Gary Stevens Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Rule 11.1.2 states in part "...Appeals arising from a disqualification for a safety infraction will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration of the match disqualification. However, the commission of the infraction as described by the Range Official is not subject to challenge or appeal." Question 1. Considering that one can not dispute the commission of the safety infraction, as described by the Range Official, what would be exceptional circumstances that could be grounds for reconsideration of the match disqualification? Question 2. Considering that the rule uses the words "will only be accepted to determine whether exceptional circumstances warrant reconsideration..." should the appellant have to outline what exceptional circumstances they want considered? Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Sheesh Gary - you're killing me today! Exceptional circumstances would be along the lines of shooting steel at 10yds isn't unsafe And hell yes, the shooter better come up with them on his own - the arb committee sure doesn't have to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Some smart a$$ says 'catch' and throws you a loaded round while you're in the safe area. I think that was one of the examples I've heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Here's one that came up recently that I'll present - I think it could qualify... Shooter is hanging out on the range, but not in a safe area. Shooter bumps his gun against a table, causing it to fall out of the holster. Shooter reflexively catches the gun in mid-air, then calls RO over, and is found holding the gun right where he caught it. By the rules - this is a DQ (at least, that's my understanding). However, he didn't actually do anything unsafe, and didn't intend to handle the gun, and just did what most probably would do and went to prevent his expensive gun from hitting the ground reflexively... Much like jury nullification, I'd be tempted to let the shooter back in, if I were on his/her arb committee, as long as it could be shown that these were the circumstances... Anyhow, that's one I can think of that might qualify... feel free to shoot all kinds of holes in it, though.... what do I know (and I should know better, by now, than to enter these conversations, but.... ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 A class of exeptions I would think make sense are cases where the safety risks would have been LARGER had the user not acted. Lets say the shooter is engaging targets around the 160 line and a horde of stupid kids come running over the berm. The shooter moves his gun past the 180 pointing at the berm, to avoid pointing at the kids. It is an extreme example but it is that kind of thing I would reconsider for. Then there are the unsportsmanlike conduct DQ's. Maybe the shooter become verbally abusive of another competitor, but if you find out that the "target" informed the DQ'ed shooter that it was him who killed the dog, poured sugar in his gas tank, and posted candid pictures of his wife on the Internet .... I may make an exeption. However I would allow the dq for the droped and caught gun to stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 Interesting scenario Vlad. Keep those cards and letters coming folks. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 What if the RO writes down the wrong safety infraction for the DQ? or the RO DQ's the shooter and writes down unsafe gun handling but doesn't state what the unsafe act was? Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Interesting scenario Vlad. Which one? They are both kinda far fetched but it is the kind of thing where we need to allow common sense to prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 A shooter is engaged in the stage - at any point - and a bounceback or a deflected bullet from another stage strikes him causing him to drop his gun or break the 180 from either pain or injury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 (edited) Vlad, The one I was commenting on was the kids appearing on the range, since that would fall in the safety area. The USC would not be a safety issue and didn't fall into the area I was asking about. Rich, Incomplete paperwork, whether it be score cards or DQ information is always a problem. This is where the RM review of the DQ should take care of the paperwork issue. Any DQ has to be immediately reported to the RM who has to collect the paperwork and should interview all the parties. During this process any gaps in the information should be found and addressed. Can things still go haywire, yep but hopefully not. Thanks, Gary Edited April 7, 2006 by Gary Stevens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 We once needed to call an ambulance to the range when a competitor had a heart attack. Where I grew up, ambulances came accompanied by police cars ---- so I made the strong suggestion that guns get put away in the immediate vicinity. I'm pretty sure that if I'd had to do CPR that day, that I would have had someone put my gun away for me --- which would have involved taking it out of my holster, outside the safety area. I don't see me DQing the person who takes care of my gun ---- and yes, there's a very short list of people who I'd trust implicitly to manage that task..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbadaboom Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 (edited) The shooter, while engaging targets during a course of fire, shoots into a "Yellow Jacket" ground nest and gets swarmed. He turns and runs with the gun pointed up in the air. Edited April 7, 2006 by Bigbadaboom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Here's one that came up recently that I'll present - I think it could qualify...Shooter is hanging out on the range, but not in a safe area. Shooter bumps his gun against a table, causing it to fall out of the holster. Shooter reflexively catches the gun in mid-air, then calls RO over, and is found holding the gun right where he caught it. By the rules - this is a DQ (at least, that's my understanding). However, he didn't actually do anything unsafe, and didn't intend to handle the gun, and just did what most probably would do and went to prevent his expensive gun from hitting the ground reflexively... Much like jury nullification, I'd be tempted to let the shooter back in, if I were on his/her arb committee, as long as it could be shown that these were the circumstances... Anyhow, that's one I can think of that might qualify... feel free to shoot all kinds of holes in it, though.... what do I know (and I should know better, by now, than to enter these conversations, but.... ). Dave, didn't that very thing happen at Double Tap resulting in a DQ? Or did someone just tell me about it at Double Tap, but it happened somewhere else.... pre-senior moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Dave, didn't that very thing happen at Double Tap resulting in a DQ? Or did someone just tell me about it at Double Tap, but it happened somewhere else.... pre-senior moment. It did. I was the RO involved. I felt like total s**t about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 Dave we all do when we have to do it. If we don't, we need to step out of that position and go do something else. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 (edited) I didn't feel quite like that about having to DQ the guy that blatantly broke the 180, though... I mean, I didn't like doing it, but it was clear cut and an obvious safety problem, etc. The "catching dropped gun" one is just one of those things - no one was ever in danger, no one intended to handle the gun, etc, etc... Sure, the shooter is responsible for the gun remaining in the holster, etc - I understand that. If the guy let the gun land and stay on the ground, though, he wouldn't be DQ'ed (I had one of those that weekend, too). Him catching that same gun in midair to save his investment is no more or less safe than letting the thing land on the ground (it could be argued it's safer...). But, yet, he gets DQ'ed for it... That's what makes me feel like crap about it... Just one of those things... hard to write a rule that prevents gun handling outside the safety area, but allows you to catch a dropped gun... Also, I have to add that the shooter and his buddies could've just gotten the gun back in the holster and acted like nothing happened, and no one would've been the wiser. They were all total gentlemen, very open about what happened, and very understanding of the action I had to take. Heck, everyone at the match was great Edited April 7, 2006 by XRe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Actually I asked this on the other forum a while ago. They were having a discussion about absolutes when it comes to safety rules. The example I brough out only half seriously was that you have a shooter during the course of fire, and a rival shooter picks up a rock and throws it at the shooters head, knocking him out. Clearly it is an absurd scenario, but do you DQ the shooter for being KO'ed and droping his gun? The consensus was that this is the kind of scenario where you do not DQ the shooter, but the rock throwing monkey gets one Alpha and a DQ. So yeah, I can think of a few cases were common sense says you do not DQ the shooter for a infraction outside of his control, or for avoiding greater harm (ie: stray child, saving a life via CPR, etc). The real question is .. Do the rules actually allow for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Provan Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 The shooter, while engaging targets during a course of fire, shoots into a "Yellow Jacket" ground nest and gets swarmed. He turns and runs with the gun pointed up in the air. This is not to far out of the relm of possibilites. A certian range I have shot at has a baffle system to prevent rounds from leaving the range. I have seen bee's, hornets and woodcravers make homes in these baffles. Any of the above mentioned insectes do not like open guns. They get very upset. I can see a case where a shooter and RO could be a target for one or more of these very upset flying stinging things. But it is still the shooters responsibility to keep the gun pionted in a safe direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I didn't feel quite like that about having to DQ the guy that blatantly broke the 180, though... I mean, I didn't like doing it, but it was clear cut and an obvious safety problem, etc.The "catching dropped gun" one is just one of those things - no one was ever in danger, no one intended to handle the gun, etc, etc... Sure, the shooter is responsible for the gun remaining in the holster, etc - I understand that. If the guy let the gun land and stay on the ground, though, he wouldn't be DQ'ed (I had one of those that weekend, too). Him catching that same gun in midair to save his investment is no more or less safe than letting the thing land on the ground (it could be argued it's safer...). But, yet, he gets DQ'ed for it... That's what makes me feel like crap about it... Just one of those things... hard to write a rule that prevents gun handling outside the safety area, but allows you to catch a dropped gun... Also, I have to add that the shooter and his buddies could've just gotten the gun back in the holster and acted like nothing happened, and no one would've been the wiser. They were all total gentlemen, very open about what happened, and very understanding of the action I had to take. Heck, everyone at the match was great Ok, help me understand this. A 180 violation only applies "during the course of fire" 10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop, allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the firearm is loaded or not. Where does catching/preventing a handgun from falling come into play? He didn't retrieve it. It has to land before it can be retrieved. Doesn't it? 10.5.14 Retrieving a dropped firearm. Dropped firearms must always be retrieved by a Range Officer who will, after checking and/or clearing the firearm, place it directly into the competitor’s gun case, gun bag or holster. Dropping an unloaded firearm or causing it to fall outside of a course of fire is not an infraction, however, a competitor who retrieves a dropped firearm will receive a match disqualification If the shooter called the RO over and is found holding the handgun just as he caught it, and the RO "picks it up" - in this case out of the shooter's hands - and places it in the shooter's holster or range bag - have not all the conditions of 10.5.14 been met? By definition in my mind the shooter did not retrieve his own handgun. He prevented it from hitting the ground. He let you retrieve it. It just happened to be from his hands, not from the ground. I'm not trying to make you feel worse, Dave. I'm just trying to get a handle on the wording of the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Ok, help me understand this. A 180 violation only applies "during the course of fire" I DQ'ed two shooters. One broke the 180 during the course of fire (stage 4) by about 30 degrees. The other was the dropped and caught gun. 10.5.14 Retrieving a dropped firearm. 10.5.1 - Handling a firearm at any time except... is the applicable rule, in my understanding. The rulebook is a little different since the last time I looked it over in the context of an RO course, but... If the gun is in the shooters hands, he is quite clearly handling it, regardless of how he arrived at handling it. Doesn't matter if he drew it, it fell and he caught it, he pulled it out of his bag, whatever - if the gun is in his hands, he's handling it. That's an interesting interpretation you've got there But, unfortunately, it doesn't hold up to 10.5.1. "Retrieving" also implies there's no direct control... and if it's in the shooter's hands (again, regardless of how it got there), he's clearly in control... If we want to discuss this one further, I'd suggest we get the mods to break it out into a thread, so we don't drift Gary's thread too far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 (edited) Ok, help me understand this. A 180 violation only applies "during the course of fire" I DQ'ed two shooters. One broke the 180 during the course of fire (stage 4) by about 30 degrees. The other was the dropped and caught gun. 10.5.14 Retrieving a dropped firearm. 10.5.1 - Handling a firearm at any time except... is the applicable rule, in my understanding. The rulebook is a little different since the last time I looked it over in the context of an RO course, but... If the gun is in the shooters hands, he is quite clearly handling it, regardless of how he arrived at handling it. Doesn't matter if he drew it, it fell and he caught it, he pulled it out of his bag, whatever - if the gun is in his hands, he's handling it. That's an interesting interpretation you've got there But, unfortunately, it doesn't hold up to 10.5.1. "Retrieving" also implies there's no direct control... and if it's in the shooter's hands (again, regardless of how it got there), he's clearly in control... If we want to discuss this one further, I'd suggest we get the mods to break it out into a thread, so we don't drift Gary's thread too far... Sorry if I missed that you were referring to two separate DQs. As they say in the vernacular "my bad." How unfortunate was that for you? Actually, I think that the second is a good, real world example of the type of exceptional circumstance Gary is interested in. His handling of the firearm in this case could be argued to have been out of his control. Pure reflex. No way to avoid it. (edit: But I guess that's why you posted the example in the first place. Little slow here.) Edited April 7, 2006 by Steve J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 How unfortunate was that for you? Well.. it happens, it seems.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 His handling of the firearm in this case could be argued to have been out of his control. Pure reflex. No way to avoid it. (edit: But I guess that's why you posted the example in the first place. Little slow here.) I tripped and fell at the Penn Relays last year. I was there as a working photographer covering the event. When I fell I had $3500 worth of camera gear slung over my right shoulder, $2500 worth hanging around my neck, and was carrying $7000 worth in my left hand. I remember grabbing the camera from around my neck, as I was on the way down, and I remember thinking "This is going to hurt," as I was trying to protect as much camera gear from hitting the the ground as possible. Wound up only needing to have the camera from my right shoulder overhauled..... So, what's the point of all this? I don't believe that grabbing a falling gun needs to necessarily be a "pure reflex....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Grabbing a falling gun is more dangerous than simply letting it fall with many modern designs. Glocks often discharge when cops drop them and attempt a "catch" (finger hitting the trigger), but don't go off if simply allowed to fall. If a gun is "drop safe", catching it while loaded is definitely less safe than letting it fall. And all guns are always loaded according to Rule #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 If a gun is "drop safe", catching it while loaded is definitely less safe than letting it fall. I agree - but we're talking about cold guns And all guns are always loaded according to Rule #1. If that's the case, then why do we have Safe Areas?? Why are we allowed to handle a gun there? Why do we have cold ranges, etc?? If nothing's ever cold.... I get your point, but we make a distinction in the rules, and I'm discussing that distinction.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now