter has two minutes to rectify the situation on the clock (5.7.2). They still go to Open, though, because at one point during the course of fire, their firearm/equipment no longer met the requirements for CO.

 

This is absolutely a call an RM should be involved in (and preferably making) since the RO/CRO should score the stage and move to the next shooter.

 

That is a very well articulated and thorough response that's supported by the rule book...however, I can't see it ever really going down like that at a match.  And if it did, I'd love to be on the arbitration committee

[IVC]

46 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

And if it did, I'd love to be on the arbitration committee

Are you an RO? You would still have to rule by the book and not by your feelings, and this one is a clear cut by the book. Arbitration is there to resolve issues where the rules are not clear or where the interpretation by the RO/CRO/RM was incorrect (or correct) in the field, not to overrule the rules you disagree with. 

[pjb45]

21 hours ago, mreed911 said:

 

Yes.  If during the course of fire the competitor fails to meet the division requirements, they're moved to Open (6.2.5.1).  Having a CO gun with no optic does not meet the division requirements for CO and the rules state this happens if the competitor "fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of a declared handgun Division during a course of fire."  They can/should continue the stage if safe/practical using their iron sights or point shooting if they prefer... or the competitor can opt to stop themselves, in either case it's scored as shot and the competitor is moved to Open.  No reshoot is available to the competitor (5.7.6). They then talk to the RM about replacing the gun/equipment (5.1.7, which specifically includes sights) if they want, and finish the match in Open regardless.

 

Even though they're bumping to Open no matter what, if the optic comes off and the competitor wants to attempt to re-attach it (consider someone using a QD mount on a handgun - unlikely but possible), the shooter has two minutes to rectify the situation on the clock (5.7.2). They still go to Open, though, because at one point during the course of fire, their firearm/equipment no longer met the requirements for CO.

 

This is absolutely a call an RM should be involved in (and preferably making) since the RO/CRO should score the stage and move to the next shooter.

Nice summary. 

[mreed911]

11 hours ago, Southpaw said:

 

That is a very well articulated and thorough response that's supported by the rule book...however, I can't see it ever really going down like that at a match.  And if it did, I'd love to be on the arbitration committee

 

No competent competitor would pay to arbitrate this because 6.2.5.1 is black and white.  If USPSA wanted to allow for sights flying off to not be an immediate bump to open, that's the rule they'd have to change.

Edited March 27, 2021 by mreed911

[IVC]

3 hours ago, mreed911 said:

 

No competent competitor would pay to arbitrate this because 6.2.5.1 is black and white.  If USPSA wanted to allow for sights flying off to not be an immediate bump to open, that's the rule they'd have to change.

Just one small observation - the (very old) rumor has it that the original intent was to prevent a certain "troublemaker" multi-national Production winner from shooting his irons in C/O and dominating it. This was in the early days, before cyborgs such as Max Michel and others made the C/O what it is today in terms of speed and hit factors.

 

I don't know whether this is true (and if not, feel free to correct me), but it's the only logical explanation for that obsolete rule. I would expect it to be removed in the future since it's not needed, doesn't make sense, it's the only division with a requirement on the sights and it would be all much cleaner if it was simply dropped. 

 

However, we are in complete agreement that in the meantime the rule is what it is and the interpretation is very clear. 

[motosapiens]

 

"Where rules require interpretation or where an

incident is not specifically covered by the rules, the Arbitration Committee

will use their best judgment consistent with the intent of the rules."

 

certainly you can argue that it's black and white, but we have seen plenty of rulings that go against what some people perceive as black and white rules. some folks here are suggesting that a general application of the rules appears to cover the optic falling off, but the rules don't say anything specifically about the situation where an existing optic falls off during a stage, so it's not 'specifically covered by the rules'.  It clearly was never the intent of the board or DNROI to penalize people when their optic falls off. As a CRO, I would probably not bump someone to open if that happened, but I also wouldn't take it personally if some other competitor saw an opportunity to move up in the standings by acting like a douche and complained to the RM. On an arb committee, I would be extremely unlikely to support a bump.

 

You're required to keep your holster and mag pouches in the same place on your belt too, but how many of you would penalize a shooter who breaks or dislodges a holster or pouch when going prone, or when tripping and falling? Moving or repositioning their equipment when they're not allowed to? Unsportsmanlike DQ, right?

Edited March 28, 2021 by motosapiens

[IVC]

So, how would you personally interpret and define the intent of the rule D7-13 which states: "Optical/electronic sights REQUIRED; must be attached directly to slide between rear of slide and ejection port, and may not be mounted to the frame in any way"?

(Emphasis mine.)

 

You also have to reconcile your argument with the 6.2.5.1 which states: "However, if a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of a declared handgun Division during a course of fire, the competitor will be placed in Open Division, if available, otherwise the competitor will shoot the match for no score."

(Emphasis mine.)

 

There is one capital letter word "REQUIRED," one "must" and one "will be." What would be the alternative intent of these rules that would support your interpretation? Note that I agree with you that it should be the way you describe it and that it makes no sense to interpret it any other way, but it isn't that way at the moment so we have to interpret it the way it's written.

 

That's why I would like to see the rules changed to: "Optical/electronic sights allowed; if attached, it must be attached directly to slide between rear of slide and ejection port, and may not be mounted to the frame in any way." That's what I believe the intent of the rule was anyways. Until then... 

Edited March 28, 2021 by IVC

[motosapiens]

2 hours ago, IVC said:

So, how would you personally interpret and define the intent of the rule D7-13 which states: "Optical/electronic sights REQUIRED; must be attached directly to slide between rear of slide and ejection port, and may not be mounted to the frame in any way"?

(Emphasis mine.)

 

You also have to reconcile your argument with the 6.2.5.1 which states: "However, if a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of a declared handgun Division during a course of fire, the competitor will be placed in Open Division, if available, otherwise the competitor will shoot the match for no score."

(Emphasis mine.)

 

 

believe me, I understand how some people take things literally, and will try to use 2 different rule sections that were written for different reasons at two different times to see if they can penalize a shooter unnecessarily.

 

Certainly, in general terms, the rules support your view, just like they support shooting for no score if a holster breaks when someone falls so it no longer holds the gun in a legal position. But in specific terms, the rules don't say "if your optic breaks, that is considered not satisfying the requirements of a division, so you will get moved to open."  It is pretty clear that was never the intent of the rules, so it is in my view (after carefully reading the arbitration section) quite reasonable for an RM or arb committee to consider the intent, and prevent that rule getting stretched to point of absurdity.

 

At any rate, it doesn't really matter what you think, or what I think. It matters what the CRO's that work major matches think (in terms of arbitration), and it matters what Troy and the other RMI's think (in terms of rule guidance). If it happens and Troy tells me it's a bump to open, then fine.

 

I agree that the best solution would be to simply change the wording as in your example, so that the optic was no longer required. It would make this silly argument unnecessary, and it would also make it less necessary to travel with backup optics. If your optic breaks, take off the optic, put irons back on, and finish the match while having fun. I also think there would be some interest from some folks in just shooting hi-cap minor with irons. Of course they'll be at a disadvantage, but on most stages not an insurmountable disadvantage.

[ima45dv8]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

At any rate, it doesn't really matter what you think, or what I think. It matters what the CRO's that work major matches think (in terms of arbitration), and it matters what Troy and the other RMI's think (in terms of rule guidance). If it happens and Troy tells me it's a bump to open, then fine.

This is really where this is for me. The acid tests and any eventual clarifications will be driven by major matches if left as is.

[MikeBurgess]

As the last several posts show, this is why we should have a point in time for division compliance. It takes all the BS out and makes everyone do it the same way al the time.

 

there will (unfortunately) always be officials looking to enforce the letter of the rules and those looking to run a safe fair match, anything we can do that forces both onto the same page is a good thing 

[mreed911]

16 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

there will (unfortunately) always be officials looking to enforce the letter of the rules and those looking to run a safe fair match, anything we can do that forces both onto the same page is a good thing 

 

As the saying goes, "Why not both?" 

[Bakerjd]

On 3/28/2021 at 2:28 PM, IVC said:

So, how would you personally interpret and define the intent of the rule D7-13 which states: "Optical/electronic sights REQUIRED; must be attached directly to slide between rear of slide and ejection port, 

This rules specifically says the optic must be directly attached to the slide. So where does it say you are allowed to use an adapter plate then? Because if using an adapter plate the optic isnt actually mounted to the slide at all. It is mounted to the plate which is mounted to the slide. 

[motosapiens]

4 hours ago, Bakerjd said:

This rules specifically says the optic must be directly attached to the slide. So where does it say you are allowed to use an adapter plate then? Because if using an adapter plate the optic isnt actually mounted to the slide at all. It is mounted to the plate which is mounted to the slide. 

that is black and white, by the standards of some in this thread. I see a bump to open for anyone not using a a direct slide mount.

[mreed911]

4 hours ago, Bakerjd said:

This rules specifically says the optic must be directly attached to the slide. So where does it say you are allowed to use an adapter plate then? Because if using an adapter plate the optic isnt actually mounted to the slide at all. It is mounted to the plate which is mounted to the slide. 

 

I suspect you don't know all the meanings of "direct" and "directly."  That's like saying "a direct route could only be one step away from something because any more steps and you're actually going through somewhere else to get there, so it's not direct."

 

Check out MW for the definitions.  The optic is directly mounted to the slide by means of an adapter plate to make a direct connection between slide and optic, hence it's "directly mounted to the slide."

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, mreed911 said:

 

I suspect you don't know all the meanings of "direct" and "directly."  That's like saying "a direct route could only be one step away from something because any more steps and you're actually going through somewhere else to get there, so it's not direct."

 

Check out MW for the definitions.  The optic is directly mounted to the slide by means of an adapter plate to make a direct connection between slide and optic, hence it's "directly mounted to the slide."

that's not how the english language works. A direct flight doesn't have a layover or plane change. Similarly, 'directly mounted' means without an intermediary adaptor plate. black and white bump to open. No one cares about the 'intent'. there is no intent, only words (and lawyers, lol).

Edited March 30, 2021 by motosapiens

[mreed911]

1 minute ago, motosapiens said:

that's not how the english language works. A direct flight doesn't have a layover or plane change. Similarly, 'directly mounted' means without an intermediary adaptor plate. black and white bump to open. No one cares about the 'intent'. there is no intent, only words (and lawyers, lol).

 

LOL.  Go argue with Merriam Webster.  "Direct" and "directly" both have several denotations.  There's the way you're using it, and there's "use this mount plate to directly attach your optic to your slide," meaning it's straight and connected, e.g. a "direct route."

[IVC]

9 hours ago, Bakerjd said:

This rules specifically says the optic must be directly attached to the slide. So where does it say you are allowed to use an adapter plate then? Because if using an adapter plate the optic isnt actually mounted to the slide at all. It is mounted to the plate which is mounted to the slide. 

Your interpretation would have to change the language and therefore doesn't apply. The plain meaning of the "directly attached" prevails. There is no requirement for two parts to touch in order to be directly attached. Whether you add a shim, washer, or a coat of oil, the sight is still directly attached to the slide. More importantly, the rest of the sentence provides the context as well. 

 

Back to the original discussion, if you want to argue the optics falling off, the rule says that the requirements of the division must be satisfied "during the course of fire." You'll be hard pressed to find any linguistic interpretation that has an alternative meaning from the plain reading of "between the beginning and the end of the course of fire." 

Edited March 30, 2021 by IVC
spelling/grammar

[IVC]

3 hours ago, motosapiens said:

that is black and white, by the standards of some in this thread.

The rule we are discussing is indeed "black and white." It says what it says, I didn't write it and I wasn't the one to put it there so I don't have a dog in this fight. If you think that there is ambiguity in "during the course of fire," you have to state which part is ambiguous. 

 

And, if you think that the rule 6.2.5.1 allows for some division requirements not to be satisfied during the course of fire, you also need to specify which division requirements can be violated and why you believe the rule makes this distinction of allowing some division rules to be violated, but not others. For example, reloading into a fully loaded 171mm magazine during a course of fire in C/O is a violation of division rules in 6.2.5.1, so there must be a way in the rule itself to differentiate between violation of D7-8 (magazine length) and D7-13 (sights). 

[IVC]

2 hours ago, motosapiens said:

Similarly, 'directly mounted' means without an intermediary adaptor plate. black and white bump to open.

Another reference to "black and white" - the rule 6.2.5.1 IS "black and white" even if you're using interpretation to make it into what it should have been instead of applying it the way it is written. We can agree that sights falling off shouldn't result in the bump to Open, but that doesn't mean that the rule is ambiguous or that we are following it, it means that we are simply not applying a rule that we don't like.

 

Once we get into the selective application of rules, we no longer have the ability to complain how Level 1 matches ignore gear positioning (magazines/guns too far from the belt, guns too low, holsters too open), or how some guys sometimes get a reshoot if there is a malfunction of their gun close to the start, or how at L1 on a steel plate sometimes it's "shoot until it falls," sometimes it's "you hit it, get going," but it's practically never "it's a REF, here's a reshoot." 

 

The discussion of whether and which rules we can change on the fly because we don't like them would be a different thread. My point is only that as far as the rules go, it's a clear cut. As far as what it should be, I'm with many here who argue it needs to change. As far as what should be done in practice, if you don't bump to Open you're creating your own rules (for better or worse, it's a separate discussion). 

Edited March 30, 2021 by IVC
spelling

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

My point is only that as far as the rules go, it's a clear cut. 

I already explained why I disagree. Sure, in general terms, you can make an argument that it seems clear-cut, but since the rules don't *specifically mention* the optic falling off, it is perfectly reasonable for an arb committee (or an RM) to overturn a stupid and unintended application of the rule.

 

The rules also say that the holster must cover the slide up to 1/2" below the ejection port. What if your holster breaks when you go prone so that it no longers covers enough of the slide? Black and white? bump to open?

 

what if your flashlight stops being 'functional' during the stage? black and white? bump to open?

 

what if you step on your magazine after you drop it and put a gouge in the basepad so it no longer quite fits the gauge? bump to open? black and white? should we be measuring magazines every stage?

 

What rule supports treating these things differently from the optic falling off the slide? they all seem black and white to me.

Edited March 30, 2021 by motosapiens

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

There is no requirement for two parts to touch in order to be directly attached. Whether you add a shim, washer, or a coat of oil, the sight is till directly attached to the slide. More importantly, the rest of the sentence provides the context as well. 

 

 

that would only be true if the screws for the optic go all the way through the plate and into the slide.

 

On both our guns the optic mounts indirectly. screws mount the plate to the slide, and different screws mount the optic to the plate.

 

You seem to be very choosy about when clear-cut things are actually clear-cut.

Edited March 30, 2021 by motosapiens