Is this a Disqualification ("DQ")?

[SGT_Schultz]

41 minutes ago, Silverscooby27 said:

I’m with Charlie on this one. It seems that this incident proves that 10.5.19 needs to be worded to specifically prohibit looking into an optic at all, not just “sight picture “ if that is what is intended. The “e.g.” is what introduces different “interpretations” of the rule, and I suppose at that point it is up to the RM, but still should be clarified if it is something that happens often and is allowed in 3 Gun. We want to be inclusive, right?

I agree that the rules need to be amended for clarity.

 

The question in my mind is: how is safety improved by prohibiting shooters from looking at/through the sight as long as 5.2.1.3 through 5.2.1.8 are complied with, and the definitions of handling and sight picture aren't violated?

[SGT_Schultz]

4 minutes ago, BillChunn said:

 

3 Gun rules do not apply in a USPSA match. 

 

If you are going to shoot a specific USPSA division, then read the USPSA rules.  If you don't understand those rules, then ask the highest level official at that match, the MD.  If he can't answer your question, he'll know who can and should reach out to them.  Hell, I've done it using text messages during a match.  It's handy to know a NROI Instructor in the same time zone, let alone the same state.

 

The gentleman who called "stop" is wearing a gold colored jersey indicating 15+ years as a range officer.  He probably has run quite a few shooters and possibly more PCC's than showed up at your local L1 match.

 

Lesson learned.  Sometimes the hard lessons are the most remembered.

 

BC

 

 

 

 

This is the second time in as many days that someone has used "time as an RO" to gloss over a potential officiating mistake and to apparently try to shut down a legitimate questioning of a rule interpretation.

 

This has nothing to do with 3 gun.  It has everything to do with an interpretation that several of us can't find support for in the rulebook as it's written.

 

Someone's experience doesn't immunize him from mistakes.

 

 

[BillChunn]

1 hour ago, Silverscooby27 said:

I’m with Charlie on this one. It seems that this incident proves that 10.5.19 needs to be worded to specifically prohibit looking into an optic at all, not just “sight picture “ if that is what is intended. The “e.g.” is what introduces different “interpretations” of the rule, and I suppose at that point it is up to the RM, but still should be clarified if it is something that happens often and is allowed in 3 Gun. We want to be inclusive, right?

 

10.5.19 does not need to be rewritten unless you don't understand the meaning of "e.g."

 

e.g. is the abbreviation for the Latin phrase exempli gratia, meaning “for example.” 

 

The examples provided in 10.5.19 are specific and very clear.  When handling the carbine, there are specific actions that you can not do.  If you do one of them, you get a trip to the Dairy Queen.  Since what the competitor did was not on camera, we only have the report which stated 10.5.19 was violated.  Others reported that he took a sight picture at the PCC rack or staging area.  What part of cannot take a sight picture unless at a safe area or under the direct supervision of a range officer after giving the command "make ready" is not understood?

 

Carbines were added to this sport and the NROI rules were created to make sure that everyone stayed safe.  This is not a weapon that can deemed safe like an unloaded and holstered handgun.  That's why the rules are different.  That's why the rules must be enforced.

 

Would a competitor in any other division be allowed to take a sight picture outside the safe area or not under the direct control of an RO?   It's a simple question.

 

BC

Edited June 1, 2021 by BillChunn

[Hdiamond]

7 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

That is not what the rules as currently written support. You also need to read the definition of a “Sight Picture” in the rule book which consists of the sights on a target. I highly doubt there was a target between his gun and the staging table to see through his sight, or up in the air as he is walking to the start position. 
 

If he was finger banging the gun or sight itself then that is clearly a violation. 
 

There is a difference between reading rules and interpreting them as they are written vs coming up with a random thought in how you would like the rules to work then trying to force them into that made up reality. 

 

 

Charlie I am going off of things being taught in the RO and CRO seminars in addition to the rule book. 
 

I think the real issue here is partially, as you say, the glossary definition of sight picture, but also the definition of target. 
 

NROI is intending the sight picture concept in the rule book to mean you point the gun at something and look through the sights. Target is being interpreted more broadly than scoring or no shoot targets you’re supposed to shoot at. 
The glossary definition of target does not explicitly call out this version of target. 
 

Regardless, the real thing in the rule that makes this a DQ is not the sight picture, it’s the turning on of the dot at all. This is a specific example indicated in the rules as being either safety area or COF exclusive. 

[SGT_Schultz]

2 minutes ago, Hdiamond said:

 

 

Regardless, the real thing in the rule that makes this a DQ is not the sight picture, it’s the turning on of the dot at all. This is a specific example indicated in the rules as being either safety area or COF exclusive. 

 

Thing is, no one has established that the sight was touched before make ready.  Some of us have asked but haven't received an answer yet.

[IHAVEGAS]

It seems like one of those accidents waiting to happen things. The table looked like safety tables do at a lot of ranges, it might be really easy to make the mistake of treating it like a safety table.

 

Not saying the dq is not the shooters fault, but maybe a sign at the table "PCC staging only" or some other similar caution would not be a terrible idea? 

 

 

[Nevadazielmeister]

8 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

It seems like one of those accidents waiting to happen things. The table looked like safety tables do at a lot of ranges, it might be really easy to make the mistake of treating it like a safety table.

 

Not saying the dq is not the shooters fault, but maybe a sign at the table "PCC staging only" or some other similar caution would not be a terrible idea? 

 

 

 

The table was clearly marked "PCC's Only". The Safety Area was well back and away from the stage, about 100 yards.

[BillChunn]

6 minutes ago, Nevadazielmeister said:

 

The table was clearly marked "PCC's Only". The Safety Area was well back and away from the stage, about 100 yards.

 

For this exact reason, we use carbine racks.  They have scalloped cutouts on each side for the carbines to sit in and nothing in the middle to set anything down on.  The bright yellow painted tables are clearly marked with "Safe Area" signs and charge lines on the ground.

 

BC

[SGT_Schultz]

24 minutes ago, Nevadazielmeister said:

 

The table was clearly marked "PCC's Only". The Safety Area was well back and away from the stage, about 100 yards.

Was the shooter DQ for looking through his optic while the rifle was pointing straight up, or for something else?

[CHA-LEE]

1 hour ago, Hdiamond said:

Charlie I am going off of things being taught in the RO and CRO seminars in addition to the rule book. 
 

I think the real issue here is partially, as you say, the glossary definition of sight picture, but also the definition of target. 
 

NROI is intending the sight picture concept in the rule book to mean you point the gun at something and look through the sights. Target is being interpreted more broadly than scoring or no shoot targets you’re supposed to shoot at. 
The glossary definition of target does not explicitly call out this version of target. 
 

Regardless, the real thing in the rule that makes this a DQ is not the sight picture, it’s the turning on of the dot at all. This is a specific example indicated in the rules as being either safety area or COF exclusive. 

 

The USPSA rules clearly define what valid "Targets" are and other safety rules are defined on the basis of a competitor engaging a "Target" or not. Looking through the sight and pointing it at anything OTHER than something defined in rules as a "Target" is not a target.

 

If the competitor picked up their PCC in the staging area and looked through the sight to confirm that the dot was on while the PCC is still pointed at the side berm or up in the sky in a safe direction while NOT manipulating the sight or controls or sweeping anyone, then it is NOT a DQ infraction per the current USPSA rules.

 

This specific situation is clearly an "I don't like when people handle their PCC's, so I am going to hammer anyone who even comes close to doing things I don't like" overzealous RO behavior. I have unfortunately seen this happen several times over the years while attending matches of all levels. Some RO's simply like exploiting their authority, even if it doesn't fit into the current rules. As a competitor, all you can do is arm yourself with a solid understanding of the rules and have a crisp $100 bill in your wallet to arbitrate these poor rulings when they happen.

[Nevadazielmeister]

46 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

Was the shooter DQ for looking through his optic while the rifle was pointing straight up, or for something else?

 

I don't think that matters really, but that is just my opinion and the opinion of the RO's on site. If I were you, I would check your own resources and/or the DNROI for clarification. Maybe a local CRO can clarify? 

 

But from my knowing the shooter and having attended many many matches together, he is turning on and double checking his optic, which is not entirely clear in the video I suppose.  

Edited June 1, 2021 by Nevadazielmeister

[BillChunn]

10 minutes ago, Nevadazielmeister said:

 

I don't think that matters really, but that is just my opinion and the opinion of the RO's on site. If I were you, I would check your own resources and/or the DNROI for clarification. Maybe a local CRO can clarify? 

 

But from my knowing the shooter and having attended many many patches together, he is turning on and double checking his optic, which is not entirely clear in the video I suppose.  

 

DQ.

 

End of conversation.

 

BC

[SGT_Schultz]

1 hour ago, Nevadazielmeister said:

 

I don't think that matters really, but that is just my opinion and the opinion of the RO's on site. If I were you, I would check your own resources and/or the DNROI for clarification. Maybe a local CRO can clarify? 

 

But from my knowing the shooter and having attended many many matches together, he is turning on and double checking his optic, which is not entirely clear in the video I suppose.  

If he did turn on the optic, then a DQ is the right call. 

 

I'll have to watch the video again later when I'm not on the phone. But yesterday, on my big home screen, I didn't notice him touching the optic.

[BillChunn]

1 hour ago, SGT_Schultz said:

If he did turn on the optic, then a DQ is the right call. 

 

I'll have to watch the video again later when I'm not on the phone. But yesterday, on my big home screen, I didn't notice him touching the optic.

At the 00:13 mark you can hear the case zippers being moved.  At the 00:15 mark it appears that both RO's are looking toward the competitor who is still out of the frame.  The carbine enters the frame at 00:19 pointed upward.  The "Stop" command is issued at 00:20.

 

BC

 

[mreed911]

3 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

Was the shooter DQ for looking through his optic while the rifle was pointing straight up, or for something else?

 

3 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

 

If the competitor picked up their PCC in the staging area and looked through the sight to confirm that the dot was on while the PCC is still pointed at the side berm or up in the sky in a safe direction while NOT manipulating the sight or controls or sweeping anyone, then it is NOT a DQ infraction per the current USPSA rules.

 

3 hours ago, Nevadazielmeister said:

I don't think that matters really

 

Immediately before the stop you can see him looking up through the optic, finger outside the trigger guard.  From that view alone (and not seeing if the optic was manipulated prior to that), this is not a valid DQ.  There is no rule saying how high or low a PCC must be held when oriented vertically, and looking in/at/through an optic is not manipulation.

 

Competitor should have arbitrated and won if the DQ was upheld by the RM.  Bad call.

[pjb45]

8 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

This was 100% a bad call.  Zero "gun handling" took place in that video other than uncasing the rifle.  And note also that "handling" is defined in the rulebook.

 

Looking through the sight at the sky or ground does not meet the definition of a sight picture.

+1

 

[BillChunn]

And now we have another example of why video is not allowed in arbitration.

 

BC

[Sarge]

6 minutes ago, BillChunn said:

And now we have another example of why video is not allowed in arbitration.

 

BC

And sadly another case of an RO who has RO’d nationals(based on the shirt)who didn’t get it right

[Southpaw]

I'm not a fan of the wording of 10.5.19 and I don't even shoot PCC. DQs should be given for potentially unsafe actions. Not actions that are completely safe, but some people just don't like.

[Boomstick303]

22 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

Not actions that are completely safe

 

I do shoot some PCC and while I agree it probably could be worded better, but I certainly agree with the intent of the rule.  People dicking around with a gun at the side berm while the RO is running other shooters is a distraction.  I think the rule intends to stop this process from being a distraction.  It may be completely safe to adjust optics, turn them on etc, it would be hard for the RO, to watch the PCC shooter "adjusting their optic" to make sure safety violations are not broken in that process while running other shooters.

 

To be honest its not hard for a PCC shooter to only pull his PCC from the bad and wait till they are on the line and have been given the command "make ready" to do anything to their rifle.  While this seems to be a case of an over zealous RO, I myself do not understand the purpose of looking through the optic in the manner the shooter did.  To what purpose?  All of that to have an RO who seemingly misunderstood the rule then DQ you.  You always have the chance or running into ROs, that have agendas, or simply do not understand some of the rules as they should.  Why give them any chance to DQ you?  If you do want to operate in this manner like @CHA-LEE mentioned above, "As a competitor, all you can do is arm yourself with a solid understanding of the rules and have a crisp $100 bill in your wallet to arbitrate these poor rulings when they happen."

 

@BillChunn seem to have broken down the tape pretty well to where this is a pretty solid consensus on what happened.  But without fully understanding what happened at the table "un-bagging area", can we really say for certain?  While it looks like a DQ that should not have happened I was not there and cannot say for certain.

[MikeBurgess]

7 hours ago, Hdiamond said:

Regardless, the real thing in the rule that makes this a DQ is not the sight picture, it’s the turning on of the dot at all. This is a specific example indicated in the rules as being either safety area or COF exclusive. 

Yes, I take a similar look through the site on my CO and open guns on the way to the line, I carry the pistol in a rules approved manner (holster) and look through the lens and turn on the dot if needed. what exactly is the difference to the described situation ? 

 

I ask because I like clearly defined rules not to poke at you

 

 

[motosapiens]

29 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

I do shoot some PCC and while I agree it probably could be worded better, but I certainly agree with the intent of the rule.  People dicking around with a gun at the side berm while the RO is running other shooters is a distraction.  I think the rule intends to stop this process from being a distraction.  It may be completely safe to adjust optics, turn them on etc, it would be hard for the RO, to watch the PCC shooter "adjusting their optic" to make sure safety violations are not broken in that process while running other shooters.

 

Hmm. I've worked alot of area matches and nationals, and I can't say I've ever paid very much attention to what people were doing in safe areas or pcc unbagging areas, especially not while running shooters. Can't say I've seen other RO's doing so much either. As long as you've got the gun pointed at the berm, I'm not too worried about constant surveillance to catch any slip-ups.

[mreed911]

45 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

Hmm. I've worked alot of area matches and nationals, and I can't say I've ever paid very much attention to what people were doing in safe areas or pcc unbagging areas, especially not while running shooters. Can't say I've seen other RO's doing so much either. As long as you've got the gun pointed at the berm, I'm not too worried about constant surveillance to catch any slip-ups.

 

That's not the rules, either, though.  The rules are clear and should be enforced.

[Boomstick303]

Just now, mreed911 said:

That's not the rules, either, though

 What is not the rule?

[rooster]

If muzzle was pointed down does it change anything. If gun was pointed down you could see if dot was on and nobody would probably notice you were even doing it. You un bag at berm point muzzle down and look through optic and see dot. Is that a dq?