CO optic falls off - bump to Open?

[MikeBurgess]

Just now, broadside72 said:

 

Correct. If found before the start, he is given opportunity to correct it. If found during the COF then its a zero and you mention it after the COF is completed. When does that bolded section no longer apply? If you have given range is clear, the COF is over, and then you notice the out of compliance while standing there next the the shooter, what happens? What is the timing of this rule? I guess this is what your suggestion covers, finding the non compliance immediately after a COF has finished. 

 

Then the issue is getting the ROs at the next stage to check it has been corrected.

I would say if you as the RO know they shot the course while out of compliance or became out of compliance during the course you are required to issue the Zero score. You may not go back to stages that the shooter has completed previously to the stage in question.  

 

Say the shooter holsters at the end of the stage and you take a second look and realize that the holster is way out of spec and card it, and its out of spec, you issue the zero and in working with the shooter it turns out that the holster in question can not be made legal without say removing spacers or adding shims, at this point you are 100% positive that rig has been illegal  since the beginning of the match, you still cant go back in time and change his previous scores.  

[mreed911]

21 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

Say the shooter holsters at the end of the stage and you take a second look and realize that the holster is way out of spec and card it, and its out of spec, you issue the zero

 

As an RO, I'd be hard pressed to do this.  The shooter could easily argue "it got knocked out of compliance during the stage, it was legal when I started."  I'd score this as shot, then call the RM to discuss the REMAINING stages with the competitor.  Moreso if I'd started the competitor on the stage - if I didn't note it then, I can't affirmatively say it was out of compliance at that time.

Edited March 23, 2021 by mreed911

[MikeBurgess]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

The exception, obviously, would be non-compliant magazine capacities in Production or L10. Those are throughout the COF. 

the mag capacity is almost point in time at the start signal now, you can have as many in you mags as you like when you start make ready, but you may not have more than allowed after the start signal.

I would say that even making this a point in time at the start signal would be 100% fine. under my concept production guy could have 10 in each mag at the beep, then grab his mag and start stuffing extra rounds in it if he wanted, I can't see a stage where hand loading a mag on the clock would be a net gain so why care about it.

[MikeBurgess]

Just now, mreed911 said:

 

As an RO, I'd be hard pressed to do this.  The shooter could easily argue "it got knocked out of compliance during the stage, it was legal when I started."  I'd score this as shot, then call the RM to discuss the REMAINING stages with the competitor.

5.2.5.2 is pretty clear, there is not exception in it for it happened during the course of fire. 

What you mean to say is you think using the start signal as the moment in time where equipment compliance matters should be the rule.

[MikeBurgess]

before anyone askes,

Yes I have had my holster measured after a stage run, at a area match by the ARO that noticed it during the stage. My gear was legal, but I was 100% aware that the rules called for a zero on the stage if it was not.

[mreed911]

2 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

5.2.5.2 is pretty clear, there is not exception in it for it happened during the course of fire. 

What you mean to say is you think using the start signal as the moment in time where equipment compliance matters should be the rule.

 

I edited my comment.  If I started the shooter, they were in compliance when I started them.

 

At the end, I can't prove they weren't, and the shooter could argue "I felt something pop when I holstered that time - it just happened."

 

Benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter on something subjective like this.

[MikeBurgess]

Just now, mreed911 said:

 

I edited my comment.  If I started the shooter, they were in compliance when I started them.

 

At the end, I can't prove they weren't, and the shooter could argue "I felt something pop when I holstered that time - it just happened."

 

Benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter on something subjective like this.

1 the course of fire ends at "range is clear" so it popped when I holstered is not a wining argument.

2 there is literally no "benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter" rule anywhere in our rule book. This drives me crazy, not because I want to be a Richard but because its saying I would rather be nice than do it by the book.

 

[mreed911]

39 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

1 the course of fire ends at "range is clear" so it popped when I holstered is not a wining argument.

2 there is literally no "benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter" rule anywhere in our rule book. This drives me crazy, not because I want to be a Richard but because its saying I would rather be nice than do it by the book.

 

Again, considering I started them, signifying they were legal to start, that met criteria.  Just like if a shooter trips, falls, maintains control of their gun but it pushes their mag pouch to an illegal position (under prior rules) and they never reload again through the end of the stage, am I bumping them to open for that?  Of course not.

 

It needs to be right to start the next stage.  It was right to start this one, and through no fault of the competitor (not trying to gain and not using any competitive advantage) things went sideways.

 

A dot coming off and finishing a stage with irons, or slapping the above-mentioned clip-weight on after the buzzer?  That's a little more clear, and the rules address both of those: 1) two minutes to fix, or shot as scored, or continue with iron sights and bump to open and 2) if there's not a rule that says you can add it, you can't add it, and you can't modify your equipment without permission of the RM.

 

Like anything, there's some judgement that comes into play.

[IVC]

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

under my concept production guy could have 10 in each mag at the beep, then grab his mag and start stuffing extra rounds in it if he wanted,

You wouldn't know the count at the beep and if you counted to, say, 15 before he reloaded, that would be assessment "during COF," not at the "point in time at the start signal." 

[IVC]

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

2 there is literally no "benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter" rule anywhere in our rule book. This drives me crazy, not because I want to be a Richard but because its saying I would rather be nice than do it by the book.

Of course there is no explicit wording of this sort, but there are rules where indeed the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter. The most obvious one is the 180 - if you can tell WITH CERTAINTY that the 180 is broken, it's as black and white as the the old movies. However, if you only see it was in the VICINITY of 180 but cannot be absolutely sure whether the plane was broken, and this is pretty much true for any infraction that is within a few degrees, the benefit of the doubt (there, I used that term) goes to the shooter because you are not CERTAIN about the call. 

 

The "benefit of the doubt" is not to cut shooters slack, but to account for the uncertainty in your call as the RO when you are not 100% sure. 

[motosapiens]

3 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

Excerpt  of text in 5.2.5.2  ...Any competitor who shoots a course of fire while out of compliance will receive a zero score for that course of fire, unless specifically exempted by the Range Master...

 

my bolding

 

So if at ULSC, HDH it is found your holster is too far out from the inside of your belt per division rules (long or short side of card) you get a zero for that stage, that is what the rule says. 

I would say the burden of proof is on you to show that it was actually out of compliance during the COF. If you only check after ULSC, you don't really know when it went wrong. If you are checking before the 'range is clear' command, I would say you had your priorities wrong. I suspect a decent rangemaster would tell you to do a better job checking equipment, and tell the shooter to go fix his equipment.

[mreed911]

4 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

I would say the burden of proof is on you to show that it was actually out of compliance during the COF. If you only check after ULSC, you don't really know when it went wrong. If you are checking before the 'range is clear' command, I would say you had your priorities wrong. I suspect a decent rangemaster would tell you to do a better job checking equipment, and tell the shooter to go fix his equipment.

 

Technically, after ULSC but before HDH or Range is Clear is still during the COF.  The COF ends with Range is Clear.

 

I'd have to say that HDH, then a 'card check' of holster distance before RIC would be a dick move, but well within the COF.

Edited March 23, 2021 by mreed911

[twodownzero]

23 hours ago, IVC said:

The intent is simple - if you want to have a light, you can't fill the equivalent container with lead just to increase weight. The "must be functional" is actually not a good solution to the problem because it's easy to create a WML that is mostly lead, with a puny micro-light in it just for compliance. A better approach would be either to have a weight limit, or to let people shot whatever they want. It's a game anyways, and with this micro-regulation we're looking more like IDPA. 

 

Rules don't have "intent."  They are just words.

 

And what you describe is not prohibited.  As long as a single LED on the front of your "light" makes light and can be turned off, you can still fill the body with molten lead and it'd be perfectly legal under the current rules.

 

The micro-regulation is what Production was supposed to be.  It IS supposed to be like IDPA.

[IVC]

1 hour ago, twodownzero said:

 

Rules don't have "intent."  They are just words.

 

And what you describe is not prohibited.  As long as a single LED on the front of your "light" makes light and can be turned off, you can still fill the body with molten lead and it'd be perfectly legal under the current rules.

 

The micro-regulation is what Production was supposed to be.  It IS supposed to be like IDPA.

Rules do have intent, but it is also true that the intent doesn't matter in applying them. 

 

My observation was that it's better not to have a rule than have a rule that is easily circumvented. Either require a "production light," and even then it's a matter of months before manufacturers start selling a "USPSA Special," or simply allow dead weight and call it a WML. Adding rules that do nothing just clutters the rule book. 

[motosapiens]

2 minutes ago, IVC said:

Rules do have intent, but it is also true that the intent doesn't matter in applying them. 

 

 

at the risk of invoking Godwin..... this is pretty much how germans thought in the 30's.  I would say the intent *does* matter when there are gray areas that can be interpreted in a sensible way or stupid and dickish way.

[Nolan]

This thread makes me really happy I don't shoot Production or Carry Optics!

 

Nolan

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

The addition of a light.

The adding of a part.

The addition of a devise. 
A nonessential part to the operation to the gun just opens a door. 
don’t they have a quick release lever for removal. Idk 

why do I feel like carry magwells are righty around the corner. 
All the same arguments can be made for them. 
 

 

[twodownzero]

2 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

at the risk of invoking Godwin..... this is pretty much how germans thought in the 30's.  I would say the intent *does* matter when there are gray areas that can be interpreted in a sensible way or stupid and dickish way.

Rules are created by a collective group.   They have no intent and cannot have intent, only meaning.   They should be given a meaning that makes sense.  But the rules cannot be interrogated, interviewed, or supplemented.  We should strive to give them meaning and effect and leave it to the BOD to fix them if they're screwed up. 

Edited March 24, 2021 by twodownzero

[MikeBurgess]

17 hours ago, motosapiens said:

I would say the burden of proof is on you to show that it was actually out of compliance during the COF. If you only check after ULSC, you don't really know when it went wrong. If you are checking before the 'range is clear' command, I would say you had your priorities wrong. I suspect a decent rangemaster would tell you to do a better job checking equipment, and tell the shooter to go fix his equipment.

I would agree that priority's should be in other places but unfortunately there are a few RO's that put their priority's in the wrong place. That's why making gear enforcement a moment in time at the start signal a good solution, anything that happens after the beep doesn't matter and ends this and other similar discussions. 

For the most part this is how most all ready enforce the rules, making it the rule would get everyone to do it the same way. 

[motosapiens]

13 hours ago, twodownzero said:

Rules are created by a collective group.   They have no intent and cannot have intent, only meaning. 

I couldn't disagree more. Most rules have a pretty clear intent.

[Joe4d]

and the entire legal profession is based on circumventing that intent.

[mreed911]

8 hours ago, Joe4d said:

and the entire legal profession is based on circumventing that intent.

 

Hence arbitration. 

[pjb45]

Intent is defined legalistically. 

USPSA has rules.  

It is a legal system by which a match is conducted-IMO.

Intent is defined via  multiple sources.

USPSA rule book does not addressed every possible event.

Therefore, Subjectivity does come into the conduction of a match.

 

There are lots of rule book citations in this thread.

 

Is there a definitive answer to Richard's question?

Simple question--Move to Open or not, based solely on the data provided by Richard?

 

[twodownzero]

On 3/24/2021 at 8:58 AM, motosapiens said:

I couldn't disagree more. Most rules have a pretty clear intent.

 

Nope, they have what you think was what their creators intended.  But the intent of the creators does not create intent behind the rules.  The rules have meaning regardless of whether a future novel interpretation was intended or even considered.  And it is the meaning that controls their application, not some subjective assessment of what they must have intended by creating the rule.

 

For example, the 180 rule is in place, obviously, to prevent projectiles from being fired uprange, because that is an unnecessary danger.  Breaking the 180 is a DQ.  Does it matter if the gun was never pointed anywhere where it could endanger a person?  Absolutely not.  The 180 rule has meaning, and if the condition is satisfied, the competitor is disqualified.  It may be more uncomfortable to DQ someone where nobody was endangered by unsafe gun handling, but the result is not different where the putative "purpose" behind the rule is absent, no matter how obvious that purpose may seem.  The same is true for a great number of other rules, the simplest being the "10 round after the start signal" rule in Production.  Does it matter if you use the extra round?  Nope.  If there was 11 rounds in your magazine because you forgot to rack the slide, you're still going to Open, regardless of why you weren't in compliance.  I could go on and on, and you can disagree all you want, but the reality is that rules cannot have intent.  They have meaning that depends on facts.  If those facts exist, the rules create results.  What purpose was behind creating the rule has no bearing on how it applies.  We may not like it, but the where the rules apply and the result is clear, the interpretation is over and the results happen.

Edited March 26, 2021 by twodownzero

[mreed911]

14 hours ago, pjb45 said:

Is there a definitive answer to Richard's question?

Simple question--Move to Open or not, based solely on the data provided by Richard?

 

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.