Dq Or No?

[ima45dv8]

A hypothetical arose over dinner last night.

Assume the following:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Starting seated at table, loaded gun on table, hands on knees. At start signal, engage targets as they become available.

At the start signal, shooter grabs gun and lights one off as he is starting to pick the gun up. Coincidentaly, the round impacts a target in front of the shooter, but only after digging a shallow furrow across 18" of the table top.

Gun was laying on left side and shooter is right-handed, so the gun was not being transferred between hands (10.4.5). The round impacted within 3 meters, but not into the ground (as 10.4.2 specifies). Round didn't go over berm but impacted a legal target (10.4.1). Shooter was not loading, reloading or unloading (10.4.3). Shooter was not moving, as defined in 8.5.1.2, "Changing shooting stance (e.g. from standing to kneeling, from seated to standing. etc.)."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What would be your call (and please cite the relevant rule number/numbers)?

...Mark

[AzShooter]

First thing I'd do is call for someone with some TP so the guy could wipe himself.

I think 10.4.2 would still be the right rule because the ground would have impacted within 3 meters if the table didn't obstruct it's path.

Edited December 5, 2005 by AzShooter

[XRe]

The thing is, it *didn't* strike the ground three meters in front of the competitor, it didn't leave the confines of the berm, and it *did* strike a legit target. I don't actually see a 10.4.x rule that applies... which is different from how it was in the past, IIRC.

It looks like (to me, remember I'm old school, and just coming back ) that the rules were rewritten in an attempt to make it more clear what constitutes an AD - and in the process, this sort of case was left out. In fact, the intention may be that, if the round went somewhere that otherwise would be considered safe, it shouldn't be DQ'able.

I would have stopped the shooter - but looking at this in hindsight, I don't see that it's actually DQ'able, unless one of the other conditions applies.

Mark, correct me if I'm wrong - if the round cut a shallow furrow in the table top, and then hit a target, it was headed downrange, and would not have struck the ground near the competitor anyway, right?? Sounds like the shooter got his finger in the TG, and somehow took the safety off, and blammo...

Edited December 5, 2005 by XRe

[outerlimits]

i love it! the rules clearly state, in the glossary, that an AD is where the "gun goes off when it should not have". then, in 10.4, the rules define an AD as alot of things, but not specifically what the glossary says. additionally, the rules in 8.5 under "movement" only provides for taking a step or changing a shooting stance.

look at it another way. a shooter, while engaging a final array of 3 targets, fires his six shots, and while not moving, unmounts his gun and touches one off-straight into a safe berm. to me, it certainly meets the definition of the gun going off when it was not supposed to.

i think i certainly would have stopped the shooter and and tossed him. that's what arb committees are for.

[diehli]

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...68&hl=discharge

[ima45dv8]

The thing is, it *didn't* strike the ground three meters in front of the competitor, it didn't leave the confines of the berm, and it *did* strike a legit target. I don't actually see a 10.4.x rule that applies... which is different from how it was in the past, IIRC.

It looks like (to me, remember I'm old school, and just coming back ) that the rules were rewritten in an attempt to make it more clear what constitutes an AD - and in the process, this sort of case was left out. In fact, the intention may be that, if the round went somewhere that otherwise would be considered safe, it shouldn't be DQ'able.

I would have stopped the shooter - but looking at this in hindsight, I don't see that it's actually DQ'able, unless one of the other conditions applies.

Mark, correct me if I'm wrong - if the round cut a shallow furrow in the table top, and then hit a target, it was headed downrange, and would not have struck the ground near the competitor anyway, right?? Sounds like the shooter got his finger in the TG, and somehow took the safety off, and blammo...

That's right, Dave. That round wouldn't have hit the ground anywhere within 10 meters, much less 3.

Edited December 5, 2005 by ima45dv8

[ima45dv8]

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...68&hl=discharge

An interesting thread. Looks like there's still not much agreement on what the correct call is/was in the case of Kat's cake pan episode.

I have my own idea on this that I will reserve for now.

[XRe]

My opinion is that it *should* be a DQ in this sort of case. I don't feel like the language of 10.5 allows for it - there's a specific distinction between gun handling offenses that involve a shot being fired (10.4) and no shot being fired (10.5).

Vince's interpretation is that 10.5 could/should be used, based on the "some examples are", leaving the door open for interpretation. I don't think I buy that, given the above.

I wonder if Gary Stevens is paying attention? Here's another chance to improve the rules - see if we can wrap some language around an AD on "draw from a table or prop" that works...

[moverfive]

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...68&hl=discharge

An interesting thread. Looks like there's still not much agreement on what the correct call is/was in the case of Kat's cake pan episode.

I have my own idea on this that I will reserve for now.

Actually, I see a lot of agreement here - just not all of the information is known, everyone is therefore having to make up their own assumptions, and thus everyone is coming to varied conculsions. But if you look at the underlying opinions, everyone is saying the same thing - you would DQ when you have unsafe gunhandling. But what exactly is unsafe gunhanding?

The simple point is that an AD, as described by Outerlimits above, is not grounds for a DQ in itself. You can have an AD while actively engaging targets and under 99% of those circumstances, there are no legitimate grounds for a DQ. And in most cases, especially in the examples in these two threads, the action must be seen in order to make the final determination......and since it appears that only the author in both of these examples was the only true witness, it is near impossible for any non-witness to make a call, again why the varied opinions.

The point in both examples: If I am picking up a gun, the gun goes off, and the bullet hits a target that would NORMALLY be engaged from that location (key point).....regardless of how the bullet got to the target (i.e. through a table), the DQ must then be on the basis of how did the shooter look? This is why some teach newer shooters that if you have an AD, ACT LIKE YOU MEANT TO DO IT. As long as you control the gun, keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, and you aren't falling all over yourself - the grounds for a DQ are VERY thin and if DQ'ed, you have a good chance for reinstatement, as appears to have been the case in Kathy's example.

BUT, having said that, if Kathy thought for an instant that the shooter was unsafe, then she would have been correct to stop him, sit back and review the situation, and then make the appropriate call. Worse case scenario, the shooter just goes again.....best case scenario, you stopped what could have been a unsafe situation.

[Jim Norman]

This is a clear case of UNSAFE GUNHANDLING. If the shooter had picked the gun up and single handed shoot a target, no prob, even if he was still aquiring his regular two handed grip. I have on occasion shot a target strong hand only just because it was faster. However, in this case, the shooter was still picking up the gun, it went off, yes it impacted a target, only becuase the table supported the gun in a manner that kept the barrel more or less parallel to the ground. The shooter did shoot a prop. But he main thing here is that he did not intend the shot to be fired. That is by definition UNSAFE and grounds for a DQ.

Rule 10.5

Jim Norman

[scooterj]

This is a clear case of UNSAFE GUNHANDLING. If the shooter had picked the gun up and single handed shoot a target, no prob, even if he was still aquiring his regular two handed grip. I have on occasion shot a target strong hand only just because it was faster. However, in this case, the shooter was still picking up the gun, it went off, yes it impacted a target, only becuase the table supported the gun in a manner that kept the barrel more or less parallel to the ground. The shooter did shoot a prop. But he main thing here is that he did not intend the shot to be fired. That is by definition UNSAFE and grounds for a DQ.

Rule 10.5

Jim Norman

exactly

doesn't have to be an AD to be a DQ

[Sean Gaines]

This is an easy one, the reason I say this is because I got DQ'ed for the same exact scenario, except the round didnt hit the target. the gun went off on the table and went into the berm and made about a 3'' powder burn on the table. Along with my DQ I got a nice slide cut on the right thumb to show for it. DQ'ed for unsafe gun handling. Just thankful that no one else was injured.

[moverfive]

This is a clear case of UNSAFE GUNHANDLING. If the shooter had picked the gun up and single handed shoot a target, no prob, even if he was still aquiring his regular two handed grip. I have on occasion shot a target strong hand only just because it was faster. However, in this case, the shooter was still picking up the gun, it went off, yes it impacted a target, only becuase the table supported the gun in a manner that kept the barrel more or less parallel to the ground. The shooter did shoot a prop. But he main thing here is that he did not intend the shot to be fired. That is by definition UNSAFE and grounds for a DQ.

Rule 10.5

Jim Norman

I still say there are some questions and details that would need to be verified before a final call could be made.....in the end this may be the poster child of when to DQ someone. But for a gun to go off before the shooter is able to grab the gun....how does someone who has yet to have the gun in his hand disengage the safety AND pull the trigger? This is why I think more details are needed.......how do we know that the gun wasn't broken?

This is just a good case of where people who didn't witness the event would need to ask several questions and verify details before making a final decision.

But firing a shot that was unintended is NOT automatically grounds for a DQ. A very simple example of this point: a shooter is standing in a box engaging targets. He is transitioning from a target just engaged to the next target to be engaged. Just prior to getting on the next target, the gun goes bang when the shooter didn't intend for it to go bang and thus sending a bullet three feet to the left of the target.....the round hits the berm at the height of the target, he wasn't moving, none of the things that are usually attributed to an AD. The round just went off sooner than the shooter would have wanted and without flinching, the shooter continued to engage the remaining intended targets.

This whole point is another reason that RO's need to closely watch the gun and the shooter. What if a gun goes bang while the shooter is reloading......the gun goes bang the instant the mag is seated with the bullet hitting safely into the berm, both the shooter and the RO are startled. What is the correct call? Most of you would immediately say to DQ the shooter. But I haven't provided enough details to make that call. What is the critical question that needs to be answered? Where was his finger? If the finger was outside the trigger and yet the gun goes bang......you have a broken gun. If the RO wasn't watching, he might have missed this critical detail and thus would make the wrong call......just like the example that started this thread, I can see where there is a lot of missing details here that could make this a DQ or not.

[Sean Gaines]

"I still say there are some questions and details that would need to be verified before a final call could be made.....in the end this may be the poster child of when to DQ someone. But for a gun to go off before the shooter is able to grab the gun....how does someone who has yet to have the gun in his hand disengage the safety AND pull the trigger? This is why I think more details are needed.......how do we know that the gun wasn't broken?"

Well Moverfive its quite easy with a glock if you have a brain fade, or not paying attention, and you grab the trigger along with the gun and lift it. Its more than enought to pull the trigger.

Edited December 6, 2005 by PAPER KILLER

[moverfive]

"I still say there are some questions and details that would need to be verified before a final call could be made.....in the end this may be the poster child of when to DQ someone. But for a gun to go off before the shooter is able to grab the gun....how does someone who has yet to have the gun in his hand disengage the safety AND pull the trigger? This is why I think more details are needed.......how do we know that the gun wasn't broken?"

Well Moverfive its quite easy with a glock if you have a brain fade, or not paying attention, and you grab the trigger along with the gun and lift it. Its more than enought to pull the trigger.

Exactly.....

.....but was that the gun used in this example? This is a classic case of what folks on a arbritration will face. There aren't enough details from the original post to be able to make a final decision. And my whole point here is that sometimes when you dig deeper, the obvious answer sometimes becomes a very wrong answer.

My favorite example of this point happened with Frank Garcia some years back. On this particular stage you were required to engage a minimum amount of targets from each box. Frank flew through this one particular box while firing the minimum number of rounds to satisfy the engagement rule and then proceeded to the next box where he was able to finish shooting the remaining targets. The RO gave him one FTE procedural for his actions in that box he flew through (and threatened to give two procedurals). The case ultimately went to arbritration - and if you actually saw Frank, which I did, read his statement to the arbritration committee, and actually talked with the folks around that also saw it........you would have been baffled as to why the RO gave him a procedural. But because the folks on the arbritration committee applied the intent of the FTE rule AND dug out all of the pertinent details of the situation - they ruled that Frank 'didn't make a legitimate attempt to put one round on one target.' Simply put, you can fire all of the rounds you want from a location, but if those rounds aren't legitimate attempts to hit a required target(s), you haven't satisfied the COF.

And the reason I am harping on this subject is that this is what makes a good RO from a bad one - someone who not only can spout rules from the rulebook, but also knows the intent of those rules and is therefore able to ask and get all necessary details in the face of something that might normally appear to be an open-and-shut case.

[Jim Norman]

DQ the shooter. Arbitrate if you want, but it was UNSAFE.

If I lay a 1911 on its left side, AND the safety is very lightly detented and the gun has a very light trigger...

I grab the gun, dragging it a bit in a manner that disengages the safety, I insert my finger in the guard as I am picking the gun up and BANG!

If you want to argue that the gun is broken, let''s have the match armorer check the gun and then if it is broken, essentially a zero on the stage, repair or replace the gun and continue, DQ dropped, gun not broken, DQ, UNSAFE.

Lets be a bit brutal here. If the shooter in question just Crapped in his shorts, we can safely assume that he was somewhat startled by his unintentional firing of his weapon. If it was unintentional, then it was unsafe.

Now, since a few other situations have been described so as to muddy the water a bit... If the shooter was in a box and was prepping his trigger as he swept target to target, and he fired a shot that missed the target, but the round was in the general direction of the targets and impacted the berm and the shooter didn't "Jump out of his skin" then no DQ is required, it was an AD by definition, but not unsafe and did not trip any other situations that would call for an DQ.

My opinion, but I will stand by it. Arbitrate it if it happens to you by all means, but it is not likely to be overturned if the shooters on the panel have any sense.

Jim Norman

Jim Norman

Edited December 7, 2005 by Jim Norman

[Ron Ankeny]

DQ the shooter. Aritrate if you want, but it was UNSAFE.

+1

[Singlestack]

I hate to bring this back up but.....

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...r+class+whining

post #21

[moverfive]

I hate to bring this back up but.....

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...r+class+whining

post #21

Wow, that thread is a great real example of what I was trying to say. I think this discussion is a GREAT one to have (hence the reason I am being so vocal) because the lessons learned from a situation like this one could be the difference in someone being a VERY GOOD RO as opposed to an average or even a poor one.

And as to the primary point in this latest example where the RM reversed the call before talking to all necessary folks - how can a RM who didn't actually witness the action reverse the RO's call without talking to the actual witnesses, much less the RO himself???? Maybe his decision would not have changed after talking to everyone, but he evidently hadn't compared all of the facts/evidence therefore didn't make an informed decision.

And that is all I have been saying - for people that are quick to make the call after only reading a one-sided recollection of an event, these are the same type of people that will reverse a RO's call without actually talking to the RO. Because what may be obvious to one person may not be the full story, or even what actually transpired in the first place.

And as I also have said, if at any point the RO thought an unsafe action occured, the shooter should be stopped, not DQ'ed at that point, but stopped. THEN analyze the situation and make the appropriate call.

[scorch]

Read the other Thread. GREAT THREAD! being I often Start stages with the gun other than in a holster. this clear up a problem I might have in the future.

One thing That I am having a problem with are the rule numbers. I don't have a 10.3.1.1 (or about a half dozen others 10.3.?.?) in my rule book on line. do I need a new down load or what?

Edited December 7, 2005 by scorch

[diehli]

One thing That I am having a problem with are the rule numbers. I don't have a 10.3.1.1 (or about a half dozen others 10.3.?.?) in my rule book on line. do I need a new down load or what?

http://www.uspsa.org/rules/

[Ron Ankeny]

Deleted and moved to the hate forum.

Edited December 7, 2005 by Ron Ankeny

[ima45dv8]

I started this thread hoping to get some well-considered opinions on whether a certain action warranted a DQ.

As I read through the link provided by the Gorilla, I recognized the event and saw where this was going. I had no idea whatsoever that any such discussion had taken place here long before I ever joined the forum. I did a search but missed it. As soon as I realized what I'd done I PM'd Flex and asked him to lock this thread or kill it because I didn't want to open old wounds.

My stomach rolled over when SS posted that link yesterday and I truly regret bringing the situation up again. There was too much emotion and bad feelings then, and it looks like this thread is going down the same rabbit hole.

Even though there has been some good discussion regarding whether the action warranted a DQ, with proper references from the rulebook, I wish a Mod would lock this down right now or delete it entirely.

Mark Ramsey

[AZ38super]

I love to read topics like this as they allow me to become a better shooter.

I am still a new guy with only a couple years of playing this game and I have never been DQ''d yet (knock on wood).

I don't really care what rule number whatever states, it was clearly unsafe. The shooter knew the shot was accidental and stopped waiting for the RO to respond and admitted it after the fact.

Thats all that matters, pack up and go home which he was doing. The RM giving him a reshoot was wrong and as a shooter I would have said no I made a mistake and live by it.

Nothing personal about it, then , now or down the road...

Just my .02 for whatever it worth.

[Precision40]

At the start signal, shooter grabs gun and lights one off as he is starting to pick the gun up. Coincidentaly, the round impacts a target in front of the shooter, but only after digging a shallow furrow across 18" of the table top.

DQ. The shooter wasn't engaging targets, he was engaging the table

Edited December 7, 2005 by Precision40