Safety table

[broadside72]

3 hours ago, motosapiens said:

it seems pretty clear. the match starts on match day. if you show up to the match on match day, you can dq before the match starts, but you can't dq the day before when no one is shooting for score yet.

 

I misread the rule and it is the day of the match. 

[IVC]

There is common sense about when the match starts and how the rules apply. The safety rules of the venue itself apply at all times and are independent of the USPSA rules.

 

It's not worth trying to create a full "legal system" around the egregious behavior, so we have section 10.6 to deal with it. While it might seem that it gives too much power to the RO-s, I see it as a "tie breaker" when it comes to the unacceptable behavior that is not explicitly stated in the rules. The standard is "would an ordinary person find these actions objectionable" and if "yes," then the RM has a mechanism to sanction it. 

 

Here are the two rules, notice how they are intentionally left open and expansive so the RM's hands are not tied:

 

Quote

 

10.6.1 Competitors will be disqualified from a match for conduct which a Range Officer deems to be unsportsmanlike. Examples of unsportsmanlike conduct include, but are not limited to, cheating, dishonesty, failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official, or any behavior likely to bring the sport into disrepute.

...

 

Quote

 

10.6.2 Other persons may be expelled from the range for conduct which a RangeOfficer deems to be unacceptable.

...

 

 

[Joe4d]

So that verbiage applies to 10.6 but is completely ignored  in 10.5 ?

 

[IVC]

It's not ignored in 10.5.

 

Safety areas are defined in 2.4 and 2.4.1 specifies DQ for safety violations. However, 2.4 is not by itself a DQ section, so it points to the actual rules that would be cited if a competitor was DQ-ed due to the violations in 2.4. Section 2.4.1 points to 10.5.1 and 10.5.12, which would be the actual DQ rules, even if it's due to the violations defined in 2.4.

 

For example, pointing a gun outside the "safe direction" area specified in 2.4 would trigger 2.4.1 about firearm not being pointed in the "safe direction" which would trigger DQ under 10.5.12 which specifies that it's applicable for violations of 2.4.1. 

 

Section 10.6 is a catch-all stupid behavior where it's the RM's word against DRL's word. The tie goes to the RM. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by IVC

[Joe4d]

3 minutes ago, IVC said:

It's not ignored in 10.5.

 

 

Baloney  Try an unsafe gun handling DQ that isnt specifically mentioned, Despite  the same verbiage of "include but not limited to "
Anytime a discussion of something blatantly unsafe is brought up,,, if it isnt listed it isnt a DQ. 

[IVC]

5 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

Anytime a discussion of something blatantly unsafe is brought up,,, if it isnt listed it isnt a DQ. 

 

Maybe we are not talking about the same thing, but 10.5.12 explicitly refers to 2.4.1. It is listed. It is DQ. There is no need to cover it under any open-ended verbiage when it's explicitly listed. 

 

Quote

10.5.12 Handling live or dummy ammunition (including practice or training rounds, snap caps and empty cases), loaded magazines or loaded speed loading devices in a Safety Area, or failing to comply with Rule 2.4.1.

 

[Joe4d]

2 hours ago, IVC said:

 

Maybe we are not talking about the same thing, but 10.5.12 explicitly refers to 2.4.1. It is listed. It is DQ. There is no need to cover it under any open-ended verbiage when it's explicitly listed. 

 

 

you are correct... have had numerous discussions over the years about the " including but not limited to " phrase  at the beginning of 10.5.. which is 100% ignored. Usually discussion is,, Shooter did X which everyone and the brother saw as unsafe,,,, I simply say DQ under 10.5.... and of course get blasted becasue that specific example isnt spelled out.
Honestly I didnt recall that same phrase in 10.6  which seems to be ok to use... Just found it ironic. 

[broadside72]

13 hours ago, Joe4d said:

you are correct... have had numerous discussions over the years about the " including but not limited to " phrase  at the beginning of 10.5.. which is 100% ignored. Usually discussion is,, Shooter did X which everyone and the brother saw as unsafe,,,, I simply say DQ under 10.5.... and of course get blasted becasue that specific example isnt spelled out.
Honestly I didnt recall that same phrase in 10.6  which seems to be ok to use... Just found it ironic. 

 

I have experienced the same

[IHAVEGAS]

23 hours ago, motosapiens said:

downrange when the bay is empty is a perfectly safe direction.

 

I agree, but the cheese gets binding because you need a rule to follow that address's worst case - maybe next time there is someone downrange behind a barrel stack or etc - rather than a safety judgment of a specific circumstance. 

 

A lot of times on minor 180 breaks you could make a strong argument that the shooter was still pointing their gun in a perfectly safe direction. 

[motosapiens]

29 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

I agree, but the cheese gets binding because you need a rule to follow that address's worst case - maybe next time there is someone downrange behind a barrel stack or etc - rather than a safety judgment of a specific circumstance. 

 

A lot of times on minor 180 breaks you could make a strong argument that the shooter was still pointing their gun in a perfectly safe direction. 

the first statement is a very valid point, and I wouldn't have any trouble dq-ing a competitor who points his gun at someone, even if he didn't know someone was there. I think in general the right way to handle the original situation is to say 'hey, don't do that', and then put up a sign that specifies the safe directions or muzzle aiming limits for that safety area.

 

The second one, not so much, because the rule regarding 180 violations doesn't say anything about pointing in a safe direction.

Edited August 8, 2023 by motosapiens

[IVC]

13 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

The second one, not so much, because the rule regarding 180 violations doesn't say anything about pointing in a safe direction.

Yup, but there is one caveat, though - to call the 180 violation you, as an RO, have to be absolutely positive the muzzle broke the 180. If it did, it's an automatic DQ. If it didn't, it's not. But the real problem is when it's close and you are not sure. That's when I give the break to the shooter, because I cannot say "yes, it was past 180." So, in reality, the 180 is closer to 200 in most cases (unless you're perfectly aligned and can make the call with certainty). 

 

/thread drift. 

[mikeg1005]

Its an unwritten rule that you point the gun at the berm in front of you in the safe area.  Tell him not to do that as that's again and move one.

 

"Safe direction" is way too subjective on this one.  

[mikeg1005]

On 8/7/2023 at 11:13 AM, jwhittin said:

 

At Level II or higher matches, Safety Areas must include a table with the safe direction and boundaries clearly shown.

 

 

 

I'm fairly certain this is in reference to fault lines and not actual muzzle directions as I almost never see anything say where you can't point your gun at a safety table at any match.  

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

Yup, but there is one caveat, though - to call the 180 violation you, as an RO, have to be absolutely positive the muzzle broke the 180. If it did, it's an automatic DQ. If it didn't, it's not. But the real problem is when it's close and you are not sure. That's when I give the break to the shooter, because I cannot say "yes, it was past 180." So, in reality, the 180 is closer to 200 in most cases (unless you're perfectly aligned and can make the call with certainty). 

 

/thread drift. 

Agreed, It's very difficult to be 100% sure when it's barely breaking the 180 for a moment. The ones I call are pretty indisputable tho,

[mikeg1005]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

 So, in reality, the 180 is closer to 200 in most cases (unless you're perfectly aligned and can make the call with certainty). 

 

 

I always enjoy seeing this a matches... ROs who stand on the 181* several yards away from the shooter looking to make the call.. its like you're so interested in DQing people you're willing to put your life on the line for it lol.  

[IHAVEGAS]

18 hours ago, IVC said:

Yup, but there is one caveat, though - to call the 180 violation you, as an RO, have to be absolutely positive the muzzle broke the 180. If it did, it's an automatic DQ. If it didn't, it's not. But the real problem is when it's close and you are not sure. That's when I give the break to the shooter, because I cannot say "yes, it was past 180." So, in reality, the 180 is closer to 200 in most cases (unless you're perfectly aligned and can make the call with certainty). 

 

Add in that typically the shooter & r.o. are both moving and don't have a visual reference to whatever is used to establish the 180 line while the questioned action is in progress. I am not a fan of ticky tack 180 calls, "you, as an RO, have to be absolutely positive". 

Edited August 9, 2023 by IHAVEGAS

[IVC]

1 hour ago, mikeg1005 said:

I always enjoy seeing this a matches... ROs who stand on the 181* several yards away from the shooter looking to make the call.. its like you're so interested in DQing people you're willing to put your life on the line for it lol.  

 

I've seen it on videos, it's a horrible idea on so many levels. I would never allow any RO under my jurisdiction to do anything that unsafe. 

 

But it's also important to remember that we can still issue a warning as the muzzle is dancing around the 180 (or for any other safety reason). The rule 8.6.1 explicitly allows it. And it's good to know that we are allowed to give a warning, which means "you're close to the line," not "you crossed the line but I'm letting you off the hook with a warning." Some shooters will not like it, arguing that if it's not a violation the RO should remain silent. Sort of "call it or shut up." But it's in the rules and there is a reason for it. 

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, mikeg1005 said:

 

I always enjoy seeing this a matches... ROs who stand on the 181* several yards away from the shooter looking to make the call.. its like you're so interested in DQing people you're willing to put your life on the line for it lol.  

at the last few nationals I've worked, troy has explicitly told RO's not to put themselves in a position to get guns pointed at them. Of course, even if you are several yards behind the shooter and to the side, people still point guns there (like at 200-220 degrees). Every 180 call I've made has been at least 10-20 degrees the wrong side of the line. People still try to argue tho.

[terrydoc]

As a IPSC State NROI representative here in australia I tell my RO's if you start your explaination with the words "I think he did or I reckon He did this" the dq will get overturned. As you guy's said you need to be sure and correct in your calls.

[jwhittin]

On 8/7/2023 at 1:07 PM, shred said:

So you can show up the day before and dry-fire the stages with a gun in hand?  That would be pretty cool.

 

er, not. 

 

(assuming not a staff day, etc)

 

 

 

Circling back… Shred was right. I missed 8.7.2. I stand corrected. 

And also relevant to the discussion, per 8.7.4 the stages are considered closed/off limits unless you get pre-approval. 

[THS]

One of the other details in the OP was that this was before the match- assuming the match begins at the Shooters Briefing.   The host club could expel him in that case.   If the club chose not to do that then it is over. 

[Joe4d]

13 minutes ago, THS said:

One of the other details in the OP was that this was before the match- assuming the match begins at the Shooters Briefing.   The host club could expel him in that case.   If the club chose not to do that then it is over. 

match begins on the first day of shooting for score,,, So first light ? Maybe 0001 hrs ?

[mikeg1005]

17 hours ago, IVC said:

Some shooters will not like it, arguing that if it's not a violation the RO should remain silent. Sort of "call it or shut up." But it's in the rules and there is a reason for it. 

 

Ya but that is a bad approach to ROing, yelling something at the shooter who might very well be aware they are close to the line and impacting their stage performance.  Just say stop if the rule is broken.  

[IHAVEGAS]

2 hours ago, mikeg1005 said:

 

Ya but that is a bad approach to ROing, yelling something at the shooter who might very well be aware they are close to the line and impacting their stage performance.  Just say stop if the rule is broken.  

 

I suspect that there is maybe a near even split on this one. I always appreciate it if an r.o. takes action that might keep me from being dq'd and/or doing something unsafe. 

[IVC]

5 hours ago, mikeg1005 said:

 

Ya but that is a bad approach to ROing, yelling something at the shooter who might very well be aware they are close to the line and impacting their stage performance.  Just say stop if the rule is broken.  

That's one side of the argument - "call it or shut up." The other is that if I cannot see an infraction or I cannot determine positively that it has occurred, the safest option is to issue a warning because the infraction might have occurred and if it did, it was an unsafe action for everyone involved even if I cannot call it. 

 

The rest of the USPSA rules are pretty clear about the intent to make the sport safe, after all we are running around with loaded guns and discharging them at full speed, so courses of fire will be constructed in such a way as to minimize potential unintentional safety violations or close calls. If there is a need for a warning, it's something the competitor is already doing wrong. 

 

I'll give you another example. The trigger finger on reloads (and on the move). The rule requires it to be outside the trigger guard, but it can be curled and "touching" the plane of the trigger guard. A millimeter further and it's a DQ. Can you see it and judge it that precisely at speed? No. Is any experienced competitor going to keep the finger that close? No. Do you go by "call the DQ or shut up?" I don't. The requirement in 8.4.1 is "visibly outside the trigger guard" and if I cannot see it, well, it's open to interpretation whether I am a bad RO who is blind, or the person is playing with fire. My tool in that case is to issue a warning. Someone else could push for DQ because "he couldn't see it, so it wasn't visibly outside," but that would get overturned in arbitration because, arguably, someone else could've seen it so it was after all "visibly outside."  As long as we have the right to issue a warning, prudently using it keeps us safe. And for those who don't want to get impacted, it's easy - keep it safe at all times, like all the top shooters and all the experienced shooters do.