Is this a Disqualification ("DQ")?

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Bagellord said:

So what was the actual infraction? That would resolve this entire thread...

Appears to be turning on the dot of a pcc (i.e. 'gun handling') when not in a safe area or under the direct supervision of RO. Kind of a silly rule imho, but still a rule.

[SGT_Schultz]

Had to DQ a guy today on his very first stage of the match for this same thing.  Walks up to the stage and flips up the covers on his optic (Aimpoint PRO) before I could say a word.

 

So then he stormed off in a huff............

[outerlimits]

play games with PCC, win stupid prizes...

Edited June 12, 2021 by outerlimits

[SGT_Schultz]

deleted not worth it

Edited June 13, 2021 by SGT_Schultz

[motosapiens]

On 6/12/2021 at 1:42 PM, SGT_Schultz said:

Had to DQ a guy today on his very first stage of the match for this same thing.  Walks up to the stage and flips up the covers on his optic (Aimpoint PRO) before I could say a word.

 

I applaud your diligence and discipline. I personally take a different approach.... since flipping up the covers on his optic is not in any way unsafe, and since the rule is silly and many people don't know it, I provide some local match education, and let people know what the actual rules are, and that they may get dq'd at a major match (or if it happens again, at our local match).

 

fwiw, I do the same thing for people that show up to their first match with a loaded gun. I take them to the safe area or empty bay, and educate them politely.

[SGT_Schultz]

12 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

I applaud your diligence and discipline. I personally take a different approach.... since flipping up the covers on his optic is not in any way unsafe, and since the rule is silly and many people don't know it, I provide some local match education, and let people know what the actual rules are, and that they may get dq'd at a major match (or if it happens again, at our local match).

 

fwiw, I do the same thing for people that show up to their first match with a loaded gun. I take them to the safe area or empty bay, and educate them politely.

 

I cut a little slack to new shooters.  None to those who should know better.  Don't like it?  Too bad.  The lesson is best taught by consistent and fair application of the rules.

 

It our rules were kept in some obscure place, and if there was no easy way to ask questions about their meaning, then I could see some merit in the educational approach to overlooking safety violations.  But the rules and their interpretation are easily found by anyone with average internet skills.  So I don't see any benefit to giving a verbal warning to people who should know better other than encouraging them to depend on others to tell them what they should already know.

 

BTW, fair application of the rules doesn't mean "not getting called on stuff I think is petty or meaningless" like some seem to think.

Edited July 1, 2021 by SGT_Schultz

[IHAVEGAS]

On 7/1/2021 at 6:58 AM, SGT_Schultz said:

I cut a little slack to new shooters.  None to those who should know better.  Don't like it?  Too bad.  The lesson is best taught by consistent and fair application of the rules.

 

Consistent and fair by definition means everybody gets whacked or nobody gets whacked, when to be inconsistent and unfair is where things get dicey.

I try tp protect new shooters before they screw up but don't treat rule infractions differently with different shooters, not saying that is a better philosophy than anyone else's. 

[Climbhard]

On 6/1/2021 at 5:27 PM, SGT_Schultz said:

 

I just watched it again as carefully as I could.

 

The RO called STOP as soon as the shooter looked up at the sight (the rifle was already out of the case and vertical), not one second before.

 

There was another RO looking at the shooter while he unbagged (heard the zipper) and he said nothing at all during that process.

 

I stand by what I said, based on everything that has been shown here as evidence (not hearsay) this was 110% a bad call.

AGREE.   He as not DQ'ed until he looked up at the sight.  This is NOT gun handling or a DQ anywhere in the rules.  RO was 100% WRONG

[Climbhard]

On 6/1/2021 at 9:42 PM, JKD said:

Seems most people are focused on taking a sight picture. The actual language in 10.5.19 states:

 

Side berms/backstops may be used for casing and uncasing or removing from/placing on conveyances only.  All other gun handling with the PCC, e.g., sight pictures, turning dots on/off, etc., must be accomplished in a safety area or under the direct supervision of a Range Officer. 

“Handling” in the rule book is defined as:

 

(As in “handling a firearm”) The act of manipulating, holding, or 

gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible.  Note 

exceptions for casing/uncasing PCC.
 

So according to the rule book, you cannot handle the firearm, with the exception of placing or removing it from the conveyance (transport), except in the Safe Area or under direct supervision of the RO. 
 

According to the language of the rule book, the ONLY thing you can do when unbagging a PCC at a table is transport it to the Safe Area or to the RO. Therefore doing anything else including, but not limited to, looking through the sight is a DQ. 

 

Wrong, so looking at your PCC with your eyes is gun handling to you?  Show me that in the rules.

[Climbhard]

On 6/30/2021 at 5:08 PM, motosapiens said:

 

I applaud your diligence and discipline. I personally take a different approach.... since flipping up the covers on his optic is not in any way unsafe, and since the rule is silly and many people don't know it, I provide some local match education, and let people know what the actual rules are, and that they may get dq'd at a major match (or if it happens again, at our local match).

 

fwiw, I do the same thing for people that show up to their first match with a loaded gun. I take them to the safe area or empty bay, and educate them politely.

What other rules do you consider silly and not worth enforcing?

[motosapiens]

1 minute ago, Climbhard said:

What other rules do you consider silly and not worth enforcing?

we may differ on the meaning of ‘not enforcing.’

[Fishbreath]

36 minutes ago, Climbhard said:

Wrong, so looking at your PCC with your eyes is gun handling to you?  Show me that in the rules.

 

The part where it says all other gun handling (direct quote from the rulebook: "e.g. sight pictures, turning dots on-off") must be accomplished under the supervision of an RO, also quoted in the post you quoted, the second half of 10.5.19.

 

I'm not going to opine on whether or not it's a good rule, but it is pretty clearly laid out in the rulebook as not kosher.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Fishbreath

[Climbhard]

11 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

 

The part where it says all other gun handling (direct quote from the rulebook: "e.g. sight pictures, turning dots on-off") must be accomplished under the supervision of an RO, also quoted in the post you quoted, the second half of 10.5.19.

 

I'm not going to opine on whether or not it's a good rule, but it is pretty clearly laid out in the rulebook as not kosher.

Except he didnt take a "sight picture" as defined in the Appendix and he didnt manipulate his red dot.  Looking up to see if his red dot was on while correctly carrying it from the PPC table to the start position is not a DQ.  Saying, "I think that should be considered taking a sight picture also" doesnt make it so.  Handling is also defined in the Appendix as "The act of manipulating, holding or gripping a firearm".  So if he didnt handling the PCC excep as permited by exception, he didnt manipulate his PCC (which requires touching) and didnt obtain a sight picture (as defined) what rule again do you think he broke?

Edited July 6, 2021 by Climbhard

[Fishbreath]

7 minutes ago, Climbhard said:

Except he didnt take a "sight picture" as defined in the Appendix and he didnt manipulate his red dot.

 

Do you think it ought to be a DQ to uncase a PCC at the side berm and look at the berm through the dot, without shouldering the rifle? That's not aiming at 'a target', as the appendix defines it, and thus not strictly against the letter of the rule, but I think it's exactly the kind of conduct the spirit of the rule aims to proscribe.

 

Anyway, the key part of the rule is this:

 

Side berms/backstops may be used for casing and uncasing
or removing from/placing on conveyances only.

 

That is, that's the only thing you're allowed to do with a PCC outside of the supervision of an RO or at a safe area. Looking through a sight is not explicitly permitted, and thus is not allowed. The rest of the rule says all other gun handling must be accomplished under the supervision of an RO. Lifting a gun up high enough so you can see through the sight vertically is plausibly manipulating it under the definition of 'handling'. Looking through the sight, unshouldered, against the berm would fit that definition too.

 

It may not be black and white in favor of a DQ, but it isn't black and white against a DQ either. Probably something NROI should weigh in on.

[motosapiens]

48 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

 

The part where it says all other gun handling (direct quote from the rulebook: "e.g. sight pictures, turning dots on-off") must be accomplished under the supervision of an RO, also quoted in the post you quoted, the second half of 10.5.19.

 

I'm not going to opine on whether or not it's a good rule, but it is pretty clearly laid out in the rulebook as not kosher.

it seems clearly laid out now (although very counterintuitive when compared to handgun rules). has it always been so clear? It seems to me this has only fairly recently become a point of emphasis. It seems reasonable to me in such murky situations to clarify and educate rather than to violate rule #1.

[Fishbreath]

16 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

it seems clearly laid out now (although very counterintuitive when compared to handgun rules). has it always been so clear? It seems to me this has only fairly recently become a point of emphasis. It seems reasonable to me in such murky situations to clarify and educate rather than to violate rule #1.

 

On reflection (see also my most recent post before this one), I'm not sure it is as clearly laid out as it ought to be.

 

I haven't been following USPSA rulebook changes for very long, but something I've noticed is a seeming reticence to strike existing wording in full and change it—HQ seems to prefer to add clarifying text in most cases, which can have the opposite effect.

[Climbhard]

1 hour ago, Fishbreath said:

 

Do you think it ought to be a DQ to uncase a PCC at the side berm and look at the berm through the dot, without shouldering the rifle? That's not aiming at 'a target', as the appendix defines it, and thus not strictly against the letter of the rule, but I think it's exactly the kind of conduct the spirit of the rule aims to proscribe.

 

Anyway, the key part of the rule is this:

 

Side berms/backstops may be used for casing and uncasing
or removing from/placing on conveyances only.

 

That is, that's the only thing you're allowed to do with a PCC outside of the supervision of an RO or at a safe area. Looking through a sight is not explicitly permitted, and thus is not allowed. The rest of the rule says all other gun handling must be accomplished under the supervision of an RO. Lifting a gun up high enough so you can see through the sight vertically is plausibly manipulating it under the definition of 'handling'. Looking through the sight, unshouldered, against the berm would fit that definition too.

 

It may not be black and white in favor of a DQ, but it isn't black and white against a DQ either. Probably something NROI should weigh in on.

Yes.  When uncasing you can look at the PCC.  You can look at your sight as well.  Does it seem to be attached still?  yes.  Is it on?  check.  Have you manipulated it? No.  Have you taken a sight picture? No.  Have you broken a rule? No.  If you were not allowed to look at or through your optic any time prior to "make ready" they shouldnt have used a defined term like "sight picture" and added a requirement that you uncase blindfolded because thats the only way to be sure.

[SGT_Schultz]

4 hours ago, Fishbreath said:

 

Do you think it ought to be a DQ to uncase a PCC at the side berm and look at the berm through the dot, without shouldering the rifle? That's not aiming at 'a target', as the appendix defines it, and thus not strictly against the letter of the rule, but I think it's exactly the kind of conduct the spirit of the rule aims to proscribe.

 

Anyway, the key part of the rule is this:

 

Side berms/backstops may be used for casing and uncasing
or removing from/placing on conveyances only.

 

That is, that's the only thing you're allowed to do with a PCC outside of the supervision of an RO or at a safe area. Looking through a sight is not explicitly permitted, and thus is not allowed. The rest of the rule says all other gun handling must be accomplished under the supervision of an RO. Lifting a gun up high enough so you can see through the sight vertically is plausibly manipulating it under the definition of 'handling'. Looking through the sight, unshouldered, against the berm would fit that definition too.

 

It may not be black and white in favor of a DQ, but it isn't black and white against a DQ either. Probably something NROI should weigh in on.

 

Is looking at the chamber flag explicitly permitted?

 

Is looking at the safety explicitly permitted?

 

Can you handle a firearm with your eyes?

 

A sight picture is defined in the rulebook.  He did not take a sight picture.  He looked at it while he was carrying it in a manner approved in the rules and without sweeping anyone.

 

Follow rule #1

Edited July 6, 2021 by SGT_Schultz

[Fishbreath]

20 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

A sight picture is defined in the rulebook.  He did not take a sight picture.

 

A sight picture is given as an example of proscribed conduct. It isn't the end of the list. Hoisting my gun up over my head to look through the sight is conceivably not simply 'carrying vertically' anymore, and could fall under the proscription against manipulating, gripping, or holding the gun.

 

It needs clarification, but again, it isn't black and white in favor of 'no DQ'. Clearly. This is a six-page thread.

[ChuckS]

I just wanted to remind everyone that a month ago, it was stated that the offense happened at the staging table as described in the quote below. When the video showed the guy holding his rifle up in the air, he was already on his way home. The call was "sight picture at the staging table". It would of been either Troy (author of Rule 1) or Carl that upheld the call. Carry on...

 

On 6/2/2021 at 11:15 AM, Jayohee said:

It’s not in the video. The shooter commented on the FB thread where he started the conversation. He said he unbagged the PCC while facing the berm and looked at his sight, then walked up to the line. 
 

The original post doesn’t contain all the info, hence why there seems to be a lot of confusion. The shooter didn’t look at his sight in the sky, he looked at it while pointing at the berm. 
 

Personally I think it sucks to be DQ’d for it. But I also wouldn’t be able to do that with my CZ. 

[SGT_Schultz]

1 hour ago, Fishbreath said:

 

A sight picture is given as an example of proscribed conduct. It isn't the end of the list. Hoisting my gun up over my head to look through the sight is conceivably not simply 'carrying vertically' anymore, and could fall under the proscription against manipulating, gripping, or holding the gun.

 

It needs clarification, but again, it isn't black and white in favor of 'no DQ'. Clearly. This is a six-page thread.

 

It's black and white if one follows the definitions in the glossary and absent one, the dictionary meaning of words.

[motosapiens]

17 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

It's black and white if one follows the definitions in the glossary and absent one, the dictionary meaning of words.

it's not really black and white. some situations are, but I am unable to determine exactly what the dividing line is between prohibited unsupervised pcc handling and allowable unsupervised pcc handling.  What exactly constitutes a 'sight picture'. if i can see the sight is on, and see something through the glass, how is that not a sight picture?

[Fishbreath]

24 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

What exactly constitutes a 'sight picture'. if i can see the sight is on, and see something through the glass, how is that not a sight picture?

 

The glossary defines a sight picture as looking through the sights at a target, and a target as a scoring target or no-shoot. Aiming at a berm (or, for that matter, a person) may be a DQable offense for some other reason, but it isn't a sight picture per the glossary definitions.

 

1 hour ago, SGT_Schultz said:

It's black and white if one follows the definitions in the glossary and absent one, the dictionary meaning of words.

 

No, it isn't, because illegal 'gun handling' isn't well-defined for a PCC after it's been uncased but before you reach the line and go under RO supervision. Carrying it vertically is fine. The glossary definition of 'handling' is 'manipulating, holding, or gripping' while the trigger is functionally accessible, though, and that doesn't leave a lot of room for doing other things under the exceptions allowed in 5.2.1.3+.

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Fishbreath said:

 

The glossary defines a sight picture as looking through the sights at a target, and a target as a scoring target or no-shoot. Aiming at a berm (or, for that matter, a person) may be a DQable offense for some other reason, but it isn't a sight picture per the glossary definitions.

good point. thanks for posting that.

 

I've just been making it a point of emphasis lately to remind all our pcc shooters to do NOTHING except uncase the rifle at the side berm, and do everything else at make ready. I don't want any of my local peeps to go to a major and get dq'd for something silly.

[SGT_Schultz]

2 hours ago, Fishbreath said:

Aiming at a berm may be a DQable offense for some other reason

 

He didn't aim.  At anything.