ND at the beep, DQ?

[Sarge]

26 minutes ago, zzt said:

 

Correct.  Improperly worded.  I was thinking of a discharge while moving that was not aimed at a target. 

[twodownzero]

On 9/27/2021 at 8:26 AM, EarlKeese said:

Not a miss, he was surprised when the gun fired. He finished the string, turned around and asked if he was disqualified. It was obviously unintentional, I just don't know if it should be a DQ.

The application of a DQ never depends on what the shooter "intended."  We are not in the position of reading their minds.  That's why the rules define what is and isn't an AD.

[twodownzero]

On 9/27/2021 at 8:26 AM, EarlKeese said:

Not a miss, he was surprised when the gun fired. He finished the string, turned around and asked if he was disqualified. It was obviously unintentional, I just don't know if it should be a DQ.

The application of a DQ never depends on what the shooter "intended."  We are not in the position of reading their minds.  That's why the rules define what is and isn't an AD.

[Cuz]

40 minutes ago, twodownzero said:

The application of a DQ never depends on what the shooter "intended."  We are not in the position of reading their minds.  That's why the rules define what is and isn't an AD.

Ya know, I appreciate when these questions come up and are discussed in a civilized manner. It gives me an opportunity to recalibrate myself from what I thought would be a DQ to what I now know isn’t. And it caused me to review the USPSA rules to verify the info BEFORE I went and ruined someone’s day in a match. I know the question was originally in regard to Steel Challenge, which I don’t participate in, but it was a valuable discussion for me just the same. 
 

Thank you. 

[EarlKeese]

8 hours ago, twodownzero said:

The application of a DQ never depends on what the shooter "intended."  We are not in the position of reading their minds.  That's why the rules define what is and isn't an AD.

Not sure I understand where your comment is coming from. Where was it stated that I was reading his mind or guessing his intentions? I came here specifically asking about the application of a rule. The scenario happened almost exactly as George Jones described. The shooter knew he made a mistake and asked me if he was disqualified. I didn't have an answer. The actual R.O. on the stage said that he was. Lots of thread drift here.

[twodownzero]

11 hours ago, EarlKeese said:

Not sure I understand where your comment is coming from. Where was it stated that I was reading his mind or guessing his intentions? I came here specifically asking about the application of a rule. The scenario happened almost exactly as George Jones described. The shooter knew he made a mistake and asked me if he was disqualified. I didn't have an answer. The actual R.O. on the stage said that he was. Lots of thread drift here.

My comment relates to the fact that it has been discussed in this thread since the first post about where the shooter might have intended the shot to land, or what he was "aiming" at.  In your second post in the thread, you even used the word "unintentional."
 

A DQ is proper when a rule is violated and there is unambiguous, clear evidence, observed by an RO, that a rule has been violated that necessitates a DQ.  Zero rules in either sport require us to assess whether the shot was "unintentional."  Absent evidence demonstrating that there was a rule violation which requires a DQ, the answer is simple: no.  It may not be the safest to unintentionally fire a shot that misses the target by a wide margin, but if it isn't within a certain distance of the shooter, fired while moving/reloading, etc., it is not a disqualification.

 

I'm pretty sure I launched one or more rounds over the berm about 13 years ago in a match.  Fortunately all of them went through a target first.  Someone made a port low enough that this was possible.  If I had gloriously missed, it might have made for an interesting discussion.  But ultimately, it wasn't my intention to hit the target, but the fact that I actually had, which allowed me to continue shooting the match.

Edited September 30, 2021 by twodownzero

[motosapiens]

9 hours ago, twodownzero said:

I'm pretty sure I launched one or more rounds over the berm about 13 years ago in a match.  Fortunately all of them went through a target first.  Someone made a port low enough that this was possible.  If I had gloriously missed, it might have made for an interesting discussion.  But ultimately, it wasn't my intention to hit the target, but the fact that I actually had, which allowed me to continue shooting the match.

 

everyone knows uspsa targets are impenetrable, so any no-shoots or civilians you hit after the shot passes through the cardboard are not scored.

[IHAVEGAS]

9 hours ago, twodownzero said:

I'm pretty sure I launched one or more rounds over the berm about 13 years ago in a match.  Fortunately all of them went through a target first.  Someone made a port low enough that this was possible.  If I had gloriously missed, it might have made for an interesting discussion.  But ultimately, it wasn't my intention to hit the target, but the fact that I actually had, which allowed me to continue shooting the match.

 

Sometimes, not often, the stage designers just flat miss a safety problem. My hope would be that after you discovered the problem somebody did something about it. 

[twodownzero]

26 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Sometimes, not often, the stage designers just flat miss a safety problem. My hope would be that after you discovered the problem somebody did something about it. 

 

I don't really think it was a safety problem as what was beyond the bay was not human for any distance that'd matter for a pistol round, but I see your point.  I routinely point out 180 traps for the same reason.  As safety conscious as we are, there's just no reason to tempt someone to do something stupid and unsafe if it can be avoided without changing the competitive problem.  Unfortunately, a lot of stage designers don't seem to be able to think like new shooters might (I resent retreat stages for the same reason, even though I recognize their practicality).

[Hoops]

In another topic about SCSA, several folks remarked about SCSA having it's own RO Certification program.  Similarities do exist between the two, but often they get intertwinded.  I would like to see a separate program.

 

Since this discussion was about "shot's fired", AD's, DQ, etc for SCSA only, I thought I would toss in another example that could raise a question.

 

Under 10.1 Prodedural Penalities is 10.1.1 Creeping. 

 

Specifially 10.1.1.1 which reads:  "In the event that a competitor begins his attempt at the course of fire prematurely ("false start" prior the the issuance of the start signal) the Range Officer will, as soon as possible, stop and restart the competitor once the course of fire has been restored.  Attempt means the gun is drawn and/or shots fired, but the timer has not been started."

 

In this case, a competitor can jump the RO's signal and get a shot(s) off before the buzzer goes off and not be within the timed COF......and not be an AD or penalty.....or DQ.  

 

With low-ready guns, this could happen......clearly it has happened otherwise 10.1.1.1 probably would not have been written.

 

 

 

[zzt]

3 hours ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Sometimes, not often, the stage designers just flat miss a safety problem. My hope would be that after you discovered the problem somebody did something about it. 

 

That happened once.  The stage had the shooter shooting some ground targets, then running up an 18" wide plank to a platform 8' high to engage the remaining targets.  I pointed out the RO could not go up with the shooter and would be left in a dangerous position.  I said I would not RO that stage.  Several other ROs said the same, so the stage was dropped.

 

There were other instances where stages had to be modified so the RO could actually run the shooter.  It's rare, but sometimes a newish stage designer thinks about the shooter and not the ROs who have to run them.  Once there was an RO trap on a platform start where I actually had to ask the shooter which way he was going to break so I could stay out of his way.

[Dr. Phil]

Having read through this thread I am wondering how it morphed into USPSA/Safety and the other stuff?

OP was Steel Challenge/PFPO/beep/shot fired past 10'.

I'm sure there are lots of rules but this is SCSA and their rulebook says not a DQ.

Or am I missing something?

 

 

R.O. cert with SCSA endorsement

Edited September 30, 2021 by Dr. Phil

[Sarge]

3 hours ago, Dr. Phil said:

Having read through this thread I am wondering how it morphed into USPSA/Safety and the other stuff?

OP was Steel Challenge/PFPO/beep/shot fired past 10'.

I'm sure there are lots of rules but this is SCSA and their rulebook says not a DQ.

Or am I missing something?

 

 

R.O. cert with SCSA endorsement

Same way all threads morph 

[motosapiens]

22 hours ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Sometimes, not often, the stage designers just flat miss a safety problem. My hope would be that after you discovered the problem somebody did something about it. 

this is entirely true. I'm pretty careful about it, but I still find stuff being pointed out to me as shooters are examining the stage before the match starts. As club VP, I also do a walk-through of the other stages to look for potential safety issues. It's not that unusual to find something. So then we fix it.

[Cuz]

20 hours ago, Dr. Phil said:

Having read through this thread I am wondering how it morphed into USPSA/Safety and the other stuff?

Can’t help it. It’s what we do…

[EarlKeese]

On 9/30/2021 at 2:17 PM, Dr. Phil said:

Having read through this thread I am wondering how it morphed into USPSA/Safety and the other stuff?

OP was Steel Challenge/PFPO/beep/shot fired past 10'.

I'm sure there are lots of rules but this is SCSA and their rulebook says not a DQ.

Or am I missing something?

 

 

R.O. cert with SCSA endorsement

Nope, you didn't miss anything.